Monday, July 24, 2006

Loophole in the Culture of Life

I did not mean to rant politically, but it happened. Sorry.

In case you missed it, click a link to watch one of Jon Stewarts most important pieces of satire yet. In this clip, he savages the Administration for being against "murder" and the "taking of innocent life" in Stem Cell research, while they speak almost flippantly of having to kill civilians to bring democracy to Iraq.

Tony Snow actually tells us that we cannot destroy life to save life. The president tells us every being matters but when speaking of Iraqi civilians, their loss of life is called "lamentable" and Bush guesses that 30,000 "precious lives (my words)" have been lost- "more or less."

In this wonderful piece Stewart speaks of those Iraqi lives being "sacredish", points out the embryonic stem cell research needed to give us IVF and challenges those wanting to move forward with stem cell research to rename it the "War on Terrorible Disease," stating that the embryos will stand down when the people stand up.

Once again the hypocrisy of us religious folk is culpable. We see very little worth in the lives of those caught in the cross hairs of Israel's indiscriminate killing of children while defending itself and think of Iraqi citizens as necessary losses in our War on Terror, justifying it by stretching scripture to fit our "worldview" instead of allowing ourselves to be challenged and changed by it.

We want to make sure unwanted embryos are not used for research, yet have no moral quandaries with the making those extra embryos, as long as we get the children we desire. We do not question the research which caused the "death" of embryos to give us IVF. We only call it murder when it is convenient to be on a morally higher ground (a ground that is no more slippery for the "left" than it is for the "right"). If Bush cared about this "murder" as he called it, he would attempt to outlaw it in the US, not just stop federal funding (he needs to save federal funds for less efficient means of death).

The researchers should be glad to find their finances in private sources instead of going to the inefficient well of government funding. Bush probably did research a favor by getting federal hands off of it while allowing it to continue unabated privately.

this blog is not a rant in favor for or against stem cell research. It is about the hypocrisy of this whole thing (in case it was not clear for you- or you missed something because you are against the taking of a life to save a life- when convenient for your argument)


Ryan Lee Sharp said...

Wow. That was spectacular.

Mike said...

amen and amen. what is sad is that it is Stewart and not evangelical leaders who are pointing out this hypocracy in the administration and in the church.

james said...

Thanks so much for posting this Rick. As you stated, we need to allow Scripture to challenge and change us instead of stretching it to fit our worldview. I think this is at the core of our hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

I guess the hypocrisy can go both ways. Theoretically, those who oppose war (and the saving of lives) should oppose the use of embryos for research (since it is "taking a life.") Of course, one's definition of "life" can make the whole thing rather fuzzy. Michael of TN

porthos said...

Sorry for jumping in late on this one...

From this end, it sounds like your rant is fueled by two things:

a) you don’t like Bush’s rhetoric
b) you don’t agree with the war

Maybe a) isn’t as much of an issue, but you seem to be upset that Bush wasn’t upset ENOUGH. Which really isn’t the issue here at all. It doesn’t matter if he said he didn’t care at all or if he was beside himself with guilt. The issue is whether or nor destroying embryos and civilian casualties are morally equal. I would say they aren’t, but that’s a different topic.

As for b), were the civilian casualties of WWII acceptable? What about those from the Revolutionary or Civil War? No war is going to happen without civilian deaths, so either it is morally acceptable or not. If you think civilian deaths in other wars are acceptable but these aren’t, I would venture to say it’s because you don’t believe this war is justified, not that civilian deaths are. Which is also another topic.

You obviously don’t support the war. Bush obviously does. His position seems hypocritical to you, but it certainly isn’t to him. You’re both operating under different standards. You could make the case that your standards are more “valid” or “true” then his, but you’re not.

I do agree with you that those who are opposed to embryo harvesting for stem cell research should look long and hard at their stance on fertilization methods. A viable embryo is a viable embryo—and should/shouldn’t be afforded the same rights and protections--no matter what you’re using it for.

Anonymous said...

I agree the hypocripsy is stunning... But I'm not against Stem Cell research, as I no longer believe we are human beings at conception.

Any chance I can get you to comment on my pragmatic prolife manifesto, pretty please?


porthos said...

If not at conception (the genetic creation of new life), then when do we become human?