Stem-cell research related bill vetoed
Bush recently vetoed a law that would allow federal funds to be allocated for embryonic stem cell research. The only reason I bring this up is because the German magazine Der Spiegel fails to report the real reason why Bush vetoed it, making him and the religious conservatives look like opponents of scientific progress for no reason.
There were two main reasons Bush vetoed this bill. The first is the most obvious one: To preserve the sanctity of life. Embryos are living human beings, though of course not fully developed, and killing human beings in order to save human beings just doesn’t make much sense.
Reason number two, not reported in the article, is that had this law been passed, the citizen’s tax dollars could be used for this kind of research, among which are several million who also oppose it on moral grounds. Back when abortion was legalized, the so called Hyde amendment prevented federal funding to be used for abortions, for the very same reasons mentioned above. It would not be ethical, so was the argument then and is -rightly- today, to use tax money to support something that many find wrong.
As a side note, and I don’t speak as an expert here, it seems that embryonic stem cell research really doesn’t seem to lead to a lot of breakthroughs in the medical field, but using adult stem cells or -more recently- umbilical cord stem cells was said to be very promising in helping to fight serious diseases.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope that one day we will be able to cure those diseases, but when we need to devalue human life even more and destroy it in order to make these scientific advances, we need to think very hard and ethically about the (moral) consequences it has.
Related posts:
Hi again. When reading this article, I again felt the urge to leave a word or two here. I think the second argument is a pretty blatant hyprocacy: Politics are generally full of decisions that alot of taxpayers wouldn’t support, like the war in Iraq (swallowing hundreds of billions), or Bush being in the administration in the first place (disapproval ratings at 65% or above in both cases; even at the time of the elections 2000 and 2004, Bush did actually not have a majority on his side). To be fair, it’s always the case in a democracy that the decisions made by the elected government go against a large part of the voters, like increasing of taxes etc, but the government of course can and should not listen too much on the mood of the voters, because they often act emotionally and generally are not as educated in some topics (increasing approval of the death penalty when a horrifying criminal is caught, the “I got nothing to hide, go spy on me”-argument, etc). So, using this argument as reason to defend his position on stem cell research is just ridiculous. Still, it may be reasonable that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for something they don’t really want, but in that case, wouldn’t it be sufficient (as you said) to just not spend the taxmoney on this research? I don’t think that there would be a problem finding investors in the industry for this highly promising field of research.
And personally, I do have my doubts about Bush’s care for the sanctity of life (Iraq, Katrina, Abu Ghraib) as well…
Thanks again for your comment
I hadn’t thought about that argument, so thanks for the new perspective. As opposed to the stem cell research bill, I had a choice to vote for Bush. People knew the war was there, and the majority still voted for him. I think that’s perfectly fair. That almost half that didn’t vote at all are a sad testimony; I guess they didn’t think it important enough. While I do agree that moral decisions are made all the time in the government without my influence, most aren’t as controversial. Again, I am not talking about the war which was clearly already going on and which people apparently supported, or they wouldn’t have voted Bush in again. Besides, wars are what governments do. It is part of the responsibility of the government to provide security for its citizens. However, a controversial issue like this, with a great number of people opposing it, in a relatively new field, outside the responsibilities of government, is to be handlded a little differently than others that are inside that responsibility. That said, I am not against stem cell research at all, just embryonic stem cell research. And as you mention in your comment, you do say it’d be reasonable for tax payers not to have to fund it. That’s my whole point. I was talking about the bill, not the research itself. Another point is that I don’t think you can lump together death penalty and wars with abortion or embryonic stem cell research. That argument seems to come up a lot: How can you be against abortion and still for the war or the death penalty. The death penalty is biblical, and so are wars, so Scripture is clear about that. Neither are desired, but often necessary. And I ask you to think very very hard and realize that it is nonsense to talk about sanctity of human life and argue that a murderer shouldn’t be executed; that person didn’t care for human life, he or she took a life! Wars are not desirable but often necessary to preserve freedom in this world or country. Not going to war would have meant many more dead in years to come, and I don’t want to turn this into a “greater good” argument. On the other hand, killing innocent babies (or human beings if that makes you more comfortable), either through abortion or embryonic stem cell research, is simply wrong. Taking innocent human life has never been a good thing. This is my whole point: Please don’t use my tax dollars to fund the killing of innocent babies, that’s why I am glad Bush vetoed that bill.
Wow. I don’t think there are two consecutive sentences up there to which I would agree. First, “That almost half that didn’t vote at all are a sad testimony; I guess they didn’t think it important enough.” – either that, or they were caged. http://www.gregpalast.com/raging-caging-what-the-heck-is-vote-caging-and-why-should-we-care/ (read at least until the big quote, 6th paragraph, or google for “caging”) I don’t want to go into the irregularities and frauds of the 2004 elections (or the 2000 elections, which were stolen as well) too much, because this wasn’t the original topic and it sounds too much like a conspiracy theory without throughout research, but you can google a lot of the facts pretty quickly. “Wars are what governments do”? What kind of argumentation is that… let me guess, this only applicable for the American government, right? Or would you say the same thing if North Korea would send troops or nuclear bombs to the US because they feel threatened? Or even only use this as excuse? Besides, is “lying about WMD and connections to terroristic organizations to be able to start a war” also what governments do?
Next, why did you accuse me of lumping together the death penalty, abortion and stem cell research, when I was clearly just giving an example about emotion-driven decisions? But as you asked me to “think very very hard” (I’m sorry, but you don’t have to think very very hard to just agree to Scripture, you only have to think very very hard to create an own opinion), here’s my answer: you said that someone who took a life may also be killed. That’s a valid point of view (although it’s certainly not mine – and that the “sanctity of life” is not valid for criminals is an inherit inconsistency). But using the bible as argument… well, how about that person is mentally retarded? Does Scripture say anything about that? What if some Scripture says that you should also execute heretics, blasphemers, sinners, etc?
Now, “Not going to war would have meant many more dead in years to come”.. this is just sarcastic. Terrible. Horrible. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Or did you only mean American people? http://icasualties.org/ Even disregarding those figures – there’s hardly any doubt that the war has actually created a new breeding ground for terrorists and hatered on the USA in the middle east.
Next… “killing innocent babies”… embryos used for stem cell research are not babies. They are blastocyst and consist of up to 150 cells, with no organs (let alone an innocent baby face if that makes you more upset). Of course the procedure is still ethically disputable, because in the end, you destroy something that would have evolved into a human.
And your whole point about not using your dollars to fund the killing of innocent babies (and I talked about the funding and the babies aspect, and the bible is also clear about the innocence I think) – don’t you think there are babies and pregnant women in Iraq? Alright, war is biblical and embryonic stem cell research is not (maybe because 2000 years ago, most people didn’t know that embryos, stem cells or scientific research exist), but then don’t use the tax-argument! As war supporter, you obviously are supporting the use of your money to kill innocent babies (and adults, families, human rights) with your money. Of course, war can also do good, but so can research.
I am not going into any staged elections. When I said wars are what governments do, I simply meant wars are the governments responsibility, good or bad, no matter the reason. My point is that funding stem cell research is not one of those responsibilities. Your argument about why war is okay for tax payers to fund and not stem cell research is interesting nonetheless and I need to think about that more; I do think those two aren’t really the same. I will get back to you on that. To say I don’t have to think hard to accept Scripture is really just an attack against those who do believe Scripture and irrelevant to the discussion here. If you have any real argument why someone should not accept what Scripture says, and how that is inferior or contradictory to “forming my own opinion”, we can talk about that. About the death penalty and abortion etc, I am merely pointing out that there is a difference between killing someone who has killed a human being and killing someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. Human life should always be valued highly, and I do. I wish there were no wars and no need for a death penalty. I don’t think that view conflicts with the sanctity of life at all. I think it was the right thing to react and lead this war on terror in Iraq and other places. I believe it would have been much much worse if we hadn’t. Quoting casualty numbers doesn’t really matter either. I agree there are casualties and wish there were less, I am just saying that the risk of a war or more terror attacks in the USA or other countries warranted the war that is led right now. Like you said, you were an embryo and so was I. Killing (or destroying if you will) embryos means destroying human life. Just because it’s small doesn’t mean it’s not life or human, as you rightly pointed out at the end of that paragraph. What did you mean about the person being mentally retarded and what Scripture says about that? And I can’t really answer your “what if”; give me concrete example and we can talk about that
[...] an earlier post not too long ago, the issue of the war and what role government has came up. I meant to answer this [...]
Pingback by zerodeviation.net :: blog » Blog Archive » Biblical Government — July 3, 2007 @ 4:24 pm