To Err on the side of Life...
Yesterday, the "100 hour" agenda of the new Democrat Majority continued with a vote on federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research (a.k.a. Stem Cell Research). Now in August of 2001, President Bush enacted a law which allowed for Federal Funding to go to Embryonic Stem Cell lines having had been destroyed (the embryo penetrated, the nucleus removed, and a viable life extinguished) prior to the day that Bush enacted this law. From then on federal funding has not been allocated for such research and the subsequent destroying of human life; he did this to stop a horrible practice that had been going on in the name of science and progress.
One must recall that there are now multiple sub-headings under the term "Stem Cell Research". One is Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) as described above. Another type is Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR), where Stem Cells are taken from a living and breathing person, post womb, and certian cells are used to create cells of the same type. The third (and a recent breakthrough) is Ambiotic Stem Cell Research, a recent development that has unvieled the ability of scientists to take stem cells from the ambiotic fluid that results from the birthing process. This new development allows for the acquisition of stem cells that have similar properties to embryonic stem cells, without actually destroying the embryo.
Now the distinction that has just been laid out rarely ever enters the public discourse. When SCR is put before the public, "Stem Cell Research" means "Embryonic Stem Cell Research". These other procedures are rarely discussed, much less hailed as the incredible advances that they are. It is ASCR that has yielded 70+ cures for different diseases, while ESCR has yeilded no cures or great advances. Additionally, it has been reported ESCR trials in labratory animals have actually yeilded cells that have become cancerous within the animals that ESCR cells were injected to. With ASCR, this has not has not happened, not to mention the fact that ASCR has been sucessfully used on people and ESCR has not. This lack of distinction caused former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri to lose his seat in the Senate as of November 2006, because his opponent (and the Media) painted him to be "Anti-Stem Cell Research", when in truth he supported the stem cell research procedures that yeilded results and protected innocent life. His sitation highlights the fact that the distinction needs to be made and certianly in races for political office, because if not things can go down a dark path.
Enter House Resolution 3, the Democratic Majority's attempt to try and undue the stand which the President has taken all these years. This resolution, which sadly has passed, seeks to expand the amount of federal funding which would go to ESCR. Right now the amount of funding is a whopping nothing - no federal monies are allocated for ESCR. This being the case, many in the Democratic party would have the public believe that ESCR is not going on at all because it recieves no federal funding. Contrary to this, ESCR actually happens all over the country in the halls of research facilities and universities, but this is all finding by the private sector. The new Democratic majority wants to see federal funding go to support ESCR. In layman's terms, Democrats want to see your tax dollars go to fund research that has yet to yield a worthwhile return on the investment that the private sector has put into it. Additionally, this funding (America's tax dollars) would go to extinguish viable life that would be destroyed as a by-product of ESCR.
Now a question arises amongst all of this: if ESCR has yet to yield a solid return on investment (even in the private sector) and also extinguishes innocent life by destroying embryos, then why would it be so solidly supported by the new Deompcratic majority? To find the answer, return to the beginning: the President's stand on ESCR. H.R. 3 is a bill that is identical to a bill that was put forth last year. It passed both the House and the Senate, but when it reached the President's desk he VETOED it (as he should have). This is the only bill he has ever vetoed as President. That said, why is this such a big deal to the new majority?
Answer: Vengence
This time around, if the bill reaches the President's desk and he vetos it again, as he says he will, the new majority in both the House and the Senate will attempt to override the Presidential veto. They will attempt to override the veto and allow the tax dollars of hardworking Americans go down the drain, through the use of federal funding being put towards reseach that has done little to no good and extinguishes innocent life.
All of this in the name of vengence, in the name of "beating" the President. This is certianly an err, but it is not an err on the side of Life.
One must recall that there are now multiple sub-headings under the term "Stem Cell Research". One is Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) as described above. Another type is Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR), where Stem Cells are taken from a living and breathing person, post womb, and certian cells are used to create cells of the same type. The third (and a recent breakthrough) is Ambiotic Stem Cell Research, a recent development that has unvieled the ability of scientists to take stem cells from the ambiotic fluid that results from the birthing process. This new development allows for the acquisition of stem cells that have similar properties to embryonic stem cells, without actually destroying the embryo.
Now the distinction that has just been laid out rarely ever enters the public discourse. When SCR is put before the public, "Stem Cell Research" means "Embryonic Stem Cell Research". These other procedures are rarely discussed, much less hailed as the incredible advances that they are. It is ASCR that has yielded 70+ cures for different diseases, while ESCR has yeilded no cures or great advances. Additionally, it has been reported ESCR trials in labratory animals have actually yeilded cells that have become cancerous within the animals that ESCR cells were injected to. With ASCR, this has not has not happened, not to mention the fact that ASCR has been sucessfully used on people and ESCR has not. This lack of distinction caused former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri to lose his seat in the Senate as of November 2006, because his opponent (and the Media) painted him to be "Anti-Stem Cell Research", when in truth he supported the stem cell research procedures that yeilded results and protected innocent life. His sitation highlights the fact that the distinction needs to be made and certianly in races for political office, because if not things can go down a dark path.
Enter House Resolution 3, the Democratic Majority's attempt to try and undue the stand which the President has taken all these years. This resolution, which sadly has passed, seeks to expand the amount of federal funding which would go to ESCR. Right now the amount of funding is a whopping nothing - no federal monies are allocated for ESCR. This being the case, many in the Democratic party would have the public believe that ESCR is not going on at all because it recieves no federal funding. Contrary to this, ESCR actually happens all over the country in the halls of research facilities and universities, but this is all finding by the private sector. The new Democratic majority wants to see federal funding go to support ESCR. In layman's terms, Democrats want to see your tax dollars go to fund research that has yet to yield a worthwhile return on the investment that the private sector has put into it. Additionally, this funding (America's tax dollars) would go to extinguish viable life that would be destroyed as a by-product of ESCR.
Now a question arises amongst all of this: if ESCR has yet to yield a solid return on investment (even in the private sector) and also extinguishes innocent life by destroying embryos, then why would it be so solidly supported by the new Deompcratic majority? To find the answer, return to the beginning: the President's stand on ESCR. H.R. 3 is a bill that is identical to a bill that was put forth last year. It passed both the House and the Senate, but when it reached the President's desk he VETOED it (as he should have). This is the only bill he has ever vetoed as President. That said, why is this such a big deal to the new majority?
Answer: Vengence
This time around, if the bill reaches the President's desk and he vetos it again, as he says he will, the new majority in both the House and the Senate will attempt to override the Presidential veto. They will attempt to override the veto and allow the tax dollars of hardworking Americans go down the drain, through the use of federal funding being put towards reseach that has done little to no good and extinguishes innocent life.
All of this in the name of vengence, in the name of "beating" the President. This is certianly an err, but it is not an err on the side of Life.
posted by A. R. Welty at 9:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home