Passion of the Christ Star Jim Caviezel Explains Opposition to Embryo Research

LifeSite ^ | November 6, 2006 | Meg Jalsevac

[NYer]

Monday November 6, 2006

Passion of the Christ Star Jim Caviezel Explains Opposition to Embryo Research

His Opposition to Michael J. Fox's Stem-Cell Ads

By Meg Jalsevac

HOLLYWOOD, November 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Actor Jim Caviezel is defending his stance against Michael J. Fox’s campaign ad which was used to promote politicians who support embryonic stem cell research.  Caviezel insists that he is sympathetic to Fox’s condition but wants to ensure that the public is informed of all the facts before they cast their votes.   

Fox’s ad encouraged Missourians to vote ‘Yes’ on Amendment 2 which would allow scientists in the state of Missouri to use human embryos for their research.  Caviezel and several other celebrities appeared in a rebuttal ad clip which encouraged Missourians to vote ‘No’ after explaining the facts surrounding the proposed amendment.

About the ad, Caviezel says, "I really care about people and the public. I believe the public needs to be informed. What they decide to choose is their choice, but I care very much."

Caviezel says he is "absolutely for adult stem-cell research.”  Adult stem-cell research is looked on as an ethical form of stem-cell research because it does not destroy embryonic life in the research process. 

Caviezel says, “I care very much about people who have diseases, especially Parkinson's disease, and I'd be through the moon if they ever came up with a cure for any of those diseases, especially Parkinson's."          

The election in Missouri has focused largely on the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative – also called Amendment 2.  Among other things, the amendment claims that it would ban human cloning and the buying and selling of human eggs.  In fact, the amendment only prohibits implanting a human clone in a woman – not creating a clone for research purposes.  It also allows for “reimbursement” for human eggs including all expenses and “lost wages of the donor”.    

Read Related LifeSiteNews Coverage:

Sad to see Michael J. Fox Suffer But Sadder Still that he's been Deceived on Embryo Research
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110106.html

Neurologist Says Rush Limbaugh Criticism of Fox Technically Inaccurate But Likely Close to Mark
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06103102.html

Michael J. Fox is Right About One Thing: Pro-life Movement Must Oppose IVF
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06103006.html

Actor Jim Caviezel Battles Michael J. Fox on Embryonic Stem Cell Video Ads
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102501.html

[MJemison]

Don't complain when we guys post girlie pics!

No problem. I understand completely. (That pic made my day. !Sigh!).

[Maverick68]

He was awesome in "Count of Monte Christo"

[Jaded]

Please check your facts.

[soccermom]

LOL! I don't think that post was intended for me, but I agree. He was great.

[soccermom]

See my post #19. BTW, I'm an Air Force brat,too.

[murphE]

I believe the Catholic position is, in vitro fertilization is OK, so long as all the embryos are implanted,

This is incorrect. The Catholic position is that in vitro fertilization is a grave moral evil.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Yes, he was...

[Van Jenerette]

SUBJECT: Stem Cell Statements should lead to the REAL Question...

"Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?
			...would this change the argument? or, at this point will the argument really just begin?"
To Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the great celebrities like the late Chistopher Reeves - Michael J. Fox - Mary Tyler Moore - or any pro-stem cell politicians if they really support the use of human embryonic stem cell they should please follow these instructions: #1) Go to a clinic with your 'better half' and create a fertilized child embryo. #2) Use that particular embryo for your own research and your own cure or to help others. OPTION: If you are past the production point ask one of your children or grandchildren to provide(or be) the raw materials for your miracle cure. Regardless of the political decisions, we can be certain of one thing: those who support and yell the loudest for embryonic stem cell research funding will NOT be the people who will provide their embryonic offspring to the research laboratory.

HUMAN LIFE and RIGHTS		We have to respect and Protect All human life
		To each individual their life is sacred. As a people, to begin to pass judgement or sentence on human life by age, quality, position or potential has the effect of placing a price or a measure on what can only be deemed a gift from our creator. However, there is a paradox of life and rights: Our rights as a people for individual-self-government are based upon the uniqueness of human life with rights granted by 'nature's God,' which in turn are protected by our Constitution. One must follow the other, or else the entire argument of human rights becomes based on man's opinion. Either life with rights is given at the same time that life begins or we have no rights beyond which other men or governments are willing to allow us. If we as a people do not respect the sacred notion of human LIFE how can we expect to have respect for RIGHTS that are dependent upon the concept of human LIFE itself? Any society that diminishes the value of one life from another risks its very existence. thoughts on human stem cells... Nearly every discussion about the stem cell question has centered on the question of the sources of stem cells - adult versus embryonic - and the potential each has with regards to medicine - and of course the argument that some embryonic research had ended in disaster during research. To see the truth, I personnally believe that we should look at the stem cell argument from a totally new perspective. I don't think that any of the questions so far are going to the heart of the matter. Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely? Would this change the argument? Or, at this point would the argument really just begin? Does it matter if embryonic stem cells are proven to be the medical equivalent of the elusive 'fountain of youth?' Most civilized nations and people throughout history have been willing to sacrifice themselves so that the next generation will survive. Are we on the verge of becoming a people who are willing to sacrifice the next generation so that our current generation can continue to survive? I don't think that it matters if we are capable of creating or using one life so that we can save another life. Either we respect all human life or we respect no human life. We cannot have it both ways at the same time. The reason we as a people must have moral judgment and values which are clearly defined is that any action we take can and could be 'justified' from some practical standpoint. Our morality forces us to draw a line that we won't cross. It is only our sense of morality that allows us to be called human and it is only that which separates us from the jungle. Once the line is moved from the moral high ground the very concept of morality becomes prosituted and becomes a matter of group or power opinions. For example, if the Titantic were to sink today, using today's standards of morality and ethics - who would get to climb into the lifeboats first and who would be expected to go down with the ship? I'm not sure that today's society or medical community would stand back and save the women and children... Any people who move from the position of protecting human life from its beginning to its end becomes just another part of the immoral mob - no better with any opinion - no worse without one. Just a mob. In the end, the line that we draw on the argument of individual human life will become the line that is drawn to define individual human rights. ...post thoughts part I As for the argument about the eventual destruction of frozen embryos - the 'they are going to die anyway' logic - history is full of examples of this 'foot-in-the-door' argument. For background, read about the post WWII 'ethical' use of medical information that resulted from Nazi experiments on institutionalized and concentration camp men, women, and children. For starters, read about the following 'respected 'members of the WWII medical community including one who was a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation: Dr. Julius Hallervorden a distinguished academician, who occupied the Chair of Neuropathology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut in Berlin-Buch throughout the war years and following the war was a neuropathologist at the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt. The following is a post-war quote from Hallervorden during an interview: "I heard that they were going to do that and so I went up to them and told them, 'Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all those people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized'." He is also is documented to have directed the selection of certain children for extermination and subsequent pathological studies as their brains were suitable for a research project. Dr. Sigmund Rascher a researcher in neurophysiology and originally a Captain in the Luftwaffe Medical Service he wrote of his 'Experiments on Escape from High Altitude' where he had vivisection carried out on his subjects even prior to the heart completely stopping. He also experimented on exposure to hypothermia by the immersion of subjects in ice cold water and took part in a top secret report entitled "Freezing Experiments with Human Beings." Rascher was quite proud of his work with humans. "I am the only one in this whole crowd who really does and knows human physiology because I experiment on humans and not on guinea pigs or mice." Dr. Georg Schaltenbrand a pre-eminent German clinical neuroscientist who had served as a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation who used humans for multiple sclerosis experiments designed to find a cure for the disease. "If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state." - Christopher Hufeland, 18th century German physician

K&V Jenerette... South 'By-God' Carolina - www.jenerette.com

[soccermom]

OK -- but the explanations I've read say it is a grave and moral evil because embryos are destroyed. If the embryos aren't destroyed, how can it still be considered a grave and moral evil?

[Oratam]

"Hurry up and give me what I want, already! Commoditizing human beings and creating markets for human parts!"

[luckymom]

"Caviezel and several other celebrities"

Does anyone know who the "other" celebrities are? It's always nice to know who who is standing up for what's right.

And, btw, I LOVE this (post 28): "Regardless of the political decisions, we can be certain of one thing: those who support and yell the loudest for embryonic stem cell research funding will NOT be the people who will provide their embryonic offspring to the research laboratory."
THANK YOU!

[Jaded]

Patricia Heaton and someone from the St. Louis Cardinals.

I spend last week with a woman from MO. She said that despite the money dumped into supporting prop 2, most people are against it. We shall see.

[murphE]

It is a grave moral evil because conception must be within the marital act. How do you think those sperm become available for in vitro except through another grave moral evil? Embryos being destroyed afterward is just a perfect example of how evil leads to more evil.

[meandog]

Why is JEB Stuart in your neutral American section?

For leaving Lee "blind" on the approach to Gettysburg; and while Stuart was good in other repects I don't believe that successor Joe Wheeler would have done the same to his C.O.

[Juana la Loca]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

[Juana la Loca]

Whew! Thanks for the pic.

I have to say I saw him speak at the Eucharistic Congress in Atlanta a few years ago. He is just as handsome up close.

[fml]

First, the facts are not on your side.

Second, what individuals do is private and many of us do not want tax money used to support others misguided "beliefs".

[Campion]

OK -- but the explanations I've read say it is a grave and moral evil because embryos are destroyed. If the embryos aren't destroyed, how can it still be considered a grave and moral evil?

Children have a right to be conceived as the result of their parents' expression of conjugal love in the marital act. Separating conception from the marital act results in treating kids like manufactured products (don't forget the quality control; no defective units allowed off the assembly line!!), not human beings with intrinsic dignity given them by God.

[meandog]

First of all, Bush didn't "approve" the morning after pill. You fell for the spin. Once the genie was already out of the bottle, there was a debate over whether or not minors should be able to get the drug over the counter and Bush said that they should be required to get a prescription. The press spun that into "Bush says teens should be able to get morning after pill with a prescription!"

The spin is on you...Just like his backtracking on "Stay the Course," Bush certainly DID flip on the 'Morning After Pill' after promising right-to-lifers never to allow ANYTHING that would prevent "life" after conception! Hey, it's no skin off my nose because I'm of the Libertarian position that while women may have the right to choose early in pregnancy there exists a moral absolute line in the sand resulting in a point of no return (somewhere near the 13th month) when "quickening" occurs. But, make no mistake about it, Bush's "life begins at conception" position is certainly eroded by RU287--and much like his old man's "Read my Lips" promise.

[Kaylee Frye]

please, somebody explain to me why he and others see this as infanticide? .... snip ... AND, it is my BELIEF that an embryo is just that--an embryo--until it is implanted and becomes capable of becoming fetal material.

The reason you haven't gotten any more responses is that your belief displays that you are unwilling to understand our beliefs. My belief is that when sperm meets egg, a very special unique person is created. Just because that person cannot survive on their own, does not have eyes and ears yet, etc, does not make them not a person.

I have no problem with IVF, IF all the babies are preserved and get to have a chance at life. However, I do have a problem with embryonic stem cell research.

I hope this explains it well enough.