Half Way Down The Slippery Slope
Deborah Venable
07/20/06
With
the promised first presidential veto in five and a half years now official, the
ongoing moral dilemma of science versus conscience is brought to the forefront
of American politics once again. The
argument about federally funded embryonic stem cell research is being carried
on half way down the slippery slope of ethics already. No one has sound footing because previous
battles have set the stage for this one on a downward slant and greased it with
the blood of innocents. Science
governed by ethics long ago passed the point of credibility – about the time
that the devaluation of innocent individual human life was allowed. That coincided with the idea that
propagation of the human species was first an activity of convenience instead
of a gift to humanity. Science got
involved in the whole process to not only “weed out” inferior or inconvenient
propagation, but also to “cultivate” designer gardens where nature had not seen
fit to “fertilize properly”. This is
precisely why we have the means for an argument, a “crop” of unwanted fetuses
from which science, (and unfortunately a majority of Americans) see as
“research material” instead of potential human lives.
These
are hard subjects to discuss objectively.
Most ethical subjects are, but this one is probably the only one that
comes with easy to wear built in blinders to all the inconvenient facts. Fact number one: Human embryos grow into human babies. All they need is “planting” and nourishing, in much the same way
that newborn babies need care and nourishment to grow into adults. How dare we, who regularly throw out “moral”
arguments on every possible subject, refuse to see the truth in that to the
point that we still have to argue about when life begins! Life has obviously begun if scientists are
waiting with baited breath to get their hands on these “unwanted” embryos and
drain off the stem cells because of their potential life-giving quality to the
sick and ailing! Fact number two: Creating these embryos in petri dishes is
science’s first step away from conscience.
While the intentions may be kind – to provide couples, who may not
otherwise be able to conceive, with a way to have children – the results are
monstrous. The sanctity of human life
has been devalued for as long as science has proceeded without a
conscience. Fact number three: If babies already growing in the womb can
legally have their lives taken for reasons of convenience, it stands to reason
that petri dish lives are at the mercy of severely damaged moral
judgments.
How
do we, who see these facts for what they are, expect to win this moral argument
with a majority of short-sighted citizens who had rather embrace science
without conscience and follow it to the bottom of the slippery slope instead of
using the handrail of conscience to pull themselves back to a firm footing as
human beings? All I can say is this -
stop sitting in judgment of anything from a moral standpoint because your
credibility is shot. You can no longer
preach pacifism, conservation, multiculturalism, safety, environmentalism,
educational socialism, or anything else that you are so fond of. Until you can grasp the meaning of the
sanctity of individual human life, your arguments are null and void.
What
lies at the bottom of that slippery slope is a rot that will continue up the
trunk of human life and leave it devoid of any value. Continued science without conscience will make the worst of
science fiction horror movies look like Sesame Street.
President Bush deserves our utmost gratitude for using his veto power, just as he promised he would, to take a moral stand for the sanctity of human life. What he’ll get, though, is a deluge of “moral” judgments against his actions. How sad. God help the next truly moral argument that lands on deaf ears.