Science, morals not mutually exclusive

I was extremely upset about your March 10 front page article about "A Green Light for Science," but not surprised by the liberal slant of it. Your implication is that Bush's policies kept us in the Dark Ages regarding scientific progress ("Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life"). Nothing could be further from the truth. Especially the quote by Obama that "Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," which implies that you can't have both!

Therefore let's choose science and ignore moral values - sure! Science is the one that tells us that life begins at conception. But now, in the name of research, it is OK to destroy human life in the form of embryonic stem cells.

I guess I should not be surprised by the same guy who thinks that partial-birth abortion is fine. My favorite quote by him is "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." If he really believes this, then why were many scientists coerced into stating that Global Warming is a fact, when we know that it is one of the greatest hoax's perpetrated on the American people by another famous politician to be used to gain his own agenda (probably didn't hurt that he made millions on it).

The article written by Cal Thomas on the March 13 editorial page makes a better case on why adult stem cells would serve the same purpose as embryonic stem cells, with the added benefit of preserving life.

Joe Deitschel

Schaumburg