*UPDATE: Timothy P. Collins asks, “Why does President Obama object to human cloning?” You know, that’s a really, REALLY good question, Dr. Collins.
Plus, they’re making it up as they go along again in the UK, led once again by green advisor Jonathan Porritt. Speaking at the Optimum Population Trust’s annual conference, he warned that Britain must cut its population size in half in order to build a “sustainable society.” Just how does one do that, Mr. Porritt? Remember that this secular progressive society is exactly what people like our Dear Leader have in mind for our own country. Make no mistake, we’re following in the UK’s footsteps. (Optimum Population Trust?) Rick Moran writes:
This is beyond insidious. In order to achieve a 50% reduction in population, Great Britain would have to mandate family size and even take control of family planning completely, making the decisions regarding which parents will be able to have children and which won’t.
Something that has been on my brain the most as of late has been the re-opening of federal funding for ESCR. (One of many anti-life Obama actions.) I and many others have been busy emailing our university regents, asking that they not receive funding for such an unethical practice. And we’ve gotten varying responses. Our particular regent, a Mr. Kent Schroeder, seems unable to formulate a logical, thought-out response, and so resorts to snotty one-liners or questions. Mr. Schroeder might take heed and recall that he is, after all, someone elected to his position, and it is his responsibility to be open enough to listen to the input of those who put him there. He might never listen or change his opinion, but I think that someone in his position should at least have the grace to respond in a non-adolescent way.
The ESCR argument is, at heart, the abortion argument. I think that people who are pro-abortion realize that if we collectively deem research on human embryos as wrong, then abortion can never be right, either. Back to one of the responses, this one from Regent Hassebrook: Although he at least tried to be civil, his thought process was lacking logic. At one point, he pointed to the fact that IVF clinics are essentially doing the same thing, and they’re not getting in trouble, so why villify ESCR? Now, that might be considered a “zinger” for some people, mainly Protestants or others who might not object to IVF, but for Catholics, it proves nothing. The Catholic Church has remained firm (the only church to do so) in its objections to IVF, contraception, and abortion. All Protestant churches were against these three things in the early to mid 20th century. Only the Catholic Church has stood firm until today. So, for us, Mr. Hassebrook has made the mistake of trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, and he scored no points.
I realize that some of you might cringe to read this, but know that I’m saying it in total love: The pro-life Protestant who calls himself “pro-life” but sees no problem with contraception or IVF has simply not thought it through. (This is 1000+ blog posts in itself.)
Anyway, I thought that Fr. Andrews’ response to Mr. Hassebrook did a really good job going beyond the arguments that only skim the surface of the issue, and addresses the more basic, foundational problem with ESCR (and by extension, abortion, etc…) With permission granted, here is his response:
I appreciate your response. Yes, I understand that there are different positions on this issue. There are different positions on almost every issue. However, that doesn’t mean that it is impossible to find and then agree on the truth of an issue. Conscience must be informed by truth or else we are prone fall into moral relativism.
Now, isn’t it true that every social/moral dilemma that we face in the world today boils down to one thing: Truth. Many in our time have fallen under the impression that there is no objective truth, no right or wrong, no principle or standard by which to measure anything. This is called relativism, and moral relativism is now running rampant. People must realize that if there is no standard, no such thing as “truth”, then anything is permissible. And we all would like to say, “Well, X could never happen because we as a society are evolved enough to never let it happen,” but we would be wrong. We are “evolved” enough to elect a man to office who voted four times to deny basic medical care to infants born alive after failed abortions. We are now “evolved” enough to allow abortionists to dismember babies in the womb. There are countless examples of our collective “superiority.” We will continue to rationalize horrific practices as long as we collectively accept that there is not objective truth.