:Reasonable Force

Back in April of 2005, I wrote about the need to be consistent with regard to embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Al Mohler recently highlighted a Times London piece reporting that over one million embryos have been destroyed in U.K. fertility clinics.

While this report is likely to spark controversy in Great Britain, the situation in the United States and many other nations is virtually the same. Human embryos are being produced, almost factory-like, and then routinely destroyed or indefinitely frozen.

This phenomenon might be described as an unintended complication of the IVF technology. Nevertheless, all involved in this technology are responsible for this vast human tragedy, intended or not.

Far too many evangelicals seem to turn a blind eye to this reality. While we celebrate the birth of a child and the gift of life, we cannot blind ourselves to the harsh and grotesque reality that this technology also means the destruction of human life.

Many evangelicals fail to see what many proponents of human embryonic stem cell research have noted — a glaring inconsistency in condemning the destruction of human embryos through stem cell research, while ignoring or dismissing the destruction of embryos in IVF clinics.

This prompts me to reprise what I feel to be the root cause of this horrifying reality (from my April ’05 post linked above):

I suggest that the root of the problem is that, in all things, but certainly when it comes to having children, we have made our desires paramount over an older view that accepted conception as the province of God. Clearly I’m speaking primarily of believers here.

The modern Christian (or postmodern, if you will) determines when and if they will have children, and how many. Soon they will choose whether they will have a boy or a girl, if they’re not already. Soon after, they will determine in advance height, hair color, and whether they prefer athletic or musical aptitude.

If our career goals are incompatible with children we use birth control. If, when we’re ready, children are not forthcoming, we go to the fertility clinic. When we’re ready to stop having children we undergo surgery.

I’m not arguing against examinations and/or treatments to make sure all our parts are in working order, but beyond that I would suggest that we have lost the view of children as blessings bestowed upon us by God and view them, rather, as something to which we are entitled when we’re good and ready, and only in the quantities with which we’re comfortable.

This is one area in which we have adopted the world’s view of things without even blinking. When we begin to examine the extensions of our arguments against some of these more abominable practices, however, our error is brought to light.

No Comments

Diabetics cured by stem-cell treatment, trumpets the headline.

This article, in the U.K.’s Times Online, only requires a marginally attentive reader to get to the second paragraph to note the type of cells used in this treatment.

Diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the hormone naturally again.

In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood. [emphasis, of course, mine.]

Nevertheless, the Times later makes a claim supported nowhere in this article, but commonly touted, that the real promise lies in embryonic stem cell research if only it weren’t being stymied.

Previous studies have suggested that stem-cell therapies offer huge potential to treat a variety of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neuron disease. A study by British scientists in November also reported that stem-cell injections could repair organ damage in heart attack victims.

But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.

As has been noted before, all President Bush has done is prevent federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond the embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created. There is no ban on such research, though I certainly wouldn’t oppose it.

No Comments

Perhaps you’ve seen this headline:
British team grows human heart valve from stem cells

There’s nothing untrue in the headline. I wouldn’t even call it misleading, exactly, outside of the context of the cultural struggle over the use of embryonic stem cells, which are culled from destroyed human embryos. Apart from specifically pro-life articles, however, it is extremely rare to see any qualification in headlines such as this, or even in the articles themselves, of what type of stem cells have been used for the latest touted breakthrough. The lack of that information may have the effect of eroding public resistance to the use of embryonic stem cells, federal funding of which is currently banned thanks to President Bush.

Here is the first paragraph in the cited article:

A British research team led by the world’s leading heart surgeon has grown part of a human heart from stem cells for the first time. If animal trials scheduled for later this year prove successful, replacement tissue could be used in transplants for the hundreds of thousands of people suffering from heart disease within three years.

Here, far deeper in the article, is the relevant distinction:

By using chemical and physical nudges, the scientists first coaxed stem cells extracted from bone marrow to grow into heart valve cells. By placing these cells into scaffolds made of collagen, Dr Chester and his colleague Patricia Taylor then grew small 3cm-wide discs of heart valve tissue. Later this year, that tissue will be implanted into animals – probably sheep or pigs – and monitored to see how well it works as part of a circulatory system. [emphasis mine]

Much as the abortionists years ago built public support for their case through lies and gross exaggerations of back-alley abortion statistics, ESC researchers offer blue-sky predictions of the medical miracles that will surely be ours if we only shake off our stubborn discomfort with the idea of sacrificing human embryos to be their source of raw materials. Whether ignorant or complicit, the media often helps their cause by failing to emphasize the distinction between the kinds of stem cells being discussed.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that the use of embryonic stem cells will become justified should their medical promise ever become a certainty. It is patently immoral to destroy a human life for medical research even if every human disease could thereby be eradicated. The issue here is purely one of public perception; a battle for hearts and minds, if you will. While we ideally would persuade people of the underlying moral issue, that argument is undermined when people become tempted by promises of longer, healthier lives. At the very least, in our conversations, let us not allow ESC to receive credit for the truly promising work that is being done with other types of stem cells.

No Comments

David W. Boles over at Urban Semiotic raises the oft-decried spectre of the wire-hanger abortion at the prospect of the confirmation of purportedly constructionist nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts. I responded on his comment thread (in a moderation queue as of this posting) and decided to post my thoughts unedited (though I’ve added a few links). Though I’m obviously on the other side of this critical issue, I appreciate David’s thoughtful style and his courtesy in responding to all of his visitors.

David, with all due respect, the horror of back alley abortions was largely a media creation based on bogus numbers spoon-fed to them by pro-abortion advocates. Granted, if you happen to know one of the few legitimate cases, it has more emotional impact. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a lie was greatly responsible for shaping cultural attitudes toward legalization. The political cartoon you cite is a shameful example of fear-mongering for political purpose with no basis in fact.

Further, while I would never argue that life is easy or fair for people born into disadvantaged circumstances I fail to see how the compassionate solution is to offer scars that never heal. You say that abstinence “doesn’t work;” I presume you mean that it isn’t applied in the populations that need it most or are poorest equipped to deal with additional mouths to feed?

That it works to prevent unwanted pregnancies is unquestionable. So, rather than throwing up our hands and conceding that some groups can never be taught self-respect or self-control, perhaps we should frankly examine whether an effort has ever been undertaken to impart those virtues, without simultaneously offering the easy path of unrestrained “protected” sex along with the assumption that they’re going to do that anyway.

I’m not accusing you, by the way, of having the above-stated attitude toward any group, though I do believe your dismissal of abstinence education is tantamount to such a position.

Again, I recognize that inner-city conditions can be horrific and that there are no silver bullet solutions to the day-to-day situations faced by their residents. I don’t believe, however, that the abortion debate has ever been about compassion for women there or anywhere.

I will not, however, try to make the argument that all women can control the circumstances under which they might become pregnant. I agree with one previous commenter that our world is far from ideal.

The problem is that we attempt to correct one injustice with an even greater one when we suggest that preventing a child from being born is to salvage a woman’s sovereignty over her life and body.

It was not the difficulties faced by women in unfortunate circumstances that prompted the legalization of abortion. It was that we crossed a line somewhere in the pursuit of unfettered liberty and began to perceive the unthinkable as first unfortunate but understandable, then reasonable, and finally, horrifyingly, natural.

Sorry for the length, David. I would just like to make two more points.

First, have you and the other pro-choice advocates here considered how many women are forced to exercise their “right to chose” by fathers, husbands, or boyfriends? No, I don’t have numbers on that and doubt they could be accurately assessed, but anecdotal evidence leads me to conclude that it’s not a low number.

Point being, the same men that can assert their will over the women’s bodies in getting them pregnant can assert their will via the clinic. All you’ve done is give irresponsible men a legal way to avoid child support.

Second, and parenthetically, in response to Carla (comment#3), who questioned the relevance of Sanger’s acquaintance with Hitler’s Merry Band of Eugenicists (raised in comment#1), I respectfully submit that it is absolutely relevant if it sheds light on Sanger’s motivations for advocating legal birth control and abortion. Wikipedia’s entry on her contains a plethora of quotes near the bottom that leave little doubt that she shared some of the philosophies prized in Hitlerian medicine.

UPDATE: David’s response can be read here. David has graciously provided a classic example of the attempt to invalidate opposing views when they are voiced by folks with sincerely held religious convictions. To his credit, he did post my initial response to his article and has been unfailingly courteous.

Two things that amused me:
First, his initial greeting to me, “SCPanther – I was waiting for you to make an appearance here. You are BlestWithSon’s evangelical brother, correct?”

Does anyone else get the mental image of Vader stepping from the shadows with an ignited lightsabre? Note that I’m her evangelical brother; an early preview of what David views as an exposé.

The second funny thing was that David categorizes this site as a “Pro-Life ministry,” in a misguided effort to further cast aspersions on my credibility. Granted, this site would be more worthy if it were a directed ministry in that fashion but, as is apparent to any casual observer, right now it’s just one guy’s sporadically posted opinions on many different subjects. I didn’t bother disavowing his characterization because anyone who visits will know better, and because I wouldn’t have been ashamed of it if it had been true.

My concluding comment to David follows:

David: I do not believe you [are] here to have a genuine intellectual discussion about the issue raised in my post and the following comments.

I’m sorry you feel that way, David. I believe all of my comments were relevant to your post and the comments here, and would have hoped that you might deal with the issues rather than ruling me ineligible for “intellectual discussion” by virtue of the faith that helps to shape my beliefs.

Nevertheless, I certainly acknowledge your right to do whatever you will with your site and the discussions therein.

Thank you for displaying my comment and for your sentiments. I likewise bear no ill feelings toward you and pray God’s rich blessings on you and the others who have commented here.

9 Comments

(hat tip: Drudge)

I find myself not believing this even as I link it. According to this report from Australian news service News.com.au, scientists in Pittsburgh have ended all life processes in dogs by replacing their blood with a near-freezing salt solution and successfully revived them with no ill effects after three hours.

Duing the procedure blood is replaced with saline solution at a few degrees above zero. The dogs’ body temperature drops to only 7C, compared with the usual 37C, inducing a state of hypothermia before death.

Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved.

Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery. The dogs are brought back to life by returning the blood to their bodies,giving them 100 per cent oxygen and applying electric shocks to restart their hearts.

Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage.

This work is being performed at the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, but as of this writing their website only contains older information about their suspended animation program which brought subjects back after two hours, but with brain damage.

The Australian report claims they hope to be conducting trials on humans “within a year.”

The questions raised by this are profound. For one thing, if a human being can be brought back after showing no brain activity for hours… what does that mean for determining at which point to end life support for a family member for whom there seems no hope?

To get a little more bizarre in my thinking, assuming that humans do respond as well to this procedure as the dogs seem to have, is it possible that the soul could depart during suspension leaving an empty husk for something else to fill?

Sounds fanciful, doesn’t it? Shades of Stephen King’s “Pet Sematary.”

Then again, maybe we’ll just be able to save a lot of lives and solve the problem of human travel beyond our inner solar system. Should be interesting either way.

4 Comments

I don’t know anything about rap/R&B singer Nick Cannon except that he is apparently popular enough to get an unabashedly pro-life video played on MTV. I’m not particularly a fan of much of this music either. I just found myself moved to tears, however, by the lyrics to Cannon’s song “Can I Live?” played on his website.

The song is purported to be autobiographical and describes how Cannon’s mother walked out of an abortion clinic and allowed him to see life.

(Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost, Apologia Christi)

No Comments

Andrew McCarthy at NRO addresses the call by some in the media for an apology from advocates for the life of Terri Schiavo in light of the recently released autopsy report.

E.J. Dionne, Matt Lauer, and the rest of the mainstream media vanguard are in high dudgeon. The autopsy report is finally out on Terri Schiavo, and they want to know: Where is the apology? A better question would be: Are they kidding?

After this tone-setting introduction, McCarthy sets out to debunk the revisionist version of the debate, being spun today as purely a matter of whether or not there was any possibility for Mrs. Schiavo’s recovery. He does this by refocusing the attention on precisely what the issues were when the courts held Terri’s life in their hands; that it was incumbent on the court making such momentous decisions to precisely ascertain her condition and the credibility of the claim that she had expressed a desire to be allowed to die in such a state absent any documentation to that end, and with a clear conflict of interest on the part of her husband.

The scientific facts about massive brain damage being trumpeted today, which — as Dionne’s own newspaper concedes do not even establish that Terri Schiavo was in a PVS — were not important to the media and the right-to-die lobby back then. All that mattered was that Terri Schiavo’s life was not one that they thought worth living. Whether or not it had technically been reduced to a PVS was beside the point. Whether or not Terri had even thought about, much less made a knowing and intelligent judgment about, the choice between life and death was beside the point. Terri was a grisly car-wreck. They just wanted her off the road and out of sight — no need to know what happened, and why, and whether anything could or should be salvaged.

So now, months later, long after it mattered, the autopsy is out and it indicates what we already knew: Terri was profoundly brain-damaged. She may or may not have been in a PVS — to this day we don’t know. Yet, the “right-to-die” forces are waving the autopsy report triumphantly, saying: See, see, see — she was PVS, just like we said! Well, leaving aside that the autopsy does not confirm the diagnosis, if scientific exactitude about the degree of brain injury is important now, when she’s dead, why wasn’t it important then? Why was there only rebuke for those who insisted there was virtue in a society’s being sure before life was snuffed out? The answer is simple: Because to the right-to-die people, the accuracy of the PVS diagnosis was never central; what mattered was giving effect to the purported “choice.”

Oh, and on that score, one other thing: When does the “autopsy” on Terri’s choice come out? It doesn’t. We are stuck with a record that should trouble serious people: no living will, and some self-interested witnesses (mainly husband Michael, by then pulled by the ties of a new family) who suddenly remembered years after the fact that Terri supposedly made some passing remarks about not wanting to be maintained in extremis. Is it any wonder all the talk is now about the extent of brain damage, as if that had been the only issue?

The full article can be read here.

Here are a few excellent posts on this from JackLewis.net:
Statement from Terri’s family

Medical experts dispute autopsy findings

Also worth reading is this response to the autopsy from www.blogsforterri.com illustrating how the autopsy report has been distorted by pundits.

1 Comment

See if you can find any moral ambiguity in this statement by South Korean cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-Suk from an article at TerraDaily:

“Human cloning is not only ethically outrageous and medically dangerous, but technically impossible as well,” said Hwang, who last year created the world’s first cloned human embryonic stem cells.

To clarify, Hwang didn’t create cloned human embryonic stem cells. He and his team cloned human embryos which were destroyed in order to harvest the stem cells.

So, absent more research into Hwang and his positions, I’m struggling to understand his basis for declaring human cloning “ethically outrageous.” What, after all, is human cloning beyond the cloning of embryos with which the good doctor seems quite comfortable for the purposes of stem cell harvesting?

This article is a poor one, from Agence France-Presse, in that it doesn’t make any attempt to explain that apparent discrepancy, or why Dr. Hwang views human cloning as an impossibility, at least for the next hundred years.

One comment he makes about “bumping into a cloned human being” suggests that he is envisioning 6th Day-style replication of individuals, but this isn’t made clear.

At any rate, to refocus on his somewhat fuzzy ethical ideas, while Hwang is quoted as condemning “human cloning” on ethical grounds (again, without distinction of what he means in contrast to his own work), he is dismissive of those who decry the unethical nature of cloning human embryos in order to destroy them and harvest their stem cells.

“I believe I’m doing what I should do as a scientist,” Hwang said, declining to enter into a debate on concerns raised by pro-life activists and religious groups about the destruction of human embryos in embryonic research…

He said that ethical and religious concerns would be outweighed by the medical benefits obtained from the research. [emphasis mine]

How many damnable practices could that statement be used to justify?

6 Comments

(hat tip: Drudge)

Aided by South Carolina’s own Lindsey Graham, so-called “moderates” of the Republican party worked with Democrats to broker a deal preserving the Dems odious and unconstitutional tactic of filibustering President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Everyone knows this battle is about impending vacancies expected in the Supreme Court, so the fact that the deal allows full votes on three of Bush’s appeals court nominees is meaningless.

The agreement said future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court should “only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances,” with each Democrat senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

“In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement,” Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules.

In other words, Republicans agree to allow Democrats to continue to block any appointee deemed too “extreme,” which is, of course, a liberal synonym for pro-life.

Yet, Senator Graham, who has lost my support with this move, actually sounds proud when he says, “The Senate is back in business.”

The business of the Senate he’s referring to is apparently that of allowing the minority party to continue to use demagoguery and slander to cow the majority party into preserving the status quo.

The deal was struck around the table in Sen. John McCain’s office, across the street from the Capitol where senators had expected an all-night session of speech-making, prelude to an anticipated showdown on Tuesday.

Once again, good ol’ maverick John McCain thumbs his nose at the leaders of the Republican party and the conservative Christian base that rejected him in favor of Bush. Obviously we saw through his pretense. Too bad we were fooled by Graham.

No Comments

(hat tip: Thinklings)

According to “Britain’s highest appeal court” it is now permissible to genetically screen embryos created via in vitro fertilization (IVF) to determine whether there is a tissue match for another child with a serious illness.

CBC News on MSN reports the details:

The case stems from Raj and Shahana Hashmi’s desire to conceive a child whose tissue is a match for their six-year-old son Zain, who has a rare blood disorder.

The couple conceived twice naturally after Zain’s birth. One fetus was discovered to be carrying the same blood disorder and the couple aborted it. Shahana gave birth to another child, who was not a match for Zain.

After the 2003 ruling, the couple went through fertility treatments to create a child whose tissue matched Zain’s, but Shahana had a miscarriage.

Understandably, these parents love their son and want to do whatever they can to help him. I don’t know much about blood disorders, but given the lengths they are going to, one would assume the condition is terminal.

Rather than have a second child that looked to have the same disease, however, they killed it in the womb.

Now they seek to find a genetic match from a batch of artificially produced embryos, one of which has already been miscarried. Assuming they do bring another suitable one to term, what becomes of the rest?

And what of the child who has been genetically selected to be a donor of some type for his or her brother? Is there as much value attached to its life as to the one they are born to save?

In this tragic story are several examples of the bottom of the slippery slope rushing up to meet us.

Had the second child been born, and had it actually had the same malady as the first, presumably, as much effort would have been undertaken to save its life. Instead it was prevented from taking its first breath. That was the only difference between the second child and the first that they so desperately want to save.

Meanwhile, who knows how many disposable human beings are being created for the sake of finding that match, whose worth has already been determined to be measured by the degree to which they are able to help their sibling.

This is a frighteningly utilitarian view of human life; all the more so because it is not some ivory-tower academician making impersonal pronouncements, but an actual mother and father culling their potential offspring for a specific purpose.

No doubt they view their efforts as an expression of love for their gravely ill child. That is perhaps the most chilling aspect of this story.

No Comments

I was engaged in some discussion over at Evangelical Outpost and decided that some of my comments really ought to make their way into a post here.

It was rightly pointed out that pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell often neglect to address the underlying issues regarding the existence of the large numbers of embryos resulting from fertility treatments. These embryos, pro-stem cell research advocates argue, are already slated for destruction in many cases. We would counter that one evil does not justify another. Kelly J. Hollowell, on behalf of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, makes this point in her analysis of a 2001 letter to President Bush, signed by 80 Nobel laureates in support of embryonic stem cell research:

To suggest that it is permissible to use embryos for research purposes because an already tragic decision has been made to destroy them represents an absolutely chilling lack of moral conscience.

This mentality is consistent with Nazi medicine. Taken to its logical conclusion, prisoners on death row, the elderly, patients in chronic comas, mentally retarded persons, and others destined to die or be cast away from society could and should be used for experimentation in the name of furthering research to save others.

That begs the question, however, of why more noise isn’t made about the fate of these embryos in the absence of using them for research, or about the procedures that produce them in such abundance to start with.

I think for many, the answer is simply that two and two haven’t been put together. For others, however, it is more likely the awareness that it wouild be political suicide to come out publicly with a hard line against commonly accepted fertility treatments that prevents this issue from being raised. That applies, sadly, to pastors as well as politicians.

I suggest that the root of the problem is that, in all things, but certainly when it comes to having children, we have made our desires paramount over an older view that accepted conception as the province of God. Clearly I’m speaking primarily of believers here.

The modern Christian (or postmodern, if you will) determines when and if they will have children, and how many. Soon they will choose whether they will have a boy or a girl, if they’re not already. Soon after, they will determine in advance height, hair color, and whether they prefer athletic or musical aptitude.

If our career goals are incompatible with children we use birth control. If, when we’re ready, children are not forthcoming, we go to the fertility clinic. When we’re ready to stop having children we undergo surgery.

I’m not arguing against examinations and/or treatments to make sure all our parts are in working order, but beyond that I would suggest that we have lost the view of children as blessings bestowed upon us by God and view them, rather, as something to which we are entitled when we’re good and ready, and only in the quantities with which we’re comfortable.

This is one area in which we have adopted the world’s view of things without even blinking. When we begin to examine the extensions of our arguments against some of these more abominable practices, however, our error is brought to light.

Understand, please, that I am not condemning any and all fertility treatments. In a fallen creation it is difficult at times to know how far to go in correcting things that don’t seem to be working as they should. My wife and I have discussed where we believe that line is and we will not cross it. Each one’s conscience would have to advise them in this.

3 Comments

Terri Schiavo is dead.

It is a horrifying thing to have to watch a public execution by starvation, particularly when the victim has done nothing wrong and been convicted of no crime.

I met a gentleman yesterday who said something similar to what many well-intentioned people have no doubt been saying throughout the Terri Schiavo drama: “I wouldn’t want to live like that.”

The first problem I have with that statement is that it has been difficult for those of us watching from afar to know exactly what condition Terri was in. If you believe her husband and his doctors then you get one picture; quite another if you believe her family and their doctors. What should be clear from watching the few video clips available is that Terri was not in a coma and, while experts clearly have degrees of disagreement on this fact, she exhibited certain responses, albeit inconsistently, that belied the diagnosis that she was in a Persistent Vegetative State, defined as “wakefulness without awareness.”

Having viewed these video clips, this statement by neurologist William P. Cheshire, Jr. has the ring of truth:

In summary, Terri Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and indicative of cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent vegetative state.

Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on Terri’s behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.

Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that this neurologist is correct. Many of us still might say that we wouldn’t want to live that way, even if some improvement were possible with proper care and treatment (something Mrs. Schiavo was denied by her husband, by the way). That brings me to the second problem I have with the gentleman’s statement, above.

While we might all share the sentiment, I don’t believe that we have that choice.

Most of us agree, do we not, that suicide is morally wrong when committed by a teenager or a young adult? Indeed, we view it as horrifying and tragic. Consider, then, someone like Christopher Reeves or Joni Erickson Tada. While we would be perhaps more understanding of suicide in those circumstances, we would still recognize that the nobler thing is to struggle on in the face of adversity.

The law, in many cases, has come to recognize a “right to die.” I believe that this must be balanced against a duty to live and, by extension, a duty to preserve life. That means that as long as a person can be determined to be alive we must provide care for them. The trick, then, comes to determining the definition of alive.

When someone is truly being kept alive by machines, with no evidence of brain function, there is an argument, I believe, for allowing that person’s body to die. In cases such as Terri’s, however, God has seen fit to preserve this woman’s life, albeit in a severely inhibited condition and it is not our place, or her husband’s, or even her own, to determine that such a life is not worth living.

In any event, she is dead now and hopefully with the Lord. Many people are celebrating this fact and view it as a victory for personal liberty. I view it as a defeat for all of us; a further devaluation of the worth and dignity of human life.

Terri Schiavo was a living, breathing human being, however limited her brain function, and she was starved to death.

Comments Off

Following the lead of Blogs4God and the Blogdom of God aggregator (which I probably ought to join, come to mention it…), there is now an aggregator for weblogs that support the sanctity of life, particularly in relation to abortion.

Pro-Life Blogs states its objective as follows:

The objective of this site is to raise awareness and support for the pre-born and the sanctity of human life by communicating pro-life news and materials and by enabling a community of pro-life bloggers to promote their sites, interact with one another and influence internet readers.

I think that’s a great idea and I have jumped on the bandwagon by linking the site and adding the Pro-Life blogroll to my site.

Abortion on demand is a scourge that has cost this nation more than 44 million lives since the unconscionable Roe v. Wade decision was issued in 1973. Only God knows fully what we have lost as a result of these murders, but to be sure, a part of our humanity has been extinguished with each tiny life.

I pray that President Bush is re-elected and that he does, in fact, fulfill the deepest fear of the left in installing pro-life justices onto the expected vacancies in the Supreme Court. Further, I hope and pray that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and that we can end the slaughter of the most innocent among us. To date, I have done very little personally to affect these efforts. I do not advocate violence against the clinics or the butchers doctors who perform the murders, but I plan to devote time and material resources to alternative pregnancy centers and legal efforts to effect the needed change.

Finally, I pray that through the efforts of the blogs at Pro-Life Blogs and other like-minded sites, hearts might be touched and minds changed to see what a monstrous evil the so-called “pro-choice” position really is.

1 Comment

When George W. Bush was campaigning I recall hearing that Laura ‘supported her husband’ in his positions on abortion, but that she held slightly more liberal views on the subject (If she enumerated those differences I can’t recall, and I doubt she ever did so).

It was encouraging, therefore, to see her publicly decline to join Nancy Reagan’s call to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, saying that, “we have to be really careful between what we want to do for science and what we should do ethically.”

That quote is from a Reuters article that also notes that Mrs. Bush’s own father was a victim of Alzheimer’s, having died of the disease in 1997.

No Comments