The Dawn Treader

Proposition One : "Consistent pro-lifers ought to refuse any treatment that comes from stem cells taken from human embryos, even if they or their children would die by refusing treatment."

Proposition Two : "Everyone in society should be required to submit DNA samples at birth to be maintained in a national DNA database.  This will help crime fighting and make for a safer society."

Proposition Three : "It is morally acceptable for McCain supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton in Virginia's open primary on Tuesday if they think Hillary is the weaker Democratic candidate."

Proposition Four : "Marijuana should be legalized for use in relieving pain in terminally ill patients."

Re: prop one.

Several pro lifers present disagreed with this proposition.  They felt that if the stem cells had already been harvested, then the human embryo was already dead.  If the human embryo was already dead, then it would be morally acceptable to use its body parts ( stem cells ) to help the living.  They opposed destroying any new human embryos so that stem cells could be extracted.

I was uncomfortable with that rejoinder.  I agreed with the original proposition.  Though it would be a horrific decision to let my son or daughter die if a cure was available from a dead human embryo, I think it would be wrong to accept the treatment on the principle of respect for human dignity.  It shows a lack of respect for the dignity of the individual to harvest their organs without their prior consent.   We would never approve of this with victims of the tornado tragedy in Tennessee, for instance.   We would never approve of harvesting Timothy McVeigh's organs after his execution if he he did not consent to it.  Why then would we approve of it for human embryos?

This raises new questions about consent.  What if parents of the human embryo gave consent to have its body parts harvested?  We ran out of time to iron this out.

Bottom line, if a human embryo is a member of the human family, and an image bearer of God, then we ought not treat it like an organ supply factory.  The principle of justice says that we defend the defenseless and give voice to the voice less.  The weakest human beings in our family are the smallest.  In a utilitarian society, they will be preyed upon for their body parts.

Re: prop two

DNA is king in our culture.  Once you present the DNA evidence, case closed.  It was an excellent proposition to get us thinking about whether that was a good thing or not. 

We place our trust in the government and the Bible tells us to submit to their authority.  They are our authority and given the power of the sword to restrain evil.  Yet, human depravity is real.  Our constitution with its checks and balances is predicated on the principle that power corrupts.  Both of these truths cause tension.  While DNA is like a finger print, and few would object to a finger print database, DNA has the potential to be used to predict things ( alcoholism, anger, etc ).  If you have ever seen the movie Gattaca, you know exactly what I am talking about.  Remember the scene where the guy goes in for an interview and the hiring manager simply hands him a swab for cells from his mouth.  No interview.  Just a DNA swab.  Having a national DNA database could really give the Federal government an immense amount of power.

The group was uncomfortable with this suggestion though they clearly see the benefits in crime fighting or in paternity cases etc.

I think the prominence given DNA is a bad thing.  It takes away from the notion of testimony and other types of evidence, and tempts us to not use the other means of determining a person's guilt - namely, eye witnesses and human reasoning.  Remember, DNA samples, like finger prints, can be planted.

Re: prop three

Cross over voting, also known as mischief voting, has largely been a Republican concern in Virginia.  Virginia, like 20 other states, has an open primary system.  This means anyone can go into a booth and vote for any candidate they want.  I could vote for Hillary or Barack, no questions asked.

Why on earth would one do this?

Well, if I thought McCain stood a better chance of defeating Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, then it certainly would be nice to see Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination.  Besides, McCain has this thing wrapped up.  Why throw away a vote on McCain or Huckabee now?

The ultimate irony here is that Republicans have been trying for years to change Virginia from an open primary to a closed primary.  Anger runs deep among Republicans because they remember when John Warner ( a virtual RINO ), took advantage of the open primary system to get re-elected when angry conservatives were trying to get rid of him.  Republicans have sought to introduce measures to make voters be bound by loyalty oaths.  In other words, you make a promise to support the person you voted for.  Democrats opposed this idea.  The Republicans have always lost this issue and the primaries remain open.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.  The Dems have a horse race on their hands with Hillary versus Obama.  The Republican primary is over.  McCain won.  Now Republicans can use their votes however they want.

This proposition had virtually no resistance.  Everyone agreed that we all have a right to vote our conscience.  If our conscience is okay with cross over voting, then so be it.  A vote for Hillary (if you are convinced she is the weaker candidate) improves McCain's chances of winning.  Ultimately, that is what we are trying to accomplish by using our voice in the voter's booth.

Re: prop four.

Medical marijuana is legal in several states, but not legal at the Federal level.  We had a physician present at the Pigfest who vouched for the fact that much more powerful drugs than marijuana are legal medically.  Example, cocaine can be prescribed in certain circumstances.  Given this fact, it seems inconsistent that marijuana not be given this same status as long as it is closely monitored.  Terminally ill patients suffer from a great deal of pain, and this would ease it.

Our discussion got a little metaphysical.  What is pain?  Is it just physical?  Could depression be considered a form of pain?  Would God approve of narcotics as a form of a release from pain?  Does God want us to be pain free?

It seems heart less to say no to some forms of pain relief, but I do not believe God approves of us disconnecting from reality in order to escape pain.  I think there is purpose in pain and it is part of our existence and part of God's plan.  Pain is not always bad.  Certainly it is okay to alleviate pain.  But getting so doped up that you live in an alternate reality 24 hours a day seems too extreme.  The distance between approving this, and approving suicide for patients in pain, is miniscule.  In other words, why not simply approve of suicide as a form of pain relief?  It is the ultimate disconnect from this reality, right?

That is where I think the use of narcotics from 24-7 pain relief would lead us.