Denying the Humanity of the Unborn

The problem for abortion supporters is that the humanity of the baby can no longer be denied.

by Niamh Ui Bhriain

It must be a strange place, that parallel universe of the pro-abortion campaigner, where killing is dressed up as compassion, and where, in stout denial of all the scientific facts, babies aren’t really human beings.

Pregnant women aren’t really carrying a baby in their wombs you see. Maybe they find them in cabbage patches. Or storks bring them in cute colourful slings.

It’s like reasoning with small, very stubborn, children except these people aren’t cute. They are fanatics – extremists who believe that unborn babies can be aborted until birth. Take a minute to imagine what that involves: the baby’s heart started to beat at 3 weeks; at 8 weeks she was perfectly formed; babies born at 23 weeks have survived outside the womb, but Irish abortion advocates want to ensure that babies can aborted right through all nine months of pregnancy.

It’s difficult to understand this mind set, since it’s so out of kilter with what we normally understand to be required to be a compassionate or civilised society. It’s in our nature to protect children, and to care for those in crisis. It’s natural to recoil at the thought of ending a child’s life.

Yet, this week when Vincent Browne asked abortion campaigners on Tv3 to explain their opposition to any term limits they said that killing babies until birth should be legal in case the baby had a disability or the woman’s circumstances had changed.

In other words, instead of compassion, they called for killing. Instead of addressing women’s needs, they pushed for abortion. They are calling for the opposite of what a really progressive society would do, which is to terminate the crisis and not the child.

In fairness, some abortion campaigners may well be uneasy at the thought of killing a baby this late in pregnancy, but they are committed to an extreme left-wing/liberal ideology which refuses to give an inch in terms of acknowledging the very obvious humanity of the baby.

The problem for them is that the humanity of the baby can no longer be denied – and this has been the case for decades. It's why polls actually show that most Irish people reject abortion-on-demand, and why most people consider the positon of #Repealthe8th groups to be so extreme. (In 2013, Choice Ireland also argued in defence of gendercide – aborting babies because they were girls – an extreme position actually shared by most abortion campaigners but which would be appalling to the vast majority of decent people).

Saying the unborn child is not a baby just won’t work. Too many people have seen ultrasounds, and have marvelled over all the amazing photographs of babies in the womb which pop up everywhere on social media. Too many people have heard their own baby’s heartbeat, or seen their baby waving or smiling in scans, to believe this propaganda.

Abortion campaigners can’t close that window to the womb. So that’s why they try to ignore it, to obfuscate the humanity of the baby with strident claims of competitive rights between “the woman and the fetus”.

But that won’t work either. It would be a very strange and distressing world if women saw their baby as an enemy. Most women with crisis pregnancies don’t do that: they are in crisis and they need support, but sometimes all they are offered is abortion. In this country, most women with a crisis pregnancy go on to have their baby, and those babies are much loved and cherished. No-one regrets giving life to their child.

The recent emergence of videos (below) released by investigative journalists in the US show abortionists callously harvesting and selling baby parts. This horrific footage leaves us in no doubt that the abortion industry knows that this is a baby. They have hardened themselves to deal with that fact because they are making money from selling abortion to vulnerable women.

Deep down, people are opposed to abortion because destroying a human life disturbs us, and because we know that we can do better for women than to simply tell them to get rid of their baby, and then leave them with the all the consequences and the regret and sorrow of that loss.

In the past 14 years we’ve seen our abortion rates drop by a massive 45% in Ireland, so maybe we’re getting better as a society at providing the support that’s needed – though the pro-abortion Labour Party aren’t helping matters by cutting payments to single parents.

We need to do more. Attempts to write the baby out of the abortion debate doesn’t help women and doesn’t help children. The inescapable fact is that, for every baby, their abortion story ends badly, because abortion ends their life. It kills them. And no amount of denial or pretence can change that fact.

Related: Planned Parenthood Undergoes Congressional Scrutiny; All 10 PP Videos in Order; PP Endorses Infanticide

Spanish Teacher Stabbed to Death in Leeds

A teacher has been stabbed to death in front of pupils inside a school in Leeds.

Spanish teacher Ann Maguire, 61, was taken to hospital following the attack but later pronounced dead.

A 15-year-old boy was detained by teaching staff at Corpus Christi Catholic College and later arrested.

A pupil at the scene told the BBC that children were seen screaming and running from a classroom following the attack.



Lauren PottsBBC News, Yorkshire

At a school well regarded by the pupils milling around outside, it seems none of them can quite believe the tragic events that unfolded today.

A student sits on the pavement in tears while others cautiously approach to lay the first of what is likely to be many floral tributes at the gates of Corpus Christi Catholic College in Leeds.

A distraught woman stands at the roadside, inconsolable at the loss of the teacher she called a friend.

Talking to those gathered at the Neville Road school, 17-year-old Aine Arnold summed up the feeling amongst her peers.

"She was lovely, I can't believe that anyone wanted to do something so horrible."

Ch Supt Paul Money of West Yorkshire Police said the victim received a number of stab wounds and a knife was recovered from the scene.

He said the 15-year-old pupil was detained by other teaching staff and arrested in connection with the stabbing.

"The incident itself was over very quickly and no other pupils or staff were threatened or injured. However this has clearly been a very traumatic situation for those involved," Mr Money said.

He said the attack was an "unprecedented event" and schools in Leeds were "generally very safe places" to work and study.

Read it all here.

Forward in Faith UK reaffirms catholic faith

Rt Rev’d Jonathan Baker SSC, Bishop of Fulham

Women in the Episcopate: National Assembly Resolution

Meeting in London on 19 October, the Forward in Faith National Assembly received a presentation on developments regarding resolution on Women in the Episcopate since October 2012. It passed the following resolution:

That this Assembly

(a) reaffirm our aspiration to flourish within the structures of the Church of England and make our full contribution to its life and mission;

(b) request the General Synod and the House of Bishops to ensure that we have continued access to a ministry which will make this possible; and

(c) thank those members of Forward in Faith who have participated in the facilitated conversations and in the Steering Committee for the Women in the Episcopate legislation with a view to achieving this.’

Moving the motion, Prebendary Sam Philpott said ‘This church of ours… needs a great dose of charity’. He called on the catholic constituency to ‘love this church’ and to ‘show this church how it can become a loving church again within its own communion in order that it might actually proclaim to the world the love of God’.

Forward in Faith, he said, had ‘a passion to belong to part of the Church that is strong and bold and flourishing and passionate about converting England’ and wanted to play its part. ‘All that we ask’, he added, ‘is that at the end of this process our church gives us the space in which we can live a catholic life, looked after by catholic bishops, catholic priests and catholic deacons’.

Fr Charles Razzall praised the motion as ‘positive, firm and irenic’, which was ‘where we certainly want to be in the future’. He pointed out that in the motion ‘ensure’ means ‘guarantee’ and ‘continue’ means ‘without limit of time’.

Replying, Fr Philpott said: ‘I long for a Church of England that may well have different views on this particular subject, but will so provide for its children that it can actually speak to a broken world about reconciliation with an authenticity that is simply not around in our world at this moment.’

The motion was passed nem. con.

Audio files of the presentation, and a transcript of the speeches about the resolution, with audio files, are available here.

Women in the Episcopate: Initial Response to the Proposals

Forward in Faith thanks the members of the Steering Committee for their work.

The proposed combination of a House of Bishops' Declaration with a Mandatory Disputes Resolution Procedure represents a new and different approach which deserves careful consideration.

In line with the resolution passed at our National Assembly, we shall be examining the proposals closely over the coming weeks to see how far they would ensure that our parishes and their clergy and people have continued access to a ministry that will make it possible for us to flourish within the life and structures of the Church of England. We shall also be attentive to the responses of others within the Church.

After discussion, prayer and reflection, we envisage commenting further during November, in the run-up to the General Synod debates.

Chairman's Sermon

The Chairman of Forward in Faith is the Rt Rev’d Jonathan Baker SSC, Bishop of Fulham. Click HERE to listen to his important keynote address, or read the text here.

Tony Blair on the Problem Inside Islam

Tony Blair


There is only one view of the murder of Lee Rigby: horrific.

But there are two views of its significance. One is that it is the act of crazy people, motivated in this case by a perverted idea about Islam, but of no broader significance. Crazy people do crazy things. So don’t overreact.

The other view is that this act was indeed horrible; and that the ideology which inspired it, is profound and dangerous.

I am of this latter view.

So of course we shouldn’t overreact. We didn’t after 7 July 2005. But we did act. And we were right to. The actions by our security services will undoubtedly have prevented other serious attacks. The ‘Prevent’ programme in local communities was sensible.

The new measures of the Government seem reasonable and proportionate.

However we are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can protect this country simply by what we do here. The ideology is out there. It isn’t diminishing.

Read it all here.

Anglicans Seek to Navigate Around God's "NO"

The Anglican Way has become the way of compromise, group process, and concession.

Women bishops in the Anglican circus

Alice C. Linsley
(Formerly the Rev. Alice C. Linsley, Episcopal priest)


In November 2012 General Synod of the Church of England did not to give approval to the proposed legislation to enable women to become bishops. Though the proposal seems to have widespread support, when it came time to vote it lacked the necessary two-third majorities in all three Houses of Synod. This after after much prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit.

Those comfortable with compromise of the Gospel see no danger in departing from the tradition of the Church. They did not anticipate this development and were confident that the Holy Spirit was leading in the direction they wanted to go. The proposal having failed, they regrouped in December to produce a "new legislative package" to bring before the Synod in July.

This "working group" presented to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York a report in May which placed emphasis on simplicity, reciprocity, mutuality and the need to make rapid progress.

Progress. Rapid. Lord, have mercy!


What does this mean?  It means that the Church of England is not content with God's answer.  It insists on moving forward to the consecration of women bishops and once that is done, it will require all clergy to consent to that decision. The report is unequivocal on this point:

Once legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the
Church of England will be fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of
ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and will hold
that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and
lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and
canonical obedience;

Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must then be prepared to
acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the
matter..

This will be the equivalent of an ethnic purge. Anglicans holding to the Tradition of the Church will be forced to leave, compromise their consciences and the Gospel, and/or incur "significant costs in defending themselves against legal challenges."

It will create even greater distance between Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. It will mean no longer sharing the historic episcopate with those churches.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are fooling themselves if they think otherwise. Here is how they justify such disorder in the church: 

Since it will continue to share the historic episcopate with other Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and those provinces of the Anglican Communion which continue to ordain only men as priests or bishops, the Church of England will acknowledge that its own clear decision on ministry and gender is set within a broader process of discernment within the Anglican Communion and the whole Church of God;

This has become the "Anglican way" and it leads to disaster.  Dear Dr. Toon is rolling in his grave.

Related reading: Forward in Faith Response; Modernist-Traditionalist Divide in Anglicanism; Some Thoughts on Women Priests; Impressions of the New American Anglicanism; C.S. Lewis' "Priestesses in the Church?"

C of E Rejects Gay Marriage as Pastoral Provision

The Church of England has reaffirmed its rejection of gay marriage stating the public blessing of marriage can only take place within the context of a lifelong, monogamous, male-female relationship. Marriage is a gift from God, not a right granted by the state nor cultural construct said a paper released today by the church’s Faith and Order Commission entitled “Men and Women in Marriage”.

“In calling it a gift of God, we mean that it is not simply a cultural development (though it has undergone much cultural development) nor simply a political or economic institution (though often embedded in political and economic arrangements). It is an expression of the human nature which God has willed for us and which we share. And although marriage may fall short of God’s purposes in many ways and be the scene of many human weaknesses, it receives the blessing of God and is included in his judgment that creation is ‘very good’ (Genesis 1.31). In calling it a gift of God in creation, we view marriage within its wider life-context: as an aspect of human society and as a structure of life that helps us shape our journey from birth to death.”

Read it all here.

For a different take on this, see David Virtue's report here.

Poor Care of Elderly in UK Govt. Hospitals

Doctors, nurses, politicians, bureaucrats, patients and the public, in short, everyone in the UK, have been stunned by the results of two inquiries into dreadful conditions at a hospital in the Midlands.

A report in 2010 into Stafford Hospital found that hundreds of patients had died unnecessarily and that conditions were sometimes unspeakably bad. Some patients were left in excrement-soaked sheets and some had to drink from dirty flower vases because nurses failed to bring them water.

A second report by a leading barrister, Robert Francis, into the causes of this disaster makes depressing reading. He found that there had been a total collapse of the system at the Mid Staffordshire NHS [National Health Service] Foundation Trust, which is responsible for running the hospital. In the report, which was released earlier this month, Mr Francis writes:

"This is a story of appalling and unnecessary suffering of hundreds of people. They were failed by a system which ignored the warning signs and put corporate self-interest and cost control ahead of patients and their safety. Patients were let down by the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. There was a lack of care, compassion, humanity and leadership. The most basic standards of care were not observed, and fundamental rights to dignity were not respected."

Mr Francis's brief was to identity the reasons for the breakdown in care. He made 290 recommendations to change the toxic culture at the hospital and to make sure that patient care comes first, ahead of financial targets.

Some of the more important recommendations are that failure to comply with standards should be a criminal offence if death or serious injury results; misleading patients, the public or regulators should be a criminal offence; nursing staff should be trained to give compassionate care; and a NHS leadership college should be established to ensure high standards.

The reaction of the UK government was entirely predictable. Prime Minister David Cameron denounced the enormity of the failure, apologised to patients and their families and promised root and branch reform. However, the scepticism of Mr Francis about whether this will actually happen is frightening.

"The experience of many previous inquiries is that, following the initial courtesy of a welcome and an indication that its recommendations will be accepted or viewed favourably, progress in implementation becomes slow or non-existent...

"Stafford was not an event of such rarity or improbability that it would be safe to assume that it has not been and will not be repeated or that the risk of a recurrence was so low that major preventative measures would be disproportionate. The consequences for patients are such that it would be quite wrong to use a belief that it was unique or very rare to justify inaction."

The reports can be downloaded at the Inquiry's website.

No More Gay-Friendly Masses at Soho Catholic Church

The Catholic Church has scrapped gay-friendly Masses in the central London church that has held them for the past six years, London's archbishop announced yesterday.

Our Lady of the Assumption, an 18th-century church in Soho, the heart of London's gay scene, has been hosting the twice-monthly masses with the support of the local Church hierarchy.

But Archbishop Vincent Nichols said in a statement that gay Catholics should attend mass in their local parishes rather going to separate services.

'The mass is always to retain its essential character as the highest prayer of the whole Church,' Nichols said, stressing there would still be pastoral care to help gay Catholics 'take a full part in the life of the Church'.

Read more here.

Human Cloning Predicted

This year's Nobel Prize in Medicine co-laureate, English scientist Sir John Gurdon, has predicted that within 50 years it will be possible to clone babies. Although mammals have been cloned, all attempts to clone humans have failed. Many of the animals have been deformed.

Sir John feels that the public will overcome its revulsion at cloning if they perceive that it offers health benefits. He said: "I take the view that anything you can do to relieve suffering or improve human health will usually be widely accepted by the public - that is to say if cloning actually turned out to be solving some problems and was useful to people, I think it would be accepted."

Sir John was the first researcher to clone an animal - a frog, back in 1962. He was speaking on BBC Radio Four's program The Life Scientific.

Related reading:  Cloning Neanderthals; Reproductive Cloning Ban Means Death for Some Embryos; Israel Extends Moratorium on Human Cloning; Animal Cloning Trials Fail

C of E Women Bishops to be "Re-started"

Statement on the Conclusion of the Meeting of the Archbishops’ Council


The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England met on November 27-28th to consider a wide ranging agenda. A substantial amount of time was given over to the discussion of the recent vote by General Synod on Women in the Episcopate.

As part of their reflections, many council members commented on the deep degree of sadness and shock that they had felt as a result of the vote and also of the need to affirm all women serving the church – both lay and ordained – in their ministries.

In its discussions the Council decided that a process to admit women to the episcopate needed to be restarted at the next meeting of the General Synod in July 2013. There was agreement that the Church of England had to resolve this matter through its own processes as a matter of urgency. The Council therefore recommended that the House of Bishops, during its meeting in a fortnight’s time, put in place a clear process for discussions in the New Year with a view to bringing legislative proposals before the Synod in July.

From here.

To me, this seems politically motivated. Official voting returns show that almost half of the lay members of the Church of England General Synod who voted down women bishops were women. Why no affirmation for them?

Atlantic Article on Women Bishops in C of E

Mollie Z. Hemingway


When the Church of England narrowly defeated a measure to allow women to be appointed bishops this week after a dozen years of legislative effort, many observers were surprised. After all, the group has ordained women as priests since 1994—what's the big deal with letting female priests become bishops?

The answer helps explain why the measure failed. The Church of England is known for the graciousness with which it accommodates minority theological opinions. Since the 1990s, parties that disagreed about female ordination merely had to tolerate each other's presence. Female bishops, on the other hand, would hold significant ecclesial and sacramental authority over everyone in the church, even over the minority who believe that female ordination is a theological impossibility. Mere toleration would no longer be possible.

Legislation in support of women bishops was debated by the church this summer, with a focus on whether to protect that group that views female ordination as invalid. Bishops asked members to trust that the Church would respect opponents of the change, even while some proponents of the legislation opposed protections. Traditionalists and their sympathizers doubted these pledges, remembering that promises made to opponents of female ordination in the 1990s were subsequently broken: They were told that there would be no damage to the careers of clergy who viewed female ordination as invalid, for instance. A simple look at the vote in the House of Bishops this week (44 for, 3 opposed) tells a different story.

Read it all here.


Related reading: Traditionalist Bishops Respond to Failure of Synod to Approve Women Bishops; Underdog Cults and Identity Studies

Bishops Respond to Gen. Synod's Failure to Pass Measure on Women Bishops

The failure of the General Synod to agree on the legislation to allow for the ordaining of women bishops reflects Synod’s lack of consensus over this matter. It has uncovered a stubborn unease, particularly among lay people, about the Measure that was presented.

Acutely aware of the profound anguish that will now be felt by so many, we believe that it is wise at this point to refrain from analysis of the past or speculation about what the future might hold.

These are testing times for the Church of England. We pray that we who, between us, have held different opinions on this great matter will be able to find in each other the wisdom and humility we shall need to build a common future.


+Tony Pontefract

+John Plymouth

on behalf of the Bishops of The Society of S. Wilfrid and S. Hilda


The result was:

In favour of female bishops

Bishops: 44
Clergy: 148
Laity: 132

Against

Bishops: 3
Clergy: 45
Laity: 74

Abstentions

Bishops: 2
Clergy: 0
Laity: 0

The legislation needed a two-third majority in all three houses of the General Synod to pass. It did not achieve this two-thirds majority in the House of Laity, and so the legislation was defeated.

UK Forward in Faith Response to Welby's Appointment

Nov 9, 2012


Forward in Faith is pleased to learn from 10 Downing Street that the Right Revd Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham, is to be the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury. The appointment of a man with a proven track record of engagement with, and support of, traditionalists is most welcome and we look forward to working with him to achieve an equitable solution to the problems presently facing the Church of England. He can be assured of our prayers as he prepares for his translation.

Malala Recovering in UK Hospital

BIRMINGHAM: Malala Yousufzai is making progress in a British hospital, doctors said on Tuesday, as police turned away visitors claiming to be relatives.

The 14-year-old girl, who was shot in the head by the Taliban in Mingora last week, was in a stable condition on her first full day in Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham after being flown to the city in central England in an air ambulance.

The hospital’s medical director David Rosser said she had had a “comfortable night”.

“We are very pleased with the progress she’s made so far,” he told reporters.

“She is showing every sign of being every bit as strong as we’ve been led to believe.

“Malala will need reconstructive surgery and we have international experts in that field.”

He said doctors at the highly specialised hospital – where British service personnel wounded in Afghanistan are treated – were beginning to plan for the complex procedures but they would not be carried out in the coming days.

Malala has been assessed by clinicians from the neurosurgery, imaging, trauma and therapy departments, though “very specialist teams” who may become involved further down the line are yet to perform detailed assessments on her injuries, Mr Rosser added.

The teenager had a bullet removed from her skull last week.

Given that she was targeted for assassination by a Taliban gunman, security measures are in place at the hospital.

Mr Rosser said there had been some “irritating incidents” overnight in which people “claiming to be members of Malala’s family – which we don’t believe to be true” had turned up.

A West Midlands Police spokesman said two “well-wishers” were questioned by officers who took their details and turned them away.

“No arrests were made and at no point was there any threat to Malala,” he said.

Mr Rosser added: “We think it’s probably people being over-curious. They didn’t get very far.”

Birmingham has a 100,000-strong ethnic Pakistani community – a tenth of the city’s population.

Meanwhile, experts are optimistic that Malala has a good chance of recovery because unlike adults, the brains of teenagers are still growing and can adapt to trauma better.

“Her response to treatment so far indicated that she could make a good recovery from her injuries,” the Queen Elizabeth Hospital said in a statement.

Despite the early optimism, the full extent of Malala’s brain injuries has not been made public and outside experts cautioned it is extremely unlikely that a full recovery of all her brain’s functions can be made. Instead, they could only hope that the bullet took a “lucky path” – going through a more “silent,” or less active – part of the brain.

“You don’t have a bullet go through your brain and have a full recovery,” said Dr Jonathan Fellus, chief scientific officer at the New Jersey-based International Brain Research Foundation.

Doctors say Malala has an advantage because teens are generally healthier and their bodies have a stronger ability to react to the disruption that the injury causes.

“It helps to be young and resilient to weather that storm,” Dr Fellus said.

“Because her brain is continuing to develop at that age, she may have more flexibility in the brain.”

There’s also a psychological aspect to why youngsters have a better shot at recovery. While injured adults often mourn the loss of what they had, teens don’t know what they are missing.

“They have an amazing capacity for hope,” Dr Fellus said. In Malala’s case, her strong personality would also help her recover, he added.

Still, experts cautioned that it is impossible to say how Malala will do without knowing the path of the bullet and what damage it caused, details that have not been released.“The brain is like real estate,” said Dr Anders Cohen, chief of neurosurgery at The Brooklyn Hospital Centre in New York. “Location is everything. Based on the information we have, it appears that Malala was shot from the front down diagonally, but we don’t know what part of the brain the bullet went through, whether it crossed the midline and hit any vessels, or whether the bullet passed through the right or left side of the brain.”

Ethical Science is Good Science

A Nobel Prize for Ethics

By Michael Cook

Two stem cell researchers have shared the Nobel Prize in Medicine for 2012, an elderly Briton, Sir John B. Gurdon, and a younger Japanese, Shinya Yamanaka. By a serendipitous coincidence, Sir John made his discovery in 1962 -- the year of Yamanaka's birth.

Fifty years of stem cell research have brought cures for intractable diseases within reach but they have also generated firestorms of controversy. Between 2001 and 2008, stem cell research vied with climate change as the most contentious issue in science. But since then, the firestorm died down -- basically because of Yamanaka’s achievements. In fact, Tom Douglas, of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, at Oxford University, describes Yamanaka's work as “a rare example of a scientific discovery that may solve more ethical problems than it creates".

So what happened in these 50 years? (Click here for a graphic explanation from the Nobel Committee.)

In his classic experiment at the University of Cambridge, Sir John discovered that cell development is reversible. The conventional wisdom was that cells could never change once they had specialized as nerve, skin, or muscle cells. He proved that this was wrong by replacing the nucleus of a frog egg cell with a nucleus from a mature intestinal cell. This modified cell developed into a normal tadpole.

This astonishing development eventually led to the cloning of the first mammal, Dolly the sheep, in 1996 and subsequent attempts by rogue scientists to clone human beings.

But while the technique clearly worked, no one really understood how cell development worked. The obvious target for research was the embryo. From this ball of undifferentiated cells come each of the body's specialized cells -- more than 200 of them in humans. Surely the answer must lie there. In 1998 an American scientist, James Thomson, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, isolated and cultivated human embryonic stem cells.

But a one-eyed focus on embryos left stem cell science hostage to ethics. Despite scientists’ bravado, everyone had some qualms about destroying embryos for their stem cells. Even Thomson admitted to the New York Times that "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough”.

Still, it seemed the only way forward. Desperate patient advocates, backed by a supporting chorus of bioethicists, scientists and doctors, argued tearfully that the possibility of miracle cures had to trump ethics.

But, in 2006, there came astonishing news from the University of Kyoto. An orthopaedic surgeon turned stem cell scientist, Shinya Yamanaka, had discovered that skin cells from mature mice could be reprogrammed to become immature stem cells. It was an amazingly imaginative step. Instead of mimicking natural development from embryo to adult, why not wind back the clock from adult to embryo?

Yamanaka found that by introducing only a few genes, specialized skin cells could become pluripotent stem cells, i.e. immature cells that can develop into all types of cells in the body. Until then, creating pluripotent cells without resorting to cloning seemed unlikely. Like Gurdon, for whom he has an immense respect, Yamanaka had skittled the conventional wisdom.

This was electrifying news for biologists. It was as if commuters on the pot-holed, terrorist-infested road from Baghdad airport to the Green Zone could suddenly detour down a six-lane autobahn at 200km. Many famous scientists dropped human embryonic stem cells and began work on what Yamanaka had termed "induced pluripotent stem cells". A year later, in November 2007, both he and James Thomson, in separate papers, confirmed that human cells could also be reprogrammed.

The rest is history.

As the Nobel Committee says about Gurdon and Yamanaka's research, "Textbooks have been rewritten and new research fields have been established. By reprogramming human cells, scientists have created new opportunities to study diseases and develop methods for diagnosis and therapy."

What turned Yamanaka away from the group-think which goaded his colleagues into the swamp of human embryonic stem cell research? Nowadays, the feverish excitement over human embryonic stem cells in the early Noughties seems ridiculous. Leading scientific and medical journals launched a crusade of Enlightenment heroes against prejudiced troglodytes. In one memorable endorsement of embryo research, the New England Journal of Medicine -- the world's leading medical journal -- published an editorial which concluded with this cringeworthy hyperbole: "The Promethean prospect of eternal regeneration awaits us, while time's vulture looks on." It never mentioned cell reprogramming.

Yamanaka's originality may have sprung from his ethical sensitivities. Even Julian Savulescu, the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, who has no objections to embryo research, recognises this. "Yamanaka has taken people’s ethical concerns seriously about embryo research and modified the trajectory of research into a path that is acceptable for all. He deserves not only a Nobel Prize for Medicine, but a Nobel Prize for Ethics."

In an interview with the New York Times in 2007, Yamanaka remembered one day years before when he paid a social visit to a friend's IVF clinic. There, he peered through a microscope. "When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realised there was such a small difference between it and my daughters," said the father of two. "I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way."

Nor does he believe that scientists should put progress above ethics. In another 2007 interview, with New Scientist, he spoke about the firestorms. "These are very difficult decisions, and I think that society should make them," he said. "It should not be scientists. They can find it difficult to think like the person on the street, and instead may see it simply as a good opportunity. We scientists can be involved in the decision-making process, but I think unless society is comfortable with the therapy it should not go ahead."

Once again, experience shows that that ethical science is good science.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

Olympic Games, Media Hype and Government Ineptitude

By Lawsmith

The London 2012 Olympic Games have been a triumph of wastefulness, nannying government, corporatism, deceit and incompetence. Our writer Lawsmith asks, how could our political class have gotten it so wrong?

The first and only time I've met Boris Johnson was when we were on our bicycles at the traffic light at the bottom of King William Street in the City. I stammered: "Uh, good morning, Mr. Mayor." Play it cool. After a brief (and awkward) exchange, he pushed off, away from my sight and into eternity.

Months later, as the tangible effects of the Olympic Movement's month-long occupation of central London started to make themselves felt, my thoughts once again turned to my cycling buddy. After reminding yourself for a moment that Boris once gave some constructive criticism to the city of Portsmouth by saying it was "too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs," and that barely two months ago he referred to the BBC – which, like that brainchild of the Blairite Labour Party, the 2012 Olympics, is state-run – as “corporatist, defeatist, anti-business, Europhile and… overwhelmingly biased to the Left”, I take the view that BoJo -- currently the Games' biggest cheerleader -- would be doing one thing, and one thing only if he were in opposition (if he were so inclined).

He would tear the government, the media, and anyone even remotely associated with bringing the Olympics here to shreds.

In his absence, others have tried. Most have failed to make a dent. Dominic Lawson, writing for the Independent, fired the opening salvo of reason against Olympics fever last month — writing a fairly broad-brush piece which covered most of the general criticisms of this circus (cost, inconvenience, armed police), he scored his best points at the ‘leftist’ BBC's expense: "[news coverage of the Games] really does make one feel as if this is North Korea,” he wrote, “rather than a country supposedly characterised by individualism and nonconformity."

Read it all here.


Related reading:  Olympic Disaster (Want to know why Her Majestic Queen Elizabeth II was not smiling?)

C of E Bishops Urged to Do the Right Thing

A Statement from Forward in Faith Jul 9, 2012

Forward in Faith is disappointed that the General Synod today resolved to adjourn the debate on final approval of the draft Measure to permit women to be ordained as bishops in order to give the House of Bishops an opportunity to rethink its recent amendments to the Measure. We call upon the House of Bishops to stand firm in the face of this unwarranted pressure and to return the draft Measure to the Synod in a form which will provide for the future of traditional Catholics and conservative Evangelicals in line with the clearly expressed mind of the Synod throughout this morning's debate.

Remembering George Müller

The Rev. Dr. Rick Lobs

"Faith does not operate in the realm of the possible. There is no glory for God in that which is humanly possible. Faith begins where man's power ends." -- George Müller 

George Müller (1805-1898) was the gold standard of Christian heroism, and a remarkable man. He established the first orphanage in England. He did that by faith in God and in the Word of God.

He lived a life of such faith in God that he would even sit down for the next meal when there was no food in the house because he knew that God would provide. And God did. Always. The children never went hungry; they always had what was necessary. There were always the right people to look after the orphans. They always had the money to buy the necessary land. There was always enough money to complete the buildings. Müller had faith in God and God honored that faith.

And how did such a kind and wonderful man start in life? Truth to be told he was well known in the community and family as a thief and a liar. He even stole from his family. In his teens immorality and drunkenness marked his life.

At the age of sixteen he was arrested and jailed. His father left him there to teach him a life lesson. Recall that prisons were horrible places at that time. It did not work, George still spent his time living in deceit. But in 1825, three and a half years after he was released from prison, George Müller found himself in a prayer meeting listening to the Bible being taught. A few hours later, when he left the house he was a changed person. Every illicit activity that defined his teen years no longer drew or tempted the twenty year old man!

Müller felt the need to be involved in missionary work. He went to London to train as amissionary to the Jews. But he was ill and went to Devon to recuperate. There he became the pastor of a small church and later married. In 1832 they moved to Bristol, and Müller transformed a local, failing Brethren church into a thriving church. He renounced his regular salary, believing that a fixed salary could lead to church members giving out of duty, not desire. He also eliminated the renting of church pews, arguing that it gave unfair prestige to the rich (based primarily on James 2:1-9).

Pastor Müller was responsible for creating 72 day schools with 7000 students in Bristol as well as in countries overseas. His reputation grew to the point where he was accused of raising the poor above their natural station in life.

However, as Müller worked amongst the poor in Bristol he saw the need to help orphans. The mortality rate amongst children was very high and many men and women were dying of overwork and disease, including alcoholism. As a result many children were left to fend for themselves. If they couldn't find food - they died!

Müller started his work with orphans by buying a house but quickly bought the street. He soon realized that he needed a site on which to build a proper orphanage. The question was how would he pay for such property? Amazingly, he received no government support and he only accepted unsolicited gifts. He literally prayed the money in - day by day. Müller prayed about everything and expected each prayer to be answered. Thus Müller never made requests for financial support, nor did he ever go into debt.

On one well-documented occasion, they gave thanks for breakfast when all the children were sitting at the table, even though there was nothing to eat in the house. As they finished praying, the baker knocked on the door with sufficient fresh bread to feed everyone, and the milkman gave them plenty of fresh milk because his cart broke down in front of the orphanage.

Müller died in Bristol at the age of 93. Huge crowds turned out in Bristol for the funeral and churches all over the world held special services to honor this heroic man of God.

After his life, his work was continued by The George Müller Foundation, which was renamed The George Müller Charitable Trust on 1 March 2009. The Trust maintains the key principle of seeking money through prayer alone - it actively shuns fund-raising activities. 

From Ruminations, a weekly journal by Rick Lobs

Brits Seek Support in Opposition to Gay "Marriage"

Anglican Mainstream reports that concerned Anglicans have met with David Cameron to express their opposition to gay "marriage."  They are fighting the good fight and seek support from other Anglicans in the UK and abroad.

Four leaders of Christian congregations in the Oxfordshire area met their local MP David Cameron in early May. The meeting was to register deep concern and opposition to his plans for "gay marriage". The argument that he did not refute was that once we lose the distinction between Civil Partnerships and Marriage the courts (especially the European courts) might not agree to the legality of the opt out clause.

He did say it was the church’s problem to live with the change in legislation, and did not expand on “reassurances” given in letters to constituents that they are proposing no changes to how religious organisations define and solemnise religion marriages.  The state would determine what was taught in schools about marriage.

_____

There is no "guaranteed" out clause. Churches which otherwise are taking minimal interest in the C4M campaign might revisit their investment in this area if they were to understand what is the likely scenario for them if SSM becomes legal.

Sign here: http://c4m.org.uk/#signpetition, and pass it on to your networks. C4M is aiming for a million signatures and is over half way there. For other ways to respond positively please send email to Ls.n@talktalk.net or call in UK 0117 924 4896

Another Example of Media Bias Against Christians

The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus.

He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”.

But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity.

Bias

Mr Thompson says the BBC would never have broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera – a controversial musical that mocked Jesus – if its target had been Mohammed.

He made the remarks in an interview for a research project at the University of Oxford.

Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”

Insults

A BBC spokesman was unavailable for comment.

Last year former BBC news anchor Peter Sissons said Christians are “fair game” for insults at the corporation, whilst Muslims must not be offended.

Mr Sissons, whose memoirs were serialised in the Daily Mail, said: “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”

The former presenter also said that staff damage their careers if they don’t follow the BBC’s mindset.


From here.