Embryonic stem cell research decision: Absolutely vomitous

I do not participate in politics, and I do not vote about how my tax money is used.  I did not vote for President Obama, nor did I vote for his opponent.  My non-participation is not out of apathy, but, rather, because I believe that God has called me to a different role in life before the return of Christ.  However, that role does involve pointing out sin and describing where this nation is headed, and the March 9th change in American embryonic stem cell research policy is a horrible sign of an atrocious attitude toward human life.  Really — absolutely vomitous.

First, the idea that revoking the previous administration’s ban on federal funding of such embryo-destructive research is somehow “removing ideology” from science or “restoring integrity” to science is so ludicrous that it would be laughable if it weren’t so horrific.  It’s almost as if one is saying, “By this taking this ideologically driven action, I hereby remove ideology from playing any role.”  The stand that destroying human life for the sake of scientific research — embryonic or otherwise — is acceptable is just as much an ideological stand as saying the opposite, and to think otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and political theater (unless it is profound ignorance, which is always a possibility, I suppose).

I wonder…  If it ever becomes necessary to place a ban on federal funding of involuntary experimentation on the comatose, elderly, or infirm, will that ban be derided as “ideological” or “lacking scientific integrity”?

Secondly, it occurs to me that when politicians consider such issues as when human life begins as being above their pay grade, it is all the more remarkable how willing they are to carelessly pass legislation concerning such matters as if they have all the answers.

Of course, there is Someone for whom the issue is not above His pay grade.  And this country’s attitudes towards its most innocent and vulnerable have already garnered His attention.  I doubt that this has escaped His notice, either.

Don’t get me wrong.  I believe that the other side of this national debate (or non-debate) is guilty of its own hypocrisy, and I cannot understand those who believe that creating embryos to be eternally frozen in pursuit of having children is somehow a pro-human life position.

But I try to call it as I see it, and Monday’s change in policy represented another black eye for this nation’s respect for humanity, which God created in His own image.  Will it help us along to a fulfillment of Revelation 18:13 (trading in the “bodies and souls of men”) in the economy of the Beast power — which is not the U.S., by the way —  that is as yet unfathomable?  Interesting idea, but I certainly don’t claim to know.  But I guarantee you, the consequences will not be good.

I’d love to write more about this, but the time escapes me (and, frankly, if I did have more time I would be more tempted to create a cleaner essay for use as a Tomorrow’s World commentary).  But for now, let me content myself with refering you to some earlier posts on the subject (some of which, after a bit of cleaning up, did become TW commentaries):

8 thoughts on “Embryonic stem cell research decision: Absolutely vomitous

  1. Ed Ewert

    I’ve been closely examining what Obama is all about since he started running for the Democratic presidential candidate position.

    Two things I took special note of was:
    1. His extreme pro-abortion position.
    2. His description of an anti-homosexuality New Testament verse as an “obscure passage in Romans.”

    My suspicion was that Obama’s actions as President may all tend towards being either foolish or evil, and so far, this seems to me to be the case.

    I started a document to which I will add a section every time Obama advances the cause of evil. I updated it 2 days ago with the type of material in your post (it is the second item in my list). The first entry is Jan 23: “President Obama has signed an order to lift the Mexico City policy, a Reagan-era policy that prohibits taxpayer funds from going to organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.”

    As for foolish things, there are already many: the choices of cabinet officials, the so-called “stimulus” package, the naive belief that being super nice to persons such as the Iranian leader will yield a good result, and many more. But what I am really concerned about is the USA being quickly drawn into a cesspool of ever increasing immorality.

  2. The President said he is unpoliticizing it. Oh, it politicized now that is has public funds. With private funds only, it just a matter of who you endorse or boycott. He uses end-justifies-the-means logic to endorse it, but has this research produced anything?

    And then there’s:
    Repo! The Genetic Opera

  3. Chelsey T.

    I couldn’t agree more. Not only is the practice of using these embryos as test subjects immoral and unethical, any areas they have already been tested in produce either no results, or negative results. There was no ban on private funding before, just on government funding. And yet there was little or no private funding – you’d think that was for a reason. This is simply a political ploy, and Obama is no more interested in “putting science in its rightful place” than movies like “War of the Worlds” are interested in being scientifically accurate.

    Not only that, but all that I’ve heard Obama say is the exact opposite of his actions. Whether it’s claiming that he will veto any bill that has earmarks, to banning lobbyists, any and all of his promises have been hollow words scrolling slowly up a teleprompter screen and nothing more.

  4. Norbert

    I believe this action taken by President Obama can be viewed within a much larger historical context.

    Given what next month’s lead stories will be, this Executive Order is only a few added degrees into this seemingly slow to boil water surrounding the abortion debate. There’s no national outcry of any substance, only a moderate amount of outrage leisurely posted on the daily pages of public attention. Which will soon all but fade from the fore-pages of the national concience, to be religated alongside the dusty Supreme Court records of the Roe v. Wade 1973 abortion ruling.

    The way I see it, every half informed person would whole-heartedly agree that “history repeats itself”, however the front pages of the social order of things is once again revealing the nature of the situation in a much greater historical context and connection. An escalation Over Time by complimenting legislations that partakes in the killing of millions of individuals. Individuals who are disposed by other persons who believe their scientific backed ethic as the morally correct one or at least “ok”. Individuals who’s numbers have far surpassed the Holocaust in numbers in both the victims and the villians.

    We can look back in history and be totally horrified how such a diablolical person like Hilter “ordered” the extermination of so many peoples, but seldom do we make the connection that he legislated his policies into written a ‘Law Over a period of Time’. Into his recorded pages of executive orders in history, which were a reflection of his faith and understanding of science too. Seeing that he too was free from the absurd thought that the ideology of his targets was relevant. The way for Nazi Law was legislated one section upon another and as far as it was concerned, the killings of their millions was the lawful, right thing to do and wasn’t murder either.

    Here’s the thing however, when Hilter woke up in the morning, his first thoughts weren’t “Vat Eeevil kan I inflekt on za vorld touday! Muhahaha…!!!”, that’s totally upsurd and ridiculous. He genuienly believed he was doing his people good and was able to communicate it in a sound, clear and thought provoking fashion, acceptable to a broad base of the countrys population. The following quote doesn’t appear out of the ordinary even by today’s standards.

    “The best constitution and the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence in the community.” (Mein Kamf, Adolf Hitler)

    Nor does this present day quote:

    “To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.” (President Obama)

    When history looks back at these times, it would not be too hard to imagine that some of whom are presently concidered the greatest leaders and defenders of human rights, will find themself standing among the INFAMOUS. For there is already evidence showing where these minds who hold “the soundest science”, “advisors based on their credentials” are believing. Already thinking about the possiblity of wanting to share their sound science without ideology and willing to stew this world with it’s slow cooker and gas ovens of legislation.

    “Professor Sir Richard Gardner, an Oxford University stem cell expert, said foetal tissues may offer a more realistic solution to the lack of organs than other technologies being developed.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1161085/Use-aborted-foetus-organs-transplants-urges-scientist.html )

  5. Bigk1964

    Iam amased at what Iam reading! The advance of EVIL! It reads like an Edgar Allan Poe novel. When I hear the mantra about homosexuals Iam reminded about what else it say in Leviticus. You know . . . about shellfish? No? Oh, then let me fill you in,
    “But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:10)” .
    So here we are again selectivly picking what is the TRUTH and what is NOT. Next you will be saying that “anti-semitism” is OK. Beacuase the bible says so. Oh, and if you don’t it would be abother example of your selective reading of the bible!!!!!!

  6. Um… actually, Bigk1964, I hate to break it to you (he says, tongue-in-cheek), but I don’t eat shellfish, pork, etc., and neither does Mr. Ewert — precisely because of the chapter in Leviticus to which you refer. So, no “filling in” necessary, but thanks, anyway! You need to watch what you assume. Arguments about hypocritical approaches to Scripture don’t work here.

    And, besides, be honest: are you, personally, going to start living by the Bible just because you’ve come across someone who actually strives to do so? I agree: the cherry-picking that most “Christians” do with the Bible is hypocritical and to be condemned (and we do condemn it frequently in our magazines, websites, and television programs). But is it worse than the complete dismissing of Scripture that you seem to prefer? Not the easiest case to make, methinks…

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.