No,IMO I don’t think it’s a little inconsistent with moral boundaries. To me like what my parents said “While you’re living under my roof you have to abide by the rules, in your own house you can do as you please.” I believe BUSHgasp is trying to allow people to have the freedom of choice in this matter but not involve the government. That’s my interpretation of it.[/quote]
Your parents told you it was okay to chop up babies if you were living in your own house?
So Bush is allowing people to have the freedom of choice in the matter of “taking of innocent human life”.
The eggs discarded by reproduction clinics are fertilised, which according to Bush and his supporters makes them human beings with the same rights as any others.
And while many fertilised eggs fail to implant in the womb, or later miscarry, that’s God’s Will and not to be questioned; we as humans aren’t allowed to make those decisions (this is the religious anti-abortion position,of course, not mine).
If you believe, like they claim to, that blastocysts are children, try one of those experiments in moral philosophy:
A fire breaks out in the maternity ward. At one end of the hall is a room with one baby, at the other end, a room with another (that’s all you know about them- sex, race, etc are irrelevant). and you only have time to save either one. Which one do you save?
The answer for most people is it doesn’t matter; one or the other.
How about five babies in one room, so it’s either one baby or five?
Most people would say five rather than one.
How about a baby and a fertilised egg in a tube?
A baby and a hundred frozen blastocysts, aka "snowflake babies?