 |
 |
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