the great stem cell debate
I have made the comment on several occassions that about half of everything you read in the mainstream media is made up. The global warming myths are a great example of that. Another great example concerns the debate over stem cell research. In the days surrounding Pres. Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell research bill, I have been stunned by the dishonesty of the media as they attempt to sway public opinion on this very important issue. I'm going to list for you the most egregious lies on this topic from the left and their PR wing in the media, and I will show you what the facts really are.
1. Pres. Bush vetoed legislation allowing embryonic stem cell research. Wrong! Embryonic stem cell research is completely unrestricted in the U.S., and it will continue to be unrestricted. The bill that Pres. Bush vetoed would have provided government (that means taxpayer) funding for that research. You can look it up!
2. Embryonic stem cell research has made significant progress in finding cures to many diseases. Wrong! Embryonic stem cell research hasn't resulted in any progress in curing disease or healing the human body. In contrast, there are currently 73 different diseases that are being successfully treated using adult stem cells. Stem cells from placentas and from umbilical cords can be used to successfully treat 70 different genetic illnesses. How about that Dr. Hwang Woo Suk!
3. Conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research care more about scraps of protoplasm than they do about fellow humans who are sick and disabled. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Conservatives care about life! For everybody!! Let's deconstruct this myth. First, embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of human embryos. Conservatives view that as murder. Second, conservatives believe that it is immoral and real cruel to the sick and disabled to sink millions of dollars, and our faith and hope, into research that has produced exactly zero results, especially when there has been so much success using adult stem cells, cord blood, and placentas. If "we the people" are going to foot the bill for research that could result in cures for paralysis, etc., we want that research to be successful.
4. Liberals who oppose Bush's veto are more compassionate and caring for their fellow man than are the evil conservatives. That's a load of manure! Liberals have turned the Democrat Party into the "Death Party." Liberals are hell-bent on advancing embryonic stem cell research precisely because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Liberals don't care in the least whether or not the research is successful, they just love to kill embryos! Why else would liberals insist that all federal money be poored into the one branch of stem cell research that has been the least successful? It's all about the death, baby!
1. Pres. Bush vetoed legislation allowing embryonic stem cell research. Wrong! Embryonic stem cell research is completely unrestricted in the U.S., and it will continue to be unrestricted. The bill that Pres. Bush vetoed would have provided government (that means taxpayer) funding for that research. You can look it up!
2. Embryonic stem cell research has made significant progress in finding cures to many diseases. Wrong! Embryonic stem cell research hasn't resulted in any progress in curing disease or healing the human body. In contrast, there are currently 73 different diseases that are being successfully treated using adult stem cells. Stem cells from placentas and from umbilical cords can be used to successfully treat 70 different genetic illnesses. How about that Dr. Hwang Woo Suk!
3. Conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research care more about scraps of protoplasm than they do about fellow humans who are sick and disabled. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Conservatives care about life! For everybody!! Let's deconstruct this myth. First, embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of human embryos. Conservatives view that as murder. Second, conservatives believe that it is immoral and real cruel to the sick and disabled to sink millions of dollars, and our faith and hope, into research that has produced exactly zero results, especially when there has been so much success using adult stem cells, cord blood, and placentas. If "we the people" are going to foot the bill for research that could result in cures for paralysis, etc., we want that research to be successful.
4. Liberals who oppose Bush's veto are more compassionate and caring for their fellow man than are the evil conservatives. That's a load of manure! Liberals have turned the Democrat Party into the "Death Party." Liberals are hell-bent on advancing embryonic stem cell research precisely because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Liberals don't care in the least whether or not the research is successful, they just love to kill embryos! Why else would liberals insist that all federal money be poored into the one branch of stem cell research that has been the least successful? It's all about the death, baby!
posted by hondo at 11:19 PM
2 Comments:
You were doing well until you reached point #4.
It is true that the Democrats have a "pro-death" platform. The are for abortion and euthanasia, which bring death to the innocent. However, they are against capital punishment for most of the guilty.
However, it is unfair to say that they are for embryonic stem cell research BECAUSE it kills the developing embryo. If it were possible to extract the cell and allow the embryo to replace it, then I see no reason why they wouldn't opt for that procedure.
The problem is, they chose not to difine the embryo as a human life. They are wrong, as any honest biological scientist will tell you. But they are swayed by the evidence that these young cells have greater potential, so they are blinded to the success using less maleble cells from other sources.
They do, however, realize that admitting the status of "life" to an embryo would leave their arguments for abortion wide open to attack.
I have thought long and hard about this very topic for several years. It was inconceivable to me that any group of people could actually be "pro-death", so I just didn't believe it. Surely there must be some other reason why liberal Democrats are so gung ho about policies that cause death, I always said to myself.
The "tipping point" for me was the Teri Schiavo case. There was no hard evidence as to what her wishes were. She was not being kept alive by a machine. She was not in pain and not suffering. She was probably not ever going to get any better, but she would probably have lived quite a bit longer unless some sort of complications had set in. Her parents had offered to assume total responsibility for her care, so that her husband wouldn't have to deal with the situation anymore. The husband wouldn't stand for that; he wanted her life terminated. Liberals crawled out of the woodwork to DEMAND that Teri Schiavo die. I have never in my life seen such blood thirsty creatures. They weren't demanding that Teri be "allowed to die" (although many of them inaccurately phrased their demand that way). They were demanding that Teri's food and water be stopped, so that she would slowly starve and dehydrate to death. They wanted her dead, and they wouldn't rest until the deed had been done! Well, that cut it for me. I completely changed my thinking from, "Liberals just want people to have choices" to "Liberals want inconvenient life terminated." You correctly cite their positions on abortion and euthanasia as examples. As for capital punishment, I would say that the life of a murderer is not inconvenient for liberals. A Death Row inmate can be held up as an example of the inherent racism of society, or the corruption of the legal system, or the need for more education funding, or any one of dozens of other excuses for big, liberal programs. Liberals can't have someone like that be killed; he is far too useful!
Post a Comment
<< Home