August 26, 2010--Playing God
Earlier this week, a federal judge appointed to the bench in 1987 by Ronald Reagan, who was already manifesting signs of Alzheimer's, halted Barack Obama's executive order that expanded the very kind of embryonic stem cell research that has shown signs of leading to treatments for the same illness that eventually claimed the life of the former president.
It was a technically-based decision as so many are that obscure what they are really about. Especially when the rulings are rooted more in religion and ideology than a strict interpretation of the Constitution. (See New York Times article linked below.)
Among others pressing the suit was the agency Nightlight Christian Adoptions whose executive director, Ron Stoddart, after the ruling said, "We do not want to see stem cell research that would destroy embryos. Embryos are preborn human life that should be protected and not destroyed." (My italics.)
This is complicated stuff. For example, issues of defining when life begins and, assuming a conservative religious perspective, what is appropriate for man ("man" here used advisedly) to do when it comes to matters of life and death. What are appropriate interventions at conception, during pregnancy, at birth, and then at the end of life. And, of course, all along the way.
There is scant little in the Bible about any of these matters and so it has been up to man to claim to know what the Bible means when it comes to modern science and medicine. And then to attribute it retrospectively to a literal reading of the Old and New Testaments. This exegetical sleight of hand is what fundamentalists routinely do.
If after conception, in a women's body or a Petri dish, even before there is an embryo but just a handful of differentiating cells, it is forbidden for man to in any way intervene in the process of the preborn becoming a fetus and then being born--in effect to not interfere with God's plan for this new soul--why is it subsequently permitted to interfere with a human's God-determined destiny by allowing medical treatment? There is no mention of diagnoses and medicines and surgeries in the Bible and yet, unless one is a Christian Scientist, these post-biblical procedures are routinely and unquestionably accepted.
I would have more respect for the Ron Stoddarts of the world if they would be as vigorous in attacking all of modern science and medicine as they are fervent about protecting the so-called rights of the pre- and unborn.
To me a fully literal interpretation of the Bible would require man to face the elements unaccomodated (as Shakespeare in Lear put it) and confront his destiny undiagnosed and unmedicated.
But then what would poor Ron do about his painful gallstones?
It was a technically-based decision as so many are that obscure what they are really about. Especially when the rulings are rooted more in religion and ideology than a strict interpretation of the Constitution. (See New York Times article linked below.)
Among others pressing the suit was the agency Nightlight Christian Adoptions whose executive director, Ron Stoddart, after the ruling said, "We do not want to see stem cell research that would destroy embryos. Embryos are preborn human life that should be protected and not destroyed." (My italics.)
This is complicated stuff. For example, issues of defining when life begins and, assuming a conservative religious perspective, what is appropriate for man ("man" here used advisedly) to do when it comes to matters of life and death. What are appropriate interventions at conception, during pregnancy, at birth, and then at the end of life. And, of course, all along the way.
There is scant little in the Bible about any of these matters and so it has been up to man to claim to know what the Bible means when it comes to modern science and medicine. And then to attribute it retrospectively to a literal reading of the Old and New Testaments. This exegetical sleight of hand is what fundamentalists routinely do.
If after conception, in a women's body or a Petri dish, even before there is an embryo but just a handful of differentiating cells, it is forbidden for man to in any way intervene in the process of the preborn becoming a fetus and then being born--in effect to not interfere with God's plan for this new soul--why is it subsequently permitted to interfere with a human's God-determined destiny by allowing medical treatment? There is no mention of diagnoses and medicines and surgeries in the Bible and yet, unless one is a Christian Scientist, these post-biblical procedures are routinely and unquestionably accepted.
I would have more respect for the Ron Stoddarts of the world if they would be as vigorous in attacking all of modern science and medicine as they are fervent about protecting the so-called rights of the pre- and unborn.
To me a fully literal interpretation of the Bible would require man to face the elements unaccomodated (as Shakespeare in Lear put it) and confront his destiny undiagnosed and unmedicated.
But then what would poor Ron do about his painful gallstones?
posted by Steven Zwerling at
4:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home