The end (promoting god/faith/religion) does
not justify the means (lip service to embryos)

(Top Posts - Social/Legal - 081401)

After the Bush decision on 8/9/01 (to forego fed-
eral funds for stem cell research regarding embryos
which are destined to be discarded, but instead,
saying federal funds will go for *existing stem lines*
from previous research), via several news shows
and forums, various catholicized and religious
right types pontificated on the precious embryos
and their prayers and concerns for the life of the
embryos and how embryos were human life and
how the end doesn't justify the means when it
comes to embryological stem cell research and ...

I heard nothing regarding IVF (in vitro fertiliza-
tion) which is the reason why there are frozen
blastocysts in the first place. Even though there
is a supposed catholic opposition to IVF, it's a
rather hush-hush let's not talk about that type of

There was very little talk of the overwhelming
number of blastocysts at fertility clinics that don't
make it to life by virtue of the nature of IVF, either
ending as a result of an attempt at impregnation or
being discarded due to rules/regulations or desires
of the individuals using IVF.

No, the entire focus was on damning researchers
who dare to use blastocysts to save sentient life,
blastocysts otherwise destined to be discarded.

Could it be that the church and religious types are
stymied 'cause there is no option for them to assert
control when blastocysts are used for research rather
than discarded or used in an attempt at impregnation?

Could it be that embryological stem cell research is a
strong reminder to everyone, especially church types,
that there is no god, we exist in a naturalistic world,
and it's up to us, only us, to determine what course
we set for ourselves, both now and in the future?

Isn't it that sense of freedom from their god, of natur-
alistic self-determination, of human control over our
own fate that gnaws at religious leaders, acting as the
underlying reasons why they fight it tooth and nail?

Well, let's think about that for a minute.

The End does not Justify the Means ...

Indeed, the end of promoting god/faith/religion
does not justify the means of hindering/slowing
research into cures by paying lip service to frozen
blastocysts (~100,000 at the present time) which
are destined to either

1) 85 to 95 percent chance of non-life (and 100
percent chance of non-contribution to research
for cures) by virtue of IVF fertilization (put another
way, a 5 to 15 percent chance at life which is only
applicable to blastocysts used in implantation/
impregnation attempts via IVF - a fate for a small
subset of the available blastocysts),

2) 100 percent chance of non-life and 100 percent
chance of non-contribution to research for cures,
if discarded (the 2nd fate endorsed by the Bush
decision or, put another way, dismissed as a non-
issue via the Bush decision for the Bush decision
has nothing to say regarding discarded blastocysts,
revealing a cold-hard immorality and irresponsibility
regarding both potentiality for new life -and- poten-
tiality for cures for diseases impacting tens of mil-
lions of sentient living human beings in America),


3) 100 percent chance of no new life but, instead,
100 percent chance of contributing to salvation of
existing life (blastocysts which have made it to the
viable state of being known as human life) via con-
tributing to research for cures (by private research-
ers only for existing blastocysts).

- - -

Only for *previously existing* blastocysts now
present in stem cell lines, federal money is available
for research.

- - -

Furthermore, no matter what folks pontificate on
the morality of embryological stem cell research,
the facts remain that

1) embryological stem cell research will continue,
in private hands, in foreign countries, and, to a
hindered/slowed degree in the hands of researchers
at universities using federal research dollars,

2) scientists will leave the U.S. to continue embry-
ological stem cell research,

3) almost all of faith and non-faith who are suffering
from some disease for which embryological stem
cell research provides a cure or treatment will, point
in fact, seek out those cures/treatments when/if they
become available,

4) nary a single frozen blastocyst is saved by the
Bush decision and research into cures for sentient
life is slowed/hindered by said decision, revealing
the Bush decision as patently immoral ...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Stem-cell decision much too tepid
(Staff, Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Monday, August 13, 2001

"President Bush could find the moral courage neither
to endorse stem-cell research nor to ban it.

So rather than take a strong stand, he chose to make
everyone equally miserable. While he did a good thing
in allowing federal funding for the research, the restric-
tions Bush placed on which stem cells can be used limit
both the good the research can do and the government's
influence on the process.

By limiting federally funded research to the already har-
vested lines of stem cells --- of which he says there are
60, although the scientific community says it is far fewer
--- the president guarantees that private companies will
leap ahead with their own research and will consequently
own the resulting treatments. Private companies are
under no mandate to share breakthrough findings nor
to abide by any ethical standards other than the law.

If the president reached the moral decision to allow re-
search on existing stem cells, what makes it less moral
to use cells from other embryos that will be destroyed

And why is it that 5-day-old clusters of cells have more
right to life --- especially when they were not slated for
implantation anyway --- than thousands of children and
adults who will die from diseases that those cells might

Bush also said he would set up a special commission to
provide guidelines for the research and its ethical dilemmas.
Why, when he already has the National Institutes of Health
at his disposal, would he need separate counsel on this
particular issue? Is this where members of the religious
anti-abortion faction will have their sway? Will this be
enough to assuage them, given their demand for an out-
right ban on the research?

Both Bush's allies and enemies are giving him a break in
their response to his decision because he obviously went
through a personally intense moral soul-searching to arrive
at it. But ultimately, he did not find it within himself to take
a stand that would define the United States as the scientific,
moral and compassionate leader in developing cures for
devastating diseases. Instead, he dipped his toes in the
water, but when the political winds chilled him, he stopped
short of swimming.

His decision will just put off the real moral dilemma for a
later date, perhaps when a private company uses cloned
embryos to develop stem cells that help cure Alzheimer's
disease or diabetes, and the American public rises up to
demand those cures, no matter the cost."

--- --- --- --- --- end of article --- --- --- --- ---

My comments:

Bush is promoting treating blastocysts as frozen icons
of god/faith/religion, hindering/slowing cures for millions
of sentient beings, forcing leading researchers to do their
work elsewhere, and saving no life, no blastocysts, not
a single entity with either life potential or life sentience.

No, he's merely playing politics, dancing with the fascist
right wing of the republican party and the pope-a-tized,
and paying lip service to frozen blastocysts while in fact
promoting blastocysts-to-trashbins -and- blastocysts to
private researchers -and- American science to foreign

For a better way, a pro-human way, a decent and honor-
able and life-saving way, see the following perspective
from someone who sees a wiser path (than reliance on
superstition and imaginary beings) for the future of
humankind ...

Type 1 Diabetic Pro-Humanist Responds
to Bush Stem Cell Decision, Part 2 (081201)
"... The Bush decision saves no blastocysts - it
simply washes its hands of responsibility and allows
blastocysts to either be destroyed or be used by
*private research only* to research cures, thereby
hindering/slowing research in the U.S. and resulting
in an exodus of some key scientists from U.S.
shores. ..."

- - -