The Pope Shouldn't Get a Say in Stem Cell Research

Really! Who Cares What the Pope Has to Say on the Topic?

Donald Pennington

COMMENTARY | People are just amazing, if you ask me. Why in the world Pope Benedict the XVI (played by Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger) is allocated any authority whatsoever on the acceptability of adult stem cell research, while continuing to denounce embryonic stem cell research as immoral is beyond me. Has he finally revealed the full depth of his psychopathy? Or, are people really that gullible to give the man an iota of credibility in any area outside of the Catholic religion?

His comments came during a Vatican conference, wherein he disclosed a partnership between the Vatican and an American biotech firm named NeoStem. While I'm happy to finally see some support for the whole concept of stem cell research, I still have to ask, who cares what the Pope has to say about medical research?

The efforts by NeoStem can use the funding, but outside of that, no religious authority has anything valuable to say. He needs to stick with his usual shtick of undeserved guilt, the six-day creation, the talking snake, the magical tree and absolute irrelevancy. His area is not science.

He makes his best attempt at sounding reasonable and pious by claiming "the destruction of even one human life can never be justified in terms of the benefit that it might conceivably bring to another." I'd love the chance to ask him what he considers "the destruction of even one human life." Oh boy, would I ever. This whole "life begins at conception" bit is getting a little tired as it is. Is an egg a chicken? Is an acorn a tree? But never mind the side discussion for right now.

Doesn't he consider the sexual abuse of children destructive? Before he pretends to be "moral" on the issue of embryonic stem cells, might it be reasonable to hear him explain his orders for "Exclusive Competence" in 2001, while he was still a Cardinal?

Also, before folks accept Pope Benedict's "morality" on the topic of embryonic stem cell research, he should be asked if his claim back in 2010 that "In the 1970's, paedophilia [sic] was theorised [sic] as something fully in conformity with man and even with children," was an appeal-to-tradition argument, or merely a "tu quoque." Either way, it was nothing short of a confession on his part in the criminality.

But, okay, let's set the church's scandal aside. I don't care if the Pope really is a "genuinely moral" man or not. He's simply not a man of science. His field is religion, not genetic research. He peddles superstitions, not medicine. His is a claim to faith, not stem cell research. He has no business at all making any sort of declaration on the topic of embryonic stem cell research.

Published by Donald Pennington - Featured Contributor in Politics

Donald contributes on a wide variety of topics. Among his favorites are movie reviews, political commentary, divorce, and crime commentary. See something you like? Share it on Twitter!  View profile

11 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Donald Pennington11/25/2011

    By the way, Thomas, what do you think the motivations of those politicians are? Religious beliefs, I'd bet. But, this topic was commentary on a comment from the Pope, so it was directed towards his words.

  • Donald Pennington11/25/2011

    Politicians should stay the hell out of the way too. They're just as unqualified.

  • Thomas Cleveland Lane11/24/2011

    I agree that people who would thwart stem cell research are clearly in the wrong. On the other hand, the Pope, like you and I, is entitled to speak his mind. Remember, he has no vote in Congress. We have enough bigots there as it is to block stem cell progress.

  • Donald Pennington11/18/2011

    I just noticed something, Han. There are actually TWO side-issues in this piece. Why did you choose to point out one, and not the other? I find your choice...interesting.

  • Donald Pennington11/18/2011

    It wasn't the focal point of my piece, therefore at this point and for the purposes of this commentary, it is a side issue. I may re-visit it later.

  • Han Van Meegerin11/17/2011

    Your statement: "This whole "life begins at conception" bit is getting a little tired as it is" is not a side discussion if you decide to include it. The world's debate and discussion on this issue or any other issue is not centered around how tired that you feel it is.

  • Donald Pennington11/17/2011

    *lower-case "i"." LOL!

  • Donald Pennington11/17/2011

    -Orchiolum-

    I hope you don't mind me saying this.

    I have MAD respect for you.

    We might disagree on some small things, but i think you're honest in your arguments.

  • Orchiolum11/17/2011

    The sanity and clarity of science draws explorers who expand knowledge. For me, eating the body and drinking the blood didn't yield discovery of self or the secrets of the Universe. If our goal is survival, our species must mature, evolving beyond its wallow in primal fear. The species which touched the moon, turned on computers, and holds thousands of nuclear weapons still believes in ghosts.

  • Allana Calhoun11/17/2011

    And I agree that it shouldn't matter what he says about stem cell research as he is not a science expert. The morality of stem cells, fetuses and abortion will forever be debated - we should not let it hinder scientific research that could benefit mankind.

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.