Meredith Hodge
3/20/09
10:09 AM
On March 9th, President Obama officially made way for federal taxpayers dollars to go toward the advancement and research of embryonic stem cells. It is evident that everyone seems to have a different reaction and opinion concerning this issue. However; everyone seems to be using moral, ultimately their religion, to justify their position. People against it tend to argue that it constitutes as the destruction of human life and that it is showing life as something that could be simply created. Cardinal Justin Rigali (chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities) described Obama's decision as "a sad victory of politics over science and ethics."
On the other side of the spectrum, we have Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite. She is a United Church of Christ minister and a professor at Chicago Theological Seminary. She argues that "There is an ethical imperative to relieve suffering and promote healing,"…"This is good policy for a religiously pluralistic society that cares about human suffering and the relief of human suffering." Obama also used this reasoning when explaining his reasoning to the people.
Although both sides have valid arguments, I personally don’t support it. Scientists are quickly advancing and will soon be able to produce cells that act like embryonic stem cells without destroying any human embryos. Once we reach this point will they continue to do what they are doing now or will they agree to only use the artificial ones? There will always be division on this issue as there is on many modern day topics.
http://www.mercurynews.com/religion/ci_11954582
4 comments:
I do not think that this is right. My religious views do not support what they do with stem research. They need to stop trying to test all these theories out and leave things alone. If they continue to mess around with all these artifical things then they are really going to mess up. That minister that was a women minister at the church of christ should not be agreeing with this. This has nothing to do wit suffering she is completely wrong.
I agree with President Obama's decision for the simple fact that if he doesn't have the government sanction and monitor the research than you can be sure someone else will do it and potentially without a moral or ethical eye over their shoulder and then only the lord knows what may come out of that research. And suffering can be eased because with stem cells (artificial or not) you could clone organs, skin tissue, blood or even bone marrow and never need donors again. People would no longer have to die because of the fact that there was no one that fit their genes or blood type; you're always going to be compatible with yourself.
I agree with President Obama's decision to fund stem cell research. Using religion as an argument against stem cell research, which has the potential to do so much good, seems illogical. We should do everything within our power to help cure diseases, even if it angers a percentage of the population.
I disagree with Obama. In America, there is something called freedom of religion. stem cell research is infringing our rights. My religion believes that this is wrong, yet you still do it. taking someone's life to prolong yours because you fear death is not a reasonable excuse.
Post a Comment