The Senate passed a bill today lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The proposal, for those of you who don't know, would pour millions of tax dollars into a field of medical research that is very promising for victims of incurable diseases. One small problem: the process requires the destruction of human embryos.
One Maryland Democrat said the following: "This is the kind of issue that voters use to distinguish members who are beholden to the far right...Every family in America is touched by someone who could benefit" from embryonic stem cell research."
He's right on both counts. The vast majority of Americans support this proposal. Nancy Reagan supports it. Most of our fellow bloggers here probably support it. Plus, my sister is a diabetic, and my grandma has alzheimer's. But still, for me this remains a no-brainer. I'm totally against it. I guess this makes me a far right-winger. But the way I see it, you either believe life begins at conception, or you don't. And if you believe that human life begins at conception, like I do, then creating human lives for the sole purpose of destroying them is inherently evil and wrong. Even if this seems like a "gray area," as it does to many, I think it still always makes sense to err on the side of life.
Anyway, I look forward to debating Ryan, Tim, and pretty much the rest of the world on this one.
4 comments:
You're right Pat. Also, anyone who claims to be Catholic yet supports embryonic stem cell research is at odds with this debate.
If one is Catholic, he is required to believe in the Immaculate Conception (When the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived without original sin.) Since a Catholic is required to believe in this miracle, he is (by default) required to believe that the Virgin Mary's life began at conception.
Therefore, a faithful Catholic cannot believe 1. that the embryo is not a human life and 2. that murder does not occur with its termination.
Tim is smart about the details of this research, so I won't pretend I know nearly as much. But it's certainly should not be an easy yes or no. Huge issues like this should be seriously considered, not just, "Oh, no no, I am offended, this is wrong. I'm sticking my ears in my fingers, so you can't argue this one with science."
It's not that I'm offended by the opposition's view, or that I don't want to hear it. It's just that I strongly disagree with it.
I think science actually bolsters the pro-life side because all you have to do nowadays is look in a microscope to see the blastocyte and realize "hey, there's a little fully functioning human organism down there."
The libs always think they can win this argument by commandeering the terms "science" and "progress" and employing them to mean any unfettered advance with complete disregard for any ethical standards, hoping to portray conservatives as backward, ignorant bible-thumpers.
Anyway, I look forward to continuing this debate after returning from Vegas, where I will be forgetting about ethical and moral standards for 4 days. Attached below are a couple of articles that I think are worth a read though:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWU4MDI0NmUzZThhNWM3ODdmZTRiZGRhODY4N2I1NmE=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODVlZWQwYzViMWVhMTRkODhiOTI4NmU1YzJlNmVlNmU=
Post a Comment