Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding Worse Than Abortion
Life News ^ | 9/5/06 | Richard Stith

Posted on 09/05/2006 4:28:08 PM PDT by wagglebee

LifeNews.com Note: Richard Stith is a professor of law at Valparaiso University School of Law in Indiana.

Several prominent anti-abortion politicians, including Orrin Hatch and Bill Frist, joined the Senate majority in endorsing the public funding of embryonic stem cell research. To the casual observer it might appear that the arguments against abortion must be stronger than those against publicly funding the destruction of embryos. This conclusion, however, would be mistaken. The funding of destructive embryo research is actually worse than legal abortion.

Some might disagree, arguing that the continuing identity of a developing being means that embryo research cannot be better or worse than abortion. The politicians are wrong to say it is not as bad as abortion, but it is also wrong to say that it is worse. “All stages of life are stages of the same being. Each of us was once a human embryo. Each of us is just a human embryo that has grown up. And we have been alive the whole time we have been growing and developing—that is, since fertilization. If one of us had been killed at any time before we were born, a human life would have been lost. So abortion and lethal research on embryos are equally bad.”;

Others might argue that, if there is any difference, abortion is the worse of the two. For abortion involves not only killing but betrayal. In abortion, parents destroy an unborn child entrusted to them, who depends on them, a child whom they have a moral duty to nurture. By contrast, the scientist who dissects an embryo is not harming his own offspring. He wrongs life, but not necessarily the family. So how can one possibly contend that embryo research is worse?

Dehumanization

Let us take a closer look. Someone choosing abortion need not be completely set against life. She typically does not want abortion with all of her heart. Rather, she is filled with desperation and panic. She often has been, or fears she may be, abandoned or harmed by one or more persons whom she herself has trusted. Even if her fears are not so great that moral culpability is absent, she is not fully an enemy of her unborn child. She may profoundly regret what she feels compelled to do. If only the circumstances were better, if only she had enough support, she would let her child live.

The abortion provider, of course, is not under such duress. He is not pressured by circumstances to perform abortions. And yet, in a sense, he too is only contingently against new life. He performs abortions only because his clients ask him to do them. By contrast, for the sake of future cures, the scientist seeking funding for embryonic stem cell research wants to destroy life—and convince the public to pay for it. His lethal aim is not even contingent in the sense that “if only there were another possible route to cures,” no embryo killing would occur. There is, in fact, a shorter route, via adult stem cells. Would-be embryo researchers demand to be carried by the public down the longer and more uncertain path.

Moreover, almost all abortions aim to preclude an “unwanted child.” Of course, this is profoundly contrary to the care owed by parents, as has been mentioned. But abortion paradoxically reaffirms the very parent-child bond that it betrays. The fetus is unwanted precisely as a child who must eventually be cared for by her parents. They fear and reject her because she is their own offspring. Because she is their child, they feel a duty to care for her if she lives. Therefore, so that they may escape this duty, she must die. Both a parental relationship and a parental obligation are acknowledged by the act of abortion. Therein lies its tragedy.

Embryonic stem cell research, by contrast, is wholly dehumanizing. When parents turn the living human embryos they have begotten over to science, they not only forget them as children but also turn them into commodities, donate them for eventual body parts. The embryos become wholly instrumental, they become resources to be calculated and consumed. They are degraded before they are destroyed. Like human embryos created by cloning, they do not die as unwanted children, or even as human beings, but as things to be used and used up. No greater negation of human dignity is possible.

The End of Choice

Lastly, tax-funded embryonic stem cell research is worse than legal abortion for our public community. 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.”

Even where abortion is publicly funded, the government does not insist on death. No officials are angry if funds previously allocated to subsidize abortion are left unused because women have freely chosen life. The abortion-related equivalent of embryonic stem cell funding would involve using taxes to pay women to abort their children, as part of scientific experiments aimed at distant and uncertain cures.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; embryonicstemcells; moralabsolutes; prolife; stemcellresearch
He makes a lot of valid points.
1 posted on 09/05/2006 4:28:09 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback; 8mmMauser

Pro-Life Ping


2 posted on 09/05/2006 4:28:47 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; BIRDS; Bellflower; BlackElk; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 09/05/2006 4:29:11 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
He makes a lot of valid points

Only if you agree with him.

4 posted on 09/05/2006 4:32:26 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
It is not the purpose of human life to become an experiment in a laboratory which results in your dismemberment and death. Period. This isn't exactly rocket science or that hard to figure out. This is basic common sense, decency, and moral values. The integrity of human life must be protected. To fail to do so is to descend into technological barbarism and the as yet unknown horrors of science fiction.

The problem is with the evolution of modern liberal secular humanist social engineering into this Frankenstein weirdness. It has to do with the way that people think about science and transferring to scientists and MDs an authority over human life they do not deserve and do not have the competence or moral integrity to preside over.

At the moment at least, modern liberal society is unable to generate a political and moral consensus to protect and defend the integrity of human life. That's a BIG PROBLEM . It's a moral and a political problem. And people need to rethink the stalement of moral relativism which threatens to send us into technological barbarism.

Obviously, when scientists create embryos in labs for stem cell research someone is claiming to own those embryos. There is no sound basis in law for the idea that someone can own another human being, claiming the authority to decide whether that human being should live or not. It's utterly preposterous and disgusting. Those supporting this abomination should be ashamed of themselves.

5 posted on 09/05/2006 4:42:06 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
The problem is with the evolution of modern liberal secular humanist social engineering into this Frankenstein weirdness.

They're just picking up where Hitler and Mengele left off.

6 posted on 09/05/2006 4:50:58 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
True. But the sophistry employed to wiggle around that issue can be a little amazing at times.

If you asked any sensible person "should we make human embryos in a lab and conduct experiments which destroy them?" they ought to be able to answer with a quick and firm "No!"

7 posted on 09/05/2006 4:54:40 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

So, no more reproductive science. Infertile couples: God hath spoken.

(Good Luck)


8 posted on 09/05/2006 4:56:05 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Evil is evil.
What is to be gained by pondering upon which evil is greater?
9 posted on 09/05/2006 4:59:06 PM PDT by labette (The land of the Free and the home of the Brave just a little while longer please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
So, no more reproductive science. Infertile couples: God hath spoken.

The science criticized in the article is hardly "reproductive" in nature. But, then, you knew that. You just wanted to get in a little dig at God.

10 posted on 09/05/2006 4:59:41 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
The science criticized in the article is hardly "reproductive" in nature. But, then, you knew that. You just wanted to get in a little dig at God.

Nope -- just at those who wish to speak for Him.

11 posted on 09/05/2006 5:00:44 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
The science criticized in the article is hardly "reproductive" in nature.

Do you REALLY want to argue this out to its natural conclusion? You won't like the result.

12 posted on 09/05/2006 5:01:44 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Pro Darwin threads a little slow lately?


13 posted on 09/05/2006 5:03:08 PM PDT by labette (The land of the Free and the home of the Brave just a little while longer please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: labette
Pro Darwin threads a little slow lately?

They lack OOmph. These are a little more lively. And these seem to reproduce rather than evolve.

14 posted on 09/05/2006 5:14:21 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (the war on poverty should include health club memberships for the morbidly poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: labette

LMAO!


15 posted on 09/05/2006 5:15:51 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
So, What's yer beef?
I'm not a bad listener. {but a little hard-of-hearing}
16 posted on 09/05/2006 5:20:32 PM PDT by labette (The land of the Free and the home of the Brave just a little while longer please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until natural death. In defending the right to life, in law and through a vibrant culture of life, America can show a world the path to a truly humane future in which man remains the master, not the product of his technology.

REMARKS BY JOHN PAUL II to PRESIDENT BUSH
July 23, 2001

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

17 posted on 09/05/2006 10:35:47 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If they pro-aborts want it, they'll get it. They seem to get everything else they want


18 posted on 09/06/2006 12:44:42 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pinged from Terri SEPTEMBER Dailies

8mm

19 posted on 09/06/2006 4:08:00 AM PDT by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam Tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"So, no more reproductive science."

This is not a valid inference. A valid inference would be:

"No more abusing human embryos as if they were manipulable and disposable property. Scientists, devote yourselves to finding healing, curative, or repair technologies which will actually restore the couple's power to conceive children via sexual intercourse."

20 posted on 09/06/2006 9:46:21 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Make love. Accept no substitutes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I've been reading Richard Stith's writing for at least 25 years. He has a rare combination of superb intelligence and a reliable and accurate moral compass. And a good heart, too.


21 posted on 09/06/2006 9:51:48 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Like it? I ~LOVE~ it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
You just wanted to get in a little dig at God.
"Nope -- just at those who wish to speak for Him."

I read this article a second time, carefully. Stith does not allude to God. He does make important reference to science, law, and human rights. If you have problem with hat, you should focus your criticism more accurately.

Go ahead. We'll all listen.

22 posted on 09/06/2006 9:56:18 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Sorry: Tag-line presently at the dry cleaners. Please find suitable bumper-sticker instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

THE CODE FOR HUMAN LIFE we were once a fertilized egg, a blast, once an embryo, once a fetus, human, with our very own Human DNA since conception.  We were once microscopic-Americans. Once we have our own human genetic code, we are metabolizing as a single-cell entity, we are a living human being, therefore; we are a human be-ing that is biologically and scientifically testable.   At that moment we have that inalienable right to: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and property.   

The right to life is considered the most fundamental inalienable right there is.  Therefore, no one can determine when that right begins and no one can give that to you.  You have it when you become a human at conception.  When you get your full human genetic code.  Unmistakable to be matched to any other species, you’re human. 

Because of the intrinsic dignity of each and every person, each individual has certain rights and obligations, which every other individual would have to respect.   This is what’s required in order to live as a human, as the Lord Himself wanted it to be lived. (CCC-1934) Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.  

Inalienable rights belong to us by our very nature and existence; we are human and have that intrinsic dignity of a human being; we automatically have these intrinsic rights. No human being gave us these rights; they came from God.   So, we humans all owe each other certain inalienable rights which belong to us by our very nature and existence, by the fact that we are human and that we exist.  By the fact that we have the intrinsic dignity of a human being and that we exist, we automatically have these rights because of that intrinsic dignity, period. 

Vatican reasserts stem cell stance (Researchers using human embryos face excommunication )
Vatican leans on embryonic stem cell work

Vatican vows to expel stem cell scientists from Church

Vatican vows to expel stem cell scientists from Church

Vatican rejects 'ethical' stem cell breakthrough

Ex-Vatican ambassador slams Schwarzenegger's stem cell stance

Vatican: Stem-cell Research 'gravely immoral'

Catholic bishops take campaign against stem cell research to the pulpit

Pennsylvania bishops issue document on stem-cell research

In embryonic stem cell research, end does not justify the means By Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M.

European Bishops Criticize Minister Mussi On Stem Cells
St. Louis Archbishop Orders Priests to Preach on Embryo Research

Polish Bishops on Funding Human Embryo Research

Abortion, Embryo Research and Divorce Need to Be Fought by All Christians Says Archbishop

Catholic Bishops Criticize Bush Policy on Embryo Research.


23 posted on 09/06/2006 10:38:04 AM PDT by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic "adult")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


24 posted on 09/06/2006 10:38:54 AM PDT by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic "adult")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson