Today on Blogcritics
Home » Stem cell contradiction plays politics with human lives

Stem cell contradiction plays politics with human lives

In 2001 President Bush limited the use of stem cells for the purpose of research for cures for many diseases affecting Americans, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes, among others. The Senate recently passed a bill overriding this limitation. The House has yet to vote on this, and Sen. Rick Santorum, who said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist may lose support from the Republican base, probably does not know what pro-life means.

Being pro-life means you are in support of saving lives. According to this Yahoo! News article, embryonic stem cells that would be used for stem-cell research would otherwise be thrown away. That would cause nearly 400,000 embryos to be destroyed, because the current plan calls for them to be thrown in the garbage.

I am a Republican, but many Republicans, including Sen. Santorum and President Bush, are wrong on this issue, because over 400,000 embryos will be killed, or destroyed, and no positive use whatsoever will come from them at all, unless they are used for stem-cell research.

Is abortion actually murder? It is to some, but while those same people preach that it is, they also preach that destroying embryos is murder. If it is, then I wonder why the same people favor embryonic stem-cells being destroyed for the sake of stopping stem-cell research. Pat Robertson, I give quite a bit to your organization each year, so please explain this to me. Explain to me why destroying embryonic stem cells is better than using them to save human life.

Unfortunately in our nation, from time to time, people become so deeply involved and immersed in their political ideology that they fail to see the benefits of using science for saving human lives, and instead prefer to destroy it in the embryonic stem-cell stage, for the sake of political victory.

There is, after all, nothing else for the naysayers of stem-cell research to gain than votes, or secured support from a voting block that contradicts one position with another. For the proponents, it means a longer and healthier life, perhaps not for us, but for those we’ve met throughout our lives who could also benefit from the cures created by stem-cell research.

President Bush, you will have a very big decision to make when this bill hits your desk. You can choose to veto human lives, approving throwing away 400,000 embryonic stem cells that could create or save human lives, or you can allow for research to occur that will enable future cures to be conceived that will both prolong and save human lives by the means of stem-cell research.

-John Mudd

About Mr. Real Estate

  • Phillip Winn

    This is an interesting look at a complicated issue. Thanks for demonstrating that there is not a single unified view, even among otherwise like-minded folks.

  • Faye

    You are right, thank you!
    All we need to ask Bush is: “Is it better to throw out embryonic stem cells or leave them indefinitely frozen, rather than using them to save lives?”
    The stem cells used for research are cells that would be discarded anyway.

    Check out for more info.

  • random_finder

    wow. So, you seriously don’t see the massive logic gap in that assumption? You all actually fully suport what has been said here? That’s…I mean wow. This hurts my head.

  • The Searcher

    These are the same people who would have you believe the earth was created 5,000 years ago and that Noah somehow managed to get two of every living creature, from microscopic organisms to sperm whales, onto the Ark.

    And yet, you expect these same people to have consistent, rational, defensible beliefs? You expect too much, methinks.

    Idealogues are less interested in saving lives than they are in simply following rules for the purpose of being rewarded with eternal life. The main problem that conservative Christians have with abortion is that they have, as yet, been able to come up with a reason why fetuses might deserve to die, what with them being exempt from the theological construct of original sin.

    If genetic or biological indicators are ever discovered for homosexuality — and this is indeed likely — one might expect to see a shift in some ultra-right-wingers from the flat negation of “abortion is murder” to something a bit more subtle like: “abortion is justified if it prevents another homosexual from being born.”

    After all, murder and torture, like truth and beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.

  • M. Carey

    Of course abortion is justified! I would already have 23 kids without it and no porn career at all!!!

  • Pro stem cell research

    Though a view post, it is informative, thanks..