Emotional Legislation really aggravates me, and today is a prime example. The House passed a bill today (which if it ever passed in the Senate and not Vetoed somehow) would allow Embryonic Stem Cell Research on “lines” created after 2001 --- i.e. would allow for use of recently created embryos in government funded stem cell research. Now there’s some tricky wording in the Bill:
Rep. Mike Castle, who introduced the bill, said it "draws a strict ethical line by only allowing federally funded research on stem cell lines that were derived ethically from donated embryos determined to be in excess."
"Under no circumstances," the Delaware Republican said in a written statement last week, "does this legislation allow for the creation of embryos for research, nor does it fund the destruction of embryos."
I’m very really interested in Rep. Castle’s statement … how is it possible that we’d use these “excess embryos” for stem cell research … without destroying them? Or is all he saying is that the government won’t spend money on that research, but it will not stop the research.
But wait! The research isn’t actually banned, just the use of government funds to do this research, and given the lack of funding most research has gone into Adult Stem Cell Research, which is just as promising, but sadly not much publicized.
Even CNN’s snazzy little graphical ESCR for dummies Flash Animation is upfront about how ESCR kills the embryo ...
Under the bill, couples who have undergone fertility treatments and have embryos they won't use can then make the choice of putting them up for adoption, giving them directly to another couple, storing them, discarding them or donating them to science, co-sponsor Rep. Diana DeGette said during debate Tuesday.
"The only federal funds used under the Castle-DeGette bill are federal funds to then develop those embryonic stem cell lines" donated to science, the Colorado Democrat said. "We're allowing more of those lines."
Hum, well that’s funny seems like there’s a whole heck of a lot of options (all of which can already be done) for these “excess embryos” --- I thought they were never going to be used. What they really meant is that some parents might choose to “donate” them to science, as you would a cadaver, or (as is more then likely this would be an option if no decision was made by the parents of the embryo.)
By tricky wording can one say this legislation doesn’t use federal funding to create any embryos --- but in reality it facilitates this practice. Apparently, since these funds will only be used to “develop embryonic stem cell lines” no funds will be used to fund the destruction of embryos? (Really killing --- just because it has a smaller number of cells does that mean you aren’t killing it?) What exactly does “developing embryonic stem cell lines” mean?
Bush held a news conference Tuesday surrounded by families who had either adopted or given up for adoption embryos remaining after fertility treatments.
"The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value," Bush said. "We should not use public money to support the further destruction of human life."
Tom DeLay had this to say:
"This is one of those issues that have no easy answers," he said. "This is not a debate between science and ideology. ... Nor is it a debate between those who care about human life and those who don't." But, he said, "That's why we were elected, not to make the easy choices, but to make the hard ones."
But many other House members were reduced to the same old game of victims, countering that this research gives hope to millions that suffer from diseases. Given that actual studies are being done right now with adult stem cells that can be harvested from bone marrow, umbilical cords, etc --- and don’t require the purposeful creation of human life, just kill it, to harvest for parts --- shouldn't this research be receiving a much funding as we can provide?
During debate on that measure Tuesday, opponents of the embryonic stem cell legislation pointed out repeatedly that while adult stem cells have been proven to cure and treat patients, embryonic stem cells have not.
Science should not be allowed to do whatever it wants to, or needs to, that’s not how science works. Science is a system to accomplish a goal or experimental result --- however this goal is outside the system of science and should be ruled by morality. The Nazis viewed Jews as lower, less important forms of life and allowed “Science” to do whatever it pleased with those people. We should never allow this to happen to human life no matter the perceived benefit to others.
But, Bush said Friday, "I made very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that. Therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it."
I hope he will, no matter what emotional brainwashing the ESCR advocates have been able to accomplish on the American public, and vast misunderstanding of the issues by the public at large.
Interested what an Embryo looks like? Don’t worry this is graphic --- however keep in mind abortion is legal even into the late term (right before a baby is born) --- but these pictures are from embryos that are 56 days old and younger.