Whether it’s delivered with flashlight
pointed skyward below the chin as all are gathered around an open fire, or, as
Halloween fades, it comes in the form of the latest horror movie or Charlie
Brown TV special, most everyone enjoys a scary story.
For the most part, people like these
stories because it enlivens their imagination and thrills their spirit. People also enjoy these stories because
they know--no matter how realistic they may appear--they are fantasy,
make-believe. In movie making they
call it “willing suspension of disbelief.”
I am no different, but there is a story
that deeply frightens me because it is true story. This is a scenario worthy of Dr. Frankenstein himself; one
that not only defies the mores of science and medicine, but one that evokes
nightmarish memories of a brutality and disregard for humanity that forever
changed our world.
and what makes it worse is it is not a
situation where some random, lone, mad-scientist is masterminding a diabolical
threat to humanity or the work of a delusional dictator bent on world
domination.
No, sadly, this is an effort that enjoys
the support--to one degree or another--of the President of the United States,
the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, and many of our country’s
leading policy and opinion makers.
I am talking about embryonic stem cell
research (ESCR). Before I can go any further, it is important to define the
terms and set the parameters of this discussion.
Now I’m not a doctor, but you don’t need
to be to understand the difference between success and failure, and between
right and wrong. Then again, I’m
not an astronaut, but I know that the world is round and spins on an axis. and
I also know that I do not need to understand the finer differences between an
ovum and a zygote, or between pluripotent and totipotent cells to know that
embryonic stem cell research is wrong.
The term “stem cell research” does not
accurately define or differentiate what we are about to discuss. If you listen to many in the mainstream
media and the political partisans who favor ESCR there is just stem cell
research, and you either support it all or you support none of it.
This is the first important fact to
understand: there are many sources for stem cell research. Some are morally licit and have proven
successful; others are wholly immoral and have not yielded a single positive
result or treatment.
Stem cell research can be broken down into
two categories: embryonic and non-embryonic, often referred to as adult stem
cell research.
as of the writing of this column,
scientists have not developed a single successful treatment involving embryonic
stem cell research--that’s zero, zilch, nada, none, for those keeping count.
Conversely, research involving
non-embryonic stem cells has been used to develop over 65 successful medical
protocols that have healed hundreds upon hundreds of people. The sources for non-embryonic stem
cells include bone marrow, fat cells, umbilical cord blood, adult blood, olfactory
nerve endings and skin cells.
To perform ESCR, stem cells are removed
from a living human embryo and that process takes the life of this child. None of the protocols using
non-embryonic stem cells harms a single human being and has yielded amazing success.
Despite these compelling facts, George W.
Bush opened Pandora’s Box by becoming the first president to grant federal
funding of ESCR in 2001. Four short years later, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)--a
medical doctor who should know better--is publicly backing a bill that would
expand the current funding level and allotment of embryonic stem cell lines
that can be used.
Proponents of ESCR will speak of the
untapped potential, the need for more money and research, and tell us that we
just don’t understand the science well enough to know that we should support
it.
But these arguments are nothing more than
distractions from the real facts that need to be understood in this
debate. One only needs to consult
your average public school biology book or human embryology college text to
weigh this decision properly. according to these books, life begins at the
moment of conception--when the sperm fertilizes the egg you have a complete,
separate human life with its own individual DNa.
The rest then becomes elementary. If it is a human being, then we have no
more right to take the life of that innocent human being than we would that of
the average stranger we pass on the street. It doesn’t matter if this so-called scientific research
could cure every disease known to man; obtaining knowledge through these means
is inherently wrong and intrinsically evil. If this is now acceptable, then what’s next?
Have we become so shortsighted and
self-absorbed as a country that we have forgotten the lessons we learned from
Nuremberg? as a society, have we
become so selfish that we would say yes if scientists told us they could really
cure it all, but first they need to perform deadly experiments on every
resident of every convalescent home in the country? at the end of the day, there is no difference between this
scenario and what goes on in ESCR. Might, convenience and demand do not make
the research right.
Once you understand this, it leads then to
the inevitable question: How can a president, a majority leader, a party and a
movement who claim to be pro-life support research that requires the taking of
innocent life? The objective
answer is you cannot.
a wise man once said that principle is doing what is right when no one is looking. In this case, the eyes of the world are upon us and now we must do what is right for our nation, for our posterity and for the good of our own consciences. Call your family, your friends and your pastor and make sure they know why embryonic stem cell research is wrong. and then call your congressmen, your senators and the White House and tell them you do not want another one of your tax dollars spent on the Frankensteinian science of embryonic stem cell research.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement