Which is Worse?
A propos of today’s discussion on McCain’s pro-life record, here is an article by Richard Stith arguing that embryonic stem cell research funding is actually worse than abortion:
Legalizing abortion is not quite the same as desiring abortion. It is logically possible, even if unjust, for a legislature to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice, just as people could once be anti-apartheid and yet defer to the sovereignty of South Africa.
By contrast, no one in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research can say “I’m not for killing embryos. I’m just pro-choice.” Such legislators want human embryos to be dissected. Stems cells must be extracted. In states like California and New Jersey, where embryonic stem cell extraction is funded by the public, the law can no longer be labeled even euphemistically “pro-choice.”
Comments are closed.
I really don’t see the distinction. By legalizing abortion the State provides the protection of law to abortion clinics and abortionists and places unborn children, in the instance of abortion, beyond the pale of legal protection. Therefore all the force of the State is mustered to ensure that abortions may happen and not a finger is lifted by the State to protect the victims of abortion. In other words legalization involves positive action and not merely guilty bystanding. This leaves aside such other issues as parental notification, funding of abortions, etc. Simply by not outlawing embryonic fetal stem cell research, the State is already deeply implicated in it, just as it is when abortion is legal. Battles against funding stem cell research, just as battles against public funding of abortion, are important, but the key involvement of the State exists in both cases simply by legalization.
Donald, I agree.
When parents turn the living human embryos they have begotten over to science,..
Notice how the essential immoral act is passed over in silence by the author of this article. What, exactly, are the parents SUPPOSED to do with the zygotes they have produced in a petri dish in their egoistic, vaingloriious attempt to reproduce, even though one or both are sterile? Why does the Church not preach against artificial insemination as being the immoral act which is the pre-condition for embryonic stem-cell research? When was the last time you heard the Catholic Church demand the right to funeralize or take possession of every single zygote produced by a sterile Catholic couple? When have you heard a Catholic priest sermonize that it is more moral to ADOPT than to seek artificially to overcome sterility, and, in the process, produce, roughly, two-score of the zygotes that are then turned into embryos? Does the Church believe that there could be ANY substantial number of artificial embryos without all of this artificial insemination and reproduction in petri dishes?
My contention is that the hyprocritical Catholic hierarch find it more politically convenient to batter the straw men of government officials and legislators than to talk about rich, upper middle class usually white women (the petri dish shenanigans cost a small fortune at every throw) and their profiteering, sometimes Catholic doctors, who are, both of them, throwing fat checks into collection baskets. I’m sick of it–sick of a type of sermonizing that amounts to little more than politicizing and polarizing.
Speaking of abortion, I am so often frustrated by my Christian friends (I am a Christian myself) who use a candidate’s opinions on abortion to decide who they’ll vote for. Since an election is approaching us this seems to come up a lot lately.
Before reading the rest of what I’m about to write it should be noted that I am a Republican and have been registered as such since age 18.
It should also be noted that it is MY opinion that abortion is horrible.
That being said:
I really think the abortion issue is a political hot button for Republicans, and nothing more. Not one of the Republicans who have been in office since Roe v. Wade have seen it overturned, and there have been DECADES of Republican “rule” in which to accomplish such. Not one of them will change it in the future either. It is used as a political tool during elections, and then forgotten about it until it is time to run for office again.
A Republican was in office when abortion was made legal. He was powerless to do anything about it. The same can be said for any future Republican candidate: they’ll also be powerless to change the legality of abortion.
Ah! But what about the SUPREME COURT, you might ask?
We can talk about possible nominees to the Supreme Court until we’re blue in the face, but the reality of life is that yet another conservative nominee will not change a thing!
Here is what I mean:
Of the 9 Justices currently serving,
1 was appointed by President Ford,
2 were appointed by President Reagan,
2 were appointed by President Clinton,
2 were appointed by George Bush Senior,
2 were appointed by George Bush Junior.
So with 7 out of 9 Justices appointed by Republicans I ask, has abortion gone away?
No.
Will it?
Highly unlikely (see above).
When deciding which candidate I’ll vote for, the abortion issue is not part of my consideration simply because I know that no matter what a candidate’s opinions on the topic, pro or con, they will not change anything in this matter.