I was disturbed greatly today. In church of all places. I guess I should have expected it though. At one of the entrances of church, you couldn't help but notice the sign screaming out in silence "2 goes 2 far." Inside the weekly bulletin was an insert in f.a.q. format explaining why (according to catholic teachings) "2 goes 2 far." At this point I'm just disappointed and upset. Here's the part that really disturbed me. The second question : "Aren't the embryos just going to be thrown away? Why not use them for research?"To which their response was: "This argument is simply invalid. (wtf?) For it to be consistent, society would then have to deem as disposable the terminally ill and condemned prisoners." Behold, one element I hate about gung-ho catholics. I feel this answer is insanely invalad and i'll explain why later. They go on to say: "Using" the human embryos does not accurately describe human embryonic stem cell research. The reality is that the researcher willingly destroys the living human embryo in order to extract the embryo's stem cells. Besides, the fact that an embryonic human being is at risk of being abandoned by his or her parents does not give the government the right to destroy that infant human life. The argument fails to consider the long-term consequences of human embryo research. When the very limited number of human embryos have been destroyed, from where will the additional embryos come? The answer, as witnessed in both California and England, is egg extraction, a process that is extremely painful for women and opens the door for the exploitation of minorities, the poor and the most vulnerable. Embryo destructive research is neither pro-life nor consistent with the Church's teaching on social justice."
They make it sound like they just flat out take eggs from women against their will. What's with the blowing things out of proportion?
Read: Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos by in vitro fertilization. A greater number of embryos are produced than are necessary or suitable for implantation resulting in "excess" embryos.
"Fertility patients have four options for these embryos," said Jill Roof, CRC research associate. "They can store them, donate them to others seeking fertility treatment, discard them as medical waste, or donate them to research. If Proposal 2008-02 passes, Michigan scientists will be able to conduct research using donated embryos and derive their own embryonic stem cells rather than relying on those from other states that may not meet their needs." (http://www.crcmich.org/election/index.html)
Now here's the part where I (try) to explain how the response to the "invalid argument" is in itself invalid. Now keep in mind that I'm flat out against the act of abortion, so that makes me pro-life, right? Now, what's one thing a major difference between human embryonic stem cells and the terminally ill? Well you see, most of the terminally ill people were conceived in the womb through the act of sexual intercourse. Let's label this as "natural." Human embryonic stem cells are conceived in a petri dish. Let's label this as "unnatural." Do you see where I'm going with this? Because I can't find the words to explain this in detail.
I also want to take this time to state my view on abortion. I'm against it. 100%. I think it's very unfortunate that women have them. I don't mean to sound like i think they just go out and have them for the sake of having them. I know that's not true. But I am against them 100%. Here's the kicker though. I don't believe the catholic church nor the government should interfere with a woman's decision to have one. Up until a few months ago I was against it just because that's what the church has been telling me all my life. I recently read a quote that enabled me to finally grow the balls to actually think for myself: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. -Barack Obama, June 28th 2006, Washington DC
Christianity isn't the only religion out there.
Guess that doesn't make me pro-life anymore... for some reason.
The more and more I think about it, the more Catholics and Christians tick me off. Not all catholics and christians, let's be realistic here. Many of them are really great people. I'm talking about the single issue gung-ho ones, the ones who are going to vote for McCain just because of his position on abortion. Do they seriously thing that if he is elected, he's going to change the law to ban abortion? Because he isn't. There's a very small part of me that wishes he would win just so that when nothing has changed at the end of his term, i can say "Told you so." You could have a presidential candidate, the worst in the world who's like "Bomb every country, raise taxes! Spend Spend Spend! Drill Everywhere! Burn money!" and of course no one would like him. But once he says the 3 magic words "I'm Pro-Life," he's got 90% of the gung-ho catholics.
This is perhaps my first post ever in my life with a very high potential of pissing people off.
On the way home
