The news is filled lately with stories about the promise of adult stem-cell therapy. Last fall, for example, researchers reported they successfully produced stem cells from adult skin cells, bypassing the need for embryonic stem cells. The Los Angeles Times reported recently that treatment using umbilical and marrow cells healed a boy of a fatal skin disease. Doctors said the treatment’s success may move that disease “off the incurable list” for other patients.
And the Family Research Council just released a report about more successes. “Currently, peer-reviewed studies have documented 73 different conditions in humans where patient health has been improved through adult stem cell therapy . . . and over 1,400 FDA approved trials are ongoing.”
The paper describes a myriad of therapies, including the regeneration of heart tissue for a man with congestive heart failure; enabling a patient with Type I Diabetes to become insulin-free; and the treatment of a bone-cancer victim, who is now cancer-free. The report also cites adult stem-cell treatments that could treat trauma injuries and help patients with liver cancer.
Good news, indeed—and good news that we no longer have to wrestle with the moral question of embryonic stem cell research.
Well, not so fast . . . Both candidates for president still favor it, for they are marching to the drumbeat of those who want no restrictions on science.
Michael Kinsley, for example, a columnist who himself suffers from Parkinson’s, said bluntly, “This issue [that is, embryonic stem cell research] will not go away.”
“Scientifically,” Kinsley says, “it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up . . . Every year that goes by, science opens new doors.”
I hope you see the problem: Just because science opens a door does not mean we should walk through it. In fact, science rarely asks the question, “Should we?” It only asks the question, “Can we?”
Kinsley’s response reflects a certain worldview: specifically, “scientism,” the belief that scientific investigation is the only means to knowledge and progress. As such, it must be free from restraints or interference. Scientists—not political leaders, and certainly not morally concerned citizens—ought to determine what is or is not permissible in the laboratory.
In addition, scientism, given its materialistic grounding, rejects any appeal to the sanctity of human life. The worldview of scientism teaches that we humans are merely an interesting and potentially useful collection of cells and genetic material.
The problem is, if a human embryo only has worth insofar as it can be used for others, then what worth does a person have who is dependent on others—say, someone who is permanently disabled? See where that leaves Kinsley and all the rest of us? Vulnerable.
It is certain that the next president will revisit federal policy on embryo-destructive research. Even though it is not needed, proponents are not going to back down. That is why Christians, who believe in the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, need to continue vigorous opposition to research on living human beings. If we do not, who is next in a world with science unchecked by ethical restraints?
From BreakPoint®, July 24, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
Comments
"He would allow stem cell research "
Is that the same 'allow' as He 'allowed' divorce because of the wickedness of our hearts? The same thing can be accomplished without ebrionics entering into the issue. Yet, pro-stem cell people are stalling the process because they want it to be about allowing abortions which really has nothing to do with the outcome of stem cell research.
If they would just drop the 'abortion is needed to do stem cell research' lie then we would make SO much more progress in the field.
wbmoore: I am against abortion as you are and as I believe Jesus would have been. However, His dealings with the pharisees suggests that He would allow stem cell research as He was all about healing people like you said. I don't believe He would have taken such a "legalistic" approach to it.
There is a GREAT difference between stem cell research and embrionic stem cell research. You don't need embrionic stem cells to achieve the goals of stem cell research.
Those who support embrionic stem cell research are not looking for stem cell research answers. They are looking to support abortion without scientific cause using stem cell research as an excuse. Nothing more. There is no benefit of embrionic stem cells over non-embrionic.
Jesus would cut through the cow chips and tell people to stop using excuses to promote sin. He would say to learn what is important...the eternal soul. What good does it do for Christopher Reeve to be able to walk again if he were to just be able to walk into hell in the end?
My mother had a major stroke when I was in Elem School. She almost died. She refused to park in hanicapped spots because they were for 'people who couldn't walk'. She had cancer but beat it. The kemo gave her heart problems but she beat that. She finally went home to be with her Lord when I (the youngest) was 22. The pastor who did the funeral had some trouble with the sermon. Most pastors have 2-4 funeral sermons. He had to write a new one. Why? He would ask her after church how she was and she would always say with a smile on her face that she was fine. He was in perfect health and he was never that fine all the time. He HAD to find out what this was all about. It's simple. She found her worth as a person completely in the Lord and not in anything else. The pastor did a lot of growing up in the Lord that week!
Once you accept that our entire life on earth is nothing but a vapor and then it's gone, you are free to focus on what's really important.
"What would Jesus do?"
Jesus would heal them. Just as He does today.
Embrionic stem cell research is not needed, when we see lots of advances in adult stem cell research. There's no need to kill children to do research, nor is there a need to profit from children who have been murdered.
Perhaps when Mr. Colson can heal people such as my friend who is a quadriplegic, then he will have a right to critize scientists and others who are trying. Until such time, it would seem the Godly and most certainly, the wise and fair thing for him to do, would be to cease and desist criticizing those who are trying to help people walk again.
Christopher Reeve, one of the finest Americans to have ever been born, most certainly would have liked to walk again before he died. And it would seem, some mother named him after a famous person that Mr. Colson purports to emulate.
Would Jesus deny Christopher Reeve and my paralyzed friend the human right to walk again? What would Jesus do?
Richard Aberdeen
www.FreedomTracks.com
It's a shame the anti-life camp stalled stem cell research for so long by turning into a pro-abortion issue. How many peole lost their lives this research could have saved if the anti-life people hadn't made it into an excuse for abortion.