So PBO has been making odd decisions for the past little while. I've been holding my tongue (or keyboard) about the little eccentricities like presenting the Russians with a Staples Easy Button and announcing our relationship with them has been "reset" or the bizarreness of a sitting president getting into a smackdown with a talk radio host (and then wussing out when said radio host offers to actually debate him). No, I've been restraining myself, even when PBO has declared that Nuclear Iran is not really a problem and is using the strategy on North Korea that Parenting magazine advocates for tantrums: ignore them, they only do it for attention.
But on Monday PBO announced--snottily, I might add, stating that his policy would be "based on facts, not ideology"--that he was reversing the current policy on embryonic stem cell research. In other words, federal dollars will go to fund research that involves killing small, defenseless humans in order that big, wealthy humans have a chance at maybe someday sort of making some illness better possibly.
See, here's the problem with making policy that is not based on ideology: you can't do it. There IS an ideology here, and it's not pretty. The ideology behind embryonic stem cell research says that it's all right for some people to take lives because they are more important than the people they kill. This is the same logic behind other, more frank abortions--somehow, the perceived good of a big person is treated as more important than the very life of a little, defenseless person.
"Well," proponents say. "They're only cells. It's not as though we're murdering people. And look at all the suffering we will alleviate."
First of all, once an embryo is fertilized, you can't make a logical or scientific argument for when it "becomes" a human. The process is chronological and seamless. A fertilized embryo has its own, unique DNA. (Yes, this is also why I'm against any in-vitro fertilization that destroys embryos. Sue me.)
Second, all the stem cell research that has been going on unabated in other countries has produced not one cure. Stem cell research in this country, which has gone on under private funding, is barely "promising"-- it has lately enabled one rat with paralysis to shuffle.
Thirdly, there are stem cells that are not from embryos. You have them in your fat tissue, among other things. Why not study those? Why are we so comfortable with abortion in all its ugly facets that we don't even bother to pursue alternatives?
The idea that there is a special class of people who are not quite human isn't new thinking, and it should be a red flag. When were other times in history when you can remember a group of respectable, educated people making arguments like "Well, obviously it would be wrong to do that to people, but they aren't really people like us" or "We have to do this, for the good of society" or even "The financial burden of stopping this would be too great"?
Slavery in the U.S. and the Final Solution are what come to my mind, and I don't want to go on the record as one of the respectable people who excused a great social evil simply because it was expedient.
Christians stood up and cried out against slavery. Christians preached (and died for it) against the Final Solution. There has to be something more productive we can do about the great evil of our time besides just standing outside clinics with signs. Perhaps Christians could sign advance directives specifically refusing any treatment derived from embryonic stem cells. Certainly we must redouble our efforts at providing meaningful "choice" for women besides abortion, by giving them help, support, and making adoption less of a hassle for all involved. Most certainly, we must pray for the president, and the nation.
Really, when compared to government sanction of murdering some of the populace for the benefit of others, Russia, Iran, and North Korea can't damage us any more than we've damaged ourselves.
Please pray,
Breanna
But on Monday PBO announced--snottily, I might add, stating that his policy would be "based on facts, not ideology"--that he was reversing the current policy on embryonic stem cell research. In other words, federal dollars will go to fund research that involves killing small, defenseless humans in order that big, wealthy humans have a chance at maybe someday sort of making some illness better possibly.
See, here's the problem with making policy that is not based on ideology: you can't do it. There IS an ideology here, and it's not pretty. The ideology behind embryonic stem cell research says that it's all right for some people to take lives because they are more important than the people they kill. This is the same logic behind other, more frank abortions--somehow, the perceived good of a big person is treated as more important than the very life of a little, defenseless person.
"Well," proponents say. "They're only cells. It's not as though we're murdering people. And look at all the suffering we will alleviate."
First of all, once an embryo is fertilized, you can't make a logical or scientific argument for when it "becomes" a human. The process is chronological and seamless. A fertilized embryo has its own, unique DNA. (Yes, this is also why I'm against any in-vitro fertilization that destroys embryos. Sue me.)
Second, all the stem cell research that has been going on unabated in other countries has produced not one cure. Stem cell research in this country, which has gone on under private funding, is barely "promising"-- it has lately enabled one rat with paralysis to shuffle.
Thirdly, there are stem cells that are not from embryos. You have them in your fat tissue, among other things. Why not study those? Why are we so comfortable with abortion in all its ugly facets that we don't even bother to pursue alternatives?
The idea that there is a special class of people who are not quite human isn't new thinking, and it should be a red flag. When were other times in history when you can remember a group of respectable, educated people making arguments like "Well, obviously it would be wrong to do that to people, but they aren't really people like us" or "We have to do this, for the good of society" or even "The financial burden of stopping this would be too great"?
Slavery in the U.S. and the Final Solution are what come to my mind, and I don't want to go on the record as one of the respectable people who excused a great social evil simply because it was expedient.
Christians stood up and cried out against slavery. Christians preached (and died for it) against the Final Solution. There has to be something more productive we can do about the great evil of our time besides just standing outside clinics with signs. Perhaps Christians could sign advance directives specifically refusing any treatment derived from embryonic stem cells. Certainly we must redouble our efforts at providing meaningful "choice" for women besides abortion, by giving them help, support, and making adoption less of a hassle for all involved. Most certainly, we must pray for the president, and the nation.
Really, when compared to government sanction of murdering some of the populace for the benefit of others, Russia, Iran, and North Korea can't damage us any more than we've damaged ourselves.
Please pray,
Breanna
1 comment:
Okay, blame it on hormones if you want, but your post made me cry. All I can say is amen, Sister! Preach on!
-Kindra
Post a Comment