withallyourmind.net

Yesterday, I read a couple of letters to the editor in the USA Today. These letters (I am presuming) were not written by experts, so I am not assuming that they represent the best arguments for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). However, they do seem to represent the views of our secular society. The two editorials were posted under the headline, “Faith getting in the way of “good government”. This depiction of “faith” once again attempts to marginalize Christians and keep their voice out of public life.

The first letter claims:

By vetoing the bill funding embryonic stem cell research, President Bush let faith get in the way of good science, good medicine and good government.

He is asserting that the rights of a clump of insentient cells are equal to those of thinking, breathing humans. He is saying that it is more important to preserve the possibility of life than to relieve the pain and suffering of millions of lives realized. And he is insisting that the values of the minority should take precedence over the will of the overwhelming majority.

While the president is surely entitled to his opinion about the origins of life, acting on such beliefs should be the stuff of personal religion, not public legislation.

What is good science, good medicine, and good government? There have been many philosophers who have devoted a lifetime to try to describe and prescribe good science and good government. Goodness is a matter of ethics and morality. One’s ethics and morality is shaped by one’s worldview. The Christian worldview entails certain beliefs about ethics and morality, one of which is the inherent value of human life. From a Christian perspective, good goverment, good medicine, and good science are those that uphold the sanctity of life. Apparently, to this letter writer, good public policy is that which the majority wants. This is a legitimate viewpoint to try to defend. It has been called conventionalism, that is, our ethics and morals are determined by what the majority says is moral and good. The fact that the president rejects this viewpoint does not censure his opinion. Nor does it make his opinion “faith” and that of the secularist “fact”. The secularist assumption is just that…an assumption based on a particular worldview and not grounded in science.

Stand To Reason has a list of talking points regarding the ethics of ESCR (HT: CADRE Comments). Are you against stem cell research and cloning? is an excellent two-page explanation of why Christian’s are opposed to ESCR. A simple understanding of this readable piece will prepare anyone to intelligently discuss the issue with secularists.

Here are some highlights which reveal the moral foundation for opposition to ESCR:

Clarify the moral logic of your position. (I’m not against stem cell research…)
“Not unless it kills an innocent human being. Embryonic stem cell research always kills a human being in the embryonic stage when scientists remove the stem cells. Wouldn’t you agree it is wrong to kill one human being to do research on her body to help someone else?”

Clarify that you have compassion for the suffering. “With that said, I think we have to do our best to care for those who have difficult diseases without hurting others in the process. This is why I think we should aggressively fund adult stem cell research (ASCR). It kills no one and has already shown a great ability to help people recover. Recently, a Parkinson’s patient and spinal cord injury patient both testified before a senate subcommittee claiming their adult stem cell treatments had been very effective in improving their conditions. Since embryonic stem cell research is not an option for those who care about human rights, don’t you think we should promote adult stem cell research and leave the embryos alone?”

Three Key Questions:

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.

Are all human beings valuable or only some? The abolitionist movement, the suffragist movement, the civil rights movement, and current concerns about racism, sexism, and international human rights all require a foundation of natural rights (that humans have in virtue of their human nature) for their force. The Declaration of Independence assumed this view of human rights. In other words, the reason we think racism, sexism, and genocide are wrong is because they set aside a certain group for discrimination or extermination because of some surface difference between us rather than recognizing the underlying similarity that justifies equal treatment. If we want to live consistently (which everyone does), our desire to protect women and African-Americans from sexual and racial discrimination will also lead us to protect human embryos and fetuses from developmental discrimination.