Posted on 05/26/2005 3:03:54 PM PDT by RWR8189
On Tuesday, President Bush went before cameras holding in his arms a month-old baby named Trey Jones. The picture raised a question that supporters of embryonic stem cell research would rather not answer: Would the world be better off if Trey had been killed as an embryo to advance medical research?
That is what would happen to thousands of other embryos under the bill passed this week by the House of Representatives, at least if the supporters' hopes are realized -- and it would happen with the approval and help of the federal government. The measure would scrap the policy adopted by Bush in August 2001, when he agreed to government financing of such research only if it relied on stem cell lines that had already been created.
He drew a clear line: Medical science can exploit the products of embryos that had already been killed, but the federal government would not be an accomplice to studies that require additional killing. It was a modest restriction, since it did not prevent researchers from destroying other embryos, if they got their money from someplace besides Washington. But it established the principle that there are some things we should not do, even in the hope of healing.
That principle doesn't look to be terribly popular on Capitol Hill. The House bill would allow federally funded research on embryos created in fertilization clinics that would otherwise be discarded, and that are donated by the parents. Never mind that frozen embryos not needed by their parents don't have to be destroyed. They can be implanted in the wombs of willing mothers, as Trey Jones was.
Bush has promised to veto the bill. But this may not be the last word from Congress: Other bills would not only allow the destruction of "surplus" embryos, but permit cloning of new embryos that would also be destroyed.
Californians voted last year to provide $3 billion in state money to subsidize experimentation on embryos created solely for that purpose. The Massachusetts legislature has sent the governor a bill to allow such "therapeutic cloning."
Supporters of these efforts promise vast benefits if scientists are merely allowed to clone and destroy embryos as they see fit. In the House debate this week, advocates held out hope of curing paralysis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and other illnesses.
Even some anti-abortion lawmakers found ways to rationalize extinguishing lives to combat disease. "Who can say prolonging life is not pro-life?" asked Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo.
The claims, though, are speculative. David Shaywitz, a stem cell researcher at Harvard University who opposes the existing restrictions, wrote recently in The Washington Post lamenting the "extravagant claims of progress" and noting that "growing these stubborn cells is notoriously difficult."
While advocates extol the possible benefits, it was up to opponents to state in plain terms the cost. The research, said House Republican Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, would "kill some in hopes of saving others."
You may not like getting moral instruction from a politician known mostly for his ethical lapses. But DeLay's position is indistinguishable from that of the late Pope John Paul II.
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research say opposition to such a promising application of science can only be attributed to dogmatic religious faith, and that Bush is pandering to the religious right. But you don't have to be a believer (I am not) to think there is something wrong with destroying human life, however immature, just because doing so may be advantageous for those of us who have already been born.
It is easy to ignore the nature of what are referred to as mere "clumps of cells" or "blastocysts." But all of us are clumps of cells, and all of us were once tiny blastocysts -- separate and unique human beings at the earliest stage of life. The research endorsed by the House means ending the lives of some human beings.
Why do we blind ourselves to that irreducible fact? Because we fervently hope to gain something from it -- in this case, the chance of longer or better lives for ourselves.
Few of us would indulge scientists who proposed to dismember an actual baby, even if doing so were guaranteed to save lives. But we find ways to excuse the dismemberment of embryos that need only nine months to become babies. Convenience trumps conscience.
Those who want to remove existing limits say we could get a lot from embryonic stem cell research. What would we lose? Wait a few years, and Trey Jones might be willing to tell you.
Who greased slope? This is rather sick stuff.
What's a conscience?
And also for:
1. Abortion,
2. Slavery.
8 cell blastocysts. I lose more cells every second.
Religeous nutcases object. Their preacher told them to. 8 cell blastocysts have become babies, in the nutcase minds.
Same crowd that hates evolution, and thinks the world was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago. Story book crowd. Superstition crowd.
Terri Shiavo crowd.
Nutcases.
| ***ACTION ALERT*** | Saturday, May 28, 2005 |
Romney delivers on promise to veto stem cell bill
By Theo Emery, Associated Press Writer | May 27, 2005
BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed a bill Friday that would expand embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, but the measure has more than enough support in the Legislature to override the governor's veto.
The House and Senate passed the bill with veto-proof margins, and both chambers were expected to vote next week to override the veto.
You must encourage your fellow parishoners (family, friends) to contact their legislators by calling the State House switchboard at 617-722-2000 or by e-mailing your state senator (click here)and state representative (click here), urging them to support the Governor's final veto before a vote (likely Tuesday, May 31st) and this legislation becomes law!
To find your elected officials:
www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php
See: Timeline (including Roll Call Votes) -- What's Happened So Far
FORWARD THIS E-MAIL ON TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS IN MASSACHUSETTS!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Resources:
Catholic Citizenship is a non-partisan organization which promotes public policy education and Catholic laity involvement in the political process. Catholic Citizenship is headed by former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, Raymond Flynn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.