May 10, 2004
Nancy Reagan loses sight of real value: our Children
For those who haven’t heard, Nancy Reagan has decided to publicly push for an end to the ban on stem cell research – she has supported the research for a few years now, but until this point she’s quietly supported it.
Suffering is heart-breaking in a situation such as the Reagans. Personally, I can’t imagine what she must go through on a daily basis as she loses touch with her husband. Having said this, I’m very disappointed in the stance Nancy has chosen to take and wish she would reconsider. I believe the whole problem here comes down to one issue: the value of suffering.
Virtually all protestant groups (of which Nancy and Ronald Reagan are a part) have long viewed suffering as a problem to avoid at all costs. Within the protestant understanding of salvation, suffering does not play an implicit part in the salvation of individuals. By contrast, the Bible and the Catholic Church have long taught the importance of suffering for the church as a whole and for your individual salvation. Nancy is now looking for a way to end her personal suffering; unfortunately the way she has chosen depends on the murder of unborn babies. I have to ask, is it really worth it?
To suggest that your life is more important than the millions of babies that would be murdered in order to try and find a cure for your particular ailment seems extraordinarily arrogant. To suggest these children have no value seems inhumanely immoral. I think that’s the issue that gets lost in this debate: the value of a single child. We often focus on the possible “good” that could come of this (although scientists still debate the real value), but we forget that a child has intrinsic value and a right to life that we should not impede upon. It interesting that much significant medical advancement came about during the time of the holocaust – Hitler’s scientists were experimenting in terrible ways on living people, which is where this advancement came from. In our time we can easily answer the essential question: Was it worth it? Absolutely not. We shudder at the possibilities and yet today, we have moved to killing children for our personal use: to advance scientific knowledge and cure our diseases. How does our morality compare to that of the Nazis? It is a thought that should make us all shudder: the depravation of morality in our time is stunning.
Let’s pray for Nancy, for Michael J. Fox, and for the millions that they would “harvest” seeking an end to their personal sufferings.
God bless,
Jay
PS – for more on suffering see: Why do bad things happen to Good People?. It’s a Biblical analysis of why we suffer.
Posted by Jay at May 10, 2004 03:00 PM | TrackBack |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Virtually all Protestant groups until the 20th century have emphasized the suffering of the church, a clearly biblical idea that those emphasizing scripture study are more likely to see (and Protestants do tend to emphasize a more careful study of the Bible). I think some Catholics may actually have a harder time understanding this, because they see the Church as an organization, and we have a hard time thinking of organizations suffering in the way that a body of believers can. I'd say your observation has some truth in the direction of the mega-church Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, and non-denominational seeker-friendly types but not as much with classic Protestantism and even with all circles of the above groups.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at May 13, 2004 06:43 PMJeremy,
But do these churches teach that there is value in suffering? That suffering can make up for our sins in some mystical way?
God bless,
Jay
I have always considered embyonic stem cell usage to be a particularly gruesome form of cannibalism.
BTW, it is REAGAN, not REGAN. you may want to edit your post.
Jay,
"But do these churches teach that there is value in suffering? That suffering can make up for our sins in some mystical way?"
I don't what point you are making, but all I know is that Christ suffered already for us, on our behalf, so that we could be forgiven of our sins. He already paid our debt. You nor I ought to suffer. Christ already took care of it all. So rejoice.
Jahira,
You're missing a significant amount of Scripture by suggesting this. Jesus said we must take up our cross (suffering) daily. Paul said that his sufferings "make up for that which is lacking" in the suffering of Christ. This is just two examples pointing out the necessity of our suffering: Click here for an article that goes into more detail on how the Bible calls for us to suffer.
God bless,
Jay
President Ronald Regan must be turning over in his grave. He would have been sick to see his son at a democtatic party going against everything he stood for. He was against abortion and would not think of taking the life of the unborn to advance his own life. God help Nancy and pray for his misguided son who is not up to bing call President Ronald Regans son.
Posted by: Sal Polizzi at July 28, 2004 09:41 PM...unless you’re referring to the 1986 White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan, the correct spelling is Reagan.
Btw, I still remember the days when I was a stem cell, boy I would have been upset If I'd been harvested then... ! Luckily I decided to evolve into a intelligent person that now adds to this blogg.
Posted by: Ceevatappenz Venuskipkolege at April 21, 2006 11:18 AMBrilliant - so we should determine when a child can be aborted (or even killed) by the age when they can first remember things. That means we can wipe out pretty much anyone under three or four without any consquences. And old people don't remember much, so euthanasia's in. How moronic is that. Give we a reason I'm wrong.
I fixed the "Regan" misspelling.
God bless,
Jay
