Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall sent me the following article about President Obama's approval of stem cell research which is the act of beginning new human lives so the little ones can be cannibalized for their stem cells. Why do the scientists want this? - for human experimentation, a crime against humanity. The Nuremberg war trials condemned men who experimented on humans. So -- not only are "we all socialists now," we are all Nazis as well. If Dr. Mengele were around today, Obama would no doubt name him Surgeon General.
Obama, Thomas Jefferson, and Stem Cell Research
by Bob Marshall
Nowhere in any of the White House documents authorizing the moral travesty of experimentation on human embryos, does President Obama acknowledge that the research he wants to fund with tax monies involves the intentional death of newly created human beings.
Our 44th president, Barrack Obama, skips over this point of “creation.” His inaugural speech referred to the “God-given promise that all are equal.” But our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson, said, “All men are created equal.” Is this distinction above Obama’s pay grade?
Failure to acknowledge a man’s creation means ignoring “inalienable rights endowed by our Creator.” How convenient!
Mr. Obama accuses human experimentation opponents of ideological bias and politics. Yet American taxpayers will be forced to fund lethal research which provides NO cures, therapies, or clinical benefits!
Until now, the FDA had never approved embryo stem cell therapy because it promotes tumors and growth of wrong organs. Adult stem cell therapy works and has no ethical controversies.
Nature Magazine reported last summer that Harvard scientists turned one type of adult cell directly into another type of adult cell which produces the specialized pancreative beta cells that secrete insulin. This new technique eliminates any scientific justification for using embryonic humans for research.
Apparently, Mr. Obama thinks he can improve the created order.
For three years (2005-2007) I chaired the Virginia General Assembly Stem Cell Study. Members served from all persuasions on the issue. We had extensive and thorough public hearings with experts in medical, research, scientific and ethical fields.
The Father of American embryo stem cell research, Dr. John Gearhart of John Hopkins University, told our Committee that transplanted embryo stem cells develop tumors and other problems. For these reasons, we unanimously concluded that Virginia should only support adult stem cell research. I believe Virginia is the only state which adopted its policy AFTER a thorough and impartial inquiry.
President Obama has crossed a moral fault line in the created universe. He should reflect that while God always forgives, and man sometimes forgives, Nature never forgives and is a stern taskmaster.
You stated "for human experimentation, a crime against humanity". Reality is not all human experimentation is a crime against humanity. Late stages of drug development require this step.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between a petri dish of fertilized human eggs for research and abortion for birth control.
Of course it isn't Obama who has a problem with the middle ground, for you there is no middle ground and you are being dishonest claiming that Obama is the one with the middle ground problem.
As you have no middle ground there is nothing this administration will do or can ever do that would be good be it on the economy, science or education that you would support.
Research isn't always murder. It's the intent here that makes the difference. In Germany the subjects had no choice. In drug trials, the subjects have a choice.
In war it's only the goal that justifies all the killing and destruction. The crusades and Iraq are examples of war for really bad goals. WW2 was bad but the goal was justifiable. Use of the Atomic Bomb was justifiable in ending the war but as a weapon of choice it would be morally wrong.
A fertilized human egg and grown for several days in a tube or dish for research purposes does not a human being make. Take an embryo and place it in a woman and now the goal and methods have changed and that does a human being make.
Only problem Turfkiller is with your ontology. For you a tiny human isn't human. The denial of humanity to the small, the infirm, the incomplete, the ones that are less perfect is the program of the Nazis. The only difference is that you think your particular denial of humanity to the very small is somehow justified by your motives. Sorry, that's what the Nazis thought too. The Ubermensch was their object just as ours is the cure of disease through the death of the defenseless.
ReplyDeleteThe Crusades were for the survival of the West. That was hardly a bad goal. What makes the conquests of Islam just and the defense of the West unjust? You are simply the victim of propaganda. How is the removal of a monster like Saddam Hussein unjust?
You are just a conceptual opportunist. You remind me of Humpty Dumpty -- the only issue is who shall be the master [race]. Sieg Heil!
I agree, TK, not all experimentation is immoral. If you are experimenting with a new drug, for example, that allows a mother to carry the baby to term when she is threatening an early miscarriage, a moderate danger to the baby may be justified for the major good desired. However, experimentation that intentionally kills the victim is ALWAYS immoral. As far as middle ground is concerned, sometimes there isn't any.
ReplyDeleteAs for the atomic bomb, you've said it was wrong and right at the same time. How can that be? It was absolutely immoral despite the good end desired (speedy resolution to the war). A nation may never deliberately target non-combatants. Truman was wrong to authorize it. Soldiers sign on to fight in a war. No matter how many soldiers would have died if a land invasion was ordered (Eisenhower did not believe dropping the bombs was necessary to end the war.) you still cannot justify the wholesale murder of civilians.