Food for thought.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_bills_passing_has_disabled_hope/

A bill’s passing has disabled hope

Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Your Say

ONE of the most frustrating experiences of life is the feeling of being used, exploited for the benefit of others while suffering loss or harm. It is a feeling of being violated and, while leaving self-esteem shattered, it kindles a deep sense of outrage (writes Anthony Succar).

This is how I feel every time I hear one of our politicians claiming that people who suffer from crippling diseases support embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. When I was 14 I was involved in a motor vehicle accident that left me a C4-5 quadriplegic, paralysed from the neck down. With all the hardships I undergo everyday as a result of my disability it is even more unbearable being used as a marketing tool for the agenda of others.

The bill permitting therapeutic cloning that was approved in the NSW Legislative Assembly last week is a loss to the state, indeed our nation, not just morally but even more so medically. The bold claims made by politicians during the past few days have many people convinced this so-called advancement in medical science is our only means of curing all kinds of illness and disease.

This is without doubt one of the greatest orchestrated deceptions in recent medical history. Regrettably, this deception has been perpetrated by our elected representatives.

Despite the rhetoric surrounding embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research has great potential to help people, with a record of documented results that excites great hope. Research is achieving substantial results using stem cells acquired from adults and umbilical-cord blood. Sadly, this inspiring research, which has filled countless people with hope, is being attacked by those brandishing alternative agendas, with the rise of embryonic stem cell research usurping the necessary resources for adult stem cell research to continue.

It is all the more heartbreaking knowing the frailest and most vulnerable in our society are being used by politicians and pharmaceutical companies to sell their lies. In addition to holding back authentic medical research, choosing an avenue with no foreseeable benefits over documented evidence of success, politicians have also opened the door for anyone to legally assault and destroy human life.

No reasonable person will object to offering the best medical treatment necessary to cure people of whatever illness they suffer. The question arises, though: how can anyone in good conscience receive any medicine or cure at the expense of another human life?

Accordingly, it must be emphasised that embryos are human life, the very beginning of life. For if life does not begin at conception, at what point can we assume it does begin? Where do we draw the line?

Now that embryonic stem cell research has been given the green light in NSW and Victoria, my optimism for a cure for myself has all but vanished, as valuable resources move away from adult stem cell research, so rich with potential, to embryonic stem cell research. This research is not only plagued by a history of failure and a future clouded with uncertainty, but it further allows the destruction of human life while paving the path to reproductive cloning.

If politicians in the NSW lower house were not in such a rush to pass the bill, perhaps they would have considered consulting those afflicted by disease and disability, especially those who have been pursuing stem cell research in the hope it may lead to a cure.

Alas, the results of every vote produce winners and losers and in the case of the NSW therapeutic cloning bill, if approved by the Legislative Council, the politicians and the pharmaceutical companies will be the winners and those afflicted with illness and disabilities will be the losers.

Anthony Succar, a 25-year-old quadriplegic, is an IT support analyst and the stem cells spokesman for the Australian Catholic Young Adults Network. He will chair a national forum entitled Brave New World: Life & Death in 2028 at the 2028 Congress in Canberra in July.

I found the article above on The Australian. Sadly, the comments in response to the article (posted on the website - see the address above)... are highly informative of the current state of public debate in Australia. It's strange how free speech so often means "free speech for everyone who agrees with me, and judgment on those who beg to differ"

Many comments criticized the writer's opinion on the sole reason that he was Catholic, and thus was incapable of independent thought, making his opinions not worth considering. As the writer himself noted...they only read half the article. If values from "religion" are inherently biased, judgmental and divisive, and thus not worth considering; then we really need to consider the bases of our legal and ethics system (which often have been historically based on "religion" - eg human rights/criminal law). Deep down, everyone has some moral code that they abide to (though the motivations may differ). The question i would then pose would be where that moral code/sense of right/wrong comes from. Where does the atheist's stand on right and wrong come from?

The point is that criticizing someone espousing an opinion just because he is religious is counter-productive. Obviously everyone's opinions will be informed by the values they hold (be it atheism, Catholicism, etc etc). After all... the opinions spouted by atheists are informed by their sincere belief that this world is all there is. The opinions spouted by the writer will also be informed by his Catholic beliefs. Like it or not, whenever we make a judgment on something, we will be making it based on our values, wherever they come from).

If "religious" values hold no credence in public debate, on the basis that they are derived from religion, consider atheistic values based on human "wisdom" (if religious values are based on Divine reason, it follows that atheistic values are based on human wisdom). While human wisdom may be partially behind the development of civilization as we know it, and the many scientific discoveries that have improved human life; there is also the human wisdom which has led us to 2 world wars, various genocides, a deepening poverty crisis in Africa, global warming etc etc... it seems at the very least that human wisdom is a double-edged sword. So why should atheistic values, based on this "wisdom" be given more credence than religious values? At the very least, if you're going to criticize an opinion, do so on the basis of the opinion's statements, not on the basis of the personal beliefs of the maker of the opinion. As a footballer might say: "play the ball, not the man".

Some lambasted The Australian for printing another 'religiously biased' article. I should note then that a free press incorporates opinions from all sides of society, and the purported scientific bases supporting embryonic stem cell research have been well covered by all sides of the press - "do as i say, but not as i do" comes to mind.

There was also some debate regarding when life actually begins. I'm not even going to wade into this debate. I might be opening too big a can of worms here.

Personally, I'm too uninformed on the stem cell issue to make a judgment on it's scientific viability etc etc. There's one thing I'll say though to those who would question religious values and their place in modern debate. I am a Christian, but I don't write as a person who blindly accepts his faith just because another said this was so. Rather I write as a person who has personally found something truly significant, larger than life itself. I wouldn't live a blind faith. Personally, I'm on the side of truth, and that truth for me leads me to place my complete trust and salvation in Christ. The sentiments here aren't expressed because "they're the right thing to write as a Christian", but because i personally agree with them, having considered them in the light of my personal values.

Leading back to our discussion on whether embryonic research is morally right/wrong, ultimately if i wasn't sure about whether something was right, i definitely wouldn't do it. Also, as the writer of the article notes, there is a less controversial means of research - adult stem cells which has been giving some viable results. After all, one's walk with God is not really about how much one can get away with, but about a personal desire to live one's life closer to Him. For me, a human life is a human life...Sacred. I don't want to impose my opinions on others. But there's a distinction between seeking to impose one's opinion on others and just giving one's opinion. Sadly the latter is often mistaken for the former in public debate.