Thursday, August 23, 2007

To piggyback my last post, I find it interesting how so many people are deeply appalled by Michael Vick's crime, mainly due to the brutal treatment the dogs received. On this very site, an anonymous commenter suggested the possibility of a death sentence for Vick. Huh?

And, let's not forget this statement on the Senate floor by Robert Byrd: "...cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic business of training innocent, vulnerable creatures to kill...Barbaric!," he yelled. "Let that word resounding from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, and valley to valley across the broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric! I am confident that the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt," he said. "One is left wondering, who are the real animals: the creatures inside or outside the ring?"

Something tells me the Senator feels Vick's behavior was barbaric. Sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt? How poetic. And the good Senator is not alone. Indeed, there is a lot of outrage over Vick's behavior, and there should be. But I can't help but wonder: Why are so many people outraged over dog-fighting, and yet seem to be okay with abortion, and in some cases partial birth abortion? Are these dogs' lives really that much more valuable than human fetuses? It's an interesting question no doubt, so let's use Senator Byrd's voting record as an example to answer this question.

In a vote that would prohibit governmental discrimination against medical entities that refuse to perform elective abortions, Senator Byrd voted against the bill.

In a vote to show whether or note Congress supported the Roe v. Wade decision effectively making elective abortions legal, Senator Byrd voted for it.

Senator Byrd voted against a measure that would prohibit government funding for research on human fetal tissue

Vote to pass a bill that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells.Senator Byrd voted for it.

To summarize, Byrd is okay with destroying human life for research and convenience, but opposes the destruction of dogs for entertainment, that's what he considers barbaric. Abortions? Not so much. Not that I'm picking strictly on him, he is not alone. Many people out there feel the same. How they reconcile these two positions is beyond me. Barbaric indeed!

7 comments:

Robert M. said...

It is a little Orwellian isn't it?

Anonymous said...

John,

Let's not forget that Senator Byrd is also an admitted former Klansmen. The attrocities perpetrated by the Klan are well documented; but I guess that pales in comparison to dog fighting, huh?

Robert

John Washburn said...

Orwellian, excellent choice of word. Robert, thanks for reminding me about the KKK thing, how could I have possibly left that out? You guys are clearly keeping me on my toes. I might even have to come up with a nickname for you!

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

This raises two questions, Dr. Where do you stand on the death penalty? Secondly, where do you stand on licensed physicians administering lethal injections?

Regards.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Actually, having reread your post on Sen,. Byrd, I have another question. You wrote, in pertinent part: "To summarize, Byrd is okay with destroying human life for research..."

I conclude we have differing views as to when life begins, nevertheless I am compelled to ask you what you believe should be done w/ fertilized unwanted embryos.

The couple who fertilzed the embryos in question do not want and/or need them. If these embryos constitute human life, then it would be unethical to use them for research but then what do you do w/ them? If they constitue human life, it would be just as unethical to destroy them.

Regards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

LGK,

AH, ETHICS & Morality! Here's a toast to all those with simple solutions.

Gather them up, place in a stainless steel container etched with all manner of religious symbols, and fire them into orbit.

Mankind has no clue, they only pretend to know. reb

John Washburn said...

Death penalty...I'm all for it, only we don't use it enough to be an effective deterrant. Physician assisted suicide is a gross violation of rule one: "First, do no harm". Any physician who engages in this should have their license revoked.

What to do with embryos? Suppose a John Doe comes into the ER and dies. There is no next of kin, no one to claim the body, no living will. What do we do with him? Since he is unwanted, can we conduct experiments on his body? Harvest his organs without permission?

Or another...what if there is an Alzheimer's patient wasting away in a nursing home? Again, no next of kin, clearly he is unwanted. Can we conduct experiments on this person? He's just gonna die anyway, and no one wants him so he must not have any value, right?

We treat these embryos the same as we would the above cases, with respect. We dispose of them as we would John Doe's body. We do NOT conduct scientific experiments on them. If you can justify that, then I can justify the same for the two cases above.