What Are These – How Do You Say –Morals?
Posted by PintofStout on July 19, 2006
Today, just weeks after learning to tie his shoes and memorizing his address and phone number, George W. Bush has picked up a pen and tried to tackle writing his name. This could be considered progress, except he’s following a curriculum only a ridiculously bloated Federal Department of Education could write. Instead of practicing penmanship on gigantic federal budgets or liberty-destroying police-state legislation, he chose to try and out-do himself in irony and vetoed the stem cell funding bill, citing “clear moral objections.”
The idea that the moral implications of destroying embryos are clear is a fantasy. If 100 people were asked about the moral implications of embryonic stem cells, there would likely be 110 different answers. This is because the question of what constitutes a living human is rather subjective up until birth. This renders G.W.’s solid moral grounds quite shaky.
It isn’t Bush’s certainty that takes away from his argument, though. It is his wonton sacrifice of human life by the Tens of Thousands in his perpetual wars that really diminishes his “life is sacred argument.” There can be no doubt as to the status of the humans he sacrifices for…what exactly? And while the status of human embryos isn’t at all clear, the sacrifice would, hopefully, prove worth it. Some of these precious embryos – the one’s proposed to be used – will end up being tossed away to nobody’s benefit.
There is more to the discussion than hyperbole and scare speech. While the bill vetoed, I’m pretty sure, was just for federal funding for such research, private funding and the research itself remains legal (I think, but who knows these days. This blog is likely illegal in some sense beyond bad taste). Also, the bill making embryo “farms” illegal gives the impression of a total disregard for the issues of human life regarding embryos. The idea of embryo “farms” is a creation of the politicos designed to scare the public. They may as well say that the researchers are baby-killing terrorists whose laboratories are made of gingerbread. The other exaggeration belongs to the other side of the argument. The idea that embryonic stem cells are the cold fusion of medicine is as up in the air as the life status of the embryos themselves. Yet, the rhetoric of the advocates inflates far-off hope for near certainty.
So while the moral questions of embryonic stem cell research is far from certain, I think we should agree that the immorality of war is certain. The striking difference between the attitudes of President Bush toward each issue makes me ill, and I don’t think any amount of stem cell research will find a cure for me.