SEPARATING A BABY'S FLESH AND SOUL by Cathie Adams, President of Texas Eagle Forum
President Bush’s decision to fund embryonic stem cell research, but to disallow further killing of human embryonic babies has confused most Americans, especially those who consider themselves pro-life. In order to unravel the complicated issue, it is necessary to look deeper than the one-dimensional media spin because the impact of this decision on our nation will be great. When life begins must be considered, as well as the conflicting views of the role of government, existing laws concerning stem cell research and whether the donation of embryonic stem cells is equivalent to organ donation.
President Bush placed the gauntlet in the debate when he quoted the ethicist who told him “that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives,” they are “the seeds of the next generation.” That premise should affect all judgments about stem cell research because the embryo is in fact a human baby.
The president also made it clear that embryonic babies were killed in order to ascertain the 60 lines of stem cells. Separating the stem cells from the human embryos was indeed like separating the flesh from the soul of the babies causing their death. While he decided rightly against federal funding for additional killing, he created confusion by deciding to make use of the research that killed the babies. He furthermore dedicated new federal funding which calls into question the effectiveness of the ban. While he plans to name a President’s council to monitor stem cell research, it will be impossible to police every petri dish in every laboratory. And if the next president elected by the people thinks differently, the lines will be further skewed. At that time it will be too late for Americans to change their minds about what they originally thought was limited research.
Some Americans find it unconscionable that they should fund further research based on the now infamous 60 lines of research obtained from dead babies already secured by private industry. And international law supports their position. The Nuremberg trials after the Nazi holocaust established a code that disallows the use of such research. Instead of spending taxpayer money to build upon the ill-gained research, the Nuremberg code has already decided that it should be buried with its victims.
At the very least, Congress should intervene by passing a new law that parallels the Nuremberg code so that no private or public entity could use research obtained from killing human embryonic babies. In 1995, Congress passed a law that prohibited federal funding for “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to the risk of injury or death,” but they stopped short of banning privately funded destruction of human embryos. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card recently suggested, “I suspect if Congress were to pass a ban, he [the president] would sign it.” Adding, “Understand though, we Republicans are generally not in favor of more regulation.” Americans should influence Congress to pass such a law because without legislation, the new stream of taxpayer funding and Machiavellian research in foreign laboratories will obliterate adherence to any sort of moral standard.
Another aspect of the debate that has confused many is whether donating human embryonic babies’ stem cells is ethically the same as organ donation. Indeed it is not. Plainly stated, the difference is like the bacon and eggs breakfast commitment of the chicken and the pig. The chicken needs to only lay the egg, but the pig must give his life to produce the bacon. Scientific “research” on human embryos destroys a baby’s life.
America was founded upon public and private virtues as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence including the right to life, but that once clear focus has been blurred. Either we will disallow the use of taxpayer dollars and/or private funds for research that is opposed by the consciences of many Americans, as well as the 50-year-old Nuremberg Code, or we will set them aside for what President Bush called “a greater good.”
If we choose the latter in the name of scientific research, we will be following after Adam and Eve who sinned because they also wanted to be “like God.” Unless America chooses life then the only question remaining would be WHEN, not IF, God would judge us.
A MORALLY RELATIVE DECISION ON A MORALLY ABSOLUTE ISSUE Bush's Decision on Embryo Stem Cell Research Morally Flawed
by Bo Armstrong, President of Austin Eagle Forum
President Bush made the right decision by disallowing federal funds to be used on research conducted on embryonic stem cells developed in the future. This decision essentially discourages the practice of farming human embryonic stem cells, killing millions of innocent humans, and encourages responsible, life-embracing research. He has taken a moral stance, declaring that "even the most noble ends do not justify any means."
But then why has he allowed research to continue on 60 existing stem-cell lines? The ends, searching for a cure to hundreds of diseases, are quite noble, but the means, 60 lines of embryonic stem cells, represent individual lives sacrificed at the alter of self-serving science. This is not a strong moral stance ... it's compromising morality. The president has, instead, taken a strong stance for relative morality, essentially saying that "even the most noble ends do not justify any means" ... unless those means have already occurred.
Morally speaking, this is no different than if the president were strolling through the park and found a wallet full of money. Noticing the wallet, the president should check for identification and then return the wallet to its rightful owner. Instead, he pockets the wallet, intending to give the new-found money to charity. Giving the money to charity represents a noble end, but does not justify or excuse the means. The wallet was not a gift. The owner of the wallet did not choose to give the wallet to the president. The president has no moral right to do anything with the wallet, except return it to its rightful owner.
You see, the president took a relatively moral stand by pocketing the wallet. He didn't steal it. He didn't do anything wrong to get it. He just found it. Although he didn't do anything wrong to obtain the wallet, he actually doesn't do anything right once he receives it. To be ABSOLUTELY moral in his decision, he should return the wallet (and the money) to its rightful owner.
This is exactly the case with the president's decision on allowing our tax dollars to be spent on the 60 existing lines of stem cells. His administration didn't do anything wrong to get the stem cells ... they were already there. Instead of making the
absolute moral decision, he's pocketing the cells for a noble charity, scientific medical research.
The president should live up to his own words. "Even the most noble ends do not justify any means." Even if embryonic stem cell research could cure every known disease in the world, those cells SHOULD NOT be used without the absolute and specific permission of the human to which the cells belong. Since obtaining this sort of permission is impossible from embryos, the use of embryonic stem cells is NEVER morally acceptable.
To believe otherwise is to believe that the most noble ends justify ANY means, a belief which threatens every core tenant of faith and
principle we hold so very dear.
CLINTON’S CULTURE OF DEATH CONTINUES Bush Approves Tax Dollars For Embryo-Killing Research
WASHINGTON, D.C. - “President Bush made the wrong decision morally, scientifically, legally, and politically by approving federal funds for embryonic stem cell research,” Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly said Friday morning.
“President Bush's announcement contradicts his past statements calling for the rebuilding of a culture of life. He has embraced the cause of science in a way that disrespects life in its earliest stages. Embryonic stem cell research in the name of the 'greatest public good' is wrong. It is unworthy of this great nation. Human beings at the earliest stage of development deserve respect and protection by virtue of their humanity.
“Did he have an alternative? Yes. President Bush could have chosen only to support ethical stem cell research, which has proven more successful scientifically. Over 11,000 babies are born every day in the United States. Parents can now choose to preserve their child's umbilical cord, which is rich in stem cells. If every parent made this decision, every human being would then have a supply of stem cells available to treat future ailments or disease.
“While embryonic stem cells have yet to provide a single benefit to a human patient, stem cells from adult tissues, umbilical cords, and placentas have successfully treated tumors, cancer, and other diseases. Taxpayers will now be forced to pay for unethical, immoral, and unnecessary embryonic stem cell research.
“In 1995, Congress outlawed federal funding for 'research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to the risk of injury or death.' The law is quite clear. Yet, President Bush embraced the Clintonian interpretation that if private funds were used to kill the embryos then federal funds can be used to conduct research on their remains.
“Twice in the last year, President Bush clearly stated opposition to federally funded research that kills living human embryos. President Bush broke his word to the American people. He made the right decision then but now has caved under pressure. Congress should immediately reinforce the 1995 law to ensure that all embryos will be protected from facing a death sentence in the name of experimental research, regardless of who pays for it,” Schlafly concluded.
