Pasadena Politics

What is the source of our Freedoms? The source of certain “Inalienable Rights”? Is it Man whose fickle and obstinate nature produces complex and contradictory rules and laws? Is it a higher authority, outside ourselves, that we may not see daily but from whom one of two very fundamental laws are not objectionable to even atheists? That would be: Love your neighbor as yourself or, more commonly: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Our Declaration of Independence lays out three certain inalienable rights and the Constitution itself is a limiter to government’s power.

My topic today and most likely for next time as well revolves around the Declaration of Independence. Ethics, and Morality. The recent lifting of the Stem Cell research Ban has prompted me to grouse about it in relation to the main topic. And now, my reasoned rant:

The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal”. This phrase has been controversial with regards to slavery and women’s voting rights. Men or man, in English, can refer to both male and female; to mankind as a whole without distinction of sex or heritage. So it was the pro-slave owners hated the Declaration of Independence (or at least that phrase) and Abolitionists touted it as a primary reason for expunging the nation of slavery. I side with the latter.

We can have a very narrow view of “men”: white and male to wider: all mankind. Chew on that for a moment.

We have pro-fetal-stem cell research advocates stating that politics and ideology should not be used to hamper scientific research. But what of Ethics and Morality? They should always be a constraint to any scientific endeavor for scientific inquiry is otherwise hideous. What is it that warrant the use of human beings in a scientific experiment conducted against their will? Lack of Ethics… Lack of Morals… Humanity is conveniently ignored by those who consider life expendable next to their goals.

Obama, for shame! Do you not recall that the debate once raged about the humanity of Africans as justification for the continuance of slavery? Now you would create a whole new industry that thrives off of the lives of other people. There is a difference between being a willing organ donor and being an unwilling organ donor and no difference in Size, Intellectual Capacity, Independence, and Location should be used as justification to deny people their inalienable rights. Those four aforementioned are the only things separating a fetus from the same rights you, Mr. President, enjoy.

The Declaration of Independence, without which the Constitution would not exist, does not give Government the right to take away Life, or Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness – save only when criminal activity has been proved to have been committed by the individual. Is it a crime to be conceived? Where is the due process for the fetus? Fetus, such a clinical term, as a title does not remove one ounce of humanity from that ‘clump of cells’ growing that should they be born enjoy the protection of the Constitution. (We are not talking about eggs or sperm having rights *link may offend some* – do understand the difference between the two and conception – unless you somehow think of yourself as a walking, talking sperm and egg.)

Government has no right to finance the destruction of the unborn and certainly less to fund an industry that would perpetuate the ‘need’ for more sacrifices samples. Stem cells from non-fetal sources have been proven, scientifically, to work. Why is money not better spent in those areas? Or is there a need to justify keeping an abhorrent practice? To make people feel guilty should they oppose fetal stem-cell treatment for a disease and oppose abortion at the same time?