BrianJarrett.com

I was driving past a church in my neighborhood a week or two ago and I noticed their sign. I normally read the signs on churches, mostly because they can sometimes provide some comic relief. I have a few favorites from the years past, most notably a couple churches in West Virginia. One church had a bright red scrolling sign which read “Big Bang Theory: Yeah Right!”. Another had created an acronym for the word Bible which read: “Bible: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth”. At least that one was clever. I’ve also seen a few bumper stickers worth mentioning: “Evolution is Science Fiction”, “Big Bang Theory: God said ‘Bang!’ and it happened”, and “Eternity: Smoking or Non-Smoking?”.

As impressed as I am with the seemingly overwhelming idiocy of this I was truly blown away by this sign. The sign, prominantly displayed near the road for would-be converts to notice, read “We oppose human cloning: Vote No on Amendment 2″.

What I found so asinine was the level of arrogance and ignorance infused with this statement. First, there is implicit arrogance; they oppose this so I am required to vote according to their beliefs. Secondly, the church apparently failed to perform even the slightest amount of research into the proposed amendment. If they had they’d have known that Amendent 2 explicitly bans human cloning. From the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures website:

[amendment 2] …also sets responsible boundaries and guidelines to ensure that stem cell research is conducted ethically and safely. And, it resolves concerns that stem cell research could lead to human cloning by strictly banning any attempt to clone a human being. (1)

Also, according to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, it’s impossible to even clone a human being from stem cells:

Stem cell research aims to develop new life-saving treatments, and cannot be used to develop a human being. Embryonic stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early embryo cannot give rise to a placenta, so a human being could not develop, even if the stem cells were implanted into a woman’s uterus (2).

I don’t consider myself to be a very politically savvy person, but anyone with a working knowledge of the English language and even a small amount of initiative can find this out for themselves. All it took for me was a Google search and paying attention to television ads.

Again referencing the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, here is where we currently get stem cells from:

Stem cells are currently derived from one of two sources. Scientists isolate stem cells from embryos donated with informed consent by couples who have undergone in vitro fertilization. These embryos are in excess of clinical need and would otherwise be discarded or remain unused.

Stem cells can also be derived from tissue from terminated pregnancies before the end of the first trimester. Informed consent to isolate the cells is obtained from donors after they have independently made the decision to terminate their pregnancies. The tissue used in this research would have otherwise been discarded. (2)

I think the hot debate here is that we sometimes get these cells from aborted fetuses. Although I do not personally advocate abortion as a means of birth control, I still support the woman’s right to choose (provided it’s within the first trimester only). For me personally, using stem cells from fetuses aborted within the first trimester to potentially save someone else’s life is making something good from something bad. Abortion itself, although undeniably tied to this issue, is beyond the scope of this essay. Maybe I could talk to this girl about it.

More importantly, and probably more frightening, is the primary opposition to Amendment 2 is the Religious Right. George W. Bush and the Republican party are undeniably tied to Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, a group whose intention is to take control of the Republican party from the ground up. According to theocracywatch.org:

In 2004, forty-eight out of fifty-one Republican Senators voted with the Christian Coalition 100% of the time. One Democrat also received a 100% scorecard — Zell Miller who has since retired. (3)

What’s ironic is that Bush claims to be pro-life (or perhaps more accurately stated, anti-choice). I have a little trouble buying this, since Bush, serving for six years as governer of Texas, presided over 152 executions (4). During the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco Bush (with Tom DeLay and the religious right) yammered about a “culture of death” yet he had no problems presiding over more executions than any other governer in the recent history of the United States (4). Of course we’re talking about executing rapists and murderers here, but I would imagine that killing anyone-even as punishment for murder-contributes to an overall “culture of death”.

And don’t forget the war in Iraq, spearheaded by George W. Bush. As of this writing, according to derived DOD numbers, there have been 2,718 U.S. war deaths (5) (2,720 according to icasualties.org (6)). Not surprisingly the DOD did not have a casualty counter on their website, at least not one I could easily find.

Of course, the current justification for the war is Iraqi freedom, despite the fact that we were told initially that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and then we were told that Iraq had ties to 9/11, neither of which were proven. If we’re in the business of liberating people, then how come we’re not in North Korea or Darfur? Maybe because they don’t have oil. However, with Bush’s current approval ratings in the 30s or lower 40s (7) maybe others are beginning to agree with me.

In the end I’ll vote “yes” on amendment 2. I also hope it will be win for science and a blow against the theocratic society that Bush, the Republicans, the Christian Coalition, and the Vatican are so desperately fighting for.

References:

• (1) Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures
• (2) Junvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
• (3) theocracywatch.org
• (4) Death in Texas by Sister Helen Prejean
• (5) Antiwar.com
• (6) Iraq Coalition Casualties
• (7) PollingReport.com

Disclaimer: Despite the fact that I have political opinions I am not a political expert. Feel free to comment with any corrections below if any of my research appears to be flawed. If you just disagree I’ll read your opinion but I can’t guarantee I’ll change my mind.