Supporters of "Unworthy of Life"

Brian Baird represents my district in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is his take as printed in the May 25 Columbian, Local Angle - Baird supports research. (Note: The Columbian only supports article links for a short time).

Wednesday, May 25, 2005compiled by Columbian staff
Congressman Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, joined 237 other House members Tuesday in voting to expand stem cell research.
President Bush has promised to veto the legislation, a decision that Baird criticized as shortsighted.
"The president's extreme position on stem cell research is not based on science and it is not based on compassion," Baird said in a statement.
"Stem cell research holds the promise of curing life-threatening diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and childhood diabetes. How can the president claim to value life when he is depriving millions of Americans the promise of lifesaving medical cures?"

What does Baird actually think the President's position is? The President is against this legislation because it allows federal funds to be used in embryonic stem cell research; research which destroys the embryo. As I stated yesterday, a human sperm unites with a human egg to form a unique human being. An embryo is simply a stage of development from implantation up to eight weeks. These are scientific facts!

This places Baird on the horns of a dilemna. If he denies these facts then his position violates his own standard of being based on scientific fact. However, if he acknowledges that a human being exists at conception then he is advocating the destruction of human beings because of "the promise of curing life-threatening diseases".

Here's a question for Baird. Suppose two year olds were discovered to have an enzyme that would cure for "life-threatening diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and childhood diabetes" and even cancer and AIDS. The only catch is that extracting the enzyme will kill the two year old. Would Baird advocate killing the two year old?

If not, why not? What is the rational difference in the nature between the two year old human being and the embryonic human being? Why would you kill one and not the other?

If you wouldn't kill the two year old then how can you "value life when [you are] depriving millions of Americans the promise of lifesaving medical cures?"