Google
 
Web www.scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com

The boy who knew too much: a child prodigy

This is the true story of scientific child prodigy, and former baby genius, Ainan Celeste Cawley, written by his father. It is the true story, too, of his gifted brothers and of all the Cawley family. I write also of child prodigy and genius in general: what it is, and how it is so often neglected in the modern world. As a society, we so often fail those we should most hope to see succeed: our gifted children and the gifted adults they become. Site Copyright: Valentine Cawley, 2006 +

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Is President Obama an ethical man?

Is President Obama an ethical man? Now, some of you are already reacting in surprise at the very asking of the question, but it is one that has to be asked.

I find it very strange to consider, but it seems to me that George Bush has more ethical backbone than President Obama, even though Bush was considered wrong about his wars by most people. I say this being surprised even to have to say it.

I shall explain. President George W. Bush was against the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. His stance was a simple one: embryonic stem cells can only be obtained through the murder of unborn children. President George W. Bush thought it wrong and unacceptable that medical research should seek to "save lives" of those with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, through murdering embryos. He thought that America should not support such research. Instead, the Republicans advocated NON-embryonic sources of stem cells as lines of research - adult stem cells and others.

President Obama is reversing this Bush era policy of a ban on embryonic stem cell research. President Obama has decided that the murder of unborn embryos, to further research into disease for older humans, is the right way for America to go. He says that it is holding back research to have such a ban. Well, to my mind, that statement makes President Obama an ethical pygmy. He cannot see that it is inherently evil to kill unborn children to save adults. Under no circumstances can it ever be viewed as right or justifiable. The unborn child has a right to live, to dismember the embryo to harvest its stem cells is to murder it. President Obama is advocating the murder of embryonic children to save adults. What makes this worse, is that research in recent years has shown that there are other ways to produce stem cells that do not require embryos to be destroyed. An ethical President would endorse those ways. President Obama has, rather insultingly, to all Christians, been compared to Jesus Christ, in his campaign marketing photographs. There has been the building of him into a saintly figure. Well, the last time I checked, saints don't endorse the murder of little children to save adults.

Now, I was impressed by President Obama's general presentation of himself in the campaign. I thought he was the best at personally "selling" himself. But there is a difference between being good at managing one's image and being a good man, in heart and mind. A good man is, in my view, an ethical man - and President Obama is showing, quite clearly, in these early decisions, that he lacks moral insight. The biggest irony of this situation is that George W. Bush, who is always portrayed as a stupid man, seems to have greater moral understanding than President Obama, who is always portrayed as a "brilliant" man.

President Obama is also reversing a "conscience rule" that gives healthcare workers the legal right not to treat patients, with abortion or contraception, if it is against their ethical principles. So, not only is Obama not an ethical man, he wants to BAN being ethical. Under President Obama, medical staff will lose the right to be guided by their own ethics.

This is a very interesting development. It seems that President Obama is not only an unethical man, in some ways, but one who is waging a legislative war against ethical behaviour. I find it curious that more mileage is not being made of this in the mainstream media in the US. President Obama is eroding the ethical standing of the United States, and doing it in the most charming of ways.

I never thought I would write a post like this, because it never occurred to me (though it should have) that the image making seen in the electoral process was just an image, without real substance.

I think it will become clear, in the coming year, that Obama, while an effective leader and a charismatic man, might be lacking in the moral dimension that is so important in guiding a nation. If the leader of a nation is not a moral man, that nation becomes capable of great crimes, in the world.

The irony, of course, is that Bush, while clearly a moral man, was involved in what some see as a great crime in the Middle East.

It remains to be seen if the less ethical Obama, will turn out to be less criminal on the world stage, than his more ethical forebear. At this time, it is not really possible to predict the outcome, except to say this: a lot of unborn children will now be murdered in a race to save old people, from old people's diseases, under Obama's new embryonic stem cell directive. That is the kind of crime that stains the conscience of a race, forever. (That is, when they wake up to what they have done...which can take generations.)

Perhaps President Obama would like to show the way, and ask Michelle to provide all the unborn embryos to be mashed up and dismembered for science? Perhaps then he might actually come to a moral understanding of what he has just ordered should take place.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Valentine Cawley @ 12:41 PM 

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, =)

I'm interested to know what's your stand on abortion since this is similar to the 'killing' of unborn child.

What happens if the abortion is needed to protect the life of the pregnant person? Is that also not 'killing' unborn child to save the life of 'adult'? What happens when the pregnant person is also a 'child'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7926694.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505183,00.html


Regards,
Wycliffe

1:55 PM  
Blogger Valentine Cawley said...

I think abortion is murder by another name. Really, there should be no abortions.

As for the difficult circumstances that people always invent to justify abortions, 99.9% of abortions have nothing to do with difficult circumstances and are about thoughtless parents who don't want a child. This should not be allowed to happen. If they don't want the child, give birth to it and then give it up for adoption: don't murder it.

As for the mother being a child...biologically that is impossible, by biology's definition of a child. If the mother is pregnant, then they are ready to give birth, in purely biological terms. Our modern idea of a child is a social construct that does not accord with the underlying biology otherwise such pregnancies would be impossible. Again, adoption is an option if the mother is not ready for raising a child. Murder should not be an option.

I haven't had the time to look at your links. I shall try to find the time later.

As for killing the child to save the mother: I would say that, in most circumstances, this is really not necessary. If the doctors want to, they can keep both alive. It is difficult to think of circumstances in which it would be otherwise. There is always induced early birth, too, as an option to save the child. Abortion should be avoided. It is one of those great crimes against Humanity that a more mature race of Men would look upon us, as its perpetrators, with a certain horror. It should be banned.

Thank you.

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well written article!

And yes, I do agree with you that Obama is turning out rather immoral in this field.

But the current American public has only high "hopes" pinned onto him. What they want now is economic recovery and would turn a blind eye to this development.

Re. abortion. While i am against it, i believe there are occasions when the life of the mother is threatened by the very development of the baby. I cannot remember the medical term for it, but it happens when the egg is stuck in the fallopian tube (if im not wrong) and starts developing there.

3:47 PM  
Blogger Valentine Cawley said...

Thank you for your appreciation of my article and agreement with my assessment of the ethical situation.

Regarding abortion: the situation you speak of is unusual in that there is no way that either mother or child could survive. In such a case, an abortion to save the mother would not be killing one more child, since the child would die anyway. Unless, of course, medical advances make this a treatable situation.

Abortion should be avoided, if at all possible. There are almost always other avenues - like adoption.

Thanks for your comment.

4:05 PM  
Blogger Shannon said...

It seems that the controversy comes down to the questions of 1) what is life and 2) when does it begin. Some believe that life begins at the moment of conception while others believe it begins after the fetus is viable. To preserve separation of church and state, the judiciary has decided that answers to such questions should be left to "the people" and not the government. Using this logic, projects that result in the destruction of embryos should not be federally funded (until it becomes CERTAIN that an embryo is not a human life.) Otherwise, Congress is overreaching, and answering moral and religious questions for individuals that it is in no position to answer.

1:11 PM  
Blogger Valentine Cawley said...

Thanks for your comment, Shannon.

I don't think this should be seen as an issue of Church and State. It is an issue of logic and science. It is clear when life begins: the moment of conception, since from that point on, a fully formed human being is almost inevitable, if the mother does not have an abortion. Conception is the beginning of the life process. So, in some very real sense, the State is abdicating its responsibility in not taking the stand that life is sacred, begins at conception and should be protected. In saying it is not their department, they are, actually, permitting the deaths of unborn children and allowing unethical practices to occur up and down the land.

For sure, the State should not fund the destruction of human life...which begins the moment an egg meets its counterpart. Otherwise, the State would be involved in the murder of the most innocent people of all: unborn children.

I think anyone who actually thought the issues through, who has an understanding of science and logic and an appreciation of the value of human life and the foundation of ethics, would come to exactly the same thoughts.

Best wishes.

6:45 PM  
Blogger Shannon said...

This is, in part, an issue of whether people have a right to their own religious and moral views.

The freedom to believe that life begins at conception is violated when Congress uses tax money to promote embryonic research. It's unfair to make individuals who feel that this is "murder" to contribute to the perceived wrongdoing. As much as I support President Obama, the recent decision to lift restriction on stem cell research is a poor one.

I agree that it is illogical to think that life begins at any other time than conception. By eight weeks an embryo has a beating heart, eyes, facial features, brain, hair. It should be obvious to all that the process of life has begun.

Best wishes & regards

2:59 PM  
Blogger Valentine Cawley said...

Thank you Shannon. Those who argue for any other time than conception as life's beginning, are trying to argue away the value of life itself, so that they can manipulate or destroy it, for their ends. Logic and reason are not on their side: only sleight of hand and deception are.

I hope that this decision is not a sign of many poor decisions to come. I think a solid ethical view is essential in a world leader. President Obama has shown evidence, in this decision, of being other than ideal.

Best wishes

4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good article, seems like this obama fever is getting out of perspective. It does look like obama is set to be some form of great leader in mankind's history, which is a scary thought. I dont want him to rule over my country. How can i activately stop him from being a great world leader?

11:11 AM  
Blogger Valentine Cawley said...

Thanks re. "Good article"...it is appreciated.

As for Obama, you can make an effort to ensure that people understand what he is truly like, rather than what the hype says he is. Then he will be perceived to be as great or not, as he genuinely is, rather than as great as the hype makes him out to be. I think it is good if the truth of the man is known, rather than the hype of the man. This article, for instance, reveals his lack of moral understanding - that is a big failing that should be more widely appreciated before Obama does further harm to the US and the wider world.

Thanks for your comment.

12:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape