Stem cell decision exposes religious divides:

Princeton University politics professor Robert George, a Catholic and another member of the Bush-era Council on Bioethics, said the moral argument over embryonic stem cell research is not rooted in religion but in ethics and equality. He said research shows that an embryo is a human being in its earliest form of development, so we have to ask ourselves whether all human life should be treated equally, with dignity and respect.

“I don’t think the question has anything to do with religion or pulling out our microscope and trying to find souls,” George said. “We live in a pluralistic society where some people believe there are no such things as souls. Does that mean we should not have moral objections to killing 17-year-old adolescents?”

I’m a bit shocked that Princeton University, home also to infanticide-promoter Peter Singer, permits a pro-life professor on their roster. Or maybe he’s the one guy in there so they can call themselves “diverse.”

Over and over and over again, I hear the refrain that “we’re not sure” when human life begins. So, of course, naturally, we’ll err on the side of caution and protect that fetus, right? Wrong.

Over and over and over again, I hear the refrain that we need to “relieve human suffering” and that these embryos are “unwanted” and would be “destroyed anyway.” Yet most of us would cringe at the thought of the elderly, enfeebled and on life support, being treated like a commodity.

If we can not treat all human life with dignity, then we can not expect such treatment for ourselves. None of us has the right to classify any other human being as inferior. And yet, when you set aside this basic tenet, that each human life has equal worth, and begin to rank people, born/unborn, healthy/unhealthy, young/old, man/woman, able-bodied/handicapped, you quickly become an oppressor, no better than Dr. Mengele, willing to use other people for your own personal gain whether that be money, health or fame or some other personal pleasure.

Either you think it’s ok to use people, to treat people like a natural resource ready to be exploited, to evaluate someone’s worth based on how productive or useful they are to society, to agree that a majority vote is acceptable in determining which basic rights any human gets to retain, or…

…you think that each human being is endowed with certain inalienable rights, to include life and liberty, and as such should be afforded with basic human dignity to include respecting their bodies both in life and in death (we do not simply heap people in mass graves unless urgently, medically necessary).

And if you think that all human beings have an equal worth (and Peter Singer does not), then you better be erring on the side of caution. It is only for the humble to equate themselves with a “clump of cells,” but the inverse of humility is pride, and if you choose pride, remember when you find your own intrinsic worth in question (and if you live long enough, you will eventually get to “old age”) how you treated your fellow man.