THE LEOPARD AND HIS SPOTS

You will recall back in July during the Grand Rapids mayoral race, incumbent George Heartwell sent out a notorious postcard targeting Catholic voters.  It featured local Catholic landmarks and the endorsement of prominent Catholics in the area including members of the clergy.  It gave the impression that Heartwell had the backing of the Catholic establishment while concealing his support for abortion-on-demand and other life issues offensive to the deep convictions of most Catholics.

The postcard's purpose was to undercut the Catholic vote for his pro-life opponent Rick Tormala.  It probably succeeded, because all Heartwell needed to do was keep enough Catholic voters untroubled by his real positions on abortion, assisted suicide, and embryonic stem cell research, and so at home on election day, to squeak out a victory over Tormala.  And that is what happened when Hizzoner crawled over the finish line with just over 50% of the vote.

Heartwell justified this little bit of creative politicking by arguing that he didn't have to publicly declare his opposition to Catholic positions on the life issues, because as mayor he had no way to influence government policy regarding them.  You have to hand it to Heartwell.  He explained away one deceit with another.  Well, a leopard doesn't change his spots, does he?  After maintaining an unprincipled silence during the mayoral race about his opposition to what Catholics and others call the "culture of life", Heartwell as mayor of Grand Rapids is now beating the drums for embryonic stem cell research.

On Wednesday, November 7th, Heartwell will appear as one of the speakers at an event promoting embryonic stem cell research.  It is called "Stem Cell Research: The Science, the Potential, and the Law" and is presented by the advocacy group Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures (MCSCRC).  In turn the whole affair is hosted by the liberal political action committee Democracy for America, founded by Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, a pro-abortion extremist.  MCSCRC purports to dispense with the myths that have surrounded stem cell research during the ongoing political controversy over the use of embryonic human beings (or in MCSCRC's parlance, a small clump of cells) in some of that research.  However, MCSCRC's actual agenda is to push a set of talking points to be used against opponents of embryonic stem cell research.

So why are Heartwell, MCSCRC, and Democracy for America hepped up about opposition to embryonic stem cell research?  Because, folks, the MCSCRC has filed paperwork last week to put the issue on the ballot in November 2008.  MCSCRC wants to not only remove the long-standing restrictions under state law against killing embryonic humans in medical research but also to require taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research.  To win that battle in Michigan, a strongly pro-life state, MCSCRC has to equip the troops with the right soundbites for the campaign.  Hence, events like the one Mayor Heartwell is speaking at next week.

So much for the mayor having no infuence on government policy in these matters.

Comments

[RollngGrnade]

You said that Heartwell "squeaked" out a victory over Tormala. While it's true that Heartwell pulled in just over 50% of the vote, Tormala could only muster 37%. The idea that the election could have been determined by Catholics staying home as a result of Heartwell's posturing is absurd. It's doubly absurd when one considers that Right to Life endorsed Tormala, so it's not as though the single-issue anti-choice crowd was bamboozled in any way.

Perhaps even more absurd than the theory you're advancing is the idea that the issue of abortion is AT ALL important for someone running for the office of Mayor. The possibility of actually rendering any judgement for or against the procedure in a municipal office is virtually nonexistent and would almost certainly be superceded by federal or state law.

If it were possible, the only thing even more absurd than the two previous absurdities is the right to life crowd's position on stem cell research. I'm curious - as one who seems to self-identify with the right to life movement; do you also oppose in vitro fertilization?

That's the question that should be asked of every opponent of stem cell research, becuase the two practices are inextricably linked and it's rank hypocrisy to oppose one and not the other (although the right to life movement has more than a passing familiarity with rank hypocrisy).

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Grenade.

Of course, it's not absurd that keeping a small number of anti-Heartwell voters at home would have helped Heartwell in the August primary. I don't have the election results at hand, but if only perhaps a hundred more people had gone to the polls and voted for someone other than Heartwell, then Heartwell and Tormala would be in next week's run-off election.

Also, it's not absurd that a mayor has influence over abortion politics and policy. First of all, he's got the bully pulpit of his office -- no small thing. Second, there are a large number of municipal government matters that can get entangled with abortion politics including zoning, building codes, health and safety codes, public employee benefits, keeping the public peace, etc.

Finally, let me resolve your confusion regarding embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. I oppose both. The former because it involves the deliberate killing of embryonic human beings and the latter because it requires the creation of embryonic human beings who, though not killed, are not allowed to grow and develop as nature provides.

That said, there is plainly a difference from taking a human life and keeping one in stasis. So I can understand how a person can oppose embryonic stem cell research while supporting in vitro fertilization. While I think that position is weak (primarily because it still reduces a human life to instrumentality), it at least recognizes the minimum value any decent person must assign a human life -- namely, an innocent human life is not to be deliberately taken.

Regards, Bill

[Cal]

local area watch had an interesting posting about the history of adult stem cells, cord cells and embryonic cells a few months ago (at least I think it was then, could have been longer). It was an interesting piece that I haven't forgotten. If memory serves, it discussed in detail the lack of progress made in the area of embyronic stem cells versus all the progress made with cord cells and adult stem cells. You should repeat that posting or a similar one as voting season approaches. I think people in our area could use a refresher course about this topic. Abortion supporters and embyronic stem cell supporters say one thing with their fancy hype. The truth is much different than all the ads, flyers, and misinformation being sent about and vocalized by people like the Mayor and the groups that support him and that he supports (secretly of course during voting season!).

Say no to abortion.

Say no to embryonic stem cells.

Above all, say no to our growing culture of death.

[Dan Tietema]

Thanks Bill for the article. I would like a chance to add to the conversation on the importance of Right to Life's involvement in city politics. As long as Progressive Woman's Alliance (A strong "PRO" Abortion organization who only endorses Pro Abortion candidates and who at one time had "reproductive rights" written in their mission statement) continues to spend money on candidates running for Grand Rapids political positions, then RTL should be present and the abortion issue should be discussed.

Now, I am a Catholic living in a large Catholic / Christian Reformed neighborhood where most of my neighbors considers this topic #1 and I had to explain to the them the differences between the two candidates just days before the election. They assumed Tormula was the Pro Abortion guy - because of his pro union democrat ties and thought that Heartwell was the Pro Life guy because of endorsements from prominent republicans, well known Catholics and clergy, and his strong position as an independent. He also advertised his connection with Aquinas College as a professor - leaving one to believe that he is undoubtedly - pro life.
This confusion could theoretically alter an election or at least, keep some voters away from the polls.

Mr. Heartwell conveniently dodges this issue mainly because Grand Rapids is still a Pro Life city, regardless of the gradual move to elect democrats over republicans. Rep Robert Dean, Rep Michael Sak and Kent County Commissioner, Brandon Dillion are all Democrats who represent the city and who are all endorsed by Pro Life.

Oh, most Catholics that I know who are Pro Life also opposed in vitro fertilization. It was always argued at the time that this process would some day lead us down a very slippery ethical slope in which we are now in. Hope this helps and I thank Grenade for his point of view on this matter.

Dan Tietema

[The Executive Director]

Thanks for your comments, Cal. My sentiments are the same.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director, L.A.W.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Dan.

You make a number of interesting points. It hadn't occurred to me how the man in the street might have come to precisely the opposite conclusions about Heartwell's and Tormala's positions on the life issues if he hadn't studied the candidates.

As for the relevance of the life issues in municipal politics, they are. If nothing else, it gives a voter a good grip on the political character of a candidate. A candidate is more than the sum of the planks of his campaign. His positions on abortion, EST research, etc. are like the nails that hold his platform together. In other words, the life issues reveal the core beliefs of a candidate that provide depth to the specific policy positions he publicly declares on other matters.

Thanks for writing.

Regards, Bill

[Rollnggrnade]

Bill,

While it's true that a few hundred more votes could have forced a run-off, I see no evidence to conclude that Tormala would have won in that scenerio. The election went down with 12,171 votes for Heartwell, and 8,921 for Tormala (2256 went to Rinck and 649 to Jackie Miller). Even if everyone who turned out for Rinck and Miller voted for Tormala, Heartwell would still come out ahead. That assumes though that turnout would be as high as it was in August (and I don't think it was though I haven't seen any numbers).

(The election results are on Kent County's website: http://www.accesskent.com/YourGovernment/Elections/results.htm)

As for the bully pulpit - that's true. Has Heartwell used it on behalf of abortion rights? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard anything to that effect.

As for the other things, "zoning, building codes, health and safety codes, public employee benefits, keeping the public peace, etc." - those are, again, all things decided by legal precedents well above the level of the City of Grand Rapids (and even if they weren't, the instant any decision granted an advantage to either side, a lawsuit would be filed and the issue would be elevated above the municipal level).

I'm always interested by the in vitro fertilization issue because of the disproportionate amount of time that is devoted by right to life groups to abortion given how prevalent in vitro is. Thanks for your candid answer.

[Rollnggrnade]

I have an idea:

What if we legalize stem cell research and at the same time establish a national registry, whereby people who oppose stem cell testing can sign up to disavow the practice by pledging never to make use of any of the potential medical advancements derived through stem cell research. That way they could take a stand, absolve themselves of any responsibility for participating in the "growing culture of death" (as it was called).

That way, you can retain your morals and convictions, and I'll potentially be spared a horrible death from something like ALS in a few decades. Deal?

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Grenade.

[1] My point about suppressing Catholic turn-out does not turn on whether Tormala would have beaten Heartwell in a run-off (although I think you are too dismissive of the dynamics of two-man race), but whether Heartwell saw an opportunity to prevail in the primary. Even then, the matter is secondary to the dishonesty of his direct mail campaign to Catholic voters.

[2] Presently a pro-abortion mayor like Heartwell doesn't need to use the bully pulpit to advance that agenda. An extreme abortion regime is already in place in this country. However, you have overlooked something pretty obvious -- ahem, my article. Heartwell is using the bully pulpit to push the principles that support abortion-on-demand where they do not currently prevail -- i.e., Michigan's severe restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. So who won the mayor's bully pulpit regarding the life issues is already having consequences.

[3] You're wrong that municipal decisions that may affect the availability of abortion-on-demand would be automatically nullified by legal precedent. A simple example: If an abortionist wanted a property re-zoned to permit his practice, the city government would not have to grant that request. Indeed, city officials could so precisely to stop an abortion clinic from opening its doors. Another example: Abortion clinic are notorious of health violations. It's a matter of political priorities whether or not health codes are enforced. A pro-abortion mayor may think it is more important to ban smoking throughout the city than filthly conditions in abortuaries (especially if that would risk shutting down the clinics). While it's true that many judges today are lawless and so who knows what may result from a court challenge to city officials exercising their rightful authority, the fact is that they do have considerable authority, under certain circumstances, that can affect the availability of abortion within the city.

[4] There is a plain reason why opposition to abortion is a high priority among pro-lifers than opposition to in vitro fertilization. It goes to the heart of the matter. A human being is a human being upon conception, and so he has, if nothing else, the right to his life. Once that principle is established in the law by successfully striking down judicially mandated abortion-on-demand, then abuse and destruction of embryonic human beings to facilitate in vitro fertilization also becomes illegal.

[5] You're welcome, Grenade.

Regards,
Bill

[The Executive Director]

No deal, Grenade.

[1] I note that say "stem cell research" when the dispute isn't over most stem cell research but specifically EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Clearly it does not follow that a person, such as yours truly, who opposes killing embryonic human beings to harvest and study their stem cells would also oppose the use of adult and umbilical cord stem cells in research.

[2] A conscientious pro-lifer who has a medical condition that advocates of EMBRYONIC stem cell research promise to treat someday doesn't need to be on register to avoid therapies derived from the killing of embryonic human beings. He can do so in the same manner people often avoid treatments and therapies they oppose for one reason or another. I know this from my own personal experience.

[3] Clearly you miss the point about why pro-lifers oppose the killing of embryonic human beings, whether by abortionists, in vitro fertilization specialists, or stem cell researchers. It is not to avoid benefiting from what they personally perceive as a grave wrong. They can already do that. It is because it is OBJECTIVELY immoral for anyone to kill an innocent human being, period. It's the same reason why you cannot justly kill a person to obtain his heart for a transplant even though you don't personally have a problem with murder.

Regards, Bill

[Rollnggrnade]

Bill,

What's dishonest about having members of the Catholic clergy endorse Heartwell? Were their endorsements not authentic? Did he have guns to their heads? Not all Catholics go to the polls every single election with abortion solely on their minds. In fact - not all Catholics are anti-choice.

Extreme abortion regime? WHERE? Clinics are closing all over the place. The Supreme Court is stacked with far-right conservatives. Hurdles to accessing abortion are sailing through legislatures across the US (and they're starting to pass muster with the now rabidly-conservative SC), and groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are struggling for funding. One of the most anti-choice presidential administrations in US history is at the helm and has been for the past seven years and it's put hundreds of millions of dollars into the religious right's reproductive health agenda.

Abortion and stem cell research are two entirely different things, and not only that - Heartwell's support hinges in both cases on completely different rationales. As we try to build up West Michigan as a home for Life Sciences, an environment hostile to exploring one of the most promising avenues for Life Science research is a huge negative. A panel of experts said exactly that at a recent economic development panel I attended.

Again, local decisions on zoning are irrelevant when it comes to abortion politics. Any laws that would nullify the existence of a health care facility that provides abortions would invariably be appealed up to higher courts.

If you're going to argue an anti-choice position on abortion, at least have the decency not to lie. Abortion providers are not notorious for health code violations - and you have absolutely no evidence to support that save a few isolated anecdotes of clinics being shut down (which the right to life movement plays up in order to scare people away from abortion because they know their core argument is a non-starter with the public). That's also why the right to life movement spreads outright lies about the mythical connection between abortion and breast cancer.

[Rollnggrnade]

Bill,

I'm curious to know what medical treatments or therapies you've rejected on the basis that they were immorally-acquired through research.

As for the rest of your post, the debate hinges on what defines a human being and your definition of an embryo is way out of step with some 60-70 percent of the population as well as the vast majority of scientists doing the research. The answer to the question of what defines a human being is one with a fuzzy answer at best; certainly not as absurdly cut and dried you try to make it.

The point of my query was not to actually establish a practical solution but to illustrate the scope of the debate. It's not enough for the right to life crowd to live according to its own moral imperatives: they want everyone else to live according to them as well. In my humble opinion, it's the very substance of totalitarianism.

[D. A. Cappazzie]

Rollnggrnade, in your world it appears nearly anything should be a go for the sake of saving the living. Abortion? No big deal. It's all about a women's reproductive rights. Nothing else. Embryonic stem cells? No big deal. It's all about saving other lives. That batch of cells isn't a real thing. Forget-about-it.

If we get to be so unemotional and in a clinical state of zombie like feelings when it comes to life and death, let's really get this killing field in motion.

Let's start killing those in jails and prisons, especially those on death row, and start harvesting all their highly prized products for the good of those in the general population? Why wait till they die. Many of them are filthy, awful humans and barely deserve to live now. Who cares about reform or rehab? Naw...let's kill them now, we need their skin, hair, corneas, and organs more than we need their redemption.

Why not take people off life support all over this country in emergency rooms, hospitals, nursing homes and hospice care that can't provide for themselves without assistance and who are going to eventually die in the near future. Let's do it now instead of waiting so we benefit those who really matter, the living.

Why not decide that those with extreme malfunctions and abnormalities who will not have normal life expectancies, get killed off and we harvest what's left of them now? Let's not call it eugenics as they used to (eww, such a negative history you know), instead let's re-phrase it in a perky way and call it The Fall Organ Harvest For Kent County.

I mean really, the Shivo case proved that one persons loss (the family and community who loved and cared for this girl and those who fight for life) is another persons gain (the husband and his new wife and family and the right to die hippsters). Not all of us saw this loss of life as a thing to hoot and hollar about and shout hip-hip-hooray.

I for one don't buy the bill of goods scientists are promoting regarding embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells and cord cells have dozens and dozens of lab tested and field tried successful treatments so far. Embryonic stem cells having produced NOTHING. You want to pay for research, go for it. Don't expect those of us who respect the sick, the terminal, the unborn and the living to give up our human rights so one can die for another. There are positive and fruitful ways to help the dying and treat the sick without directly taking the life of another, especially those unable to give consent (the unborn and the severly impaired/ill). For me, ESC is a false promise and even if fulfilled, the dismissal of the true value of life is appalling.

Only humans can balance out the good and evil of our modern day world. We must tread carefully between science and nature and a traditional life span. When you remove common sense, compassion and respect, nothing is left but killing one for the good of another. If we end up there, we are no better than animals. We have lost our heads, our hearts and our souls.

That is a price too high for me to pay.

Donna

[J. W. W.]

News stations far and wide blasted a major medical milestone yesterday. Some researchers found a way to create ESC style cells from human skin. Hmmm, or they said it is something "like" ESC cells. My guess is this process is still in the working stages since even the newscasters couldn't get the description of this big development right. Either way, they proclamined it a victory for not taking life and still getting some type of disease curing benefit. A little early for popping the corks on champagne if you ask me. Until they start lab trials on humans and in the field with real results, it's all just a concept. If they get it to work without taking another life, good for them and eventually us too. Until then, I'm with the majority. Adult stem cells and cord cells are the best bet for disease treatment and curing at this time.

[The Executive Director]

Thanks, Donna & J.W.W., for your comments.

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about embryonic stem cell research that leaves the false impression with the general public that our only option for developing stem cell therapies is to kill embryonic human beings to harvest their stem cells.

Even if that were true, it would not be justification for killing human beings. No human being exists as the instrument of another. Fortunately, it is not true. As you have both mentioned, we have other sources of stem cells, which unlike embryonic stem cells, have already been developed into a number of different medical therapies alleviating people from their suffering.

And now this week there is the prospect of an entirely different source for stem cells in which ordinary skin cells can be altered to function like stem cells. Science is a marvelous thing, provided of course that it is in service to truth, good, and beauty.

Unfortunately, I suspect that those who oppose the culture of life will not be very enthusiastic about this scientific breakthrough. While many of them claim to only reluctantly support the killing embryonic human beings for the greater good of medical advances in the future, one supports such killing only by denying the dignity inherent in each and every human life, and so the inviolability of an innocent human being. And who is more innocent than an unborn child?

Because this denial of the inherent dignity of every individual is squarely at odds with the natural law each of us has written on our hearts, I don't believe most who do embrace this denial do it easily. Hence the need to rationalize the denial: We must kill nascent human beings because it is necessary to the health and welfare of other (presumably more valuable) human beings. Thus, this slapdash utilitarianism let's those who deny what they know in their hearts to be true sleep at night.

But the problem with utilitarianism is that utility is the measure of all things. And so when science, as it appears to have done this week, comes up with a better way of producing stem cells than killing human beings, those who oppose the culture of life are stripped of their utilitarian fig leaf. Either the must face the naked truth that the taking of an innocent human life to benefit another is an abomination or they must turn away from it.

The easiest way to turn away will be to lie; to lie that this new method of making skin cells function like stem cells is no answer, or isn't enough of an answer, or would have been no answer at all without embryonic stem cell research. And so the killing must go on.

Mark my words. This is how the opponents of the culture of life will diminish this week's marvel of science.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director, L.A.W.

[The Executive Director]

Grenade,

You wrote: "As for the rest of your post, the debate hinges on what defines a human being and your definition of an embryo is way out of step with some 60-70 percent of the population as well as the vast majority of scientists doing the research."

The "vast majority of scientists doing the research" do not deny that an embryonic human being is a human being. It is a scientific fact beyond any sane dispute that they are human organisms just like you, me, and every other human being walking the face of the Earth.

If your justification for killing embryonic human beings for their stem cells is that they are not human beings, you are chewing on granite. Just what do you think these little beings are? Chickens? Guppies? E.T.'s? Just a clump of human cells?

Well, yes, I suppose you could say they are just a clump of human cells, in the same way you and I are such a clump. They are a clump of cells ORGANIZED into a living creature -- i.e., an organism -- which will continue to grow, develop, and progress through the natural stages of life until death comes. This is not true of a bits of tissue like skin cells, eggs, or sperm which will cease to function unless part of an organism.

That's Biology 101, which none of your scientists would be so foolish as to deny. They know full well that they are slicing into a human being and killing it when they harvest stem cells from an embryo. They may rationalize the killing with the fiction that a human being's "personhood" is not coincident with his life, but in light of the sorry history of that lie, it's one only a fool or a monster makes.

To sum up, Grenade, if the ground for your argument against the culture of life (the objective immorality of abortion, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, etc.) is that embryonic human beings are not human beings, I'll take you to be a fool and not a monster. But there is no further purpose to this discussion if basic scientific fact is going to be denied.

Regards,
Bill

[Rollnggrnade]

Donna,

In my world, the needs of the many trump the needs of the few. In my world, I define a human being (a 'full-fledged' one that deserves rights) as one that has been born, and not before (certainly not as early as an embryo or blastophyte). So yes, in my world, the needs of a few embryos in long-term storage trump the needs of the 6+ billion people on the planet who stand to benefit from embryonic stem cell research.

And it is a big deal. I don't arrive at these decisions lightly, though you're trying to paint me as flighty and my opinions as half-baked. I see the legitimacy of the right to life position - I just happen to disagree with it based on the hundreds of hours (no lie) I've devoted to examining the issue.

The slippery slope you're attempting to drag us down is total garbage (just as it's total garbage when it's employed against allowing assisted suicide). Legalizing embryonic stem cell research is not an open door to harvesting organs from unwilling donors - a fact borne out by the many other nations that have legalized government funding for it without turning prisons or hospitals full of the infirmed into donor farms. (That same bogus, hoary chestnut was trotted out to scare senior citizens into voting for legalizing assisted suicide several years go despite the utter dearth of evidence to support it).

By the way - YOUR crowd is the one opposed to granting those in prison and rehab rights. Not mine. Once someone is born, I'm an ardent defender of their rights (as are the vast majority of the people of my political stripe). The only disagreement we have is on when one is deserving of legal protections.

The Schiavo case? The Schiavo case proved the absurdity of BOTH the conservative movement AND the right-to-life movement in one fell swoop. A conservative legislature and governor determined the standards by which guardianship should be determined in cases like hers - and then in one case when things didn't work out the way they wanted, they completely abandoned the rule of law and went through a series of ever more insane hurdle-jumping to try to reverse themselves (all for the sake of posturing before cameras).

In the end - Michael Schiavo (in spite of undeservedly being demonized in the most disgusting and repugnant way) was proven exactly right by the autopsy and by one of the most widely-litigated cases in US history - all of the evidence at hand (including testimony from both friends and family) showed that Terri's wishes were not to be kept alive, and her autopsy proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she had no hope of recovery whatsoever (despite the moronic armchair diagnoses from various idiots in politics seeking to appease their constituents).

Who was hip-hip-hooraying that case? It did terrible damage not only for the issue of assisted suicide, but also for the rule of law.

Embryonic stem cell research is not a false hope; ignore the political posturing (including the "Right to Life" talking points you're regurgitating here) and read the scholarly literature. To your other point - ESC has already proven to have results in reducing the rejection of donated organs. But if you reject the pronouncements of organizations like the National Academies of Science and the American Medical Association - I really don't know what I could present in the way of evidence or endorsements to change your mind.

You can't claim a monopoly on compassion by the way. It's the antithesis of compassion to tell an adult of sound mind and judgment that they should be prevented by law from being able to end their suffering at the hands of a terminal illness like ALS through access to assisted suicide because of your personal hang-ups.

[Donna]

Rollngrnade, you have advised me that life only begins for you at birth. I believe it begins at conception. All creatures big and small begin as a simple bunch of cells and progress from there. Lucky for you, someone decided while you were being formed as cells and evolved into an eventual embryo, fetus and fully formed child at birth to let this natural progress continue. You should thank someone (your mother or father or better yet, God) that they didn't loose their sense of respect, dignity and responsiblity in the face of science and decide to get rid of you too. They gave you the gift of life long before you popped out of the womb. In the face of modern research and science (which has many good points, but also has it's limitations too), I believe you might have lost some common sense and a little bit of your soul along the way to say that the masses count, not the innocent and certainly not those unable to protect themselves(the unborn, the mentally and physically ill, the terminal). It appears in your world that only top researchers, scientists or liberal judges have the right to determine modern life and death decisions. How sad.

My references earlier to the possiblity of killing prisoners, the ill, the deformed etc. is not out of line. It's a true reflection of world history when we loose touch with truth, beauty and our own humanity. One only has to look back at Pol Pot, Hitler, Chairmon Mao and others to see the truth in what I state. Remove humanity out of humans and you remove all respect for life.

On a side note, it became news this week that some men and women who are big on the global warming and green programs have decided to sterlize themselves so, they don't use up precious natural resources. They have decided never to have kids and thus, save the plant. Wow, now that's something to shout about. But, it does make one wonder who will run future generations of Greenpeace, N.O.W., The Sierra Club, Code Pink, MoveOn.Org and others if all their members stop pro-creating?. The more one thinks about this idea, the better it sounds. At least this way, no other humans would be harmed as this group gets phased out. Natural selection at its best. Finally, something we can all agree about!

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Grenade.

You wrote to Donna:

"In my world, the needs of the many trump the needs of the few. In my world, I define a human being (a 'full-fledged' one that deserves rights) as one that has been born, and not before (certainly not as early as an embryo or blastophyte). So yes, in my world, the needs of a few embryos in long-term storage trump the needs of the 6+ billion people on the planet who stand to benefit from embryonic stem cell research.

"And it is a big deal. I don't arrive at these decisions lightly, though you're trying to paint me as flighty and my opinions as half-baked. I see the legitimacy of the right to life position - I just happen to disagree with it based on the hundreds of hours (no lie) I've devoted to examining the issue."

Well, I'm not a Vulcan, so I don't buy into Spock's dictum that the mob decides whose dignity merits respects and whose doesn't. But let's move on beyond soundbites from Star Trek.

I think you need to put more study into your position. I don't say this facetiously. You assert that a human being only acquires rights, at least the right to life, upon birth. However, this position is incoherent, at least in relation to your position that embryonic human beings can be sacrificed for stem cell research.

If by birth, you mean a child's separation from his mother's womb, then embryonic human beings produced by in vitro fertilization have been "born" by that criterion. Therefore, by your lights they have the same right to life as all other human beings.

If your response to this is that birth must be in some manner natural, you encounter other dilemmas. Let's say you take a broad view of what constitutes a natural birth, so that a Caesarian section is included. If so, then it hard to determine from this why an abortion (which is the surgical extraction of a child from his mother's womb, just as a Caesarian is) must result in the death of the child.

Another problem is that you appear to have no logical objection to allowing scientists to develop "in vitro" embryos, who have never experienced a natural birth and so acquired no right to life, into fetuses, then infants, and children and then using them for medical research -- or anything else for that matter.

These are just some of the contradictions and monstrosities that arise from trying to separate the metaphysics of a human being from the ethics of his dignity. The two are united and indivisible. By definition a human being is worthy of his right to life, period. To think otherwise is to court the evil idea that some human beings are life unworthy of life.

Regards, Bill