HuffPo Writer Gives Christians a Fair Hearing in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Poem Controversy
In a surprisingly balanced piece, Huffington Post columnist John Lundberg demonstrated sensitivity to Christians outraged by the sacrilege committed in a controversial poem written to promote stem cell awareness. Tyson Anderson wrote winning verse for the October 13 Stem Cell Awareness Day contest sponsored by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
“This is my body, which is given for you.” These words, found in the New Testament, spoken by Jesus during the first communion among his disciples, were used in Anderson’s poem as the voice of a fetus willingly giving up his or her life for the use of its stem cells. According to the Huffington Post article, CIRM removed the poem from its website.
Lundberg noted that the language of the text is sacred to those who practice communion and to opponents of embryonic stem-cell research. He included a quote from Life Legal Defense Fund’s response to the poem which read, “The choice of this poem for a prize represents the deliberate pilfering of the holiest of voluntary, sacrificial acts in the history of humanity for a shoddy pep piece in CIRM's campaign to promote the wholesale destruction of human life. As if squandering taxpayer money on propaganda to promote ‘Stem Cell Awareness Day’ were not enough, CIRM is bent on mocking the most sacred of Christian texts.”
The Huffington Post has a history of mocking Christians and distorting the positive impact of religion with articles calling for such ridiculous things such as the arrest of the pope and attacking evangelical leaders like Jerry Fallwell. Giving credit where credit is due, Lundberg did not minimize the concern of Christians at the use of Scripture to promote a morally controversial policy point.
“Anderson's poem doesn't strike me as being deliberately provocative -- its tone is clearly heartfelt,” Lundberg wrote. “But using the language considered sacred by most opponents of stem cell research in order to promote the research is, well, provocative.”
And although he called the LLDF protest “hyperbole,” Lundberg also included this sentence from the group: "The poem's premise is that the embryo is a person wishing to give its life, but why we should assume that the embryo is saying, 'Let me help,' rather than 'Let me live'?"
To Lundberg, “this seemed the start of an enlightening debate, but CIRM chose not to continue it, instead removing the poem from its website and apologizing.”
Below is Anderson’s stem cell poem, in its entirety.
“This is my body
which is given for you.
But I am not great.
I have neither wealth,
nor fame, nor grace.
I cannot comfort with words,
nor inspire to march.
I am small and simple,
so leave me this.
Let me heal you.
This is my body
which is given for you.
Take this
in remembrance of me.”
- Erin R. Brown's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Nice poem.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 4:25pm.
Nice poem.
There is but no God but embryo
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 6:14pm.
Yeah. Try that one. Learn to breathe through your neck.
Might want to check your
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 8:12pm.
Might want to check your post. It reads nonsensically.
I was addressing the author of the poem, not you.
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 9:05pm.
The Muslim prayer begins, "There is no God but Allah." That's what I was alluding to.
In that case, why did you
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:43pm.
In that case, why did you reply to my comments?
Why?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 1:02pm.
1. I thought you were being sarcastic. Were you?
2. Ergo, I thought it made sense to draw a comparison between the Catholic words of institution, which are readily trivialized, with the holy prayer of Islam, which most definitely aren't.
3. My reply became No. 2 with a bullet, not buried down the line somewhere.
These particular words of
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 9:34pm.
These particular words of Jesus used in this way are repulsive and maybe actually diabolical.
Embryonic Stem Cells
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 4:28pm.
Use of embryonic stems cells is an unholy cannibalistic communion.
I don't know if the poem was mocking or not, it may have represented the writer's twisted thoughts. Regardless, the baby has no voice in it being "volunteered" for communion.
Credit where it's due. I
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 4:49pm.
Credit where it's due. I like that.
Hold up, hold up, hold up!
Submitted by stage9 on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 4:52pm.
So the POEM is granting PERSONHOOD to an embryo?
Am I reading that right?
I thought fetuses were just a glob of lifeless cells. I wasn't aware that they were capable of emotion! Are we to understand that abortionists, aware that they're murdering a human life, are "choosing" to murder it anyway?
Liberals are more willing to murder a fetus for stem cells than they are to use ADULT stem cells that have ALREADY produced real-world results.
Murder is a choice. So choose life.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
You know there's a pretty big
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 4:58pm.
You know there's a pretty big difference between a fetus and an embryo, right? No one is destroying fetuses here. Just embryos.
But the embryos have
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:07pm.
But these embryos have bodies!! And minds, to willingly give up their bodies, for others!!
That's what the author of that ridiculous poem would have us believe!
Unless, of course, we find that disturbing. Then, they're just bunches of useless cells.
Actually they're a bunch of
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:11pm.
Actually they're a bunch of really important and rather useful cells, ones which can be turned into any kind of cell.
If all the embryos from your
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 10:52pm.
If all the embryos from your mother were subjected to this particular scientific research, would you have been born?
I guess you missed the part
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:17pm.
I guess you missed the part about ESCs being grown in a lab, and not taken from a pregnant woman.
Where do they get the eggs?
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 1:02pm.
Where do they get the eggs? Sperm ? ...to perform the lab experiments?
Why trivialize the discussion with silly semantics or word play? I know you are capable of an intellectually honest discussion.
Once again , if all your mother's eggs which would be fertilized were removed from your mother and used in laboratory embyonic research would you have ever been born?
My point is that you at some point in your life were an embryo and if you were put through the research you are talking about here you never would have been born. Is that correct or not?
You're still missing the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 1:38pm.
You're still missing the point. We're not talking about embryos ripped from the mother's womb - these are donated, unfertilized eggs, which scientists fertilize into embryos in a lab.
I understand your point
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:55pm.
I understand your point completely. Since you differentiate between a donated egg fetilized in a lab and an egg in the body of a woman fertilized in the normal way, I was trying to point out that we are talking about an area of science that deals with things that can have very profound implications for all human life. It is not a trivial matter to be discussed like removing fingernails but rather one where it is totally understandable that thinking people have deep concerns.
I jumped into the dialog because of the poet's use of the words of Jesus which are the most sacred of His words to Catholics. I understand that the HuffPo removed the poem because of this but beyond the science it seems reasonable dialog should at least respect the sincere and deeply held sentiments about things so important to those interested in the topic. I assume you probably weren't part of this mockery but more interested in the science of embryonic research. I find the morality surrounding the creation of human life something that is very serious and a topic that needs to be approached with the ulitimate respect. We shouldn't play word games but actually discuss the real pros and cons and whatever real evidence we have surrounding the issue.
If you can trust anything I
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:08pm.
If you can trust anything I say, believe this: I am much more interested in respectful debate than I am in another flame war. Unfortunately my views and beliefs aren't normally respected, so when I'm dealing with an onslaught of insults it's difficult to keep straight who wishes to discuss the topics maturely, and those who want another pissing match.
I could talk about this subject all day. As a naturalist, my beliefs are not founded in Christianity, which gives me a perspective different from most. If not now, I hope we can continue to respectfully discuss these issues with one another, whether it me this topic or something else.
Have a nice evening, rfpzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Thanks , I assumed you
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 12:47am.
Thanks , I assumed you actually were interested in a discussion. I am interested in your point of view because you come from a different background and have different views than I do. I am trying to understand your point of view and maybe increase my knowledge a bit. My basic views are set due to my own reasons but I am interested in understanding more of some of the details surrounding the issues. Take it easy.
was that sarc off or on?
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 6:46pm.
As a woman that has given birth to two beautiful daughters , there is no difference between a fetus and an embryo, at least, not to those of us who cherish life.
How about an embryo grown in
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 7:29pm.
How about an embryo grown in a laboratory for scientific study versus a human fetus grown inside a womb?
See a difference yet?
They are the same. And
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 7:56pm.
They are the same.
And THAT's why it's profane and immoral to "grow" embryos in a laboratory to study, or to subject to experiments, or to use for parts.
Do you not see the difference between "growing" human embryos and growing plants?
No.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 8:11pm.
No.
Then I pity you.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 10:24pm.
Then I pity you.
That is my new sig line.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 11:08pm.
Rarely do liberals show their disdain for human life as blatantly as good ol' Ted does here, or should I say a lack of sympathy? All that bleeding heart stuff stops when they see real blood from a really bleeding heart. Then it's total robot mode: "Exterminate! Exterminate!" I've always wondered about liberals' hatred for children, for stable home lives, for a home that isn't dependent on government, and now I see. It all goes back to a complete inability to see past the ends of their own noses.
Visions and Principles blog
More nonsense. You're acting
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:20pm.
More nonsense. You're acting as if the government is forcing women to harvest embryos for the sake of experimentation.
How does your God feel about in vitro fertilization? Because this is how ESCs are born.
ADK, talk about nonsense.
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:37pm.
ADK, talk about nonsense. Your equating the act of saving life to exterminating it? I really expected a more coherent argument from you. But I see emotion and not intelligence is your strong point.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
So then you just dropped by
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:40pm.
So then you just dropped by to insult me?
Yep. Been a boring day here.
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:42pm.
Yep. Been a boring day here.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
How conservative of you.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:44pm.
How conservative of you.
Hey, ADK. Thanks!
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 1:23pm.
Hey, ADK. Thanks!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Nothing inherently immoral about cannibalism either
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:28pm.
Meat is meat.
/s
You're missing his point.
Submitted by ant on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 8:27pm.
You're missing his point. Liberals try to convince us that embryos, fetus', whatever are not really people yet or even technically "life", yet here they are giving it a mind and soul. Interesting. Libs always do that, that's why they rely on the politics of personal destruction, because their ideas are to assinine to actually defend. As just one example, look at the brouhaha they tried to create around Whitman's maid. On one hand they've been telling us that there is nothing wrong with being illegal but according to their case, there is. And furthermore if you're not sure you're hiring an illegal, well, then you need to racial profile or you're in trouble but wait, we don't like you to racial profile. So you're in trouble either way. There are many more examples and to tell you the truth I don't see how liberal logic doesn't cause your heads to explode.
Doesn't it blow your mind to
Submitted by HypocriteHater on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 9:00pm.
Doesn't it blow your mind to think of a mere clump of cells becoming a human life? To think that that's how you and I and everyone else on the planet started out. I tiny dot.
But just because an embryo is in a different stage of life than a fetus, doesn't mean the fetus has more rights to live than an embryo. They both eventually become living, breathing human beings.
Once we become confortable with destroying embryos, where does it go from there when it's in the name of science? And what else will we be expected to become confortable with?
You know what else blows my
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:30pm.
You know what else blows my mind? Watching my roses bloom. It's quite amazing, actually. They start off as these little plants with little spikes and little leaves. Then as the branches extend upward toward the sun, these dark reddish formations come to be, ultimately blooming into roses of every color imaginable (except blue and green, for some reason).
And then I'll cut a few roses and place them in a vase for my wife, ultimately killing the poor rose in the process.
No, I get all of your arguments. "This" kind of life is precious, but "that" kind isn't. We destroy life every day for multiple purposes, but in the end it's all in the name of consumption.
But when it comes to scientists in a lab injecting sperm into an egg to fertilize in vitro, you equate this to abortion. Did I get that right?
Really? There's some stage
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:39am.
"You know there's a pretty big difference between a fetus and an embryo, right? No one is destroying fetuses here. Just embryos."
Really? There's some stage where the embryo (after a cocoon stage or something like that) metamorphes into a fetus? Must be similar to the total transformation from a 9 month from conception fetus into a brand spanking new baby.
Funny, cause I thought it was a completely arbitrary and artificial classification invented by man to study the development of human children. Just a step along the way.
Guess I don't know as much about human development as I thought. And to think I learned something from a liberal.
The human embryo becomes a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:36pm.
The human embryo becomes a fetus at the start of the 9 week mark. ESCs are derived from a 5 day preimplantation embryo.
As I said, that is an
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 2:22pm.
As I said, that is an arbitrary point in the baby's development. Does something special happen to turn an embryo into a fetus? No, just a date in the life of a baby.
But something really special happens at the point of conception, the DNA half from the egg binds with the DNA half from the sperm and something exists that has never existed before in the history of the universe. A brand new person. A new creation. No matter how you refer to it after that, embryo, fetus, baby, or even "Another Dead Kennedy", it is a human being. And if you kill that human being intentionally, for whatever reason, you are killing something holy.
To kill to protect another life (i.e., war, death sentence, etc.) therefore requires much thought and consideration. But to kill a human in a test tube, in your mind anyway, is no big deal, perhaps because you have labeled it something "less than human" when you name it an embryo. Naming something does not define its value, or as someone famous once said, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
It does change its' value
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 3:43pm.
It does change its' value when ESCs are specifically grown for the use of research. Forgive me if I don't see the miracle of life being as simple as the fertilization of an egg - after something happens over a billion times, the miracle aspect is no longer.
Just the same, the miracle of life doesn't happen in a test tube in a lab, which is how ESCs are made. This kind of science is important to the entire world. You and I will quite possibly benefit from the breakthroughs of ESCR one day. Would you necessarily tell your doctor not to cure your deadly diseases or conditions because you disagree with how such cures had been discovered?
Yes, I believe that growing ESCs for the sole purpose of extraction of cells and the ultimate destruction of the embryo is not only ethical, but necessary in the advancement of science and health. And no, I don't consider an ESC to be a human being - it must endure 9 months inside the woman's uterus, a crucial stage of development that never happens with ESCR.
Then you and I disagree. You
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 4:50pm.
Then you and I disagree. You believe that a human has to prove his or her worth by "enduring" 9 months inside a woman's uterus to have value. I believe that life is a right not an earned privilege. The fact that life is begun in a laboratory just for the purpose of killing it to possibly improve your life, nonwithstanding. You could have the same opinion of a clone grown just so you could have spare parts. In fact, there was a movie with that very premise. Just because you have the upper hand in the equation (over the embryo) doesn't mean you have the moral higher ground.
Our society will be judged, I believe, on how we treat the innocent and the helpless. There is no more innocent or helpless than the unborn children that our society creates and then destroys for personal gain.
As I said at the beginning of this comment, you and I disagree. Since I don't think you will be swayed by my argument and I know that I will not move from my position, let us leave it at that.
Respectfully I finally agree
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:10pm.
Respectfully I finally agree with you...to disagree.
Have a nice day, Ben.
you too. - Ben
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:28pm.
So in your mind
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:31pm.
Embryos enjoy personhood, but fetuses don't?
Liberals just don't make ANY sense. :/
4dd8427b-a622-4abf-8e68-2c9b5fb97787 1.03.01Limited personhood
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 6:16pm.
They are not a full person, but only one for the limited purpose of dying so real persons can live better lives.
Re: Limited Personhood
Submitted by wdvander on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 10:12pm.
So, people who are not "full persons" are used to improve the lives of "real" persons. Who makes the decision as to what stands as a "full person" and who decides which "real" persons possess the lives to be improved? Sounds like CO2 Maker is suggesting that some sort of commission or panel be convened to decide which people are used to improve the lives of other people. I think I am in Sarah Palin's court on this one as it sounds a lot like those bad ol' death panels Sarah was talking about. Once we decide which babies to kill, what is to stop someone from picking a person who is not "full", say disabled or handicapped, from being used to improve the life of another real person. You know people with handicaps and disabilities usually have organs that work just fine and really don't need them 'cause they are not real people, just disabled and handicapped. I know I took some literary license with this, but the stem cell awareness folks took literary license with some words that I hold very dear.No suggestion of a "usability" panel
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 4:28am.
My comment was meant as very heavy sarcasm. I forgot the obligatory /sarc on/ /sarc off/ code.
Proponents of using embryonic stem cells to cure injuries or disease point to Christopher Reeve as an example of a wonderful life lost because ESC therapy wasn't available. (Remember when John the Breck Boy Edwards made that claim?)
Glad to hear you were mocking
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 10:23am.
Glad to hear you were mocking the process. I have one of the target diseases they promise will be helped by this procedure and I am not interested into being bribed into going along with their sacrilige against life. This incidently is the same pitch as the "tax the rich" scheme only more heinous. They bait you with a promise of a reward if only you will conspire with them. Proverbs 1 has a nice treatise on falling for this trap. Frankly I see it akin to the morality of slavery. One group of people feel perfectly comfortable using another group of people to make their own lives easier.
Cognitive dissodance or
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:16pm.
Cognitive dissodance or willful manipulation?
The supporters of abortion typically make their arguments with a foundational statement to the effect that the embryo/fetus is but a mass of cells that may be aborted utnil certain milestones are met in the development of the fetus, or, even not until after delivery.
Now this award winning poem contradicts the very foundation upon which pro-abortion supporters backstop their cause:
How will the pro-abortionist resolve this disconnect? More uncharacteristic anthropomorphizing myth or just plain myth?
Additionally, apply this poem to the elderly, the infirm, and the imperfect. How easy it is for them to kill a fetus can be just as justifiable in the same mind to kill the already born but unproductive, resource hogging, or burdensome.
Then there is the pathological and profane abuse of Jesus' words to support a cause that could arguably be the most abhorent act one human could do to another from the perspective of Jesus. Was this a Machiavellian ploy to capture more market share, religious or not, or just a bizarre attempt at justifying abortion?
Countdown to some jackass, possibly on NB's itself, using this in an attempt to conflate the anti-symmetry of Islam and Christianity.
You're not too familiar with
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:31pm.
You're not too familiar with the process of embryonic stem cell growth, are you?
Ever think about it, or do you just assume pregnant women walk into the lab and donate their embryos? Because the sad truth is ESCs are not yanked from a woman's womb, but are grown in a lab.
No animals were killed in the making of this movie.
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 6:07pm.
No animals were used in the testing of these cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.
But it's okay to make human embryos for the purpose of then using their stem cells as medical treatments for human diseases and congenital defects.
Whew, I'm glad they're not testing chimpanzees white lab rats and cuddly wuddly bunny wabbits anymore, now that we can grow all the embryos we want--who are so willing to give their lives for us.
New NARAL commercial
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 6:23pm.
We're NARAL. We don't make the embryos. We make them useful.
It is an abomination against
Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 8:40pm.
It is an abomination against Christ to use His words to promote the destruction of human life.
I'm not very religious, but
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 8:49pm.
I'm not very religious, but the use of the words in this "poem" sound ghastly to me. It leaves even a non-religious guy like me with a sickly taste.
How generous of the author
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 1:02am.
How generous of the author to offer the embryo as a sacrifice, and then dilute the horror by pretending that the embryo excuses and justifies it as heroic gift!
Had the embryo really offered to sacrifice itself, we'd thank the embryo in its innocence but assure it that the sacrifice was misguided.
But since the embryo can't speak for itself, having to listen to its killer attempt to justify the killing, by exploiting the very innocence of the victim ... is sick, squared.
Yes, a perverse Noblisse
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 2:12am.
Yes, a perverse Noblisse Oblige whereby something considered as nothing is elevated by ritual sacrifice.
Selfish and sick indeed.