Experimenters or Evildoers?

The news from the Obama administration late [Monday] did not surprise those of us who understand President Obama’s penchant for saying one thing while doing quite another behind the scenes—usually something dastardly. We still confront those supposed pro-lifers who claim that the president is “pro-life,” but the facts defy such arguments. [Monday's] announcement on human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) was but another nail in the coffin of respect for human dignity and the credibility of the president’s alleged “pro-lifeness.”

The Obama administration’s head honcho at the National Institutes of Health issued new rules regarding the use of human embryonic stem cells and couched the announcement in the most curious of words. The Associated Press report explains that the new rules stipulate that taxpayer-funded human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) can utilize “only science that uses cells culled from leftover fertility clinic embryos – ones that otherwise would be thrown away.” A second news report fills in the details, explaining that the new rules

allow funding for research using human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos that are created by in vitro fertilization, or IVF, for reproductive purposes and are no longer needed – a departure from the policy of the administration of Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.

The National Institutes of Health, or NIH, guidelines are slightly less restrictive than those outlined in a draft document released in April in that they allow the use of existing stem cell lines, in addition to new ones derived from IVF procedures.

The rules, the agency said, lay out which research is eligible for federal funding and help "ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy and conducted in accordance with applicable law.

There are two points to be made about the government’s new rules for ESCR.

The first is that the rules confirm, in black and white, that human beings who are created in a laboratory by in vitro fertilization are now considered mere products that, if “no longer needed,” “left over,” or destined to be “thrown away,” can also be destroyed in a laboratory. Nary a word has been heard from those who made this decision acknowledging that such research kills human beings, because they do not recognize the humanity of the human embryo.

The Obama administration is dedicated to making empty promises to suffering Americans—over the dead bodies of embryonic children created through technology. The fact that these human embryos are indeed human beings who have parents and have the right to be raised in the same way as other children has failed to make any impact on the new rules’ authors, including the president of the United States. Denial has overtaken reality.

Second, the new rules confirm the long-held fear many of us have had regarding the inherent wickedness of IVF. We have known for years that such practices would spawn the worst horrors ever imagined. The proof of that is now all too evident. With the help of our tax dollars, scientists will now be using human beings for research that will kill them. And America will witness such practices being permitted under guidelines touted as “ethically responsible,” but which are instead morally bankrupt and evil in every way.

However, this should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been watching and monitoring reproductive technology over the years. The science of reproductive technology is, after all, based on the idea that some human beings are not actually people, but rather are inferior or defective matter that must be rejected and/ or exploited in a variety of macabre ways.

Earlier this year, Margaret Somerville wrote an article about artificial reproduction in which she called IVF “conception through reproductive technologies.” The use of such language suggests that scientists are indeed a legitimate replacement for God Himself. Furthermore, the same sort of language frequently assuages the ethical qualms some couples have about IVF as they consider what to do about their diagnosed infertility.

While Somerville is arguing in defense of the rights of children who are conceived in the laboratory, she opines that “the state has ethical obligations, in particular, to ensure the protection and wellbeing of the future children who will result from those activities.” This is undoubtedly a pie-in-the-sky position, since IVF routinely produces “extra” children who are frozen, flushed down a drain or transferred somewhere else for research and experimentation. If the state viewed itself as having an ethical obligation to protect these children, we would never be discussing ESCR.

Not only that, but when news began to emerge suggesting that IVF itself entails genetic risks for human embryonic children and future generations, few paid any attention. As one article made clear,

some studies indicate that there may be some abnormal patterns of gene expression associated with IVF and a possible increase in rare but devastating genetic disorders that appear to be directly linked to those unusual gene expression patterns. There also appears to be an increased risk of premature birth and of babies with low birth weight for their gestational age.

Were the headlines then filled with warnings that prospective parents might want to take these concerns seriously and opt for adopting, instead of submitting to IVF procedures? No, of course not! There is no money in telling the truth, if that truth might result in less income for fertility labs. We learned this by paying attention to the studies and learning that when “OctoMom” came on the scene, one of the media’s findings was that  “fewer than 20 percent of U.S. clinics follow professional guidelines on how many embryos should be used for younger women.”

Forget about it. The facts do not surface when the technology is about money, regardless of whether or not that technology is murderous from its beginning to its end. The report about clinics being irresponsible and unregulated provoked David Gushee , writing in the Associated Baptist Press , to suggest that the in vitro fertilization industry was out of control. No kidding!

Gushee correctly stated that while Roman Catholic ethics flatly reject IVF or any type of “technological intervention in the procreative process,” Protestant ethics have been much less clear. But I would suggest to Gushee that while it is true that Catholic ethics are outstanding on the subject, Catholic people are, by and large, as unschooled on this as are our Protestant brothers and sisters. This is a large part of the reason why the Obama announcement will probably go by without a whisper from most pulpits in the nation—Catholic, Protestant or otherwise.

In fact, today I would venture to guess that human embryos who are created in a laboratory stand a very good chance of being subjected to quality testing techniques such as Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH),  or stored in a freezer until the embryonic child’s parents decide the kid is better off being used in research, or until the “extras” are shipped off without a word from Mom and Dad.

This all sounds grotesque, I know, but it is already happening every day in this country. The push to use human embryos for research and experimentation has been ongoing for some years now, and the only difference the Obama regulations are going to make is that the government will be paying attention to this scientific race against truth and funding it out of the surplus cash we have in the U.S. Treasury. Somehow, even though this nation is in debt up to its eyeballs, I am confident Obama and his cronies will find the money to do the killing and the experiments, and create the spin necessary for advancing the agenda of death.

God save us from what is in store.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU