U.S. Newswire reports a press release by the Institute for Progressive Christianity. The release gives three answers to “myths” about embryonic stem-cell research. The second is a particularly interesting twist of logic.

The first part of Myth 2:

Myth 2: All religious organizations oppose embryonic stem cell and somatic cell nuclear transfer research. — In reality, different organized religions take different or no position at all on the research. In fact, many religious organizations, including the Presbyterian Church USA, the Church of England, the American Jewish Congress, United Church of Christ, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Foundry United Methodist Church and a clear majority of America Roman Catholics all support this potentially life saving research. (emphasis mine)

A clear majority of Roman Catholics a religious organization does not make. If they do hold this view they hold it contrary to the doctrine provided by Pope Benedict XVI.

Continuing:

All four branches of Judaism support embryonic stem cell research pursuant to the halakic doctrine of pekuach nefesh — the preeminence of saving a life in being. Under Jewish Law a fourteen-day embryo has the same status as water. There is a very similar concept in Christian thought known as Epikiea. Great thinkers of the Judeo-Christian tradition have always understood that sometimes one needs to break the letter of the law in order to achieve the spirit of the law.

Two things here, starting with the latter: what does it mean to “break the letter of the law to achieve the spirit of the law?” Would a divine law be so poorly handed down as to require its breaking?

The Jewish law argument is groundless for Christians anyhow. Indeed, Christ fulfilled both God’s law and man’s law for our sakes. I doubt the proponents of this line of reasoning wish to be consistent and apply the constraints and penalties of the Pentateuch to our way of life. That would be ejecting a lot of UCC members out of the pews like in one of their commercials.

Finally:

The Gospels consistently detail how Jesus adhered to pekuach nefesh through his many acts of healing. And as a (sic) Christians who have read the Gospels, the IPC leadership cannot cite one example of Jesus directly refuting pekuach nefesh. It logically follows that a Jesus who lived by Jewish law raises a presumption that he would not oppose this vital medical research. If anything, his healing the infirmed and disabled along with raising the dead contradicts those who oppose this research solely on religious grounds.

These are all suppositions without evidence. A loophole in Jewish law doesn’t stand against simple Biblical statements such as Psalm 51:5, where David wrote that he was conceived in sin. There doesn’t seem to be a 14-day waiting period for a soul. Christ’s power over death and resurrection was indicative of his nature as the Son of God and not indicative that he would carve out a legal exception to terminate the littlest of life.