Tag Archives: pro-life

Embryonic Stem Cells: A Bum Deal

13 Replies

New Technique Devised For Human Stem Cells
Scientists in Massachusetts reported yesterday that they have developed a new means of growing human embryonic stem cells, the versatile cells that show promise as treatments for various diseases.

Interesting, as this bears on how many of the nominally-approved hESC lines in 2001 turned out to be corrupted by the mouse cells in those lines. However, while the ESCR people fiddle around with parameters for *in vitro* work , we are seeing the real deal with adult stem cells. I know this is something of a broken record on this issue, but so is the media. At least I’m a broken record on the facts. 😉

Take a hypothetical situation: If you were a real estate developer, and the contractor building your homes came to you and bragged about a big breakthrough–they dug a whole foundation that day!–while the other developer had people *moving into* his subdivision, wouldn’t it be time to fire your contractor?

People invoke progress and the inevitable march of scientific knowledge when they try to sucker the public into supporting ESCR. But if it’s so inevitable, why are the ESCR advocates spending their time kicking and screaming for state and federal money in lieu of getting FDA approval for human trials, as their adult stem cell counterparts are doing? If this field is so robust, why does it always need legislative life support and tender loving care and protection from those evil Christian luddites? And always, more money. We’ve seen several advanced countries dive into this research head-first (e.g., the U.K., South Korea and Singapore), so even in countries where the opprobium against government funding for this research doesn’t exist, we don’t see magic happening.

This does not mean that ESCR won’t deliver significant results in the future–I’d be surprised if it didn’t, though I doubt it’ll do anything clinically that we will not be able to do better with other methods–but perhaps some of its advocates should tone down their rhetoric about its tremendous benefits, and the huge disservice its opponents are doing by blocking funding for it. The evidence does not seem to justify such inflammatory means.

In Defense of Million Dollar Baby

11 Replies

[I haven't seen Million Dollar Baby. The venom it generated from Christian critics has thus far been enough to keep me from forking over $8. A good friend of mine and occasional guest blogger, Jerry Nora, recently saw it and came away with a much different impression than the vast majority of those critics it seems. Jerry is a faithful, orthodox, and well-read Catholic. He's also a MD/PhD student who has a knack for bioethics. I don't take his opinions on such matters lightly. I give you his defense of Million Dollar Baby for your consideration. When preparing to comment, bear in mind that he gave up reading blogs for Lent and won't be able to respond in a timely fashion. If you'd like to respond directly to him, email him. – Funky]

Millon Dollar Baby did a solid job of sweeping up the Oscars last night, including Best Picture and Director, and all over the objections of many within pro-life life and conservative Christian circles for evidently being in favor of euthanasia or assisted suicide. Those objections nearly made me avoid the film, but I saw it last week, and was glad I made that decision. My conscience is clear because while suicide is in the movie, the movie does not glorify or abet suicide. The film is a modern-day tragedy, and it does not offer an easy out or proverbial "Hollywood Ending", which is why I think so many people misinterpreted it. Here is my brief take on the film.

Continue reading →

Against the Grain

13 Replies

…as well as 2000 years of Church teaching. According to AP, "the spokesman for the Catholic Church in Spain has said it supports the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS." Well, doesn't this makes things interesting?

Church officials in Spain are attempting damage control by telling the press, "Contrary to what some have said, it is not true that the Church has changed its position on condoms." I doubt such back-peddling will make this issue go away.

I'm quite curious to see what Rome does about this little rebellion. Some will argue that a bishop has the authority to instruct the members of his diocese however he pleases, so long as he doesn't go against dogma or infallible pronouncements. This is true. Technically, the injunction against artificial contraception was not declared infallibly. However, three popes have declared such an injunction and as St. Augustine said, "Rome has spoken; the case is closed". Papal encyclicals are authoritative and the instructions therein can only be rescinded by a pope. Others will claim that while the Church speaks authoritatively against using condoms as contraceptions, She has not condemned their use to prevent the spread of AIDS and other diseases. This is flawed reasoning. Sex is intended for reproduction within marriage. Sex outside marriage is unaceptable. If people do not have sex with multiple partners, disease cannot spread. What then of babies born to infected parents? Those infected should refrain from all sexual activity and become "eunuchs for the kingdom". If the infected cease sexual activity and everyone ceases extra-marital sexual activity, the disease will not spread further. Using condoms is like covering a bleeding artery with a band-aid.

Continue reading →

Pages: 1 2 3

Frankenstein’s Intellectual Progeny

3 Replies

A Consumer's Guide to A Brave New World

A CONSUMER’S GUIDE TO A BRAVE NEW WORLD
By Wesley J. Smith

"Will the cost of biotechnology’s alleviation of human suffering be our acceptance of a ‘Brave New World,’ where scientists wield godlike power to refashion our biological nature’ If so, we will not get there in one giant leap. Rather, we will descend into the darkness in small steps, all but unaware that the shadows are lengthening."

Welcome to Our Brave New World: An Interview with Wesley J. Smith
By John Zmirak

"Wesley Smith has exposed corporate corruption with Ralph Nader, and warned against the eugenic implications of the ‘right to die’ movement. In his new book, ‘A Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World,’ he tells how the Biotech industry’s push for stem cell research and human cloning threatens the rights of the poor, the sick, and the unborn."