Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The New Obama Nation

Obama Overturns Bush Policy on Stem Cells

WASHINGTON – Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be "distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."

Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Let's read that statement again from Obama shall we... ..."It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Shall we let scientist have a free reign on doing whatever they want "free from manipulation or coercion"? ..."even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient"?

If this is the mind of Obama then nothing is off limits is it?

How about these things for scientific study free from manipulation or coercion:

*Once a baby is aborted, science will harvest the organs and limbs to do research.
*Mentally ill people will be subject to 'life enhancement' research and testing.
*The elderly will be subject to 'life longevity' research and testing.
*Random selecting of individuals will begin this year for frontal lobotomy research.
*All new drugs will no longer be tested on animals but from random human population drawings.
*To better understand cancer cells, science will now start injecting cancerous cells into healthy babies drawn randomly.

In doing these things, we can assure the people that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we are making scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

Romans 1:18-23

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.


8 comments:

Joseph A. said...

One can argue about the negative aspects of retarding the progress of science, but ultimately it's advancements in the name of science in its various aspects that have brought forth the most destructive forces threatening mankind today.

Man should tread lightly toward what he knows not fully, and when he seeks to improve the quality of life for his fellow man, pursuing such should not in effect worsen the quality of the human life of another.

I don't state this as an acknowledgement of the "equality" of man but rather of his inalienable rights that are to be secured by the instituted government.

Speaking of government, Pat Buchanan's pitchfork-readiness campaign sounds fetching.

Quasar said...

Hello Wayne. A few quick questions, if you don't mind:

Do you have any reason for believing that the new American president has any intention of allowing such clearly immoral things to happen, besides the obvious reason of political bias due to percieved ideological dissimilarities?

Do you have any reason for cutting out ", and listening to what they tell us," when you quote him in blue besides the obvious of reading a meaning into his statement which clearly isn't there?

Finally, do you have anything to say about stem cell research, or were you merely using the overthrow of a quite frankly rather stupid scientific policy as an excuse to attack the President of the United States?

Steve Martin said...

I like what Cal Thomas has to say on the subject, as well:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas031209.php3

Wayne Dawg said...

Quasar -

Hello!

"Do you have any reason for believing that the new American president has any intention of allowing such clearly immoral things to happen, besides the obvious reason of political bias due to percieved ideological dissimilarities?"

Why not? Why do you call them clearly immoral? Are they? How do you know they are?

Is it immoral to kill babies in the womb at any time during a pregnancy?

Is it immoral to deliver a baby all the way except for the head and stick scissors in the base of the brain, suck out the brain and then deliver a dead baby?

If it is Ok to kill the young in the womb, why stop there? Take the organs of the child and use them....why not, it's already dead...is that immoral?

Those statements are something called hyperbole...exaggerated statements to show how immoral this president really is.

"Finally, do you have anything to say about stem cell research, or were you merely using the overthrow of a quite frankly rather stupid scientific policy as an excuse to attack the President of the United States?"

Yes, I'm against destroying life...at any stage of development.

Joseph A. said...

Everything mentioned would seem to be a possibility other than cancerous-cell injections under the Obama administration, Quasar. They just won't have time to enact such things utterly, but they'll certainly have time to step the U.S. toward those directions at least, unless Obama tries to pull a Putin, which I doubt.

Quasar said...

Hi again Wayne! :)

Why not? Why do you call them clearly immoral? Are they? How do you know they are?

They go against the natural emotional responses of empathy and sympathy. Since all humans have these, and there are very few sociological pressures which are strong enough to circumvent them, anything which goes against them will be considered immoral by the vast majority of humanity, including myself.

Is it immoral to kill babies in the womb at any time during a pregnancy?

Yes. However, this very much depends on the definition of the word "baby." I do not consider a small collection cells with no discernable difference from any other collection of human cells to be a "baby."

Is it immoral to deliver a baby all the way except for the head and stick scissors in the base of the brain, suck out the brain and then deliver a dead baby?

Yes. Such a thing is repulsive to any emotionally developed human-being.

If it is Ok to kill the young in the womb, why stop there? Take the organs of the child and use them....why not, it's already dead...is that immoral?

At the point where abortions are generally done, the foetus has no organs. By the stage that a foetus develops vital organs, I would consider it immoral to kill it.

Those statements are something called hyperbole...exaggerated statements to show how immoral this president really is.

The problem is, your descriptions do not come across as hyperbole. They come across as descriptions of acts you believe that the man has an intention or motive to commit. I respect that you didn't mean them that way, but that is how they come across.

In general, hyperbole is used as emphasis in the same sentence: an example would be "Barack Obama is as immoral as Satan." I'm sure you can respect that listing various immoral actions as bullet points comes across very differently. As Joseph A demonstrated one post above this, it can very easily be taken literally.

Yes, I'm against destroying life...at any stage of development.

Rather than adopting the usual response, (i.e. Should sperms and eggs be protected? Should contraception be banned?), I would prefer to say this: the human embyonic cells used for stem cell research are old invetro embryo's that are no longer viable and would otherwise be disposed of. It seems to me that what you oppose is not stem cell research, (which is an important form of medical research which may yield extremely valuble results), but is invetro fertilisation.

More importantly, it seems that this research has nothing to do with abortion.

Joseph wrote:
Everything mentioned would seem to be a possibility other than cancerous-cell injections under the Obama administration, Quasar.

I must thank you for confirming that Waynes use of hyperbole can be misinterpreted quite easily.

However, I must also say this: Obama's is a moderate-conservative christian in comparison to the rest of the world. I am not aware of anywhere, even in countries thousands of times more 'liberal' than the Obama-administration (that's hyperbole ;-) ), where the actions Wayne listed are taken.

Wayne Dawg said...

Hey Quasar!

"They go against the natural emotional responses of empathy and sympathy."

Well, when has that ever stopped a group of people from getting their way?

"However, this very much depends on the definition of the word "baby." I do not consider a small collection cells with no discernable difference from any other collection of human cells to be a "baby.""

Ok - how about 'human'? Should we kill a human at any stage of development?

"The problem is, your descriptions do not come across as hyperbole. They come across as descriptions of acts you believe that the man has an intention or motive to commit. I respect that you didn't mean them that way, but that is how they come across."

They can be both; hyperbole and acts that man has an intention to commit....why not?

"I would prefer to say this: the human embyonic cells used for stem cell research are old invetro embryo's that are no longer viable and would otherwise be disposed of. It seems to me that what you oppose is not stem cell research, (which is an important form of medical research which may yield extremely valuble results), but is invetro fertilisation."

What I oppose is the destruction of human life any any stage of development.

That's it, really, plain and simple.

Quasar said...

Hi again Wayne! :)

Qu
They go against the natural emotional responses of empathy and sympathy.
Wayne
Well, when has that ever stopped a group of people from getting their way?

Pretty much always, in my experience. If a single person, attempts to commit an evil act ("evil" being defined as something that goes against empathy and sympathy), then almost all people will attempt to stop them and ensure that they are punished (empathy at work: doing you would want others to do for you). In the same way, if a single group, even a group with authority, attempts to commit evil acts, almost all other groups will attempt to stop them.

Society combines together to prevent evil acts from happening, because a society which allows evil acts to happen with no consequence has no prospects for survival: it would descend into anarchy.

Wayne
Ok - how about 'human'? Should we kill a human at any stage of development?

Again, it really depends on what you define to be "human." The callouses on the soles of my feet were once 100% living human cells: by walking on them, I murdered them. And now I'm using their corpses to protect the soles of my feet. Kinda gross when you think about it...

Wayne
They can be both; hyperbole and acts that man has an intention to commit....why not?

Well, hyperbole is an exaggeration of what is intended. If he actually intends to do it, then it's not an exaggeration, is it?

Wayne
What I oppose is the destruction of human life any any stage of development.

That's it, really, plain and simple.


Which really is the heart of the whole abortion issue: "How do you define human life?" Personally, I believe that a single sperm and egg cell are not human life, any more than the cells on the soles of my feet are human life. Slowly, as those cells multiply over and over, they become human life.

Drawing a line at any point in between is impossible.

Honestly, I don't approve of abortion at any stage of development, but there are times when it is a necessary evil, and the stage of pregnancy should absolutely be taken into account when determining whether or not this is the case.

Where do you draw the line? In what situation, and at what stage of development, would it be necessary to abort a fetus?

In my case, whether or not the fetus's brain registers external stimuli (i.e. has it developed senses?) plays a big part.