I wrote the words below some time back in regards to partial birth abortion, and in light of Bush's recent veto I'd like to post them again because I think it is applicable.
"I believe that human life is a sequence of events. A human being grows from a single cell, to an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, a teenager, etc...until life ends. This is a process that moves through many phases, but that process ALWAYS begins with fertilization. There is no other way for life to exist. Any 'boundaries' that are placed within that process are man-made, and thus can change. For example, if we place a boundary and say that life begins at birth, then who's to say that one day that boundary can be moved to another age? Perhaps when the child is self-dependent, or capable of working or voting? Obviously, this is dangerous thinking. So the answer is to look at nature, and nature shows that the process of life has a beginning...and that beginning is ALWAYS at fertilization."
I hope that Bush stands strong on his position and that Congress backs off of this stem cell thing. To me, prioritizing life is playing with fire. Are we prepared to say that an adult with Alzheimer's is worth more and is more important than an embryo in a fertility clinic?
Whenever a society begins to experiment with and kill it's members for the greater good then it has crossed a boundary that puts its very existence in jeopardy. This is dangerous thinking and I stand by the President and his decision. At some point, we must recognize life for what it is and not for what it can do for us. I hope that time comes sooner rather than later. Our moral fiber may be at stake.
10 comments:
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this one. Yeah I think I am "prepared to say that an adult with Alzheimer's is worth more and is more important than an embryo in a fertility clinic?"
An embryo doesn't think, an embryo doesn't feel pain, an embryo doesn't even know it's alive. But a human does, so yes it gets the priority. But I do however draw the line when it comes to abortion because it's killing a baby very close to birth just because the parents aren't ready.
Cody,
I respect your opinion, but I don't understand it. If an embryo is not a living creature, then what is it?
I'm stunned at the hypocrisy of the pro-life crowd who oppose abortion and in the same breath support stem cell research. I don't understand how a distinction can be made between the two.
Please explain to me how you distinguish between the two. At what point in human growth and development does it become inappropriate and unlawful (in your opinion) to kill a human being?
The part if this debate that seems to be missing is the fact that Invitro fertilization can't be supported while this research is opposed. As a result of that process, thousands of embryos are discared each year. Even though President Bush surrounded himself with families who adopted embryos from that process, only slightly more than one hundred of those thousands of embryos have been adopted. If they are being discarded anyway, why can they not be used to better the life and health of the living?
For what it's worth (not much), I'm with Allisoni. And I think Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and countless others would be too.
John, the "hypocrisy" as you call it seems to result from this: Most issues are black and white; This one, however, has more than a touch of grey.--Deano
Deano,
I don't see anything that can be more black/white. Is a human embryo considered a human life? That's a yes/no question with no stipulations or maybes. What is your answer? When you have that then you've pretty much defined which side of the debate you stand on. But thanks for the comments.
Allison,
Here's a hypothetical, and I'm basing it on your logic. Suppose there's a young woman in kidney failure. She has a very promising life ahead of her, maybe even a loving husband, but she needs a kidney transplant.
Then, on the other side of town is an 80 year old man in the end-stages of Alzheimers, which means he is non-functional but still very much alive. Like many others in the end stages, he will die soon and has no possibility of regaining any function.
Would you support removing his kidney to give to that young woman before he dies, even though he is clearly unable to consent to such a procedure? After all, he'll be dead soon anyway, right? Why let those good organs go to waste when they could help someone in dire need?
You see the 'slippery slope' that you're stepping on when you start making the kind of arguments that you're currently making?
No, I don't. The embryos are not currently being saved. They are being discarded. Is it not more of a statement about life and its importance to use those embryos for important medical research than to throw them out?
allisoni,
The reason why we can't do this is because we're talking about human life...not some items at a garage sale.
Like the Alzheimer's patient who is 'just going to die anyway', human life deserves a certain amount of respect. Life is valuable and precious, and when you start prioritizing, you ARE stepping on a slippery slope because the criteria we use to assign priority can change with time.
If an embryo does not hold value, then what about an invalid, a homeless person, or a schizophrenic? Should we also experiment on terminal cancer patients? After all, they'll be dead soon (or you could say 'thrown away' to make the metaphor complete). So what's it matter? The matter is that they are still human.
The debate about in vitro fertilization and whether these embryos should or should not be discarded is a whole new topic. We are talking about scientific experimentation on human life for the purpose of benefiting other human life. That is a concept I have much difficulty accepting as rational and reasonable.
I understand the motive behind ESC research, and it is noble at the surface. But I am not willing to sacrifice our moral fiber to cure Parkinson's. It's simply not worth it.
The ONLY way you could justify your position is to also take the position that embryos do not equate to human life...and therein lies the debate. But, if you do believe this, then I would ask you the same question I asked Cody. What, in your opinion, constitutes human life? At what point should it become unlawful to kill a human being?
My side of the argument is not at all about the value of human life. I am not saying that we should rank one stage of life higher than the other. If you support Invitro Fertilization, you support the process which includes discarding embryos. I am not saying that that is positive. I am saying that instead of completely destorying them, they can be used to find cures for the living. The support of ESC research is not saying to kill anything, it is saying to utilize what is currently being discarded and put it toward a better purpose. I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain that.
Okay, I'll see how well I can explain myself here. First thing you should know is that I consider myself pro-life on just about all political issues. Abortion, death penalty, euthenasia. And with stem-cell research, I think in a way is pro-life as well. Sure, the cells are 'alive' but it's not yet a human, it's just an embryo. Plus if they're going to be thrown away anyways, why not try to help living people? But again, I do see a difference in stem-cell research and abortion. For one thing, abortion isn't used to save lives, it's used to prevent lives from being born. Stem-cell research is used to save lives. Also, I don't consider something to be a human until it looks like a human. I know it's not science, but it's the way I see it. You've got living, breathing, and sometimes kicking babies, that are near birth. And then you've got tiny cells that have no organs or senses. Just the stuff needed to make life.
Post a Comment