Last November, Michigan residents voted to approve Proposal 2, wherein “State and local laws that prevent, restrict, obstruct or discourage any stem cell research" would be prohibited. It failed, however, to do anything to stop legislation that would legalize human cloning in the future; that is, harvesting life to
manipulate human embryos as research material slated for destruction. This is, of course, the slippery slope where such endeavors lead. Indeed, pharmaceutical companies have already as much as conceded that ’spare’ embryos are insufficient to control for the genetic composition that Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research requires. Science has no master, no conscience for ethics or morality; profit is what motivates research, and the aim of such scientists is to push the envelope as far as money or the law will allow. It is an unreasonable supposition, therefore, to conclude that the natural progression of our scientific ingenuity will necessarily reap good, rather than bad, consequences. People are being asked to disregard their particular moral objections in exchange for empty promises, wherein resistance to the proposition that
science must move forward, at any cost, brings about the branding of individuals or groups as being “anti-science”. Assertions of rejuvenating economic prosperity, were the people to disregard their moral misgivings for the destruction of human embryos, ring hollow and represent intentional distortions of ESC
capacities to produce even a single cure. Conversely, monies invested in Adult Stem Cell research have led to 73 different treatments in use today on human patients. Directing scientific resources away from such viable pursuits (amniotic fluid, umbilical cords, the placenta, adult tissues and organs, bone marrow, regions of the nose, fat from liposuction and, most recently, skin cells) is being done deliberately. Underlying all of this is abortion - were the human embryo, through formal legislation outlawing its destruction for purposes of research, to gain greater societal attribution with protections and rights more
closely aligned to that of fully developed human beings, the culture of death (i.e., pro-abortionists) would be one giant step closer to the demise of their idealism. So to would atheists suffer, albeit indirectly, as a largely religious pro-life platform would be advanced, championing that which is morally just; that human life has inherent dignity.