Disenchanted

The most difficult thing, for me, about the recent change in regulations regarding embryonic stem cell research is the public reaction.

If you check out the comments on various media stories that came out yesterday, they're overwhelmingly along the lines of "Finally! Now science can move forward!"

NY Times

CNN

Washington Post

It very much disturbs me that most people don't even see how this could possibly be a problem, how it could be anything but a good thing.

I never thought I'd see the day when I wouldn't want science to move forward, but when scientific progress becomes synonymous with "killing innocents," I become very skeptical about science.

All of the sudden (or maybe not so suddenly. . .) human beings are viewed as tools, as a means to an end rather than goods in themselves.

And don't try to tell me they're not human. If they're not human, let's just sidestep the ethical quandary by using guinea pig embryos, why don't we? Try to object to that without insisting that the embryos have to be human for stem-cell research to work.

Necessarily lethal medical experimentation on subjects who can't consent. People as a means to an end. Killing the innocent. Who thinks this is okay?

Obama's Remarks on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In which we learn that the best way to "restore scientific integrity to government decision making" is to allow government funding of medical research on subjects who lack the ability to consent.

As if we weren't already 3/4 of the way down the slippery slope

Even the NY Times can see that government funding of embryonic stem-cell research will lead to the wanton creation and destruction of human life at the whims of mere mortals:

Obama is Leaving Some Stem Cell Issues to Congress

If you're going to claim that creating, experimenting on, and destroying embryos is "controversial and fraught with ethical implications," how can you not realize that the destruction of embryos for stem cells for research, is, you know, "controversial and fraught with ethical implications"? (Not to mention just plain wrong.)

Anti-War Protests at Church

An article from my home-town paper about a group who's protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by showing up at churches on Sunday morning, during services, and holding banners - not outside, but inside the church - with anti-war messages.

Anti-war protesters take cause to churches

I have nothing against anti-war protests - I might even agree with them; the war's one of those issues where I'm not sure where I stand - but this is absurd, not to mention rude. They say they've "visited" Protestant, Catholic, and Unitarian churches, but no synagogues or African-American churches.

I wonder how either of my churches would react if something similar happened. I think the ideal would be to ignore them completely, having them quietly escorted out if there are ushers available, but I can't help but assume that they would cause a major distraction, pull everyone's focus away from the Mass, and make it hard to regain concentration, even after they'd left.

Here's a blog post, from the newspaper's religion blog, discussing whether their tactics are even legal.