: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

Boston.com reports on Romney going on the offensive at the Myrtle Beach debate tonight.

Romney, in danger of losing Michigan to McCain in next Tuesday’s vote, quickly went on the attack against the Arizona senator at a debate, noting McCain had said in Michigan on Wednesday that the people there should realize some lost jobs will never return.

“I know that there are some people who think, as Sen. McCain did, he said, you know, some jobs are leaving Michigan and they’re not coming back. I disagree. I’m going to fight for every single job, Michigan, South Carolina, every state in this country, we’re going to fight for jobs and make sure our future is bright,” said Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts whose family has deep ties to Michigan.

The word is that Romney has essentially yielded South Carolina and now targets Michigan as his best chance for a win early, so he raises the subject of the Michigan economy. But how, exactly, does the President of the United States fight for jobs in Michigan, or any other state? More to the point, what business would a President have doing so?

McCain is quick to respond in kind, however.

“There are some jobs that aren’t coming back to Michigan,” McCain said. “There are some jobs that won’t come back to South Carolina, but we’re going to take care of them. That’s our job, that’s our obligation,” McCain said. [emphasis mine]

As a conservative I shudder at the words, “we’re going to take care of them.”

No, Senator, it is most emphatically not your job to take care of people who lose their job, nor would it be should you become President. It’s even arguable whether that would be your role in your own state of Arizona, or whether economic development is the purview of the state legislature and executive.

These are supposed to be the conservative Presidential candidates!

No Comments

Caroline Glick, columnist for the Jerusalem Post, on the world reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, writes:

Pakistan’s military dictator, President Pervez Musharraf will likely postpone elections for several months. And pushed by Zadawi and the media, the Bush administration will probably strongly object to his decision. Debate over whether or not Musharraf is destroying Pakistan by delaying the vote indefinitely will likely dominate international coverage of the country.

And this is a shame because the issue of elections in Pakistan is irrelevant when seen in the context of the current state that country – and it was irrelevant before Bhutto was murdered. Indeed, since she returned to Pakistan from exile in October, Bhutto herself served merely as a distraction. She focused international attention on her democratic rhetoric and away from the dangers that she was completely incompetent to handle – whether elected or not.

The Pakistan which Bhutto insisted she could save is a pro-jihadist nuclear-armed state. The Pakistani public, military and intelligence services stand in sympathy with al-Qaida and the Taliban. With the support of the public and the collusion of sectors of the military and intelligence services whose ranks they have seamlessly infiltrated, the Taliban and al-Qaida daily extend their control over more and more of the country.

US officials claim that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure and under the full control of the military. Yet given the Pakistani military’s sympathy for al-Qaida and the Taliban, it is irresponsible not to consider the possibility that at least some of the forces charged with securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal have operational links to the jihadists.[emphasis mine.]

I’ve recently become a fan of Ms. Glick’s columns. Her writing is incisive and her candor makes me smile even as I grimace at the dire circumstances that she consistently calls attention to.

No Comments