Cells, Science and Morality
As expected, the Bush announcement on Federal Funding of embryonic stem cells, hasn't pleased everyone. But consensus is seldom
the basis for making decisions, and certainly not a moral one. President Bush made the wrong choice, but his sincere and impassioned
appeal for a return to moral conduct and ethical behavior is rare for presidential speeches.
The decision only affects
the expenditure of Federal Funds for research on these " 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already existing ".
But anyone who understands the way in which budgets are allocated at major medical research universities, the absence of specific
new funding would not prevent the scientists from conducting their research. As with most government decisions, its about
the money; how much more and who will get it.
Those who criticize Bush for not backing an all out commitment towards
embryonic stem cells experimentation, are the real target for the Bush appeal. Most of these amoral scientists who claim to
view the world from an empirical view, worship technology as progress. How many of these intelligentsia will hear the message
that morality is paramount to technical achievements? Few at best would be touched, and less will tailor their science to
standards of respect for life.
This issue continually avoids the solution that stem cells extracted from umbilical
cords can provide the desired results for cures, while respecting the sanctity of life. As with most claims that the unknown
must be understood by testing with all techniques, the proponents of using and cultivating embryonic stem cell farms for research,
are oblivious to the real purpose of sound science. This culture is hostile to religion and moral tradition. They are believers
in whatever can be created by man, without any consideration for all that may be possible, may not be good for humanity.
We live in an era where the public is in awe of what science claims it has achieved. But the universal nature of man has
not altered since that forbidden apple was tasted. The snobs of science have little use for ethics. They desire to forge their
own future and place total reliance in the unlimited possibilities of human perfection. And they look down on the believer
as a fool of superstition? Just who is right! The answer should be obvious to those who see the world as it has become, under
the stewardship of the Frankenstein creators.
It is apparent that science will never place self restrains upon their
work. Their appeals that advancement in the human circumstance is the result of their research is suspect, at best. Research
conditioned by moral consideration and acknowledgment to a higher power is necessary to reach true progress. The unwillingness
for the scientific community to humble themselves to the constraints of ethical behavior is undeniable by the sorry record
of their projects. The fundamental evil nature of our specie, is proven time and again with the development of the next and
more deadly 'so called' achievement.
The Bush petition for a balance in inquiry with moral responsibility in purpose
is inspiring. Credit is due his leadership and his reverence to spiritual guidance. The war to respect life is at the center
of this research. Could it be that the Pope had a notion as to the way Bush would decide the policy issue? Bush speaks often
on changing the hearts of men. Starting with the scientific community would be the optima congregation to begin that task.
Understanding what is possible from what is desirable is a debate that most wish to ignore. The desirable is even
less understood, for the possible is all that most wish to see. The appeals to abate suffering, fails to concede that a more
profound kind of ailment is substituted when the means of cures, destroy the purpose of our existence. Extension of years
and even the quality of daily living, is not justified if the methods used, obliterate defenseless life. Such a choice is
evil. Genocide of the unborn is never justified for the benefit of the powerful. So why are so many adamant upon the use of
embryonic stem cells for their research, when alternative tissue is available that can serve the same purpose?
put, the moral respect for life is relative to the secular humanist. News reporting by MSNBC and the New York Times are prime
examples of this culture. Distortion and false accounts of the facts are the tools of the manipulators of our emotions. These
supporters of the culture of death, seek to desensitize our humanity. Their goal is to substitute individual responsibility
of our actions, for a collective consensus that the custom designers seek to model for a 'Brave New World'.
message that Bush spoke is one of morality as the measure of our behavior. How many heard it? And how many are willing to
start living it! The difference between those who submit to the Creator, and those who aspire to take His place has never
been more clear. Now is the time to make your choice. What will be your decision?
SARTRE - August 10, 2001