Anti-lifers recently began floating an interesting strategy – attempting to use pro-life verbiage against pro-lifers.
“The anti-life opposition to embryonic stem-cell research,” by the Ayn Rand Institute’s David Holcberg and Alex Epstein is a fine example, and that title is just the start. The authors managed to cram quite a few pro-life terms – aimed back at us – into their May 19 rant, which I note was quite illogical and scientifically inaccurate and expect Ayn Rand would not be pleased.
Here’s a sample of their hodgepodge:
The enemies of embryonic stem-cell research … are brazenly willing to force countless human beings to suffer and die for lack of treatments, so that clusters of cells remain untouched. To call such a stance “pro-life” is beyond absurd. Their allegiance is not to human life or to human rights, but to their anti-life dogma … In the name of the actual sanctity of human life and the inviolability of rights, embryonic stem-cell research must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. Our lives may depend on it.
(underlined emphases mine)
“Proceed unimpeded … Our lives depend on it”? Well, there’s the selfish truth, bubbling to the surface from a cesspool of lies. If they suppose their lives will benefit by sacrificing the lives of others, so be it – full speed ahead!
Speaking of brazenly forcing countless human beings to suffer, blogger Obiter Dictum incredibly inferred on June 5 that rabid pro-abort GOP Congressmen Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert are in actuality pro-life: “Two weeks ago, these and other solons took the ultimate pro-life stand: passing HR810 (aka ‘the stem-cell research bill’) by a 238-194 margin.”
Obiter, I can think of quite a few pro-life stands that would qualify as “ultimate” other than voting to experimentally kill innocent humans who cannot speak for themselves under the pretense that doing so might someday help other humans.
For instance, voting for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci and Connor’s Law), which recognizes the humanity of a preborn baby killed in a crime and punishes the murderer, would qualify in my book as an “ultimate pro-life stand.” But neither of the aforementioned did.
So I guess at long last the battle over semantics is over – and we’ve won! We finally agree on terminology … what a relief. Notify the editors of the Associated Press Stylebook! Call CNN and the Los Angeles Times! No longer must pro-lifers endure the negative “anti-abortion” label while the other side enjoys the positively ambiguous “pro-choice” brand or “favoring abortion rights.” We’re all now either “pro-life” or “anti-life.” How simple! How refreshing! How full circle!
The only problem now is that everybody is calling everybody the same names. Obiter described pro-life Congressman Rick Renzi as “avowed anti-lifer Rick Renzi” because he stood against the embryo kill bill.
These are obvious attempts by anti-lifers to lump us all together, which is interesting to ponder. Why would they want to do that?
Clearly, while anti-lifers try to appear confident on the stem-cell issue, they’re not. Their flash in the petri dish is not panning out, and their surface arguments have failed them. So they are back to name-calling, but have no new names to call. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
In closing, I have a question for those pinnacles of reason at the Ayn Rand Institute:
Would you have been for or against convicted killer Gregory Scott Johnson’s request to donate his liver to his sister before he was put to death on May 25?
Answering yes would end a life to save a life, and the life ended would be one you care most deeply about – a murderer on death row – someone for whom you are very “pro-life.”
Answering no would also end a life to save a life, and the life ended would be an innocent person with medical problems who would most certainly have benefited from the cells of that other person.