Background
To recap the controversy, which hasn't really been in the news the last few years thanks to President Bush, researchers have been experimenting with a type of cell called "stem cells" for many years, now. They have learned to use this research to treat a variety of diseases and conditions. This is great news and a real credit to scientific research. However, at some point researchers began to develop a particular interest in stem cells coming out of human embryos. They developed this interest because unlike the other stem cells that had produced so many scientific gains, embryonic stem cells had the ability to morph into other types of cells, so researchers believe they could explore this ability and develop even more cures if they could harness it. In years of trying they have not produced a single success with this line of research, but they are hopeful nonetheless, and continue.
The problem is that in order to harvest these stem cells, the researchers must kill the embryos in the process. This is obviously a problem for Christians because we believe that human life begins at conception. It is not disputed that an embryo is human life. Therefore, in the pursuit of scientific research, we understand what researchers are doing is killing innocent and defenseless human beings in order to harvest their cells. Human life is sacred and must be protected, thus there is a great deal of opposition throughout the world, in religious circles, against embryonic stem cell research. Many (most?) scientists involved in the research, not surprisingly, brush off and, in fact, insult this opposition, saying that the almighty research must proceed regardless of the destruction of said embryos.
There are two additional twists: Firstly, a couple of years ago it was announced that researchers had discovered a way to take ordinary stem cells and "regress" them back to the equivalent of embryonic stem cells, complete with ability to morph into other cells. This was a huge breakthrough that the media barely noticed. It meant that there was no need to continue research on "real" embryonic stem cells since an endless supply could now be made available without any killing of embryos.
You would think the arguments would end there, since everybody apparently wins: Embryos get to live; scientists get to do research; we get to benefit from such research. Alas, this has not been the case. Why? Who knows. I can't for the life of me understand, outside of simple hatred for Christians, why people would willfully continue the practice of using live human embryos as fertilizer for research when other totally safe and sound methods are available.
What President Bush did was to say that while he was opposed to this type of research, it was not within his power to stop it altogether, so he stopped new federal funding of it instead. Researchers could continue to get private donations and funding, but the government was out of it. He also limited the research to lines of embryos that were in existence at that time, but no others. I believe this was also related to the federal funding. That is, no federal funding for new lines of embryos.
By the way, the reason we have these embryos in the first place, stored frozen, is because couples go to have in-vitro fertilization done, contributing sperm and eggs. Doctors put the two together to make embryos, then feed the woman fertility drugs and implant a number of the embryos in her womb hoping one or more will "take" and she will eventually deliver a child. Because the process is expensive, they cut costs by doing all their fertilization at the same time, storing the "extra" embryos to use with the woman later in case the batch they're working with does not produce children. If that first batch does produce children, or if the couple runs out of money or decides not to continue, they have a real problem on their hands, morally speaking. They have live human embryos that they've produced, waiting for a womb to grow up in. What to do with them? It is these embryos that researchers use for their experiments, extracting the cells they want and killing the embryo.
Back to Today's News
What President Obama {cringe} has done is to reverse President Bush's executive order, so that federal dollars can now be used to fund embryonic stem cell research again. Atheists - and those Christians who live like atheists - think this is great because some valuable research will get done. Religious people by and large think it's horrible because even more children will now be murdered in the name of Science.
I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.
Vindicated? Why would you feel vindicated? People still think you and your procedures are despicable. President Obama reversing President Bush on a policy issue doesn't make what you do any more legitimate. If your research was half as good as you think it is, or showed anything of the promise you foresee, you should have had no trouble attracting private donations all these years. Instead you rely on the liberals in Congress to vote you all kinds of funding because you're too lazy or incompetent to get it from private citizens or groups that share your viewpoint.
Obama said he would do this on the campaign trail last year, so who can blame him for keeping his promise? Listen to the rhetoric:
"I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."
I see, so if everyone else is doing something immoral then we should, too, so we don't get left behind? Why aren't we having our pharmaceutical companies, among the world's greatest, producing high-quality opium, marijuana, and cocaine? Aren't we getting "left behind" in that arena, too?
He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."
What a sick joke that is. "Conducted ethically?" What exactly does that even mean? We're gonna kill 'em, but we'll make sure we kill 'em quick and painlessly? This is just one example of Obama using a lot of pretty-sounding words to say absolutely nothing. He is practiced at hypnotizing his audience so that they think he's saying things they agree with.
Here is one researcher whose opinion is one we hear quite often:
"America's biomedical research enterprise experienced steady decline over the past eight years, with shrinking budgets and policies that elevated ideology over science."By using the term "ideology" in place of "morality," the scientist (read: one who elevates Science above all else) is sneaking around the crux of the issue. By reducing the opposition to mere "ideology" he is saying it is the equivalent of an opinion, and nothing more. This is very different from what it really is, which is our society's understanding of morality. In truth, we object to this type of research because it is immoral. So the questions we want addressed are twofold: 1) Is it immoral to do this, and 2) If it is immoral, should we proceed anyway?
Supporters of this type of research will inevitably fall into one of those two categories (those who answer "no" to the first question, or those who answer "yes" to the second). Yet they never argue from where they stand. What they do, in typical liberal fashion, is make an impassioned emotional argument in favor of their position, while ignoring the other side's legitimate concerns, and demonizing their opponents in the process (they often use very foul language, too, another trademark of the left). Here is one example, taken from the comments below the AP article:
It’s about time this was done. I couldn’t believe Bush had so many irrational, illogical, and foolish policies. It’s not even human life that’s being experimented on. These conservatives should get out of the 18th and 19th centuries and get into the 21st century like the rest of the world. Instead of listening to some clergyman in a church who knows nothing about reason, rationality, or science, why not listen to the educated scientific community? He should’ve done that before making ridiculous bans/policies that impeded and prevented advances – advances that will eventually create treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases and illnesses. It’s no different than [producing a bowel movement] and experimenting on that. They were going to be destroyed anyways (sic).A real role model, this commenter. Let's break it down: "Bush was an idiot." Gotta start there, right? I mean, what liberal rant wouldn't? "It's not human life; it's the equivalent of human waste." Really? And on what basis does that opinion rest on? Does it have human DNA? Is it living? Was it produced by human beings? Will it eventually grow into a larger human being? If you answer "yes" to all these questions, then how can you make such a ridiculous statement as "it's not human?"
Continuing, "don't listen to religious leaders. They don't know anything about reason, rationality, or science." Really?? History is saturated with people who were devout Christians, many were even priests, and God-believing scientists are at the forefront of the Intelligent Design movement today, which is based in reason, not in faith. Read the chapter in "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" that talks about science, then tell me again how religious people have no reason. While you're at it, convince us that you know anything about objective morality, much less faith. Religious people have a far more balanced understanding of the world than atheists or agnostics do.
The final point the commenter makes is a very-often made one: Some day this research will save lives and cure things like Parkinson's disease, and fix spinal cord injuries. Again, sell on emotion. This is the liberal way. Disregard the costs, focus only on the benefits. Meaning: forget about the embryos/children that will be destroyed as a result of the research. Focus instead on the great things that will come about as a result of it. I see this as a purely Satanic ploy. This is how the Devil gets his foot in the door - he either distracts you with the "prize" so you don't notice the harm, or he gets you thinking that the ends justify the means. This is something to be guarded against.
The above commenter is very typical of liberal opinion on this subject. You do not have to look far to find comments just like these. It's an example of what happens when you remove God from your life, and in this case what can happen when you remove God and/or moral decision-making from society. It's horrible and must be condemned.
Posts
|