Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Abortion
Embryonic stem cell research destroys embryos. Obama ended the ban on using frozen embryos.
People who have had difficulty conceiving via typical sexual intercourse and who have exhausted other methods have fertility clinics create embryos for implantation. The clinics create more than one embryo because, among other reasons, it is my understanding, not all embryos are equally capable of remaining implanted. The others are reserves or back-ups in case the first spontaneously aborts. The extra embryos are cryogenically frozen. Their tissue is still serviceable if maintained and thawed correctly. After a couple has had enough children, the extra embryos are often destroyed. Barack Obama has changed from the Bush administration's position so that federal funding can be used for scientific experimentation on frozen embryos provided the "parents" agree and which frozen embryos would otherwise be completely destroyed. I'm being very general here. There are specifics I'm not covering. What Obama hasn't done is release funds for taking an adult's tissue for example and creating an clone embryo. That tissue would be as an identical twin's. It would be much less likely to be rejected by the adult. How far researchers want to go in farming body parts is something I won't go into here much here other than to say that some do dream of complete replacement organs.
Why are abortion and embryonic stem cell research problems for some people?
Well, if I have had spiritual experiences, experiences forever unexplainable by the science of testing and doubt, which I have (and which must remain untold or they will cease), and if those experiences validate Jesus, which they do, and if Jesus was an embryo, which he was, then aborting or destroying an embryo could be destroying Jesus and in a sense, is destroying Jesus. Furthermore, abortion, especially the type taken lightly, as many are, reduces the value of human beings in general. Death, and more importantly killing, becomes easier, not for all, but for some.
Lastly, there is the issue of the slippery slope. Where does it end? Yesterday's moral boundaries are today's butts for jokes. Evil is a gradual devolution masquerading as evolution. Evil is simply becoming more complex before its destruction as the type of cancer it is.
Science doubts God and Jesus, hence the testing to bring forth what it does. That testing precludes God. It renders the doubter(s) unworthy. It puts a general barrier between the people and God whose rule is faith, which is a form of honest credit, which we all actually deserve when merited — hence the rule — full circle.
It's easy for the atheist to say it's all a lie, especially in the face of prosperity preachers who rape the congregation of mammon for self apart from God; but an honest atheist will admit to not knowing and really be an agnostic at most.
Now, if you are an atheist, who may not believe what I just wrote; but at least you now have the reason why real Christians don't hold with abortions and embryonic stem cell research but would rather the movement of the Holy Spirit were to work in all souls thereby healing all and removing the "reasons" for abortions and desired cures from stem cell research.
Don't forget, I've had the experiences. I've seen the spiritual power. It does transcend. There are rules. If you are not a real Christian, you aren't allowed to know or see, etc., because you haven't taken the honest steps. Your emotional state is self-centered no matter how unselfish you may believe yourself to be. You can't see it because you have no other frame of reference.
As I wrote in a comment on another blog:
It's all terrible – all the killing: The abortions, the wars, the executions. I hate it all.
Jesus is opposed to it all. He never approves killing.
With enough faith to do right, humanity wouldn't be faced with the excuses people make for abortions. I know there are women whose lives are at risk. I know there are families in utter poverty where the mother in her early teens has been incestuously raped and impregnated. Those things are trying. They are symptoms though of a fallen spirit across-the-board.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)