Has society influenced or changed the concept of the social clock? My response is a resounding, yes! The social clock, the psychological timepiece that records the major milestones in a young adults life (Feldman, p. 480), has been turned on its head. Generation Next, those born between 1981 to 1988 (Berger, p. 448), are extending the identity moratorium by remaining in school and not conforming to the traditional time frames suggested by the social clock.

Allegedly, there was a time when the family structure consisted of a husband who went to work and a mom whose purpose in life was to be at home and care for her family’s needs. I recall watching episodes of “Leave it to Beaver” in syndication and being fascinated with the “all American” family. Later, I watched the “Cosby Show” and witnessed a new idea of the “American family” in which both parents worked outside the home. Within a 10 year time frame society had changed to the extent that it was acceptable for “mom” to work outside the home. Jump ahead another decade and society has shifted yet again to the view that not only is it acceptable for mom to work outside the home it is expected. These television programs represented the general tone of the culture during it’s time.

Although, the timing for the social clock has shifted I believe that the fundamental drive to settle down and start a family is intact. Despite the shift in timing, according to Ecclesiates 3:1-9, there is a time for all things in this life, you can put it off but it’s going happen whether you like it or not.

References
Berger, K. S. (2008). The Developing Person: Through the Life Span. New York, NY, United States of America: Worth Publishers.
Feldman, R. S. (2008). Development across the life span. Upper Saddle River: Perason Education, Inc.

Stem Cells

A Response to Reaction Topic: Stem Cell Research Debate Between Society and Christians
by
Mark Harris
Liberty University

The destruction of embryos is not the only way to conduct stem cell research. The debate over stem cells is not about stem cells themselves but embryonic stem cells. The media and the scientific community, for the most part, has presented only one way to conduct stem cell research. Adult stem cells work wonderfully in therapy and don't require the destruction of embryos, says C. Christopher Hook, director of ethics education for the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine. (Moll, 2004)

Stem cells are those cells that “have the… potential to develop into many different cell types in the body.” (Stem Cell Basics: Introduction, 2009) Researchers are able to acquire stem cells from numerous sources including umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, specific organs and the human embryo. (It's Not about the Stem Cells, 2004) Adult stem cells are considered to be those cells that are acquired from non-embryonic sources.

The scientific community has found that embryonic stem cells are easier to acquire and require less manipulation to alter its genetic expression as compared to adult stem cells. There are members of the scientific community that are using and are pushing for the use of alternatives to embryonic stem cells but the majority continues to push for research involving embryos. The scientific community does not like to be told no, and the reporting has been presented in such a way that misleads the general public to believe that there is only one way to conduct stem cell research. The public must be educated about the various alternatives to embryonic research which may help to end the debate and force researchers to focus on adult stem cell research.

Viable embryos are the beginning of life and are the potential for an unborn child. Jesus became angered when the disciples attempted to keep the children from Him, it is written that “Jesus was irate and let them know it: "Don't push these children away. Don't ever get between them and me. (Emphasis added) These children are at the very center of life in the kingdom.” (The Message Bible, Mark 10:14) Shall these embryos be denied the opportunity to live? Jesus specifically said not to ever keep children from Him, when an embryo is destroyed it won’t ever have the opportunity to come to know Him. The majority of the scientific community fails to value the sanctity of life in the form of viable embryos and this is the heart of what has the Christian community in an uproar.

What will happen to these embryos if they are not implanted? Will they be destroyed and if so why not use them for research purposes? On those grounds I believe that the scientific community has a legitimate argument to conduct stem cell research using embryos, however, I would propose that the viable embryos be donated to a family that is unable to conceive on their own, embryonic adoption if you will.

Therapies for the treatment of neurological diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, stroke and epilepsy are the beginning of the potential for stem cells. (Institute, 2008) An improvement in the quality of life of patients with Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s has also been suggested. Having been witness to the effects of Alzheimer’s, the potential for treatment and a cure is extremely exciting and I believe that work should begin immediately. However, I don’t believe that the potential for life should be destroyed for the sake of improving another’s life, especially given that the same results can be gained from adult stem cells.

As the field of stem cell therapy/treatment grows we must be cautious not to allow the value of life to be reduced to bottom line profit margins and balance sheets. There are bio-technology companies that stand to reap unfathomable financial windfalls at the expense of human life if embryonic stem cell research gains wholesale acceptance. Christianity Today magazine reported in an article in 2001 that there are bio-tech companies that “had created or planned to create human embryos for the sole purpose of extracting their stem cells.” (Henderson, 2001) I dread the thought of stem cells being harvested from embryo’s on a production line.

God endowed every person with a measure of curiosity to explore the world around them. I believe that God intended this desire to lead humankind back to Himself. Stem cell research has provided yet another opportunity for God to prove His existence to His creation. When all of the debates and differences of opinion are laid aside, the focus of stem cell research is life, whether it is improvement of life or destruction of life. The destruction of life is unacceptable and I believe that stem cell research will reach its full potential when all efforts are focused on adult stem cells.

Bibliography

Henderson, S. (2001, September 3). Stem Cells: Embryos Split Prolifers. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from ChristianityToday.com: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/september3/15.23.html

Institute, S. (2008, July 1). Adult Stem Cells Reprogrammed In Their Natural Environment. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from ScienceDaily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630093621.htm


It's Not about the Stem Cells. (2004, 10 1). Retrieved 3 30, 2009, from Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/october/23.27.html


Moll, R. (2004, 11 1). Weblog: A Third Way with Stem Cells. Retrieved 03 30, 2009, from Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/novemberweb-only/11-22-21.0.html


Stem Cell Basics: Introduction. (2009, 3 30). Retrieved 4 3, 2009, from National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1


The Message Bible. (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group.