Stem Cells: Faulty Thinking Exposed
{I wrote this article the day after the President's
speech. I published the article to a list and sent it out through my Monday
Message service. The response was entirely positive, and including some helpful
comments I have appended below the article. -web}
Holding no credentials as a scientist, there is a natural restraint I have in
addressing the stem cell issue that has consumed the news lately.
Objectively, I believe life begins at conception, so the weight of my thinking
prompts great caution and resistance. I detest the possibility of saying
anything that would favor the destruction of life, even at the earliest stages.
Thus, I am opposed to the killing of human embryos to acquire anything, however
promising it may be! And, I entertain serious reservations about "the slippery
slope," that is, the probable future steps that could follow (gruesome industry
of harvesting and destroying human embryos for medical use; cloning; selective
breeding of humans, etc.). The limitations imposed by the President may afford
us some encouragement here.
Subjectively, I want there to be hope and help for those who suffer daily with
serious illness. My sister suffers with diabetes, and my step-father died after
suffering with Alzheimer's disease. We can pray that the stem-cell advisory
commission authorized by the President will yield promise, without any violation
of human life. But we must guard our hearts and tongues against uninstructed
emotions and vague, unexamined notions.
Throughout the debate, I've heard two arguments that concern me. Apart from the
specific issue of stem cell acquisition and use, these arguments seem to me to
be unsound:
"Much good will be done; many who are ill may enjoy a cure." This argues from
the anticipated consequences. The essence of this is - if there is a good
result, the means and methods to that result are justified. Christians should
shun this kind of thinking, reject it and never use it to prove anything. We
must never argue from the consequences, but from the principles involved. Those
who advocate, "let us do evil that good may come," deserve just condemnation
(see Rom. 3:8).
Many have said, "if the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use
them for medical good." On the face of it, this sounds reasonable: use them to
help somebody instead of throwing them away! But this assumes what isn't
established, that there is no moral wrong in throwing them away. A wrong is
never made right, by another wrong (see Isa. 5:20)! The core issues and
principles relative to human life must have priority. The argument is, "a
decision has already been made" relative to human life. Perhaps, but shouldn't
we raise the question, was that prior decision correct?
Ronald Reagan performed a great service in his statement of the issue:
"...anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human
life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know
whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this
consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the
unborn."
May we never stop thinking of human life as a person made in God's image. Jesus
died to redeem that life!
Comments I Received In Response:
What most people do not know and the tightly controlled (socialist new world
order) media will not tell you is the following interesting fact:
Scientists do not have to get stem cells from aborted fetuses because anyone can
be a donor; yes, you and I while alive can donate stem cells.
Stem cells for research into specific diseases are best taken from those who
already have the disease. Why take healthy cells and expose them to disease then
try to cure them? That is crazy!
The whole stem cell debate (debacle) is designed for one and only one purpose:
to impress upon the general population that abortion (murder) is ok because it
may help someone else in the long run.
I have a Ph.D. although not specifically in these areas. I have taken several
physiology courses, and in fact, my M.S. degree was in Veterinary Physiology. I
totally agree with your summation of the Biblical values at stake. I also take
issue from a practical point of view, because rarely does science ever deliver
on its promises. Even in our lifetimes (I'll turn 50 in October) we have seen
many advances in science and medicine. However, science and medicine have made
some pretty bold claims and much money has been spent on "promising research"
only to find out it was just another "dry hole".
Also, as I get older (and I pray earnestly more mature as a Christian!!); I find
life on this side of eternity has so very little to offer me when compared to
the other side! (2 Cor. 4:16-5:2). If stems cells don't involve the taking of
life and can ease someone's pain, fine. But, "For to me, to live is Christ, and
to die is gain."
I appreciate your article. I am against this research. He has now set the
country up for a great difficulty in banning abortion. Even though he has
approved the use of tissue for already aborted babes, what happens when the
existing lines become depleted or there are some breakthroughs demanding more
stem cell lines. Then there will be greater difficulty in banning abortions
because people will say they need abortions to provide the stem cell lines.
By Warren E. Berkley
The
Front Page
From Expository Files 8.9; September 2001
