“The NIH Wants Pig Men”

Bioethics, , , , ,

daily_commentary_08_17_16Recently we told you about a news story that sounds like something straight out of a checkout-line tabloid: The National Institute of Health is considering using public funds for research that creates human-animal hybrids or “chimeras.”

Researchers inject human stem cells into modified animal embryos in hopes of discovering new cures or “growing” human organs for transplant patients. You can read about some of the ethical concerns we have raised here.

John Stonestreet at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview published an excellent commentary today highlighting these concerns as well and noting how individuals from H.G. Wells and C.S. Lewis to Chuck Colson have warned us about this type of sketchy science.

Stonestreet writes,

This ends-justify-the-means kind of commodification of human beings is nothing new. Chuck Colson warned way back in 2007, “the system is being rigged to promote more such experimentation, not less. Compared to promises of ‘miracle cures,’ national prestige, and, of course, big money, human dignity counts for very little.”

Of course, promises of such cures may sound like a service to the cause of human dignity, but the “scientific progress at any cost” sort of vision drives our current forays in medicine. It’s what might be called the scientific illusion, the idea that because we can, we should. That all things, human nature included, are proper subjects of scientific mastery, the ultimate source of all of our knowledge.

Before Chuck, C. S. Lewis warned of such folly in his masterful book “The Abolition of Man.” “If man chooses to treat himself as raw material,” Lewis wrote, “raw material he will be, not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite, that is, mere Nature, in the person of his de-humanized Conditioners.”

In other words, the conquering of human nature with our technology, in reality, will end up being the conquering of all of us by some of us.

You can read his full commentary here or listen to it below.

[audio:http://www.breakpoint.org/images/content/breakpoint/audio/2016/081716_BP.mp3|titles=The NIH Wants Pig Men by John Stonestreet]

READ MORE

NIH Looking to Fund Human-Animal Hybrid Research

1 CommentBioethics, Life, Sanctity of Life, , , ,

The National Institute of Health announced last week it is looking to end its ban on public funding for what some call “chimera” research–that is, research that involves combining human DNA with animal DNA.

In a nutshell, researchers are performing experiments in which human stem cells are inserted into modified animal embryos–such as modified pig embryos. The animal embryos develop with the human cells inside them.

Researchers believe they can refine the process so that eventually human organs can be “grown,” for example, inside animals and eventually “harvested” for people in need of organ transplants. They are asking the NIH to help fund their experiments, and the NIH appears to be planning to provide the funds.

If all of this sounds weird or ethically suspect to you, you aren’t alone. As Kansans for Life writes,

If the purposeful creation of human-animal chimeras is allowed for research purposes, it opens to door to abuse of the technique for reproduction, as well as creation of part-human organisms as bizarre designer humans or animals. It could produce an animal that produces human sperm or eggs. It could produce an animal with a human brain.

Some have criticized researchers for “playing God.” Others worry the experiments will lead to the creation of new, quasi-human species, and will further blur the lines between humans and animals. These are all valid points, but the immediate, ethical question this research raises is simple: Where will researchers get their stem cells?

This research involves injecting human stem cells into modified animal embryos. Human stem cells are often acquired by creating–and then killing–human embryos to harvest the embryos’ stem cells.

Research that uses human embryonic stem cells is highly unethical, because it kills unborn children in the process.

Other stem cells are acquired from aborted unborn babies, as we have written in the past. These stem cells are sometimes billed as “adult stem cells,” but they don’t actually come from adults. They come from aborted children.

It is possible to obtain stem cells ethically–without killing any unborn children–but it’s often difficult to know if researchers are using ethically-obtained stem cells. If the NIH begins funding research involving human stem cells, our first concern is that researchers will use embryonic stem cells or stem cells obtained from dead unborn children. That sort of research simply is not acceptable.

The National Institute of Health is accepting public comments on the proposed rule change until September 6. Please contact the NIH, and ask them not to fund or encourage this type of research. Click here to find out how to submit your comments.

READ MORE

NARAL President Shares Abortion Story to Cheering Crowd

Abortion, , ,

On Wednesday evening Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, shared the story of her abortion to cheering crowds at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

The Weekly Standard writes,

When talking about abortion, Democratic politicians and activists usually prefer to speak euphemistically: The dismemberment or lethal poisoning of a baby who hasn’t been born yet is almost always referred to as “reproductive health care” or “a woman’s choice.” The group NARAL, once known as the National Abortion Rights Action League, went so far as to change its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America so its supporters and allies could avoid saying the a-word.

But there’s been a growing push on the left to not only defend abortion as a necessary evil that should be “safe, legal, and rare” but to celebrate it as a positive good. (See the #ShoutYourAbortion Twitter campaign of 2015.) And so on Wednesday evening, Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, took the stage at the Democratic National Convention and told the story of the time she aborted her first child because it was an inconvenient time to become a parent.

In her speech, Ms. Hogue said,

To succeed in life, all we [women] need are the tools, the trust, and the chance to chart our own path. I was fortunate enough to have these things when I found out I was pregnant years ago. I wanted a family, but it was the wrong time. I made the decision that was best for me: To have an abortion and get compassionate care at a clinic in my own community. Now years later, my husband and I are parents to two incredible children.

On the one hand, most Americans believe abortion ought to be illegal in some or all circumstances and that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions. On the other hand, groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are becoming more blunt and more vocal about abortion, even going so far as to insist Congress pay for abortion on demand with public dollars.

What do we make of this?

We are seeing desperation on the side of abortion advocates. Over the past four decades medical advancements have helped us gain a better understanding of pregnancy and abortion. Anyone looking at an unborn baby on an ultrasound screen today can tell they’re seeing a real person with a unique personality–not “tissue” or “a blob of cells,” as abortion advocates have claimed at times.

You may recall earlier this year NARAL went so far as to criticize a Doritos ad that ran during the Superbowl, because the ad featured an unborn baby on an ultrasound screen. NARAL called the ad, “anti-choice.”

These sorts of technological advancements are one reason abortion advocates have been forced to drop the euphemisms and ambiguities when talking about abortion.

Those defending abortion today must practically acknowledge abortion kills an unborn child. All they can do is try to justify it.

READ MORE