Passion of the Christ Star Jim Caviezel Explains Opposition to Embryo Research

LifeSite ^ | November 6, 2006 | Meg Jalsevac

[NYer]

Monday November 6, 2006

Passion of the Christ Star Jim Caviezel Explains Opposition to Embryo Research

His Opposition to Michael J. Fox's Stem-Cell Ads

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

[Lil Flower]

Since they're destined to be destroyed anyways

Since prisoners on death row are destined to die anyway, I might as well get their liver. Since old people are destined to die anyway, might as well get...... endless possibilities with that attitude

[Lil Flower]

AND, it is my BELIEF that an embryo is just that--an embryo-

Is the embryo human before it is implanted?

[Lil Flower]

When sperm meets egg a zygote is formed

Zygote = first cell of the new individual; also = conception. A zygote has the complete diploid # (46)of chromosomes making it completely human.

nothing more until somewhere when the "unique person" has a chance at survival outside the womb

that is simply not true. You obviously have little knowledge of biology.

An embryo is from approx. 15 days to 8 weeks.By the end of 8 weeks, it has all of its body systems and they are completely functioning. That is not a seed.

[P8riot]

Kinda brings new meaning to the phrase "What would Jesus do?"

[Lil Flower]

that a seed is a seed

this is more than just religious conviction my friend. You are arguing with known science. An embryo is not a seed.

[jude24]

I fail to see why I should give a damn what an actor thinks on an issue. Just because he played Jesus in a passion play doesn't give him any special moral insight.

[Joe 6-pack]

I like Jim Caviezel, but personally I'm always kind of creeped out by how he seems to be personally obsessed with trying to look like me...;-)

[Treader]

Please support your claim- that embryonic stem cells provide a locus, for any pancreatic dysfunctions.

[adiaireton8]

I do not know when life begins in a human but I do know that it doesn't begin in a test tube. My instinct and reasoning tells me life is only life when it has a viable chance of living outside the womb (or somewhere in the 2nd trimester of pregnancy),

What reasoning shows that a human life cannot begin in a test tube? If a human being has to go onto a ventilator temporarily, does he or she cease to be a life?

-A8

[A_perfect_lady]

I like Jim Caviezel, but personally I'm always kind of creeped out by how he seems to be personally obsessed with trying to look like me...;-)

Don't you just hate those celebrity stalkers?

[Joe 6-pack]

"Don't you just hate those celebrity stalkers?"

If he keeps it up, I'm calling the cops...

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Voted against it this morning. I hope Missourians are guided by their hearts.

I hope they are guided by their ears and their brains. McCaskill has been out and out lying about what Amendment 2 is all about. She must not win.

[ELS]

Can anyone explain to me why there's opposition to research with embryonic 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?

The fallacy of your analogy is that a parent doesn't decide to kill a child so that its organ(s) can be donated. To rephrase your last question, "If a parent no longer needs a child, why isn't it that parent's right to kill the child to be used to help others?"

When a human being is created, whether it is an embryo or farther along in development (a child or adult perhaps), no human being has the right to determine the death of that new human being.

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.

Many, including the Catholic Church, who oppose embryonic stem cell research do oppose in vitro fertilization.

[meandog]

Meandog, your arguments are not logical. You have apparently made your decision about when life begins, but really don't have anything to back it up. If you don't know when life begins, then how can you know it doesn't begin in a test tube? If life is only life when it has a viable chance of living outside the womb, then 50 years ago "life" began at a different time than it does now? You also said earlier that God doesn't put a soul into a person until it reasonably resembles a human being....exactly when does that happen? Are you sure? What if you're wrong? What if the soul goes in a week earlier than you think? Lastly, your referral to "quickening" makes me doubt seriously your real knowledge of this subject. Quickening is when the mother feels the baby. It is subjective and varies based on lots of things other than the development of the baby. I hope you will approach this from a more logical perspective....Look at the facts, and then decide when you believe the embryo becomes human, and please remember that whatever conclusion you come to will be your belief not fact, because nobody really knows when the soul attaches. I'd just rather be wrong in the direction of not destroying humans with souls as opposed to the other way.

Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree...it is ironic to me, however, how many of solid right-to-lifers (though perhaps not you specifically) stipulate the "except in the event of rape or incest" escape clause in their argument (as President Bush does). If life begins at conception and is so precious then why the distinction of how it began?

[adiaireton8]

If life begins at conception and is so precious then why the distinction of how it began?

Agreed. A human (at any age) resulting from rape or incest is no less valuable, and has no fewer rights, than any other human. Abortion in cases of rape or incest is no less murderous than in any other instances of abortion.

-A8

[rzeznikj at stout]

Exactly.

Nothing justifies murdering an innocent child. Nothing. Not even rape or incest.

[meandog]

Agreed. A human (at any age) resulting from rape or incest is no less valuable, and has no fewer rights, than any other human. Abortion in cases of rape or incest is no less murderous than in any other instances of abortion.

Thanks for the honesty, at least...but too bad so many other right-to-lifers don't see it that way--including President Bush

[Kaylee Frye]

I do not agree with the rape/incest exception. I believe all human life is precious. The only exception I agree with is the life of the mother. However, I am willing to take baby steps towards the ultimate goal of banning all abortion. If we can save just one baby, it is worth it.

[murphE]

Thanks for the honesty, at least...but too bad so many other right-to-lifers don't see it that way--including President Bush

The only pro life position that makes any logical sense is the Catholic pro-life positon.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Again, Lee could be very angry, but is that anger justified? (Lee was also angry during the 7 Days Battle, but who was giving this segmented army difficult manuevers, to commanders without good maps, especially when they did not know the ground. He did realize the problem later and fixed it quite well) Was it Stuart's fault that Lee failed to use the force left with Lee to do exactly what Stuart is blamed for not doing.

Major Blackford says in later writings that Lee wanted Stuart only and that is why he did not use Jones and Robertson. Again, is that Stuart's fault?

One last thing, and I'll let you alone, Gettysburg was not Lee's final destination. He turned around. The army was headed toward the Susquehanna. It is hindsight and total speculation that Gettysburg was lost because Stuart was not out scouting. Especially since Lee won the first day. It is total speculation that Stuart, without infantry support, could have pierced Meade's cavalry screen.

For those who blame Stuart, I would challenge them to prove that Stuart's presence would have made the difference. BTW, when word reach Stuart, he sent Fitzhugh back immediately, and Fitzhugh arrived a whole day before Stuart and was not put into action by Lee. So, again...why?

You can also add A.P. Hill to your list. The shoe factory had already been cleaned out by Early on his way to York. Hill knew this because Early had told him.

Heth was sent to Gettysburg to pick a fight.

Why else would you need an entire division to raid a shoe factory? Really...

The book I recommended will tell you many things about how the current history was established, long after Gettysburg had ended and how even Longstreet said that Stuart was not wrong and was doing exactly what he was ordered to do.

I am hoping that you will reconsider Stuart on your list. John Sedgwick said he was the finest calvaryman ever foaled in America. Lee said (upon Stuart's death) that he never brought me one false bit of news. And Stuart was an inventor holding two patents that enabled the US Calvary to perform their tasks better. Have you considered Stuart's screen of Lee at the Potomac while they waited for the river to go down so they could cross after Gettysburg. That was one of the main reasons Meade chose not to go after Lee...

I hope I haven't bored you too much!