In Vitro Clinics Are Death Camps
In a July 7 op-ed column in the Washington Post, Michael Kinsley (who is pro-abortion) said, "if embryos are human beings with full human rights, fertility clinics are death camps -- with a side order of cold-blooded eugenics" (as reported on LifeSiteNews.com, July 21).
Fertility clinics are where embryonic stem cells come from (as well as from cloning). Kinsley says: "Fertility clinics try to produce more embryos than they intend to implant. Then...they pick and choose among the candidates, looking for qualities that make for a better human being.... If the fertility clinic rejects you, you get flushed away -- or maybe frozen until the day you can be discarded without controversy." He says, "And yet no one objects, or objects very loudly." From this he infers that prolifers are inconsistent. Maybe. Maybe not. Judie Brown, President of the American Life League, says, "The pro-life movement needs to address the evils of in vitro fertilization with the same diligence with which we denounce all other forms of abortion." The Magisterium condemns in vitro fertilization.
According to LifeSiteNews.com (Sept. 9, 2005), 6.7 million embryonic children have died, and the number is growing.
Embryonic children are destroyed or they are frozen. Of the frozen, only a minuscule number have been adopted. So, the argument goes, why not use frozen embryonic stem cells for curing Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other illnesses? This could be construed as prolife.
You have two options:
Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
Single article purchase:
Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.
If you're already a subscriber log-in here.
New Oxford Notes: October 2006
|Read our posting policy
||Add a comment
|Embryonic stem cell research advocates keep using that "they are going to be destroyed anyway" argument to defend destructive experimentation on humans. What nobody says is that if ESCR ever produces a cure, clones will have to be created for each patient to be treated. Otherwise the patient would reject the cells. There cannot be ESCR without cloning!
||Posted by: jrcarbon
October 02, 2006 10:31 AM EDT
|"mbryonic children are destroyed or they are frozen. Of the frozen, only a minuscule number have been adopted. So, the argument goes, why not use frozen embryonic stem cells for curing Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other illnesses? This could be construed as prolife.
The dilemma as of now is: Are embryonic children to be destroyed (that's murder) or are they to be given over to medical research (that's also murder)? Only a tiny number of people will adopt them. However long it takes, we should wait for embryonic children to be adopted."
There is a serious error here, which is evident if we apply the arguments to an adult who will die without extraordinary measures.
Can this adult be used for medical experimentation which will cause his death? NO. That is murder. Murder is never pro-life.
What about thawing and not transferring to a womb?
On the other hand, if we disconnect him from the heart-lung machines it is not murder, we are allowed to forgo "extraordinary" means and let him pass. The same is the situation of the frozen embryo, they are on life support, if we let them die by thawing we are simply foregoing "extraordinary" means (surely it is reasonable to conclude manual implantation to be an extraordinary treatment). In this instance, it's the creation of the embryo which is morally illicit and carries the guilt for the eventual death.
|Posted by: mightyduk
October 02, 2006 12:31 PM EDT
|Michael Kinsley and the Washington Post are unapologetically pro-abortion, and pro-death in terms of destroying embryos for research. There is no objectivity or presentation of facts--let alone the Natural Order and God's Laws--when it comes to these issues and other "culture of life" issues. The W. Post is a propagandist for the children of darkness, and Kinsley is a fellow traveler, in darkness.
||Posted by: Chapman
October 02, 2006 04:46 PM EDT
|Add a comment
A bishop who was rejected for years by his priests has been allowed to resign. The Pope had previously threatened the priests with
suspension after their initial protest.
IS claims responsibility for an attack that killed five at an Orthodox church in the Caucasus region.
Archbishop Ndagoso says the number of seminarians and the overall Christian population have grown significantly amid on-going Islamist attacks.
State authorities force Christian parents to give up legal custody of their daughter after opposing her decision to transition to 'male.'
Two major newspapers are forced to withdraw a false story about the pro-abortion attitudes of Irish doctors.
One of two bishops at the center of a dispute over the Sino-Vatican agreement has reportedly promised to step down and make way
for a bishop appointed by Beijing.
more news links...