Why the Left would rather kill babies than find cures
I've read a few good articles recently on stem cell research. The liberals portray pro-life people as heartless monsters who want to keep scientists from finding cures for diseases. But the liberals insist on funding embryonic stem cell research, which requires killing a human life, rather than research with stem cells from other sources.
Dr. Mark A. O'Rourke answers common questions on the embryonic stem cell debate in a guest column in The State (Columbia, SC).
Writing in the Weekly Standard, Michael Fumento points out that the track record and potential of non-embryonic stem cells from many sources including amniotic fluid is much better than the cells taken from murdered embryos. He documents the cover-up of the facts by the New York Times and other liberal media outlets. He closes with this rhetorical question: "Is it truly moral to take away funds from a technology that's been saving lives for half a century [non-embryonic stem cells] in favor of another technology that promises nothing but 'promise'?"
Good question. Why can't the Left be happy about the progress being made and give up their fetish with killing human lives? Finding cures and saving lives must not be their goal.
Robert P. George has an answer: "I fear that the long-term goal is indeed to create an industry in harvesting late embryonic and fetal body parts for use in regenerative medicine and organ transplantation." This is not mere speculation. He tells about people in the field who are talking about exactly that. More alarming, he writes: "New Jersey has passed a bill that specifically authorizes and encourages human cloning for, among other purposes, the harvesting of 'cadaveric fetal tissue.'"
While embryonic stem cell research is doubtless part of an attempt to condition Americans to accept growing babies for spare parts, I think most its support is much simpler. Embryonic stem cell research finally gives the Left a justification for abortion. It is their desperate attempt to seize a fistful of sod on the moral high ground.
The Left is losing the battle for public opinion on abortion, so they now hide behind disabled people. Abortion must continue or there is no hope of a cure. Now we can kill babies and feel good about ourselves. We are helping someone. It sounds better than the truth: Without abortion they couldn't afford the child support payments to continue sleeping around.
Wesley Wilson
Dr. Mark A. O'Rourke answers common questions on the embryonic stem cell debate in a guest column in The State (Columbia, SC).
Writing in the Weekly Standard, Michael Fumento points out that the track record and potential of non-embryonic stem cells from many sources including amniotic fluid is much better than the cells taken from murdered embryos. He documents the cover-up of the facts by the New York Times and other liberal media outlets. He closes with this rhetorical question: "Is it truly moral to take away funds from a technology that's been saving lives for half a century [non-embryonic stem cells] in favor of another technology that promises nothing but 'promise'?"
Good question. Why can't the Left be happy about the progress being made and give up their fetish with killing human lives? Finding cures and saving lives must not be their goal.
Robert P. George has an answer: "I fear that the long-term goal is indeed to create an industry in harvesting late embryonic and fetal body parts for use in regenerative medicine and organ transplantation." This is not mere speculation. He tells about people in the field who are talking about exactly that. More alarming, he writes: "New Jersey has passed a bill that specifically authorizes and encourages human cloning for, among other purposes, the harvesting of 'cadaveric fetal tissue.'"
While embryonic stem cell research is doubtless part of an attempt to condition Americans to accept growing babies for spare parts, I think most its support is much simpler. Embryonic stem cell research finally gives the Left a justification for abortion. It is their desperate attempt to seize a fistful of sod on the moral high ground.
The Left is losing the battle for public opinion on abortion, so they now hide behind disabled people. Abortion must continue or there is no hope of a cure. Now we can kill babies and feel good about ourselves. We are helping someone. It sounds better than the truth: Without abortion they couldn't afford the child support payments to continue sleeping around.
Wesley Wilson
Labels: morals, stem cells, Wesley Wilson
posted by Wesley Wilson at
10:02 PM
5 Comments:
Bingo.
"murdered embryos."
Murder is only unlawful killing. Even if you consider embryos as viable human life, it does not fall under the definition of murder.
"Why can't the Left be happy about the progress being made and give up their fetish with killing human lives? Finding cures and saving lives must not be their goal."
We have no fetish with killing human lives; we don't believe embryos are classified as viable human life. We want cures to be found and consider it a waste to throw away all of those embryos produced and discarded at fertility clinics.
Murder is unjust killing of a human.
The Holocaust was legal under the laws of the (Nazi) government in charge of Germany & Poland at the time. But it was still murder.
Same with abortion.
I appreciate your desire to redefine murder, however the definition still stands:
From Mirriam-Webster, murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
From American Heritage, murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Your definition is not lexical (at least not from a source I can find).
According to your definition: Hitler killing Jews wasn't murder; White sheriffs lynching black people on false charges wasn't murder; Women being killed as witches wasn't murder. It was all legal. So that makes it right?
Under the legal definition of murder, of course, murder is unlawful killing. But you ignore the broader definitions even from the sources you cite. American Heritage verb form #2: "To kill brutally or inhumanly." Merriam-Webster verb form 2: "to slaughter wantonly." Dictionary.com #5: "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."
Legally speaking, murder in one country is not murder in another country. But there is a higher law proceeding from the One who said, "Thou shalt do no murder."
In the sense that the holocaust was murder, abortion is murder. On second thought you have a point. When you look at the abortion rate among African-Americans being over three times that of whites, maybe abortion is closer to genocide than murder. But genocide is still a form of murder.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home