The more I talk with pro-choice people on the internet or read pro-choice blogs, the more I realize that many of these pro-choice aren't very informed about the things they are talking about - especially with regards to fetal development. Jill at Third Wave is a perfect example. In her piece on embryonic stem cell research, she asserts, "although I can't concede that an embryo, which is a fertilized egg and not even a fetus, is the moral equivalent to a living, breathing human being."
A human embryo killed for her stem cells is not a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg or zygote is a human being made of one cell. You couldn't really create a pluripotent stem cell line from a single-celled organism whose one cell happens to be totipotent. The embryos that are destroyed for their stem cells are 5-7 days old and are organisms of around 100 cells.
Jill then claims that the argument that "adult stem cells are more successful because they have cured people while embryonic stem cells have not" can be put to rest. Why? She links to this article in the NY Times about a researcher that hopes to use embryonic stem cells to cure paralysis in humans. Somehow she thinks that one researcher hoping to help paralysis in humans with embryonic stem cells is proof enough to dispel the fact that adult stem cells have been much more successful in treating a variety of ailments.
Jill seems to be unfortunately ignorant of the use of olfactory stem cells to help those afflicted with paralysis by doctors in Portugal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Science should be argued so artfully for clean air, water, and alternative fuels and genetically-engineered foods!
ReplyDeleteThis radically conservative Bush Administration indicates disdain for scientific argument to an insane degree, to the detriment of not just Americans born and yet-to-be born, but the entire world. How ethical is that? And does their stance on abortion wash away their sins of pollution and greed? or arrogance and torture?
However, the reason I am pro-choice is that the embryo is INSIDE another person. I have no right to dictate to another what should be done with her own body. It is her choice alone, according to her own conscience.
Because I believe that smoking and drinking or over-eating is slow suicide, I don't believe that our government should dictate individual choice on those matters. It's up to each one's own conscious. I'm glad to share my reasoning with those who choose to indulge, but I'd never call the police to arrest them.
And who is the greatest pro-choice advocate of all? The One who granted the very first choice?
According to the Bible, it was God. He gave Adam and Eve the choice to obey Him or not. It was their free will in action that led them to eat the apple. Whether or not you agree that their decision was a moral one, how dare anyone enforce his own preferable option on them when God Himself did not?
God gives us free will to believe in Him or not. To sin or not. With the biggest consequences of all on the line: everlasting life or death.
When the woman was being stoned, Jesus didn't call the government guards to arrest anyone - either the woman or those throwing the stones.
What did Jesus do? He gave both choice of action. To the crowd, he advised, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." To the woman, he advised, "Go, and sin no more."
Since the consequences of free will, pro-choice can put non-believers off the everlasting-life list, should we pass a government law that everyone must believe in Jesus?
Each of us face moral choices every minute of the day. Morals can not, should not, must not be dictated by government. That would be a sin in itself, to take the free will God gave us away.
Hi Liberty,
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by and commenting.
My post was about embryonic stem cell research. The embryos killed for this research aren't inside anyone. Are you therefore against embryonic stem cells research?
Does the location of the unborn change what they are? For example, do organisms become different types of organisms simply because they travel a distance of less than a foot down the birth canal?
I don't follow your logic regarding how God is in favoring of intentionally killing innocent human beings who are created in His image. You're merely asserting that because God gave us free will that anything should be legal - but this obviously doesn't make any sense since God gave us free will but also instructed us regarding different ways we should act thru his Word (Ten Commandments, Jesus' teachings, Paul's teachings, etc.).
You say that morals shouldn't be dictated by government. But isn't our government dictating morals by making things like rape, murder, theft, and drug use illegal. Would you favor the repeal of those laws?
Do you really believe that God thinks that one human being created in His image should be able to intentionally kill another human being created in His image solely because one human being is inside the other?