Lamenting the reversal of pro-life stem cell policy
- Mar 9, 2009 - 7
This is a sad day for the sanctity of all human life in America. President Obama, in rescinding President Bush’s order of August 2001, which banned federal funding of research that causes the destruction of human embryos, has declared open season on unborn babies, allowing them to be destroyed for the sole purpose of harvesting their embryonic cells and tissue in the hopes of discovering treatments for maladies and diseases affecting older and bigger human beings.
Southern Baptist ethics leader Richard Land decried President Barack Obama’s March 9 executive order overturning the prohibition on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
Obama’s order rescinded the policy instituted by President George W. Bush in 2001. The Bush policy barred federal funds for stem cell research that results in the destruction of human embryos. Obama instructed the National Institutes of Health to issue guidelines on ESCR and other forms of stem cell research within 120 days. In his speech before signing the executive order, the President urged Congress to provide more support for ESCR.
President Obama’s action could swiftly lead to the potential destruction of several hundred thousand unborn human beings who currently exist as frozen embryos in storage facilities across the country.
President Obama’s authorization of federal funding of this research has the double effect of greatly increasing the number of babies killed and requiring tens of millions of Americans who find such research morally reprehensible to be forced to subsidize it through the use of their tax dollars.
With consent from their biological parents, these frozen embryos will be taken and killed for their embryonic stem cells. This will be done despite the fact hundreds of frozen embryos have been adopted and successfully born as healthy children. Most experts believe this supply of embryos will soon be exhausted by federally funded research demands, and this will build pressure to allow embryos to be created by cloning for the sole purpose of harvesting their cells before they reach 14 days’ gestation.
The so-called “clone-to-kill bill” (sometimes known as the Kennedy-Feinstein-Harkin-Specter bill) would legalize cloning for embryonic stem cell research purposes. President Obama made a chilling allusion to this when he said the guidelines “will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction,” which of course, leaves open the specter of legalizing cloning for supplies of embryonic stem cell purposes.
All of this is made even more tragic and reprehensible by the fact that very recent medical advances in securing embryonic cells that do not require the destruction of embryos have just been confirmed by further scientific testing.
Many supporters of the President’s decision have erroneously hailed this as removing politics and ideology from science. In fact, it is an attempt to remove morality from scientific research. History, from the Third Reich and elsewhere, teaches us that such a shift is a steep and slippery slope to a dark, depraved and dangerous destination.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on the sanctity of human life, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Life, Stem-Cell Research
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Mar 11th, 2009, at 11:08am, James E Reeves wrote:
This issue is really a constitutional issue for Christian life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of children not yet born. The struggle of our republic to include rights to those unable to fight for themselves, like black slaves in the 1860’s continues to reprove our society and ask for justice for all. This quest of Dr. Land should include backbone enough to file letters to the Supreme Court of The U.S. or ask for the removal of the lifetime appointments and require them as under an election process.
The Judical rule Roe v Wade caused this problem it is time to end it. Judges can, and Christians must or judgment will.
your brother,
James
2 On Mar 11th, 2009, at 3:09pm, Frank Johnson wrote:
Yes, how easily we forget that such boundaries have been crossed in the past and with disastrous results. It is also ironic that the argument of “removing politics and ideology from science” is being put forward by politicians and ideologues. God help us (I mean that literally) before we slide so far down that “steep slope” that we cannot regain our moral and spiritual footing.
3 On Mar 11th, 2009, at 8:26pm, Manny wrote:
Just commenting on the headline, “Subsidizing human embryo destruction” I fail to see the moral distinction between allowing excess embryos to be used for research or to be thrown away. In fact I think there is a good case that doing nothing about the thousands of embryos that are simply discarded is a greater evil than using them for humanitarian research. I know this is a complex issue and like I said, I’m just commenting on the title, not the text.
4 On Mar 12th, 2009, at 10:42am, Staff wrote:
RE: Manny’s @ Post 3:
NOTE to other readers: Manny refers to an optional headline of this article as it appeared in the March 11, 2009 edition of our weekly newsletter which linked to this page. (Consider subscribing here.)
Manny,
That’s a great question about what would be done with these embryos. But it is not a decision between using them for research or just tossing them in the trash.
The ‘third’ and far more ethical option is frozen embryo adoption. These embryos can be adopted, implanted and brought to term. The success rate is comparable to that of natural births.
It’s been done for years, continues to be done, and there is no reason it couldn’t/shouldn’t be done with these embryos.
5 On Mar 12th, 2009, at 12:11pm, Cindy from Maryland wrote:
I am amazed that our first Black President fails to see (or has chosen to ignore) the slaves of the 21st century. I see no difference between the white plantation owners of 150 years ago and those who particiapte in the mass murder of millions of helpless babies, including the man who signed the paper to make it all possible.
150 years ago, white man thought of the black man as a non-person, property with which they could do as they choose. Our unborn children are the slave race of the new enlightened era.
6 On Mar 12th, 2009, at 1:29pm, James E Reeves wrote:
The issue of constitutional intervention to promote a social lifestyle remains the focus of this debate. The Owner of slaves wanted to maintain their status and lifestyle. As recent as 10 years ago Corporate America past (forced arbitration) into every legal document to maintain their lifestyle. Roe Vs Wade was passed as legitimate means to also maintain a lifestyle. All three involved the Constitution and people unable to defend themselves and lifetime appointed Judges.
It is this ethical issue of the debate that will either result in freedoms or continued oppression by the Judicial Branch.
Your brother,
james
7 On Mar 21st, 2009, at 9:38am, James E Reeves wrote:
Clevins Browne a grant winner of Youth Noise for “In My Shoes” wrote this in an article.
Think before you act, and don’t let anyone tell you that it’s ok to treat people differently based on their appearance or sexual orientation or weather or not they’re disabled. Some people don’t have a voice to fight for themselves, so those of us who have voices must raise up and speak for them. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. For Everyone.
As I read this article the word at the end jumps off the page at me and I ask “Does the word everyone really mean everyone?”
Your brother,
James