.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Thursday, March 12, 2009

 

Sorry about that, Dr. Mengele

Who would be against finding better ways of treating hypothermia or malaria? What monster would prevent us from discovering a cure for gangrene? Who is against better treatment for burns? Given the scarcity of fresh water in many parts of the world, can we find ways of putting seawater to human use? And who knows what useful science can result from the study of twins?

Somehow, at one time and place, certain experiments designed to find the answers to these worthy questions were found to be a crime against humanity. But thanks to the policies of the Obama administration, these outworn shibboleths have been replaced. Today questions of the ethics of these studies must be dismissed as wrongheaded. Science, not politics or ethical standards, must take precedence.

Regarding the destruction of human embryos for the purpose of conducting stem cell research, Obama said this:

…our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.


Not only must this science go forward, but it is a moral imperative that it proceed.

... As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.


There is, of course, controversy about these experiments. For many, the destruction of embryos, like the destruction of fetuses, is not a moral issue. For these, human life does not begin prior to birth. For still others in this camp, such as Peter Singer, human life is not protected until well after birth and ceases to be protected once certain illnesses occur. In fact, for Singer, there is no ethical differnce between human life and, say, a pig.

But most people acknowledge the ethical issues involved. They may not agree, but they recognize that they exist. For Obama, that recognition does not seem to be there, and that’s profoundly troubling.

There is another troubling aspect to this that is receiving virtually no MSM attention: the fact that embryonic stem cell research may not be needed at all in order to create the “pluripotent” stem cells derived from embryos. Techniques have been developed to take ordinary cells and make them pluripotent.
…the development of a technique known as "cell reprogramming," in which ordinary human skin and other cells are transformed into "induced pluripotent stem cells" (IPSC). This achievement and subsequent advances in research were deemed so impressive and important that the journal Science named the development of the IPSC as the scientific "breakthrough of the year" for 2008.


If we cease to acknowledge that "people" exist from the moment of conception to their death, the question of the value of human life becomes one long slippery slope. And we are left with essentially ideological judgments about who is truly human and who is not. Who is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights – and who is not. When life begins and when it should appropriately end.

We are not the first society that has struggled with these questions. The fact that we still debate these questions says much about the moral evolution of man.

Once we approach that bright line between humanity and inhumanity, and justify experiments based on the end result, we are well on the way of joining Drs. Mengele, Clauberg and others who did what they did in the name of science and the greater good.

Perhaps we owe an apology to those brave pioneers at the Public Health Service who conducted the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. These experiments may not have done anything to advance a cure, but they provided many people at the PHS with a livelihood.
We can’t be sure if the new federally funded research will create any medical breakthroughs, but it will mean millions – sorry, billions – in federal grants and provide a good income for the men and women involved.
But if you're holding your breath for the Obama promises,
...to regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair; to spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles; to treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans ...
don't get your hopes up. So far, none of the embryonic stem cell research that has actually taken place has had any therapeutic effect. Oh, you thought none had been going on? Sorry Charlie.

Labels: , , , , ,


Comments:
Additionally, there is currently no restriction to funding not only emrbyonic stem cell research (first 2 trimesters), but fetal stem cell research (third trimester) can also be funded. The MSM usually just implies that stem cells will only be harvested from cells on a petri dish & don't volunteer the wider implications of Obama's actions.
 
What else should we expect from the man who fought to withhold medical care or comfort from a child born alive after an intended abortion. After all that would be interfering with the original intent of the abortion.

What kind of human being could discard a baby like that as if it were a piece of trash.

He then has the audacity to call himself a man of faith who is working to ease human suffering. A man of faith? The God I know doesn't work that way; so faith in what?

What does he consider that baby who survived the abortion process to be?

Who owns the President's soul?
 
Thanks for the great post. I linked to it yesterday: Science without ethics.
 
Thanks for all the comments.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?