Mark Green, R-Wis., believes all human life deserves to be protected, which is why Wisconsin Right to Life called him a “genuine pro-life hero.” When individuals harbor the responsibility of bringing another life into this world, whether it is considered a mistake or unintentional, another human should not have to pay.

At that moment of conception, this miracle has the same individual rights as you and I, and there is no excuse or justification for destroying their future. Not only should it be against the law and your moral beliefs, it should eat away at your conscience as you starve to rationalize a reason, whether economical or selfishness, for demolishing innocent flesh and blood.

One argument against Green and his policymaking decisions is that a fetus is not a developed human until birth, that it’s just an entanglement of soft tissue. The idea of intelligent design and most religions tie together the belief that a soul is extended to this new life at the moment of conception.

Some view an unborn child as anything but human in order to dehumanize death and allow them to sleep at night. How do abortion and throwing a baby from a cliff differ? Both cases are ending an innocent life and it’s the same thing no matter what erroneous and unethical reasons you have for justifying it.

In 2003, Green voted “yes” to ban partial-birth abortion, unless it was to save a mother’s life. A mother may not be willing to love her unborn child enough to care that it lives. The fetus still deserves a chance at being loved, even when love is nothing it has ever known. The potential for love will save its life. You can’t kill that, and worse, you can’t ignore that.

In 2005, Green voted “no” on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. Green knows that love is a powerful weakness. We all have loved ones and would do anything for them in a time of need. Doctors hope to one day attempt to replace old diseased cells in the human body with stem cells taken from unborn fetuses, mainly aborted fetuses, which is the issue at hand.

In 2003, Green also voted “yes” on forbidding human cloning and stem cell experimentation for reproduction and medical research. He has good reason. So far scientists seem to be stumbling over their own efforts. A great example of this is Parkinson’s disease. This disease prevents cells from normally producing dopamine in the brain. Scientists claimed that stem cells displayed the ability to turn into any kind of cells they want. By injecting stem cells into the brains of rats and mice, Dr. Ronald McKay of the National Institute of Health and Dr. Ole Isaacson of Harvard Medical School found that the cells injected grew into the types of cells that wither in Parkinson’s disease.

After the results, the media went nuts declaring that doctors had found the cure to Parkinson’s disease. They also proclaimed that it could not be tested oh humans due to unresolved political decisions. The public cracked blaming you know who! The media norm for the past five or six years reveals that scientists are being hamstrung by politicians.

What we don’t hear about are the other results. Thus far, research has been disastrous showing in most instances that half of the rats and mice showed a little bit of improvement, and the other half either developed tumors and died or showed no effect. In July 2005’s issue of Scientific American, Clive Cookson reported, “Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, cannot be directly used in therapy because they cause cancer.” So a question comes to mind, are the risks worth the reward? After all, we cannot assume that what works in mice will work in men.

As some scientists and politicians stress the idea of continuing research using unborn human flesh and blood, others speak of experimenting using adult stem cells, from people like you and me; we just don’t hear about it in the media. Another alternative is genetic engineering to someday prevent deformities and disease before they occur. This is an entirely different issue with many pros and cons, but also one that doesn’t take an innocent life.

On health care, Green has the right idea. He has been a leading advocate for Personal Health Accounts. He is in favor of allowing people the opportunity to set aside money that can be carried over year after year for medical funds. These contributions are also tax deductible. Since it is the individual that owns the account, it is the individual that will also be able to use these funds in retirement as well. Green has also helped to fund the National Institute of Health, the medical research branch of the federal government. The NIH is working to find cures for terrible diseases like cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s in a safe way, without killing an unborn child. Green helped double funding for the NIH budget in five years.

According to his site, he will continue to fight for a strong investment in medical research.

As stated before, you need to form your own opinion and do your research to fully understand both issues at hand. Green is a candidate that wants Wisconsin to do the right thing and to help others in the process. You need to ask yourselves what you truly believe to be the humane and moral thing to do. If we as humans lack basic moral beliefs then what good are we to the generations to come? What is their future?

The choice is up to you, and how exciting to be able to have this choice. People need to decide whether or not they are responsible enough to hold the gift of life, not to ponder between the options of adoption or abortion. If you make the right choice, an unborn child should be so lucky to also make these right choices one day.