People who argue against the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research are usually accused of holding a position grounded in the emotions of personal values, that human dignity based upon a Christian worldview is without any scientific merit and, therfore, suspect. The truth of the matter is that science is not opposed to Christianity, faith and reason are happy companions.
So when I read opinions like the one in today's Daily Herald, I yearn for the righteous philosophers who cannot stand in support of such fallacious argumentation, even if it flies in the face of their own views of ESCR.
It is often said that 2 wrongs don't make a right...and in this case a bad arguement doesn't correct an a bad perception. In "Church Immorality is Issue, Not Science," the writer is attempting to build a case for ESCR by pointing to the failures of the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with the writer that the church has serious issues to address, but it's a serious error to adopt church doctrine (I.e. An embrace of ESCR) because they have erred in another area.
The second argument the writer makes is appealing to her own illness as a way to somehow justify the killing of other people...yes, I am speaking of embryos. It is science that proves that from the moment of conception there is a new member of the human species that requires nothing more added to him or her to be more human. He/she has it's full genetic make-up and simply needs to be allowed to mature, not become something else. The is science which finds its basis within the Christian worldview, not an encyclopedic use of the Bible.
Appealing to one's own circumstance or situation is not a proper way for justifying certain moral positions. It may be the reason for beginning an investigation, but is not the source for knowing right and wrong.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T