Obama overturns Bush policy of embyronic stem cell research

[Jac3510]

Obama has now ended Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Link

More disregard for human life. More human beings being murdered. And the best part . . .

Obama said, ""I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No president can promise that." So we are killing humans with no guarantees on the results. And this, of course, opens the door to embyonic harvesting. I wonder how many millions will die because of this?

Kill more babies?
YES WE CAN!

edit: Is there any kind of legal action I can take? It seems to me to be totally unconstitutional to FORCE me to financially support something that my faith says is the epitome of evil . . .

[Canuckster1127]

Legal action can always be taken. The question is, will it accomplish what you desire.

Objection to funding on basis of moral objection has been tried in the past I believe by those opposed to the military. I suspect several of the right to life groups will attempt on a class action basis some of these tactics. It would probably be more effective to support some of those efforts than to try to do something independently, but that's just speculation on my part.

The stated idea from Obama that he will not stand in the way of science in this regard and in others, is somewhat alarming. Science purely as a methodology has no moral benchmarks other than efficiency and accomplish the ends prescribed. It's somewhat hyperbolic but Nazi Germany went down this path in some areas with their eugenics programs to promote the purposes of the state and selectively screen and breed for what they deemed to be desirable traits or characteristics.

I'm not fully equating the two yet. But I'm not hearing what the measure of restraint is from the Obama administration at the same time that they are lifting these previous executive orders. Research serving as the means to desirable ends without moral and ethical consideration of the means themselves raises all kinds of problems.

bart

[Jac3510]

Yeah, the military conscientiuos objectors issue is what gives me some hope here:

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims." So says the U.S. Selective Service System (so says Wikipedia)

In those cases, there is some sort of alternative that can be worked out. The same should certainly be true, at least, in this case.

The Supreme Court recognized as much, saying in 1971: "The exemption for those who oppose "participation in war in any form" applies to those who oppose participating in all war and not to those who object to participation in a particular war only." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=437)

Further, "The Supreme Court, in the Seeger (1965) and Welsh (1970) decisions, expanded the criteria for CO status from religious to secular moral or ethical beliefs. More than 170,000 registrants were classified as COs between 1965 and 1970. CO exemptions granted to registrants as compared to actual inductions soared from 8 percent of inductions in 1967 to 43 percent in 1971, to three times that ratio in 1972, when more people were being exempted as COs than were being drafted into the army. Additionally, between 1965 and 1973, approximately 17,500 members of the armed forces applied for noncombatant status or discharge as COs." (http://www.answers.com/topic/conscientious-objection)

SOOO . . .

Again, it seems to me that if a person can object to military service on religious/ethical grounds, it seems still more obvious to me that one should be able to object to financially supporting a practice on religious/ethical grounds.

[Cross.eyed]

Obama has now ended Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
More disregard for human life. More human beings being murdered. And the best part . . .

Obama said, ""I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No president can promise that." So we are killing humans with no guarantees on the results. And this, of course, opens the door to embyonic harvesting. I wonder how many millions will die because of this? Kill more babies?

I heard this mo(u)rning, sadness and discust-much sadness.
If the data I've seen is valid, adult stem cells have a much higher success rate.
It's like saying "Lets kill a few humans and see what happens, maybe it'll work or maybe it won't but what do we have to lose?"

Is it just my thinking or should one think a man with family would place higher value on human life??

If he were ask, I'm sure he would say; "Yes I'm glad my children survived Roe vs. Wade."
or "Yes I'm glad my children weren't used in embryonic stem cell research."

[Jac3510]

You would think that Obama would place higher value on human life, but then, this is the same man who said he wouldn't want his daughter's "punished" with having a baby if they were to accidentally get pregnant.

Mike Huckabee, on his show last night, had a very powerful point on this. He pulled out a photograph of a little girl, no more than a few years old. Her mother had given it to him and told him that that little girl was the perfect example of why embryonic stem cell research is so evil. She had been a frozen embryo for five years before she was implanted. If Obama had his way, that little girl would have been murdered in some experiment.

Those embryos are human beings, and now, we are going to be killing them by God-knows-how-many at a time. And we're paying for them to do it . . . I'll let you know what the ACLJ says when I get in touch with them. I've also sent an email to my senators, Chambliss and Isakson (see below). I would encourage everyone here--even those of you who voted for Obama--to call your senators and ask them to do something about this. This is government FUNDED murder. Stand up and do something. For the sake of these children, at least write an email.

---------------------------------------------
As a deeply religious conservative, I was horrified to hear that Obama went ahead with his plans to overturn Bush's ban of federal funding for embyronic stem cell research. Beyond the fact that how many thousands (millions?) of human lives will be destroyed, I am now going to be forced to financially support the practice with my tax dollars.

That seems to me to be absolutely unconstitutional. How can the government force me to engage in a practice my faith declares to be the epitome of evil? Was this nation not founded on religious liberty?

Is there any legal action I can take, or can you introduce a bill that would reduce the taxes I pay by the proportion that would go to support this awful policy? Please, I do not want the mony I work for to support my family to be used to kill helpless children!
---------------------------------------------

[Kurieuo]

Always look on the positive side. Once things hit rock bottom (and there is a lot further to fall) then there is only one direction left.

Who knows, maybe people will begin to be disgusted by the destroying of human life in embryonic stem cell research once they see some clones carried to term which failed abortion attempts which ought to have happened under the Human Cloning Prohibition Act.

[BavarianWheels]

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims." So says the U.S. Selective Service System (so says Wikipedia)

I wonder if one can be pro-choice AND later be a conscientious objector...?

Who knows, maybe people will begin to be disgusted by the destroying of human life in embryonic stem cell research once they see some clones carried to term which failed abortion attempts which ought to have happened under the Human Cloning Prohibition Act.

Am I understanding your words here to mean aborting clone fetus' is ok? I'm not sure how to read this.
.
.

[Jac3510]

Interesting . . . an article that starts out with the a complaint similar to my own:

Obama's Messenger for Moral Incoherence

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, March 11, 2009; A15

There is a common thread running through President Obama's pro-choice agenda: the coercion of those who disagree with it.

Obama has begun providing federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. He has moved to weaken conscience protections for health-care professionals. And he has chosen the most radical possible option on the use of embryonic stem cells -- a free license for researchers, with boundaries set only by the National Institutes of Health.

Now, taxpayers are likely to fund not only research on the "spare" embryos from in vitro fertilization but also on human lives produced and ended for the sole purpose of scientific exploitation. Biotechnicians have been freed from the vulgar moralism of the masses, so they can operate according to the vulgar utilitarianism of their own social clique -- the belief that some human lives can be planted, plucked and processed for the benefit of others.

It is the incurable itch of pro-choice activists to compel everyone's complicity in their agenda. Somehow, getting "politics out of science" translates into taxpayer funding for embryo experimentation. "Choice" becomes a demand on doctors and nurses to violate their deepest beliefs or face discrimination.

It is probably not a coincidence that Obama has chosen a Roman Catholic -- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- to implement many of these policies as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Obama has every right to a pro-choice Cabinet. But this appointment seems designed to provide religious cover. It also smacks of religious humiliation -- like asking a rabbi to serve the pork roast or an atheist to bless the meal.

Sebelius, though strongly pro-choice, was capable of occasional compromise. But she consistently fought against the serious enforcement of Kansas's late-term abortion restrictions. Kansas became a magnet for late-term abortions.

Still, Sebelius insists that "my Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred." This puts her in the same category as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Biden -- Catholics who assert the sanctity of life while defending legal abortion. It has also earned Sebelius a firm rebuke from her archbishop.

The explanations of pro-choice Catholics are varied. Some say they will not impose their private religious views on others. But moral beliefs about human dignity are not religious dogmas such as transubstantiation or the Trinity. They are assertions about the nature of political justice. Removing the transcendent basis for human rights would also remove the central argument of the Declaration of Independence and the primary motivation for American social reform ranging from abolition to the civil rights movement.

Others claim they are merely employing an alternative method to secure the rights of the unborn -- through social welfare programs rather than legal restrictions. In Sebelius's case, the overall abortion rate in Kansas did decline slightly more than the national reduction, though it is difficult to trace this drop to her policies. And the question arises: Couldn't a Catholic politician support women in crisis and effective protections for viable children?

Pro-choice Catholics respond that the legal remedies on abortion have been exhausted, so we might as well focus on the common-ground issue of abortion reduction -- a cause that does deserve support. But legal remedies have not been exhausted; they have been preempted by the courts. The exercise of democracy on abortion would probably not lead to restrictions on early abortions. But it would probably lead to broader protections for viable children. And it is difficult to imagine how anyone committed to the principle that "all life is sacred" could oppose such a democratic outcome.

Supporters of the Sebelius position also contend that there are myriad pro-life issues, including the environment and health care. Why favor some above others? It is true that nearly every political issue concerns the preservation of human life. But not every issue concerns the definition of the human community -- whom we count as one among us, and whom we cast beyond our protection.

If developing life is merely protoplasmic rubbish, it has the legal claims of a cyst or a toenail. But if a politician believes life is sacred, the destruction of more than a million lives a year cannot be merely one issue among many.

Sebelius and other pro-choice Catholic leaders are disagreeing with their church on a fundamental issue of justice -- which is their right. It is also the right of their church to point out their incoherence.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

[Byblos]

I simply do not get how they can profess to be Catholic and support such policies in direct contradiction to the church's position. You want to support abortion fine, but have the moral and religious decency to publicly renounce your faith first since, for all intents and purposes, you already have anyway.