On Stem Cells
The stem cell debate is gearing up. The House has already passed a bill that would allocate more federal funds for stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos.
Proponents cite the potential health benefits that could result from the research; the President, however, intends to veto it because "The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos."
A couple of things are worth pointing out here. First, some proponents of federal funding try to give the impression that research going forward is dependent on federal government funding. That's just not true. There's no law against embryonic stem cell research being conducted by Harvard University, for example, or the state of California, or any number of other entities. So it's not a matter of whether the research can be done; it's a matter of whether it should be done with taxpayer money. (In that respect, it's a little like religious practice -- you can do it, just not with government money.)
Second, before proponents of the research manage to raise expectations sky-high over the potential for stem cell research, it's worth noting that research using "fetal tissue" hasn't yet lived up to the hype of its proponents (indeed, in some cases, it's had an adverse impact).
Third, there are ethical alternatives to destroying human embryos. As this piece points out, federally funded research continues on stem cells taken from umbilical cord blood and from adults' tissues -- and there's a second Senate bill that would fund research on ways to obtain the equivalent of embryonic stem cells without killing human embryos.
Finally, do not doubt that those little human embryos are human life. They are precisely what is implanted in women at fertility clinics after a round of IVF so that they may have a baby. The women are told, immediately after the embryos are implanted, that they are pregnant (either until they deliver, or until the embryo fails to implant and dies). Contrary to what an ill-informed talk show host said on the radio this morning, there's all the difference in the world between an embryo on the one hand and male sperm on the other -- an embryo represents the union of an egg and a sperm that, together, have fertilized to produce the beginning of human life.
Proponents cite the potential health benefits that could result from the research; the President, however, intends to veto it because "The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos."
A couple of things are worth pointing out here. First, some proponents of federal funding try to give the impression that research going forward is dependent on federal government funding. That's just not true. There's no law against embryonic stem cell research being conducted by Harvard University, for example, or the state of California, or any number of other entities. So it's not a matter of whether the research can be done; it's a matter of whether it should be done with taxpayer money. (In that respect, it's a little like religious practice -- you can do it, just not with government money.)
Second, before proponents of the research manage to raise expectations sky-high over the potential for stem cell research, it's worth noting that research using "fetal tissue" hasn't yet lived up to the hype of its proponents (indeed, in some cases, it's had an adverse impact).
Third, there are ethical alternatives to destroying human embryos. As this piece points out, federally funded research continues on stem cells taken from umbilical cord blood and from adults' tissues -- and there's a second Senate bill that would fund research on ways to obtain the equivalent of embryonic stem cells without killing human embryos.
Finally, do not doubt that those little human embryos are human life. They are precisely what is implanted in women at fertility clinics after a round of IVF so that they may have a baby. The women are told, immediately after the embryos are implanted, that they are pregnant (either until they deliver, or until the embryo fails to implant and dies). Contrary to what an ill-informed talk show host said on the radio this morning, there's all the difference in the world between an embryo on the one hand and male sperm on the other -- an embryo represents the union of an egg and a sperm that, together, have fertilized to produce the beginning of human life.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:25 AM
6 Comments:
Follow the money. Embryonic stem cell research just a fashionable left-wing mantra, much like "global warming", "evolution only", etc. They'll get government grant money, and will probably get more private money as a result if they go with whatever they can convince people is the "silver bullet" to hedonism, health, and a Prius in every garage.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Carol: may I disgree somewhat.
I have two difficulties with this one.
1. I think that this is anothrer example of government getting involved with personal decisions. I know we are debating over whether an emnbryo is a person yet. I think that a better question is the person sentient yet. I am really on the fence here.
2. The old question of Rape, Incest or whether the womans life is in danger. I think in these circumstances - and early in the pregnancy -- The woman has a right to the decision. If G-d Forbid, my daughter was in that situation, I would want her to make the decision. I also think that in the case of Rape or incest the morning after pill should be made available.
I think that the advantage of posting this question in the form of a constitutional ammendment would be a positive step. This wouold force a national discussion on the topic. This was very successfull with the ERA?
Signed:
A money-hungry hedonist who wants a maserati (lol)
Yeah, there's plenty available. How many women go through expensive hoops in order to conceive? Most, if not all, of these are highly desirous of experiencing pregnancy and childbirth. A great many would be happy to "adopt" someone else's "unwanted" embryo.
for flomberg,
This is not a case of gov interference. As has been stated, you could do research on embryonic stem cells if you wanted to. Just don't expect me to pay for it with my tax dolllars. It would be interference to force me to pay for it through taxes.
Marshal
I agree completely! Paying for itmes like these - or publicly funded abortions in ANY way is totally wrong!
Hey Jill,
You're just a goofy nut, aren't you?
You and ditto obviously missed or ignored my comments suggesting adoption for the "leftover" embryos. Why not give that a chance for awhile? But if the research showed any real promise, money would be thrown at it and federal funding would be unneccessary. In my opinion, this is just a way of cementing the lefty notions about embryos not being persons, so as to further justify abortions. Not so much that it's an actual strategy, but that it serves that end.
As to the sick and suffering, much of the sick can adjust their lifestyles to allay their illnesses. This happens frequently for those willing to make the change. But for those like Chris Reeves, as much as I have compassion for their suffering, I have equal compassion for the PEOPLE whose lives are forcibly sacrificed so that those like Chris can walk again. It's one thing to lay down one's life for another, but it's another thing to force one to lay down his life for me. I won't do it ever. I'll deal with my circumstances on my own, thank you very much. I don't need my faith to come to that conclusion. Just being a compassionate human being is enough. And if Jill wants to talk about hypocisy, I wonder if she hold in contempt any who would discriminate against someone because of his color, yet she'll discriminate because of someone's size (in this case microscopic). All but a fraction of a percent of those "masses of cells" are destined to become Social Security recipients if allowed to. But because they haven't developed enough to satisfy Jill, she'll see them killed for personal gain. What a sweety.
As to those poor Arabs you claim to care for, what should a nation do when the enemy targets civilians, and attacks them from positions purposely placed amongst their own people in order to either prevent retaliation, or to use the collateral deaths for propaganda, either option being just fine with them? I think it was Golda Meir who said, "We can forgive you for killing our children, but we won't forgive you for forcing us to kill yours."
As to fertility clinics, I would close down that part that fertilizes mulitple eggs in order to use one. This is a case where they should have held off until they could help women without killing the extras. I don't believe that a woman's desire to experience pregnancy takes precedence over those most helpless and vulnerable lives.
Post a Comment
<< Home