Okay, the veto was days ago and I'm a bit slow on the uptake here. But when you have Parkinson's disease, what the press insists on referring to as a "degenerative," "debilitating," "dreaded" illness, you don't like to be tooting a self-serving horn. And who wants to be a what Frank Rich facetiously described as a "pagan narcissist" hopeful for a cure. But, I just need to ask the following:
How is it that an embryo cannot be used for research because it is human life and yet it can be discarded? How can President Bush say, on the one hand, that embryos are all potential "snowflake babies" if he is, on the other hand, unwilling to prevent their demise? If an embryo is human life, shouldn't we cease current stem cell research? After all, is an older embryo or one in a specific "line" less of a "person" in waiting than a newer or lucky line embryo? Is an already condemned embryo less deserving of being saved? And, if indeed these little clusters of cells are infinitesimally small human beings, then why are people allowed to create them unless they are willing to use ALL of them?
And what's all this tripe about trading one life for another? I don't know anyone with PD, MS, cancer or any disease for that matter who wants to sacrifice a life to prolong his or her own. No thank you. I wouldn't mind a few honest answers, though. If the real reason to block stem cell research is to keep science and medicine from running amuck, then why don't we work on finding a solution to that problem? And I just want to be sure that if the President or someone close to him ever needs stem cells to save his or her life that he's going to refuse. Do you think that's likely? I mean, surely it won't be an issue of who can afford to pay private organizations for treatment. Right? Nah. That's just being cynical. Right?
New website that might help a few people while we wait
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.