Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Biden takes a swipe at Republicans for not supporting embryonic stem cell research...when it is adult stem cell research that is producing results--without destroying innocent human life.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Biden Stem Cell Swipe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Innocent human life that in most cases will be discarded REGARDLESS of whether any stem cell research is done on it. So why not learn something from it that might be applied to adult stem cell research? I doubt that a blastocyst under a microscope will know the difference.
There is no law against embryonic stem cell research, only a ban on the use of federal dollars.
If embryonic stem cells have so much promise of great revolutionary therapies (while adult stem cells keep ticking up treatment after treatment) where are the private investors? I'd think greedy capitalists would be lining up for the opportunity to get in at the ground level of such innovative new therapies in order to reap obscene profits in the not-too-distant future.
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the private sector/legal aspects of the issue to give a good opinion on that. But I do know that it's senseless to literally throw away good opportunities for scientific research that can be applied to other fields such as adult stem cell science, especially when the blastocysts in question are going to be discarded whether or not they're studied.
I think part of the problem is that people call these blastocysts "children" - they're not children. They're not "innocent defenseless babies." They are clusters of cells that don't even know they exist. Too many people allow their emotions, rather than fact and reason, to define the issue.
If you're asleep and we drop a piano on you, I doubt you'll know the difference, either. Does that make it right?
The main point of embryonic stem cell research is that they want to create human embryos for the purpose of experimenting on them; in other words, they want to create human life to experiment on it, ala Josef Mengele. This is barbaric and inhuman.
As the civilized nations made an intentional decision not to utilize the ghastly data gathered by the Nazi monsters, so we should take a pass on even using human embryos already created. We don't need to sink to that level, and we don't need to go down that path.
Of course, as I said, even using those existing embryos would never be good enough. Proponents of this research demand a new and unending line of human subjects for experimentation.
There is no need to sell our soul for ghoulish research--especially when adult stem cell research is already producing results.
"Blastocyst" is a term pro-abortionists love to use to divert awareness away from the fact that it is children who are being killed in the womb. I can call you a "collection of elements" or a "bag of mostly water" but the fact remains that you are human--and as such, have God-given dignity and value.
The "blastocyst" (or "child" as normal people prefer) has human DNA (not dog DNA, not plant DNA, not aardvark DNA, but HUMAN DNA) from the moment of conception. Further, that DNA profile is unique and distinct from the child's mother, father, aunt, uncle, and every other of the 6 billion+ people living on this planet.
When you couple the fact that the unborn child has (a) human DNA with (b) the uniqueness of that DNA , you have (c) a separate and distinct human being who possesses that same God-given dignity and value as any other human being.
An infant is less developed than a grown man or woman; the lack of development in no way diminishes its value to God, nor its entitlement to protection under the law.
You're right that too many people allow their emotions, rather than fact and reason, to define the issue. They are desperate to retain the "right" to kill a child they find inconvenient to their plans for personal fulfillment, and so ignore the science and the logical conclusion that the unborn child is a unique human being deserving of rights and protection.
Bob,
If you claim to be the one using facts and reason rather than emotion when you discuss abortion, then please explain something to me.
Why is it perfectly acceptable to use a variety of terms to describe a human life in its early developmental stages, such as "zygote," "embryo," "blastocyst," and "fetus," outside the context of abortion, but when discussing the termination of unborn human life, the only appropriate words seem to be things like "baby," "innocent child," "human being," and so on, and all other words are off the table? Why is it suddenly "misleading" and "politically correct" to call an aborted human life a fetus rather than a baby, but meanwhile all of these terms are standard medical vocabulary for any pro-life obstetrician who just calls things what they are?
Alex, you ever-so-conveniently left out that bit about human DNA; I'm reasonably sure your Streptococcus pyogenes had no human DNA present.
That human component is ever so important, which is why I included it in my previous statement. I'm sorry you missed it. Perhaps now you'll understand the gravity of the issue, come on board and join me in protecting innocent human life.
Oh, and I didn't say only "crazy people" use the term "blastocyst." I said it is a term commonly used by pro-abortionists to attempt to divert attention from the humanity of the unborn child in the womb. It is a perfectly appropriate word when discussing the purely scientific nature of the human embryo.
But as we both know, the issue of abortion--since a human being with unique human DNA and human intelligence and a human soul are present--goes far beyond the mere components of biological existence.
Though the analogy does't go nearly far enough, just as the statement "My mixture of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, calcium, magnesium and other elements is in an unpleasant state of disorder" wouldn't do justice to the reality that "My body aches," so calling the unborn child in the womb a "blastocyst" doesn't do justice to the human contained therein.
Or just as my son would not be nearly as pleased and comforted if I told him, "Progeny, I experience positive emotional responses as a result of your existence" than if I told him, "I love you, son."
Language is both a wondrous and troublesome thing: it can be marvelously descriptive...or frighteningly deceptive and concealing.
The terms blastocyst, embryo and fetus have specific medical and scientific meaning that few lay persons could define. They are used by proponents of abortion and embryonic stem cell advocates precisely because they have little meaning to most people, except that such language avoids the common terminology of infant or baby and has the effect of dehumanizing the devloping human. We also have scientific names for the arm (brachium), sac around the heart (pericardium) and intestines (ileum, jejunum and colon), but these are usually not used in everyday language because there is no need to and few know the words anyway.
So I'll ask, why do some people insists on using medical terminology when speaking of developing infants in utero? Is it a desire to be precise or a desire to obfuscate?
Post a Comment