Posts Tagged ‘life’
The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?”
As many of you have read, somberly, President Obama signed an Executive Order to reallocate federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell (ESCR) research. It’s a sad day because now the human embryos who are being held in frozen stasis will be used for experimentation in hopes of bringing a cure to Type 1 Diabetes, cancer, or the like. Essentially, as far as this Rabid Conservative is concerned, ESCR is nothing short of murder.
Now before the haters start going all in a tizzy, I’m not against stem cell research. I’m against harvesting embryos for it. In fact, there is a wealth of information out there that reports the advantages of adult stem cells over their embryonic counterparts. Read this article to understand more: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research.
Anyway, my point here today is not to do the comparative but rather, to talk about the reason why liberals have to have embryonic stem cells. Liberals aren’t looking at the research about adult stem cells because, to the liberals, the subject of stem cells isn’t about saving lives, curing disease, or relieving infirmity; it’s about maintaining some sort of precedent with respect to the legal status of an embryo. From all the rhetoric, I’ve been able to boil down to two fundamental reasons why liberals are determined to maintain ESCR:
- Losing the ESCR war would lead to a serious undermining of the entire abortion issue as far as liberalism is concerned.
- The embryo is not a human being and not entitled to rights or protections. As such, the embryo can be used for things for which a regular human being with legal protection cannot be used.
ESC is Linked to Abortion
You see, abortion and ESC research are linked. If the liberals get disproven that an embryo is, truly, a human life, they have to concede that an embryo in a womb is also a human life, which then, causes the abortion issue to fall apart.
Many people who argue over the abortion issue do so without a clear understanding of science – it’s all emotionalism to them. To liberals, the question of abortion is ‘doing what is right in one’s own eyes’, never once considering the destruction of humans as embryos in favor of sexual freedom.
One of the little known aspects of Roe v. Wade is the challenge provision. Basically, Roe v. Wade was passed because the court could not fully agree on when, exactly, life begins – or more appropriate to legal precedent, no definitive recognition in the eyes of the law that life begins at conception. Because of this, abortion was allowed by the High Court.
Recently, in North Dakota, the state House voted to declare that a fertilized egg is indeed human life and deserves the same protections under the law. This is significant because, if the ND Senate votes passage, North Dakota will be the first state in the Union to effectively bring a challenge against Roe v. Wade. Proponents against the measure whined that they ‘didn’t want to drag North Dakota into a legal fight with Roe v. Wade’. This tells me that the ND House liberals just don’t want to touch the issue in fear of losing their position on it.
And then, we get an interview like this with Der Schlick-meister that, once again, doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals of basic reproductive biology.
Dude, an embryo is a fertilized egg. So, by your very own statement here, it’s a ‘little baby’. If that’s truly the case in your ‘more-than-once’ stated opinion, killing a fertilized egg is something that we do not want to do because it would grow to be a little baby or a human being, which is why they are ‘embryos’.
Again, Bill, embryos ‘are’ fertilized already.
Embryos Are Not Human (or Human Enough to be Protected)
One thing that Slickster does make in distinction, that somewhere along the way, there is a point when a human embryo is not a human being. He says twice – grow into a little baby/human being. Liberals must agree on this point so that they aren’t forced to concede to admit the humanity of an embryo.
The thing is, it stands in the face of sensible logic. For example, even a liberal couple that is desirous to have a baby will become pregnant – and what will they call that which grows within the mother? Will they say how proud they are of their ‘fetus’ or ‘embryo’?
“Hey Denise, you look great! When is your fetus due?”
Or, more somberly, if the couple loses the child to miscarriage or something, they don’t talk about losing the ‘embryo’; they lost the baby.
But yet, when the same is within a mother that doesn’t want to have the child, it’s not a baby – it’s not even considered human. It gets labeled as a fetus or embryo so the mother and doctor don’t have to deal with the moral implications of destroying a human life.
By not affording protection to the human embryo, what effectively is being said here is that embryos are not human, or human enough, and as such, justifies the using of these embryos for scientific research.
So When Does Life Begin
If you’re a man or woman of faith, life begins at conception, was created by God, and deserves to be protected like any other innocent life. However, I can also work with a secular definition, since many things occur in early gestation that have legal precedent for defining life.
For example, brain activity can be defined as a start of life. It can be argued that the human mind is encased in the human brain. If we go back and remember the case of Terri Schaivo, we remember that liberals clamored on about how she was not alive, because she was clinically brain dead. So, if we take that assumption that brain death is the cessation of life, then life must begin at the first signs of neurological activity. And if that is the case, any embryo greater than 24 days in age would have to be considered a life.
Perhaps the point in which life begins is when the baby can survive outside of the womb without the mother. Well, if we take that point, life would begin somewhere around, say age five. Previous to that, a toddler cannot last very long without intervention by a parent. And thinking along those lines, there are plenty of people who cannot survive without some sort of assistance. Does that mean they aren’t alive?
The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?” Liberals in support of abortion, ESCR, and the like avoid this question because to make a definitive statement of when life begins would cause them to give up something, in order to remain consistent. With a relative definition of when life starts, liberals can slide things around to fit the theory in which they are holding in order to permit the activity that they decide is right at the time.
The sad truth is that pro-choice liberals avoid even the accountability associated with changing the rules all the time. And with all rule changing, human embryos are the ones caught in the middle, and doomed to have their lives taken before ever getting the chance to live.
Within the Declaration of Independence, one of our most hallowed and sacred of documents covering the governance of our land, there are three inalienable rights of man, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that every American and every human has these three basic rights. However, as we learned, these rights can override one another, as we learned from Oliver Wendell Holmes. So, as I think over this list, I see that it is an ordered list, and correctly prioritized.
In other words, the right to life reigns over the right to liberty; the right to liberty trumps the right to the pursuit of happiness. So, it is improper, then, for one’s pursuit of happiness to infringe on another man’s liberty, and a man’s liberty should never override another person’s right to life.
I think about the abortion issue and the fact that I believe the unborn child, from conception to birth, is a human life and is deserving of equal protection. I do not believe that a woman’s pursuit of happiness should ever override that baby’s right to life.
Now, if one chooses to give up their right to life so that another might have the right to life, or even more, the right to liberty, this is an act of bravery and courage. The Bible even says, “scarcely for a good man would one dare to die”. My brethren and sisters-in-arms offer up their lives so that I may have the right to liberty – and for that, I offer my humblest gratitude, as we all should, for they are the true heroes of our country, not Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid.
Giving up one’s liberty for someone else’s happiness, however, is an act of stupidity, and giving up one’s right to life for another’s happiness is an atrocity.
So we see there is a priority to these rights and I believe George Mason, who penned these words into the Virgina Declaration of Rights might agree with my premise*. But even if he would not, I do believe that there are priorites to rights, based on the precedents set in the Scriptures.
Lastly, these truths are self-evident, that is, they need no explanation. And just like the charges listed in the Declaration, one has to suspend rational and logical thought to not see it this way.
*An interesting sidenote is that Mason was in-fact a slave-owner. Even more interestingly, he was, at heart, an anti-slavery advovate. He said, “It is far from being a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them.” So he might not have truly agreed with my premise, given his right to property and pursuit of happiness would not be overridden by their right to liberty, but I digress.