Mark My Words - commentary on news, politics, religion, philosophy, science and social issues

It would appear that from the reactions I've seen online from some, that heads are exploding over Bush's veto of the bill to end funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. The screed is typically about religion being forced on the country against the will of the majority etc. The problem with that is there are sound secular arguments for the prolife position and those apply to embryonic stem cells as well. As for the complaint concerning the majority, it takes someone rather uninformed to miss the fact that Bush has stated his position on embryonic stem cells during his campaign and people had plenty of time to consider the matter. For the clueless, Bush was re-elected on that platform.

Captians Quarters has an excellent post on the matter here. (Thanks to RightwingSparkle)

Undoubtedly, we will hear plenty from critics that Bush has endangered the health of Americans through his veto, a conclusion bordering on the absurd. Putting aside the fact that we shouldn't grind up humans to save other humans, this veto doesn't ban any kind of research at all. It just makes human embryonic stem-cell (hESC) research ineligible for federal funding. It's not a ban, and in fact that research has never been banned within the US.

The lack of federal funding should make little difference, if the science is sound for hESC. It's not, or at least it isn't commercially viable, which is why researchers want the federal government to pay for it. [...]

The same arguments are being thrown around as before, when I wrote about this issue. I can even see little Dick Durbin is spewing more of the same. The follwing is one of my previous posts on this issue.

Stem cell research

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?

I have more prolife articles dealing with this matter in my Abortion department.

I'll finish with my reply to someone who was ranting in Myspace about religious people forcing a prolife view on the country. Unfortunately for that individual, the arguments I use for the prolife position are entirely secular.

It's hardly impressive to try and justify a permanently destructive act simply because of temporary fucntional conditions, while also ignoring the biological facts that also pertain to one being a unique human individual, and which precede and are necessary for the functional criteria to even have value.

Some of us feel that the President has not exercised his veto authority when he should have, over his two terms. That this would be his first, doesn't take away from the fact that he is fulfilling a campaign promise and doing what he can to prevent our country from taking a seriously dangerous step, guided only by what we can do, rather than considering what it is that we should or should not do.

---

Filed under: Abortion -- News -- NewsPolitics -- Culture

Blogs with open posts: Mudville Gazette -- Jo's Cafe -- third world county -- Echo9er -- Blue State Chronicles -- Stuck On Stupid -- The Bullwinkle Blog -- TMH's Bacon Bits -- Pursuing Holiness -- Adam's Blog -- The Random Yak