Being a Life Preserver: A Quick Address of Three Life Issues

Commentary by Cantice

I might be late, but I just heard that the FDA recently approved the “growing” and selling of cloned meat for general consumption. This cloned meat will not have to be labeled as such; it will be sold in our supermarkets next to the uncloned meat. Currently cloning meat is too expensive for ranchers to immediately begin production. So odds are that you won’t need to panic over this unknown as you do your shopping for at least the next five years. Some of you might not be panicking at all, but anticipating the benefits of meat that may be superior (double-packed with protein, super-lean, etc) to the natural kind. Others of you may be wondering what exactly is cloning. That leads me to the next life issue.

Last Thursday I attended a conference entitled Stem Cell Research: Understanding the Controversies. The conference mainly consisted of eight panelists presenting their research on aspects of stem cell experimentation. This research included (1)attitudes of IVF (in-vitro fertilization) treatment couples about donating their frozen embryos to science (the majority prefer this option), (2)current findings of ANT experiments(altered nuclear transfer-removing an embryonic cell’s nucleus, taking out other cellular info, and rendering the cell humanly unviable—they create vegetative state embryos), some consider ANT a morally acceptable means for the procurement of human embryonic stem cells, (3) a social scientists’ statistics tracking the significance of state initiatives for stem cell research (have these initiatives attracted bio-scientists from states with no stem cell funding initiatives), and (4) a theoretical overview of religious conceptions of the beginning of life (40 days vs. 17 days vs. conception) which explain religiously founded opposition to human embryonic stem cell research. Whew, that was a mouthful. Now back to my first point. The ANT researcher from the President’s Council explained that cloning is taking a body cell (say from a cow’s flesh) and blending it with an embryo which is pluripotent (able to form into any kind of cell, organ, etc), zapping/infusing it with electricity (or something) and watching it grow into whatever cell you merged it with (in this case a cow’s flesh). If you have understood my sketchy explanation (biological community, I apologize), or were already familiar with these procedures, then you know that deciding whether it is morally acceptable to use human embryos—even those formed by ANT—is just one of the moral considerations of this cloning.

Now to try and tie all of this together. This week was the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision. So us prolife-types were present at the silent march lamenting (silently) the loss of life due to legalized abortion in this country and the negative impact of it on American citizens, women, men, and children alike. While you reading this may never want to identify yourself as part of this prolife movement, I think current events leave you no choice but to “understand the controversies” and decide to act in your own best interests. As human life experiments become more frequent and radical, who do you think could end up a target? The better question might be who won't become a target.

As for practical action for the moderately pro-life, or the weakly pro-choice I suggest you check yourself if you have a tendency to shake your head when you see a pregnant teenager or single woman. I've learned to feel proud of these women, realizing that it takes toughness to go the path of carrying a baby to term knowing that the road ahead will not be easy. If you want to go even further, buy that woman some maternity clothes or the best seller What to Expect When You’re Expecting. Unless your brain has been totally reprogrammed to believe that this type of help somehow hurts women and children, you too can become a life preserver. A once popular songstress made the following refrain famous: I believe the children are our future. I tend to agree.

Response
by Wanda

Whew...that was a lot. Warn me next time you plan on going "scientific" so that I can find a cute medical student on campus to interpret. In defense of all those out there (including myself) who passed science by the skin of their teeth ....huh? I think what your saying is any type of embryonic cell research is unethical...right? I am at a lost for words this week. Because I am constantly confused with the purpose and energy that Pro-lifers put into these types of discussions and the financial support poured into these pro-life organizations. I would have to agree there is something very unnerving about extracting stem cells from aborted embryos or in-vitro eggs. But a recent study just showed that birth rates were up in the US and birth statistics haven't been this high since over 20 years ago. We are even among the top countries with such high birthrates. The other day a study showed that most women getting abortions were married and their reasons being they just couldn't afford, or manage to care for another child (which says a lot about the domestic support that husbands are not providing in their own homes.)

What is even more interesting in these debates over stem cell research and abortion is that men have many times been the leading voices against these "ills." Appropriately so since they are not the ones who serve as the primary childcare provider...isn't that interesting. I am a realist and sometimes even labeled a cynic but I think that you should fight the battles that you can win. Women have aborted babies for thousands of years, overturning Roe vs. Wade is not going to stop it. It will actually drive it underground, thereby leaving many women who choose to abort vulnerable to sham doctors and even death. The biggest killer of humans is not abortions but hypertension, heart disease and car accidents. Let's pull resources together to deal with issues of poverty and healthcare or even quality education. Focusing on trying to stop scientists from creating and exploring is pointless. There is too much potential revenue that can be scored from their science. I wonder how much money the pro-life organizations are pouring into social programs or advocating in DC about equal pay for women, or better education? I believe that every decision we make we have to answer to God for but that also includes how well we use our resources. If we want to maintain the sanctity of life we should also focus on the quality of life-which is also sacred. Cantice, it's nice to see that your challenging us to reach out and help young women facing a difficult time in their lives. Who knows maybe you can lead other pro-lifers to fight for quality of life issues too.

The Obama Dilemma: Do I vote Race or Family Values?

Commentary By Wanda


With the Presidential primaries in full speed, and Barack Obama one of the leading Democratic candidates it seems timely and appropriate to consider the possibility of a black president. Just the other day I was having coffee with a friend and he asked me what I thought about Barack Obama. Although I will have to leave out the extremities of my response I basically told him I was not sure America was ready for a man with mixed racial background to be President nor do I think we're ready for a woman (Not long after our discussion, Ambassador Andrew Young confirmed my view about Obama.) Now as I am writing this commentary I think that I might have been wrong. Clearly, change is never welcomed. If MLK would have waited until the right time we might have never been able to pass legislation against racial discrimination; if Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, or Sojourner Truth would have waited, many of us who have historically been discriminated against would still live in that reality. I am in no way asserting that many are not still the victims of discrimination, but, thanks to the efforts of those named above, in less overt ways. Blacks and women have been programmed to “wait” whether to serve or to prolong action. I am not naïve enough to think that action will inevitably create an instant change. However, inaction has never accomplished much either. I don’t struggle with politics and race very often but I do feel the tension between race and gender. It’s a slippery slope and many times the greater (race) calls on me to place the lesser (gender) on the back burner. It will be curious to see how many of us who have voted conservative now negotiate the tension between race and politics.

Now this leads me to my second point. Voting Family Values. I don’t understand what that really means since values were enforced by my parents and government was to be viewed, according to my parents, as having control over broader, social issues. But nevertheless, many blacks who have voted for “family values” candidates in the past will face -The Obama Dilemma. Many of these same individuals who were shouting from the rooftops about family values have expressed their support of Obama. News alert! Obama is pro-choice, pro-civil unions, pro-stem cell research among other liberal political positions (We shouldn't forget the gospel concert controversy with Donnie McClurkin.)So Black Conservative Christian…how will you vote? Are you Christian first or Black first? (If you want to read an interesting book on this topic read Finding Soul Brothers: Dismantling Black Christian Racialism by Pamela G. Wilson.) Now, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with their decision; they have a right to vote for any candidate of their choosing. But has race trumped your convictions? Or do you see the importance of electing a man who can empathize with the plight of the “other” and wants to see change for himself and future generations.

Finally, it should be interesting to see who our beloved mega-pastors endorse if Obama makes it as the democratic candidate. (Hummm, but many of these pastors will be avoiding the IRS so we may not hear much from them this election season.) Nevertheless, I think that this miry muck will bring to light the tension between politics and race. My voting decision has yet to be finalized and I am in no way stating my full support of Obama, Clinton, or anyone else for that matter. Voting exclusively based on race, gender or family values is equally dangerous but somehow I feel that it will characterize the voting decisions of many this election.

Commentary by Cantice

Well it has been a long time. Wanda didn't let you faithful readers down in her posting of a lengthy, gutsy, rather disclosing commentary about making tough voting decisions. When Wanda mentioned that she was going to write about Obama, he was the furthest thing from my mind. My not thinking about Barack Obama in several months has a different impact today as I try to muster up an appropriate response to Wanda's critical statements. One way to begin to connect with this topic is to tell you what presidential thoughts I have had.

Most of my political thoughts have been at least in part prompted by my husband's faithful attention to media surrounding the presidential race. Most recently, he's (we've) been interested in Huckabee's rise to popularity. Internally, I've struggled with whether I prefer someone like Huckabee or Guiliani. The merits of Huckabee that attract me are his overt Christian worldview, including his position on abortion, and his more realistic ideas about immigration. Conversely, I am attracted to Guiliani's economic outlook including school choice programs. As I've said to my husband, we'll always have pastors to champion our moral beliefs and guide us in doing our part to color our communities with that theistic, Christian outlook. But when I think about our country's economic troubles, which for me do not concern an increase in minimum wage, but focus on the depreciating dollar and an expanding trade deficit and national debt, I wonder if an agenda that places moral or social change at the top of its list is the best for this country. A failed economy will produce equality; we'll all be destitute. Lack of freedom to determine a standard of living by the educational, occupational, and networking choices one makes will be widespread. I don't want that kind of equality. That kind of equality was imposed by communism and caused the despair felt by Russian citizens and many others.

But back to Obama. In short, I don't feel a tug to consider voting in his favor. At least I don't now. I do remember a faint sadness I felt when I first learned of his popularity and decision to run for president. I was saddened that we sit on opposite sides of the political table (it would take me too long to tell why the Republican platform more closely matches my idea of national government, than that of Democrats, Libertarians or The Green Party). The GOP is certainly not my picture of the perfect party, but when I boil it all down, it is the party that supports more of my ideas about what government should do. My hope is that more people from my ancestry (black Americans) would embrace those ideas. I hope that one day I will be able to vote for a black president for no other reason than that I believe that he or she will be the best candidate for the job. In that way I will simultaneously combat my own prejudices while also doing what I believe is best for my country.