Three cheers for President George W. Bush for his veto of the murderous HR 810, the bill that would have forced Americans to pay for the draconian experimentation and destruction of human embryos in the random attempt to find uses for their stem cells.
Bush Rightly Vetoes Stem Cell Bill
With vague promises of solving just about every disease known to man, 63 senators had voted to violate the Ten Commandments, the Divine Positive Law, the Declaration of Independence, several international pledges to protect unborn human life, and the consciences of millions of God-fearing Americans, and force taxpayers to pay for the murder of the unborn.
The 63 pro-death Senators included 43 Democrats out of 44, with only Nelson of Nebraska voting “No,” even 19 Republicans out of 55, many of the 19 claiming to be “pro-life.” Fortunately, 36 Republicans voted “No.”
Some of the so-called pro-lifers like Bill Frist of Tennessee and Orin Hatch of Utah and Trent Lott of Mississippi proved how shallow their pro-life claim really is. That kind of commitment to life is built on sand, and it crumbled when the real test came.
Overwhelmed by emotional and shadowy promises of cures at the cost of already existing human life, their commitment to life proved to be too weak to stand against the waves of protest from pragmatists like Nancy Reagan, Mary Tyler Moore, and Michael J. Fox.
Angered by the Presidents firm stand on principle, Democrats who believe the majority of Americans approve of these human experiments, say they will make this issue a “major issue” in the November elections, believing that their Frankenstein stand will get them votes. However, nearly all interested parties doubt that the Congress will be able to muster enough votes to override the President’s First Veto.
Meanwhile, our hat is off to President Bush for his veto of HR 810. If the American people had elected John Kerry in 2004, we have no doubt it would be full steam ahead for taxpayer support for embryonic stem cell experimentation. Maybe now the scientists can get back to working with adult stem cells and come up with some more actual cures.
The Media’s Moral Confusion on Embryonic Stem Cells
It has been interesting to see the media struggle, in its own biased way, with this issue. Even the pro-abortion Chicago Tribune had this to say in a recent editorial:
People of good conscience on both sides of the stem cell issue have struggled with it. Some still do. The stakes could hardly be higher: life and death, potential future cures or crushing disappointment. Stem cells could someday provide treatments or cures for cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases. For many Americans the stem cell issue is agonizing because it touches on core beliefs of when life begins and how it must be protected. It cuts to the heart of society’s moral duty to help the living, but within ethical boundaries.
It’s interesting that the Tribune editors at least see why some of us, like you and me and the Catholic Church and President Bush and Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum, have to say an emphatic “no” even to the possibilities of cures because a moral absolute is at stake. “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is not a suggestion to be discarded when the results of killing are promising.
The Tribune admires people who don’t abandon principle when it’s convenient, but the Tribune itself doesn’t abide by principle when it is too tough to do so. It abides by expediency.
Those who abandon absolutes when it is just too hard to stand by them, are ultimately going nowhere but into chaos, confusion, disaster, and finally into despair. It is ever thus.
Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Why is this lesson so hard to learn?
