I'm confused, which isn't hard to do most times, but how does one claim to be pro-life and then endorse a bill to expand embryonic stem cell research? This is the "new" position of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD as indicated by the "article link" from Satuday's Washington Times.
I'm not only confused, but I'm also disappointed in Senator Frist's flip-flop on this important issue.
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050729-111258-1928r
Jul 31, 2005
FRIST-FLOP ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This is only for a particular type of embryo and many pro-lifers are acceptable of this, include me. This will only allow research on embryoes used at fertility clinics. When the woman becomes pregnant, the embryoes are no longer needed and are discarded. Instead of discarding the embryoes why not utilize them for research?
Because LIFE IS LIFE. Pro-lifers who are agreeable to this are hypocrits. Life begins at the moment that these "embryo's" begin dividing cells.
The same type of research can be done on ambilical cords as well with similiar results. - THIS IS WRONG - simply WRONG.
Is throwing them out any better? By no means should life be created for the sole purpose to be destroyed. And it is sad to say that these embryos are the by-product of a medical procedure. It is sad to say, but ,like a tumor or a cyst, they are discarded when they are no longer needed. If the option were to keep the embryo viable for eternity, then ok, I would agree with you. Since they are going to be destroyed anyway, if they can save lives, then they shold be utilized.
No body knows how much can be gained from the embryo research since not much has been done with it. I saw my grandmother suffer with Parinson's Disease for 23 years, and if the cure lies within an embryo that would end up in the trash can otherwise, then do it.
No Paul you are correct. They should not be thrown out either. These babies should be given the opportunity to grow to fulfillment. There are plenty of couples out there that would be thrilled to have the child they cannot have by natural method. If they want to spend my tax money on something involving this... I'd be thrilled if they'd use it for something that promotes life instead of destroying it.
No-throwing them out is certainly not better, Paul, but neither is creating them to be destroyed in medical reserch. As PA said in an earlier comment--LIFE IS LIFE, and unfortunately there is no middle ground on this issue. I also agree that there are many families who for whatever reason cannot have children by the natural method, and these folks would be thrilled to raise and love a child that would otherwise have been unwanted. There is, however another very disturbing point that must be discussed here and that is if we begin to determine that certain lives are unneeded or unwanted, this will send our society down a path is should not be travelling. We saw the clear dangers of this with the horrific starvation of Terri Schiavo, which was nothing less than "passive euthanasia." You can use whatever cliche or catch phrase you want--but pandora's box would have been opened, the cork is out of the bottle and the gene has escaped, etc., but our so-called soceity would have begun a journey that can only lead to a horrible human disaster! To do such evil in the name of medical research--MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON OUR SOULS!!!
The creation of life strictly for the purpose of medical research would be an abhorrent practice and any individual who did such a thing should be prosecuted, and any corporation should be shut down.
I'm sure we all agree on that point.
I hate calling the invitro fertilization a medical procedure, with by-products, but essentially, that is what it is. I hope they keep the embryoes viable for as long as possible, but if that can not be done, at least let them be used for something productive.
All that said, I am not a big fan of the government funding all these programs anyway. It is not in the constiution, unless you argue they are promoting the geeneral welfare. They reap minimal benefits through taxation of the corporation, but the corporation can right of a majority of the profits due to the cost of expenditures. Also, the these programs follow the political flavor of the day and are not divided equitably.
You raise many compelling points, Paul, and yes I do in fact agree that the creation of life purely for the purpose of medical research is a dispicable practice,and those who are responsible for such reprehensible behavior should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the Law. That being said, however I maintain that there are serious questions of ethics and morality that must be addressed. If we learned anything from Roe v. Wade and the Terri Schiavo case it is that human life and be so cheapened and de-valued so as to justify any form of atrosity whether disguised in a cloak of medical research, physician assisted suicide, so-called mercy killing or some other form of experimentation. I also believe that the use of adult stem cells and the proposals regarding the use of "cord blood" could also produce the necessary by-products to aid in any viable medical research project.
There has been very promising research using adult bone marrow cells and the umbilical cord. In fact my wife and I oaid the fee to save my son's umbilical cord cells if need be for the future. I can't imagine being one of the future parents who have to choose which embryo to use and which not. Then deciding they no longer need the other embryos and donate them to science.
The bigger question is if this area is so promising, then businesses should be fronting the research money to reap the profits in the future. It is not illegal to use these cells, they just don't receive government funding. That raises the skeptism that you have already addressed.
Post a Comment