I never cared much for doing science fairs when I was a child. To be honest, I just wasn't that creative and didn't have ideas that I could realistically test that hadn't been done by others. What's the point in doing a volcano for the hundredth time, talking about the chemical reaction of whatever two components you chose to make it explode? But, I did like to play with shiny things and I would come up with all kinds of ideas that would allow me to see what burned what color or what worked as a better magnet, etc. A lot of what I did when I was young wasn't science, but that didn't stop me from submitting those ideas as science fair projects, just because I had to do something.
I wonder sometimes if that same idea is what is behind much science today. How much do researchers attempt to get the government, or private companies, to finance ideas that they know are not effective, but they have wed themselves to ideologically or economically? I have a feeling that the answer might be more than many of us realize. That isn't to fault researchers, it isn't to say that they don't believe that somehow, someday, they might be able to do some good with their ideas, but they realize that any such good is really a long, long way off. Likewise, even if they are blinded by their own commitments, that only demonstrates that they are human, because all of us have our ideological blind spots, usually areas that we will passionately defend, even if someone points out that our positions don't make much sense.
I wonder if that is why some scientists continue to insist on the potential of embryonic stem cells. The fact is that there is not much promise in embryonic stem cells. The very few successful uses of embryonic stem cells have been limited to animal models, and even then there have been increased cysts and tumors. Yes, the discovery of these types of stem cells only dates back 12 years, but the fact is that there hasn't been a successful treatment on humans yet. In the only current FDA permitted trial in the United States they are working with cells that are derived from embryonic stem cells, despite the fact that cysts were more prevalent on the spines of the mice that received the treatment. (The FDA did not comment on why they removed the hold they had placed on the research, however the company doing the research claimed that the cysts had no adverse reactions, and that they changed their treatment to result in fewer cysts.)
Don't misunderstand me, I'm really big on the idea of stem cell research. I mean I think that the possibility that we could use naturally occurring cells in the human body to cure major diseases which we have no effective means of currently treating is absolutely wonderful. Adult stem cells have shown promise in this area. Because adult stem cells are able to be developed from a person's own body they generally do not suffer from the issue of rejection like embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have also been used successfully in human trials. (Each of the words in the previous sentence links to a different site discussing the success of adult stem cells. I chose the sites I did based on the fact that each of them contains at least one different story, so that while there may be overlapping examples the sites also each contain unique examples, or if two sites had two of the same stories, they are thus represented properly as two different situations. The whole points being that you could spend all day finding new examples of the success of adult stem cells. Some of the stories mentioned above include recovery from decades of blindness, walking after nearly two decades of paralysis, and many other amazing events of that nature, all due to adult stem cell research.)
It is because I am a big supporter of adult stem cells that I am excited that a court has halted a recent decision from the Obama administration to allow for additional federal funding on embryonic stem cells (pending the results of a lawsuit). Please, let me be clear: I am not against stem cell research, I am against the murder of babies, (primarily) and the waste of limited resources in less efficient areas of research when there are already existing promising opportunities presenting real cures for existing diseases. Yes, I intended to say "murder of babies" above. Embryonic stem cells are generally obtained from destroying a fetus, thus terminating a life that has already begun. You can argue that this is not killing a person if you want (I find that argument logically tortuous and laughable, but that's up to you) but you cannot say that you are not killing an actual human being as an embryo is a living independent organism, with human DNA. (Again, I know there are methods of getting embryonic stem cells that do not involve the destruction of embryos, but lets be honest, the reality is that most lines of embryonic stem cells are developed from killing an embryo.)
This really is a victory both for science and for life. Scientifically speaking there is less value in embryonic stem cell research than there is adult stem cell research, even if based on nothing but potential for results. From the perspective of a culture of life, this is a great victory because there will be no federal funding of the murder of the innocent. The federal judge did not rule that embryos are humans and should, therefore, have the full protection of the authorities against being wrongfully murdered. The judgment does not at all address the reality that we are killing our children for the vain hope that we might derive some form of medical benefit in the long term. But, I'll take what victories we can get, even if they do not address the root problems that we are facing.
If you think my language is brash in arguing against embryonic stem cell research, then I beg you to reconsider. I have already laid out my position: a baby is a baby from the time of conception to the time of birth. While many things may happen to naturally terminate a pregnancy before the birth of a child, that does not make it less a murder when we do so intentionally. That is why I take this so seriously. God is the giver of life, for us to arbitrarily take the life of another human being is a horrible thing.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Good Morals in Hard Times
Most Americans agree that abortion should be limited except in the case of the health of the mother, rape or incest. Most Christians agree with this also, fortunately, and many Christians are vocal and active in regards to trying to limit abortions. I would like to address the question of the morality involved in the issue though. Why do we think abortions should be limited, excepting for situations involving the health of the mother, rape, and incest? Are there any proper limits that should be applied to abortion?
Generally, Christians cite verses like, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13, and particularly Jeremiah 1:5 in order to prove that abortion is wrong. The argument goes as such: God is the one who gives life, and he is the one who forms a child in its mothers womb, therefore, to abort the child is to kill the human life that God has created. The argument assumes that killing humans is wrong. Generally the idea that killing babies is wrong is accepted, as most people recognize that killing a baby would be murder, and murder is evil. But, not everyone agrees that human babies, while still in the womb, are babies.
Those who are proponents of abortion generally argue that it is not murder unless you kill a person, and while a fetus may be "human" it is not a person. Now, where the fetus starts being a person is under question. Is it when the fetus gets a heart beat? Maybe when the fetus has brain waves? Some have argued that it isn't really a human until a few days old, because prior to that it cannot function in the way we expect a person to function. Personally I find these arguments contrived and meaningless, resting entirely on speculation and with no real grounds for classifying a human as "person." To make such a division is simply to try and find a way to rationalize that which is immoral so you can sleep at night.
Therefore, assuming the Christian case is correct and compelling, I have two questions: "Why limit abortions where we have?" and, "What are the proper limits for abortion?" In addressing these two questions I want to examine the arguments for committing abortions in the cases of incest and rape, and then examine the mothers health. Then, after examining these positions, I want to examine the hard cases, those times when we are most compelled for the sake of compassion to go ahead with an abortion. My goal is help us reach a clearer idea of what we really believe, and what the results of our beliefs are.
In the cases of rape and incest then, why do we say abortion is acceptable? Usually the argument is that women who have been raped or who are victims of incest did not really choose the act that resulted in pregnancy. Thus, the woman was not consenting to the action, she should not be held responsible for the results. Because the woman should not be held responsible for the results of violence committed against her, she should not be forced to carry the baby in her. No one should be held responsible for the choices of someone else, particularly when those choices can have life changing and drastic effects on the innocent party.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores that the baby is also an innocent party. This is a response that has been made so often that it is basically a cliche, but it is still true. The baby, the one we are going to kill, the one we have established is in fact a baby, is completely innocent of the manner in which it was conceived. Therefore, to kill the baby, and remember, this is a baby we are talking about, because of the actions of the father would only be to add one crime to another. We cannot exculpate the the conscience of a woman for committing murder of a baby based on the crimes committed by the father.
As Christians particularly we are forced to acknowledge a problem with allowing for abortions in the case of rape and incest. We have already admitted that what is inside the woman is a baby. And all the Scripture we cited indicated that God is the one who decides on putting life into a womb. To say that we want to save babies when we want them, but not when we don't, is to admit that we know we are murdering a child, but it is okay in this instance because the child was not conceived in a way we like. There is thus no difference between a Christian who is willing to allow for an abortion in the case of rape or incest and the most hardened atheist who acknowledges that they are killing a human life, just because the mother does not want to bear the burden of carrying it.
Our problem is that either we accept that God gives all life, or we say some lives are not intended by God. We make ourselves judges of the lives of others, saying that we know that God would not bring about a life through a situation such as rape or incest. We presume to know the vast and infinite mind of God on matters such as who should be born, and who should not. That kind of arrogance has only one match: Satan himself.
Wasn't that the question uttered by Satan in the Garden? "Did God truly say..." Are we not confronted with that, and are we not the ones asking that question and giving that same lying answer that he gave to Eve? "Did God really say that he formed you in the womb? Did God really say that before you were formed he knew you? Did God really say that he knit us together himself? Surely God did not mean that in this case! No, God does not mean that he alone is the one who gives life, instead we can decide if he intended this one!"
There ought be no exception to abortion for the sake of rape and incest. Yes, the act of rape is horrible. Yes, incest is evil in every way. Abortion does not make it better, it only adds murder on top of abuse.
I know this is a hard teaching. Some will say that I am a man, and therefore I cannot understand what a woman in those situations would go through. I do not dispute that. I cannot claim that I have the wisdom and insight to be able to sit down and make a woman who has been raped feel "all better." But, whether or not I am even sufficient to comfort a woman who has gone through such a horrible trial does not change the fact of what the Word of God says about who puts life in the womb.
Our obligation then is to provide comfort, to provide assistance, and to provide love to women in such situations as these. In truth it is the obligation of Christians to provide comfort to any woman who is contemplating abortion. It is those who are most hurting who most need us to reach out to them and to help them. We may not win many to the gospel, but we should try. And, even if we cannot save their souls in the time we have to help them, at least we can try and save a life, one that God created, one he deemed to have value.
What of those pregnancies that risk a woman's health? If by "health" you mean that she could die from carrying or from delivering that child, then you have an honest moral dilemma. We live in a fallen world, things do not work like they should, and sometimes a pregnancy could kill a woman. My opinion is, and this is strictly my opinion with far less Scripture to back me up, if a woman would die, and the child would die, such as would happen in the case of the egg lodging in the fallopian tubes, then an abortion should be performed to attempt to save the mother's life (again, such as what happens when you remove a fallopian tube due to a tubal pregnancy). The goal, however, is not to abort the child, but to save the mothers life, the abortion is the horrible side effect of the treatment. If the mother is at risk, but there is a chance the baby could live, then that is a decision that is best made by the woman and her husband, based on the advice from their doctors and pastors.
Hard cases, like a child who is the result of an incestuous rape, who would be born horribly deformed, suffer for as long as he might live, and would never be mentally capable of rational though, make the hardest choices. We look and see nothing but a suffering life, and we say it is best to end such a life before it can even begin. But, the fact is that we are not God. If we believe that God can bring good out of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, the murder of the Son of God at the hands of evil men, then why can't God bring good out of even the worst possible situation we could imagine?
We do not need to know the reason why God chose to bring a life into the world through horrible situations such as rape or incest. We do not need to know the purpose God has for those lives of suffering to which some are born. We do have to be compassionate to those who suffer abuse and wrong at the hands of others. We do have to stand on the Word of God and say that every abortion is the taking of human life. Will you take that stand in hard times, as well as good?
Generally, Christians cite verses like, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13, and particularly Jeremiah 1:5 in order to prove that abortion is wrong. The argument goes as such: God is the one who gives life, and he is the one who forms a child in its mothers womb, therefore, to abort the child is to kill the human life that God has created. The argument assumes that killing humans is wrong. Generally the idea that killing babies is wrong is accepted, as most people recognize that killing a baby would be murder, and murder is evil. But, not everyone agrees that human babies, while still in the womb, are babies.
Those who are proponents of abortion generally argue that it is not murder unless you kill a person, and while a fetus may be "human" it is not a person. Now, where the fetus starts being a person is under question. Is it when the fetus gets a heart beat? Maybe when the fetus has brain waves? Some have argued that it isn't really a human until a few days old, because prior to that it cannot function in the way we expect a person to function. Personally I find these arguments contrived and meaningless, resting entirely on speculation and with no real grounds for classifying a human as "person." To make such a division is simply to try and find a way to rationalize that which is immoral so you can sleep at night.
Therefore, assuming the Christian case is correct and compelling, I have two questions: "Why limit abortions where we have?" and, "What are the proper limits for abortion?" In addressing these two questions I want to examine the arguments for committing abortions in the cases of incest and rape, and then examine the mothers health. Then, after examining these positions, I want to examine the hard cases, those times when we are most compelled for the sake of compassion to go ahead with an abortion. My goal is help us reach a clearer idea of what we really believe, and what the results of our beliefs are.
In the cases of rape and incest then, why do we say abortion is acceptable? Usually the argument is that women who have been raped or who are victims of incest did not really choose the act that resulted in pregnancy. Thus, the woman was not consenting to the action, she should not be held responsible for the results. Because the woman should not be held responsible for the results of violence committed against her, she should not be forced to carry the baby in her. No one should be held responsible for the choices of someone else, particularly when those choices can have life changing and drastic effects on the innocent party.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores that the baby is also an innocent party. This is a response that has been made so often that it is basically a cliche, but it is still true. The baby, the one we are going to kill, the one we have established is in fact a baby, is completely innocent of the manner in which it was conceived. Therefore, to kill the baby, and remember, this is a baby we are talking about, because of the actions of the father would only be to add one crime to another. We cannot exculpate the the conscience of a woman for committing murder of a baby based on the crimes committed by the father.
As Christians particularly we are forced to acknowledge a problem with allowing for abortions in the case of rape and incest. We have already admitted that what is inside the woman is a baby. And all the Scripture we cited indicated that God is the one who decides on putting life into a womb. To say that we want to save babies when we want them, but not when we don't, is to admit that we know we are murdering a child, but it is okay in this instance because the child was not conceived in a way we like. There is thus no difference between a Christian who is willing to allow for an abortion in the case of rape or incest and the most hardened atheist who acknowledges that they are killing a human life, just because the mother does not want to bear the burden of carrying it.
Our problem is that either we accept that God gives all life, or we say some lives are not intended by God. We make ourselves judges of the lives of others, saying that we know that God would not bring about a life through a situation such as rape or incest. We presume to know the vast and infinite mind of God on matters such as who should be born, and who should not. That kind of arrogance has only one match: Satan himself.
Wasn't that the question uttered by Satan in the Garden? "Did God truly say..." Are we not confronted with that, and are we not the ones asking that question and giving that same lying answer that he gave to Eve? "Did God really say that he formed you in the womb? Did God really say that before you were formed he knew you? Did God really say that he knit us together himself? Surely God did not mean that in this case! No, God does not mean that he alone is the one who gives life, instead we can decide if he intended this one!"
There ought be no exception to abortion for the sake of rape and incest. Yes, the act of rape is horrible. Yes, incest is evil in every way. Abortion does not make it better, it only adds murder on top of abuse.
I know this is a hard teaching. Some will say that I am a man, and therefore I cannot understand what a woman in those situations would go through. I do not dispute that. I cannot claim that I have the wisdom and insight to be able to sit down and make a woman who has been raped feel "all better." But, whether or not I am even sufficient to comfort a woman who has gone through such a horrible trial does not change the fact of what the Word of God says about who puts life in the womb.
Our obligation then is to provide comfort, to provide assistance, and to provide love to women in such situations as these. In truth it is the obligation of Christians to provide comfort to any woman who is contemplating abortion. It is those who are most hurting who most need us to reach out to them and to help them. We may not win many to the gospel, but we should try. And, even if we cannot save their souls in the time we have to help them, at least we can try and save a life, one that God created, one he deemed to have value.
What of those pregnancies that risk a woman's health? If by "health" you mean that she could die from carrying or from delivering that child, then you have an honest moral dilemma. We live in a fallen world, things do not work like they should, and sometimes a pregnancy could kill a woman. My opinion is, and this is strictly my opinion with far less Scripture to back me up, if a woman would die, and the child would die, such as would happen in the case of the egg lodging in the fallopian tubes, then an abortion should be performed to attempt to save the mother's life (again, such as what happens when you remove a fallopian tube due to a tubal pregnancy). The goal, however, is not to abort the child, but to save the mothers life, the abortion is the horrible side effect of the treatment. If the mother is at risk, but there is a chance the baby could live, then that is a decision that is best made by the woman and her husband, based on the advice from their doctors and pastors.
Hard cases, like a child who is the result of an incestuous rape, who would be born horribly deformed, suffer for as long as he might live, and would never be mentally capable of rational though, make the hardest choices. We look and see nothing but a suffering life, and we say it is best to end such a life before it can even begin. But, the fact is that we are not God. If we believe that God can bring good out of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, the murder of the Son of God at the hands of evil men, then why can't God bring good out of even the worst possible situation we could imagine?
We do not need to know the reason why God chose to bring a life into the world through horrible situations such as rape or incest. We do not need to know the purpose God has for those lives of suffering to which some are born. We do have to be compassionate to those who suffer abuse and wrong at the hands of others. We do have to stand on the Word of God and say that every abortion is the taking of human life. Will you take that stand in hard times, as well as good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)