Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Judge stops killing of embryos

A United States District Court Judge, Royce C. Lamberth, has banned the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific experiments. This is a good ruling because embryos are people - very young people - but people nonetheless.

In his ruling, he said "The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed. It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the 'piece of research' in which an embryo is destroyed. Thus, if ESC [embryonic stem cell] research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment."

The bill was passed in 1995 and signed by Bill Clinton. Obama overturned the law, but the judge said a president cannot overturn a law enacted by Congress.

The case will probably go to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and finally on to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Back in the day when Obama changed the law, he said:

Obama talks about the false choice between sound science and moral values. And he believes in this case, the two don't need to conflict. What moral values is he talking about exactly? What moral system permits the killing of human beings in order to benefit others?

He specifies "in this case". That implies that sometimes sound science can conflict with moral values. What cases would not be problematic for the President, if killing some to benefit others is not?

Plus, I believe "sound science" would be moral science. What else would constitute "sound"? If morality does not play a role in "sound science". Otherwise, Nazi experimentation could potentially be classified under "sound science".

As usual, Obama is using verbal gymnastics in which he attempts to appease both sides of an argument, but ends up producing nonsensical "talking points" which are logically invalid. This, ironically, is what may have allowed him to be president. Another black man was running for president, Alan Keyes. Keyes is a fluent speaker, but he is not as acquainted with politically correct jargon.

One day, he and Obama were being interviewed on the topic of same-sex marriage. They both agreed it was wrong, but their approach was very different. Keyes gave logically consistent moral arguments for why gays should not be allowed to be married, how it is not even possible. However, Obama spent almost the entire time speaking of his concern for gay people and all the struggles they endure and in a very vague way eluded to the fact that he doesn't believe they should have the right to marry.

Unfortunately for Obama, his eloquence this time could not override the fact that his embryonic stem cell legislation was illegal in the first place. Judge Lamberth rightfully barred it.

It is sad that embryos exist outside the mother's womb in the first place. It's even worse that they are killed for experimentation. A sense of compassion for those with various diseases is virtuous. We must do everything we can to help them, but killing other members of the human race to achieve this end is not justifiable. On top of this, embryonic stem cell research has yielded no results. Only adult stem cell research has.

Those who advocate this procedure need to seriously ask themselves why. Is it really for the cures, because it has not achieved any, although adult stem cell research has had much success. Maybe, just maybe, this is their revolt against the morality of some. Perhaps they are rebelling against the moral standards of many simply to rebel.

Hopefully once this goes to the Supreme Court, the justices will rule sagaciously and declare research on embryos to be illegal.

No comments:

Post a Comment