In this piece, JWI Founder and Director Prof. Hadley Arkes touches upon the election debacle before turning his attention to former Vice President Joe Biden and his declaration that his administration will respect the claims of “science.” Arkes points out that while the Democratic Party claims to be the party of science, their leading figures have ignored science on the question of when human life begins. Figures with this “cultivated indifference to science” paint as ignorant anyone with moral objections to research conducted using the by-products of abortions. Arkes states that moral restraints on science are needed, not only to protect nascent life but to protect those in the latter stages of life as well.
Some excerpts from this article:
Mr. Biden has declared, with the ring of affected authority, that when it comes to the virus, his Administration will respect the claims of “science” … But it is passing strange, to say the least, that this worship of science comes from the same people who have not had the wit, or inclination, over the past 50 years to open a textbook on embryology to see what science has to say on the question of when human life begins. The question involves, of course, the human standing of the child in the womb.
When Barack Obama was asked about it in 2008, he said that it was a question beyond his “pay grade.” Was it really beyond his reflexes, as a member of the Harvard Law Review, to open a book and do a little research? Anyone seeking an abortion was already aware of something “living” and growing in a womb. The question was not whether a “life” had begun, but whether that life could be anything but human from its first moments.
It has evidently been the policy of the Bidens and Obamas to avert their eyes from such texts, bound to be so unsettling. And yet the same people, with this cultivated indifference to science, have been quite emphatic in painting as Neanderthals anyone who would post a moral objection to research using the tissues of embryos and fetuses destroyed in elective abortions.
But of course we already know that the same people who regard nascent life as disposable have been readying a plan for us in the latter stages of life, to give us the benefits of “choice” and “euthanasia.” For patients no longer steady in their judgments, the decisions in some cases will flow to doctors, armed with the powers of life and death.
Read the complete article here.