Skip to main content

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.


Popular posts from this blog

Funerals for the Unsaved or Unbelievers

I am not a leader of a church, but I oftentimes wonder how does one lead a funeral service for someone who dies without knowing Jesus Christ as Lord? Admittedly I have not been to many funerals in my lifetime, though they are appearing to come more frequently lately, but the fact is that funerals are held daily throughout the world and as such this is a pertinent question to someone just about every day.

I’ve been to the funeral where the person lived a fairly routine life, taking care of their families and other responsibilities as best they could, paying taxes and doing the average things that we as human beings do on a consistent basis. They however had no visible relationship with God through His son Jesus Christ. When this person dies, the surviving family members are oftentimes left scrambling trying to find a person and a place to officiate the funeral services – generally because the deceased did not have a regular church that they attended. Funeral homes sometimes serve this f…

Scripture: Are You a Wheat or Weed?

(Matthew 23: 24-30 NIV): Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

(Matthew 23: 36-43 NIV): Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” He answered, “The…

Hal Lindsay off TBN

Christian author and broadcaster Hal Lindsay removed his weekly Christian television news broadcast "The International Intelligence Briefing" from the programming lineup on The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) after network officials notified him that his shows would now be subject to pre-screening for censorship prior to broadcast approval. This unusual step was the result of TBN’s disapproval of a Lindsay broadcast in December 2005, which the network said was too inflammatory towards Muslims.

I have reviewed the transcript of Mr. Lindsay's broadcast and I find nothing in it’s content that is not backed up by God’s scripture, nor did I find anything that would be considered overly zealous or purposefully sensational with respect to potential attacks on Muslims. To the extent that TBN, one of the most widely available Christian TV networks would take this position is quite incredulous. One of the reasons for the need for ‘Christian’ TV networks is to enable the presenta…