Name: Father Christopher J. Rossman
A Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in KS currently assigned as the Associate Pastor of Prince of Peace parish in Olathe, KS.
Mo'nonymous on Decline in belief in...
Mo'nonymous on Decline in belief in...
crossman on Decline in belief in...
Mo'nonymous on Decline in belief in...
Mo'nonymous on Decline in belief in...
Mo'nonymous on Decline in belief in...
Mo'nonymous on Decline in belief in...
Mo'nonymous on Decline in belief in...
Mo'nonymous on Decline in belief in...
crossman on Decline in belief in...
BLOG: Contemplating Life
BLOG: Ego vos elegi
BLOG: The Heart of a Seminarian
BLOG: White Around the Collar
CATHOLIC: Catholic PrayerNet
WEB: Do No Harm: Research Ethics
WEB: Kenrick-Glennon Seminary
WEB: My Kenrick Web Site
today
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
Last week, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) met in Baltimore, MD for their bi-annual meetings. In the course of their meetings, the bishops released three important statements regarding current issues here in the U.S. I want to briefly examine each statement and its significance in my next three posts.
STATEMENT #1: Married Love and the Gift of Life
In reading this document, I was struck by a number of important statements. The first focused on the cultural notion of sex. It said:
Unfortunately, this is an extremely accurate statement and our media's portrayal of sex confirms this. How many movies or TV shows have we watched with a meanginless sex scene in it. Rarely is this seen depicted within the act of marriage. It is seen as a commodity to be used for profit or simply selfish pleasure.
The next statement that I noticed was a beautiful description of married love saying, "By its nature, the love of husband and wife is so complete, so ordered to a lifetime of communion with God and each other..." If only every married couple viewed their marriage as such an intimate and holy communion then divorce would be almost unheard of instead of it being the end of nearly 50% of marriages. Catholic divorce rates, however, are 21% of all marriages: less than half the national rate. This could be due to better marriage prep including teachings of John Paul II's Theology of the Body and such retreats as Engaged Encounter.
The third comment that got my attention was their reference to Natural Family Planning (NFP). An important and completely moral means of planning a family, NFP is something that should be stressed in EVERY preparation for marriage. The USCCB said, "Natural methods of family planning involve fertility education that enables couples to cooperate with the body as God designed it."
These are three of the important points made by the bishops regarding marriage. Next time, I want to discuss the second statement: Ministry to persons of homosexual orientation. Until next time...God bless.
Greetings and Happy Thanksgiving. I thought I'd take a few moments between chomping on a turkey leg and eating pumpkin pie to say what I personally am thankful for and what we, as Catholics, should give thanks for this year.
I am thankful for so many things. First and foremost, I am thankful for the grace and mercy God has bestowed upon me this past year. Specifically, I am thankful to God for the grace of ordained ministry andfor His call to me to serve His People unworthy as I am.
I am thankful for my family: my parents, my sister Becky, my brother-in-law Steve and my niece Bailey (who I had such an awesome time babysitting on Tue. and Wed.). I am thankful for all my friends. Brian Roeseler, John Mayo, Dan Beneventi, Jeff Goettemoeller and all those who I have been graced to call friend.
I am actually thankful for my education at Kenrick. The knowledge and experience I have gained is something I am thankful for so that I may serve the People of God.
As Catholics, we have many things to be thankful for. Always our first thing to be thankful for is our faith. Our relationship with God and His mercy to us is something we should get on our knees and thank God for each and every day. We should be thankful for the gift of life and we should pray for those who have yet to realize the dignity of all life. Lastly, we should be thankful for Christ's Body, the Church. We as one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church are gathered under our Savior, Jesus Christ as a holy people and we should be thankful for each other who share in our faith.
On this day of thankfulness, Thanksgiving, we should all take a few moments today - maybe before our Thanksgiving dinner - to remember what we are thankful for and for what we have been graced with from God. Until next time...Happy Thanksgiving and God bless.
I was extremely surprised by an article that came out on November 15th reporting on a breakthrough in using ethical stem-cells to treat Muscular Dystrophy. The experiment was conducted in Italy by Dr. Giulio Cossu and reported in the journal Nature. In the experiment, Prof Cossu's team transplanted cells called mesoangioblasts — stem cells gathered from small blood vessels in muscle — from adult dogs into the blood stream of the dogs with MD. The results were astounding. FoxNews reported, "The researchers...treated two dogs that were severely impaired by the disease. Both gained the ability to move much faster and to jump, and one was even able to run, although neither could use the hind legs normally."
This is wonderful news for those suffering from Muscular Dystrophy, but the news story also surprised me. This story was covered by most of the major news sources including:
Each news agency reported that the procedure used stem cells taken from the affected dogs or other dogs, rather than from embryos.
Another article, appearing in the LA Times of all newspapers spoke on a breakthrough in growing human heart valves from the amniotic fluid to treat heart defects. The LA Times reported the procedure as follows:
Amniotic fluid was obtained through a needle inserted into the womb during amniocentesis, a prenatal test for birth defects that is often offered to pregnant women aged 35 and older. Fetal stem cells were isolated from the fluid, cultured in a lab dish, then placed on a mold shaped like a small ink pen and made of biodegradable plastic. It took only four to six weeks to grow each of the 12 valves created in the experiment.
Other news agencies that reported this story included:
These articles even mention that the procedure is ethical because it doesn't involve destroying a human embryo. There is even hope that this procedure could grow replacement heart valves while a baby with a heart birth defect is still in the womb and then implanted into the affected child when born.
These stories are exciting news both for treating these diseases but also because they were reported by major news agencies and they emphasize the ethical nature of these experiments. Of course, there were some news agencies, such as the New York Times, that did not publish either story. This doesn't surprise me, though, because the NY Times is notorious for its blind support of embryonic stem-cell research and it almost always passes on any story that promotes adult stem-cells. Nevertheless, stories like these are promising for the promotion of pro-life methods of treating diseases. Until next time...God bless.
Last time, I spoke about the wonderful and blessed visit of Francis Cardinal Arinze to the St. Louis Archdiocese on Nov. 10 – 12. After his keynote address on Saturday and his celebrating Mass at the Cathedral on Sunday morning, he visited the seminary.
He arrived at the seminary just before 4 pm and met with all the students for a Question and Answer session. Unfortunately, I had to be at the Cathedral until nearly 5 pm and was not able to attend the Q&A. I did return in time for Solemn Evening Prayer at 5 pm that was presided over by His Eminence.
After Evening Prayer, we had a formal dinner. Now, we had been unable to take photos with Cardinal Arinze after the 10 am Mass because of a bunch of fanatics that were harassing him which resulted in them having to whisk him away. Msgr. Brier, the personal secretary of Archbishop Burke, was serving as aide to the Cardinal and at dinner, he told me that Cardinal Arinze would take photos with me after the lecture that he was to give to student body and priests of the diocese.
His lecture was wonderful and after he finished, I waited patiently while others flocked around him. Msgr. Brier slowly moved him toward the door but stopped in front of me. I introduced myself again and he remembered me serving as deacon for him that morning. Msgr. Brier explained about not getting photos at the Cathedral, so he posed with me for a couple of photos. Before he left, however, Msgr. Brier told him that I have some scapular medals with me. He asked me to open the cases and he blessed them!!!! The picture at the top shows the Cardinal posing with me.
The weekend was an absolutely outstanding, unforgettable and blessed experience!! I was both blessed and humbled to be able to serve as deacon for His Eminence. I never thought ever, that I’d have an experience like this and I will never forget it as long as I live. Until next time…God bless.
This past weekend, the St. Louis Archdiocese had the privilege of hosting Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship and Disipline of the Sacraments at the Vatican. The archdiocese hosted the annual Gateway Liturgical Conference and Cardinal Arinze was the keynote speaker. He was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the April 2005 conference, but the Holy Father of late, John Paul II, was dying and he could not attend.
Cardinal Arinze was in St. Louis from Friday evening until Monday morning. His keynote address on Saturday focused on including more Latin in parish Masses. He was NOT advocating that we return to saying the Mass only in Latin. Rather, he pointed out that the Mass parts (i.e. the Holy, Holy, Holy and the Lamb of God, etc.) could often be sung in Latin. Additionally, he encouraged larger parishes which have 5 or 6 Masses to have one Mass in Latin each week. For smaller parishes, he encouraged having a Latin Mass once every month. If you want a summary of his address, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a fairly balanced and informative article on their web site.
While the keynote address was outstanding, my excitement for the weekend was on Sunday. His Eminence celebrated the 10 am Mass at the Cathedral and I had the immense honor and privilege to assist as deacon. It was an experience I will never forget. I will relay one wonderul moment that occurred at the Mass: just prior to the Gospel, when the congregation is singing the alleluia, the deacon kneels before the bishop/cardinal and asks for a blessing saying, "Cardinal, may I have your blessing?" to which he responds, "May the Lord be on your lips and in you heart that you may worthly proclaim his holy Gospel." Since his keynote address was about Latin, I decided to ask for the blessing in Latin saying, "Iube domne benedicere." When I asked for the blessing, His Eminence's face lit up, he got a huge smile on his face and he gave me the blessing in Latin. An experience I will never forget.
That wasn't my only encounter with Cardinal Arinze that weekend, though. He visited the seminary on Sunday afternoon. But that is a story for next time, so stay tuned.
A couple of houskeeping notes. I know I haven't gotten the first audio up for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass entry yet. It will be going up this weekend. My computer was in the shop this past week getting its CD drive replaced so I did not have access to 90% of my files. Secondly, I will be returning to my diocese tomorrow to attend the deacon ordination of my two classmate who will be ordained to the priesthood with me come this May, God willing. As such, my next blog entry will be Friday. Until next time...God bless.
TITLE: Battlestar Galatica, Season 1
GENRE: TV Series
REVIEWED BY: JM
What makes it possible for me to type this review out and for you readers to read it? Computers.
What is science fiction’s greatest fear about computers? They turning against us and fighting us.
What is this week’s review about? A television series about computers turning on human beings.
Battlestar Galatica, Season 1, picks up the famous 1978 movie and television series left off (read all about the history of this series here). After the Cylon wars, the wars between humanity and their created children, computers, the Cylons signed a peace treaty with the human race and left for a planet of their own. This peace held for 40 years. Then, aided by a human, Dr. Gaius Baltar, who was deceived by a Cylon agent, Number Six, the Cylons were able to launch a surprise thermonuclear attack on the twelve colonies on which humanity had settled. The Battlestar Galactica is one of the ships in the Colonial Navy. Built over 40 years ago to fight in the Cylon wars, she was to be decommissioned, but now is hastily brought back into action. By this time, however, it is too late, and the Battlestar Galactica is left to shepherd a group of civilian ships filled with the remnants of the human race, around 50,000 people, and they set off to find the mythical thirteenth colony: Earth. The series chronicles their flight from the Cylons and the human race’s continual struggle for survival.
This series is worthy of attention, because these are the very questions which we are dealing with today. How far should computers be stretched? Can a computer be considered sentient at some point with certain rights? What is the difference between a computer and a human person? Through watching these series with a reflective viewing, these questions strike the viewer and can strike up some interesting and deep conversation.
Morally, the series is somewhat questionable at points. There is some nudity and defiantly sexual overtones, especially between Dr. Baltar and “Number Six.” There is violence between the warring peoples, and also scenes of nuclear fallout. While these are bad, the questions, which the series raises for the viewer, as well as the different episodes problems, the characters need to work through, make this a good series for people to see.
While I would defiantly not let a child to see this, but a pre-teen and teenager to see this with some adult supervision and conversation would be good. The issues, while sci-fi, seem far-out, they really impact us today, especially the interaction between computers and science, and humanity and faith. Take a few minutes and flip on Sci-fi and watch an episode or download “The Series so Far” from I Tunes and see what value this series has as we here debate some of the same issues they debate... but in space.
I want to thank John for being my first guest blogger. He wrote a wonderful blog entry that I posted Saturday. I encourage you to give John some comments and feedback. There are a couple of other persons who will be contributing guest entries soon.
In the past few weeks leading up to the elections and especially in the past couple of days after the elections, the media is again displaying a huge liberal bias bashing conservatives and their views. They continually deny any bias and claim that they are delivering balanced, factual based news. Yet, just reading articles and wathing news reports proves otherwise. Some examples of the quotes over the past few days by the "unbiased" media include some of the following:
An article on Nov. 8th regarding the Supreme Court case of partial-birth abortions in which Fox News said:
An AP headline on Wednesday morning read: Gay marriage ban rejected in Arizona. This was touted as a defeat for discrimation against gays and yet eight states voted on and passed amendments to ban gay marriage: Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. This didn't even make headlines and had only a single line of text in the article about the Arizona rejection.
The TV is often even more biased and sometimes downright insulting. Here are a couple of examples:
CNN's 8 pm news show "Situation Room," on election night, discussed the Missouri embryonic-stem cell amendment and political analyst Paul Begala actually said the following:
How much more biased can one get? To bash one of the primary opponents of the amendment and then praise the politician who is the central support of the amendment is both insulting and demeaning!
Kevin Tibbles, on Tuesday morning - the day of the elections - spoke on the Missouri amendment and specifically excluded the phrase "embryonic stem cell research" for his comments making it sound as if opposers of the amendment were against ANY stem cell research. He said:
Not only does this damage and completely misrepresent Talent, it makes it sound as if those opposing the amendment in Missouri detest all stem cell research.
The media, far from being unbiased, continues to support liberals and the Culture of Death while at the same time belittling conservatives and the Culture of Life. So, when you read or watch the news keep in mind that what you are reading is not a neutral, balanced and factual story, but one in which someone has an agenda. Take the news you hear with a grain of salt. Until next time...God bless.
My first guest blogger is John. I want to thank him for volunteering to periodically give his insight and view on major issues in our world and in the Catholic Church. So, without further ado, I present John's first blog entry.
Since Election night, I have heard much about how President Bush’s “Stay the Course” policy in Iraq cost the Republicans the election on Tuesday night. There is another "stay the course" policy which has been in our country, far longer than the first US invasion of Iraq. This policy is championed mostly by Democrats. So, I would just like to look at this stay the course policy, since no one else in the media is…
Democrats, in general seem to want to “Stay the Course,” killing the smallest people among us and even want to support it, tacitly or explicitly.
This is defiantly one policy we cannot “stay the course” on.
Should we “stay the course,” or do we need a sharp change of course?
The above title is a quote from 1 Samuel 21:1 that Ahimelech made to David. I thought it appropriate for this blog entry because it is a good question to ask about my blog as a whole. With the exception of the Catholic Blog Review, my ramblings are the only blog entries. Well, I've decided to change that.
I have invited a couple of my seminarian friends to periodically write guest blog entries. The primary reason I chose to do this is so that my readers don't think that my ramblings are...well just that...MY ramblings. The topics and issues we discuss on this blog are important issues to EVERYONE in the Catholic Church. The Gospel of Life is not something that can be proclaimed by one person. It must be shouted by all Christians. By virtue of our baptism, we are called to evangelize and catechize the whole world.
I want to give my readers the opportunity to read different takes on the important Catholic issues and world events. My friends will send me posts every now and then, not on any particular schedule, and I will post them. Sometimes I will write an opening paragraph to give context, but usually, I'll just add GUEST POST to the title. I encourage you to post comments whenever you wish and the guest writer will answer any comments. I'll give my two cents as well (big surprise that I can't keep quiet).
It is my hope that this will add more variety to both our topics and to our dialogue on the site (which requires at least two for a dialogue...hint, hint). Let me know what you think of this idea and I will be posting the first guest entry in the next day or two. Until next time...God bless.
As I write this, it seems that Missouri Amendment 2 will pass, although by a very narrow margin. While this is sad and disheartening news, this is far from a defeat. As our Rector, Msgr. Wojcicki put it at Mass this morning, "We may have lost the first mile of this race, but this a marathon and there is still a long ways to go." He is absolutely correct. Even if the amendment would have been defeated, we wouldn't have simply declared victory and called it quits. There are many more battles to wage against the Culture of Life and against the immoralities of this world.
I would like to points out some positives and great hopes for the Culture of Life. First, Amendment 2 is far from a done deal. There will be legal challenges that will prevent its enactment for a number of months and maybe years. The challenges will center around a couple of issues: 1) the wording of the amendment being deceptive and 2) the clause preventing further legislation being passed to alter the amendment. This second clause is the one which will receive the most attention. The questions will center around whether an amendment can actually forbid further amendments or judicial actions.
Secondly, the margin of victory was very surprising, both for advocates and opponents. Two weeks prior to the election, most news media as well as those in support of the amendment predicted that only 35% would oppose the legislation. They claimed that Missourians overwhelmingly supported this "advance" in science. In the final tallies, however, there was a near dead split between those approving and those opposing the amendment. That means that, if the figures from two weeks ago can be trusted, nearly 15% of the voters had change of hearts or were educated enough on the amendment to vote against it. This bodes well for our efforts of evangelization and should be an important reminder that when you offer solid, truthful and honest teachings people do listen.
While today may not have been a day of celebration for us, it should be a day of hope. We still have our work cut out for us, but we have seen progress today even in the passage of the amendment. No matter what, we must always continue to work for the Culture of Life. Until next time...God bless.
I specifically chose to post this blog entry this morning because today is election day. My sole purpose and goal of the blog entry is this: make your voice heard today and VOTE!!! Exercise your right as an American AND as a Catholic to choose the leadership and future of our country. As a Catholic, let your vote today be your tool for evangelization. Bear witness to this country today that our society and all societies are called by God to a Culture of Life.
Your vote today - whether for pro-life candidates, banning gay marriage, against abortion legislation, against embryonic stem cell research or against any other attack on life - is nothing less than you exercising your Catholic faith before God and the world. So, when you are in the voting booth today remember that you aren't simply casting a vote for some politician or piece of legislation, rather that you are exercising your Catholic faith in support of life and to the greater glory of the Kingdom of God. Until next time...GO VOTE...God bless.
With the elections just a couple of days away, I thought it'd be good to post some resources to help my readers make informed decisions about candidates and their stances in regards to the Culture of Life. With that in mind, I want to give some resources from which you can gather information specific to your state. I also want to give some local resources for my readers from Kansas and Missouri.
As always, one of the best sites for determining pro-life candidates in your state is Priests for Life. On their site, you can find the stance of any election candidates for your state.
Another good resource is the Republican National Coalition for Life web site has a list of Republican candidates running for election in each state and their stances on pro-life issues.
Catholic Online has a guide to key congressional races in the U.S. and the stances of the candidates.
On the Issues is an extensive site in which one can view the stance of politicians and candidates on dozens of issues including pro-life stances. This is a good site to use both in determining candidate positions and in finding out how your current politicians are voting.
For my Kansas readers, I recommend you check out http://www.voteprolife.net/ (yes, Becky...I did finally get it right!) This web site is hosted by Kansans for Life and on the site one can find out whether candidates for office support pro-life or not.
For my Missouri readers, I again refer you to Missourians Against Human Cloning. Another ideal site for Missourians is the Missouri Catholic Conference.
I hope these sites help my readers make informed, moral and ethical decisions this coming Tuesday at the election booth. Until next time...God bless.
I want to share with my readers an open letter sent to the Kenrick-Glennon Seminary community. This as passed to us by a seminarian named Anthony Gerber. I asked for and received enthuastic permission to reprint this letter on my blog site. It is a very straight forward and insightful letter about the proposed Missouri Amendment 2 to allow embryonic stem-cell research. The letter goes as follows:
Dear Friends,
This is a letter that I find difficult to write because I am not a political person, and I don't believe in imposing my views on others. But I am deeply troubled by the inaccuracies that are being used to shape public opinion in favor of the Missouri stem cell amendment on the November ballot and I feel a responsibility to speak out since I understand the scientific and medical issues.
If you read nothing else, please read this: Amendment 2 is a deceptive piece of legislation that may mislead Missourians into approving a constitutional right to human cloning, something over 80 percent oppose. It would create a uniquely privileged status for biotech special interests to do human cloning experiments with taxpayer money.
If the industrial revolution were just now starting and we had the choice of developing a society dependent on solar energy rather than oil, is there any doubt that we would choose solar energy? I think that we face a similar choice today regarding embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells may seem to the lay person to offer greater promise for cures, but even if this were true (which it is not), embryonic stem cell therapies will create an insatiable and unceasing demand for more and more womens¹ eggs. And once a hugh biotech industrial complex is establish that is dependent on women's eggs to generate more and more cloned stem cells, it will be impossible for us to get rid of it. In contrast, investing our resources in adult stem cells will ultimately result in similar or greater cures than embryonic stem cells without creating a biotech industrial complex that pursues women¹s eggs the way oil companies plunder our land for oil profits.
The basic arguments for the stem cell amendment are essentially that (1) embryonic stem cell research has tremendous potential for curing a wide variety of diseases, and (2) any concerns that this research will be abused are unfounded because we can trust the medical and scientific community to regulate itself.
Being knowledgeable of stem cell biology and related medical research, I am deeply skeptical that either of these arguments is true.
As many of you know, I am a physician-scientist at Washington University School of Medicine and have received millions of dollars in research funding, part of which has been for stem cell research related to cancer. I approached this amendment without preconceived opinions and have read the amendment carefully. I have listened to the arguments on both sides. After sifting through the rhetoric, I have concluded that there is nothing about embryonic stem cells that would indicate that they are better than adult stem cells for curing human disease. In fact, there are many problems with embryonic stem cells, such as rejection and cancer formation. Further, adult stem cell research and therapies do not endanger women who must donate eggs for embryonic stem cells.
These deceptive tactics by the amendment proponents say to me that ³you are not intelligent enough to understand the issues so I will intentionally deceive you for your own good.²
As a medical professional, I believe that my responsibility is to make sure the public understands the issues so that they can make up their own mind. Thus, my goal in this letter is not to convince you of my personal opinions, but to make sure you have the facts from a doctor and scientist who understands the issues and does not have political or monetary motives.
Some of the most common arguments in favor of the amendment are as follows:
Argument # 1: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which is the type of process for creating stem cells that is at stake in this amendment, is not human cloning.
MY RESPONSE: When scientists talk about cloning, SCNT is exactly what they are talking about. SCNT is the medical dictionary definition of cloning. The amendment proponents claim that SCNT is not cloning unless the cell is placed into a woman¹s womb, but that has never been the medical definition of cloning. That is like saying that a nuclear bomb is not a weapon unless it is dropped on people. The potential for harm and abuse is great, even if one does not intend to act on this potential!
The fact is that this amendment not only allows human cloning, it creates a uniquely protected right to perform human cloning!
Argument #2: Embryonic stem cell research has the potential for curing many more diseases than adult stem cells.
MY RESPONSE: There is no scientific evidence for this claim. Many people have been led to believe that we have not yet seen the incredible curative potential of embryonic stem cells because this research is banned. The truth is that embryonic stem cells is not banned and never has been. Embryonic stem cells have been researched for many years and have been reported in the medical literature as early as 1963! And yet, there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells have cured any disease, even in animals.
But what is really frustrating for someone like me who is involved in stem cell research is that the success of adult stem cells is being ignored by the amendment proponents. Advantages of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells: (1) they are the only stem cells that have been shown to cure disease in animals, (2) they do not require egg extraction and the associated risks to women, (3) they have amazing plasticity (the ability to change into many different cell types) that far exceeds anyone's expectations. For example, stem cells from bone marrow can be turned into brain cells.
If adult stem cells are likely to be just as good, if not better, than embryonic stem cells, why expose women to risky egg extraction and create a huge demand for eggs that will surely end up in the exploitation of poor, disadvantaged women and young, college-aged women with limited financial resources?
Argument #3: SCNT will not endanger women.
RESPONSE: To be honest, this is my greatest concern. Despite loud cries to the contrary, the widespread use of SCNT for medical research and treatment will unquestionably jeopardize the health of women, particularly poor disadvantaged women and young, college-age women with limited financial resources who will be tempted to allow themselves to be given synthetic hormones and undergo surgical procedures to extract eggs in exchange for monetary awards. We are not talking about a few hundred cloned embryos, but rather, millions and millions will be needed for this research!. And the need for more eggs will never end. Even if laws are passed to regulate this process, profiteers will undoubtedly go to third world countries to find willing subjects.
Argument #4. How could this amendment be a bad idea when leading scientists and physicians support it?
RESPONSE: Many scientists and physicians, including myself, support adult stem cell research, but are deeply concerned about embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. The reason that you do not hear more experts speak out against this amendment is that their voices have been muted. The amendment proponents have identified one wealthy couple in Kansas City who donated virtually all of the $16 million that is being used to saturate the media with pro-amendment information. Meanwhile, those who are concerned about this amendment have been denied the opportunity for public debate and discourse by our medical schools and universities. Suffice to say, the freedom of speech violations at ostensibly liberal universities to suppress voices against this amendment are breathtaking!
Final Thoughts
If for no other reason, I am deeply disturbed by this amendment because of the deception being used to promote it. For example, Cynthia Kramer, who is running for state office in our district, has used this issue to promote her campaign by implying that her life-threatening disease could have been treated more effectively with embryonic stem cells. After questioning her campaign office and reading the text of many of her interviews and website statements, I can find no evidence for this claim. In reality, she received adult stem cells in the form of a bone marrow transplant, and the fact that she is still alive is evidence that this adult stem cell transplant was successful! When she went to Israel seeking a Œcure¹ for her disease, they told her to come back to Missouri where she could get the best care available anywhere!
I personally know of many other examples of deliberate deceptions, intentional misinformation, and freedom of speech violations.
My practice focuses on patients with cancer, and I am profoundly wounded when one of them dies of their disease. I am in the trenches every day, and I understand what is at stake. But I am convinced that this amendment is not the right direction for our state. There are much more effective ways we can spend our money and time. without endangering women
We all have to make our own decisions, and democracy only works well if we make those decisions based on facts. Whatever opinion you develop on this issue, I hope that it is based on facts. Please feel free to email me if you have more specific questions or if you would like to talk.
Thanks for your attention.
Bill (and Tonya) Harbour
J. William Harbour, MD
Paul A. Cibis Distinguished Endowed Professor
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
I found this letter to be extremely informative but also to be a huge comfort knowing that not all those in the medical profession are seeking their own interests. Some actually realize that this amendment is flawed. More importantly, Dr. Harbour recognizes the danger to women and how unethical this amendment actually is to our society. I commend Dr. Harbour for having the courage to write this letter. Until next time...God bless
