WASHINGTON (RNS) Some anti-abortion religious leaders are welcoming new draft guidelines from the National Institutes of Health on embryonic stem cell research as a balanced approach to the controversial procedure.
The guidelines, issued Friday (April 17), permit federally funded research on stem cells derived from embryos that are no longer needed for fertility treatments.
Most embryos that are not planned to be used in fertility treatments are discarded or kept in a type of frozen limbo. The draft guidelines presumably would not allow federal funds to be used to create embryos solely for research purposes.
“They have hit the right balance by limiting funding to particular slated-to-be-destroyed IVF cells, yet expanding significantly the number of diseases that can be addressed by increasing the number and range of stem cell lines from which we can learn,” said Joel Hunter, pastor of an Orlando-area megachurch. “These guidelines respect life from beginning to end.”
The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said “the new regulations embody caution and care that respect pro-life values.”
The Catholic Church opposes embryonic stem cell research, but Stephen Schneck, director of The Catholic University’s Life Cycle Institute, called the draft rules “a major step toward the common ground most Americans are now demanding.”
Former Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page, in a Friday statement, said the decision is not the one conservative Christians wanted most — a total ban on stem cell research — but is better than it could have been.
“While Dr. Page would wish for a ban on all embryonic stem cell research that results from the destruction of any human embryos (which he refers to as unborn babies), he is somewhat heartened by the fact that the White House has issued forth regulations which prohibit any stem cell research which would come from embryos created for research,”
the statement reads.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins continued his criticism of the funding of any research of embryonic stem cells.
“The research that President Obama supports is not sound science and will destroy human life,” Perkins said Friday. “…(T)he guidelines implement a plan that will force taxpayers to foot the bill for research that involves human embryo destruction.”
The draft guidelines followed a March 9 executive order by President Obama to rescind the Bush administration’s 2001 limits on federally funded stem cell research. The NIH expects to issue final guidelines by July after a period of public comment.
By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted April 20, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I’m glad they are popular. But of course some folks are never satisfied, sometimes because it’s their job to criticize President Obama.
posted April 20, 2009 at 6:49 pm
It’s good middle ground for now, and will enable new lines of embryonic cells.
posted April 20, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Who says we should live forever
posted April 20, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Everyone dies. Sex is responsible, in a general sort of way. Those organisms that reproduce sexually also have a natural lifespan (so abstinance is only a delay and celibacy is not an out, only an escape). However, if we can ease suffering and research some devastating diseases by using stem cells then we ought to use them. Conjecture based on religious wishfulisms does not contribute to the discussion.
posted April 21, 2009 at 10:33 am
“Who says we should live forever”
Who says we shouldn’t? Not that I expect to but there are those who think the technology is advancing fast enough that people alive now will live more or less forever. True? ??
Of course Jesus purportedly told his followers people then alive would see the Messiah and that didn’t work out too well. Predicting is a contact sport.
posted April 21, 2009 at 3:02 pm
jest did you really think out your last post? celibacy only an escape?
nnmns technology keeping people alive more or less forever?
jest I won’t comment on your thought but nnmns I can see given your thought processes here about living forever why abortion is so important to you; why share.
posted April 21, 2009 at 5:46 pm
cknuck that’s just silly and kind of insulting. And if you’d read the post you’d see that I don’t expect it to apply to me anyway.
posted April 21, 2009 at 9:16 pm
The reason I think as I do about abortion, as you would know if you paid any attention, is that I know the women and the family should have more rights than the blastocyst or the zygote or the embryo or the fetus. Women and families are people and come before bzef’s. It’s that simple.
posted April 22, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Well I certainly did not mean to insult you nnmns but I did interpret your comment in that light.
Anyway when you say; “Of course Jesus purportedly told his followers people then alive would see the Messiah and that didn’t work out too well. Predicting is a contact sport.”
That is pretty insulting also and a little out of the reach of your knowledge to know for sure, but yet you say it. It’s not out of my reach of knowledge to say conception means life.