"I believe we should oppose the death penalty because it involves the retributive killing of our siblings in Christ. This argument, while not new, is often overlooked." - CToday
We've recently launched the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. "at the same time, the legal right to physician-assisted suicide is being expanded more than ever....Do we as a society want to prevent people from killing themselves, or to support it as an expression of personal autonomy?" - RNS
"The answer may depend on crisis pregnancy centers." - CToday
"We are told that being pro-life requires us to adopt very particular views on contestable issues like environmental, criminal justice, social welfare or immigration policies. This argument often fails at a basic logical level, but worse, it often neuters the moral case against abortion and is used by enemies of the church to prove the church’s purported hypocrisy." - American Reformer
We need to wake up to the reality of what’s going on in our country! About seven years ago (2001) Johnny Farese, a quadriplegic brother who forwards prayer letters to churches, sent an email that begins with these frightening words:
Did you know that since the United States of America legalized abortion, that 750,000,000 children have been murdered through this means? This number far exceeds those who have been killed in all the wars of mankind since Adam.
I have had some difficulty confirming those statistics on the internet. Most statistics I’ve seen place the amount somewhere around 50 million since 1973. But that’s still a huge loss of human life! Abortion was only legalized 34 years ago. Millions of innocent human beings murdered in such a short period of time. Doesn’t that remind you of what we read in Genesis 6:11: “and the earth was filled with violence”? And we haven’t seen anything yet! With the push for embryonic stem cell research, we can be sure that the violence is only going to increase!
Read Part 1.
Opponents to embryonic stem cell research usually present four arguments against it. I’d like to survey these four arguments and then add a fifth.
According to legislation written both in 1975 and again in 1995, federal funds may not be used to support “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.9 Those who advocate the research argue that the federal ban only applies to the destruction of the embryo, not to the research of its stem cells. Therefore, while federal funds may not be used for the actual destruction of the embryos, they may be used for research on the stem cells of the destroyed embryo. But is it possible to separate the research that requires the destruction of embryos from the actual destruction itself? I don’t think so. I believe it’s correct to say that according to current law, the funding of embryonic stem cell research is prohibited.
Human embryonic stem cells.
In the eighteenth century, an Irish minister by the name of Jonathan Swift wrote a powerful satire, entitled, “A Modest Proposal.” In the most serious language, Swift suggested that Irish babies be sold for food, and that their skin be used as a kind of soft leather. As a result, there would be fewer mouths to feed, more food to go around, and a new industry that would create many jobs. This was his ‘modest’ proposal. In reality, Swift did not intend what he was recommending. Actually, he was attacking a common philosophy of the day, called “utilitarianism.” This philosophy taught that “the ends justify the means.” A moral act can be justified if gives the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. Swift’s purpose in offering a ‘modest’ proposal was to show people just how far utilitarian philosophy would lead them if they followed it through to its logical conclusion.
