E. Christian Brugger, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Ethics. Culture of Life Foundation
Because of that irritating and self-reasserting problem of natural human equality, eugenicists always feel obliged to explain why the unlucky victims of their initiatives are unfit for the protections they themselves enjoy. Karen Lebacqz, for example, is happy to affirm the intrinsic value of the embryo, a value, she says, that is not dependent on utilitarian calculations: "respect sees a value in itself beyond usefulness." Nevertheless, because that value is inferior to fully human value, "such an entity can be used in research and can even be killed. To do so is not in itself disrespectful".
Date posted: 2009-10-10
Speaking about laws that legalize abortion, Pope John Paul II states flatly in Evangelium Vitae that "there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection". It is clear from the context in the encyclical that "oppose them by conscientious objection" refers to laws that require one wrongfully to cooperate in doing evil. In such a case one has a "clear obligation" to refuse, even when one's refusal threatens considerable sacrifice. For example, doctors, nurses, and medical students have an obligation to refuse to participate in performing abortions or abortion training. When following a human law means violating God's law, we are not only justified but have a duty to refuse to follow the law - as St. Peter proclaims before the Sanhedrin, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
Date posted: 2009-09-04
As now is widely known, Pope Benedict XVI recently issued his third Encyclical, entitled Caritas in Veritate Most of us are familiar with pope's issuing encyclicals. But some of us might not be clear on what precisely an encyclical is. In this blast I would like to explain briefly some pertinent points about the nature and issuing of papal encyclicals.
Date posted: 2009-07-31
The differences between the eugenicists of Gattaca's world and the increasing number of eugenicists in our own are less than you might think. The 'benevolent' motives are similar: to eliminate illness, heal suffering, and satisfy the desires of parents. The means both use are alike: the commodification of human beings and the elimination of the weak. And the moral sentiments built up are identical: an intolerance with the imperfections of human nature and impatience with all limitations on the liberty to manipulate nascent human life.
Date posted: 2009-07-31
Even those minimally familiar with the stem cell debate are aware of the vast disparity that presently exists between the clinical usefulness of human adult stem cells (hASCs) and embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Not only have hESCs, despite billions of dollars spent, not given rise to a single clinical success (none, zero); but until recently, there had not even been a single clinical trial using hESCs accepted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This illustrates the concern of that regulatory body and the wider field for the serious problems associated with hESC therapies, the most serious of which is tumor formation.
Date posted: 2009-06-09
Successful human cloning has been actively pursued for nearly ten years. But the interest in clones has not been to bring to birth a live baby. Cloned embryos have been (and are) desired for their stem cells, which, being genetically identical to the somatic cell donor, would be of considerable clinical value to him or her. Research teams going back to 2001 have claimed they've successfully created early cloned embryos, although it was not till 2008 that credible evidence was published supporting the claim. The grave moral problem with this type of so-called 'therapeutic' cloning is, of course, that the little cloned embryos - which are fully human - are created to be killed for their stem cells.
Date posted: 2009-05-07