Andrew Hinton writes a thoughtful and passionate post about George Bush’s first veto that will prevent the use of frozen embryos for stem cell research. In his post, Andrew questions where life starts, where life ends, and who decides it.
He also touches on the issue that I find the hardest to digest about this so-called culture of life:
This is a way for an administration that has championed so much death to doubletalk their way into being all about life, to hold onto their shredding political base by pandering to the ignorant, superstitious and misguided who keep putting them in office.
What does culture of life means for an administration that is perfectly fine with capital punishment, has started two wars, and at the present doesn’t seem particularly compelled to stop the killing of civilians (including children) in Lebanon? Why is the life of a fully formed human being worth less than that of a frozen embryo? Why is the concept of life so much more valuable than the reality of life?
It’s true, the practice of life is much less pure, innocent, and holy than the abstract concept of life. Real people live real lives, make mistakes, do stupid things, hurt, humiliate, threaten, and sometimes kill other people. Real people, differently from frozen embryos, do not symbolize the appealing concept of eternal life; they are born, grow up, get old, and die. They don’t represent the purity of the concept of life; they sweat, bleed, shit, smell bad, and get fat. Real life is a continuous dance with real death; growth is the other face of decay.
But real people also love, nurture, and protect other human beings. They are loved, nurtured, protected by other human beings. They miss other humans beings and they need closeness and physical contact. They are part of a net of relationships, human connections, and social exchanges. They line up in a temporal sequence of births and deaths for generations and generations and hold the memories of those who came before them.
Whatever philosophical reasoning or ethical believe we hold, we cannot dismiss the smelly, bloody, sweaty, and infinitely endearing nature of our messy life. This is the life that a frozen embryo, sadly, has never experienced and almost certainly never will. This is the life that we can and must protect.
July 31, 2006
I’m not defending the Presiden’t veto, but wanted to clear up a misconception: The veto will NOT “prevent the use of frozen embryos for stem cell research.” It withholds federal funding of such research, but has in no way outlawed or prevented it. Somehow the notion has taken hold that stem cell research has been outlawed, but that’s not the case.
From govtrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h109-810):
“Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 – Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells …”
From npr.org (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5566216):
“The Senate approved three separate bills. The first bans so-called fetal farming, the largely hypothetical growing of embryos specifically for stem cell research. A second encourages stem cell research that doesn’t destroy embryos. Both were adopted unanimously.
The third bill was more problematic. It ends President Bush’s prohibition on federal funding to develop new embryonic stem cell lines. ”
It’s that third bill that the President vetoed. He declined to approve a bill to expand funding.