"Recently, President Bush vetoed a bill which would have expanded federal funding for stem cell research. Do you favor or oppose his decision not to expand funding for this?"The results are no surprise. Only 31% are in favor, while 63% oppose the veto. If I was an average Joe Blow who had little knowledge about this issue, knowing only that it was some type of important research or progress that was being stymied by Bush, I'd easily oppose his decision. "Stupid fundamentalist. Why does he always let arcane moral beliefs stand in the way of progress?"
I think the reason for this is because this poll does a poor job of specifying exactly what Mr. Bush vetoed (it makes no reference to the fact that the veto applies only to funding for embryonic stem cell lines, and that Bush fully supports funding for adult stem cell research). It also makes no real attempt to bring forth the actual reasons why he's vetoed it, and to gauge whether or not Americans agree with those specific reasons. Instead, it simply pits the generic term of "research" against "veto," and leaves the reader to assume that Bush must just simply be against progress because he's a bible-thumping Methodist or something.
So let's say we slightly changed the words of this poll to read as follows:
"Recently, President Bush vetoed a bill which would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This research could lead to cures for some diseases but requires the destruction of human embryos, and could thus lead to the harvesting of many new embryos solely for the purpose of their destruction. Do you favor or oppose his decision not to expand funding for this?"Obviously I've skewed the language in my favor a bit, but I wonder if we'd get different results? Something tells me we would.
3 comments:
I am going to propse a question that I would like everyone on this blog to respond to. I am asking this only out of curiosity and am by no means trying to make a point(because I completely understand both sides of the arguement). So, here is the question: If your child were dying and the only drug that would save his life was one that was created by research which destroyed embryonic stem cells would you give permission for the doctor to perscribe that drug to your child.
I know none of us have kids but I think it is easier for a person to sacrifice their own life rather than their childs making the question much harder. So just work with me on this one. And be honest with this one. I don't want same quote from Chapter V page 522 of the Canon law. What would you do?
In that case, I would certainly give the doctor permission to give the cure. My emotions would take over and dictate my decisions from that point. If the cure has already been found, and the embryoes already destroyed, then emotionally that's certainly what I would want. Again, my emotions would take over.
The same would be true if a serial killer came into my house and shot all of my family to death with an assault rifle. God forbid, if that were to happen, I would probably support total gun control, and the complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I also would want that person to be immediatley executed without a trial. Again, my emotions would take over, and outweigh any reasonable perspectives I'd previously held about gun control, Due Process, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.
Certianly there are a substantial number of people who could benefit from the federal funding of this type of research, but I think these benefits are outweighed by the costs society would have to bear as a whole, because, solely for the sake of expediency, the value of life and its very definition would be significantly demeaned.
I understand, personally to some degree, how beneficial this stuff could be for someone like my sister for example, if it could lead to a way to develop a new pancreas for her. Nonetheless, I just don't think it's right to make policy based on solely on emotions, especially when the policy is federal and backed by millions of US taxpayers, the vast majority of whom aren't even sure what the moral ramifications are of what's going on in the first place.
It also seems like a rush to judgment when new methods of creating the cells without harming embryoes are being discovered literally by the day. Check out this CNN article, for example.
Seeing that abortion kills babies inside the mother's womb, I can only reason that stem cell research kills babies inside test tubes... which is obviously against infallible teaching of the Church.
You're right Pat; emotions or not, the research produces dead children for the sake of a few miracles.
Post a Comment