"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." - William Tecumseh Sherman

Name: The General
Location: Sacramento, California, United States


-> Scary Prospects...

-> Bush's Iranian Failure

-> Just to be Fair...

-> I'm Not Alone

-> Nordlinger on VP Debate

-> Thoughts on Cheney vs. Edwards

-> Cox and Forkum - Spoilers

-> Hawk for Kerry

-> Ten Commandments Case

-> Jay Nordlinger's Take on the Debate

07/18/2004 - 07/25/2004

07/25/2004 - 08/01/2004

08/01/2004 - 08/08/2004

08/08/2004 - 08/15/2004

08/15/2004 - 08/22/2004

08/22/2004 - 08/29/2004

08/29/2004 - 09/05/2004

09/05/2004 - 09/12/2004

09/12/2004 - 09/19/2004

09/19/2004 - 09/26/2004

09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004

10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004

10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004

10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004

10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004

10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004

11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004

11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004

11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004

11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004

12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004

12/12/2004 - 12/19/2004

12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004

12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005

01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005

01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005

01/16/2005 - 01/23/2005

01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005

01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005

02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005

02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005

02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005

02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005

03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005

03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005

03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005

03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005

04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005

04/10/2005 - 04/17/2005

04/17/2005 - 04/24/2005

07/03/2005 - 07/10/2005

Saturday, October 09, 2004
  The "Big" Lie
Robert P. George in the National Review Online writes about the Big Lie that John Kerry told in the second presidential debate:
Every reporter covering the election should, after the second presidential debate in St. Louis, be demanding of Kerry an answer to the following question: Who are the scientists who told you that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal-cord injuries, or any other disease using embryonic stem cells? If they won't ask him, the Bush campaign should defy him to name the names. He won't be able to do it. No scientists ? even those most pro-Kerry and aggressively in favor of the federal funding of embryo-destructive research ? ever told Kerry any such thing.

What Kerry has done here is told the big lie about embryonic stem cells. The claim that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's disease, diabetes, etc. with embryonic stem cells is outrageous. No one knows when ? or even whether or not ? human embryonic stem cells will be therapeutically useful in treating any major disease or injury. There are profound ? perhaps insuperable ? problems with the therapeutic use of these cells. So, despite the fact that there is no federal ban on embryonic-stem-cell research, and that such research can be funded with state money and is being publicly funded in various places abroad, no embryonic-stem-cell-based therapy is even in clinical trials.

Mr. George is referring to John Kerry's answer to a question posed by a woman in the audience. "Thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical-cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?"

Now on the face of it, this seems to be a reasonable question; one technique has proven promising and actually works, while the other has no proven benefit. However, let's flesh out the real meaning behind the question. This woman (and every one who opposes embryonic stem cell research) is not saying that she knows embryonic stem cell research is a dead end; if that were the case, she would be entirely justified. What she and the religious zealots are saying is, "Should we not investigate or pursue this line of inquiry, because it destroys an embryo?"

Now the only rational rejoinder to this question is, what's wrong with destroying an embryo? And thus we arrive at the crux of the issue. These people believe, on faith (which means without any evidence and indeed regardless of any evidence to the contrary), that an embryo is essentially the same thing as you or I, because it possesses a soul. So here is there argument, stated honestly: We shouldn't do embryonic stem cell research because we believe that destroying a small clump of tissue is no different than murdering a human being. We have no argument as to why this is true - God said it, and we choose to believe it. Therefore we shouldn't do embryonic stem cell research.

Now, whether or not embryonic stem cell research is viable is a scientific question that I can't answer. But morally, any avenue of scientific research that is open to improving the life of human beings that doesn't violate the rights of other human beings is completely moral and should not be stopped. This means testing on animals and even embryos and fetuses if appropriate. It is irrational and immoral to oppose any increase in knowledge because of a dogma, religious or otherwise. To do so when considering something that could possible improve human life is all the more irrational, and unwarranted. Every private effort should be allowed to pursue this field, and to capitalize on it in the event that it is practical. It would be wonderful if we could have an embryo "farm" that would produce remedies for all kinds of debilitating diseases that ruin so many people's lives. Maybe embryonic stem cells won't yield any practical developments, but to write it off before it's attempted is completely foolish and dangerous. This is the true face of religion, which outlawed herisies in the early days of the church, tortured and imprisoned Galileo, and burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for refusing to submit.

As to the issue of public money, I agree with the zealots, but for different reasons. Public money should not fund any type of research, religious, scientific or whatever. The zealots (with a few exceptions) have no problem with public funding of religious initiatives, which is just as immoral and unjustified.

<< Home
Email Me Blogroll Me


Ayn Rand Institute

Economist George Reisman

Cox and Forkum

Ludwig Von Mises Institute

Capitalism Magazine

Objectivism Online Forum

Forum 4 Ayn Rand Fans

Betsy Speicher's Cybernet

Austrian Economics Forum


The Undercurrent

Syndicate This Blog

Powered by Blogger Site
     Meter Locations of visitors to this page Listed on Blogwise Get Firefox! Objectivism Online Creative Commons Licence

Wizbang Standalone Trackback Pinger
Technorati search
Top Stories
US National