Not The Beginning, But The End

Thanks to all who posted comments on yesterday's blog.

Here's where I'm going with this issue:

Is it, or is it not, a straight line connection from stem cell research to cloning?

In other words, to successfully regenerate spinal cord and other critical tissue, you've got to start with the building block stuff from the person who needs the "therapy," right?

If that is so, when does cloning stop? At 100 regenerated cells? 10,000? A whole new spinal cord?

Or could it wind up being a whole new person, a replica of the original?

And if that was allowed to happen, would the replica have the same rights as the original?

One would think not, if the replica could ultimately be harvested for parts to replace the original, no?

You think I am taking this to a ridiculous extreme?

I am, rock-bottom, of the group who believes that God -- and only God -- is the maker and author of life, and that God is to be feared and respected as well as loved. For biblical reasons alone, we find all the evidence we need to oppose stem cell research.

But if I was not a member of that group, I wouldn't have to look very far to come up with other compelling reasons to oppose.

Abortion, for one. What did Roe v. Wade say? What trimester was "blessed" as the magic time when abortions were OK?

And there were people who argued, "No, it won't stop there. Examine not the beginning, but the end. Could this law someday be expanded to include abortions all the way up until the time the baby crowned?"

They were scoffed at and dismissed as narrow-minded fanatics, of course.

Hmm...