This is Alpha, the first-born, when he was 2YO.
This is Beta, the second-born, when he was about 2YO.
This is Gamma, the third-born, when he was about 18MO.
Embryos Are People Too
Oct
27
2008
With stem-cell initiatives on ballots and the election about a week away, I thought I would throw in my two cents about stem-cell research. Not many people are against stem-cell research. What people oppose is one source of stem cells – embryos.
There are other sources of stem cells, and adult stem cells have actual results and show progress. Embryonic stem cells are touted as having the most potential – the possibility to cure such-and-such. The only way to prove or disprove this potential is by experimenting with the stem cells. If you need to experiment to discover or unlock the full potential of something, why not make that something an amoral something? While embryonic stem cells are difficult to manage (they don’t cooperate very well), adult stem cells behave well, but with less potential. It’s the classic trade-off: some cures now, or possibly more cures later. Although the goal is worthy – curing diseases – the means to get there is not worthy if it involves using babies for their tissues. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.
People can do all the research they want with adult stem cells, but why kill innocent children to get their stem cells? What if a scientist approached you today and said he needed to kill you for your organs? What if the scientific community agreed that organs from a [insert your age here]-year-old [insert your gender here] held the best potential for curing [insert disease here]? Would that make it okay for them to end your life for the sake of research? What’s the difference between that scenario and embryonic stem-cell research? The only difference is age. The embryos are zero years old, and they can’t protest or vote.
“But,” you may say, “the embryos are going to be discarded anyway. Why not get some use out of them?” Because people in this country are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And our government is supposed to secure those rights for all its people – including those who are zero years old. Should people in need of organ transplants be allowed to raid orphanages? Incendiary wording, I know, but don’t forget this is an election year so it’s allowed by the Federal Election Commission.
So if the choice is between discarding embryos and using them for research, research wins in a lesser-of-two-evils duel. Extra embryos are one of the bad side effects of IVF. But there is a third choice – one that is not evil. The embryos do not have to be discarded. Why not let them grow into adults? There are plenty of organizations who will handle that for you, if you have embryos that you do not want.
I have heard some election ads that use families with special-needs children, saying that special-needs children could be helped by stem-cell research. Again, it is true that they could be helped by stem-cell research. But does it need to be embryonic stem cell research? Families with special-needs children are more aware that embryonic stem-cell research is wrong, because they realize that embryos are nothing less than special-needs children.
Embryos are children, and they should not be used for research. There are plenty of ways around this issue. If you took all the money and effort that are spent trying to promote embryonic stem cells, and put that toward finding a morally acceptable alternative, research could be advanced and people would be happy.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and not of the internet itself. Not endorsed by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.
Isaiah 1:17
This little article thingy was written by Some Guy sometime around 10:10 pm and has been carefully placed in the Current Events category.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I understand your position. Which is unlike the stuff on the Michigan ballot, which I had no idea what it was saying or trying to say. It may have been for or against using stem cells from embryos. Or it could have raising taxes on embryos. I have no idea.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I have a distinct and raging hatred for the “Vote for a cure” advertisements they’re running on tv right now. There isn’t a cure on the ballot; there’s an obnoxious and overreaching proposal on the ballot. Don’t tell me tear-jerking stories and show me photos of people with crippling diseases; tell me what the proposal actually contains. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t contain tear-jerking stories and photos of people with crippling diseases.
I have to say, though, that I think the opposing ads are sort of ridiculous and, for the most part, pretty poorly thought out. Instead of pointing out all the sordid details of the proposal, they’ve made a lot of big scary ads with big scary claims. There’s probably a lot about the proposal that could be used effectively in advertising — like the fact that it’ll amend the state constitution, and that’s hard to reverse once you do it, so you’d better be absolutely sure you like everything in the proposal — but they’ve gone the big scary route.