The New Oxford American Dictionary defines embryo as an unborn human baby, esp. in the first eight weeks from conception, after implantation but before all the organs are developed.

Embryonic stem cell research is scientific research on human beings. Humans put into the test tubes, lab rats destroyed when the experiment is over.

Embryonic stem cell research has always been legal. Under President Bush restrictions were put into place that limited federal funding for ESCR but did not ban such research. Obama lifted that restriction, opening up federal money to any ESC researchers.

The New York Times had a recent article that both celebrated the broad funding support offered under Obama’s policy and voiced opposition to those who want Obama to put in place at least some restrictions on what embryos can be used for research. What blew me away is how The New York Times described the creation of embryonic stem cell lines for research:

Hundreds of stem cell lines have been created around the world, all or virtually all from surplus embryos.

Surplus embryos? Keep in mind the definition of an embryo, an unborn human. What the New York Times is saying is we have surplus humans. Since they serve no other purpose, why not use them for research and experimentation?

In a recent blog post Al Mohler talks about another outrageous use of “surplus humans”. He discusses the argument that aborted babies should have their organs harvested. They aren’t using those organs, are they? We might as well let some good come from those wretched mistakes, those inconveniences, those surplus humans.

The killing of millions of unborn humans through abortion opened the gates for all sorts of atrocity. Embryonic stem cell research pushes us farther along. I pray we never see aborted babies used as organ farms, but the same reasoning that justifies abortion and drives embryonic stem cell research will someday usher in the harvesting of organs from unborn babies. At that point abortion will not just be about letting people decide whether or not they want their child to live or die, abortion will be seen as a way to meet the needs of society. Those who choose to have abortions will be heralded as heroes for providing organs to the sick and dying. And mankind will take another giant leap into the abyss.

I may post some thoughts about the inauguration later. For now, John Piper has posted an excerpt from a sermon he preached in 1993, Being Pro-Life Christians Under a Pro-Choice President, with application to our new president. Below is the excerpt of the sermon found on the Desiring God page:

I closed with eight ways to honor a pro-choice president. The seventh was this:

We will honor you by expecting from you straightforward answers to straightforward questions. We would not expect this from a con-man, but we do expect it from an honorable man.

For example,

1. Are you willing to explain why a baby’s right not to be killed is less important than a woman’s right not to be pregnant?
2. Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
3. Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
4. And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the “Freedom of Choice Act” by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?

Perhaps you have good answers to each of these questions. We will honor you by expecting you to defend your position forthrightly in the public eye.

You have immense power as President of the United States. To wield it against the protection of the unborn without giving a public accounting in view of moral and scientific reality would be dishonorable. We will honor you by expecting better.