Pro-Life/Stem Cell Research

Pro-Life

Some say life begins at conception. Some say when the heart starts beating. Some say when a baby exits the birth canal. There are many passionate viewpoints.

I believe life begins at the beginning - at conception. Therefore, I am definitively pro-life while my opponent is definitively pro-choice. Kay Granger in her own words. This is a belief born out of logic as much as out of faith. For instance, from the time that an embryo is formed and latches onto its mother's womb, it begins to grow. Respiration (breathing) and organ development begin. Independent movement and growth take place. If this isn't life, what is?

Some would say that because there is dependence on the mother's body, there is no life. Yet if you have held a newborn or raised a child, you know they will be very dependent for several years in one way or another. If dependence is the test for life, then we are on a very slippery slope.

From a practical standpoint, during the past 30 years, we have lost more than 40,000,000 boys and girls, who would have become men and women, through abortion. That is more than 13% of our current population. The longer we continue to sustain these kinds of losses to our population the more we will be dependent on immigration to meet our population needs.

I will fight to protect life by working to responsibly educate on the issue, increase adoption rates and hold both parents responsible for a child.

Stem Cell Research

While the hypothetical promises have been many, embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce any results. Adult stem cell research, however, has produced numerous proven and successful therapies. Why, then, would our government insist, with the help of your current representative's vote, to fund embryonic stem cell research instead of adult stem cell research? More fundamentally, we must ask ourselves, why is the government funding medical research at a time when it cannot even fund its current responsibilities?

The vote approving embryonic stem cell research was a mistake for several reasons. First, as mentioned above, there are no positive results from embryonic stem cell research. These cells are too unstable and typically morph into too many types of cells. Second, there have been several breakthroughs with adult stem cell research that have reduced, if not eliminated, the arguments for embryonic stem cell research. The main reason for promoting the use of embryonic stem cells is that they are "pluripotent" - they can become any type of tissue. However, techniques have now been developed that allow adult stem cells to become pluripotent as well. And, please consider this: if a cure is developed using embryonic stem cells, wouldn't we be forced to harvest more embryos to continue to provide that cure?

To be a nation that promotes life, we must pass laws that simplify embryo adoption, not embryo destruction. If I am elected, I will propose legislation to eliminate all federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Eventually, I would like to make embryonic stem cell research illegal it if involves the destruction of any embryos. Hand-in-hand with this is the need to protect the sanctity of life by making sure doctors are responsible with embryo creation.