« Who is the Pro-Life Candidate? | Main | Staggering National Debt Looms »

Kerry Attacks Bush on Embryonic Stem Cell Stand

"The hard truth is that when it comes to stem cell research, our president is stifling science for ideology and playing politics with people who need cures," Kerry said in remarks prepared for the meeting with voters [more].

After noting that cures are at our fingertips for Parkinson's and other diseases, Kerry promised $100 million in federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He failed to note that he believes life begins at conception and that this research will necessarily destroy life.

Posted by tim at October 4, 2004 10:48 PM

Articles Related to Life Issues:

Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome - Jan 29, 2007
Designer Babies? - Jan 09, 2007
The Miracle of Life - Jun 13, 2006
Not so graphic after all - Feb 14, 2006
Embryo Images too Graphic for Newspaper - Feb 09, 2006
Blogs4Life Conference! - Dec 16, 2005
Susan Torres Gives Birth - Aug 03, 2005
United Nations Population Fund May Receive U.S. Funding - Vote Set for Today - Jun 14, 2005
Next time it will be easier (that's how it works) - Mar 31, 2005
Terri Schindler Schiavo has just died - message from family - Mar 31, 2005

Comments

He also believes personhood doesn't begin at conception and therefore it might be ok to kill embryos even though they're alive.

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at October 5, 2004 7:15 AM

Thanks for the comment... Kerry chose to adopt the language of the pro-life community which makes no distinction between "personhood" and "human life". Also, by stating that "life begins . . ." he is admitting that there is something different, something significant, that occurs at conception which is more than just a clump of cells that is alive (all cells are "alive").

In saying this I do recognize that Kerry has explained his position on abortion with the belief that it is wrong to kill a person and that the conceived human life is not a person until later (when???? 1 week, 2 weeks, etc.). His position is inconsistent at best and is another example of how he attempts to stand for everything via symantics.

Posted by: tim at October 6, 2004 12:16 AM

I just noticed this again, and I wanted to respond. I don't think Kerry is inconsistent on this issue at all. His position is quite consistent. A fetus is alive since conception, but it's not a person until later. A person has moral rights, but a living fetus doesn't have such rights until later.

Now I don't think there's any good argument for this position. It's at best question-begging. That doesn't mean the view is inconsistent. I can't see anything of the form "P and not-P" in this view.

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at May 4, 2005 6:50 AM