Does any of this disturb you?

The issue of stem cell research has been a political hot potato and a major ethical dilemma. During his administration, President Bush forbid the spending of federal funds on stem cell research which involved the use of human embryos. President Obama recently reversed that order and now embryonic stem cell research is given a green light to proceed, and with the backing of millions of tax dollars.

So you ask, "What's the problem? If this can help in the development of cures for M.S. or other horrible diseases, why should anyone be opposed?" President Obama's own words helps us to put some perspective to the issue:
"This order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on fact, not ideology" (from Pres. Obama's speech at the signing of the bill creating a new Executive Order).

Ben Mitchell is a Bio ethicist who is a university professor and consultant for the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He says this about Obama's speech:
"That rhetoric sounds high-minded, but it is, in fact, extremely dangerous. He makes it sound like science is objective, rational and above ethical consideration. In truth, science -- and especially science funding -- is neither purely objective nor purely rational. And the days of letting research be done without careful attention to ethics is long gone. The Manhattan Project, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, and Hitler's infamous doctors have shown that science must be informed by ethics."

As my favorite philosopher, Gomer Pyle, used to say, "Them scientist fellers were messin' with thangs best left alone!" Do you realize that these scientists are wanting to use human embryos (unborn babies!) in their experiments - killing and dissecting babies to "harvest" their stem cells? And in fact, scientists involved have admitted that they need many more embryos than are currently available through laboratories which store frozen embryos. Their solution will be to seek to "farm" embryos to assure a sufficient supply of little humans to destroy all in the name of "science." As Mitchell says, "The good news: more jobs will be created for scientists. The bad news: science becomes predatory on human embryos."

Where is the outcry from organization like P.I.T.A. and Sierra Club which go bezerk over the use of animals for research or the killing of trees? Is it O.K. to kill an unborn child, but not a rat or a Maple tree?

Another fact is that embryonic stem cells are not really necessary for research to continue. It has been found that adult stem cells are great for the kind of research needed to develop treatments for over 70 different health problems, and they don't have to kill an unborn baby. A number of prominent researchers have publicly stated that the alternative to embryonic use is actually a much more practical approach.

Folks, there is a lot of prayer to be done, and we also need to apply pressure to our elected representatives to correct this tragic decision. How can God possibly extend His blessings on a nation which so casually kills it's own young? And this is just one of numerous ethical problems related to human life in our country. Let's not forget the "Right to Die" doctrine adopted by the state of Oregon and courted by several other states. Dr. Kavorkian was just an amateur compared to our present day men of "science" and "medicine." By the way, whatever happened to the overarching rule of medicine -- "Physician, do no harm"?

This decree by our nation's leader directs our country down a slippry slope. Don't be shocked when you hear of other questionable decisions concerning human life. One such issue is the creation of a national health board that will computerize all the medical information of each person, and make decisions about your level of health care based on whether your age and general health condition warrants certain medical procedures to be made available to you. For instance, a man 80 years old may be denied a life-saving treatment because his likely life-span doesn't justify the expenditure of funds required. I am very uncomfortable with the federal government telling my doctor what he can and can't do to treat my problems. Ask yourself honestly, "What has our federal government really gotten right by setting up another level of beauracracy?"