The Argus Leader ran a story yesterday telling us that "Sanford eyes stem cell study." They didn't tell us what kind of stem cell studies; important since there are basically two or three kinds (embryonic, umbilical cord, and adult), and while one is benign, the other has ominous moral and ethical implications. And the embryonic stem cell research is illegal in South Dakota.
The article tells us
A new donation from philanthropist T. Denny Sanford will give Sanford Health greater access to embryonic stem cell research, a process that the system's chief executive, Kelby Krabbenhoft, has expressed an interest in pursuing.
T. Denny Sanford says he will help the San Diego Consortium for Regenerative Medicine come up with matching funds for a planned $115 million stem cell research center in La Jolla, Calif. Sanford hasn't said how much he plans to give. The donation has not been formally announced. But the San Diego Union-Tribune reported this month that an "out-of-state philanthropist," whom the consortium has declined to identify, has pledged $30 million, with $10 million paid up-front and the remainder in $2 million annual installments.
The scientific community sees a lot of medical potential from stem cells. These amazing cells, unlike most of the cells in our bodies, can "differentiate," which means they can produce all kinds of other types of cells.
This would be a very useful process to control, since it could regenerate damaged tissue, allowing the blind to see and the lame to walk.
Sanford, the chairman of Sioux Falls-based holding company United National Corp., said he sees potential in those studies.
"It's so exciting what they are already doing with stem cells," Sanford said last week.
I think what he's excited about seeing that's already being done with stems cells involves adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cell research is supposedly long on "potential;" meanwhile, adult stem cell therapies are ALREADY helping people.
There are already dozens of cures and therapies from adult stem cell research, including treatments for meningitis-related limb damage, retina regeneration, heart tissue regeneration, angina, diabetes, bone cancer, nerve regeneration, liver cancer, and leukemia.
Embryonic stem cell research, which involves the destruction of human embryos, has yet to produce a SINGLE success.
As I was reading this article, though I'm somewhat used to it by now from the "mainstream" press, I was wondering, "Newspapers are supposed to inform people. Why isn't the Argus Leader informing people that adult stem cell is ALREADY helping people?" I got my answer about half-way through the article with what I suspect is a heading:
Ban might limit ability to attract leading scientists to state
Ah, there's the pitch from the "objective" people at the Argus Leader.
Hey, South Dakota! These ignorant Bible-thumping rubes are going to scare off all the smart people! You know, the ones with all the MONEY!"
So now the ultimate purpose of the article starts to come together. Though there's no direct connection between this Sanford money and the embryonic stem cell research and South Dakota, maybe with Sanford himself as the "bridge" we can create an article to leverage support for getting rid of this "primitive, ignorant" ban on embryonic stem cell research here in South Dakota.
The elitists at the Argus Leader want to stir the ignorant masses to cry out to their legislators to get rid of this "superstition-based" law so that the light of human ingenuity can shine across our state and land...at the cost of innocent human life created in the image of God.
There are a lot of smart people at the Argus Leader; they couldn't possibly be ignorant of the dozens of successes of adult stem cell research.
That's how they sell an idea that, otherwise, good people might realize is a bad thing. They hype the "potential" of embryonic stem cell research (which destroys human life), while marginalizing adult stem cell research (which ALREADY has successes under it's belt) with a couple of passing mentions of the technique and none of it's proven results.
How unfortunate that when you read your local newspaper, where you ostensibly should be able to get clear, unbiased information, you have to always be looking for the angle, you have to always be mindful of what ulterior motives they have to plant ideas in the minds of the unsuspecting public.
While there were a couple of fleeting mentions of adult stem cell research buried down in the article, I don't recall reading a single mention that said adult stem cell research is ALREADY providing cures and therapies. How disingenuous of the Argus Leader!
In wartime, you expect that the enemy country is going to peddle propaganda to help their side. Is that what we have here, in our ongoing culture war?
I believe it was Pope John Paul II who made the term "Culture of Death" famous to describe this faction of our society which seems enamoured with things which end innocent human life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research. I used to think that the "Culture of Death" was only passively inclined toward death. The more I see, however, the more I'm starting to believe death is something they eagerly embrace...as long as it's somebody else.
8 comments:
Is really sad when someone writes an article with zero intellegence behind it! It's too bad those who read it (that don't have the basic stem cell knowledge)are going to get the completely wrong information. Good job pointing this out!
If you're so smart, Anonymous, why don't you point out where I'm wrong?
P.S. "intellegence" is spelled "intelligence"
Bob,
I'm not defending Anonymous's childish tone, but really, as a Christian, is it right for you to descend to his level? Sarcastically correcting someone's spelling when, let's face it, many of your comments on this site show that you need to learn the basics of grammar, such as the correct use of "it's" versus "its." For all you know, English might not be Anonymous's first language.
I have read many of your articles and comments on this site, and it's clear that while you present yourself as a loving, moral Christian, your words reflect your true character. You are quick to anger, judgmental, and hypocritical. Learn some humility, and remember the popular saying, "What would Jesus do?"
Alex: Thanks for providing an opportunity to address this.
Anonymous alleged that there was "zero intellegence" behind the content of this article, and he/she did so while (a) not citing a single thing that was incorrect about it, and (b) made a spelling error that illustrated that their "intelligence" might be a smidge less than perfect. I was trying to make a point that unfounded accusations are themselves lacking in intelligent content and credibility.
Unfounded accusations with no facts or rationale to back them up ideally should not be evaluated with any serious merit, but the unfortunate reality is that they often are (people just don't slow down and think about things very much anymore, especially online), and I was attempting to place the credibility of this poor attempt to debunk what I'd said in a context which was as easy as possible to understand on-the-fly--something that's a must in the blogosphere.
I probably do misuse "its" versus "it's" sometimes--but I don't think I do it very often, and I'd be willing to bet that such a mistake is far more common among the public than the spelling of "intelligence." But enough of the minor stuff.
I admit I can be quick to anger. But anger in itself is not wrong when it is in response to lies, immorality, deception and injustice. What we do with that anger is the measure of whether it's wrong or not; after all, the Bible does admonish us "in your anger, do not sin." You asked what Jesus would do, and that's the right question to ask; it's one I ask myself very frequently. While I can't say I've always reacted properly and in a Christ-like fashion, I strive to; it is of the utmost importance to me.
But at the same time, there is a common misperception out there that Christians are supposed to be timid little wallflowers who should never raise their voices, use sarcasm, be bold, be blunt, point out fallacies, or decisively reject error. That is simply not the case. Consider these examples:
In 1 Kings 18 Elijah taunts the prophets of Baal, even suggesting their god is asleep or (as the ESV translates it) has gone to the bathroom and can't respond to their prayers. Elijah is making a point here and driving it home through the use of sarcasm: there is only one God (and only one Truth).
Consider Stephens argument before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7, where he concluded with "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it." Was Stephen quick to anger, judgmental or lacking in humility?
In Acts 18 it says that Apollos "spoke with great fervor" and "spoke boldly" and "vigorously refuted" in "public debate." Might it be said by some that Apollos was quick to anger, judgmental and lacked humility?
2 Corinthians 10:5 says "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." False arguments are seldom demolished in a timid fashion. In fact, sometimes it takes a bold approach to get the attention of the person purveying the false argument. Soft-spoken arguments have their place, but in some settings they can come across as weak, or lacking conviction, especially in the face of a bold assault on the truth.
In Galatians 1 Paul said if someone preached a different gospel "let him be eternally condemned!" Those are pretty strong words for a Christian.
Paul was pretty bold with the Apostle Peter in Galatians 2, as well.
And he was pretty harsh with the Galatians in chapter 3, calling them "foolish Galatians!"
Even Jesus himself sounded a little quick to anger and judgmental; he did after all call certain people vipers, broods of vipers, snakes, "wicked and adulterous generation," hypocrites, blind guides, sons of hell, blind fools, and whitewashed tombs. He told them in Matthew 23 that they strained at gnats while swallowing camels. He even ran some folks out of church with a whip (I've never done that!)
My point is, as Ecclesiastes 3 says, there is a time and a season for everything. There is a time time for the soft answer (which Jesus often gave), and a time for the hard and bold answer (which Jesus also gave). The difficult task is in knowing when to do which. I can't say I've always given the right one in the right place, but I try very hard to have that discernment. I don't want to be harsh where I should be gentle, but it may be just as wrong to give a meek answer when the situation indicates the truth should be boldly spoken.
As for me personally, I'm just a sinner saved by grace. I do some things right thanks to God's truth, and I also do some things wrong. If I ever gave the impression I think I'm perfect or think I don't sin, I apologize because I know (and so does my wife and children) that isn't the case. I'm nothing without God's grace, and have no truth or merit of my own; only what God has given me through Jesus Christ.
But God's truth is nothing to be ashamed of or timid about. It's reliable and we can stake not only our lives here on earth on it, but our eternal destinies. And it's the only answer for all of life's problems, including the social issues causing so much heartache. And it is under heavy, determined, relentless assault right now. I do not boast of any truth of my own, or any righteousness of my own; I boast of God's truth and rightness, and it's worth boasting about, to His glory.
If you still disagree with my approach after reading this, Alex, and you'd like to show me how you think this should be done in a more Christian manner, please go to the "Contact Us" link in the upper left section of the blog and email me. We'll talk about maybe letting you do some blogging at Dakota Voice. I don't know you from Adam, so we'll need to talk so I can ensure you have a Biblical worldview and are grounded in the truth, but if you are, you're welcome to do some posts.
Bob,
I wasn't expecting such a thorough response, but I appreciate the time and care you put into clearing this up.
My point is simply that if you choose to be a Christian and write articles lamenting the sad state of our world, one would expect you to consistently demonstrate the values of your faith. When you falter, as you did above, it shows hypocrisy and weakens your credibility.
No one expects you to be perfect, but blogging offers you the chance to take a step back and censor yourself before saying things that might offend someone. I hope you will be more careful in the future.
Thanks, Alex. I'll never fail to falter sometimes, unfortunately, but I'll continue trying to do my best. However, I still think the comment in question was appropriate, given the nature of the charge Anonymous leveled.
By the way, that blogging possibility is still open. Let me know if you're interested in exploring it.
Bob,
You're welcome. And thank you for the offer to blog on this site. But my positions generally go against most of the views presented here, to say the least, so I'm not sure I'd be in like-minded company.
If that's the case, you're probably right. But thanks for reading and dropping by!
Post a Comment