Line Blurs Between Death And Ethics



I don't suppose one can expect a lot of honesty in a politically driven cartoon, but since the Roundup recently ran one denigrating President Bush's stance on protecting human embryos (Roundup July 1, 2005) here are a few facts to set the record straight:

1. Neither President Bush nor the Catholic Church is opposed to stem cell research which does not kill human embryos. We were all in the embryonic stage of our development at one time.

2. To date, adult stem cells have cured dozens of diseases, while embryonic stem cells have cured not one -- none, nada, zip. In fact, embryonic stem cells have consistently resulted in aberrations, abnormalities, deformities, tumors and rejection.

3. Even if embryonic stem cells could produce a cure, it is still never ethical to kill one person to benefit another -- no matter how small the person might be. Or, as Horton, Dr. Seuss' character so wisely observed, "A person is a person, no matter how small."

What could possibly be motivating the political ideologues to push for nonproductive research on human embryos when nonembryonic stem cells are the only ones which have proven successful? Could it be all that grant money from the National Institutes of Health, or simply another slide down the slippery slope of the "culture of death"?

Money aside, the arguments usually boil down to not wanting to "waste" all those frozen embryos (the same philosophy which led Nazis to make lampshades out of human skin), or to the denial of the humanity of the embryo. (The same philosophy used to legitimize slavery, genocide and abortion.) If we accept the killing of embryos, the pre-born child, and the disabled (Terry Schiavo), who will be next?

Carol Suhr


Commenting has been disabled for this item.