Home > Perspective
Tribune Editorial shows Common Sense
Yes, I know. The Chicago Tribune is a left-wing rag, with Clarence Page taking up a substantial amount of the editorial page ink. Steve Chapman is usually a reliable lefty as well. However, in the May 5, 2005 Tribune editorial section. Mr. Chapman tackled the issue of the latest congressional abomination on embryonic stem cell research. In so doing, he earned my respect for a well-reasoned, reasonable, and factually-accurate examination of the issue. That reasonableness helped Mr. Chapman to nail the issue squarely on the head.
Mr. Chapman noted that the advocates of embryo research have recently excoriated and ridiculed our President in suggesting that unwanted frozen embryos in fertility clinics could be adopted. They noted that there are 400,000 frozen embryos nationwide. However, Mr. Chapman correctly noted that only 11,000 of these embryos are presently unwanted. That is, as Mr. Chapman correctly noted, a reasonable number to expect to be adopted. Even if that were a yearly count (it is not; there are a number of yearsí accumulation in that sum), the likelihood is high that all of these "unwanted" embryos would be adopted and carried to term.
"There is also another truth here, duly noted by Mr. Chapman: Assuming for argument that all of these embryos would be sent in for stem cell research, the 11,000, or for that matter all 400,000 frozen embryos currently in the U.S., would fall far short of the number needed for effective research."
There is also another truth here, duly noted by Mr. Chapman: Assuming for argument that all of these embryos would be sent in for stem cell research, the 11,000, or for that matter all 400,000 frozen embryos currently in the U.S., would fall far short of the number needed for effective research. You need millions of embryos in order to create a few hundred stem cell "lines." So why is the Congress setting up a special procedure to divert all "unwanted" embryos to research?
Mr. Chapman got one more premise correct, and his correctness heartens me even as it disturbs me: The leftists are trying to desensitize us to the notion of destroying human life to do research into helping humans. Itís a first step onto the slippery slope of growing humans in "farms" for organ harvesting, to mass destruction of unborn babies in vain efforts to help research (I am not the first to note that the researchers say that embryonic stem cells hold little hope for spinal injury patients; that lies in adult stem cells), to perhaps the involuntary use of condemned criminals as test subjects or a source of research biomaterials. All of these things are repulsive to those of us who believe in God and who believe that humans are not just another animal species.
But, you see, few of the left actually believe in any sort of higher being. They believe that humanity and all life is the result of a random accident. They hold this belief notwithstanding the mountain of evidence that life was intelligently created. So, to these people, humans are nothing special and human life is nothing special. To them, killing a few million babies is no big deal if it helps cure psoriasis or baldness. Using the condemned for medical experiments is no big deal, theyíre going to be put to death anyway, right? How repulsive! This attitude is reminiscent of another extreme leftist group: Nazis. Their atrocities rendered them to the ash heap of history. The modern left, however, lives out the warning of one of the greats who helped destroy the Nazis.
"Winston Churchill warned that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Do we want the United States to become Third Reich 2.0?"
Winston Churchill warned that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Do we want the United States to become Third Reich 2.0? The left does, even though they hypocritically excoriate conservatives as the very Nazis they by their actions emulate. Mr. Chapman, virtually all conservatives, and I, however, would like to see the United States live up to the ideals of its founders. I thank Mr. Chapman for his bravery and insight for this fine, yet scary, editorial.