Where do you think that has come from, if not by incremental erosion in areas such as this? We don’t jump straight to the morning after pill without first convincing society of the need for widespread use of drugs; the US didn’t jump to Presidential support of 42 week abortion – it all started with Roe vs Wade; the argument over using embryonic stem cells wasn’t ‘just’ about the need to use embryonic stem cells. Even now that there are non-foetal destructive methods of obtaining stem cells for research/medicine, do you think that we will now be able to reverse that decision? No, the precedent set in using embryonic stem cells will be used to further all aspects of body part science/foetal destruction for whatever purpose they deem to be a social good. And so it goes, the continual erosion of a Godly view which in turn changes our culture.

We are now no different in culture than the days of Baal. We sacrifice more babies at the altar of humanistic determination than Baal worshipers ever did. We are now a culture that applauds gay activists who condone pedophilia (as Obama recently did in a speech on Stonewall day) and accepts, even encourages, sexual immorality and perversion as the order of the day no different that Rome, Babylon and even Sidon.

This didn’t just all happen overnight – it is gradual erosion. That’s why it’s essential to stand up for anything which raises itself against the knowledge of God, anything which is, or could be used for evil. Because if it can be, it will be.

Garth Penglase

Ewan McDonald.

We may have to agree to disagree here. I certainly do not share in your optimism and almost cavalier attitude about all these things. Please bear in mind that often is not this or that individual biotech discovery or activity that will result in great calamity. But the cumulative effect of many such things may well spell trouble indeed.

And contrary to your somewhat dismissive remarks, many learned social commentators, moral theologians, philosophers and others have seen the various things you mention – part of what we call the sexual revolution – has having very momentous negative consequences indeed. This site seeks to document the harmful results of the radical 60s counterculture as a whole. (And as one who was very much a part of that counterculture, but has since left it and repudiated it, I speak with some first-hand experience here.)

My contention is that the Cultural Revolution – in which we can place the Biotech Revolution – of this period was as important and influential as the Industrial Revolution or the Russian Revolution. Of course whether this influence and importance is to be seen mainly in a negative or positive light depends on the worldview one holds, and where one sits on the political and ideological spectrum.

It seems that you happen to see most of these activities as pluses, and signs of progress. I happen to see most of them as negatives, and signs of regress. But as I say, we may therefore have to agree to disagree, given that we seem to be coming from quite different starting points.

And let me say that I am no Luddite, and certainly do appreciate many of the genuine benefits due to advances in medical technology and related fields. But as with many others – even writers, filmmakers, artists, and so on – I am quite aware of the many dangers and potential dangers in Big Biotech. Even works of fiction such as Brave New World or 1984 had, it seems to me, some prophetic insights into where modern, technological man was heading. These voices need to be taken seriously, along with the more academic and philosophical voices which have made similar warnings.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Large discoveries like this are made all the time, and much too often the initial response is to engage in fevered speculation as to the ways in which ‘discovery x’ will derail society. The truth is, we’re still here–we’ve got some nightmarish things going on in portions of the world, but First World Western society is very much intact.

One need only recall the rise of affordable birth control in the early twentieth century to see such overreaction. When condoms, the pill and all manner of contraceptive methods first came about many people heralded it as the ‘beginning of a terrifying new era’, and a harbinger of the downfall of society.

Lo and behold, since birth control has become available and affordable society has thrived, particularly in the U.S. We’ve grown healthier, weathered dark times remarkably unscathed, still produce some of the best technology and art in the world, and allowed the better parts of our nature triumph over the darker prejudices of our past. Men and women are freer, minorities are freer, and productivity has continually risen, even in hard times. We also rank at or near the top of the world’s nations when it comes to social peace and overall happiness.

So while we must continually keep ethics in mind at every turn, and recognizing possible risks of certain developments is crucial, we should also realize that overreacting to a discovery before it has been contextualized over time and dreaming of the apocalypse via hasty extrapolation is counterproductive and, empirically, usually not accurate. If the past is any indication, we’ll figure out how to deal with this, come to understand the good and the bad that can extend from it, and society will continue to thrive.

Robert Roarke

I am not sure if I missed your point, perhaps a little!
What I wrote is, in my eyes, inseparable to the fatherlessness issue as the way of thinking involved causes people to think that they should surrender themselves to modern science rather than ‘nature’.

Like you quoted: “the most important absence is not even so much the absence of fathers but “the absence of our belief in fathers”. ”

Allow me to elaborate:

You mention in your article that:
“…the whole idea of selling body parts is grotesque.”

which I think is the true source of the problem. This is what causes (young) people to think that they are nothing more than parts to be sold to a chop shop. It causes them to think less of others because individuals are thrown on one big biological heap of ‘compatible’ flesh rather than being pointed out that they truly are unique individuals that have a body that they should take good care of and that whatever they bring forth from this body, must also be taken care of as it is their own flesh and blood.

How can they believe in the sanctity of life and family when they’re being told over and over that they can ‘donate’ parts of themselves for money?

Anyhow, semantics. You’re spot on with your article, unfortunately for humanity.

Joshua Lindberg

I believe that Joshua meant to say “stem cells that are extracted from bone marrow”. These are not embryonic stem cells, but what are called adult stem cells. Thus we are not talking about a baby here.

As to your other point, again the rationale for my article had nothing to do with those who are infertile, or their lack of value for that reason. My point was that we are making the worrying disconnect between parent and child, especially between fathers and their children. That is bad for the children and bad for society. It is even bad for males.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Aren’t embryo cells that were extracted from bone marrow still babies?

Also, when I said human beings have inherent worth and value even when they are not needed to make more human beings, that also goes for the infertile and the celibate. For examples:

If a man cannot impregnate his wife because his body has a problem producing sperm and he does not believe in using fertility drugs to increase his sperm production, he is still a worthwhile human being.

If a woman has to stay a virgin for her whole life because no man wants to marry her and nobody even wants to have extramarital sex with her, she is still a worthwhile human being.

If an embryo cell that could have been extracted from bone marrow and implanted into a woman and carried to term instead remains inside bone marrow, it is still an embryo cell and still a worthwhile human being.

Joseph James

But you miss my point. I am really concerned about the problem of fatherlessness. Males will always be around, but their importance in society is being reduced, and their connection with children is being severed altogether. The social science data on the vital importance to children is well documented.

As David Blankenhorn writes, the most important absence is not even so much the absence of fathers but “the absence of our belief in fathers”. It is the social and cultural revolution taking place which makes dads redundant.

It is the overwhelming importance of the connection between fathers and children that most concerns me here, not whether or not men will disappear from the scene. It is this “cultural patricide” that is the real problem. As Blankenhorn – and others – document, a society of redundant dads “is a society of fourteen-year-old girls with babies and fourteen-year-old-boys with guns”. That is, the evidence tells us that the fatherless society means “the decline of child well-being and the rise of male violence”. These social consequences are not something to be sniffed at.

Elsewhere on this site I provide the evidence for the invaluable role fathers provide. See for example:
www.billmuehlenberg.com/2001/08/09/the-importance-of-fathers/
www.billmuehlenberg.com/2002/06/03/fatherlessness-and-the-two-parent-family/
www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/02/01/making-men-redundant-and-harming-our-children/

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch