On one side, you have social conservatives who are trying to point up their dedication to the pro-life set of values. On the other side, you have those who oppose pro-lifers and have -- quite sensibly -- seen a big opportunity to amass public support by emphasizing the very widespread interest in finding cures for various diseases.
Consider the Wisconsin governor's race between the Republican challenger Mark Green and Governor Jim Doyle. Doyle must be upset to see this new research reported now. Look at this article from a month ago:
If Gov. Jim Doyle and Democrats have their way, the biggest issue in the campaign against Republican Mark Green will be smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.Will Doyle let go of the issue now? Look how organized he is around the issue and how niftily it works for him. (It's certainly been working on me.) And he's got a special team of advisors on this issue. Don't you think they're brainstorming right now about how to keep the controversy going?
With the hope of attracting undecided voters and driving a wedge into Green's support, Doyle has launched a relentless effort to paint Green as an opponent of stem cell research, which is seen as holding the promise of treatments for a host of debilitating diseases....
In general, analysts see little risk for Doyle in pushing the issue, and potentially a high reward. Doyle already is unlikely to win the votes of those who oppose abortion - the same voters who raise the gravest concerns about embryonic stem cell research....
The Doyle campaign has created a steering committee of nationally known stem cell advocates, hired a full-time stem cell coordinator (an unheard of position for a campaign) and worked to build a network of people for whom the issue hits home.
If they try to explain away the new research, they need to be careful not to ruin what is most appealing about their position: a strong support for science. If they overreach now, their position will look a lot more like political posturing than it did before, and, as that month-old article shows, it already was starting to look that way.
UPDATE: And the FDA just approved the over-the-counter "morning-after" pill. In other science news, less likely to affect elections, Pluto is so not a planet... despite all your affection.
পোস্টগুলি
৫২টি মন্তব্য:
Well, that's the way the issue is worked by the other side. That's well noted. You're restating the debate as it's been framed. Now, address the new issue.
I have always enjoyed your precise language "those who oppose pro-lifers and have -- quite sensibly -- seen a big opportunity to amass public support by emphasizing the very widespread interest in finding cures for various diseases."
You have left out any implication that this is good science or lead to cures. More and more this looks like the Laetrile of the new century.
Democrats have latched on to their best wedge issue in years "look at the fundamentalist republicans they won't let us do this great research, they probably still believe that the world is flat." Embryonic stem cell scientists have gone along because they are waiting for the money to start rolling in.
When science and politics commingle, the result is usually ugly. A real threat to scientific progress is 'animal-rights' terrorism. Real scientists are leaving real research or having their life's work destroyed and terrorist groups are still treated respectfully as animal activists.
Dave, that's not the point of my response to you. I would think a science devote would do a better job of reading and perceiving issues.
swbarnes: Do you think science should exclude moral and ethical reasoning?
Not all pro-life pols have been opposed to stem cell research up to this point. Orrin Hatch, for example, is considered pro-life, but has supported stem cell research. There are others.
A minor point perhaps. But clearly, this issue already wasn't playing out the way some pundits thought that it would. This latest development likely takes the entire debate in yet another direction.
Whether the religious right can resist looking this horse in the mouth remans to be seen:
"...Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush.... [S]he said: 'Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.'"
The problem as I see it is that the pro-life wing of the Republican Party is hostile to business. There are potentially myriad business opportunities that can evolve out of stem cell research -- but the less business-oriented wing of the Republican party quashes that. At some point, you gotta think the business Republicans will say "Enough". Although I don't know where they'd go -- they're in the same quandry as Democrats who don't want to abandon Iraq.
Even if this breakthrough stays -- Green can still be painted as extreme. Heck, he's rather incinerate embryos than save lives with them. How's that for a sound-bite?
Ann: I don't think any area should exclude moral and ethical reasoning. Getting to Dave's comment, I don't think that including moral and ethical behavior as a part of research makes you a Luddite. Medical ethics prevent all sorts of behaviors, which would otherwise speed research. An extra blood draw from every medical patient for research would not cause any harm to the patient and I'm sure there is a researcher who might put this to very good use. It isn’t done without the patients consent because it would be unethical to do so.
A big part of the politics of this issue is muddying the waters around the types of stem cells. A population that believes embryonic stem cell research equals all stem cell research much more likely to take the Democratic Party line on this. “Bush opposes embryonic stem cell research” is a much better line than “Bush is the first president to support stem cell research” but both statements are true.
Even Dr. Robert Lanza, vice president of Advanced Cell Technology, seems to miss characterize the opposition to embryonic stem cell research “There is no rational reason left to oppose this research.” It is unclear what he means by “this research.” If his work is proven to be correct there will be two types of embryonic stem cell research “embryo destroying” embryonic research and “donor cell” embryonic research. Speaking for both the pro-life scientific community and President Bush, I see no ethical problem with “donor cell” embryonic research.
MadisonMan wrote: There are potentially myriad business opportunities that can evolve out of stem cell research -- but the less business-oriented wing of the Republican party quashes that. At some point, you gotta think the business Republicans will say "Enough".
Yesterday Orlando Florida won the bidding to get a bio-tech company to move here from San Diego. This is part of a larger effort to diversify both Orlando's economy and the economy of the whole state. My understanding is that this company has or is doing stem-cell research. This was touted as a big win for the region and the state at a press conference headed up by Governor Jeb Bush, a pro-life Republican!
MadisonMan, it might not be that big a wedge issue, at least in some of the bigger Republican states. Everybody loves good jobs, afterall.
For an article in the science section, I would've like to have seen more emphasis on the science. Especially for a procedure yet to be confirmed. Yes, politics is part of the story, but a story on the political posturing could have gone somewhere else.
my bumper sticker: When stem cells are outlawed, only outlaws will have genetically improved children living longer, smarter, disease-free lives.
Mona Charen in National Review Online which I would call "Pro-Life" and Dave would call "Luddite" seems to recognize that this is important:
Cautiously optimistic on this stem cell news. If news reports turn out to be correct, the procedure they’re describing [big snip]is really what it seems to be, then it passes a key moral test – it does not destroy life.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWVjMzE4MmYwMzJmNjc1OGY4NjY1YTY5ODkzZjdkYTA=
I think this is very good news from a variety of standpoints.
First, the pro-lifies who opposed the destruction of embryos should be happy it needn't happen.
Second, we won't have to debate whether sufficient advances can be made with non-embryonic stem cells.
Third, the currently absent federal funding for embryonic stem cell research might now become available.
And most importantly, fourth, science can march on without interference on this front.
All in all, this is terrific news.
I agree with JohnF.
You know it is going to be a long day when Freder shows up to call you dishonest.
Freder, I don’t think you know anything about this debate other than what you have read in your talking points. This is the sort of news that has political hacks running for their consultants because it has the possibility to change the landscape completely (which I think was the original point of your post before Dave and I hijacked it).
As a stem cell agnostic, I just don't see this as a successful wedge issue. The three arguments that immediately come to mind are
1. The benefits of this kind of research are too ethereal at this point for the public to get that worked up about it.
2. There is no law against stem cell research, only a law against paying for it with federal money. If this research is so promising, why do drug companies need federal subsidies to do it?
3. A politician in trouble can simply say they don't oppose stem cell research using this method.
I think the first point is why it might be tough to beat opponents over the head with this, and to those who will inevitably rebut the second point, understand that I'm not necessarily saying it's valid, just that it will work as a political argument. Your rebuttal needs to fit into a comparably sized soundbite. The third would probably render the issue moot in any case.
Sheesh! You can't win. I see that today the FDA just approved the morning after pill. Kiss those proto-people good bye, and here we go again.
I think this is a troubling political result for democrats. The stem cell debate was a great one for them because the prospects of curing paralysis is so pornographic that people will do their damndest to support it.
The stem cell debate should no go away. Conservatives who were against using embryonic stem cells should capitalize on the new discovery by not only announcing their support for the new research but also by restating how they were willing to stick to higher principles in the pursuit of human progress. In contrast, where democrats were not willing to stick to such principles - they were willing to be Dr. Mengle.
Republicans should take credit for the new discovery. They should argue that if it wasn't for conservative opposition, no research would have been done on extracting an individual cell for stem cell research.
Can't we draw a distinction between a post-doctoral student doing embryonic stem cell research and Dr. Mengle?
Not drawing this line reduces your arguement, if you can't win without citing Mengle you probably shouldn't.
More importantly equating the two mitigates the horror of Mengle's crimes.
Republicans should take credit for the new discovery. They should argue that if it wasn't for conservative opposition, no research would have been done on extracting an individual cell for stem cell research.
While this argument might resonate for some, it shows an astonishing ignorance of how science advances. The idea that no scientist would pursue the line of thinking that lead to this advancement if embryonic stem cell research was federally funded ignores the curiosity of all scientists.
Ignoring facts is a hallmark of all politicians, of course.
True Madison Man. But the hallmark of the stem cell debate is complete ignorance of the facts and of the science. It's all based on a drunken dream - that Superman will get up out of his wheel chair and start walking.
"We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases . . . When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
- Senator John Edwards, a week after Reeve died.
It is ironic.
Politicians who support federal funding for all embryonic stem cell research have said, "Restricitions on embryonic stem cell funding are wrong because, though scientists haven't done it yet, they WILL discover cures for various diseases using embryonic stem cells."
Now, they may have to say, "Restricitions on embryonic stem cell funding are wrong because, even though preliminary research indicates that new supplies of embryonic stem cells can be gotten within the funding limits, scientists WILL NOT be able to make that research practical.
I also know that all the arguments that the opponents of stem-cell research make are dishonest
So, when I say it disturbs me that human embryos are being created in a lab solely for the purpose of extracting their stem cells, and that they will then be discarded, you're calling me a liar? You're saying it doesn't disturb me?
You're saying that there is no conceivable reason that a rational person could be bothered by that?
Wow.
IMO this new technique doesn't solve the sourcing problem all that much. Most lab-created embryos are never implanted and allowed to develop into babies. That's a huge problem. Of course, it's also a huge problem that the harvesting methods used to date destroyed the embryo, but to say that it was the only problem is simply wrong.
Ann, I take issue with your view that this is a "political issue elaborately built on the old technology..." It's not a political issue to me, it is an ethical one.
And Feder, if you think us pro-life types rest easy about the fate of the thousands of frozen embryos at fertility clinics, you're wrong. But as with birth control, the genie is already out of the bottle with in vitro fertilization, and I can't see a way to put it back in.
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. In vitro fertilization is, oddly enough, more about death than life.
I hope pro-life wackos aren't going to wuss out on this...there are still plenty of reasons to oppose this research.
Hacking off one-eighth of a child's body, a procedure which provides no benefit to the child and to which he/she cannot meaningfully consent, certainly constitutes child abuse and endangering the welfare of a minor.
Dr. Lanza said...that there was no evidence that a single blastomere could develop into a person.
Well, there's no evidence it can't, either. That would require further research...except of course that research would itself be immoral. So this question can't be resolved, and we can't take the risk that destroying a blastomere is actually murder.
Roger-
I think it is already proven that no one around here understands irony.
Freder: I knew it was going to be a long day. Here goes:
1) "all the arguments that the opponents of stem-cell research make are dishonest"
--Are you talking about adult or embryonic stem cell research. I’m not an opponent of stem cell research but I am an opponent of embryo destroying research, I guess only half of what I say is dishonest. This a discussion that requires precise terms, your inability to use these terms is what leads me to believe that you are a hack or you don’t know as much about this debate as you think you do.
2) “Did the technology to conduct embryonic stem cell research before President Bush became president?”
--Yes, the first publications on embryonic stem cell research were in 1998 out of Johns Hopkins and the University of Wisconsin. Not only are you wrong, but you didn’t get my point my both statements were true and political spin determines which is used.
3) “Aren't all the embryos that are used for stem cell research destined (except for that miniscule fraction that become "snowflake babies") to become medical waste?”
--Non sequitor, and you can justify some pretty bad behavior using this logic. I would rather worry about increasing the number of “snowflake babies” or improving the IVF process to reduce the number of embryos created so that underlying concerns about the IVF process will be lessened. For families that just want a baby the destruction of unused embryos is a difficult issue.
4) “Isn't adult and umbilical cord stem cell research much more advanced and therefore yielding results while embryonic research is still at the basic research level so expecting immediate or comparable results now dishonest and unfair?”
--Adult and umbilical cord stem cell research is closer to commercialization. Not only that, but the more advanced cord blood research may show that cord blood stem cell are pluripotent (can form all cell types), which is the draw for research using embryonic cells. I'm not arguing that embryo destroying research shouldn't be done because it is inefficient so I don't think you can characterize me as dishonest or unfair.
5) “Simply because drug companies don't like doing basic research. Basic research doesn't bear commercially profitable fruit for a long time and there are lots of dead ends.”
--I’m sure that drug companies would rather have the government pay for their research. It seems that Advanced Cell Technology has some cash to spend on this type of research. If the research is successful their investors will be rolling in doe.
Freder,
Your cry of "dishonest" is meant to serve as a trump card to prevent further discussion by claiming the presumed moral high ground. It's poor argumentation, conclusory, and avoids the points raised.
It's also childish, akin to yelling "is not!" after your opponent speaks. It signals to the wise that one's best approach is to ignore your posts altogether, as responding to them has no apparent effect.
I guess it's hard for me to consider someone 'pro-life' if they oppose a technology that allows children to be born into loving families that would otherwise be without children.
Adoption is not an option in your world, I see.
Feder, you're a piece of work, you are: I just don't see the protesters out in front of fertility clinics calling the clients and doctors murderers nor have I ever heard of a fertility clinic bombing or a doctor shot or threatened with death if he didn't stop praticing. So your statements of concern ring hollow.
There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. Do I really need to say that far more children are lost through abortion every year? That the number of embryos waiting to be discarded is comparatively miniscule, precisely because of the expense and difficulty that went into creating them? Right to Life groups focus on abortion because it has permeated our society. If you can't figure out that there's no point in making a huge issue out of something that affects only a miniscule percentage of the population when a much more pervasive horror exists, then you are an idiot.
It's sad but true that a handful of whackos can taint a group's reputation forever. The overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates use peaceful methods of protest and working through the political process. I can't recall the last time an abortion clinic was bombed or an abortionist threatened with death, and I'm sure if it had happened, it would be all over the news. Yes, the pro-life movement has had some extremists, but they do not represent the movement as a whole, and never have. They have always been strongly repudiated by the movement. Yet you seem to think that because there are no nutjobs targetting fertility clinics, pro-lifers are just fine with what goes on there, which is just weird. It's not as if no one has ever said a word about it or anything. And if you search on "embryo adoption", you'll get a lot of hits.
Saying, "the embryos will be discarded as medical waste anyway" isn't persuasive. That practice can, and should, be changed, so that the "extra" embryos can be made available for adoption.
gbdub,
You are absolutely right that in vitro fertilization creates new life. But if you believe that embryos are alive, it also creates new death as these surplus embryos are destroyed.
If I got two women pregnant and then killed one of the kids when it came out, would I be pro-life or pro-death?
Gbdub: Bravo on making your argument without ad hominem attacks. Freder seems to believe that anyone that disagrees with him is a lying hayseed (poorly educated and easily lead).
I don’t really expect to convince you but here are my thoughts:
1) I think we agree on this.
2) Each of the following statements is true:
--“Bush opposes embryonic stem cell research”
-- “Bush is the first president to support stem cell research”
--'George Bush is the first president to create public policy related to stem cell research'
Which statement is used defines where you stand politically. Ann’s point (I believe) is that this new discovery shifts the technology on which the political debate is based.
3) If the destruction of embryos for scientific research is unethical it is unethical, whether or not the embryos would otherwise be destroyed does not change its ethical status. My point was that more effort should be put into reducing the number of embryos used in the IVF process rather than treating them as a resource. The inefficiency of the IVF process is heart breaking for families with multiple failed implantations. It isn’t great for those who have four or five of the embryos implant.
4) Embryonic cells were the first to be discovered to differentiate into various cell types. This pluripotency is what aroused initial interest in embryonic stem cell research. Later research is showing that cord blood is pluripotent as well. The government has chosen not to fund research that a large part of the population thinks is unethical. California has taken a different route (one that I disagree with) but that’s Federalism. We can debate private investment should bring things to market quickly while Federal cash does basic research versus invest government money to bring life saving the most advanced techniques to market quickly all day.
5) I have no problem with federal investment or of people making money off of that investment later. All pharmaceutical companies manage high risk/high reward projects. Big Pharma and small have the money and the will to invest in embryonic research. They also have a much better ability to distinguish good science from bad and to consider risk v. benefit.
So you should have the right to create your own children while there are thousands of children waiting to be adopted?
There is no "right to reproduce." There is a capability to reproduce, unassisted.
And a low sperm count or a defective fallopian tube immediately terminates this right?
Again, it's not a right. If it were a right, then in vitro clinics would be sponsored by the government and our tax dollars would be paying for the procedures.
Look: I can't win marathons or do cartwheels. Those are among my many physical limitations. Infertility is a very tough problem, but spending thousands and thousands of dollars making new babies when there are so many out there already waiting to be adopted is problematic to me. It's a practice I disagree with, even though it's not my money and only affected me peripherally when a family member attempted IVF.
While we're in the habit of reading too far into each other's arguments, I propose that, by your logic, every person who has their own child while any child (or apparently embryo as well) is available for adoption is morally repugnant and should be jailed.
Is this rhetorical style working for you? I'd go a different way.
The fact is, creating life in one's own image is *the* fundamental drive of nature, and, for some people, making a child with the person they love is understandably very different from raising someone else's child. I don't see a problem with that.
Believe me, I'm well aware of the difficulties and sacrifices that parents who adopt must face. I understand the desire to have your own kid (I have kids myself). But you can't always get what you want. The fertility industry comes to the rescue and says, "We can fix that! Here's your baby!" albeit after months of painful injections, difficult procedures, and tens of thousands and dollars. It seems very selfish to me.
The very existence of the fertility industry is leading women to wait longer and longer to have kids, and then, in their late 30s and early 40s, they're finding they can't pregnant. They're relying on the fertility industry to bail them out, since they've bought into the idea that it's OK to wait until you're 40 to have your kids. Realistically, it's not OK. I think women who wait that long need to accept the fact that they might not be able to conceive, and live with the choices they made.
By the way, I don't see how the 'embryo adoption' program is going to help. Now, it may be a good option for some couples who are completely infertile and want to experience a pregnancy, but doesn't it seem more humanitarian to support adoption of living children?
Why does it have to be on or the other? Why not both? Not every woman can carry a child, some can. Why not let those who could carry, but cannot conceive on their own, adopt an embryo? How can allowing embryo adoption "not help"? The choice is not always going to be between adopting an embryo or a born child, and to suggest otherwise as you do here is silly.
Maybe you can stand by an absolutist view that a blob of a few dozen cells in a cryogenic freezer is morally equivalent to a living, breathing, thinking, concious child, but I can't.
That's been obvious from the outset, but thanks for clarifying. By the way, if those few dozen cells were in, say, your wife's (or your own) uterus, would they then be morally equivalent to a living, breathing, thinking, conscious child? Or is it just the fact that they're in the freezer that makes those cells morally inferior?
By the way, remember that the percentage of fertilizations that actually get carried to term is actually somewhat low (the number I heard was that 1/6th of all pregnancies end in miscarriage).
No one has ever said that every product of fertilization is an embryo. And not every embryo is able to implant, whether it was created in a lab or met a sperm in mom's fallopian tube. It's abundantly clear that some fertilized eggs are not viable. There's a lot that can go wrong, which is the reason there are so many of those "spare" embryos in the freezers right now. So what?
If an embryo is on the same moral level as a human being, shouldn't mothers that allow embryos to pass through their uterus unimplanted be prosecuted for child neglect?
Again, I would've gone a different way with this. You're obviously educated and articulate. You know that women have no control over whether or not an embryo will implant (outside of having an IUD in place). Even outside of that, an embryo that fails to implant is by definition not viable. What is the point of this over-the-top rhetoric? It does nothing to advance the conversation.
I propose that, by your logic, every person who has their own child while any child (or apparently embryo as well) is available for adoption is morally repugnant and should be jailed.
That does not in any way follow from Joan's logic. Regular conception and birth does not result in a bunch of frozen embryos bound for destruction. She said that people should adopt rather than create "excess" embryos.
If an embryo is on the same moral level as a human being, shouldn't mothers that allow embryos to pass through their uterus unimplanted be prosecuted for child neglect?
This too is daft. What does natural death have to do with purposeful killing?
If this new procedure works and doesn't destroy embryos, I think that's great.
SWBarns: The Wisconsin Alum in me feels constrained to ask you to reverse your order, and put UW first and Johns Hopkins second :)
Hey all. For what it's worth I think I'm pretty on top of the science of this stuff. Maybe you'd think I'm not. But I am.
So, here's where I am getting hung up. What I'm reading is, this technique probably gets rid of the moral objection. Except some people might have issues since there could conceivably (not damn likely, in my opinion) be problems with the re-implanted embryo.
But, well, that's crap. The technique basically leverages something which, if it happens naturally, results in identical twins. So you effectively split the embryo into _two_ embryos, _both_ with the same potential, and then destroy one. Which is fine, if you're fine with embryonic stem-cell production, and is just as bad as before, if you're not (in fact it might in a sense be worse: this _is_ what the commenter was describing: the _creation_ of an embryo, really, for the sake of making stem cells).
So I'm a bit lost here. It seems to me that the point is to BS the people who object to this with terminology and levels of protocol, to hide that it's still, really, the same moral choice (he said, gingerly, without taking a stand on that moral choice). It seems to me that if you buy the idea that this is morally different either you're already 100% bought into the screw-it-at-this-point-it's-cells-in-a-dish view, or you're not clear on what's going on, which is perfectly understandable given the jargon in which it is clothed.
Or I guess my point is, Professor Althouse is just plain wrong (sorry! But it's true.) There's NOT a new issue, at least in terms of framing stem cell research. There's the same old issue and maybe a new way to sell (cell?) that there isn't. And I predict someone will be screaming it from the rooftops soon.
Hey, this is good news.
Now granted, I never understood why anyone would object to using an embryo for research but not have a problem with chucking it into an incinerator when the couple whose embryo it is decide they don't want to pay the storage fee any longer.
But if this procedure gets around the foolish objections to what could be promising research raised by so-called 'prolifers' then hey, that works for me.
The wasted embryo argument is disingenuous. First, they themselves are a moral issue. Second, a market to use them would only engender forces to create more.
I don't think it's a disingenuous agument at all. If a politician allows the creation of embryos, that politician also has to be concerned with their disposition if or when they are no longer needed. I rarely read of politicians opposed to embryonic stemcell research who are also sponsoring legislation to ban ivf. That seems more disingenuous to me. I'll repeat my sound bite: Would you vote for a politician who favors burning these embryos in a furnace rather than using them for a purpose that might benefit someone? That's what Doyle's opponent favors.
If the research pans out, it's great that no embryos will be destroyed -- by stem cell research, that is. Make no mistake though, the embryos will still be destroyed. It seems to me that if you are against stem-cell research for the reason that embryos are going to be destroyed, how can you not also be against the ivf that creates the embryos in the first place?
Freder,
You wrote: When Joan makes a statement "that human embryos are being created in a lab solely for the purpose of extracting their stem cells, and that they will then be discarded", that is more than a simple mistatement of fact; it is a viscious slander, fundamentally dishonest, and nothing but false propaganda spread by purveyors of smear tactics who have no regard for the truth.
What Joan described (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) is the basis for embryonic stem cell research. It is the creation of human embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells for research. And the embryos are destroyed in the process.
Is your point that they aren't human? If so, why?
What is dishonest or slanderous about Joan's point?
John, yes, I can accept that.
I personally don't understand how life can begin at conception, as I know too many identical twins.
I will say, though, that tax dollars almost certainly do indirectly support infertility clinics, either through medicare/medicaid payments for other functions at the clinic, or through tax breaks that helped the clinic be built in the first place. And, some fertility treatments are covered by state-funded health insurance -- paid by taxes, and medical expenses associated with fertility treatments may be tax deductible.
"Believe it or not, social conservatives has a vested interest in finding cures for various diseases. We like life, ya know."
You just don't want anyone to enjoy it.
I'll add you to my list then of the liars or ignorant.
Does that list include the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, whose "Drs. Eggan and Melton plan to use Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) to create disease specific hESC lines"?
Wow, Freder, you are smart! Be sure to tell Harvard they don't know what they're talking about.
Corporate Law Drudge (7:52 AM)
Whether the religious right can resist looking this horse in the mouth remans to be seen
Well, it's just like the 'morning after pill' was OK'd today for over the counter sales. That will put a lot of abortion clinics out of business.
Now, I think there is no downside to something which will prevent so many unwanted pregnancies, yet the right seems to be unhappy about this. Maybe they'd rather the abortion clincs stay open so they can have someplace to picket.
Maybe they'd rather the abortion clincs stay open so they can have someplace to picket.
You know, it's always easier and more self-satisfying to assume your opponents are stupid, evil, and/or dishonest.
But it's seldom correct.
Why is the 'snowflake baby' approach morally superior?
Because then at least some of the embryos have a chance at life. Under your "use'em for research" scenario, they all die.
Is it morally acceptable to kill embryos on the promise of future potential benefits? No, it's not, and the fact that many benefits have already been identified from non-embryonic stem cells, with more posited as each month goes by, means that there is no morally justifiable reason to pursue embryonic stem cell research. There are plenty of non-lethal methods available for harvesting stem cells, and we've nowhere near exhausted the potential of those types.
Would I rather kill 100 embryos or one living human being? In what kind of science fiction world would we ever run across a scenario like that? We're nowhere near having the scientific ability to put us into that kind of moral dilemma. Right now using embryos as stem-cell farms contributes to basic research, but that research is uncovering many problems as well as possible future benefits. It's neither funny nor remarkable how advocates of hESC research (thanks for that acronym, Pastor) never mention the problems associated with the uncontrollable nature and unpredictability of hESC. It's par for the course.
My assumption was that clinics can open in a new development that has been partially supported by TIFs. That was my meaning. Is this actually done? I'm not sure.
"Is it morally acceptable to kill embryos on the promise of future potential benefits? No, it's not..."
Based on what moral system? Or are you, as the left is so often justifiably accused, creating policy (and moral systems) from emotionalism? If you're an absolutist about human life, I'm curious if you support the death penalty, or the war in Iraq, both funded by public money? I happen to generally support all of the above, but I'm curious by what method one might be able to pick and choose which life (and potential life) to get upset about? The same so-called moral absolutism that posits that all war is wrong, regardless of the potential benefits to millions of citizens must be the same as one that would rather destroy embryos than benefit from them; yet strangely things don't play out that way. I'm certainly sensitive to moral objections, but I don't see any moral system being consistently applied, and I honestly don't know how our government, which is enjoined from subscribing to any particular religious philosophy, can make logical, reasoned decisions about moral questions of this nature. On what is our public ethical system based?
Palladian, I'm Catholic. As a Catholic, I believe all life should be respected, and innocent life especially protected. Embryos are the epitome of innocent life.
I also ascribe to the "Just War" philosophy; I support the war in Iraq, and I support Israel's actions in the latest dust-up with Hezbollah. There are considerable arguments among the faithful as to whether or not the war in Iraq qualifies as a "just war" or not, but I know I'm not alone in believing that it does. For the curious, the Vatican's disapproval of the war is not an area where the infallibility of the Pope applies; we're allowed to disagree.
I also believe there are times, rare though they may be, when the death penalty is both warranted and justifiable.
Perhaps this seems inconsistent to you, but minds much greater than mine have been puzzling out these questions for centuries, for which I'm very appreciative.
As to where our public sense of ethics originates, you've got me on that one. I'd have to say is the cumulative Judeo-Christian mores that have permeated the culture but are now starting to give way to much more indulgent tendencies. For this particular issue, I believe the president is briefed by a council of bio-ethicists, but I'm not sure where I heard that.
Oh, yeah, Johnny: I can't imagine a worse torment than immortality.
Pastor Jeff said;
Re (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer)
'It is the creation of human embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells for research'
Nope, you've got it arse backwards. The research isn't to create human embryos, it is to create 'new human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines' FROM frozen human embryos. The Harvard Stem Cell Institute obtained excess frozen embryos from IVF patients who have chosen to donate them for research.
Freder, it's a poor tactic to insist on the dishonesty of your debate opponents. If you think I'm arguing in bad faith, why bother to respond at all? My impression is that you are not as well-versed in the Just War doctrine as you seem to think you are, and that you are wholly ignorant of the debate about the war in the Catholic community. You must be, to make the statement you just made.
I know that the issue is debated among Catholics because I have participated in such debates, and I have not been the only one holding this view. We can justify the Iraq war based solely on the fact that Saddam was grieviously abusing his population, and was flagrantly in violation of the stipulations that were made at the end of the first gulf war. Iraq was constantly shooting at planes, giving UN inspectors the run around, and arbitrarily torturing and executing its own people. And that ignores completely the UN Oil for Food Scandal, which is possibly the biggest fraud ever perpetrated, but was only uncovered after the war and so could not be used beforehand to justify it. I'm just glad it has been exposed.
Regarding the legality of the war, the international basis was U.N. resolution 1441, which you will recall was unanimously approved. Or did you think that "serious consequences" meant that yet-another-resolution, destined to also be ignored, would be drafted, debated, and passed?
For national approval, if the war is illegal, what was it then that John Kerry voted for before he voted against it? Oh, yeah, it was that silly Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Joan said...
Palladian, I'm Catholic. As a Catholic, I believe all life should be respected, and innocent life especially protected. Embryos are the epitome of innocent life.
You need to brush up on your catechism. Google "catholic doctrine original sin"
Oh, yeah, Johnny: I can't imagine a worse torment than immortality.
Well, that's what God has in store for you. Google "catholic doctrine immortal soul"
It has been a long day of travel for me, but I didn't want you to think that I had bailed on this conversation.
Smilin' Jack, googling Catholic doctrine is most likely giving you "answers" that are only fractions of the truth. Current doctrine says that unbaptized babies who die are in a state of perfect happiness in their "baby limbo", and they will be united with God at the end of time. They are still innocent of personal sin, even though their souls bear the mark of Original Sin. Original Sin is a state of separation from God, being withheld from grace. To say that embryos or aborted babies are not innocent because they are not baptized is simply incorrect.
Regarding immortality, I was assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the "live forever" idea meant to continue to exist forever in the bodies we now possess. Surely you recognize the difference between that (a dreadful idea, to me), and having an immortal soul. Catholic doctrine teaches the resurrection of the body, but to say the resurrected body will be exactly the one I have now is, again, incorrect.
Regarding justifying the Iraq war: I believe that we have saved innocent lives by taking Saddam Hussein out of there. If we had done nothing, many more Iraqis would have died under his brutal regime. More Israelis would have died via the Palestinian suicide bombers that Saddam sponsored. Many, many more in other countries would have died in attacks from the terrorists that trained in Iraq at Samon Pak and in the other training camps. You can't ignore that half of the equation, look at only at the civilian casualties that have resulted from US actions, and say "It's not worth it."
Regarding the hypothetical you set up, I will continue to dodge it, fair or no. Life's not fair, after all. You seem to think that the payoff from hESC research is just around the corner. I found Dean Barnett's post on this topic instructive: those miracles are further away than you think.
The bottom line remains, it is unethical to kill one person to save another. Like it or not, embryos are unique human individuals,genetically speaking. Even if you won't go any further than that, you have to acknowledge that fertilization creates a unique human.
The way you talk about this, I don't think you understand very well how stem cells are created and harvested. It's not as if you have to extract stem cells from 100 embryos so you have enough for a particular treatment (although that is kind of what happened in the episode of South Park dealing with embryonic stem cell research, which was both grotesque, and of course hysterical.) These things are tricksy enough as it is, they can't be introducing cells from random embryos. They have to do trials on one particular line of cells which I believe are cloned cells from a single embryo donor. I'm not exactly sure but I can't imagine how they could do robust research if they were constantly using cells from different embryos. There's simply too much variation that results would be impossible to interpret.
Last, if you can't tell the difference between living your own life and sacrificing it so that someone else might live, you've got blinders on that I will never be able to remove. You could make that decision, and under certain circumstances it would be morally correct. It is never morally correct to decide to sacrifice someone else so that another can live. We can't know how many frozen embryos would implant and be born. But we should at least give them a chance.
More news on the Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) publication. It seems that they overstated their findings and their study did in fact destroy the embryos that they used. ACT removed multiple cells from each embryo; however this does not necessarily negate their finding. Their study has shown that cells may be removed from embryos and stem cells may be cultured from those cells. Another research group should, and almost certainly will, build on ACT’s findings to prove or disprove that donor embryonic cells can form new stem cell lines.
See for example http://healthnewsdigest.com/news/article_4362.shtml:
While the experiment showed that it is theoretically possible to grow embryonic-stem-cell lines and still preserve the embryos, Lanza failed to prove this. He needed so many individual cells (total: 91) to create his lines that multiple cells had to be pulled from each of the embryos; in the end, all 16 were destroyed. Lanza says that single-cell extraction has been proved effective through PGD (embryos subjected to the loss of a cell have developed into healthy babies); more important, he says, he has shown that single cells can develop into embryonic-stem-cell lines. )
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন