"Well, crying isn't gonna bring your dog back . . . unless your tears smell like dog food. So you can either sit there crying and eating can after can of dog food until your tears smell enough like dog food to make your dog come back or you can go out there and find your dog."
- Homer J. Simpson
Friday, June 26, 2009
From Mona Charen over at The Corner
New York State has decided to use taxpayer funds to pay women to donate their eggs for embryonic stem cell research. That didn't take long. We warned, didn't we, that proponents of this research who claimed that they were only going to use the frozen embryos in fertility clinics slated for destruction anyway were deceiving the public. Welcome to the brave new world of creating human embryos in order to use them as commodities. This is a terrible descent.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5482.
Comments on ""That Didn't Take Long"":
3. Scott
- 06/26/2009 8:59 am CDT
Yeah I was going to ask a similar question. What's this got to do with Obama? If New York couldn't (or wouldn't) have done it under Bush's administration then I think that might be a bigger problem then them doing it under Obama's term.
Shouldn't a state be able to decide what they want to do when it comes to this? For the record I think the whole abortion issue should be relegated to state control.
4. Bill
- 06/26/2009 10:28 am CDT
Scott/Jared
Good questions. I was basing this off of the March 9 Executive order issued that authorized federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. You make a good point - could they have done this under Bush?
I honestly don't know.
I still think Obama is going to be a disaster for unborn humans.
Scott - I don't know what you mean here: "If New York couldn't (or wouldn't) have done it under Bush's administration then I think that might be a bigger problem then them doing it under Obama's term."
5. Bill
- 06/26/2009 10:50 am CDT
Also - side note: because I realize that I may be connecting dots that aren't there, I'm going to take out the graceless comment in my post.
7. nhe
- 06/26/2009 12:45 pm CDT
I completely agree with Scott on it being a state issue.......so much more can be done at the grassroots level if this were a state issue.
I like Charen's use of the word "descent" - most would say "precedent" there, but that doesn't capture the fact that this goes beyond slippery slope straight to 49% grade downhill with runaway truck ramps everywhere.
8. Shrode
- 06/27/2009 8:35 am CDT
I supported Fred Thompson over Mike Huckabee during the primaries so when the two disagreed over this issue I didn't say much...
but I have to say I think Fred (and others) who think that abortion ought to be a state issue are wrong. Oh, they may be legally and constitutionally right, and it would certainly be preferable to what we have now.
But it's hard for my conscience to argue with Huckabee when he says that abortion is a moral issue and we should have a constitutional amendment protecting the unborn. If that's what it takes, then I say, "Amen."
9. Scott
- 06/29/2009 9:24 am CDT
I don't know what you mean here: "If New York couldn't (or wouldn't) have done it under Bush's administration then I think that might be a bigger problem then them doing it under Obama's term."
I suppose what I meant was that saying NY wouldn't have done it under Bush intimates that either NT was afraid of Bush or that Bush had sufficient power to prevent it from happening. That would be bad.
10. Scott
- 06/29/2009 9:26 am CDT
But it's hard for my conscience to argue with Huckabee when he says that abortion is a moral issue and we should have a constitutional amendment protecting the unborn. If that's what it takes, then I say, "Amen."
Abortion is a moral issue. There are a lot of moral issues that don't require constitutional amendments. This, I think, is one of them.
11. Shrode
- 06/29/2009 9:46 am CDT
Scott,
Can you give me some examples? I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just want to understand what you are saying.
12. Scott
- 06/29/2009 10:48 am CDT
All statutes involving murder, drunkeness, infidelity, sex crimes, and the like (that I am aware of) are set by the states and are not matters requiring constitutional amendments. Federal powers need to be limited, not added to.
13. Shrode
- 06/29/2009 11:42 am CDT
Scott, that makes sense. I think I agree. :)
However, most of the ones you list can only be crimes if the person involved is considered a "person".
Aren't the rights of personhood a matter for the constitution?
We thought so in regards to outlawing slavery, the right for blacks to vote, the right for women to vote, the right for 18 year olds to vote and some other rights I'm probably not thinking of.
All of the above were amended in the constitution not to give the Gov't more power, but to give it less, or to give human beings more rights.
In the case of a constitutional amendment defining unborn humans as persons, I would think that gives (unborn) people more rights, and it takes away any gov'ts (state or federal) power to kill them.
So in a way it does limit federal and state power, and it certainly seems in keeping with precedent regarding constitutional amendments.
14. Scott
- 06/29/2009 2:12 pm CDT
"Aren't the rights of personhood a matter for the constitution?"
Only such rights as are given to adults, in other words it's less about defining personhood and more about defining adulthood. We can restrict the rights of children pretty tightly and stay well within our enumerated rights. Children to the best of my knowledge don't have any enumerated rights in the Constitution.
Are they a matter for the Constitution? Do we want to use the Constitution to answer deep moral questions like when does life begin or what should marriage be when a group of ten of us can't agree on that much less the required 3/4s of the states.
My point about giving the Fed more power was, once you start letting the Fed define what it means to be human (which so far has only been changes to that definition in regards to what it means to be able to vote) and how we as humans are to live our lives (who can't marry) then you are giving the Fed more power.
15. Bob Sacamento
- 06/29/2009 3:02 pm CDT
I'm clueless about the details of this, but would the President have control over New York state making such a decision?
What I mean is, could they have done this under Bush's presidency?
and
I suppose what I meant was that saying NY wouldn't have done it under Bush intimates that either NT was afraid of Bush or that Bush had sufficient power to prevent it from happening. That would be bad.
I think the point is that as long as the Federal Government wouldn't fund the research, there was no point in researchers paying women to donate.
Also, either way, Ms. Charen's original comment "We warned ... that proponents of this research who claimed that they were only going to use ... embryos ... slated for destruction anyway were deceiving the public," still stands.
Leave a Comment:
Ouch, that probably hurts a bit. But, I totally agree...