Four years ago, my husband was diagnosed with melanoma, one of the deadliest forms of cancer. Three years later, he began a second battle against cancer. This time, it was leukemia.
Cancer survivors know the fear a family experiences at such a diagnosis. When, as with melanoma, there is no “cure” beyond excising the tumor, most families begin to search for a scientific trial that will give them hope. In evaluating the trials, they look at statistics to tell them whether a particular trial is likely to increase their loved one’s odds for survival.
This approach makes intuitive sense. Yet, amazingly, it is not the approach being taken in the stem cell research debate.
Why?
In hailing President Obama’s decision to fund embryonic stem cell research, Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who writes about his fears of going blind from diabetes, expressed his relief that “the greatest scientists in our country [would be able] to get back to work on finding cures.”
Mr. Trippi must get back to work. He obviously has not read the research demonstrating the success of adult stem cell trials on the very disease he is worried about. Has he not worried about the failures resulting from the use of embryonic stem cells, which have not cured even one disease? There is a lot of hype about the potential of embryonic stem cells, which sounds fantastic and fills one with hope, but actual trials have produced truly scary results.
For example, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that implanted embryonic stem cells resulted in “absolutely devastating” consequences. “[Patients] chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, the wrists flex and distend,” said Mr. Paul E. Greene. “It’s a real nightmare. And we can’t selectively turn it off. No more fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only.”
Normally, people who are diagnosed with a disease – at least educated people – research the disease, and they stay away from research with results like the above.
Mr. Mehmet Oz, the TV doctor endorsed by the goddess of the Left, Oprah Winfrey, recently told her that embryonic stem cell research is dead. You can still see that clip from the Ms.Winfrey’s show on YouTube. Mr. Oz touted the potential of induced plurtipotent stem cells from skin cells, which he says are less than a decade away from curing all kinds of diseases without the consequences of embryonic stem cell research.
So with two such alternatives, why would anyone risk their health on the potential of embryonic stem cells?
The answer lies not in politics, but in something much deeper. In a March 9 online opinion piece in the Huffington Post entitled, “The Stem Cell Slippery Slope Fallacy,” Marty Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center and Professor at the USC Annenberg School, said: “Every American has the right to choose a God to believe in, or not. But no Americans have the right to impose their own theistic absolutes, or their own dark views of human nature, on anyone else.”
Get the picture? It’s not about the economy, politics, or health care – “it’s about God, stupid.”
How else to explain why someone would support an unproven alternative over alternatives that are already showing results–especially when the unproven alternative destroys an embryo, with its unique personal DNA signature, which many people quite reasonably believe is human life.
To succumb to this viewpoint—even for a scientific reason—would mean to bow to what secular humanists and atheists call “the Religious Right.” In their efforts to wipe out religious influence, these ideologues attempt to impose their atheistic absolutes by crushing any argument supported by those who believe in God–especially those “Bible-thumpin’ Christians” who believe in Jesus Christ – even when it makes scientific sense to do otherwise.
Of course, these new technologies with their life and death consequences have profound religious and ethical dimensions–dimensions which those who make science their God refuse to acknowledge.
In discussing his decision to fund embryonic stem cell research, President Barack Obama, who has shifted from calling himself a Christian to a “person of faith,” refused to acknowledge this. He concluded, at least in the case of embryonic stem cell research, that the government cannot create a “false choice between sound science and moral values.” However, in almost the same breath, he told the country that human cloning, which apparently doesn’t represent such a false choice, is “dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society.”
“Profoundly wrong”? Isn’t that a moral evaluation, Mr. President? And may I be so bold as to ask upon whom or what you base that evaluation? What makes embryonic stem cell research right and human cloning wrong? Just imagine the lives that could be saved if we could take the organs from entire human beings rather than just embryos.
If Mr.Obama is basing his moral determination on his own opinion, is he not setting himself up as a god? How comfortable should any of us be with that? How many of us would be willing to bet that he will remain committed to the idea that human cloning is wrong next year? After all, if there are no moral absolutes, we are only left with opinion, and that can change.
Similarly disturbing is Mr. Kaplan’s denial of the logic of the “slippery slope” argument in the Huffington Post article mentioned earlier. Anyone who has ever been to journalism school has had to sit through classes on journalism law and ethics. Such classes go into great detail about First Amendment issues and the “slippery slope” upon which one embarks when such freedoms are infringed upon. Obviously, Mr. Kaplan and those of his ilk find such concerns absurd only when applied to moral issues.
The religious leader Pope Paul VI warned back in 1968 that widespread contraception would pave the way to marital infidelity and an exploding divorce rate, as well as a lowering of moral standards. He also predicted that abortion would become a backup to contraception and that governments (China anyone?) would begin to force contraception on their people. Isn’t this the very definition of the slippery slope–or have we once again replaced intellectual honesty with the sophisticated veneer of sarcasm?
Clearly, the stem cell “debate” is no longer about science. Every day, science is proving the efficacy of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells – and now induced plurtipotent stem cells are making headway, as well. Yet the secular humanists and the atheists, who are so afraid of “theists” pushing theology on the masses, are instead pushing their own ideology on the country, to the detriment of humankind.
The battle now shifts to the states, many of which are considering legislation to restrict embryonic stem cell research. It’s war alright. But the war is not political and, despite our economic woes, it’s not economic either. It’s as old as mankind – and far more profound. It’s all about God, stupid.
-Michelle Laque Johnson has spent more than 20 years working for publications as diverse as Investor’s Business Daily, where she was a reporter, and The Catholic Standard & Times, where she was editor-in-chief. She currently serves as director of communications for EWTN, the largest religious media network in the world.
