Righteousness and Indignation

Freshman Philosophy 101. I remember the first day, walking into class and the professor asking us "Would you, personally, kill a child on national tv, if it meant saving 100,000 people?" Well, my interest was definitely piqued. As a seventeen year old, I simply hadn't had many discussions of this type in my short lifetime. Certainly, none that started with such a controversial premise.

And it is a controversial premise, isn't it? I mean, it would be morally wrong to kill a child (whether or not you did it on national tv). But, wouldn't it be morally wrong to allow 100,000 people to perish, when you had the ability to stop it and didn't? Tricky, tricky stuff for the philosophizers, let alone the common man, as there is no right answer. After a week of discussing the topic, the answer that the majority, eventually, came to agree on was the one that would do the greater good for the greater number.

Now, we didn't hold elections or nominate committees to decide for us. We each had to come to terms with it ourselves. One man/woman. One vote. Twenty something individuals with varying economic backgrounds, different ethnic and cultural histories, numerous religious ideologies.

In the end, it had not been a uninamous decision. I remember one girl becoming so incensed during the debates that we could "even considering killing a child". She was screaming and crying as she begged for the life of the innocent. Of course, none of us thought, for a moment, that it was an easy decision. We all realized there were far-reaching consequences with either option.

Obviously, if we were willing to become a society that would kill a child to save the thousands of lives today, we would have set ourselves on a path that would make it possible...Hell, likely...that we would do it again. Did we really want to become that kind of society? Were we willing to be so callous about killing?

This, in the proverbial nutshell, is how the right views the very controversial subject of Stem Cell Research. At least, that's my understanding, looking at this from a more left-ern view. Embryonic research has been going on for decades, and we're not talking about fetal farming at this point.

I've been watching, with more than a little interest, as Bush has, as he promised, vetoed the recent Stem Cell Research legislation. It has taken me back to my college days. Back to thinking through the moral implications. Remembering that there are so many different viewpoints and that each of them has a voice. Ultimately, realizing that doing what is in the greater good, devoid of religious doctrine not adopted by everyone, if agreed by the majority, is the course we, as a society, must traverse. Understanding the righteous indignation some will feel, but trying to help promote knowledge and hope for the masses through another, albeit curvy, route.

Medical research can move very quickly when unimpeded. All of the research up to this point has shown that there is a vast potential for embryonic stem cells to help hundreds of thousands of people. People with cancer and Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries and diabetes. Diabetics alone, whose ranks have been on a rampant increase in the last ten years, now number at roughly 20 million in this country. They only comprise a part of the group that could be helped by continuing this work.

Please take a minute today and write your congressmen. Check their voting record on this issue. If you don't know how to reach your congressmen, this link will help. Simply put in your zipcode and you will get links to all of your representatives. Urge them to remember that while it is not an easy choice, they are obligated to do what is in the greater good. Don't forget to remind them that your vote is at stake, as well.

Everyone knows someone who could benefit from this research. That is the power we have to wield. Don't let the entropy that we are so often willing to engage diminish that power.