Monday, January 15, 2007

Refreshing Honesty in the Stem Cell Debate

I was a little surprised at the honesty from the article of this (apparent) atheist reprinted on Catholic Education which originally appeared in the Washington Post.

As John Edwards put it most starkly and egregiously in 2004: If John Kerry becomes president, Christopher Reeve will walk again.

This kind of stem cell advocacy did not just shamefully inflate its promise. It tended to misrepresent the basis for putting restrictions on embryonic research, insisting that it was nothing more than political enforcement of the religious fundamentalist belief that life begins at conception.
I have long supported legal abortion. And I don't believe that life — meaning the attributes and protections of personhood — begins at conception. Yet many secularly inclined people such as myself have great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted manipulation — to the point of dismemberment — of human embryos.
It was interesting to see this level of honesty coming from someone who is pro-abortion. It serves only to remind us how dishonest the rest of the left wing crowd is being on this issue.
South Korea enthusiastically embraced unrestricted stem cell research. The subsequent greatly heralded breakthroughs — accompanied by lamentations that America was falling behind — were eventually exposed as a swamp of deception, fraud and coercion.
Yea surprise surprise...
The House voted yesterday to erase Bush's line. But future generations may nonetheless thank Bush for standing athwart history, if only for a few years. It gave technology enough time to catch up and rescue us from the moral dilemmas of embryonic destruction. It has just been demonstrated that stem cells with enormous potential can be harvested from amniotic fluid.
Unfortunately he underestimates the evil of the left wing agenda. It has been known for quite some time that stem cells harvested from methods not requiring murder are just as if not more promising (from a strictly scientific standpoint) than their less nobly gathered counterparts. Yet in spite of this, they continue to insist we destroy human life. As CurtJester pointed out recently, this debate has never been about cures in the first place.


NotMyOpinion30 said...

I'm a little concerned here. Why would a secular athiest say such non-secular athiest things? And it got past the editors of the paper no less.

The stem cells from amniotic fluid, how will they be collected? If it is amniocentesis then it will be quite a dangerous (for the baby) procedure. Amniocentesis can actually cause the woman to miscarry. Has this been brought up anywhere? I'm concerned that we may be jumping the gun. Why isn't anyone talking about the placenta or the umbilical cord anymore?

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

Good question. I hadnt heard that about the amniotic fluid yet. People seem to be making a big deal about the fluid which I think its what's jumping the gun.

If someone came out tomorrow with a wonder pill that cured every disease known to man, many on the left would still want the right to not only murder infants for the sake of science, but to have it tax payer funded.

The issue isnt finding a non lethal alternative to embryonic stem cell research (although I admit that if we did so the pro-lifers would win out due to what would be a complete transparency on the part of those who wished to keep the practice legal) but rather it is about the right to reduce the value of human life to nothing while in its earliest stages of development..