Moody Meow

Let’s get things straight first. I am

• Pro-Abortion
• Pro-Stem Cell Research
• Anti-war
• Anti-death penalty Pr-enviornment
• Pro-animal rights.

I’m not a fan of the literal translations of the bible. It was a document written by many men (see: human men) and has been proven to have many contradictions. The bible author’s beliefs and opinions imbued the document, in my opinion, with personal preferences and morals. I am not burdened by the argument of when life begins. It’s not something I ruminate on. I would rather discuss the intricacies of cooking and responsible land-use.

So to the task at hand. There are many opinions on stem cell research. I fall on the side (to no one’s surprise, I’m sure) that feels that we should allow stem cell research on discarded embryos. Of all the arguments I’ve heard, the one that brings the frown to my face is that life begins at the cellular stage of conception. Egg and sperm come together, and as soon as they begin to split and generate more cells – then that is when life begins. The moral argument held up time and again is one that leans heavily on neo-con biblical beliefs. Leans heavily on a text written centuries before IVF. Then people have to define murder. This becomes one of my huge issues with the pro-lifers and those who are against stem-cell research.

Murder is the willful taking of life. According to pro-lifers, abortion is murder. I can see where that interpretation would be made, but I don’t agree with it at all. But IVF? Embryos that are going to be thrown away? Why shouldn’t we use them for research? They are going to be destroyed. Isn’t that murder? I would like for someone to explain to me the specifics of destruction vs. research. Why is it okay to destroy the embryos and not to use them for medically viable studies? *Then you have to think about the greater good. The big debate is whether or not federal funds may be used to help in the research of such diseases as Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer’s, and cancer while using stem cell. I do not know if any of the law makers on Capitol Hill have loved ones with any of these inflictions, but I’ve lived with a paraplegic. My grandmother’s best friend died of breast cancer. What life is greater? My Aunt Jonie or the embryonic life?

Finally, the killing of the innocent. As I drove to school, I listened to some pundit rage on about the killing of innocents. But, this is a government that does not blink twice when 14,000 Iraqis were killed in our failing operations in Iraq. Admittedly, there is no way to gauge the number of insurgents killed, nor how many women and children were slaughtered. The idea that any innocent life should be spared clashes against what we are doing overseas. If there was the possibility that one child would be accidentally dispatched, then we shouldn’t be over there to begin with. That is an innocent life, by definition. I am not trying to espouse my anti-war beliefs, but I think that juxtaposition warrants some conversation.

So, if I am anti-death penalty and a pacifist, how can I argue for abortions and the use of embryos for stem-cell research? I argue for personal choice. I should be able to choose what to do with my unwanted baby and my own damn cells. I’ve had an abortion. If I had left over embryos from an IVF treatment, then I would donate those as well. Hell, if I could have given my fetus to research I would have (not that it would have done much good. I was polluted by drugs back then, and I don’t have a doubt that the fetus was as well). I don’t honestly know when I think life begins. If the child could be viably removed from the uterus, I guess. There are premies born every day that wouldn’t have without the wonders of our technologies. But it’s an issue muddied by morality and personal choice. I wouldn’t dream of making the decision for someone else. That’s not my place.

I agree that more research should be done with adult stem cells. And yes, no cures have come from the use of the embryonic stem cells. More money needs to be put into the research of both so that people who suffer from debilitating conditions can have a chance. Does their life experience and chance to grow make them less innocent? *The one thing that tweaks my nipple is that Bush used his FIRST presidential veto to kill this bill. People, he’s never used it before! Never! And you have a bi-partisan push for this bill to go into effect. It’s a shame that there weren’t enough votes to pass the bill in spite his veto. But, it’s not that surprising.

I realize that I may sound a little coherent, but I am writing from the heart. I think presidential powers should have been used in a different way. I think that if the people want one thing and the president votes against it then that man has no business being in power. I think that federal funds should be used in a manner to fit the beliefs of the people who live in America. But also think that the Electoral College is an outdated concept and that more funds should go to art and reading programs for kids, but those won’t change either. Instead I get pissed off in my car when listen to the rhetoric and spit my rage here….