Why don’t they call it Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
Written by Benaiah on October 27th, 2006There is something that bothers me about the Stem Cell Research Debate. Proponents of “Embryonic” Stem Cell Research rarely use the word “Embryonic”. Instead they spread false information and purposely mislead.
Take the recent campaign adds done by Michael J. Fox for Missouri Democratic Senate Challenger Claire McCatskill. In the add the visibly shaken Fox accuses Senator Jim Talent and President Bush of not wanting to expand Stem Cell Research. Nothing is further from the truth. What Senator Talent, President Bush and many other Republicans oppose is the expansion of Government funded “Embryonic” Stem Cell Research (ESCR). As for “Adult” Stem Cell Research (ASCR), under this administration government funding has expanded and increased more than any previous administration.
Understand where the line is drawn here. ESCR involves the fertilization of an egg in vitro, and then destroyed to remove the stem cells. Life is destroyed. This is where conservatives and many Republicans draw the line and refuse to allow government funded research. Any private firm is still allowed to research ESCR, but interesting few have chosen too. Either for lack of funding as the left claims or because some scientists believe ASCR is more promising and poses less moral quandaries.
Honestly I don’t know if ASCR is more promising than ESCR. I am not a doctor or a scientist. But for me if ESCR destroys life we as a culture should not support it.
27
PM
I know that the University of Brisbane has done groundbreaking research into ASCR that could change medical science forever. It is rarely reported though because the MSM has an agenda. The Vatican is one of the principle financial backers of this research.
28
AM
One reason that they call it “Stem Cell Research” and not “Embryonic Stem Cell Research” is that “Embryonic” is a long, confusing word to repeat over and over again in a conversation or debate. Just throwing that out there- not everything is part of some liberal conspiracy.
28
PM
Another, more obvious reason for the name: Stem cells are cells that are as yet unspecialized, and can develop into anything from nervous tissue to a blood cell. I think it’s less confusing to use this umbrella term than to constantly
And what I don’t get… Why do conservatives cry “culture of life!” in opposition to scientific research on fertilized eggs that *will be destroyed by freezer burn anyway* but then say that the thousands of deaths of real, living *people* in Iraq is acceptable collateral damage? Even if you think the war will somehow in the end actually save lives, how can you be against research that will also eventually save lives with comparatively very little collateral damage?
28
PM
Oops, meant to edit my original post, and left that sentence unfinished. Should be “to use this umbrella term than to constantly revise it.”
29
PM
“Stem cells are cells that are as yet unspecialized, and can develop into anything from nervous tissue to a blood cell.”
Yes but they can come from multiple sources: umbilical cord tissue, embryos, and various organs in a full grown adult. That is why the distinction. Most conservatives only want to ban one of three sources, not all stem cell research. To state otherwise is disingenuous at best.
“Why do conservatives cry “culture of life!” in opposition to scientific research on fertilized eggs that *will be destroyed by freezer burn anyway* but then say that the thousands of deaths of real, living *people* in Iraq is acceptable collateral damage?”
Well the only reason they are going to die of freezer burn is because they were fertilized in the first place, so that is circular logic. If the research was unfunded then this would be a moot point. Secondly, comparing a single celled embryo to a full grown Iraqi is not fair. Once you are on this earth there is no pact that your life won’t be taken from you. Civillians die in war, end of story. That should never be a good reason not to go to war. These embryos don’t have to die, it is a clear simple choice we are making. Iraq is much more complex and deserves a different set of justifications.
30
AM
“Yes but they can come from multiple sources: umbilical cord tissue, embryos, and various organs in a full grown adult. That is why the distinction. Most conservatives only want to ban one of three sources, not all stem cell research. To state otherwise is disingenuous at best.”
I’m well aware of the different ways of gathering stem cells. I’m also aware (as are scientists working on this research) that not all stem cells are created equal. I never said conservatives want to ban all sources of stem cells (this is obvious), but conservatives *do* want to ban the source of stem cells that many researchers find most promising.
“Well the only reason they are going to die of freezer burn is because they were fertilized in the first place, so that is circular logic. If the research was unfunded then this would be a moot point.”
I’m not seeing the circular logic. You do realize that people using IVF technology produce more fertilized eggs than they use, right? These fertilized eggs already exist, are already getting freezer burn, and will be thrown away. Yes, there is a program in which people can “adopt” these unwanted fertilized eggs, but the vast majority are *not* adopted. I see no reason to prohibit people from donating the leftover fertilized eggs to science if they choose to do so.
“Secondly, comparing a single celled embryo to a full grown Iraqi is not fair.”
OK: I’m totally not doing this. I’m adopting conservative logic for the sake of my question. It’s anti-choice conservatives who want to equate fertilized eggs with sentient, living human beings. (Hence the very offensive comparisons of abortion with the Holocaust.) I can’t help being somewhat flabbergasted. I’ve repeatedly said that it’s illogical to equate fertilized eggs with people: that’s why I’m pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, pro-contraception.
“Once you are on this earth there is no pact that your life won’t be taken from you.”
But why exactly do you think that fertilized eggs are not “on this earth”? Half of all fertilized eggs *naturally* fail to implant on the uterine wall. A fertilized egg has no guarantee of developing in its natural habitat. Further, I don’t see how any fertilized egg has a right to use a woman’s body to develop for 9 months. Last I checked, women are indeed “on this earth.” I don’t want to derail this comment thread, but I’m curious about the underlying assumptions that go along with a pro-war/anti-stem cell research/anti-choice stance.
“Civillians die in war, end of story.”
And fertilized eggs could be used for science instead of being thrown out. Seems to me that it would be better to use these non-adopted eggs for the common good, than to just throw them out.
“That should never be a good reason not to go to war.”
It shouldn’t be the only reason not to go to war, but it is a compelling reason to think, plan, and know everything we can before sacrificing human lives.
“These embryos don’t have to die, it is a clear simple choice we are making. Iraq is much more complex and deserves a different set of justifications.”
Actually, yes, many of the embryos in question will “die.” I use scare quotes since, to my understanding, they’re not alive yet (as in, sitting in a Petri dish in a freezer they’re never going to develop into a human). I don’t think Iraq is much more complex, nor do I think that it deserves a different set of justifications. I frankly think that the attempt to use different sets of moral assumptions for Iraq and for stem cell research is a sign of the cognitive dissonance required to be simultaneously pro-war and anti-stem cell research.
I won’t get into my own views on what a federally funded stem cell research program might look like, or what other ethical quandaries might come up. I’m afraid I’ve already taken up too much space. My main purpose was just to add another perspective on the debate.
30
AM
Becky,
First the Iraqi comparison is pointless. We have a 100% volunteer army. People make a choice. The unborn do not have that choice.
I don’t see how any fertilized egg has a right to use a woman’s body to develop for 9 months.
So in your opinion a mother has the right to kill her baby right before or even at delivery? When does a baby gain rights? 1 year? 2 years?, heck why not 18 years?
Question: When a woman is pregnant do you ask her “How’s your fertilized egg?”. Of course not you ask “How’s your baby?”
There is promise in stem cell research, but it is proponents of ESCR who are disingenuous and misleading. Fox stated that conservatives want to ban Stem Cell research. That’s a lie. We look at it from a moral ethic of not destroying life to save a life. The answer of the fertilised eggs are going to die anyway is just is not good enough to cross the moral boundary when other alternatives are available.
You state some scientist believe ESCR hold the most promise, well why hasn’t the private sector embraced it? This statement is just a political talking point that has no meaning. Its a ploy with no facts behind it, only an agenda.
And fertilized eggs could be used for science instead of being thrown out. Seems to me that it would be better to use these non-adopted eggs for the common good, than to just throw them out.
Why not take it a step further. Lets turn those eggs into human clones so we can harvest their organs to save lives. A single clone could generate lots of organs to save many lives. A death of a few to save many.
Think no way we would get this far. Just watch. ECSR is the first step. Where is the moral line drawn?
30
PM
“First the Iraqi comparison is pointless. We have a 100% volunteer army. People make a choice. The unborn do not have that choice.”
I just find this ridiculous. So by volunteering to serve one’s country, our soldiers are signing up to die, and we needn’t concern ourselves when they die due to poor planning or leadership? And yes, as for choices: people make choices. Sometimes women choose to use contraception, and sometimes when that contraception fails they choose to have an abortion. The unborn don’t have any more right to use a woman’s body for 9 months than a sick person has a right to someone else’s spare kidney. I’m against government interference in how people use their bodily and financial resources, and I’m a realist who understands that sometimes women become pregnant against their will.
“So in your opinion a mother has the right to kill her baby right before or even at delivery? When does a baby gain rights? 1 year? 2 years?, heck why not 18 years?”
This is disingenuous at best. The vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester (and don’t get me started on how laws actually force women to wait). I’m not sure what your idea of women is, but why exactly do you think a woman would choose to have an abortion right at delivery? Pregnancy isn’t a walk in the park. If you actually read first hand accounts of women who have had late term abortions, you’ll understand it’s usually the last resort for a woman who very much wanted a successful pregnancy. I’ve read examples of women carrying severely disabled fetuses not expected to survive the delivery, women carrying a stillborn and needing the procedure to end the pregnancy before her health is endangered, etc.
That said, as you probably know, the line for abortions when the mother’s health is not at risk, and the fetus is not severely impaired, is generally at viability. Obviously once the fetus is delivered, the baby can be taken care of by anyone. (In other words, we are no longer as a state forcing a particular woman to use her body as a support system against her will.) This is basically my take on most issues of dependency: once the fetus is viable, once the baby is delivered, he/she is largely an autonomous being. The baby needs care, but then, so do many disabled and elderly members of society.
‘Question: When a woman is pregnant do you ask her “How’s your fertilized egg?”. Of course not you ask “How’s your baby?” ‘
Yes, but we usually ask this long past the fertilized egg stage. This is an issue of semantics. I don’t think it signifies for what rights an embryo in a petri dish might have.
“The answer of the fertilised eggs are going to die anyway is just is not good enough to cross the moral boundary when other alternatives are available.”
I think it is good enough — why should we ignore the lives of those already living in order to feel pious when we throw out those trays of destroyed eggs?
“You state some scientist believe ESCR hold the most promise, well why hasn’t the private sector embraced it? This statement is just a political talking point that has no meaning. Its a ploy with no facts behind it, only an agenda.”
Whose agenda? I’ll believe the scientists who want support in finding cures. I don’t see this as some intricate conspiracy theory on the part of liberal scientists: I trust that they have good reason to look to ESCR as a promising source for future cures. And the fact is, the world is going to develop this research whether the U.S. joins in or not. And I’d rather see the U.S. get these medical patents than North Korea.
“Why not take it a step further. Lets turn those eggs into human clones so we can harvest their organs to save lives. A single clone could generate lots of organs to save many lives. A death of a few to save many.”
I understand your concern, and I share it: it’s the utilitarian quandary of “do we kill one person to save thousands?” And of course we have many decisions like this to face… The Iraq war (whether you see parallels or no), medical experimentation, etc. But I trust that scientific ethics will step in long before this becomes a problem. The difference between a blastocyte and an adult human can’t be overstated. A blastocyte has no rights, no guarantee of a woman choosing to carry it, no potential to develop beyond a blastocyte in its petri dish. To be honest, I find it *much* more difficult to justify using primates in medical research.
That is the best that I can explain myself — and should get back to work!
1
AM
Unfortunately ESCR is just another step in chipping away at what we constitute as medical ethics. By saying ESCR is OK now, something more sinister like harvesting organs from clones is easier to stomach later.
There is an agenda at work here Becky. This is not a crazed conspiracy theory. The thing you are missing is that politicos use people like Michael J. Fox for their purposes, of regaining power at any cost.
Like I said before I do not know if ESCR holds more promise than ASCR. I have seen no evidence to support this. I have seen evidence of ASCR’s promise. The purpose of my post is to get the whole story out there so that the issue can be debated truthfully. Something the Fox adds fail to do. To that I believe I succeeded.
2
AM
I agree that ASCR is also promising, but I simply don’t believe that scientists have any agenda in using ESCR on a slippery slope to something like organ harvesting. Nor do I see any reason why scientists would want to work on ESCR unless they honestly believe it has more potential than ASCR.
That said: obviously politicians are using this issue to their advantage. I mean come on, Bush staged a closed event with “snowflake babies” as he finally used his veto power (and not a line veto finally) on the stem cell research bill. As if all those fertilized eggs in IVF clinics could *possibly* be “adopted” by women willing to carry them.
And Fox has said that he approached the Dems, not the other way around. He has an emotional stake in the argument, and I see no reason why he shouldn’t voice it. As to this issue being truthfully debated, I frankly don’t think that’s going to happen in the political arena. So I agree that it’s important for people to have conversations on their own. Have you seen the commercials responding to Fox? They’re ridiculous. You’ve got a football player (wait, what does a football player know about medicine?) saying “Hey, look, they say they won’t have medical results for another 15 years.” As if 15 years is too long to wait for scientists to develop a cure to a horrible disease. As if that means the project isn’t worth pursuing. The logic was lacking. And the same commercial begins with an actor from Passion of the Christ speaking Aramaic, which obviously is trying to sway religious voters.
That was actually the first time that I wished I knew Aramaic — I’m very curious as to what he’s saying!
2
PM
meredith joining the conversation here…
becky, i’d like to respond to the basis of all of your arguments- are the unborn human? that’s what this whole thing is about.
if the unborn are human, then we should not be able to make new embryos (humans) with the intention of disposing of them, either as excess from IVF or for research.
if the unborn are not human, then we may do with them what we please.
so becky, i ask you to show how the unborn are not human. if you can conclusively prove that the unborn are indeed not human, then you’ll win the whole argument, about ESCR, abortion, the whole bit.
but i posit that the unborn are human, from the very point of conception. they are merely smaller, less developed, more dependent humans that live in a different environment than we do. and since they are human, we have no right to infringe on their right to life. and since we should not infringe on these tiny humans’ right to life, we should not create them in labs when we know that we cannot honor their right to life.
as for abortion, a woman does have a choice what to do with her body. she can have sex or not. if a woman has sex, then she has to be prepared to deal with the consequences of that, one of the most natural of which is pregnancy. at that point, her body is the home of another person due to an act of her own volition, and that woman should not be able to violate that little person’s rights, including the right to life.
i realize that there are instances where a woman does not have the choice of getting pregnant (rape/incest). this is a terrible occurance, and if i were queen of the world then these horrific acts would never happen to a single woman ever again. but if the unborn are human, then how they were created does not take away from their value and/or their rights.
furthermore, one of the most beneficial things for a woman who got pregnant from rape to do is to have that baby. nearly all of the women who get pregnant from rape and have the baby feel that it is a healing experience, that something good can come from something bad. conversely, nearly all of the women who get pregnant from rape and have an abortion regret it and/or say that the abortion was harder to recover from than the rape. (this information is from the book “victims and victors” by david reardon).
that’s all i’ll say about abortion itself unless asked further, since this is, after all, the “stem cell research” thread and not the right to life thread.
back to the embryonic stem cell research topic…
“But I trust that scientific ethics will step in long before this becomes a problem.”
that’s an awful lot of faith for you to have, especially since history has not shown that to be the case. at the beginning of the 20th century the eugenics movement was gaining speed, and many said that they trusted that scientific ethics would step in before it became a problem… but that didn’t happen. the idea that some humans had more value than others eventually led to the holocaust in germany, during which over 10 million people died, some during horrendous scientific experiments committed on those of ‘lesser value’ for the purpose of finding cures for those of ‘greater value.’ again, this comes down to the question of whether or not the unborn are human. obviously becky doesn’t think they are.