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.

Labels

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Ignore God and Decrease Your Birth Rates

I read a very interesting article yesterday in the New York Times on the topic of the shrinking birth rate in Europe over the past few decades. The article outlines the demographic danger facing Europe with the high likelihood that several countries (Italy, Spain and Germany among others) will see their native populations decrease by up to 40% by 2050. According to the article, the replacement birth rate necessary to maintain an equal population size from generation to generation is 2.1 children born to each woman. In Europe according to the article the rate is well below 2.0, with some countries closer to 1.5 and dropping. It is a lengthy and very interesting read that sheds some light on a phenomenon that in all likelihood will reshape the face of Western Europe within 100 years. The interesting thing about the article is that it was published after extensive research and interviews with many experts and it offers various possible explanations for why this situation has developed....
Read more

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 ...
Read more

Richard Dawkins’ Wisdom of the Wise

The subject of Atheism has been quite popular in the literary mainstream over the past few years, as “Atheists as Celebrity” Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and others have enriched themselves with self important intellectual books, talk shows and other benefits of our enlightened society. That there are people who willfully claim a disbelief in God is nothing new. That it has become so militant, with legion of sycophants worshipping at their feet may very well be. Or it could simply be another case of the Internet making something seem far more widespread because we now know more about it. Whatever the case, I always find it interesting to read the comments of people on the subject of whether or not there is a God. This interest brought me to an article on Richard Dawkins on the London Times website over the weekend. The article is ostensibly a primer on Dawkins, and some TV show that he is apparently going to host in England on the subject of Charles Darwin and his theory of e...
Read more