A month ago I wrote a post stating Fred Thompson had disqualified as one of my presidential primary picks for opposing a human life amendment or federal intervention if need be of disabled killing.
Now Mitt Romney has disqualified himself for supporting human embryonic stem cell research.
I'm so disappointed, because I was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt. Turns out he's not completely converted. A December 5 interview with Katie Couric on CBS News went like this:
Couric: So are you opposed to stem cell research?Romney: No, I'm very much in favor of stem cell research, but in a way which I believe is moral and ethical. And creating new embryos through embryo farming or through cloning, I find to be unethical and I would not pursue that course of stem cell research.
Couric: So what kind of embryos - embryos that are created for procreation and then would be discarded? Are those the ones that you feel are perfectly fine from which to cull cells for stem cell research?
Romney: Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law. I wouldn't finance that with government money because it represents a moral challenge for a lot of people and I think we're better investing in places where the prospects are much better. And I think that's something like something known as alter-nuclear transfer where you create new embryo, like, entities, but they're not human embryos. And you can take stem cells from those.
No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation.
Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just needed to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation:
Couric: What's the biggest mistake you've ever made? How did you recognize it and what did you do to change course?Romney: Well, I think from the political perspective, the biggest mistake I made was believing that my personal disagreement with abortion and my view that abortion was wrong, that somehow I could accommodate my personal view that abortion was wrong with a public view that other people should be able to make up their own mind, and the government wouldn't play a role. That, in my view, was a mistake....
Couric: You said you have personal views toward abortion but felt that in the public arena, another position could exist. What is wrong with that? What's wrong with having a personal view and feeling that it's the right of individuals to make these difficult choices?
Romney: Well, what I recognized is that in a civilized society that there has to be a respect for the sanctity of life - that if you put that aside, if you say, "We're gonna start creating life and then destroying it," you're, in effect, playing God. And I think a civilized society has certain rules of conduct that it live by and one of those is to respect the sanctity of life.
I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself.
That leaves pretty much leaves Mike Huckabee. I really like Duncan Hunter, but he's not getting any traction.
[HT: Lifenews.com]
Jumping on the Huckabee bandwagon to hell are we? Huckabee is by far the worst on a host of conservative positions, with the exception of some social issues. Romney stated plainly that he would not authorize federal funding for any such stem cell research. Your also forgetting the recent scientific advance that allows stem cells to be created from skin cells, this point is becoming moot. I think it just a bit of religious bigotry that is motivating your opinions.....
How sweet ... because someone supports Mike Huckabee, the strongest pro-life candidate in the field, AKSurprise accuses us of religious bigotry.
This is how conservatives speak? Last I knew, that was how lefties spoke.
There is absolutely no practicality for supporting a human life amendment. The goal is to save as many unborn babies as possible. We are simply not going to pass a human life amendment for another generation, and support of it is more symbolism than anything. We need to save the unborn by overturning Roe, and letting the states enfoce their own abortion laws, which will actually save lives. Fred is right on this issue- and if the supporters of the HLA want to go their way rather than the realistic way, I would contend our way will save far more lives than the supporters of the HLA would.
Wickle, I quoted Romney directly and underlined what he said that got him cast off my island. Claiming religious bigotry for that is an excuse.
Lucha, it's not one or the other. Most pro-lifers advocate overturning Roe and then introducing a human life amendment as states pass anti-abortion/state hla legislation. That's certainly realistic. Thompson would stop with the overturn of Roe, which is equivalent to Stephen Douglas advocating that states determine their wishes on slavery. That is NOT right.
Sorry Jill, you are simply misinformed about this issue. The Issue doesn't just stop with the overturning of Roe. It goes to other judicial appointments that the President would name to the bench. It goes to using the bully pulpit of the Presidency.
The President does not "introduce" a Human Life Amendment, or any other amendment to the Constitution for that matter. That role first belongs to the Congress, and then to the respective state legislatures. The President is not involved in the process.
The fact remains that there is zero possibility of that happening for the next 30 years. It seems that Mike Huckabee is fetishizing the legislative process, all to prop up his candidacy, rather than focusing on the real goal, which is to save the lives of the unborn- something a Constitutional amendment will not do in our lifetime.
The Right-to-Life folks are not stupid- they've got their eyes on the ball.
Jill - I'm on your side. AKSurprise was accusing you of bigotry. I'm a Huckabee supporter myself, for the simple reason that he's pro-life and the other candidates aren't. (Except, as you note, Duncan Hunter.) Sorry if it wasn't clear -- my sarcasm was directed at AKSurprise, not you.
Wickle, sorry! I meant to respond to AKSurprise.
Vince, I'm not misinformed. There is a basic flaw in one's pro-life theology if one is happy with states making the "choice." Thompson is close but still has a screw loose on both abortion and killing of disabled, which he would also leave to states to decide. As I said, this is the Stephen Douglas position on abortion. Focus on that point, will you?
And Vince, I disagree with your pessimistic view of the future for the sanctity of life.
Whenever I hear arguments based on what works or practicality (as in the "HLA is impractical") I have to wonder what the ethical standard is for legislation. Is rightness determined by the relativistic standard of perceived success or is there something more that one can appeal to beyond pragmatism? I suggest that justice demands protection of all human lives at the federal level. The fact that Thompson does not believe or recognize this suggests his view of justice is flawed/unacceptable.
From the inception of our country, it was the states which drafted homicide laws, not the federal government, because that was properly their domain. The states, in effect, were pro-life from the get go, and no states had protected abortion as a fundamental right. Thompson is simply acknowledging this fact- if you have a problem with it, then blame the Framers of the Constitution, because that was their intent.
As to my purported pessimism, you can call my views what you like. I simply want to save the unborn, not sit around for a generation and posture that "im purer than you on abortion", and wait to pass a HLA. It's not that it's impractical, it's that it simply won't pass anytime during the next generation- it's practicality is simply a moot point.