AiG, along with many conservative Christian groups, is pleased cash loan bakersfield ca that President Bush decided to forbid funding of any more destruction of human embryos, and with his restatement of his strong opposition to human cloning. He
also refused to allow harvesting of stem cells from 100,000 embryos frozen at fertility clinics, as many evolutionary scientists would prefer, but which we oppose. The President also affirmed the uniqueness of each individual embryo and cited with approval an ethicist who dismissed as ‘callous’ an attempt to pretend that the early embryo isn’t really human. Further, he affirmed that ‘human life is a sacred gift from our Creator’ and that ‘we recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience’. The President also affirmed the important Biblical principle (cf. Romans 3:8) ‘even the most noble ends do not justify any means’. On 14 August, President Bush promised to veto any congressional bill that would allow embryos to be destroyed for research.
He also correctly pointed out that stem cells are readily available from non-embryonic sources, on which there has been a virtual media blackout, as pointed out in this article. Fortunately, after President Bush’s decision, there seems to be a slight increase in the media’s admitting this fact. But he said:
‘However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.’
As has been shown, this appears to be contrary to the experimental evidence.
However, President Bush’s go-ahead for funding on 60 already-existing stem cells lines obtained by past killing of embryos has raised far more debate among conservative Christians. Some have said that since nothing will bring these embryos back, we may as well research these stem cell lines that might save lives in 1 hour cash the future. We recognize the agonizing moral dilemma that led to the decision. A similar dilemma was faced by medical researchers concerning the results of ghastly Nazi medical experiments involving the torture-murder of living prisoners. Here was data which could possibly save human lives; should its source mean it should not be utilized to possibly do good?
So, on this view, we should be grateful that the President has at least stopped further embryo destruction for research purposes, and we should recognize that there is a limit to how much a politician can achieve against substantial opposition even within his own ranks.
But others have claimed, in our view correctly, that while we should indeed be grateful for President Bush’s decision to abolish funding for more embryo murders, his other decision to allow research on existing stem cell lines still perpetuates the view that human embryos are disposable commodities rather than human life (e.g. the Family Research Council response42). Therefore it makes it harder to defend embryos from the mass murder perpetrated in abortion mills in the Western world. This is the contrast with the ‘Nazi dilemma’ mentioned above— the Nazis’ atrocities have ceased, but thousands of unborn babies are murdered every day.
There is also a key moral principle that profiting from immoral acts makes one a participant in them, and provides an incentive to commit them. By allowing research to continue, the President has inadvertently rewarded those who committed an act he himself said was unethical, i.e. those who destroyed these embryos in the first place. Further, the President’s ban on funding of more research, while good in itself, when combined with the limited permission, actually gives these people a monopoly on selling embryonic stem cell tissue to federally funded researchers.