I am an at-home mother of six children, four of whom are now adults. I've been married for 31 years and my children range from 15 to 27. This blog is about faith, family, and life, with occasional rants about politics and other hot-button issues for me. I am Catholic and by that I mean I believe in faithfulness to the Magisterium.
Reflections on life, faith, family and the times we live in
... by a mom at home raising kids.
(Dr. Morrison, that may be true. But is the opinion of others, even IF they are in the majority, the determiner of right and wrong? People can be wrong. History is full of examples. Our own lives are full of examples. We must turn to the God who made us or, if one doesn't believe there is a God that made us, one must turn to a higher power or look within to that natural law that is written in the hearts of all human beings. The masses are a very unreliable arbiter of morality.)
(Again, Dr. Morrison, there is a right and wrong. It is either true or it is false that embryonic stem cell research is a moral choice. Truth is independent of the opinions of individuals. The actual reality and facts of the research are what must be considered. Embryos are destroyed in the process. Public opinion aside, one must decide if that destruction is right or wrong.)
(Dr. Morrison,.....and your point is what?? Are human lives to be used for the benefit of others simply because they will not survive? The logical conclusion from such an attitude is that research should also be done on terminally ill infants. Thankfully, at this point, I don't think anyone wants to go there. (with the possible exception of a few sociopaths.)
(That sounds very good, Dr. Morrison, but parents are not the owners of their children's lives. That's why we have laws against infanticide.Furthermore, you yourself said that we need many lines of embryonic stem cells in order to have a "diverse patient population" for research. We need new lines from "backgrounds not represented now." Dr. Morrison, these words sent chills down my spine. Indeed, these embryos are individuals with backgrounds and specific characteristics. Why, then, act as though they are not entitled to personhood.)
(I disagree. The destruction of human embryos, for any purpose, cheapens all of human life and makes all humans, particularly the disabled, the elderly, and the terminal, very, very vulnerable to the whims of a society that just might decide next that their lives are disposable too. )May this destructive research (in the very real sense of the word) come to an end. It is my prayer that it will soon become clear that stem cell research can continue without the destruction of embryos. I pray too that the adult stem cell research being done by Dr. Morrison with, I am sure the best of intentions, will bear much fruit and that the lives of many may be saved through his efforts.
Labels: embryonic stem cell research
In the gushing front page article about President Obama's lifting of the limits on embryonic stem cell research the News demonstrates a disturbingly simplistic attitude toward the ethics of life issues. Reporter David Gershman could have done your readers a better service by actually addressing the ethical issue of embryonic stem cell research instead of merely mentioning that one exists.
I do not doubt the good intentions of Sean Morrison, the director of U of M's Center for Stem Cell Biology. But why was he not asked how he justifies the killing of a human life in the interest of science? Does he not consider an embryo to be human life? It would have been interesting to hear a biologist try to make this case. Every reader of the News was once an embryo. Living things do not change identity. What is a human being now was a human being at conception, a person with a genetic identity that will never be repeated in all of human history.
The embryos were destined to be destroyed anyway? How does that justify their destruction? Shall we next experiment on the terminally ill? In reality, we are all terminal.
A senior Obama official said that the aim of the policy is to restore "scientific integrity" to the process. What an ironic choice of words. Any scientific endeavor that does not have as its firm foundation a profound respect for the mysterious sanctity of human life will always be utterly lacking in moral integrity.