My Letter in the Current Weekly Standard
A recent story in the Weekly Standard by Fred Barnes about Governor Matt Blunt stated that he (Blunt) supported the pending Missouri initiative to legalize "stem cell" research. Of course, that isn't accurate. I wrote a letter to the editor about it, which Barnes graciously approved for publication. Here it is:
"Not Always So Blunt
Fred Barnes's profile of Missouri governor Matt Blunt was intriguing, but Barnes makes a common error when he claims that Blunt supports a planned initiative to "allow stem cell research in Missouri" ("Taking a Blunt Approach," May 22). Actually, the initiative Blunt supports would create a right in Missouri's constitution to engage in human cloning for biomedical research (i.e., somatic cell nuclear transfer). SCNT is not a synonym for stem cell research, although proponents of human research cloning like Blunt pretend that it is, for political purposes. To state the matter accurately, Blunt supports creating human embryos asexually for destruction and use in stem cell research, which is why he has gotten in trouble with Missouri's pro-life community."
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:18 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Congratulations!
I've been published in many dailies, including THE WALL STREET JOURNAL and USA TODAY, but never a national magazine (to the best of my knowledge).
We need to keep the heat on in Missouri. People need to know the deceptive wording of this bill.
This is making me think! :-) (Because you discuss two similar but distinct issues; Pull out the Compare/Contrast slab.)
OK, I'm glad you made a correction to Barnes' article.
Now, in the first case, we have stem cells, which come from aborted fetuses (or is it "fetii/feti" like "Radius" become plural "Radii?"). Killing people, whether they live in the womb -or in a house -is wrong: Prejudice based on where you live (as I told Atty. Sarah Weddington of Roe. v. Wade fame) is wrong:
http://members.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/debate.html#abortion
or
http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/debate.html#abortion
(Abortionists can't use fetus/baby age as an excuse, since we know identical twins, the same age, have different "rights" based on where they live -in or out of womb.)
Now, in the second case, we have humans being created "asexually," that is, cloned! OK, now, while I don't generally approve of tinkering with life in this fashion (since we haven't perfected the technology -and may inadvertently create a painful birth defect in the resulting person), I must disagree with those "Bible thumpers" who claim that a "cloned" human doesn't have a soul.
If you disbelieve me, then simply wait until a person is cloned (I'm sure it will happen), and then ask the person (when he or she is old enough to speak), and said person will vehemently disagree that he or she lack a soul, and if you're not careful, this "soulless" person might even get offended and suggest you don't have a soul -and may even get rowdy and make a scene!
That said, creating a human embryo, whether through "conventional" means (sexual intercourse) -or via "asexual" means (cloning), still probably results in the creation of life (depending on when the soul jumps into the body), and thus creating life for "spare parts" -or "research" -devalues life.
"Thou shalt not kill." Period. (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17; Matt. 5:21; Rom. 13:9; etc. et seq.)
Thus, if it's really true that "Blunt supports creating human embryos [little people who are ALIVE!!] asexually for destruction and use in stem cell research," maybe he should get into trouble with the pro-lifers!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home