Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
This is the part of that proposal that would have really creeped me out. I probably wouldn't have voted for it anyway (I have a smidgen more regard for Catholic teaching that that*), but it's the attempt to legislate in the future that I would have expected to trip people up rather than the actual permission granted in this case. I think you commented on this aspect before. But honestly, all you'd have to do would be repeal that law if you wanted to change legislation in the future, right?
ETA: I'm not trying to call out any Catholics who voted for it. I just mean that current Roman Catholic teaching about embryonic stem cell research would affect my own vote just enough to prevent me from personally voting for it. I don't think I'd be super troubled that it passed though. I think most people are pretty accepting of what's described. EATA: Isn't it weird though the stipulations they add on. Why would it be wrong to pay people for the embryos? Why would it be wrong to create embryos especially for this purpose if there isn't anything wrong with doing the research itself?
|
I had to think long and hard about the "no more restrictive laws" part of it. I decided that you can't really get more restrictive than what was already there, so I was ok with it.
The "scare tactic" ads were horrendous against this proposal. They showed futuristic buildings with fake names implying that they were embryo factories. I think they included that clause about not making money off of the embryos to emphasize that this was only going to be done with embryos that already existed for other reasons but would be thrown away, so why not use them for research instead? You could save lives with these embryos that exist anyway or you can throw them away. That seems like an easier choice for even pro-lifers to make. But, like I said, the ads against it were horrendous. One showed a half cow/half human sitting in a classroom. One compared it to the Tuskegee Experiment.
Threaded Mode
