Archive for Thursday, December 9, 2004

Respect life

December 9, 2004

In the Sept. 16 article in The Eudora News concerning the adoption of human embryos as a possible alternative for the couple who are infertile, a family in the Eudora vicinity was interviewed who were considering this alternative.
This couple expressed their happiness for a chance to aid children in need. Similarly in a "National Right t Life News" article on the same topic, adoptive parents added that embryonic adoption should be preferred by the law over the destruction of these children for scientific research and embryonic stem cell retrieval. Both articles noted that these were children in need of a loving home.
Under the guise of good, the reproductive technologies began by providing infertile couples with their own child. However, in order to do this, it required the separation of the conception of a child from the marital act. Very soon, there was a surplus of children, 400,000 to be exact, that scientists now wanted to use for non-therapeutic experimentation -- experimentation done on a subject that is not beneficial to the subject. Also under the guise of good, scientists predicted great medical strides with things like embryo stem cell research. Presently, however, they have had no successful embryo stem cell transplants. In fact, these cells are just as likely to be rejected by the immune system or turned into deadly tumors that grow teeth, hair and other random cells. In terms of proportionality, it requires the death of 40 children just to obtain enough tissue to transplant into one Parkinson's patient.
However, adult stem cell and umbilical cord research are being used at this moment to cure hundreds with Parkinson's disease. Leukemia, heart disease and spinal cord injury. The patient's own stem cells are being retrieved by scraping the lining of their check, for example, or obtaining umbilical cord blood after the delivery of a child. Not only are these successful, but no donor is harmed in the process.
Yet, scientists still insist upon using these children for non-therapeutic research. Why? John Noonan in his book, "A Private Choice" describes the testimony concerning fetal experimentation on children who had survived an abortion.
"It was because the unborn were human beings that the researchers wanted to experiment upon them." These scientists were willing to deny the humanity of the child in order to obtain them for research. A similar attitude was reflected in the Eudora News article. After speaking lovingly of the children in the beginning of the article, it later stated, "Other options for leftover embryos include storing them, donating them anonymously to fertility clinics, donating them for research, or destroying them."
At this point the child was no longer a child, but an object for storage, experimentation and even destruction.
Being tempted under the guise of good, we forgot the most practical principle of ethics, "the end never justifies the means." When we lost respect for one group of human beings (preborn children) we lost respect for all humanity. Abortion was quickly followed by infanticide, euthanasia and reproductive technologies that placed 400,000 Americana children in frozen orphanages.
A human being is made in the image and likeness of God and therefore cannot be used as an object for the benefit of the species or for society. It is my hope that our nation again acknowledges the fundamental personal dignity we all share from conception to natural death.
Matthew Fulks

Commenting has been disabled for this item.