What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Oderberg on bioethics

Natural law bioethicist David Oderberg reports on the state of "Bioethics Today" in The Human Life Review. Particularly timely given President Obama's latest abomination.

(Bonus article: Oderberg on "What's Wrong with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research?", also from The Human Life Review.)

Comments (23)

Wesley Smith reports that Obama also quietly reversed an order requiring funding for IPSC's and other promising alternatives to ESCR.

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/untold-story-radical-obama-also.html

So much for all that breast-beating about cures and illnesses. Sheer, undiluted liberal spite is far more important.

Obama did what we expected he'd do. What would have been nice, though, is not to see a certain kind of "Catholic" theologian coming to the rescue (from the Reuters article):

Catholic theologians have been debating how embryonic stem cell research can be made "less morally repugnant..."

Father Thomas J. Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center of Georgetown University, suggested several ways the Obama administration could find some middle ground.

Reese's suggestions include not creating embryos for the sole purpose of research but instead using only excess embryos produced at fertility clinics that are scheduled to be destroyed anyway.

I typed into google "whats wrong with the world" after sitting here watching documenteries (yeah I cant spell) on children dying of starvation and children in hospital of "failing" government systems. Most of what I have read on this site is nothing but judgement and negativity. I dont even know if I am typing my comment in the right area or if it will be read and quite frankly I dont care. Now onto what is on this site (she stands up on her soap box) Why cant the purpose of embreyos that would NEVER be born, for their purpose in life to be able to save lives? Why in modern times with so many influences, a woman cant choose to continue a pregnancy? In all aspects of life, God is with us, God guides us, no man can judge, with love in his heart. If you have god in your heart you dont judge, you shine love on people and if everyone who claimed to do good intentions in mind what wonderful world this would be instead of wondering what people are judghing them and judging others. I say this in honesty and love. There is no browny points with god and just do what is honest and kind. It makes you feel good to just love love and that energy shines on the world, as god does to us. Its no ones job to judge , just love, understand from a differnet point of view and smile. You might learn something and thats what life is all about. I would like to thank my lovely 8 x Tooheys New beers in Australia and God for my insight and knowledge at this time and big hugs to the people who obviously just need a good shag.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kim,

So we are to shower the world with love and no judgement, except of course your own judgement that this site is judgemental and negative.

It is a lovely idea that embryos that would never be born were purposed to help us. But why are they NEVER going to be born? Because we already intend to kill them. So if I already intend to destroy another human being I can redefine their "purpose" and then exploit them as a natural resource? That is peculiar logic you are operating on and I do not think you will ulitmately like where it leads. It certainly is not rooted in love.

So we are to shower the world with love and no judgement, except of course your own judgement that this site is judgemental and negative.

Stop muddying the waters with logic Jay. :)

Kim, say what you'd like about John Lennon as a songwriter, but I find "Imagine" somewhat lacking as a prescription for the salvation and/or restoration of culture.


Well Looks like I just added another judgmental comment to go with all the others. I am in the right place.

The embreyos are cells. If god all powerful didnt want it to happen it wouldnt happen.

You look someone in the eyes, who very much is already alive, and tell them you dont want to help them because you personally dont like cells being played with.

I hope you are a vegan, god forbid you are eating one of gods creatures and something that was raised to be killed and using it as a natural resource.

Science will help us all, if you were faced with a treatment to save your own life, or a loved one, would you refuse if it derived from knowledge of stem cell research?

Where did I mention John Lennon?

If god all powerful didnt want it to happen it wouldnt happen.

If God does not want something to happen, then it will not happen. The Holocaust happened. Therefore, God wanted the Holocaust to happen. Therefore, the Holocaust was justified. Does that about sum up your argument?

You look someone in the eyes, who very much is already alive, and tell them you dont want to help them because you personally dont like cells being played with.

Fallacy of begging the question. Of course I would not say that. I would look into the eyes of someone "who very much is already alive" and tell them "I cannot murder or formally cooperate with the murder of another human being".

I hope you are a vegan, god forbid you are eating one of gods creatures and something that was raised to be killed and using it as a natural resource.

Red herring.

Science will help us all, if you were faced with a treatment to save your own life, or a loved one, would you refuse if it derived from knowledge of stem cell research?

Science does not help anyone or do anything. Science is how human beings discover and reason about things. In other words, people do things and there are certain things which are illicit for people to do, such as murder the innocent.

You also make the mistake of confusing what one would do, with what one should do. I certainly do not believe that my actions are synonymous with right actions. If they were, I would be morally perfect.

Well you tell me why god lets things happen. Heavy comments, now we are onto the haulacaust? Dont twist my opinion. No the haulicaust was not justified. Do you think so, that is coming from you not me.

You only eat red herrings?

Science does not help anyone or do anyhting....pffft, as he types away on his computer. Go live in a cave.

Would it be classed as murder for not doing reserach to save lives?

I am not clear on if you would take treatment derived from stem cell research.

You need a hug.

Science does not help anyone or do anyhting....pffft, as he types away on his computer. Go live in a cave.

Your implied inference is "if you are doing science, then it is not immoral". The point I was making is that you are abstracting out the scientist from the science. People help people and obviously you do not help the people you murder. When people do science, as when they do any other type of activity, these people are subject to certain moral rules. For example, was the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment justified because it was a scientific experiment? You are making a similar error that many people make regarding war. They claim "morality does not apply in war" as you claim "morality does not apply in science". Morality does not break down in either war or science.

Would it be classed as murder for not doing reserach to save lives?

No.

...and big hugs to the people who obviously just need a good shag.

I see the problem. She thinks sex can save the world.

"Where did I mention John Lennon?"

You didn't. But your initial post reads like it's based more on "Imagine" than on reality.

"Science will help us all, if you were faced with a treatment to save your own life, or a loved one, would you refuse if it derived from knowledge of stem cell research?"


Along with Kim's drivel, there was a question worth discussing. Someone take a crack at it. How bout you Zippy?

"...would you refuse if it derived from knowledge of stem cell research?"
The question is similar to the question of whether one ought to use vaccines derived from aborted fetuses. In fact the latter is a more pertinent question, since vaccines derived from aborted fetuses actually exist, and ESCR-derived cures do not.

This treatment of that issue is pretty good.

...was the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment justified because it was a scientific experiment?
Our own Steve Burton recently made a contribution to the public discussion of that question.

Is 'Kim' for real? Or is she one of the regulars putting us on?

Yes I am real. Just because I have a different opnion doesnt mean it is "drivel". I will take on board other peoples views and I do try to see both sides.

To Kurt, all I read is blah,blah,blah. Its your interpretation of what is my opinion, what you type isnt my words.

And still everyone is dancing around my question with references to diferrent issues and "she thinks sex can save he world".

No I dont think that sex can save the world. Another comment twisted and overplayed.

Well I am bored with this now. I will leave you to ride your moral high horses, I intend to gallop mine around too. Try and be open even if someone has a different opinion doesnt mean they are wrong or you are wrong or either of us is right.

Peace out, "all we need is love", oh yeah, hippy hippy shake shake.

Our own Steve Burton recently made a contribution to the public discussion of that question.

Thanks for that. I guess the myth comes from the fact that liberals see Nazis behind every bush. Justified or not, I believe you will agree with me that it was not justified because it was scientific.

The general claim I was combating is the belief that morality does not apply to science. This claim is implied any time I hear liberals say opposition to stem cell research is anti-science, opposition to human cloning is anti-science or opposition to "designer babies" is anti-science. The belief appears to be that there is little distinction between the physically possible and morally possible.

Justified or not, I believe you will agree with me that it was not justified because it was scientific.
Absolutely! I agree with you completely on your central point. I was just linking to Steve's article because Tuskegee came up as an example of unethical science, when it is not really clear that it was unethical science.

"The question is similar to the question of whether one ought to use vaccines derived from aborted fetuses. In fact the latter is a more pertinent question, since vaccines derived from aborted fetuses actually exist, and ESCR-derived cures do not.

This treatment of that issue is pretty good."

The summary of the article that Zippy linked is as follows:
(referring to the use of vaccines from aborted fetuses)

(Use of the subject vaccines is) passive material cooperation, albeit mildly and remotely active, but morally justified due to necessity.

If I understood what the heck that means, I'm not sure that I would agree with it.


I will leave you to ride your moral high horses

Reminds me of Iron Maiden: Ruunn to the hiiiiiiillllls!

Absolutely! I agree with you completely on your central point. I was just linking to Steve's article because Tuskegee came up as an example of unethical science, when it is not really clear that it was unethical science

Gotcha.

The summary of the article that Zippy linked is as follows: ...

Well, that is a summary of what is possible given that all of the discussed criteria are met. That is, it is not just automatically licit to use those vaccines, full stop. It can be licit, according to the article, when all the various filters are passed.

But the main value of the article is its discussion more than its conclusion.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.