Culture of Death

Yesterday I took a group of students from my school to the UN in NYC to visit an exhibit, Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race. This is part of our week long summit on Genocide. The exhibit was about the Nazis and their use of sterilization and euthanasia. The Nazis tried to use science as a means to spread their racist agenda. I couldn’t help but think of the irony of the location of this exhibit; the UN being one of the champions of “reproductive rights”, aka contraception (sterilization) for developing countries. I also couldn’t help but think of the present day scenario going on in our country and around the globe and their similarities; with our new administration now lifting restrictions on federal funding for Embryonic stem cell research as well as funding abortions overseas. It is know that scientists in the Nazi party were familiar with Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and her advocacy of eugenics. Sanger’s Negro Project had many similarities to the Nazi’s project of creating a master race. I mention this link because Sanger’s mission and spirit is still much alive in Planned Parenthood. African Americans only make up about 13% of our population but account for 35% of all abortions in the US. If we use an eyeball test, most abortion clinics are strategically placed in poor, typically African-American neighborhoods.

I’m also concerned with the uses of science in our present day situation with embryonic stem cell research. A lot of this comes back to the use of language to weasel one’s way around the facts. Look at a recent interview done with former President Clinton on “Larry King Live”, the interview was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Dr. Gupta was sought after by Obama to be our nations Surgeon General but he declined. When asked about federal funding for embryonic research Clinton responded:

I think - the answer is I think that we’ll work it through. If - particularly if it’s done right. If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can - that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it’s obvious that we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this….

Firstly, we know that an embryo IS a “little baby” but again here the definition of when life begins has been changed to implantation. Secondly, and more importantly, anyone who has taken biology knows that an embryo has already been fertilized. It’s fair to rule out that this was merely a slip of the tongue because he used the exact language further in the interview:

But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they’re not going to fool with any embryos where there’s any possibility, even if it’s somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings.

Now, there are two possible conclusions: 1. That Clinton doesn’t know that an embryo is a fertilized egg or 2. That he’s using language to confuse/deceive the people watching. Also, I have to wonder about the good doctor who never corrected Clinton’s blatent mistake.

Another contradiction that needs to be pointed out happened with Obama during his March 9^th address defending his lift of the ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines. Obama states:

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. By doing this, we will ensure America’s continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

Later in the speech he adds:

We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

It seems to me that he is using some sort of ideology here when he states that “it is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.” He fails to give any explanation why it’s wrong, or more specifically “facts”, it’s merely his ideology. One could ague that Obama’s position on “cloning for human reproduction” is quite arbitrary and not based in “scientific facts”. Also, many “scientific facts” today will not be considered “scientific facts” in the future.

Yesterday, I also read an very interesting email discussion between Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec. Kmiec is a staunch supporter of Obama and supposedly pro-life. Kmiec uses the same language game to weasel his way around the issue that George brings up with him. I would love to see a debate between these two, as George proposes.

Brendan