Embryos Are People Too!
Good ol' George finally vetoed his first Bill. What a Bill to pick buddy. I'm sure everyone is going to love him for this one.
Now, being that most (if not all) people that read this blog disagree strongly with me in regards to most of my political stances up to this point, I have no reason to give in now.
Shock of all shocks, I'm glad Bush vetoed this Bill.
Aside from the Biblical reason of "Thou shalt not murder" I would like to provide alternatives for the science crew and just a touch of related experience.
I'm sure most people have been touched in one way or another by terrible diseases like cancer, MS, muscular dystrophy, authritis and altzheimers. I think that it's safe to say that we would all like to see a cure for each one of these in our lifetime. I would like to suggest to you that embryonic stem cell research is not the answer to this.
The embryo is the earliest detectable form of human development. If attached to the uterus of a female the embryo will develop into the fetus (or baby as I like to refer to it) until birth. So what then, does this mean?
It means that the embryo is a form of life. Life is precious. It is valuable. Remember, "thou shalt not murder"? Right. So how can we justify ending one life to save another? The person outside of the womb is not more important or more worth saving than the person inside the womb.
What I don't understand is why other forms of research are not being attempted or used.
Take umbilical cord research for example. Already, 70 different diseases have been treated with this method. Seventy! That's a lot more than the pathetic little list of 5 I gave.
So why isn't this being explored more? Why is it that the Left is pushing so hard on this? Might I suggest that it's not because they're pro-choice. It's because they're pro-abort. Or in this case pro-kill. If there's another option available besides that of ending a life, isn't that preferable? Both parties win with that thinking.
What about people who cannot have children? Shouldn't we be worried about offending them? (You know, because the Left is so against being offensive) Can you imagine not being able to have a child, while science is throwing them away in the name of research? How cruel.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I can't help but think that this is just one more way that the Left is trying to control the population, what with it being out of hand and all. At this rate, we could effectively implement euthanasia by the time some of the most prominent members of the current democratic (and even liberal-republican) party are old enough to participate. Although, at that point, I'm not so sure I'd be opposed to it.
posted by LauraS | 1:32 PM
12 Comments:
In general Laura, I don't take offense at your arguments--you most certainly have a right to those--I take offense at the way you present them. To insinuate that liberals are not just 'pro-abort' but 'pro-kill'?! To imply that I, as a democrat, am secretly advocating some sick type of population control because I support stem-cell research is absolutely preposterous and you must know that. If I were to make that same kind of argument I could say that conservatives are trying to control the population by not addressing poverty here in the states and the world abroad and by underfunding and undercutting family services, forcing dfs workers to place children in homes they know are less then safe and drowning them in case loads which, with current budgets and resources, they cannot undertake. Though I strongly disagree with the current admins. policies even I do not believe the above argument is true.
And to say (even if it is in jest) that you would support euthanasia if it were applied to old liberals members of our government, is something I'm sure God--yours, mine, anyones--would not approve of...
Oh poor dear Heddy...
I read Laura's blog because I like it. It is a forum in which I can read opposing viewpoints and debate the issues, not just ling mud at someone on the opposite side of the aisle. She is 110% entitled to her views and I to mine, something I'd like to think we both understand and appreciate now, after blogging back and forth.
Plus, I don't have to worry she's gonna call me 'stupid liberal'or an 'idiot' simply because she disagrees with me on the points--though I'm sure she thinks on a daily basis ;)
Heddy,
I will kindly suggest, as you did, that if you do not like my comments, do not read them, though I would be remiss if I did not point out that healthy debate is a value this nation was founded upon and one that is detrimental to its survival. I think Laura understands my tone and is not offended, as I do not mean it come across with 'an attitude'...
Furthermore, I don't think Laura's blog is a place for you to come at me--bring it over to my blog (occasionalcigs.wordpress.com).
Dang.
Its so frustrating that stem cell research has been lumped into the already passionate, loud abortion debate. Abortion debates involve a lot of emotions and a lot of VERY loaded language. But this isnt about abortion (technically) its about stem-cells.
I hadn't heard about umblical cord research, Laura. Thanks for the info. The only thing I'd ever heard about cord blood was from companies sending me brochures wanting me to store my baby's cord blood with them... for some crazy fee per year. Whatever.
I am thrilled with Bush's decision to veto this bill. But - instead of yelling about abortion which gets people on both sides really steamed - the conservative/anti-stem cell movement would be very, VERY wise to educate the public on this other option. Personally, as a gung-ho organ donor, I would have been thrilled to donate my babies' cord blood to help fight diseases!! Why isn't this much less 'questionable' option being made available? I would totally support federal funding for umbilical cord research.
It appears that once again we have addressed the same issue ... I agree with Sam - it is interesting to read opposing views. I am not going to offer a rebuttal because I think my blog entry addresses your points. Boy, your friend Heddy seems a like an angry person - attacking people verbally and physically, I'm with you ... Whoa.
dude, can you tell my brother is currently unemployed?
j/k, chris ;-)
Chris, I wasn't saying at all that there are only 5 diseases that are curable with stem-cell research. I was just saying that in comparison to the list of five diseases I would like to see cured, (and there are many more than five, I was just listing the most prominent ones) the 70 diseases that have been treated with umbilical cord blood overshadows them.
Interesting and informative column on this issue in Newsweek this week. (except the last paragraph)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13989890/site/newsweek/
Whoever brought forth the issue of embryos getting "thrown away" thanks!! I really appreciate that info.
Here's the problem, I don't agree with that either. Because I believe that life begins at conception, I can't help but feel that these fertility clinics are murdering. What boggles my mind is that people go to fertility clinics to have babies, and lo and behold, when the embryos are produced, they don't want the leftovers!! What the heck?! Anyway, I wanted to say that to say that if people truly believe that life begins at conception, this issue of throwing the embryos away as opposed to science murdering them is no different and should be look at with an equal amount of distaste. But this is no excuse for science to have them either.
i agree with that. the "should we" is definitly worth considering before the "could we."
way to throw in a movie reference. it gives me hope that someday my vast knowledge of useless movie trivia will come in handy!!
Ummm, isn't the Leftist population control conspiracy theory a little ironic (read: hypocritical) coming from a woman who proposed sterilization for those on welfare in a post titled, "I Work Hard for Your Money" just a couple months ago? Just sayin' . . .
Gosh Amie, ever heard of "tounge in cheek"? Even Sam doesn't take my comments THAT hard!
Post a Comment
<< Home