Embryos Are Human Life

Embryos Are Human Life.

That’s the opinion of columnist Mona Charen, a syndicated writer in Washington.

I read her opinion piece this morning in the Hartford Courant as I was having my bagel (with lox no less) this morning at Charley’s, in Vernon, Connecticut. Kent and I go there every Sunday morning for breakfast - somewhat of a ritual, I suppose. I’ve often thought that, if someone wanted to wipe us out, it would be easy, because Kent and I are creatures of habit and we definitely have our routines.

The Kansas City Star, editorializing about the president’s threat to veto the stem cell bill passed by the House, described human embryos as the “excess products of fertility procedures.” The Los Angeles Times, contemptuous of the president’s ethical misgivings, declared: “It’s not a choice between a human life and an embryo’s life. It’s a choice between real human lives and a symbolic statement about the value of an embryo.”

I agree with that. How can you really compare an embryo (one that was going to be discarded, by the way) with that of a human life? The research from this could lead to many medical breakthroughs for many people - people with Parkinson’s Disease, Diabetes, or Alzheimer’s Disease, to mention just a few.

If you really want to make an argument that human embryos (that were going to be discarded) are on equal par to someone who might benefit from stem cell research, then I think you could equally make the argument against those who self-pleasure themselves and discard unused sperm, or those who wear condoms during sex, only to throw the condom containing sperm into the garbage can. No, I’m not trying to be crude. I’m try to make a valid point.

If you can say that an embryo is human life and that stem cell research should not be done, then how can you say that the sperm from a male is not equally valid? After all, the sperm provides a genetic blueprint to make it possible for that embryo to develop into a person. Mona goes on to say:

The New York Times and others object that majorities in public opinion polls support this research. Is that how we should evaluate moral claims?

Mona, apparently so. You know what I find amusing in all of this? Mona Charen will make a statement like that, but when it comes to the “majority” of Americans opting to pass state constitutional amendments preventing gay couples from getting married, they are all for that - because it is what the majority wants.

Now, with a subject like embryonic research, suddenly they aren’t so interested in what the majority wants. Now, they are interested in the “moral” thing.

So where do you draw the line? I happen to believe that it is immoral to put basic, equal, civil rights up for a popular vote. I think that is immoral, when law abiding, tax-paying citizens like ourselves are openly placed into a second-class status. Kent and I will enter into that second-class status after October 1st, if we decide to enter into a Connecticut Civil Union. It’s second class because it is not called “marriage”, and the second we leave the state of Connecticut, it dissolves. I think that is wrong. But, that is what the “majority” of people in Connecticut want - for us to be second class.

I suppose I have to live with that. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to use that argument, BE CONSISTENT. You can’t use the argument that gay couples cannot get married because the majority of citizens don’t want that, then turn around and bitch because the majority of citizens favor stem cell research. It doesn’t work that way, and someone as smart as Mona Charen damn well knows it.

Mona, stop being a hypocrite.