9 Responses for "Norm Coleman compromises (sort of), backs Santorum’s adult stem cell bill"

1. William Mulgrew July 12th, 2006 at 9:53 pm 1

   I forgot a h/t to grassrootspa.com

2. DavidShiffman July 13th, 2006 at 11:34 am 2

   “Scientific advancement does not justify killing people.” Of course this is a true statement, and no one but the most radical would disagree with it. However, it does not apply to this debate.

   First of all, stem cell research isn’t just some abstract science- it’s vital medical science that will save hundreds of thousands- if not millions- of lives. These people have, at present, no other hope of survival.

   Secondly, stem cells and the embryos that they come from are not universally considered to be alive- only the most conservative believe this to be so. (Even Nancy Reagan supports stem cell research, and not many can claim to be more conservative than a Reagan). In other words, you’re condeming millions to death because of your particular value system.

   If you don’t want to use stem cells to save your own life, that’s fine. But how dare you deny life to others because your religion (which continues to be just one out of many) thinks that it’s wrong?

3. William Mulgrew July 14th, 2006 at 10:48 am 3

   1. Who said this has anything to do with my religion?
   2. That life begins at conception is a scientific fact.
   3. “stem cells and the embryos that they come from are not universally considered to be alive.” And for the longest time blacks weren’t universally considered people. Majority or minority belief is irrelevant. What is relevant is the scientifically proven point that blacks and embryos are people.

4. Becky July 14th, 2006 at 11:32 am 4

   1. You can claim that life begins at conception, but you’re already treading theological ground. Why? Because the medical community and our government agree that pregnancy (ie, the beginning of the development of life) begins at implantation — not the meeting of sperm and egg. At the rate you’re going, who’s to say that life doesn’t begin with the egg, that is simply a person without a complete genetic code yet?

   2. Equating Blacks (struggling for equal rights) with embryos is completely disingenuous, possibly insulting, and reminds me of the rhetoric of PETA (the fight for animal rights is just like the civil rights movement!). And what “scientifically proven fact” are you referring to that embryos are people? They have genetic codes, sure, but so do corpses. Having human DNA doesn’t automatically confer the rights of personhood. This isn’t a black and white issue, and pretending that it is simply misrepresents it.

   3. Let’s be realistic. All those embryos in fertility clinics are *not* going to make it to implantation. This has been a struggle for said clinics all along, as embryos (surprise surprise) don’t keep that well in the freezer. So, the choice becomes: do we throw out those embryos after they’re destroyed, or do we use them before they’re destroyed in order to do research that has the potential to save millions of lives?

   Let me put it another way. If you think it’s A-OK to keep intelligent, conscious, sentient beings in cages (eg, primates), while giving them diseases and testing out experimental meds on them, for the human good, then you should really re-consider your stance on using frozen, destined-not-to-be-used embryos for scientific study.

5. William Mulgrew July 14th, 2006 at 3:14 pm 5

   Becky,

   1. I invite you to open a biology textbook. The origin of life may be a theological question for some, but overall it is a biological question with a biological answer. If a new religion began with the belief that life didn’t begin until a person could talk, and therefore infanticide was moral, it would not prevent us from concluding with scientific certainty that infants are people.

   That life beigns at conception is a scientific fact. Ovum and sperm are the products of another’s body, but when they join together, a new person with a unique identity and DNA code is formed. Asserting that life doens’t begin until implantation doesn’t answer the origin of life but only changes its location. The newly fertilized egg contains an enormous amount of genetic information, allowing it to control its individual growth and development for the rest of its life. The amount of genectic information stored within the DNA of a new individual at conception is 50 times the amount of information contained in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

   2. I wasn’t equating blacks to embryos. I was comparing social attitudes that blacks weren’t people to the attitude that the unborn aren’t people. BIG DIFFERENCE. The point I was trying to make was that at one point blacks were not “universally considered” people. You cannot use what is “universally considered” because most people are not adequately informed on when life begins.

   Your comparison of embryos to corpses is illogical. Embryos are not dead, but living.

   What is personhood? It is membership in the human race. Embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, adult– these are all semantics for human life at different stages. “Fetus” is a latin word that has variously been translated to mean “offspring,” “young one,” or “little child.” Semantics do not change reality.

   If you are human, you must be human from the beginning. Something non-human cannot become human with time. A rock cannot become a human, even if we waited 50 million years. We were all once embryos. You cannot deny that embryos are human. You can only argue that they are human but don’t deserve to be legally protected. In short, you are arguing that a class of humans don’t deserve to be legally protected from being arbitrarily terminated by someone else– the same argument slave-holders made. You can be offended by this all you want, but logically the argument is the same.

   3. Concerning embryos in fertility clinics, those that are untainted from freezing should be donated for embryo adoption. They have a chance for life. Scientists have little use for those that are tainted. Embryos are humans, not animals.

6. Becky July 14th, 2006 at 4:29 pm 6

   First: I was not saying that you said embryos = Black people. I got your analogy, and was working off it. As you can see, I even offered you another commonly used one from the animal rights movement. (Attitude toward animals = attitude toward minority groups). Clearly, I was not saying that PETA claimed animals ARE Black people (which would be the logical equivalent to the mistake you suggested). I was saying, that just as you said attitude toward Blacks = attitude toward embryos, that PETA would say attitude toward animals = attitude toward Blacks. Get it? So please don’t deliberately misread me and then construct a strawman you can argue with instead of me.

   As to when pregnancy beings: Having a complete DNA code seems to be some mystical achievement for anti-choicers. I wasn’t being illogical in pointing out that a dead person’s cells also have unique DNA. I was trying to press on why having a DNA combination automatically means you have the rights of personhood. Some primates share what, 98% of our DNA? Anyway, not my main point.

   Main point: When you say that implantation just “changes the location,” you are incredibly, incredibly illogical and disrespectful. You seem to flippantly dismiss the fact that in order for a fertilized egg to mean something, to have the potential to gain personhood, it *requires* a woman’s womb. This isn’t just a simple change of place, this is asking a fully realized human being to use her physical, emotional, and financial resources to grow an develop a human being. So please, try to have a little respect for what women contribute to the process. Embryos don’t become people outside of the womb, period.

   This brings me to the final point. You totally missed the point about the unused fertilized eggs left behind at fertility clinics. Our technology is bringing us closer everyday to allowing even infertile couples to produce their biological offpspring (in a few years, even same sex female couples may be able to use this technology). So why, exactly, do you think that these thousands of frozen embryos are going to be desired by, well, anyone? Right now, there’s not enough demand for said embryos, and that demand is only going to lessen over time with advances in technology. Most people who go to fertility clinics want their biological children (otherwise, why not adopt?). Given the much more compelling case of live, homeless children, I think that most couples who want to do something good will adopt those children, rather than implant someone else’s frozen embryo.

   So in conclusion: we’ve got lots of frozen embryos in fertility clinics, too many to possibly be used in embryo adoption. In other words: not all of these embryos are going to be adopted by a woman willing to implant them. So… do we let all those unused embryos languish in freezers till they’re “tainted,” or do we use them for scientific advances to save real, live, conscious, walking & talking human beings?

   Seems like an incredibly easy choice to me.

7. William Mulgrew July 15th, 2006 at 1:38 am 7

   Becky,

   My apologies for misreading your analogies. I responded to your comment inbetween a large history paper, so my mind must have been taxed at the moment.

   Please don’t get the idea that I don’t respect women. As a Christian, I have a lot of respect for women. Earlier today I was watching the O’Reilly Factor (not something I normally do) and the Matt Dubay story came up. Dubay is suing in federal court against Michigan’s child-support laws. “It’s just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices” he’s quoted in reference to the woman he impregnated. On The Factor, a lawyer defending the man’s position was on and basically stated that the baby girl (now 8 months old) was just “a collection of cells that the mother chose to keep.”

   The devaluation of life in our society has now reached a new low. It goes to show why it was the early feminists who lobbied an intolerant male society to protect women by outlawing abortion. Men would be responsible for the children they produced, instead of treating women like sex machines. Even recent statistics show that a vast majority of women who seek abortions do so not because they don’t want the child but because society won’t help them in their pregnancy. Some choice.

   Striking down child support laws would steal another life-line from women in need. Did anyone ever think this would happen when abortion was legalized? Nope.

   The Right to Privacy is not absolute, which is why the law punishes spouse abuse even if it was done in the privacy of one’s home. Being in favor of “choice” is not always virtuous. If a special-interest group formed for the purpose of lobbying for privacy in the home– including spouse abuse, focusing on “choice” can distract us from realizing the impact it would have on the lives of others.

   Abortion is the same way. Your individual rights end when it concerns the life of another person. As I said before, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, etc. are merely semantics for human life at different stages of development. Personhood is membership in the human race. An embryo is a human life at a different stage of development with a unique DNA code– that no one else on the planet has. The law protects persons.

   If you don’t believe that the unborn are people, then you’re acknowledging that the law doesn’t protect people, but is selective. It protects some people and not others, and discriminates on the basis of different stages of life. There are politicians who argue that mothers can wait until a few hours after birth to “choose” if they still want to abort the baby or not.

   Well, it’s just a collection of cells, isn’t it? Not “fully realized” humans?

   So when scientists someday invent a way to grow embryos outside of the womb (I’m sure they will), what then? “No one wants these embryos,” they’ll say, “even if they were developed into infants, our orphanages are overcrowded” (notice that no one talks about how long the waiting-line is for adoption). Human life is disposable. If you’re an inconvenience, you’re disposable.

   You’re undesirable, so we’re going to kill you in order to advance the lives of “real, live, conscoius, walking & talking human beings” i.e. humans who reached different stages of development that we’re denying you the right to achieve.

   How’s this: we shouldn’t be manufacturing embryos for the purpose of destruction. Human life isn’t something that should be played with in a science lab. Adult stem cells is a viable alternative that has produced scientific advancement. Embryos will not produce any breakthroughs that adult stem cells have already produced. They are not necessary and even if they were, it does not justify killing them. And people DO adopt embryos.

8. Becky July 15th, 2006 at 2:54 am 8

   Thanks for your response. I appreciate that you’re looking toward the possible “slippery slope” of using embryonic stem cells, but I don’t think that we should be as worried about that, as, say, the people whose lives could be saved by these scientific advances. In making such a moral choice, I personally find the already alive to have a more compelling case than the supposed “rights” of doomed embryos. And while adult stem cells are promising, they are simply not the same thing as embryonic stem cells.

   Also, we can’t so easily equate embryos with, say, newborns. You want to confer personhood and rights to an embryo. But if no woman wants to develop that embryo (which is quite common right now, as fertility clinics struggle with an “acceptable” way to dispose of unwanted fertilized eggs), how exactly does that embryo have any rights? It doesn’t. You can’t confer rights to an embryo by taking away the rights of a woman. The idea of “right to life” doesn’t make sense to me: we owe a tremendous debt to our mothers (and our fathers that live up to that name). I’m lucky and thankful that my mother chose to have me, but I don’t see how I could possibly fault her if she chose not to have children. I think it’s bizarre to act as though a fertilized egg has some compelling rights over the living. Most of these embryos exist because a couple was trying to give life to their children; these are unfortunately what is left after such processes. I think it’s better to use these embryos to help the living, than to pretend that they’re actually going to be adopted through an embryo adoption program. A few will, but we’ll still have many left over, so why not let scientists do what they can to advance our ability to save already existing lives? And while many want to adopt children, these embryos clearly need a woman to volunteer to carry them first (not a lot of women, understandably, want to do this. Imagine if you were asked to volunteer to donate a kidney). Further, last I checked, we aren’t exactly suffering for want of people on this planet. In fact, many scientists would argue that overpopulation is one of our most pressing problems as a species. We’ve added what, 4 billion people to the world population since WW2? Imagine, 2 billion to 6 billion in about 50 years. And that growth isn’t expected to stop anytime soon. So logistically, no, not every would-be combination of DNA has a “right to life,” and I don’t see why we should be worrying about finding ways to develop unwanted embryos when we have people dying of disease that we hope to learn how to treat.

   So in other words, I hope that those couples who want to use those leftover embryos can do so, and I hope that scientists can use what’s left after that (before the embryos simply get freezer burn).

9. William Mulgrew July 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pm 9

   Becky,

   I was gone for a week and didn’t have an opportunity to respond until now.

   1.) The debate is whether embryos are people, not how many people will supposedly benefit from scienticfic advancement. If the debate was whether unwanted infants should have their organs harvested, we wouldn’t be arguing about how many people would benefit from the transplants, but whether infants should be legally protected.

   I don’t care if stem-cell research would cure every disease on the planet, if they’re people, then they deserve legal protection. The ends do not justify the means.

   2.) “Also, we can’t so easily equate embryos with, say, newborns.”

   Not so easy for someone like you. You keep ignoring my argument that embroys, fetusus, newborns, etc. are merely human beings at different levels of development.

   3.) “You want to confer personhood and rights to an embryo. ”

   Yes, but what you overlook is the presumption of personhood. If someone is unsure whether something is a life or not, they have an ethical obligation to defer on the side of life. Therefore, the burden is on YOU to prove that embryos do not DESERVE legal protection. I will argue to death why the unborn do deserve legal protection, but invariably the burden of proof is on you to prove the opposite because there is a presumption of personhood.

   4.) “But if no woman wants to develop that embryo (which is quite common right now, as fertility clinics struggle with an “acceptable” way to dispose of unwanted fertilized eggs), how exactly does that embryo have any rights? It doesn’t. You can’t confer rights to an embryo by taking away the rights of a woman.”

   Are rights something conferred to us arbitrarily or are they inherent to persons? They are inherent. As people, our rights are inherent. Embryos are people at early stages of development. Therefore their rights are inherent. You are arguing the converse: either they are not human or the rights of humans are not inherent. Our inherent rights end when they concern the life of someone else. Therefore, women never had the right to kill their children to begin with.

   If this bothers you because its coming from a man, then hear it from a woman: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the pioneers in the women’s rights movement who campaigned to have abortion outlawed, said the following:

   “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”

   You can read more at Feminists for Life (http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm)

   5) “The idea of “right to life” doesn’t make sense to me: we owe a tremendous debt to our mothers (and our fathers that live up to that name). I’m lucky and thankful that my mother chose to have me, but I don’t see how I could possibly fault her if she chose not to have children.”

   By saying “I’m” and “me” in reference to when you were inside your mother, you are acknowledging that embryos are people as “I’m” and “me” are statements made by persons concerning their own unique identities.

   We do owe a tremendous debt to our mothers but it doesn’t give them the right to kill us. Something that is unwanted before birth can certainly become unwanted after birth. It’s no accident that the phrase “life, liberty, and property” is phrased in that order. Without life, the other two cannot follow.

   If your mother chose not to have children, she could have placed you up for adoption. Obviously you could not have faulted her for aborting you because you would be dead. Isn’t it wonderful that you have the life and choices that you have today while there are millions who never had them because their lives were arbitrarily ended?

   6) “I think it’s bizarre to act as though a fertilized egg has some compelling rights over the living.”

   Are embryos not “alive”?

   7) “I think it’s better to use these embryos to help the living, than to pretend that they’re actually going to be adopted through an embryo adoption program.”

   Do not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Some embryos would be adopted, they are being adopted. Do you have a crystal ball that allows you to see the future?

   In regards to your arguments for overpopulation, I absolutely love this argument. If the U.S. was overpopulated, would it justify randomly selecting individuals for extermination?

   Secondly, your facts are wrong. The birth rate in the U.S., as it is in Europe, is steadily falling to the point where we’re not replacing the labor force as quickly as we need. Most of your “overcrowding” is the fact that people are living longer and we’re now faced with a growing elderly population.

   9) “So logistically, no, not every would-be combination of DNA has a “right to life,” and I don’t see why we should be worrying about finding ways to develop unwanted embryos when we have people dying of disease that we hope to learn how to treat.”

   So, in other words, unwanted people may be killed in order to benefit others. Real “logical.”