Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Note: The other day we wrote about selective sex abortions. We received a criticism that, while abortion is abhorrent, why not use the stem cells of the aborted for research anyway, and they are already aborted? This is our response. -Charles Martin Cosgriff

The trouble with allowing research with the stem cells of aborted babies when and where abortion is legal is that it allows us to profit from the abortion industry. Any profit from any immorality must itself be seen as immoral, as the 'good' (so to speak) is coming from a bad (abortion).

Good coming from bad: well, first, true good cannot come from bad. It must be tainted if it came from an evil, and as such must be itself bad. But more, a presumed good created in a bad manner must in fact alter the intended good. It must affect that good somehow and, quite frankly, make it bad.

If for example we allow such stem cell research and it saves lives or allows for physical gain (being able to walk for a paraplegic, for instance), what might those saved lives and repaired bodies think? That they were saved by a miracle? Or will they consider, even for a moment, that they were saved through the death of others? Will they in fact have greater respect for human life, or less? Will they think for a moment that they live or walk by Divine inspiration, or by mere human will?

My guess is by human will. They will forget that human will in such areas has led to the attitudes of Adolf Hitler more quickly and readily than the actions of Mother Teresa have led to positive action for the true good of humanity. They will forget that selfishness and indulgence tend to mean more to the individual than to the greater humanity. And they won't consider for a moment that perhaps they might be the selfish ones.

Somehow that doesn't sound like a recipe for a better world. Yet every brick on the road to Hell bears that selfish imprimatur.

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens, the self proclaimed antitheist, has died of cancer. Outspoken and prolific, he never spared anyone his thoughts, to the point of attacking Mother Teresa on the grounds her work encouraged rather than assuaged poverty. What do you do about a man like that on the news of his death?

Exactly what Mother Teresa's own Missionaries of Charity announced from India that they would do. You pray for him.

It doesn't matter whether he or his family would want it. We, as Christians, have to presume that he and they need it, and that it will help Hitchens and his family and friends. There is no other charitable and loving option.

We do not mull over his writings. There is always the temptation to do that after the passing of such a admittedly colorful personage, but what he said as he lived here no matter how we might not care for it doesn't matter today. A human being has left us: a human being who needs us more now that he may have ever imagined.

What he said and did has been and will be debated for a very long time. But the time now is to pause, put our heads on straight, and be right by his soul. The same God who created us created him, and we cannot disparage God's creation at such important points in their lives as when they are moving onto the next stage.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual life shine upon him. We must say it, pray it, and mean it.

A Spiritual Poverty

Mother Teresa was perhaps the greatest opponent of poverty in the last century. She fought long and hard against the economic hardships which many of the poor in the world obviously face.

Yet when she arrived in the United States for the first time, she said that we suffer from a far greater want. We live in spiritual poverty, which is much worse than simply having little or no cash on hand.

It is an idea which we ought to consider carefully, because she is right. What profit a man to gain the world yet lose his soul?