This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.

« Bloggers with Press Passes? | Main | More on Twixters »

February 11, 2005

Romney Elevates Life Over Self Interest

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's decision to oppose stem cell research using embryos created for that purpose is a courageous stand for a politician in the most liberal of states. What is most impressive about Romney's decision, however, is that he has surprised the political establishment by elevating the ethics of life above personal and family interests.

That should cause all of us to take a closer look at the Massachusetts governor as the presidential derby 2008 begins.

Here are the details.

Proponents of a bill that would allow creating embryos for the purpose of conducting "assumed they would have the backing of Mr. Romney, a Republican whose wife, Ann, has multiple sclerosis, a disease that could potentially be helped by the research. Mr. Romney had previously said he supported stem cell research in general, but had not elaborated.

But in an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Romney said that he was strongly against a type of embryonic stem cell research that many scientists consider extremely promising: research that involves creating human embryos specifically for scientific experimentation."

Mitt Romney said:

"My wife has M.S., and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.. . .creation for the purpose of destruction is wrong."

Romney's position runs counter to the actions that many other states are considering. After California's decision last year to invest $3 billion in embryonic stem cell research, at least seven other states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, are considering steps to encourage researchers in the field or provide economic incentives.

He is not totally opposed to embryonic stell cell research, however. He favors the use of embryos that are left over from in-vitro fertilization "if the couples who created the embryos gave written permission, were not paid, and were offered the options of rejecting research in favor of storing the embryos or giving them up for adoption."


Posted by Jim at February 11, 2005 06:14 AM

Trackback Pings

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Romney Elevates Life Over Self Interest:

» Mitt takes a stand for "life" from The Anchoress
Stones Cry Out has a terrific post regarding Mitt Romney's courageous stance against creating embryos for the sole purpose of using embryonic stem cells for research. [Read More]

Tracked on February 11, 2005 11:30 AM

» Romney's Courageous Stance from Proverbs Daily
A post over at Stone's Cry Out describes Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's stance for life despite a very personal reason that would tempt him the other way. Romney's wife Ann has multiple sclerosis and stem cell research, allegedly, may provide... [Read More]

Tracked on February 12, 2005 06:28 PM

» Romney's Courageous Stance from Proverbs Daily
A post over at Stone's Cry Out describes Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's stance for life despite a very personal reason that would tempt him the other way. Romney's wife Ann has multiple sclerosis and stem cell research, allegedly, may provide... [Read More]

Tracked on February 15, 2005 12:18 PM

Comments

There is an editorial in the current issue of Touchstone (www.touchstonemag.com) (article not yet online) by Thomas S. Buchanan called "California Dreaming." In the article, the author, who is a medical researcher, reminds people that embryonic stem cell research, to date, has not lived up to its promise--mostly because of the habit of embryonic cells to want to form a pulse. Umbilical, placental and adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already shown results. He wonders what would be the result if California and other states would pour that amount of money into the three fields that are already showing promise, and come at a much lower moral cost. Good question for all of us to ponder.

Posted by: Mark Sides at February 11, 2005 08:57 AM

As a Mormon, I have wondered for some time whether fellow Mormon Mitt Romney would be able to gain the support of evangelical Christians in a presidential bid. This seems like as good a forum as any in which to ask the question.

Posted by: Kent at February 11, 2005 02:18 PM

Kent, having grown up in Nevada and knowing a lot of Mormons, but very little about their beliefs, I can say I have some questions. The Mormons I grew up knowing puzzled me. They seemed nice enough but every insular. I loved how family-oriented they were, and how church-conscious they were, but at the same time they never let me forget for a moment that I was "not" a Mormon. There was an exclusionary feel to the thing - lots of conversational references that, if I asked for an explanation, would simply be dropped, lots of "well, if you were a Mormon, you'd understand" type of responses, and sometimes I simply would be told by my friends, "we can't talk with you about it, because you're not Mormon." And too - perhaps this is not true anymore, but there seemed to be a divide, even among the Mormons themselves, as to who was a "founding" sort of Mormon, with a long LDS pedigree, and who was a convert. The converts I knew would often gripe that they felt like second-class citizens within the church. I have to admit, it rubbed me the wrong way and raised my eyebrows.

I'm not "evangelical," I am a Catholic. None of what I have written should matter, of course, in selecting a Mormon or anyone else for political leadership...but at the same time, this strange "otherness" among the Mormons I knew growing up, and their reluctance to really, really TELL me what they believed about Christ, the Trinity etc...it was troubling. And it ended up with my having some very odd ideas about Mormons, because we non-Mormons would sit around trying to figure it all out, with whatever weird little bits of info we'd glean...so I can recall friends saying, "well, they have this Salamander...and they believe that they'll all be Gods in charge of their own celestial heaven...and the books were interpreted in a hat..." and all sorts of odd nonsense, which I could never get cleared up.

I recall once, asking a girl I was pretty good friends with about the Celestial stuff and her eyes grew round and she said, "well, that's all misinterpreted, and not a fair representation!" Being a Catholic, I've lived with all sorts of misinterpretations and unfair representations of my faith my whole life, so I empathized with her - I really did - but when I asked her to please clear it up for me, to give me the RIGHT representation, because I really DID want to udnerstand, she said, "you'd never understand."

Fizzle, Pop! So much for finding common ground.

A distant cousin of mine eventually converted and married a Mormon girl, but I recall none of us were allowed to go to the wedding at the Temple, because we were not Mormon. The marriage didn't last, but I remember being so excited! I've got a Mormon cousin! Maybe now I'll get the answers to my questions!

No such luck. He clammed up like every Mormon I have ever known, and gave me NO info.

So...my own take on it...lots of folks are going to like Mitt and respect him...but they'll be very hesitant to elect a guy who can't articulate his own religious beliefs with some clarity.

Posted by: TheAnchoress at February 11, 2005 02:43 PM

Ooops, I meant "nice enough but VERY insular..."

I am dyslexic. Sorry.

Posted by: TheAnchoress at February 11, 2005 02:45 PM

Two years ago my wife and I went to Salt Lake City on business and ended up getting a VIP tour of Mormon Square, and we asked the tour guide many tough questions--which he answered quite politely, and really rather completely. We started the tour thinking Mormons weren't all that different than orthodox Christians and ended it thinking the Mormon church has the wierdest set of beliefs and incredible, incomprehensible leaps of faith.

The more you know, the more you'll be disturbed by it.

That said, I would support a practicing Mormon for President, simply because I don't see the Kingdom of God arriving on Air Force One, and a faithful Mormon would have nearly identical values as conservative Christians. Certainly on issues that impact public policy.

The opposition wouldn't come from evangelicals. Democrats would pull out the racial discrimination problems of the Mormon church past, which will saddle a Mormon candidate.

Posted by: Jim Jewell at February 11, 2005 03:28 PM

He has signed his own death warrant. This is the state of JFK and Teddy.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 11, 2005 04:37 PM