Stem cell research is pro life. Period.

Recommended at My Left Wing

Ok, listen up wingnut jackasses. Like my buddy (yes, I have a wingnut buddy, but he is really more of the "friend of a friend" type...) who just the other day told me how noble Dear Leader's veto of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research because it would not be "ending a life" to do so. This same guy is staunchly "pro-life^TM" as well but isn't 100% behind BushCo all the time.

Anyway, and here is the good part, once I realized that these were embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway and nobody was "being killed" in order to use the stem cells (oh yeah, and that the ones Bush previously "approved" were no good anyway), he actually was in favor of it. Not necessarily federal funding, but embryonic stem cell research. Which was a huge step and a big start.

And that brings me to an article in the new Newsweek by Jonathan Alter, It Was The Veto of A Lifetime. The article makes a great point, which is a fairly obvious one to people like us, but not to our thickheaded friends over in koo-koo-bananaland. The veto contradicts everything that "pro-life" is about.

Alter also introduces (at least to me) a great term that should be hung around the necks of anyone that dared to vote against this: "anti-cure" vs. "pro-cure". My point however, is that the volatile mix of hypocrisy and sheer stupidity makes these 37 peaheads in the Senate and these 193 mental midgets in the House lower than pond scum if they dared to ever utter the words "I am pro-life".

Hell, even Dr. Cat Killer Frist knows the promise that embryonic stem cell research holds. As Alter says:

At least some of the 193 House members and 37 senators who voted against the bill--almost all of them Republicans--may well lose their seats on this issue, if not this November then in 2008 or 2010. Once the "pro-cure" movement clarifies and penetrates, it will be awfully hard to stand firm against saving the lives of your constituents. More immediately, embryonic-stem-cell research splits the GOP down the middle, with many in the party who oppose abortion (like Sens. John McCain, Orrin Hatch and Bill Frist) supporting it.

I wrote a diary last week about the whole "culture of life" nonsense and this is in the same vein. "We only care before you are born and not again until you are about to die".

Another completely moronic argument that we have to be subjected to on this is nailed by Alter:

Because this was Bush's first veto--itself a newsworthy event--he found it harder to ignore the obvious questions: If destroying an embryo is "murder"--the Bush position, according to his spokesman--how can he support the existence of fertility clinics, which routinely throw out thousands of surplus embryos?

But double standards are just A-OK if you are a Republican (they should have an acronym for that....) "Pro life" but you can kill abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics. "Pro life" but abortions are illegal even in the instance of rape or mother's health. "Pro life" but send them overseas to die in a war based on lies with not enough armor or equipment. "Pro life" but burn cities with illegal chemical weapons. "Pro life" but leave thousands of people stranded with no food, water or assistance while the entire Gulf Coast drowns. "Pro life" but no health insurance for nearly 50 million.

Well, excuse me, but fuck that shit.

Either you are for saving lives or you are not. Either you are pro-cure or you are anti-cure. You can't be one without the other. Not unless you are (1) a stupid friggin moron or (2) a lying hypocritical jackass. So stop this insanity. "Code words" or empty phrases aren't going to cut it. As Alter's closing so perfectly points out:

It is now almost five years since Bush's August 2001 stem-cell "compromise," which allowed for work on 60 existing cell lines. When most of those lines turned out to be unworkable or irrelevant to cures for humans, he didn't let the new facts affect him. In that sense, the whole issue is emblematic of what's wrong with the Bush presidency: his inflexibility, obsession with his conservative base, religious arrogance and contempt for scientific consensus. Most of all, last week's decision betrayed his oft-stated belief in the sanctity of life. The question, as in all moral issues, is whose life? I'll choose yours or mine over a piece of protoplasm no larger than the period at the end of this sentence.

"Pro-life", my ass. Just shut the hell up already.