Posted by
Opinionmill Author on Sunday, October 29, 2006 6:32:59 PM
Originally posted at
Opinionmill.com
Earlier this week, I was critical of Michael J Fox and compared him to John Kerry and Cindy Sheehan (deploying the “
unless you have walked in my shoes, you can not argue with me” argument). I watched him on the George Stephanopoulos show this morning and thought that he did a great job redirecting the dialogue from the Rush vs. Fox spectacle to his cause. Now that we are all back on topic, he said two very important things that need to be addressed.
First, Fox admitted that he had not read the Missouri amendment that much of this fuss is about.
Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, “You betray me with a kiss.” And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it’s actually going to allow human cloning.
Fox: Well, I don’t think that’s true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I’m not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I’ll agree with it in spirit, I don’t know, I— On full disclosure, I haven’t read it, and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.
Entire Transcript Here
Video Here.
Not knowing weather or not an amendment allows or forbids the cloning of human beings is a pretty important detail for the leader of a cause to overlook.
Second, Fox conceded what many in the pro embryonic stem cell research camp will not: that what we are talking about is sacrificing tiny little lives to extend others.
Stephanopoulos: Do you think there's any way to finally find common ground with people who do believe in the end that this is tampering with tiny lives?
Fox: Well, again, the point has been made that these lives are going to be thrown away, anyway. They are marked for destruction -- thousands of frozen embryos that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. We have routinely, before this conversation started on stem-cell research, we have for years thrown them away.
And that's the other thing, you know, this idea of snowflake babies: We're in favor of that. The truth of the matter is that it is only going to account for a tiny fraction--
Stephanopoulos: Those are the embryos that are adopted and then brought--
Fox: Absolutely. Who would have a problem with that? That's fantastic.
But it will, in the end, account for only a tiny fraction of those eggs. And so our point is that the pro-life position is to use that -- what up to this point is waste, of literal waste that is going to be thrown away -- use it to save lives and to ensure lives for the future. I mean, they talk about unborn. Unborn kids are going to be born with diabetes. People are going to be dealing with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's or to Parkinson's or kids that are going to be injured, have spinal cord injury.
That those kids may be born into a world that has the answers for that. That's our position.
Entire Transcript Here
Fox agrees that this is about trading life to save life. This alone is enough to take a pause and consider the ethics, but he ups the ante and agrees that these lives could be (and have been) rescued and adopted.
And we've decided that we would like to take this step and to do it with caution and to do it with oversight and to do it with the strictest adherence to ethics and all of the principles this country stands for…..
Entire Transcript Here
The first ethical question should be: Why does the need to conduct this research trump the notion that we should save these lives that are marked for destruction? We are not limited by technology.
CBS News reported in July of last year that Marlene and John Strege were the first couple to adopt frozen embryos, and in 1998, their daughter Hannah was the first snowflake baby born. In testimony before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform in July 2001, Marlene spoke out against the use of embryos in stem cell research, and said, "Any woman can carry an embryo; tissue or blood matching is not necessary. As embryo adoption proliferates in the wake of this controversy, the 'excess supply' of embryos will evaporate."