Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist
President Bush vs. Dr. Frist vs. the Nurembug Code
by Terry Jeffrey
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"We were all an embryo at one point, and we ought to as a society be very careful about being callous about the wanton destruction of embryos, of life," White House aide Karl Rove told the Denver Post this week.

He was explaining why President Bush is committed to casting his first-ever veto against a bill -- which may pass the Senate as early as next week -- that would give tax dollars to researchers who deliberately kill human embryos to extract their stem cells.

"The president is emphatic about this," Rove said.

This veto threat is necessary because of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's latest positioning on the issue. In 2001, when Bush barred federal funding for stem cell research that kills embryos, Frist supported him. Now, Frist supports a bill passed by the House last year that overrides the president's funding ban, giving tax dollars to researchers who kill un-implanted embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics. Last month, after hectoring by supporters of embryonic stem cell research, Frist agreed to schedule a Senate vote on the bill.

Politically, Frist may merit taxonomical reclassification as an invertebrate.

But as a heart surgeon with a degree from Harvard Medical School, he remains uniquely qualified to explain the basic science of human life -- which he did quite emphatically on the Senate floor last year.

"I believe human life begins at conception," Frist said on July 29, 2005. "It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It is genetically distinct. And it is biologically human. It is living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It is a fact of science."

Yet, in this very speech, Frist announced qualified support for the House bill and justified sometimes using tax dollars to kill embryos.

He couldn't bring himself to logically apply an inalterable moral principle to what he himself defined as an inalterable scientific fact.

Not so, President Bush.

When Bush announced his policy on funding stem cell research in 2001, he may not have understood the science as well as Frist, but he had a superior grasp of the relevant moral principle: Researchers must never deliberately take innocent life.

Bush said he wanted "to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life." Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Blind leading the blind
The fact that embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated is the key to their potential. Yes, they do result in uncontrolled growth in early experiments. This does not in any way diminish their potential. Private firms, which rely on quick return on investment don't concentrate on embryonic stem cells for the same reason they don't engage in research on nuclear fusion: it's too expensive and the short-term payoff is uncertain compared to cord blood stem cells, for example; but the clinical applications of the latter are severely limited. This is why even researchers who work with adult stem cells are in favor of continued research with embryonic cells.

The continuing efforts to conflate undifferentiated blastocysts (the source of embryonic stem cells) with "babies" may appeal to the ignorant and the politically motivated (that is, to George Bush and Bill Frist respectively) but it's basically dishonest. Same goes for BrianR, who slips in the phrase "fetal cells", when in fact, the cells in question come from embryos in a much earlier stage of development.

I find it telling that those who wet themselves over the fates of microscopic lumps of undifferentiated cells are the same ones who callously deny medical insurance coverage to millions of real human children. What's going to happen to the embryos that the palladins of the right succour, if they actually develop into living, breathing (expensive) human beings? Whey then, according to good Republican principles, they're on their own!

"...destined to be discarded..."
I have a problem with this oft used phrase: "destined to be discarded". It is as if an embryo was an old sweater, that is out of fashion, or useless and not worth donating.

An embryo IS a human being; it is a life, interrupted (temporarily), by man, in the process of development. By freezing the embryo, that life does not cease to be a human being; it does not lose its characteristics; matter has not been created, or destroyed - it has merely been frozen in space and time.

Why are we harvesting dozens of eggs prior to in vitro fertilization? - Greed

Why are we performing an unnatural "selection" process, and deciding which embryos to implant? - Greed

Why are we further removing "unsuitable" embryos after implantation, leaving only a select one or two? - Greed

Notice a pattern? Desperate couples go to fertility doctors, who justify their existence and exorbitant fees by increasing the odds - at the expense of "rejected" human beings.

With all the infertile couples, there is no need for discarding fertilized eggs.

We are a disposable society, and that attitude has encroached upon our morals and ethics.

Murderers get 5-10 for taking a life...is that all we are worth?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.