« Home | Gluttony: Deliver the dam Pizza » | Pride: Saved a life » | Anger: Star Wars » | Envy: Cool? » | Anger: "The Deal" » | Gluttony: Dave's BIG Sammich » | Pride: Quotes » | Sloth: Star Wars Meme » | Anger: Senate Democrats » | Anger: Judges » 

Thursday, May 26, 2005 

Anger: Stem Cells

The debate on stem cell research rages in the halls of congress and in the White House. INDC found a Dem that is giddy (Bill's wording) at the prospect of the political fallout that the Republicans will face. The normally reliable conservative talents of Cox and Forkum depicts The President turning away a wheelchair-bound boy. I think they are all wrong.

I am unashamed to say that I am Pro-Life. I did not come to this position from any religious doctrine or from blindly following a leader that tells me how to think. There IS is secular rational for the Pro-Life position. The Jesus freaks that run the mainstream Pro-Life groups do the cause a major disservice, but that is another post.

I came to the Pro-Life position by asking a simple question. "What is the harm done if the Pro-Choice side is wrong and life begins at conception?"

My eyes were opened when someone asked me this question.

It seems to me that the central argument of the Pro-Choice side is that the fetus is not "alive" until some time after conception, maybe not even until birth. If this is wrong and life really does begin at conception, no matter how miniscule you think the chance is, the "harvesting" of stem cells or any termination of the fetus is murder. I can come to no other conclusion, please feel free to enlighten me in comments if you have a better imagination.

Now, reverse the question: "What is the harm done if the Pro-Life side is wrong and life does not begin at conception?"

If the Pro-Life lobby were to win the debate, the law of the land would turn into a vehicle to ban the practice of Abortion and the harvesting of stem cells. If they were wrong and life was proven to not be present until birth or some other post-conception development stage, who would be harmed? The easy answer is the women that would have chosen an abortion that were forced to carry the baby to birth. The harm would be to impose a 9-month inconvenience on them in order to bring a new life into the world. Personally, this seems like a small price to pay to protect a baby and maybe bring a lifetime of joy to adoptive parents.

Please note that I did not use any religious doctrine to make this point. My regular readers (Phil and Mary Regular) know that I am not the religious type and that the name of the blog pokes fun at the people that take their religion too seriously.

I want anyone out there that can find fault with this to speak up. I have a open mind on this, so should you.

| | Trackback URI

Blog Info

Praise for The 7 Deadly Sins

"I have to admit that you do sloth like nobody's business."
- tee bee
"omg...you're even nerdier than my bf. That's hawt."
- trouble
"Not everybody remembers the glow of green text on black monitor with fondness"
- cathyf
"That's just crazy talk"
- tee bee
"Holy crap! Where's the ACLU pukes this time?"
- justanothermngirl
"Quick, edit these before anyone sees them!"
- Chris
"See? Getting old isn't all bad."
- David
"Best wishes to my Blog Brother."
- Retired Geezer
"Congratulations to one sinner from another."
- basil
"I just sic them on punks like that like a couple of pitbulls."
- digitalbrownshirt
"I hate to say anything negative about someone I've never met (OK, that's a lie), but that guy is a $#@*& idiot."
- John from WuzzaDem

Video Game Voters Network

My Blogfather

Feed The Sins

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Open Trackback Alliance

Open Trackback Alliance

101st Fighting

Powered by Blogger and Blogger Templates
Listed on BlogShares

Top100 Bloggers
Top 100