Stem Cells and Terrorists and Gays (Oh my!)

The political stuff is beginning to bore me, but I'll go ahead and post my particular take on the things that have been happening over the last week.

How about using the order established in the title.

Stem Cells. The argument's been going on for several years. People like the late Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and Nancy Reagan have all been publicly lobbying for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

I've heard both side of the argument. Proponents say that embryonic stem cells have a potential for curing damaged spinal cords, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. (See Reeve, Fox, Reagan). Their emotion-filled argument sounds full of hope that they or their family members could be (or could have been) cured of their terrible diseases, except the evil Bush refused to fund the research.

The other side fears a slippery slope. They have a somewhat cynical view that many proponents of this research are in it to further rationalize abortion than a sincere belief in cures. But their bottom line is that it is immoral to create a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying (read, killing) it to search for a cure that isn't even likely.

Here's what I understand about the issue. Embryonic stem cells have not yet proven therapeutic for any disease, despite scientists worldwide apparently working hard in their labs to solve the puzzle. However, adult and placental stem cells, which by the way don't require killing anybody, are already being used successfully to treat all sorts of diseases.

What people on the "pro" side either miss or cynically avoid admitting are the basic facts I outlined above, plus the fact that Bush didn't "ban" stem cell research at all - he merely refuses to fund it with federal tax dollars.

What some people on the "con" side may miss is the fact that nobody is proposing the use of aborted fetuses for this research. They instead are asking permission to obtain unused embryos from fertility clinics. But those on this side who do understand that still oppose the research because #1: They have a moral objection to killing embryos under any circumstances, even from fertility clinics; #2: They are convinced that those who do the research will quickly be back demanding they be allowed to use aborted fetuses or even create embryos themselves for destruction in their research; and #3: They believe there are plenty of private biotech companies doing the research on their own without any help from Uncle Sam, and there's no reason to use tax dollars from people morally opposed to this research to support research that may eventually make some biotech company extremely rich.

So I've got no problem with Bush's veto of the bill out of congress today.

Next, terrorists. It's kind of scary to see the escalating conflict between Israel and their enemies. The crazy thing is everybody from Kofi Annan to CNN to Howard Dean running around blaming the current war on, you guessed it, President Bush. The twisted logic is that if Bush had somehow left Iraq alone, none of this stuff with Iran and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas and North Korea would have happened.

Did our invasion of Iraq enrage a lot of radical Islamic terrorist types? Sure. News Flash! War usually does make the enemy hate you more when you fight them. The idea from the pacifists is that we could have somehow brought everyone in the world together to scold the terrorists, as if they were little children, to suddenly love us and stop trying to kill us. Iran, North Korea, and Syria were our enemies in 2001 and they remain our enemies today. Right now they've decided to take on Israel in full-on warfare through their proxies. Next they will do their best to attack American cities.

I know I said it before, but it's really very simple. Aggressors cannot be appeased. Never in history has anyone successfully appeased them. They are either defeated or they win.

Finally, gays. Congress tried to get the gay marriage amendment rolling and failed. They got lots of votes but not the two-thirds it requires. Why did they push this amendment? Was it some sort of campaign stunt, or were they serious?

I'd say both. Conservatives in the House can most definitely use their "Yes" votes to hold off their liberal challengers who mostly think Gay Marriage should be the law of the land. But the fundamental reason they tried the amendment was to keep the courts from forcing it on all of us without our approval. Massachusetts is the first example, and there likely will be other left-wing judges more than happy to dictate the subject against the wishes of the majority.

We live in interesting times.