Life is on the line

I am terrified to be living in a country that is morally indistinguishable from Nazi Germany in regards to eugenics. The state should not, and does not, have the authority to determine Lebensunwertes Leben: life unworthy of life.

Here is what Al Mohler has to say:

President Barack Obama today signed an executive order that reverses the Bush administration's restrictions on federal funding for research that involves the destruction of human embryos. In a White House ceremony, President Obama said that Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided.”

President Obama spoke to the moral issues involved when he stated: “Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.”

But the President clearly does not share these concerns, and it is unclear what he means by respecting the point of view of those who rightly understand the issue as tax-supported homicide

President Obama is now personally responsible for research that will involve the intentional destruction of human embryos. This comes even as the ideological roots of this conflict have become increasingly clear. Credible alternatives to research that would require the destruction of human embryos have become available, even as the most promising avenues of medical research are now using adult stem cells, which avoids the moral issues involved in the use of human embryos.

The scientific community increasingly appears to have drawn a line in the sand on this issue. The insistence that embryos must be destroyed is a matter of ideology. Some researchers seem to resist any alternative source of stem cells, no matter how great its potential.

One of his most influential scientific advisors, Harold Varmus, told The Washington Post, "This is consistent with the president's determination to use sound scientific practice, responsible practice of science and evidence, instead of dogma in developing federal policy."

When human embryos are destroyed in the name of medical advancement, we make a deal with the Culture of Death and sacrifice embryonic human beings for the hope of medical advances. We all hope and pray for those advances, and for treatments to cure or treat intractable diseases. But there are valid alternatives to the use of human embryos.

The vulnerable human embryo is now at greater risk than ever before. And this, inevitably, means that every single human life is devalued by this decision.

President Obama said that Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential...”

I'm sure there is a "consensus" somewhere slightly greater than or equal to 50%, but that argument is entirely irrelevant.

Even if 99% of America supported destroying embryos it would still be unethical, which is the only standard that matters. We know Biblically when life begins, but more important to the political issue at hand, we know scientifically that there is no difference genetically or biologically between a single cell embryo and a 100-year-old man; they are just at different stages of development.

They distract people by talking about the potential for medical cures and they excuse it by saying these are leftovers doomed for freezers or destruction anyway, so we might as well squeeze out anything we can.

The bottom line is that 100% approval and guaranteed medical breakthroughs would do nothing to change the fact that it is murdering humans who have committed no crimes and cannot defend themselves.