If not some ideology, then what? Science itself?
...offered by Dn. James Ferrenberg, a sinner at 9:51 PM [+]
Well here's the article trumpeting the president's Embryonic Stem Cell decision.
I'll just challenge the president on a few of his points that I find to be patently absurd.
"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values...we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
How exactly is this a false choice? You harvest a human embryo and let it divide a few times, tear it up and let it divide some more - perpetually growing them and then using them experimentally. There's a moral value to be had there, no? In return for tinkering with human embryos you stand a chance to assist or perhaps even cure some fairly ugly ailments. So, sorry Mr. President, there IS a moral value choice to be made here and a pretty serious one at that.
Secondly, ideology had better inform our scientific decision, sir. For what else would possibly suggest to us that the good Dr. Mengele's experiments were morally unacceptable, if not some sort of moral vision of the world? An ideology if you will. What "scientific facts" would inform us that such experimentation is unacceptable?
I'll also go right ahead and jump into the scientific fact, which anyone who reads my blog knows already, that we've made tremendous strides with ADULT stem cells.
Science, politics and religion have long intertwined and conflicted with each other. In his actions Monday, especially with the stem cell decision, Obama is emphasizing more the science than the religion
Again, science tells us NOTHING about the sacredness of ANY human life. Is this philosophical rocket science here or what? Science offers no moral compass whatsoever. It has as much to say about morality as a bag of hammers. It is utterly unable to say when human life begins (except perhaps arguably at conception...when else?) and it certainly cannot say when it ought to be protected, cherished, and nurtured...as opposed to being grown, harvested, experimented upon, and then killed.
So, when do we emphasize the science and when do we emphasize other sources of human knowledge and experience that actually do speak to the concept of morality?
Promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient,"
Wrong, wrong, wrong. A thousand times wrong. Science is NOT the end all deposit of human wisdom. I'm sure, if you think hard enough, you can fathom an area or two where we might actually want to manipulate or coerce the science industry, no? No?
Well the president apparently can think of at least one:
Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."
Hmmmm...how convenient. Now, how many scientists out there are going to feel the PINCH...the manipulation and coercion...that prevents them from cloning human beings. You will of course note the key word: "reproduction." Why is it key? Well, if you take a multi-cellular human embryo and separate the cells and begin growing them for experimentation, guess what you have essentially done? You got it...cloning. Each new "daughter cell" is a human being, fully capable of having a blog in 12 years or so in which they can sound off in favor of Embryonic Stem Cell research, if they should so choose.
"profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."
How so? On what basis? We are cloning dogs, sheep, cats...from what wellspring of morality is the president withdrawing this judgement here? Scientific facts we must assume, right? Isn't that what those of us who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research were just told by him? So which "facts" are leading him to this rather ideological sounding position?
Whatever you may think of the previous presidential office holder, he was in fact - IMHO - absolutely spot on RIGHT with this:
President George W. Bush limited funding because of "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science."
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life -- the unborn -- without diminishing the value of all human life .... There is no cause more important." - President Ronald Reagan
Because American lives are being prematurely snuffed out each year, the value of God-given life has been cheapened. Men have placed themselves in the place of God, deciding summarily who has "quality of life" and who does not. The weak, the infirm, those who supposedly will contribute little to society are deemed worthy of "termination." - The Rebirth of America