Yet Another Assault on Reason
Posting at Political Fix yesterday morning, Jo Mannies reported that the University of Missouri's interim president, Gordon Lamb, effectively took off the gloves and punched Missouri's anti-embryonic-stem-cell forces square in the nose. The opening paragraphs of Lamb's statement:
Good for Lamb. Bravo.
As I noted in the comments on Mannies' post, Amendment 2 – which was approved by Missouri voters last November and is the same amendment supported by Lamb and opposed by the so-called anti-cloning forces – that Amendment did several things; among them: It made all forms of embryonic stem-cell research legal in Missouri that are legal nationally. It also ... wait for it ... banned cloning. That's right: Cloning was not prohibited in Missouri until Amendment 2 prohibited it.
Of course, that's not the way the revisionists want us to see it. They want us to believe that a cloned embryo, which is never placed in a uterus or ever allowed to exist beyond a few weeks, an embryo that is created using the SCNT procedure, in which no sperm ever fertilizes an egg – they want us to believe that embryo is the equivalent of human life and human cloning.
Of course, my own parents likely support the Cures without Cloning Amendment, the vehicle proposed by the so-called anti-cloners who want to revise and effectively reverse Amendment 2. I suspect my parents support the new, revisionist amendment because I know they voted against Amendment 2 in the first place.
My wife once tried to engage my parents in a debate on this subject, before Amendment 2 was approved. I cut off the conversation, not wishing to get into a big family debate. Now, I'm having second thoughts.
In fact, I have these visions where I stand in my parent's living room. In one hand, I hold a petri dish containing an SCNT-created embryo. My other hand rests on the shoulder of my teenage son, who will likely endure a lifetime of medication for severe Tourette Syndrome, and who deserves (in his lifetime) the opportunity for scientists to pursue all appropriate research that might discover a non-medicinal treatment for his disorder.
Next, I imagine myself screaming at my parents: "Choose! Choose between this dish and your grandson. Choose!"
Granted, that vision will probably never be realized; but it sure makes me feel good.
I am a sad, sad little man.
"The Cures without Cloning Amendment initiative states that 'no taxpayer dollars should be used to research or experiment using a human organism or any part of a human organism derived from cloning or attempting to clone a human being.' This amendment assaults Missouri and Missouri's primary public research university, the University of Missouri.And my favorite lines, from the close:
"In their effort to eliminate somatic cell nuclear transfer research, the group championing this amendment is taking the first step to controlling and impeding Missouri's research agenda and potential for future research. And they are doing so in a way that could permanently destroy the future of research in the state and in its universities."
"Research must have ... protection from the few who, seeking to reinforce their own personal biases, would shut down research done by highly competent and dedicated scientists.
"The university should never be subjected to this type of intrusion and control. It is antithetical to the principles on which the university as a whole is founded, and on which the University of Missouri was founded. This amendment initiative should be rejected."
Good for Lamb. Bravo.
As I noted in the comments on Mannies' post, Amendment 2 – which was approved by Missouri voters last November and is the same amendment supported by Lamb and opposed by the so-called anti-cloning forces – that Amendment did several things; among them: It made all forms of embryonic stem-cell research legal in Missouri that are legal nationally. It also ... wait for it ... banned cloning. That's right: Cloning was not prohibited in Missouri until Amendment 2 prohibited it.
Of course, that's not the way the revisionists want us to see it. They want us to believe that a cloned embryo, which is never placed in a uterus or ever allowed to exist beyond a few weeks, an embryo that is created using the SCNT procedure, in which no sperm ever fertilizes an egg – they want us to believe that embryo is the equivalent of human life and human cloning.
Of course, my own parents likely support the Cures without Cloning Amendment, the vehicle proposed by the so-called anti-cloners who want to revise and effectively reverse Amendment 2. I suspect my parents support the new, revisionist amendment because I know they voted against Amendment 2 in the first place.
My wife once tried to engage my parents in a debate on this subject, before Amendment 2 was approved. I cut off the conversation, not wishing to get into a big family debate. Now, I'm having second thoughts.
In fact, I have these visions where I stand in my parent's living room. In one hand, I hold a petri dish containing an SCNT-created embryo. My other hand rests on the shoulder of my teenage son, who will likely endure a lifetime of medication for severe Tourette Syndrome, and who deserves (in his lifetime) the opportunity for scientists to pursue all appropriate research that might discover a non-medicinal treatment for his disorder.
Next, I imagine myself screaming at my parents: "Choose! Choose between this dish and your grandson. Choose!"
Granted, that vision will probably never be realized; but it sure makes me feel good.
I am a sad, sad little man.
8 comments:
Pete,
I don't think it is worth getting to a yelling match with your parents over this. They are entitled to their beliefs and you are to yours. Sometimes, it's just best to keep quiet and love your parents anyway.
You aren't sad, you're just a Dad. A Dad who can't understand why a zealot belief supercedes the obvious miracle that is your son. But, you won't change them. It will serve you well, if you just KNOW that, and move on.
I agree with what has already been said. And I'd like to add something:
Many people would choose to sacrifice their own life serving a cause they know to be just. However, what if it was your family you had to sacrifice to serve a cause you know to be just?
A terrible choice. And yet, Jesus himself told his followers that they would have to leave their families behind in order to follow him. If you truly believe in a cause, one of great and transcendent importance, then you might well find yourself making the choice Jesus' disciples made...
Perhaps your parents are facing a similiar dilemma.
Oh, and on a lighter note, those are plates of bacteria, not stem cells.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. Also, Tom, thanks for the tip on the image: I figured it wasn't stem cells, but didn't know exactly what it might be. Besides, it looked scientific, I was short on time, so I attached it anyway. If I get time, I'll try to update.
Ahhh. It was just easier to delete the image. Better none than being inaccurate. Thanks again, Tom.
"Sad little man" is nonsense, you are a man faced with a difficult situation and possibly no good solution, that is painful. It will take the kind of man you actually are to deal with it. Your parents are who they are and letting it go at that is dealing with reality. It is not reality to get into a boxing match with the sun, it will unconcernedly pass across the sky and your efforts will only serve to make you miserable.
Best regards
I’ve been through these debates many times and the result is always the same. Beliefs are very difficult to change, especially when they don’t have a direct negative impact on you personally. It is impossible to win this debate with your parents. The image you have of the confrontation will only meet with the refusal to choose because no one given a third alternative (do nothing) could choose between killing something they consider a person and their grandson. Even should your son be on his deathbed, your parents could not choose to kill an embryo to save their grandson. They would let nature take its course, yet if it came to circumventing nature to save themselves or their grandson in a way that did not kill a person, they would be all for it. Still they are more than happy to send troops to the middle east to die and kill to protect their way of life. The reasoning and excuses for the sudden switches between idealistic belief and obvious contradictory thought are too complex to debate. In the end, you will agree to disagree. There are many “sheeple” in the world that will follow what their religious leaders tell them. Everyone’s is better off concentrating on the religious leaders and getting them to change their minds so that the sheeple will follow. The best tactic is to get the sheeple who can be swayed to protest their leaders stand on the issue. In the end, the leaders need followers and will change to avoid loosing too much of the income needed to carry on the cause. Forget the ones who blindly follow and get the others to take action with their leaders.
Post a Comment