July 2018 Newsletter
Posted By cmbuuck on August 23, 2018
Life Affirming News
Calling Evil “Good”
By Linda Bartlett May 22, 2018 LifeDate
As a Christian woman, mom, and grandmother from Iowa, I am compelled to ask: When Jesus returns, what will He say to pastors who advocate for abortion in His name? Who deny rights to unborn children, indeed the most vulnerable of all humans? Who praise a woman’s freedom from motherhood but seemingly care little about a woman held captive to sin?
In March, a group of Iowa clergy and religious leaders signed a letter to the Des Moines Register advocating for abortion on demand. Signers included Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Episcopal, and Lutheran leaders.
The letter spoke against a bill that would prohibit abortions from the moment an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable, which is about six weeks of pregnancy. Some scientists give evidence for an unborn baby’s heartbeat beginning at 21 days; still others link to evidence that the heartbeat begins at about 18 days.
Oddly enough, the clergy who signed this letter claim that the Iowa bill prohibiting abortions is based on religion, not science. Now here is a real switch-a-roo. Government leaders are speaking up in defense of unborn babies because their hearts are beating, but church leaders are blaming them for being religious.
There are more questions. . .
The pro-abortion religious leaders maintain that women deserve to make their own decisions about their bodies and their pregnancies. Haven’t we heard this before? Slave owners used to say, “I have the right to do as I please with my property.” Which one of us dares look at another human person created in the image of God—of any color, age, stage of development, or place of residence—and declare them “property?” How does a female pregnant with a male child get away with claiming he is her “body”? What reasonable feminist would agree that an unborn baby girl with her own unique DNA is the “property” of the older woman who carries her?
When a biologically astute Christian woman willingly consents to or encourages sexual intercourse, what does she think might result? Does her choice about motherhood come before she is sexually intimate, or after?
Let’s say that a Methodist, United Church of Christ, or Lutheran woman has longed to be a grandmother. What would she think if her eight-months-pregnant daughter claims, “It’s my body and I’ve decided to abort.” Abort what? To abort means to “end” or to “terminate.” What pastor can, in Jesus’ name, tell a mother and her pregnant daughter that a grandchild is not to be considered human life worthy of protection?
And, speaking of protection, what about the man who fathers a child but has no legal right to save his child from abortion by scissors, spinal injection, or chemical burning? According to these religious leaders, must a daddy who turns to his own Heavenly Father for courage to do right by his unborn child be ignored?
I am ashamed for these pastors and religious leaders who signed a letter calling pro-life legislation “immoral.”
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
That time is now. .
But there is hope! There is always hope! As a Lutheran who believes God is faithful and just, I confess with all repentant sinners:
Most merciful God, we have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed. We have not loved You with our whole hearts, nor have we loved our (littlest, biggest, youngest, or oldest) neighbor as ourselves. We deserve Your punishment. For the sake of Your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us not according to our will but Yours.
Looking to the Cross of Christ, we hear the One who began His earthly life as an unborn Child say to His Father, “Forgive them.”
10 Reasons Embryo-Destroying Research Is Unnecessary
By Michael W. Salemink May 22, 2018 LifeDate
Forty years ago, the first child conceived via in vitro fertilization (IVF) was born. Twenty years have passed since scientists isolated embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Technicians value ESCs because they can engineer them into any type of cell or tissue. Financial concerns have led IVF clients and clinicians to create more embryos than they transfer to wombs. These “extra” embryos have served as the main source for ESCs. Harvesting ESCs destroys embryos and puts to death God’s precious human creatures, depriving us every time of the blessing of another neighbor. Happily, embryo-destroying research is unnecessary. Here are ten reasons why:
Other sources. Researchers have obtained ESCs from placental tissue, umbilical cord blood, and amniotic fluid. These means don’t injure the little ones.
Adult stem cells. Grown-up bodies also make stem cells. Although they don’t possess all the potential of ESCs, they still offer many possibilities and applications.
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). In 2006 a team of experts converted (adult) skin samples into cells functionally equivalent to ESCs. Lower costs and greater accessibility have made this the preferred process for stem cell experiments.
iPSC advancements. Several treatments utilizing iPSCs have met with promising successes, including trials for stroke, heart damage, spinal cord injury, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and cancers. ESCs have encountered problems, and almost exclusively like tumor formation and immune rejection.
Organs-on-a-chip (OOCs). Laboratories have developed circuit boards that have tiny fluid channels. Tissues can grow on these devices, which then substitute for and simulate the activities and mechanics of entire organs. They make possible more precise interactions and observations than ever before.
Natural Procreative Technology (NaProTech). This approach diagnoses and treats the underlying causes of an individual’s infertility. It serves fertility care rather than fertility control, focusing on medical priorities rather than technological ones. IVF often entirely overlooks these possibilities.
Embryo adoption. Couples have begun adopting and gestating IVF’s “surplus” embryos. Rather than leaving them in liquid limbo, discarding them altogether, or destroying them for study, this receives these children as the special treasures God has declared them to be.
We’re better than that. We don’t need to sacrifice children for progress. Our belief in human life’s significance is what drives our need for medical research in the first place. Martyring embryos only undermines that basic belief.
Better two heads than one. The fewer embryos we slay, the more will survive to apply their minds to scientific investigation and solving illnesses.
Jesus is real treatment. Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection are the answer to disease and death. Forgiveness and everlasting life are already at work curing the sin that causes it all. God’s grace enables us to carry each other’s crosses until the healing is completed.