Stem Cell Silence:
Maybe Democrats Want to Destroy Embryos
It appears as if it
may soon become easier for lives to be saved without lives being
destroyed. Great news, right? *snip*
You’d think so, but
in the everything-is-partisan world in which we live, celebrations are
limited to one side of the aisle.*snip*
There would thus be no reason whatsoever to destroy embryos for the
purpose of conducting stem cell research, and certainly no reason to
create embryos for the purpose of sacrificing them. Unless, of
course, destroying embryos is really your agenda, and no one would
embrace the destruction of embryos as an agenda in and of itself. *snip*
Or would they?
Embryonic stem cell research has become one of the left’s strange
article-of-faith type issues in recent years – along with their
certainty about global warming and their emotional investment in
America’s defeat in Iraq. Embryonic stem cells not only could
cure various diseases, but to listen to some activists, there is no
doubt whatsoever that they will – and if you oppose this agenda,
you simply oppose helping suffering people. *snip*
-
Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama were silent. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) issued a statement
dismissing the relevance of the development and vowing to press ahead
with embryonic stem cell research anyway, because “scientists
may yet find that embryonic stem cells are more powerful.”
*snip*
[W]hen skeptics suggest that other forms of research would present
fewer ethical dilemmas, why do activists insist that it simply must be
embryonic stem cell research, because nothing else will work?
Here’s a thought: While conservatives are troubled by the creation of
life for the purpose of its destruction – an act that reeks of playing
God – many liberals embrace it for that very reason. What could be
better, after all, than doing anything to which the Christian
right objects?
|