Monday, October 29, 2007

Life Links 10/29/07

Charles Moore in the UK's The Telegraph about how abortion will be viewed in 200 years.
As the slavery exhibition shows, something that one generation accepts readily enough is often seen as abhorrent by its descendants – so abhorrent, in fact, that people find it almost impossible to understand how it could have been countenanced in a supposedly civilised society....

It is not hard to imagine how a future Museum of London exhibition about abortion could go....

It could display the various instruments that were used to remove and kill the foetus, rather as the manacles and collars of slaves can be seen today.

It could make a telling show of the propaganda that was used to promote abortion – the language of choice, control of a woman over her own body....

In many ways, I accept, such a museum of the future would be extremely unfair. We anti-abortionists should not paint all those who disagree with us as callous.

Many of those who support abortion have a deep concern about the horrors of an unwanted child, not realising that the culture of abortion is one that promotes unwantedness.

The front page of Sunday's Grand Rapids Press featured a lengthy article about embryonic stem cell research. Besides providing an inaccurate description of "therapeutic" cloning and not noting how Michigan's laws supposedly "severely curtail" embryonic stem cell research until later in the article, it's a fairly fair article. I'm still waiting for a reporter to actually dig deep to try to figure out how embryonic stem cell proponents are planning on making money for a state like Michigan.

Wesley Smith's Awakenings in the Weekly Standard.

In a San Francisco Gate article discussing StemLifeLine (the California company which offers to kill human embryos originally created thru IVF so their parents can have a "personalized" embryonic stem cell line), embryonic stem cell research proponent David Magnus is quoted as saying,
"Magnus, the Stanford ethicist, said StemLifeLine should tell customers that no stem cell therapy may exist for 30 or 40 years."
I wonder if he favored the same customer beware suggestion when he was promoting Proposition 71. Also note how some stem cell researchers are actually associated with this ridiculous company.
Among StemLifeLine's advisory board members is Susan Fisher, who leads UC San Francisco's stem cell program. One of the scientists in Fisher's lab, Olga Genbacev, sits on StemLifeLine's board of directors. The company's staff and boards also include present and former research collaborators of Fisher's.

No comments:

Post a Comment