Letters_____________
Opinion
4_____
WEdNEsdAy, D ecemòer 5, 2001
All signed letters to the editor should be 500 words or less and will be
considered for publication if submitted by 1 pm the Friday prior to
publication. Letters to the Editor are subject to editing. We reserve the
right to not publish any letter.
Cloning has potential to save lives The flame of peace
On Sunday, the 26th of November,
scientists in Massachusetts an
nounced, much to the dissatisfaction
of President Bush, that they had be
gun the manufacturing of cloned hu
man embryos.
Just a
thought.
For many, the idea of cloning hu
man beings is a forbidden, unethi
cal act that can only result in the
mass production of a race of perfectly
engineered ultra-humans—I prefer to
call them “mega-persons.” For oth
ers, it a bold new step in the stair
well of scientific knowledge that is
well worth ascending.
To all of those who live in fear of
the “mega-persons,” you can rest
soundly knowing that all that is be
ing done here is “therapeutic clon
ing,” the making of a cloned human
embryo to be used exclusively for
medical treatments.
For example, let’s say you have a
crazy drunken uncle who, after 45
long years of inebriated alcoholic
benders, needs a new liver—go fig
ure. Scientists would be able to clone
a new liver
for the sense
less bastard
by taking ge
netic material
from him,
and injecting
Leah Boeringa
it into an egg
Staff Writer
cell. Ideally,
the egg cell will then grow long
enough to produce stem cells that
can be coaxed into—ta-da—a new
liver for uncle! Since it was made
from his genetic material, his immune
system will be less likely to reject
the new organ. Life goes on and
everyone is a winner.
Well, maybe not everyone. I
nearly forgot about that zany group
of kids known as anti-abortion ac
tivists. Yup, they’re at it again. You
see this whole process can be viewed
as the “murder” of a human “life”.
“Making babies solely to kill them
and harvest their organs?! What the
hell is wrong with a country that
would allow anyone to do this?’
No need to worry your screwy little
heads. You may relax in knowing
that these undertakings are not fed-
'erally funded. Hie government does
not condone these actions, and the
president himself has stated that “we
should not as a society grow life to
destroy it”
Call me a little harsh, but I ne
glect to see anything wrong with the
brutal massacre of...well...cells.
Granted, these cells are the begin
nings of a human life, but they were
manufactured by science, and only
grow long enough to develop stem
cells. It’s not as if these scientists are
attacking pregnant women, ripping
the babies from their wombs and
trading babies’ organs for drug
money.
Therapeutic cloning is a fantastic
idea that I believe has the potential
to save many lives in the future.
Hopefully though, we won’t allow
this branch of science to get out of
hand; I’m pretty scared of the idea
of “mega-persons.”
Bending the rules
What would you be willing to
do in order to protect the United
States from further attack? Aside
from all the basics, airline secu
rity, sacrificing a little privacy
etc., what would you think about
torturing suspected terrorists in
order to prevent further attacks?
When I say “suspects”, I am
specifically speaking of individu
als who are known, for a fact, to
be associated with terrorist fac
tions. Although their known as
sociation thereby makes them
more into “heartless bastards”
than “suspects”, I will continue
to refer to them as “suspects”
throughout the rest of this piece,
due to the fact that “heartless
bastards” just doesn’t flow, and
makes me look like a “prejudiced
bastard."
Although the United States
government is not seriously con
sidering the torture of terrorist
suspects, The Washington Post
reports that the government is
weighing the possibility of put
ting suspects in the custody of
other governments “who are
known for their bare knuckle tac
tics.” Nations such as Israel, al
though formerly condemning the
practice of terror, have been re
ported to use force when neces
sary in order to extract informa
tion.
I, for one, hold the opinion that
it is morally justified to inflict
pain in order to possibly obtain
information which, would save
lives. And I am not alone either.
A Christian Science Monitor /
TIPP poll said that one of three
people would accept government
sanctioned torture of suspects.
(This reinforces my personal
theory that nearly two out of
three people usually disagree
with me.) If, in order to ensure
the safety of the American pub
lic, it is necessary to bend a few
rules of the Geneva Convention,
which forbids “Violence to life
and person, in particular...cruel
treatment and torture,” I am all
for it.
Critics may say it’s inhumane,
“not right” (show me a defini
tion of “right” please) or cruel.
I say living in fear for your life
is inhumane, killing over 3,500
innocent civilians isn’t right in
the eyes of nearly the entire world
(we have to live by its rules,
sorry), and cruelty is leaving
thousands of children without a
moga or dad this holiday season.
I will bow to the notion that two
wrongs don’t make a right.
However, when it comes down
to whether or not to inflict some
pain on one individual or wait
to see how many die in the next
terrorist attack, I suggest that the
FBI host a neighborhood piñata
party, the suspects being the pi
ñatas.
The benefits of preserving the
sense of freedom and saving
countless
lives far out
weighs the
importance
of a terror
ists personal
comfort.
This nation
has been a
safe home to
millions of
people for over two centuries. As
United State citizens, we are
among the most privileged in the
world, economically, and so
cially. The United States helps
the entire world in times of cri
sis, from Honduras to Israel,
and provides freedom to all
who live in its boundaries. In
order to protect the nation and
the people of the nation, it may
not be such a bad idea to “bend
a few rules.” I, for one am not
about to protect the rights of
someone who participates in
the massive slaughter of human
beings. If you have any ques
tions or would like to offer a
view, please feel free to contact
me. I’ll be at the FBI’s piñata
party.
JOEL SHEMPERT
Contributing Writer
"...and suddenly there was with
the angel a multitude of the heav
enly host, praising God and say
ing: Glory to God in the Highest,
and on Earth peace, good will to
ward men."
With these words in the Gospel
of Luke is heralded the birth of
Christ, and peace is thus forever
ingrained in our awareness of that
birth. It flows throughout the cel
ebration and runs through all the
music, interposing the exultant
shout of “Gloria!” with the tran
quil nocturne of “Silent Night.”
And so is peace wedded to any con
ception of Jesus of Nazareth, what
ever the interpretation of that peace
may be. Indeed, Jesus’ mission is
especially concerned with comfort.
“Come unto me, all who are
weary, and I will give you rest,”
He offers. “Prince of Peace” is
one prophesied title of the Mes
siah. “Peace I leave with you,” is
Jesus’ promise to his closest
friends just prior to His death.
But then we are treated in the
Gospel accounts to words of star
tling and fiery contention—the re
buke of hypocrites, challenge of a
high morality, the critique of a
corrupt society—that remind us
that whatever things are good must
necessarily oppose those which are
bad, and that there is more to peace
than mere comfort. Even peace,
perhaps especially peace, is worth
fighting for.
The Jesus revealed in these an
cient accounts is much more than
the sleeping Babe in the manger.
The serenity of the Nativity is the
calm before a storm, the breaking
out into human history of some
thing more wild and terrible and
wonderful than anything known
before.
The Christ of the Gospels is a
Man of fierce passion. His anger
is raging, His pity bottomless, His
love fervent—and His peace all-
encompassing. He has come to
save mankind, not merely give
them a good feeling. And so, un
like good feeling, He is danger
ous. The first century Pharisee and
the 20th century respectable Ameri
can must both approach Christ with
caution; He just might unseat
them—or He just might save them.
“Do not think I came to bring
peace on the earth,” spoke Jesus,
in one of the passages that is proof
of the tumult oLpersonality that
mingled freely with His deep love;
“I did not come to bring peace,
but a sword.” Far from a state
ment of hatred or even, directly,
of war, this is a frank acknowledg
ment that belief, or ideal or any
thing of worth, will always be
cause for the greatest contention,
will ever “set a man against his
father, and a daughter against her
mother.” It is, in fact, just the
things that are most universally
compassing that are most univer
sally divisive, for they are univer
sally important.
So let us have peace, the Peace
of Christ, “not as the world
giveth,” by which we can have rest
from the cares of the world. But
let us not forget that this peace
comes with a struggle; we must do
something to attain it, perhaps
even lose something, even losing
life to find life. Is it any wonder
that the passage quoted above from
Luke has been variously translated
as “peace on earth, to men of
goodwill"! Perhaps goodwill is
what will change the world to one
of peace. We are free to accept
this peace, or reject it, but not free
to accept it and remain unchanged.
As we celebrate Christmas, the
Christ Mass, perhaps the charac
ter of Christ will be more On our
minds than shopping and Christ
mas cards, even more than national
crises and patriotic wars. May this
“Peace beyond understanding,” in
all its soothing comfort and rag
ing glory, touch our hearts and
nourish our souls, and maybe even
change our world. Merry Christ
mas.
Do you want to go head to
head with one of our
writers?
Bring it on!
Send your opinions to
t@clackamas.c
300-500 words or st^JtyfB.
204
it saved o
will
remember.
We
£i