Stem cell research
The House voted last Wednesday on two bills concerning stem cell research. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act passed with a 238-to-194 vote. The bill overrides the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush has stated he will veto such a bill, and the vote fell short of the 290 needed to override such a veto. I strongly agree with the President, based on prolife arguments, as they apply to this matter as well. Another bill passed the House with a much larger margin, with a vote of 431-1. This bill provides federal funding for adult and umbilical cord research, sources for stem cells that do not have the serious moral implications of destroying a human embryo to satisfy our own lust for health and well-being, regardless of the expense to others.
In listening to the various arguments, I have constantly heard the refrain that these embryos would just be thrown out anyway so they should be put to some good use. That argument presents a false dilemma. The fact of the matter is that these embryos can be adopted and carried to term. This should be encouraged. To those who say that they may not survive, the fact of the matter is that they have a far better chance surviving that than being destroyed for experimentation. We also would be affirming life rather than destroying it for our own convenience.
The real problem is in vitro fertilization (IVF), which creates the extra embryos. This process needs to be reformed to seriously minimize the creation of embryos that will not be used, which are then placed in a state of limbo. The temptation then becomes to treat these unique individuals as merely property to be used at our convenience, regardless of the moral implications. It seems that people who place so much importance on creating life, especially in the case of those who are profiting from the IVF procedure despite this moral problem that is inherent to the current procedures, are either uniformed or being selfish and shortsighted. If they really do understand the moral difficulties that will be created, why will they not consider adoption instead? Are some people so in love with their own genetics or profit margin that they refuse to choose or advocate a morally superior option?
Why should we be held hostage to the unnecessary dilemma of unused embryos? As we have seen, the embryos can be adopted and carried to term. Some will say that the number of “excess” embryos is far too large for these adoptions to matter. Of course, they don’t consider encouraging or supporting such adoptions, or even reforming the IVF process. Instead, they just want to define them as destined to be thrown away. Fortunately, many parents have not so casually discarded their frozen embryos. In fact, the number available for research is greatly exaggerated. But whatever the numbers may be, they would still not overcome the moral issues of devaluing and destroying human life for experimentation.
As this issue was debated on the House floor, it was especially galling to hear Orwellian twists of language from various representatives. Here is a mind twister from Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California:
Well I am 100% against experimenting on Jews but if it will save a 6-year-old let's have at it. Will it be more persuasive if I choke back tears while saying that? Sorry, Mr. Cunningham but you just ruined your 100% pro-life rating. You have now given power to the pro-choice/abortion justifications for destroying the pre-born. In their eyes, it is about how they can benefit and what is convenient, rather than, this is a human life worthy of protection. For them, selfish pragmatism precedes the sanctity of human life issue and with your vote, you have acquiesced to their horribly distorted priorities. You and others, have decided that instead of leading on this important issue, you will follow the MSM propaganda and your constituents who have been misled by it.
It is bad enough that many are misinformed or lacking backbone on this issue, but the narcissism that exists within those actively pushing for destructive experiments on embryos is even more disturbing considering what we were told in regards to Terri Schindler. The story used to be that we are not supposed to be scared of death. Christians were especially criticized with mocking disdain for advocating that Terri be allowed to live rather than killed by torture. But now we are told that by preventing embryonic research we condemn some to die. So, what happened to not fearing death? Apparently, death is still ok for others; those who some deem as physically insulting or temporarily too weak or unable to fight back themselves against those who have the power and selfish desire to legalize the killing.
Indeed, some, and hopefully it is a very small minority, seem to be rather gleeful in advocating death for others. Sure, they say it’s about reproductive rights, dilation & extraction, mercy killing or life saving research in the case of embryonic stem cells. But these euphemisms or to be blunt, weasel words, do not change the fact that what is being so cheerfully pursued is death for anyone but them. Don’t buy for a minute their claims of thinking only of how society benefits. Besides already denying, that Terri Schindler be kept alive in anticipation of such discoveries, it is also certain that their vaunted selflessness will evaporate if they should need one of these cures. Of course, this ignores the fact that such successful cures with regard to embryonic stem cell research have been the equivalent of vaporware. But that is of little importance in their self-centered zeal to grasp at health and extend their life or avoid responsibility for their sexual activity. The sad result is that the master they serve is not merely their god complex but rather death itself. One has to wonder what it is that clings so desperately to life while joyfully requiring that others be devalued and destroyed in service to these lusts. I can only think of the terms fool, madman or devil. I am not sure which of these is worse.
Related posts:
Knee Jerk Arguments
Interesting contrast
Fundamental Issues
Abortion - no consequences?
In listening to the various arguments, I have constantly heard the refrain that these embryos would just be thrown out anyway so they should be put to some good use. That argument presents a false dilemma. The fact of the matter is that these embryos can be adopted and carried to term. This should be encouraged. To those who say that they may not survive, the fact of the matter is that they have a far better chance surviving that than being destroyed for experimentation. We also would be affirming life rather than destroying it for our own convenience.
The real problem is in vitro fertilization (IVF), which creates the extra embryos. This process needs to be reformed to seriously minimize the creation of embryos that will not be used, which are then placed in a state of limbo. The temptation then becomes to treat these unique individuals as merely property to be used at our convenience, regardless of the moral implications. It seems that people who place so much importance on creating life, especially in the case of those who are profiting from the IVF procedure despite this moral problem that is inherent to the current procedures, are either uniformed or being selfish and shortsighted. If they really do understand the moral difficulties that will be created, why will they not consider adoption instead? Are some people so in love with their own genetics or profit margin that they refuse to choose or advocate a morally superior option?
Why should we be held hostage to the unnecessary dilemma of unused embryos? As we have seen, the embryos can be adopted and carried to term. Some will say that the number of “excess” embryos is far too large for these adoptions to matter. Of course, they don’t consider encouraging or supporting such adoptions, or even reforming the IVF process. Instead, they just want to define them as destined to be thrown away. Fortunately, many parents have not so casually discarded their frozen embryos. In fact, the number available for research is greatly exaggerated. But whatever the numbers may be, they would still not overcome the moral issues of devaluing and destroying human life for experimentation.
As this issue was debated on the House floor, it was especially galling to hear Orwellian twists of language from various representatives. Here is a mind twister from Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California:
"I'm 100% pro-life. This is an issue of life to me," said Cunningham, choking back tears as he spoke on the House floor. "I don't want another 6-year-old to die" (of juvenile diabetes).
Well I am 100% against experimenting on Jews but if it will save a 6-year-old let's have at it. Will it be more persuasive if I choke back tears while saying that? Sorry, Mr. Cunningham but you just ruined your 100% pro-life rating. You have now given power to the pro-choice/abortion justifications for destroying the pre-born. In their eyes, it is about how they can benefit and what is convenient, rather than, this is a human life worthy of protection. For them, selfish pragmatism precedes the sanctity of human life issue and with your vote, you have acquiesced to their horribly distorted priorities. You and others, have decided that instead of leading on this important issue, you will follow the MSM propaganda and your constituents who have been misled by it.
It is bad enough that many are misinformed or lacking backbone on this issue, but the narcissism that exists within those actively pushing for destructive experiments on embryos is even more disturbing considering what we were told in regards to Terri Schindler. The story used to be that we are not supposed to be scared of death. Christians were especially criticized with mocking disdain for advocating that Terri be allowed to live rather than killed by torture. But now we are told that by preventing embryonic research we condemn some to die. So, what happened to not fearing death? Apparently, death is still ok for others; those who some deem as physically insulting or temporarily too weak or unable to fight back themselves against those who have the power and selfish desire to legalize the killing.
Indeed, some, and hopefully it is a very small minority, seem to be rather gleeful in advocating death for others. Sure, they say it’s about reproductive rights, dilation & extraction, mercy killing or life saving research in the case of embryonic stem cells. But these euphemisms or to be blunt, weasel words, do not change the fact that what is being so cheerfully pursued is death for anyone but them. Don’t buy for a minute their claims of thinking only of how society benefits. Besides already denying, that Terri Schindler be kept alive in anticipation of such discoveries, it is also certain that their vaunted selflessness will evaporate if they should need one of these cures. Of course, this ignores the fact that such successful cures with regard to embryonic stem cell research have been the equivalent of vaporware. But that is of little importance in their self-centered zeal to grasp at health and extend their life or avoid responsibility for their sexual activity. The sad result is that the master they serve is not merely their god complex but rather death itself. One has to wonder what it is that clings so desperately to life while joyfully requiring that others be devalued and destroyed in service to these lusts. I can only think of the terms fool, madman or devil. I am not sure which of these is worse.
Related posts:
Knee Jerk Arguments
Interesting contrast
Fundamental Issues
Abortion - no consequences?
Author: Mark K. Sprengel | 8:37:00 PM |
|
| 
Save To ~ Social Bookmarks | My Bookstore |
