Defending Bush's Stem Cell Policy
Ramesh Ponnuru on the president's stem cell policy.
This above seems to echo John Paul II in The Gospel of Life where he writes "When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality."
The demand for perfect consistency should not, however, exclude the possibility of political prudence. A pro-life president can reasonably decide for the time being to largely leave alone well-entrenched evils, such as common fertility clinic practices, while combating new evils to which the country is not yet accustomed — especially if the predictable consequence of tying the issues together would be defeat on both. It would be a curious sort of principle of political morality that required people who held it to act in self-defeating ways.
This above seems to echo John Paul II in The Gospel of Life where he writes "When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality."
Bush's policy is also defensible as a way of avoiding complicity with evils that cannot be prohibited. By limiting the research subsidies to stem cells taken before the subsidies were announced, he does not reward or induce more embryo destruction. At the same time, he declines to make taxpayers who strongly object to the embryo-killing research pay for it.
It is a little odd for pro-lifers to be fighting to protect 1-day-old human embryos when it is possible, legally, to kill 8-month old human fetuses. But pro-lifers are not responsible for that fact.
posted by David at 9:42 AM
Track with co.mments
Rate this post:
10 Comments:
It is a little odd for pro-lifers to be fighting to protect 1-day-old human embryos when it is possible, legally, to kill 8-month old human fetuses. But pro-lifers are not responsible for that fact.Are you suggesting that the 1-day-old human embryo is 'less' important than the 8-month old human fetus? How about a 6-day-old human embryo? Bush, in his own words, states that he finds it morally wrong to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Are you stating that we should use moral relativism to decide the 'important' battles to fight, that one human life is 'more' important than another?
It is a little odd for pro-lifers to be fighting to protect 1-day-old human embryos when it is possible, legally, to kill 8-month old human fetuses. But pro-lifers are not responsible for that fact.Are you suggesting that the 1-day-old human embryo is 'less' important than the 8-month old human fetus? How about a 6-day-old human embryo? Bush, in his own words, states that he finds it morally wrong to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Are you stating that we should use moral relativism to decide the 'important' battles to fight, that one human life is 'more' important than another?
It is a little odd for pro-lifers to be fighting to protect 1-day-old human embryos when it is possible, legally, to kill 8-month old human fetuses. But pro-lifers are not responsible for that fact.Are you suggesting that the 1-day-old human embryo is 'less' important than the 8-month old human fetus? How about a 6-day-old human embryo? Bush, in his own words, states that he finds it morally wrong to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Are you stating that we should use moral relativism to decide the 'important' battles to fight, that one human life is 'more' important than another?
As usuual you have missed the point, the ones that are already harvested are already lost. It is not an either or propositon. They should not have been harvested in the first place. I am really at a lost as to how people keep hammering away at these things like if they yell loud enough they'll change the natural law. You are pathetic I feel sorry for you.
Read the president's own statements at bioethics.gov - the president supports killing human embryos that are not federally funded and before an arbitrary 2001 date. He also supports killing human embryos in fertility clinics every day. Do you, as a catholic, support the president on these things?
No. I do not support the president's views on this. I do understand the choice I have though. It either the president's plan, where federal funding is allowed for research on some already destroyed embryos or it is Senator Kerry's plan where federal moneies would be used on all embryo's, even those yet to be destroyed. I relunctly chose the president, not because I support his plan but because Senator Kerry's is so much worse.
Does that mean that when researchers find cures using non-federally funded monies using embryonic stem cells, you and all other catholics will refuse treatment using those cures? You pro-lifers should get some backbone and sign a document telling the rest of the heathen scientists and doctors that their evil ways will be ignored by the righteous catholics.
Yes, I would. Say you were a coin collector. Would you buy some priceless gold coins if you knew the gold came from the filings extracted from Jews who were murdered in Nazi concentration camps?
Many Catholics and Christians today refuse vaccines which are derived from fetal stem lines. Thankfully there are alternatives for most, but not all. This leads me to believe there will be alternatives using adult stem cells, so this should be a non issue in the future.
Yes, I would. Say you were a coin collector. Would you buy some priceless gold coins if you knew the gold came from the filings extracted from Jews who were murdered in Nazi concentration camps?
Many Catholics and Christians today refuse vaccines which are derived from fetal stem lines. Thankfully there are alternatives for most, but not all. This leads me to believe there will be alternatives using adult stem cells, so this should be a non issue in the future.
Quite useful material, much thanks for this article.
Post a Comment
<< Home