Tho'ts on Medical Ethics and Abortion

Reading the news this morning and two articles concerning this topic are in the headlines on CNS News.com. 

 

In the article called Embryonic-Like' Cell Discovery Could Affect Ethics Debate,  they have found an ethical alternative to stem-cell research of ANY kind, without the pitfalls of either adult or embryonic stem-cells.  It's called cord-blood-derived-embryonic-like stem cells (CBEs).  You can read the article for all the info.  What I need to say about it all is this:  Since there are ethical alternatives, can we now get down to the business at hand and stop all the killing in the name of science?  I'm willing to forecast that the abortion industry will not like this new discovery, will seek to discredit it with all sorts of lies.  Their pocketbooks will be hurt by this as they can no longer get away with ethically or unethically selling the parts of the aborted baby at huge profits - or at least the stem-cells. 

 

The second medical ethics article is about the courts and the government dictating that morality is relative again - this time in reference to pharmacies and abortofacients (RU 486, etc.).  In Austin, TX (a huge disappointment to me, for I thought TX was a much more conservative, sensible, and free state compared to the liberal states of the North East and West).  They have made a law that forces Walgreen's and other stores to dispense RU486 and other unethical drugs regardless of their company's wishes to not be party to chemical murder of babies or seniors.  The article was reported in the Houston Chronicle, entitled Austin prohibits Walgreens from refusing to fill prescriptions.  The company (Walgreen's) is not upset by the deal (which means I won't be going there for my prescriptions if I can help it).  Their justification for calm?  They believe that the policy gives individual pharmacists freedom to act according to their conscience - as long as another without scruples is available to fill the prescriptions.  My beef?  This isn't about a single pharmacist's conscience.  It's about decency.  Planned Parenthood is behind this, and Austin City Council has succumbed to their faulty logic that killing a baby with chemicals is ok, decent, even reasonable healthcare for women and must not be denied those who want it.

 

One article offers hope that the abortion industry will come to a slow-down if not stop.  Their biggest argument in support of it from a scientific standpoint is now rendered mute.  The second demonstrates Planned Parenthood's unrelenting efforts to force an ethic of moral relativism down our throats - the kind of relativism that should sicken us all.  They say that our consciences are meaningless but the unscrupulous behavior of the selfish, brutal, murdering moms should trump all and be declared decent and in order, indeed, a right by the constitution of our land. 

 

I'm not sure I've articulated the disappointment I am feeling over all this - for the hope offered on one hand is retracted by the disappointment offered on the other hand.  I'm back to square one, and that is not where I had hoped to be.  Yes, I didn't get my way, and the news continues to report that I'm losing ground in an increasingly unbiblical, unethical, immoral society.  I'm crying right now over the loss of life, liberty, and genuine faith because of these constricting and illogical secular ideas which are being forced on our lives, our kids, and our country.