Posted on 03/13/2009 9:10:40 AM PDT by This Just In
Obama Orders the Destruction of Human Embryos by Lawrence Ford*
In a significant move to distance himself from the moral conservatives of the country, President Barack Obama on March 9 ordered that federal money (taxpayer money) be used to promote medical research using harvested embryonic stem cells from humans.
Dr. Randy Guliuzza, a medical doctor and National Representative at the Institute for Creation Research, commented this week on the Obama decision:
The consequences of the president’s decision are two-fold. First, government is now more empowered to destroy human life for “scientific” progress. Will research on human embryos result in advances in medicine? Possibly, but the fruit of stem cell research using cells safely harvested from umbilical cords or adults is already being used to save lives. Destroying the unborn is both unnecessary and morally reprehensible.
In short, President Obama’s reversal of the embryonic stem cell ban sentences these embryos to the category of disposable life, a clear indicator that the president values the free exercise of science over the life of the unborn.
But there is much more to the president’s decision. Dr. Guliuzza continued:
Second, this announcement is very likely designed to be a sideshow, a distraction to draw attention away from a much larger agenda he is pushing on the American people: empowering an atheist scientific elite who conduct research by consensus. Studies have shown that a tiny minority of scientists profess belief in God, only 7 percent among members of the National Academy of Sciences. The president clearly knows that his emphasis on “scientific integrity” will be governed by atheists.
Of course, this is in contrast to the approximately 80 percent of Americans who profess belief in God, and the 66 percent who believe God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago.1
The consequences of the president’s decision are staggering. Dr. Guliuzza concluded:
With that kind of power, death to embryos is just the first step and who knows where it will end?
Humph; what an amataure bozo president we have. He is an international embarrassment with the gift shop gifts for the Prim Minister's kids and the CD collection from Amazon.
Another way to look at it is from a libertarian or freedom perspective.
Some people believe one way. Some people believe another way. Of course, my way of thinking is the only correct way. :)
But why should anyone have the power to impose one set of beliefs on others and force others to pay for those beliefs. That is true regardless of whether those in power are forcing others to pay for Christian beliefs, or aetheist beliefs or pagan beliefs.
Government should be as small as possible and impose as little as possible because government is not suited to be the decider of which belief is the best one, or the true one.
The left hates itself and loves death. They are just acting true to form.
I agree that our Founding Fathers never intended for centralized government to be this powerful. What libertarians consistently ignore is our Constitution, which states, in part, that all men are created equal by God, and that we are entitled to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This Constitution includes the lives of the unborn babies.
Furthermore, the “beliefs” you speak of are a cornerstone to the founding of this country. Every state constitution recognizes the Lord Almighty. Not Allah. Not Buddha or Mohammad. It’s the Lord Almighty.
If you read the Mayflower Compact of 1620 you’ll clearly see the Christian foundation in which America’s infancy in history was established. The documents of our Founding Fathers say it all, and yet, libertarians try to separate this fact from American policy.
There is no country on the face of this planet as great as America, and the reasons why can be found in it’s Christian foundation.
What you are witnessing in this country today is as a result of the secularization, or the separation of these “beliefs”.
Europe proudly boasts of her secular progression. America is looking more and more like Europe, and I’m not impressed nor surprised.
Well, what did all those evangelicals and Catholics who voted for this clown think was going to happen? Peace and love for the unborn?
Right to Life. Obama has change of Heart?
It addresses a CNSNews article titled "Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It". An excerpt:
On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicitly bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.
He has no clue what he is signing! Pres__ent Obama...the gift that keeps on giving, LOL!
I can’t speak for Catholic’s, but I question the true conversion of these so-called “evangelicals”.
You seem grossly uninformed about libertarians. There is no person in politics more pro-life than the libertarian candidate for president, Congressman Ron Paul.
Most of his supporters are ardently pro-life.
Precisely what part of the Constitution is ignored by Ron Paul, or other libertarians in Congress, or legislatures?
Yes, as with any group, some libertarians are hypocrites. But it is precisely their deviation from libertarianism that is their deviation from the constitution.
You obviously don’t speak for all libertarians, judging by the individuals I know. I’ve engaged in quite a number of arguments concerning sanctity of life issues as well as “beliefs” in politics.
Furthermore, you may choose to label these libertarians as hypocrites, nonetheless, they identify with the party.
Finally, you’ve failed to respond to my post by introducing a red herring, thus dodging the issue. It was you that brought up the topic of “beliefs”, which I addressed.
You again show your lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
You refer to “the party” while we are discussing libertarians with a small ‘l’. The Libertarian Party is just a very small fraction of those who claim the libertarian label. As with the Republican and Democrat “party”, the LP is a loose assortment of people in it for a variety of reasons ... often involving their ego and need for attention and not ideology.
Republican congressman Ron Paul is by far the lead libertarian in the USA. The issue that split libertarians and support for Paul in the Republican primary was the war on terror/Iraq and not Life or any other issue. The libertarian movement came out of the anti-communist movement and was dominated by support for things that extrapolated into the war in Iraq. But Ron Paul and most of his supporters did not support the war for among other reasons, the Constitution was not followed in Congress “Declaring War”.
Other prominent libertarians are Judge Napolitano of Fox News, John Stoessel and Drew Carey who had a great 20/20 special on ABC last, the CATO instituted, Heartland Institute, here in Illinois the Illinois Policy Institute, The Reason Foundation (that Drew Carey associates with) and obviously others too numerous to list.
Most of the people I’ve met associated with CATO, Heartland, IPI are very pro-life; a few never mention the topic and focus on other issues. The Reason Foundation probably has a few libertarians who are not pro-life.
The position of libertarians who are not pro-life is
-Reversal of Roe v Wade, which was an activist court going where it should not have gone.
-Opposition to any and ALL government funding of abortion; opposition to any and all government funding of Planned Parenthood type groups; opposition to any and all government funding of stem cell research.
So, yes, a few libertarians are not pro-life. But unlike the single issue pro-lifers, libertarians tend to be multi-issue ... and economics taxes, spending, borrowing, central bank and regulation tend to dominate.
Then there is the very small but highly visible “legalize pot” faction. But that is a topic for a different day.
“Me thinks thou dost protest too much” -Shakespeare
You assume too much as well. Again, another read herring. I am quite familiar with the “loose assortment” you describe. Also, we have a number of dear friends whom are staunch Ron Paul supporters. As a matter of fact, these friends traveled quite a distance on a number of occasions in order to attend RP’s rallies, and had the pleasure of meeting the man in person.
You wish to focus on the libertarian issue, and yet I responded to your initial post:
“Another way to look at it is from a libertarian or freedom perspective.
Some people believe one way. Some people believe another way. Of course, my way of thinking is the only correct way. :)
But why should anyone have the power to impose one set of beliefs on others and force others to pay for those beliefs. That is true regardless of whether those in power are forcing others to pay for Christian beliefs, or aetheist beliefs or pagan beliefs.
Government should be as small as possible and impose as little as possible because government is not suited to be the decider of which belief is the best one, or the true one.”
As you will note by the very words you used, the main topic of your statement concerns “beliefs”, which I addressed.
You may try to change the subject all you want, but I remained on topic. You can’t deny our countries Judeo-Christian foundation, so you used this opportunity to introduce a Ron Paul plug.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.