Human Sacrifice in America Today?


aztecsSome of these politiscientethical issues our country is facing right now drive me bananas.  And most of what drives me bananas is how ideologically driven they are.  It’s unfortunate.  And unfortunately, human lives are at stake.

Human lives are at stake in that we are dealing with possible cures that will save lives.  But they are at stake even more directly in the human sacrifice involved in their practices.  And I don’t mean human sacrifice like all the hard work some humans are putting in to solve these problems.  I mean like Temple of Doom, murdering of innocent human life kind of human sacrifice.

And here we thought the practicing of human sacrifice went the way of the Aztecs.  Oh, how barbaric.  Well I’ve got news for you.  It’s still here.  In fact, it’s worse.  In the past, human sacrifice was practiced (albeit wrongly) to win the favor of some god.  Now we just do it to win votes.

Here I am specifically talking about Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR).  This week Obama unleashed a new initiative of human sacrifice in our ever so sophisticated, modern day.  This is all kinds of wacky I don’t even know where to begin.

First, Obama says in regard to stem cell research that in the past “our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.”  Does he explain this?  Of course not.  If it’s so clear that we can practice ESCR without violating our moral values (ending innocent human life), then why didn’t he just come out and describe for us why the “sound” science behind Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) doesn’t violate any moral values?  Answer: Because it is quite obvious that the science is shaky and that there is no doubt that it ends and disrespects human life.  Probably smart to stay away from any of the specifics there, Obama.  Wouldn’t want Americans to truly become educated on the issue.

Second, “sound” science?  Are you kidding me?  The only “sound” science Barack offers in terms of support for ESCR is that a “majority of Americans” support it.  Yeah, that’s really scientifically sound, sir.  Where’s the great scientific advances that have come from ESCR so far?  Where?  They don’t exist.  And does he mention the drawbacks and shortcomings we do know about ESCR?  Of course not.  Meanwhile, why isn’t he talking about all of the numerous advances that Adult Stem Cells have brought?  Everyday there are more break-throughs with Adult Stem Cells and their reprogramming into  “induced pluripotent stem-cells” (the kind we want).

Adult stem cells have shown far greater promise than embryonic and an increasing number of scientists are admitting this.  And just a month ago new research showed Adult Stem Cells possibly (and actually) reversing MS.  Does Obama talk about these?  Of course not…you know, on account of being so scientifically “sound” and all.  You wouldn’t want stuff like that getting out into the main-stream media.  People might start to wonder if we truly need to sacrifice tiny, innocent human lives in the name of research!

He went on to sign a pledge to “restore scientific integrity in governmental decision making.”  Am I in the Twilight Zone?  This decision lacks science and integrity.

Third, (speaking of a lack of integrity) in kicking off this carnival of human carnage, he says things like this: “We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research.”  There was not a ban on federal funding of ESCR.  In fact, Bush was the first president to ever allow federal funding of ESCR.  However, he did restrict the research to existing lines of embryos because he didn’t think the government should be promoting the creation of new human life (embyros) just to ritualistically destroy them (human sacrifice). What Obama meant to say is “phooey on that!”

He’s now lifted the ban on federal funding that promotes the creation and destruction of human life in the name of research.  That means not only is it legal to create and destroy human life as much as we want in order to learn from it (as it has been for a long time), but you and I are now forced to pay for it.  That, my friends, is change you can believe in…cuz it’s true.  Thank you, Mr. President.

All of this political rhetoric is a ruse.  If you want to have integrity and morals.  If you want to be scientifically sound.  If we want to be ethical.  Then the answer is clear.  Look at the facts.  Adult stem cells have shown more promise and continue to do so.  Embryonic stem cells show more and more problems and offer less and less potential upside as compared to Adult and induced Pluripotent.

Oh yeah, and then there’s that little detail of how one type of research (the less scientifically sound one) destroys innocent human lives.  And the alternative (the more scientifically sound one) does not.  But yet what does Obama not only choose to support, but to support with your money?  Answer: The less scientifically sound one that destroys innocent human lives.

Obama said his administration would make decisions “based on facts, not ideology.”  The remarkable thing is that he says it with a straight face.

We are surely not winning the favor of any god.  And we may not have a lava pit, a Temple of Doom, Great Pyramid or a Thuggee with a devotion to Kali – that would be far too uncivilized and scientifically unsound.  But we do have ourselves a new era of federally funded, ideologically driven human sacrifice.  Lord, have mercy.

12 comments Add comment

Joe Jordan March 11, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Lord have mercy on us for sure! Good commentary on a sad subject Matt. Our new pres had sold our country’s soul down the river. Sadly, none of this should be a surprise. We collectively as a society chose to vote for the god of our economy rather than the God of Truth last November. We’re reaping what we sowed and our country is suffering the consequences. We can only pray that the chastisements that God is allowing will have the intended effect of driving us to our knees and prayer. Otherwise, we’re doomed to go the way of the Aztecs. God have mercy, indeed!

Vilma March 11, 2009 at 4:51 pm

a sad day in America.

pinko March 12, 2009 at 11:49 am

For the sake of educating Americans on the topic, I offer the following:

– ESCR does not murder people. They use cells from, at worst, In Vitro clinics. If you take issue with IV, and I know you do, then have at it. That’s a different debate. But to study the stems cells rather than discarding the embyos wholesale seems, to me, a good idea.

– Adult stem cells have shown more promise lately for obvious reasons: there has been more adult stem cell research. Because funding was cut for ESCR. In fact, scientists have devoted much time to figuring out how to make Adult stem cells act like Embryonic ones. They recently accomplished this, and the scientific community has benefited as such. If further research shows that this process makes adult cells as scientifically beneficial as embryonic cells, then there will be zero more need for embryonic cells. Scientists aren’t just trying to find the most ethically controversial way to do things, you need to keep that in mind.

– More to Joe than Matt: before you pray for an apocalypse, realize how far society has come that we’re even concerned with this debate. Less than 100 years ago we were dropping atomic bombs on cities. 200 we had slaves. 300 we were murdering indeginous populations for real estate. I’d say we’re moving in the right direction, even though you don’t like our president of 2 months.

Matthew Warner March 12, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Pinko – ESCR destroys the embryo in the very process of “studying” them. So it’s not a separate debate. It IS the debate. That’s part of the problem – the public doesn’t understand how ESCR works. So they can not possibly begin to understand the moral implications.

What you are describing is precisely the compromise that Bush enabled. i.e. rather than discarding cell lines from already destroyed embryos “wholesale”…he approved federal funding to research them. This is not what Obama is doing. He is opening it all the way up. Allowing funds to go to ANY embryonic stem cell lines. Which means they WILL be creating embryos just to destroy them by research. That’s exactly the issue.

Also, I can’t find an example of anyone cutting funds to ESCR. As I said, all they did was restrict federal funds to existing lines of cells (research that has not shown any return on investment). Either way, states and private companies have always been free to invest as they see fit.

Matthew Warner March 12, 2009 at 12:22 pm

“If further research shows that this process makes adult cells as scientifically beneficial as embryonic cells…”

That’s just it. They HAVEN’T shown how scientifically beneficial ESCR is. All we know is that Michael J Fox promotes it and says that anyone who’s against it is a bad person. Adult cells have already proven more beneficial. That’s my point here. The promotion of ESCR is not being driven by science at all. It’s being driven by polling of an uneducated public, politics, and ideology.

Either way, the respect and dignity of every human life must take priority – regardless of any potential scientific benefits. And here we have a case where this is easily accomplished by the promise shown from other stem cell research that DOES NOT destroy human life. Yet, we still have Obama (I don’t care how long he’s been president) pushing something that is unethical, unscientific, and immoral…and calling it moral and sound science. It’s a joke. Just callin it what it is.

pinko March 12, 2009 at 1:25 pm

But you’re ignoring the simple fact: these embryos are destroyed whether or not Stem Cell research exists. No one is impregnating mothers to harvest cells, you’re just flat-out wrong there. When an in vitro fertilization occurs, there are very often excess embryos. And despite Octo-mom’s recent 15 minutes, most in vitro mothers will not be bringing every embryo to term. So the excess embryos are destroyed. Now Bush was saying – all those destroyed embryos, let’s pretend they don’t exist except for the 21 that already have given us their stem cells. Obama is saying – perhaps these destroyed embryos can help humanity, let’s not ignore them.

If you want to argue for the sanctity of life, your beef is with in vitro fertilization, not ESCR.

Matthew Warner March 12, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Pinko – First, i never said anything about impregnating mothers to harvest cells.

Second, by injecting FEDERAL MONEY into the system we are helping create the market for excess embryos. To believe that this doesn’t promote and encourage more embryos to be created for this type of destruction is short-sighted. If an In Vitro clinic can make extra money selling embryos to researchers is that going to encourage them to create more or less “excess” embryos? Let’s be honest here. There is absolutely no question. And nobody is saying otherwise because they know they would lose credibility.

The problem is that Obama doesn’t believe embryos are a human life. I get it. But that doesn’t change the objective fact that he is wrong about that.

And of course my beef is with In vitro as well. But that is an entirely other issue. My tax dollars should not be paying for THIS immoral activity. Further, the president needs to be leading our country to a greater respect of life…not a lesser one.

pinko March 12, 2009 at 3:05 pm

You’re jumping some huge hurdles to make this point, though. And even assuming somehow In Vitro clinics figure out a way to make a bigger profit off of underhandedly creating extra embryos to sell to scientific researchers, and then assuming that everyone is fine with that arrangement because Obama the great destroyer thinks it’s okay, and further assuming that somehow the scientific demand for embryos is about to far outnumber the amount of regularly discarded in vitro embryos, I still say the debate needs to be about in vitro fertilization instead of attacking scientific researchers. The honest fact of the matter is, the pro-life movement and Republicans in general can’t figure out how to put an immoral spin on couples who desperately want to have a baby of their own but for natural reasons cannot – and so they skip that whole step and vilify scientists and/or liberal politicians.

Matthew Warner March 12, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Pinko – You are over complicating it. I don’t need to jump any hurdles at all. Of course the debate is largely about In Vitro and the practice of creating tiny humans in petri dishes and then destroying them. Obama’s policies legitimize, fund(with my money), and support this very immoral practice. There is no hurdling or stretching required. It’s blatant.

And if you truly think that this is a “republican” thing or a mindlessly ideological “pro-life” thing then you have not truly listened to the pro-life argument here. I encourage you to do so.

If you had you would most definitely know that this has nothing to do with “figuring out how to put an immoral spin on couples who desperately want to have a baby of their own but can’t”. And you would see that that is an absolutely ignorant and ridiculous thing to say. Especially if you think that’s where I’m coming from or where the Catholic Church is coming from in their opposition to destroying innocent human life.

Obama is villifying himself. I’m just trying to stand up for human life.

pinko March 13, 2009 at 10:49 am

No, I don’t think it’s mindlessly ideological, sorry if I implied that. I know where you’re coming from and I know where the church is coming from and I completely understand it. What I mean is- the movement as a whole (not you (I read the Octomom post, too) or the church) haven’t found a good way to rally people against in vitro, so they use ESCR and Obama as stand-ins/whipping boys. Even if you think it’s part of the problem (which I don’t, but I understand how you do) – it’s a tiny part of the problem compared to the giant in vitro problem which is all but ignored by the majority of, if not the pro-life movement then definitely conservative politicians. That’s all I meant to say: in this debate, focusing on the one tiny subset of the problem that can conveniently be blamed on a political opponent is really stupid, and it makes me question their motives.

3 Graces March 28, 2009 at 10:37 pm


You’re partially right – in vitro is a problem, but once that genie is out of the bottle, it’s our collective responsibility to make sure that human life is treated with reverence, gentleness.

I think our culture is experiencing a collective post-abortive psychosis. We desperately affirm the legality of our crimes, else we know ourselves for what we are.

With every in vitro, with every embryo destroyed and with every abortion – mankind negates itself. All the while, we are told, “Yes we can.”

Yes. Yes we can!… perpetuate our crimes as long as we deny them. In one wing of the clinic, inconvenient human lives are snuffed out while in another wing, parents pay doctors to force human lives into existence.

In vitro fertilization and abortion go hand in hand – both rely on moral-blindness and utilitarianism in the parent(s); and on a certain numb, amoral flippancy in medics who are in a position of power over life. “Yes we can” doesn’t mean “yes we should.”

We need to learn when to stop using our tools and start using our hearts.

Mike August 14, 2009 at 7:58 pm

When Obama said “our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.” he was telling the truth. Obama’s administration has set up a false choice by claiming ESCR is “sound science”.

Contrary to statements here, “adult” stem cell research is not ahead of ESCR because of lack of US federal funding. ESCR is funded by many other governments, and by private funding. US federal funding is a drop in the bucket. The real reason ESCR is behind is because it is bad science. In order to work, the hurdles of tissue rejection have to be overcome because ESCs are foreign matter in the recipient’s body.

iPS stem cells are completely equivalent to ESCs but without the ethical problems or scientific problems. Do you hear Obama speaking about changing the funding that is now being wasted on proven inferior research? I don’t think so. He’s keeping alive the false choice between sound science and moral values.

Previous post:

Next post: