My Take on the Stem Cell Debate
by GTPinNJ
Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 09:56:34 AM PDT
Okay, so President Chucklenuts dusted off the trusty veto pen for the third
time in his 6+ years of guiding our country drunkenly into a roadside ditch.
This was the second time it was used to skewer the hopes of millions of
Americans for whom embryonic stem cell research offered the hope of a cure
for diabetes or leukemia or spinal cord injury or any of the dozens of other
conditions for which scientists believe the research may ultimately lead to
treatment or cures.
Below the fold, I try to boil down the argument against embryonic stem cell
research and I call the bill's opponents out.
GTPinNJ's diary :: ::
The bill in question offered federal funding to assist in researching
embryonic stem cell lines coming from embryos: 1) created in IVF clinics; 2)
released by the "parents"; and 3) scheduled for destruction.  White House
Press Secretary Tony Snow says that President Bush opposes federal funding
for this research because he believes it amounts to "the destruction of
human life".  He has stopped short of calling it "murder" however I fail to
see any real distinction.  [Since "murder" is a legal term, Bush may be
relying on a semantic argument that destruction of unused embryos isn't
murder because it isn't illegal.]

In any event, President Bush is evidently opposed to the destruction of
human life (in embryo form) and will not support it with federal funds.
However President Bush does not seem all that concerned with the destruction
of human life that is privately funded by IVF clinics that ultimately
discard the embryos.  So for Bush, it seems to be a funding issue more than
anything.  He can't legitimately oppose stem cell research on religious
grounds because that would require him to oppose the destruction of the
embryos in all cases, not just for use in stem cell research.  And if Bush
was actually opposed to that destruction on those grounds, it follows
logically that he would propose legislation that would stop the practice of
discarding unused embryos, given that he is in a position of power that
would enable him to take this action.  Bush's failure to propose such
legislation gives lie to some premise of Bush's argument.

Stated simply, the following statements cannot all be true:
Bush is opposed to the destruction of human life.
Bush will take action to prevent the destruction of human life.
Bush believes the destruction of fertilized eggs (blastocysts, embryos) from
IVF clinics to be the destruction of human life.
Bush will take no action to prevent the destruction of fertilized eggs
(blastocysts, embryos) from IVF clinics through means other than embryonic
stem cell research.
President Bush's failure to take action preventing the discarding of embryos
shows that either: 1) he doesn't actually believe blastocysts to be human
life; 2) he is unconcerned about the destruction of human life; or 3) he is
too weak to take any action to stop something to which he is strongly
opposed.
(My money is on #2 and #3; but it's also possible that #1 is true.)

So I say, for anyone opposed to embryonic stem cell research, you have two
choices:

Propose legislation that stops the destruction of discarded blastocysts from
IVF clinics; or

Stop opposing the funding bill.

Anything else means you are a hypocrite.  Worse, you are a hypocrite who is
indifferent to the suffering of millions of people.  You value the act of
throwing a clump of cells into an incinerator more than you value a living,
breathing human being.  You are not pro-life.  You are pro-illness.  You are
pro-garbage, because that's what these cells become.  Show me a religious
doctrine that says that throwing something away that might be useful is a
value or a virtue.  Show me where it says that using garbage to potentially
ease people's suffering is a sin.

Or tell the real truth.  Say that it isn't about your made up
quasi-religious objections about "the destruction of human life" or about
"promoting a culture of life".   It's about spending priorities.  You don't
believe that we should be spending money on this because there are other
funding priorities.  And you go ahead and you tell us what those funding
priorities are.  And don't say it has anything to do with the deficit
either, because we know you haven't considered the deficit for one second
when it comes to whether to fund your favored projects, like the bridge to
nowhere or wasteful farm subsidies.  If you admit that, I will have respect
for your honesty and political courage, even though you are wrong and 70% of
the American public thinks you are wrong.  Stop hiding behind a religious or
moral objection that makes no sense.  Do the right thing.  For once, do the
right thing.


Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn