Monday, October 31, 2005

The Stem Cell Controversy

What’s the stem-cell controversy all about? Here’s a primer.

There are two kinds of stem cells—cells from which more complex cells and tissues develop. The first are so-called adult stem cells, taken from umbilical cord blood and other areas of the human body, such as bone marrow and muscles. The second kind comes from human embryos.

Where do the embryos come from? Two sources. First, from among the 400,000 frozen human embryos estimated to be stored at the nation’s fertility clinics; and, second, from cloning.

While there are no ethical dilemmas involved with harvesting adult stem cells, extracting embryonic stem cells involves killing human embryos.

Some researchers prefer embryonic over adult stem cells, saying they are pluripotent—or able to grow into any tissue of the human body. However, removed from their natural environment in a woman's body, embryonic stem cells are hard to control and sometimes wildly grow into tumors.

So far, adult stem cells have provided treatments for at least 65 conditions in humans, providing relief for everything from brain cancer to heart damage, according to www.stemcellresearch.org. But no proven treatments for people have emerged from embryonic stem-cell research.

Yet embryonic stem cell research is being touted as a kind of holy grail of medical research, spurred by promises of miracle cures from well-meaning but misinformed people such as Nancy Reagan and the late Christopher Reeve.

While pro-lifers oppose embryonic research on ethical grounds, much of the public remains eager for cures, regardless of their source, and the well-funded biotech industry opposes any government restrictions on its race for medical panaceas.

There is good news, however. First, increasing numbers of researchers are coming up with new ways to produce pluripotent stem cells that do not involve the destruction of nascent human life. Second, a worldwide consensus is developing to protect the dignity of human life in the face of sometimes bewildering scientific developments.

Last March, the United Nations passed an anti-cloning resolution. This October, UNESCO's General Conference unanimously approved a Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights that seeks to keep scientific research within an ethical framework that respects “human dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.”

Yes, Christians are right to defend the humanity and the dignity of the unborn by opposing abortion. But Nigel Cameron of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future warns that we can’t afford to ignore other issues, such as cloning.

Cameron tells Christianity Today: “Taking human life made in the image of God, wicked as it is, may not finally be as bad as making human life in your own.”

Monday, October 24, 2005

Animal Farm Revisited

In George Orwell’s classic book, Animal Farm, some animals were deemed “more equal” than others. In the America of 2005, some human beings are more equal than others, too. At least, that’s what many people in our morally confused society seem to think. How else can you explain the killing of more than 40 million unborn human babies since abortion was legalized in 1973?

The disabled constitute another group that Americans view as “less equal” than the rest of us.

Former Washington Post reporter Patricia E. Bauer has a daughter named Margaret with Down syndrome. Writing recently in the Post, Bauer says that up to 90 percent of unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.

“As Margaret bounces through life,” Bauer writes, “I see the way people look at her: curious, surprised, sometimes wary, occasionally disapproving or alarmed. . . . To them, Margaret falls into the category of avoidable human suffering. At best, a tragic mistake. At worst, a living embodiment of the pro-life movement. Less than human. A drain on society. That someone I love is regarded this way is unspeakably painful to me.”

And it should be to the rest of us. Joni Eareckson Tada, after a diving accident left her paralyzed 38 years ago, knows such private attitudes inevitably impact public policy. “People have a fundamental fear of disabilities,” Tada tells Christianity Today. “That fear drives social policy.”

Indeed. Fear of disability—such as the paralysis that afflicted the late Christopher Reeve—is one reason many Americans support killing human embryos to use their stem cells in medical research, even though adult stem cells and other developments have shown much more real-world promise.

Senators Sam Brownback and Ted Kennedy and Representative James Sensenbrenner have introduced legislation in Congress to provide more information and support services for women who receive a positive test diagnosis for prenatally diagnosed conditions. Such government efforts are a good step, but they don’t really address the attitude that some humans are more equal than others.

That kind of attitude adjustment should come from the church. Our responsibility as Christians is to lovingly demonstrate that no human is “more equal” than another, because we all bear the image of our Creator. When it comes to the disabled, we should make every reasonable effort to remove the physical barriers to our houses of worship. But just as important is an attitude that welcomes the physically and mentally challenged with open arms, not merely as objects of ministry, but as ministers in their own right. Yes, the disabled need the church—almost as much as the church needs the disabled.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Q&A: Gary Bauer on the Miers Nomination

Former 2000 Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer answered questions from Stan Guthrie, a Christianity Today senior associate editor, about President Bush’s controversial nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Bauer, a former domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan, is chairman of the Campaign for Working Families PAC and president of American Values , a Washington-area nonprofit conservative advocacy organization. Bauer is also a former president of the Family Research Council. This interview will also be posted on ChristianityToday.com.

President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court appears to be catching a lot more flak from Republicans than Democrats. That can’t be a good sign for conservatives, can it?

No, it isn’t, and it is troubling that we find ourselves in this position today. This didn’t have to happen, and it should not have happened.

Why did Mr. Bush nominate someone seen as an underqualified unknown when he had appointed so many excellent judges—such as Janice Rogers Brown and Michael McConnell—to the federal bench?

That’s a question only Mr. Bush can answer. He has stated why he chose her—that he has known her for many years and knows her values. However, Dr. [James] Dobson also noted on his radio show on [October] 12th that others had turned the nomination down, suggesting that Miers wasn’t necessarily the president’s first choice.

What bearing, if any, do you think Miers’s purported evangelical beliefs should have on the decision of Christians on whether to support her?

As an evangelical Christian, I am pleased by the opportunity to have another evangelical Christian on the Supreme Court, and I am personally comforted by her faith perspective. But that alone says nothing about one’s views of constitutional law, and in the case of Miss Miers there is, unfortunately, virtually no legal record on major issues to examine.

For example, Jimmy Carter, by all accounts, is a born again believer, even a deacon in his church. That has obviously had little impact on his views of law and public policy as it relates to values issues, like the sanctity of life.

I’m not the only one making this argument. Many of Miers’ biggest supporters, including Judge Nathan Hecht, are publicly saying that her personal views and her faith are irrelevant to how she will rule as a justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Hecht told The New York Times recently, “You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and decide the Constitution requires Roe.” Her faith tells us nothing about how she views stare decisis, the rule of precedent.

There is also a double standard here. Conservatives were rightly outraged when liberal senators tried to use John Roberts’ [Roman Catholic] faith as a disqualifier. Yet we are now being asked to make Miers’ faith her sole or primary qualifier.

Many conservatives feel profound disappointment at a missed opportunity to steer the Court back to constitutional sanity, even if Miers does turn out to be a conservative vote. They also, as the president asks them to trust him, have lost a lot of faith in Mr. Bush, who pledged to nominate people in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. What damage do you think this flap could have on the political fortunes of the Republican Party?

The fallout could be tremendous.

There are millions of “values voters” who have donated blood, sweat and tears to elect conservative Republicans to public office in order get the courts back on track. Our values prevail at the ballot box, but we consistently lose in the courts—whether it’s life issues like partial-birth abortion or parental notification, the meaning of marriage, “under God” in our Pledge or the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn. Millions of Americans care deeply about these issues and now, for the first time in years, we have a conservative president and a relatively conservative Senate with 55 [Republican] seats.

But we can’t win this fight if we don’t have it. And, with all due respect to our president, Harriet Miers isn’t exactly the standard bearer we were expecting. We needed another Robert Bork, another Antonin Scalia. Even if Miers turns out to be a pleasant surprise, her nomination has validated the stealth strategy and gives us no assurances that there won’t be another David Souter next time. To borrow one of John Roberts’ baseball analogies, this was the time to hit a home run, and it looks like we bunted.

Consider this: When Byron White, a Roe dissenter, retired, Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg—an ACLU lawyer who advocated taxpayer funding of abortions and lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, among other things. Democrats didn’t demand balance then, and Republicans never even considered filibustering her. In fact, only three Republicans were willing to vote against her! President Bush should have nominated someone with a judicial/legal/philosophical record as clearly conservative as Ginsburg’s was liberal.

That is a long answer, but the point is this: The foundation of the Republican Party is moral issues. African-American pastors publicly broke ranks with the Democrats last year over the marriage issue. That was a tremendously brave thing for them to do. If Republicans are unapologetic about their values, if they speak to issues of the heart, of right and wrong, of faith and family, they will retain the majority.

But we have to confront the courts head on in a serious way. That was the expectation when President Bush was reelected with an expanded majority in the Senate. Just ask John Thune, who defeated Tom Daschle in large part on values issues and for Daschle’s obstructionism on judges.

You’ve taken a wait-and-see stance about supporting Miers. What do you have to see to support her?

I would need to see a very clear judicial philosophy that the courts do not set policy or make law in this country. She would have to convince me that she not only understands what strict construction means, but that she believes it and adheres to it. I would need to see a serious skepticism, even outright rejection, of the concept of the “living Constitution,” of “evolving standards,” legal ideas that allow activist judges to substitute their own views and preferences in place of the clear meaning of Constitution.

What does Mr. Bush need to do to get back on track?

First of all, the president needs to know that his conservative critics are not his enemies. We are his friends. And a true friend will speak up when they think you are making a mistake—whether it’s immigration reform, federal spending, or judicial nominations.

I want this president to succeed. I desperately wish he would employ the same moral clarity we have seen time and time again in the war on terror to the culture war here at home. When it comes to changing hearts and minds about the culture of life or the sanctity of marriage, the president has the biggest megaphone of all, and the courts are the front line of the culture war.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Guest Commentary: Parade of the Penguins

By Christine Guthrie

One hot afternoon this summer, my husband decided to take the family to a movie. He chose March of the Penguins, and I was pleasantly surprised by a documentary that could appeal to all ages, even our 4-year-old. The movie piqued our interest in these amazing creatures, so I decided to go to the repository of all knowledge worth knowing (the Internet) and learn more about them.

There are several websites out there dedicated to penguins. But what baffled me as I searched was the fact that nearly all of them linked to articles about “gay” penguins. At first I thought it must be some sort of joke, but my curiosity got the best of me and I read on.

It seems there were a couple of male chinstrap penguins named Roy and Silo in New York’s Central Park Zoo that had taken up together. Since this species of penguin mates for life, Roy and Silo stayed. Not only that, when the zookeepers discovered the pair trying to incubate a rock, they decided to give them a real penguin egg. (I assume this egg had lost its parents, but I’m not sure.)

In time, a female hatched and they were one happy penguin family. Someone even decided to write a children’s picture book about them. The book showed what a loving family this alternative penguin arrangement had produced.

Not only that, turns out there is a zoo in Germany with several “gay” male penguins. More have shown up at a Japanese zoo. The German zookeepers took what might be considered a common-sense approach and introduced more females.

The local gay-rights activists were incensed. These zookeepers were not respecting the sexual preference of their charges. (Remember, we are talking about penguins.) The zoo defended the action, saying it was only trying to ensure the survival of the species. But in the end, the pressure proved too great and zoo officials scrapped the project–thus proving that in the world of political correctness, there really are some things more important than saving endangered animals.

Well, my curiosity satisfied, I filed this knowledge away as one more reason not to let my kids on the Internet unsupervised. And one more reason not to assume that every cute picture book is as harmless as it looks.

In my home, trains rule, and within a few days the subject had been forgotten in favor of the latest from Lionel. That was until I saw another news story about the famous New York pair. It appears that Silo has “gone straight.” He abandoned Roy in favor of a female named Scrappy. (Where do they come up with these names?)

You can imagine the uproar this has caused. Or perhaps, you are, quite sensibly, wondering why anyone cares about penguin sexual practices in the first place.

Of course, penguin anatomy may be part of the problem. As it turns out, the only way for humans (even those with Ph.D.s) to tell male and female penguins apart is via a blood test. They look alike and their external anatomy is the same. Last I checked, the penguins were not availing themselves of the blood test option. So there must be another way they can tell, and it’s likely to be subtle. (Smell, sound, who knows?)

I think it is quite possible that sometimes the penguins have a little trouble telling each other’s sex. (Especially, given the sort of names the zookeepers like to assign them.)

So how did a pair of penguins become poster children for the culture wars? Scientists and viewers of Animal Planet have known for years that all sorts of weird sexual behavior can be found in the animal kingdom. (Of course mollusks are not quite as cute as penguins.)

I think part of the blame lies with social conservatives who have made the argument that homosexuality is immoral because it is not normal or natural. But since when does nature determine morality? It is natural for a toddler to bite his baby brother who won’t stop crying. It is natural to push others aside as you escape a burning building. In much of the world, it is still considered normal for a man to beat his wife.

It is not natural to show forgiveness to your father’s murderer, it is not normal to love your enemies, and there is nothing natural about laying down your life for anyone outside of your immediate family. Instead, we need to show people why doing what comes naturally is often the wrong thing.

In the meantime, the penguins will continue their march, blissfully ignorant of their unintended role in the culture wars.

Christine Guthrie is Stan Guthrie’s smarter half.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Not Normal or Healthy

After reading this commentary, some might accuse me of being homophobic. If by that they mean I hate or fear homosexuals, I plead innocent with a clear conscience. (As the saying goes. “Love the sinner; hate the sin.”) However, if they mean I hate or fear what the radical gay-rights agenda and the “gay lifestyle” are doing to individuals and to society, then I proudly say: “Guilty as charged.”

It’s interesting that homosexual-rights advocates have been able to successfully label critics with the ad hominem charge of “homophobia,” as if this is some kind of recognized mental illness. Doubly interesting, since only in the last three decades have the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association rejected thousands of years of social norms and religious teaching to declare that homosexuality is not a disorder in itself.

Actually, the evidence continues to show that homosexuality is a profound disorder that should prompt compassion and treatment, not gay-pride parades. As a matter of fact, “gay” is an ironic label for people made in the image of God who are trapped in homosexuality. According to two studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, homosexually oriented men and women experienced higher rates of psychiatric disorders than their heterosexual counterparts.

And another study, of 7,000 homosexuals in the Netherlands, found: “Homosexual men had a much larger chance of having had 12-month and lifetime bipolar disorders, and a higher chance of having had lifetime major depression.... the greatest differences were found in obsessive-compulsive disorder and agoraphobia. The 12-month prevalences of agoraphobia, simple phobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder were higher in homosexual men than in heterosexual men.”

There are many factors involved in homosexuality, including genetics, dysfunctional family relationships, personal choice, and sexual abuse. Supporting the idea that homosexuality is not normal or healthy, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality notes that many homosexual men were victims of homosexual abuse when they were children who were lonely and starved for male attention, thus throwing off their internal sexual gyroscopes.

“When this lonely boy receives flattering attention from an older male, then a link is established between love and homoerotic sex,” NARTH says. “The boy comes to believe, ‘If I want love from men, I must have sex with them.’ Thus the normal and natural developmental need of same-sex love and approval has become eroticized. The boy may then develop a compulsive, promiscuous sexual habit pattern, which in gay life is seen fairly frequently.”

While gay-rights advocates strongly deny any link between homosexuality and pedophilia (denying through torturous reasoning that a homosexual act is a homosexual act), consider the following facts presented by Timothy Dudley of the Family Research Council:

· Almost all pedophiles are males;
· Although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals in the general population by roughly 20 to one, as many as a third of child sexual abuse victims are boys;
· A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are commonly attracted to young males;
· Homosexual researchers found that 73 percent of homosexuals had sex with males aged 16 to 19—or younger.

It’s no wonder, then, that the Catholic Church in the United States found itself embroiled in a massive scandal in which priests took advantage of their spiritual role to abuse children. Many of the incidents were homosexual in nature. It’s also no wonder that last month Pope Benedict XVI approved stricter new rules to ban homosexuals—even those who are celibate—from the priesthood. (The church’s catechism calls homosexuality “objectively disordered.”)

Yet while homosexuals constitute only between 1 and 3 percent of the American people, they wield influence far beyond their numbers. Their leaders seek not just tolerance of the “gay lifestyle” (which is not hard to get in today’s pluralistic climate), but active affirmation that homosexuality is normal and healthy. This is the reason for the incessant push for so-called “gay marriage” and for efforts in many denominations to allow practicing homosexuals to be church leaders (in open defiance of Christian doctrine).

In addition, these advocates wish to punish anyone who holds a contrary view. For example, on September 28 the Republican-controlled House of Representatives provided 223 votes for a “hate crimes” bill that lists “sexual orientation” as a specially protected class. Similar measures have been introduced in several states, Canada, and Sweden.

Of course, no right-thinking American would sanction hatred or violence against people caught in homosexuality, but critics fear these kinds of laws eventually could be used to restrict the free speech of Americans who refuse to toe the politically correct line on homosexuality.

Like this one.