Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 11/07/2006 8:02:24 AM PST by NYer
Monday November 6, 2006
By Meg Jalsevac
HOLLYWOOD, November 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Actor Jim Caviezel is defending his stance against Michael J. Fox’s campaign ad which was used to promote politicians who support embryonic stem cell research. Caviezel insists that he is sympathetic to Fox’s condition but wants to ensure that the public is informed of all the facts before they cast their votes.
Fox’s ad encouraged Missourians to vote ‘Yes’ on Amendment 2 which would allow scientists in the state of Missouri to use human embryos for their research. Caviezel and several other celebrities appeared in a rebuttal ad clip which encouraged Missourians to vote ‘No’ after explaining the facts surrounding the proposed amendment.
About the ad, Caviezel says, "I really care about people and the public. I believe the public needs to be informed. What they decide to choose is their choice, but I care very much."
Caviezel says he is "absolutely for adult stem-cell research.” Adult stem-cell research is looked on as an ethical form of stem-cell research because it does not destroy embryonic life in the research process.
Caviezel says, “I care very much about people who have diseases, especially Parkinson's disease, and I'd be through the moon if they ever came up with a cure for any of those diseases, especially Parkinson's."
The election in Missouri has focused largely on the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative – also called Amendment 2. Among other things, the amendment claims that it would ban human cloning and the buying and selling of human eggs. In fact, the amendment only prohibits implanting a human clone in a woman – not creating a clone for research purposes. It also allows for “reimbursement” for human eggs including all expenses and “lost wages of the donor”.
Read Related LifeSiteNews Coverage:
Sad to see Michael J. Fox Suffer But Sadder Still that he's been Deceived on Embryo Research
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110106.html
Neurologist Says Rush Limbaugh Criticism of Fox Technically Inaccurate But Likely Close to Mark
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06103102.html
Michael J. Fox is Right About One Thing: Pro-life Movement Must Oppose IVF
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06103006.html
Actor Jim Caviezel Battles Michael J. Fox on Embryonic Stem Cell Video Ads
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102501.html
Voted against it this morning. I hope Missourians are guided by their hearts.
Please put me on your list. Thank you. Kelli
Mr. Caviezel is welcome to use my argument; that there is no difference between destroyng an embryo for stem cells and harvesting organs from prisoners, ala China.
Isn't there a picture rule for posts about Jim Caviezel? :-)
What she said!
What she said!
Exactly. Very, very few of these embryos will ever become the "snowflake" babies so many in the "culture of life" crowd crow about. Since they're destined to be destroyed anyways, best their at least put to some use. Adult stem cells go a long way, I know, but certain organs, notably the pancreas in Type I diabetes (a devastating disease for those--mostly young people--who suffer from it) are not helped by adult stem cells; there is no adult stem cell for the pancreas. For them, embryonic stem cells are the only hope.
Can anyone explain to me why there's opposition to research with embyonic stem cells, when the embryos being used for research are going to be discarded anyway and not used for reproduction?
I don't see this as any different than organ donation. If a parent's child dies, that parent is entitled to say the child's organs can be re-used to help others. If a parent no longer needs the surplus embryos, why isn't it that parent's right to allow the embryo to be used to help others?
It puzzles the heck out of me.
It seems the opposition is misplaced - if a person is against destroying surplus embryos, that person should be against in-vitro fertilization, since that's what creates the surplus embryos anyway.
I see we have the same question. See my comment No. 11 below.
Totally non related issue...but I checked out your homepage. Why is JEB Stuart in your neutral American section?
Don't complain when we guys post girlie pics!
Here you go.
Doctor Dean Edell also criticized this actor while defending Fox.
If there isn't one, there should be!
First of all, Bush didn't "approve" the morning after pill. You fell for the spin. Once the genie was already out of the bottle, there was a debate over whether or not minors should be able to get the drug over the counter and Bush said that they should be required to get a prescription. The press spun that into "Bush says teens should be able to get morning after pill with a prescription!"
As for the whole "unused" embryo argument. Yes, there are people who have no trouble discarding/destroying them. But that doesn't mean pro-lifers have ever been OK with it, just because it is legal. I believe the Catholic position is, in vitro fertilization is OK, so long as all the embryos are implanted, there are no "selective abortions" and/or the embryos are donated to another couple for implantation. The reason the McCougheys had seven babies is because they respected the life of each embryo and refused to abort any of them when their implantation was successful.
The man who was robbed of the most deserving Oscar of all time...he is forever blessed.
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.