We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Monday, September 21, 2009

South Dakotans Have Chance to Cancel Ban on Stem Cell Research

David Volk is no raving liberal devil. A decorated Vietnam vet, Volk has been a Janklow and Reagan man. But he caught heck from South Dakota's hard-right wingnuts for his involvement with the centrist (read RINO) Mainstream Coalition, and he did oppose the 2006 abortion ban as bad policy. (Volk probably hasn't helped his case with the theocracy crowd by writing with Mark Meierhenry a kids book about geology that denies literal Creationism.)

And now David Volk is the devil, just like Nathan Peterson, the Campaign for Healthy Families, and anyone connected with Tom Daschle. Volk is spearheading a ballot initiative to repeal South Dakota's ban on embryonic stem cell research.

While Pat Powers does the real work and gets hold of the actual initiative Volk and South Dakotans for Living Cures is working on, Pastor Steve Hickey goes ballistic with the typical nonsensical character assassination of South Dakota's culture warriors (it must be nice to focus just on those political issues that you can turn into raging spiritual warfare rather than boring practical policy analysis).

I would rather have this stem cell debate on the 2010 ballot than another abortion ban. We've had abortion bans in two straight elections, with the same arguments and the same outcomes. A debate on stem cell research would explore the pitfalls of defining embryos as persons from a different angle. We could talk about how South Dakota's ban on embryonic stem cell research makes us lose out on some significant medical research investments. We could discuss why destroying embryos for research is bad but why destroying embryos for in vitro fertilization is perfectly acceptable (and excepted from South Dakota's embryo protection statute).

Let's have that debate. Dave, Nate, bring a petition by. I'll sign.


  1. Steve Sibson9/21/2009 11:32 AM

    Progressives in the GOP, who want to reject America's Natural Law, are no different than the Progressives in the Democrat Party.

    And there is no need to debate this issue. Killing humans for the sake of creating an Utopian society was what Hitler did.

  2. I'm pretty sure David Volk and I are pretty different. But I'm also positive David Volk is not Hitler and is not killing human beings. But if the research this proposed ballot measure would legalize is "killing humans," then I look forward to your proposal to send all doctors and parents engaging in in vitro fertilization to prison.

  3. Steve Sibson9/21/2009 8:54 PM

    If it is not killing humans, then what is it killing? Dogs? Cats?

  4. Killing human tissue which, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't have a detectable soul...since we have yet to detect the human soul.
    It seems a fair thing for society to determine when the beginning of life is. Survival apart from mom's body is a legitimate starting point since any other distinction must be based in religious faith...or is there honestly someone who believes a zygote has human consciousness.

    That being said, if society truly values human life it cannot recklessly throw away potential life for the sake of convenience or progress. I don't think it wise to completely discount that, even with the most insignificant bits of humanity.

    Single-Issue voter freaks especially on abortion on both sides are a stain. The problem should never have ended up in the Supreme Court.

    Good Lord, I think I'm a moderate on something, I may have to beat someone with their own sign.


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.