Saturday, February 07, 2009

The Unborn Help Saves The Born?

With the question of governmental funding of stem cell reasearch the specter of support for this program casts a spotlight on an issue that forces people, Republican and Democrat to display their true feelings on the "value of life". The abortion issue is somewhat easier for people to take one side or another, particularly if you have never been touched by it personally. This post however takes issue with those who scream "protect the unborn" on the issue of abortion, but who also says that stem-cell research is OK because of the "hope that it gives to save millions of lives". The sanctity of the unborn’s life seems awfully relative in this position. It seems that for these stem-cell supporters, the unborn who can "help save the born" are discardable. The paradox of former President Bush's position was that he took a supposedly "moral stand" by refusing to use federal money to fund stem-cell research, but appeared publicly ambivalent about private sector research. Now we know that politics was probably at play there, but proclamations about the sanctity of life is much greater than political posturing. Writer Mark Davis of the Dallas Morning News captures the quandary of this position perfectly:

The building blocks of life are simply not to be toyed with, no matter how noble the intent, they say. And while my pro-life views don't reach to that extent, I can respect those who differ. What is harder to respect is how anyone who truly views embryonic stem cell research as homicide can tolerate it, even in the private sector. "Take a Stand on Human Life - And Then Stick With It" - Dallas Morning News
The point is, when it comes to the unborn, the life of those living cannot and should not determine the value of those yet to be born. With abortion, pro-lifers says abortion is always wrong (well almost always), but some of these same people are OK to discard embryonic human matter in the hope of finding cures for diseases. Here again, writer Davis captures the point:

This is a close cousin of another strain of moral cowardice, the "no abortion except for rape and incest" gambit. The halls of power are filled with people who are generally pro-life but would fear political death for taking a stand for even an extremely narrow window of time for allowing a pregnancy to be terminated at the mother's discretion. But that is one of only two principled views one can hold on the subject. The other is the opinion that the newly created human life is worthy of protection irrespective of the circumstance of its creation. Rape and incest are horrific things, but the logic accompanying universal protection of the unborn is simple: Such traumas are not the fault of the growing embryo. A choice is required.
Problem is when it gets right down to it, people don't like making hard and unpopular choices. Even when that choice shows Christ (who they say the worship with "holy" hands) that they value his commands above their own conveniences. They like to be able to shift with the wind depending on the circumstances. He (Christ) who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. (Ephesians 4:10-14 NIV parenthesis mine) A "moral" position based on a belief in Christ and the word of God generally does not afford shifting positions depending on human circumstances. Either life begins at conception, and as such is accorded every human right that is decreed by God, or it does not. If so, abortion is OK so that adult's lives can continue "uninterrupted"; unused stem cells can be used in scientific laboratories in the hope of finding cures for cancer and other diseases. As writer Davis outlines above, you can't have it both ways. A choice is required.

For supposed people of God, the choice must be based on His Word, otherwise, we may very well be the hypocrites that the secularists says we are.

No comments:

A God who sends people to Hell?