Caesar Tries Really Hard, He Does, At Least There's That
President Bush's Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton was the featured guest on this past Sunday's Meet the Press, and after Tim Russert got past all the questions about the Middle East he went to the embryonic stem cell research issue, addressing why the president vetoed its federal funding.
Bolton gave the standard response which was essentially, "The president thinks that the fertilized embryo is a human life that deserves protection." Fine answer.
The problem is, he can't speak the truth about the human embryo because he works for the World in the employ of Caesar. And as such, he was no match for the searing questions that Russert had for him about the inconsistency of the president's actions in light of his commitment.
To give you an idea about why the president's approach is so problematic, here was the progression of Russert's questioning.
First he quoted White House Spokesman Tony Snow as stating that ESCR is murder. Russert asked Bolton (again, in essence as this is a paraphrase), "Do you really believe it is murder in light of what millions of Americans think?"
Whoa. That's tough. In fact, today, Tony Snow had to apologize for using the word "murder." Of course he had to! He's got to be politically correct. But if Russert had someone on there who knew the truth, say, someone who is actually a follower of Christ and could share that truth, then he'd get a straight answer.
"Tim, just because a lot of people think it's not murder doesn't mean it isn't. The question that must be answered is 'Is that embryo a human being?' If it is, and all biological and ethical evidence states that it is, then deliberately using it for medical experiments that result in its demise for whatever reason is murder. Just as you would be unapologetic about using the term 'murder' for the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany--people who were also not considered human either-- so we are unequivocal about it also."
Russert's questioning certainly would have gone in a different direction if this response were offered, at least if he wanted to know precisely why an embryo is human. But for purposes of addressing the discourse, his next question was, "Why does the president allow private interests and the use of existing stem cell lines if it is indeed murder? Isn't this hypocritical?"
Bolton hemmed and hawwed and simply restated the president's position. Uh. What's the better response? How about: "Very true! If it is murder in any instance, then we should do all we can to make it illegal everywhere." You can see why Bolton could not say this, however. It's because it would be extraordinarily difficult to do that. The cat's already out of the bag: People want ESCR--they've got to have their need for human sacrifice gratified and ESCR is a marvelously convenient way to get that.
Then there's this one from Russert: "20 some-odd children were at the veto ceremony, children who were adopted embryos. But 400,000 embryos are still out there slated for destruction, highly unlikely they will ever be 'adopted.' Why shouldn't we use them for the research?"
My question to Russert would be, "Why are there 400,000 out there? What are people doing making those embryos?" Obviously the answer is that infertile couples must have that many if they hope to have any children at all. My question from there reflects a position that very few people would agree with, but as such, we have the embryo problem to begin with. That question, "Have we made such a god out of 'having children if you're infertile' that we must take the life of many others in order to get one? Do we do such a poor job of supporting the infertile couple and/or providing them with the positive perspective on adoption, or even adoptive children options at all?"
Once again it gets down to the critical question. Is the embryo a human being? If it is, then why are we doing all this?
Lastly, Russert leveled Bolton with this gem: "Do you know of any scientists who say there is as much promise for adult stem cell research?" Russert's was clearly trying to undermine ASCR by claiming that no scientist really believes in it. Needless to say Bolton could not name one. What could he have said? It's easy: "Just because I don't know of one or you don't know of one right now doesn't mean it doesn't show promise. What I've heard is that it does, and I've heard a lot. If you want names, I'll get you names, and you can check them out for yourself."
Is there any question that Meet the Press is trumpeting ESCR? What is funny is that on CBS's Sunday Morning show at about the exact same time as Meet the Press was aired, right between a humorous piece on social graces and scenes of North Carolina nature, was Utah senator Orrin Hatch giving a commentary on the value of ESCR and how the president should not have vetoed that bill. Was there any rebuttal? Any counter viewpoint? Any balance whatsoever in the discourse?
Actually, why should there be?
These guys just haven't a clue. None of them. They all live too richly in the Catholicist Nation.
What's the deal with human sacrifice? Look here for some thoughts.
Bolton gave the standard response which was essentially, "The president thinks that the fertilized embryo is a human life that deserves protection." Fine answer.
The problem is, he can't speak the truth about the human embryo because he works for the World in the employ of Caesar. And as such, he was no match for the searing questions that Russert had for him about the inconsistency of the president's actions in light of his commitment.
To give you an idea about why the president's approach is so problematic, here was the progression of Russert's questioning.
First he quoted White House Spokesman Tony Snow as stating that ESCR is murder. Russert asked Bolton (again, in essence as this is a paraphrase), "Do you really believe it is murder in light of what millions of Americans think?"
Whoa. That's tough. In fact, today, Tony Snow had to apologize for using the word "murder." Of course he had to! He's got to be politically correct. But if Russert had someone on there who knew the truth, say, someone who is actually a follower of Christ and could share that truth, then he'd get a straight answer.
"Tim, just because a lot of people think it's not murder doesn't mean it isn't. The question that must be answered is 'Is that embryo a human being?' If it is, and all biological and ethical evidence states that it is, then deliberately using it for medical experiments that result in its demise for whatever reason is murder. Just as you would be unapologetic about using the term 'murder' for the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany--people who were also not considered human either-- so we are unequivocal about it also."
Russert's questioning certainly would have gone in a different direction if this response were offered, at least if he wanted to know precisely why an embryo is human. But for purposes of addressing the discourse, his next question was, "Why does the president allow private interests and the use of existing stem cell lines if it is indeed murder? Isn't this hypocritical?"
Bolton hemmed and hawwed and simply restated the president's position. Uh. What's the better response? How about: "Very true! If it is murder in any instance, then we should do all we can to make it illegal everywhere." You can see why Bolton could not say this, however. It's because it would be extraordinarily difficult to do that. The cat's already out of the bag: People want ESCR--they've got to have their need for human sacrifice gratified and ESCR is a marvelously convenient way to get that.
Then there's this one from Russert: "20 some-odd children were at the veto ceremony, children who were adopted embryos. But 400,000 embryos are still out there slated for destruction, highly unlikely they will ever be 'adopted.' Why shouldn't we use them for the research?"
My question to Russert would be, "Why are there 400,000 out there? What are people doing making those embryos?" Obviously the answer is that infertile couples must have that many if they hope to have any children at all. My question from there reflects a position that very few people would agree with, but as such, we have the embryo problem to begin with. That question, "Have we made such a god out of 'having children if you're infertile' that we must take the life of many others in order to get one? Do we do such a poor job of supporting the infertile couple and/or providing them with the positive perspective on adoption, or even adoptive children options at all?"
Once again it gets down to the critical question. Is the embryo a human being? If it is, then why are we doing all this?
Lastly, Russert leveled Bolton with this gem: "Do you know of any scientists who say there is as much promise for adult stem cell research?" Russert's was clearly trying to undermine ASCR by claiming that no scientist really believes in it. Needless to say Bolton could not name one. What could he have said? It's easy: "Just because I don't know of one or you don't know of one right now doesn't mean it doesn't show promise. What I've heard is that it does, and I've heard a lot. If you want names, I'll get you names, and you can check them out for yourself."
Is there any question that Meet the Press is trumpeting ESCR? What is funny is that on CBS's Sunday Morning show at about the exact same time as Meet the Press was aired, right between a humorous piece on social graces and scenes of North Carolina nature, was Utah senator Orrin Hatch giving a commentary on the value of ESCR and how the president should not have vetoed that bill. Was there any rebuttal? Any counter viewpoint? Any balance whatsoever in the discourse?
Actually, why should there be?
These guys just haven't a clue. None of them. They all live too richly in the Catholicist Nation.
What's the deal with human sacrifice? Look here for some thoughts.
Comments
Post a Comment