Nov 22 2006
Supporting Stem Cell Research Will Not Win Elections
Update:Would people believe an Embryologist?
Update: For those unfamiliar with basic biology here is a layman’s version of DNA (the core of your existence) and how it is created. In addition, courts have already declared a human embryo a human being. This decision will stand because of the science backing it. More here. – end update
I know High School biology can be a tough subject for some people, but the idea being run around Republican circles now is a disaster in the making. That idea is to support the killing of a human being for their spare parts (which have not formed yet, but if we get the materials and force the cells to do our bidding all is good). Look folks, I am as mad as any independent at the Republicans, they squandered a lot – including a two term Presidency. The confidence in Reps collapsed nation-wide the exact same way it collapsed here in VA: through infighting and paralysis. VA was a deep red state until Reps started fighting and then holding everything hostage. They have been booted out. No one tolerates impotent squabbling for long. But this latest idea is even worse!
I am not religous anymore, I do not attend church. So I come by my opposition to embryonic stem cells because the science is clear – the human being is created at conception and it doesn’t matter at which stage you destroy it, or whether you do it inside or outside the womb, the destruction is of a human being. So if the Republican party will not stand up for life then this country must trulybe lost. When Bush had surrounded himself with the children who resulted from adopting embryos (also out of the womb) I thought the public would finally get it. But apparently this subject (which is as simple as 2+2=4) is too hard for people to get their heads around. It really is simple.
Each individual is defined by their genetic code (it is not their complete essence – but it identifies the individual uniquely). It is their blue print. The code determines hair color, eye color, sex and much more. One blueprint is copied in all your cells. Just one – yours. That blue print is the combination of your biological mother’s and father’s blueprints, and it was created once – for all of time. The blue print is created at conception when the sperm and egg integrate two halves of the parental DNA to create one new copy.
And this new human being with their new and completely unique DNA is easy to identify through the DNA itself. Because the new human’s DNA is different from the parents – very different. It stand apart since it is the combination of two unrelated individuals. Since every cell in your body has a copy of your DNA, science can detect foreign DNA from other organisms present (humans are organsims, so are bacteria and viruses). The very same tests we use in courtrooms across this country will show that a son in his mother’s womb is not part of the mother but a separate human being. The easy distinction to identify is the sex. Obviously a woman’s body will not contain a male’s cells (excluding rare genetic defects).
Those calling for the destruction of an embryo think the term ’embryo’ defines a form or class of life – like cell, limb, organ. But it does not. Elemental biological structures like cells, limbs, organs do not have an ’embryonic’ stage. The words ’embryo’ and ‘fetus’ define a stage in an organism’s life. The ‘organism’ is the individual of any species. Complex beings like humans have all sorts of elemental structures like blood cells and tissue and organs and limbs. But these are parts of the whole individual. Taking stem cells is literally taking away the organism’s limbs and organs and tissues. The cells being robbed from the young human are the precursors to that young human’s organs. That is why scientist want them. They want to complete the maturation process outside the human being – so they can market them as a cure.
Does it matter when science steals a body part to make money? No – of course not. It doesn’t matter if the lungs are yanked before they are even lung tissues, or as the lung tissues are first forming in a ‘blob of cells’. The lung tissue is required for survival and therefore the removal at any stage means death.
Right now I am not interested in being aligned with Republicans. I am a Bush Conservative. But two things could make this estrangement permanent. The first is supporting the killing of humans for their parts. I say this as one deep in science with a similarly deep respect and awe for life. The second problem I have is the treatment of illegal aliens by the far right. In both instances the vaulted Republican cause for ‘sanctity of life’ is shown to be a pathetic charade.
But Embryonic Stem Cell Research kills people – that is a scientific and legal fact that can be proven over and over again. Sadly it is also medical snake oil, because the Frankensteins have not yet figured out how to control the stem cells to build body parts outside the human being instead of the whole person as an integral element of the human being. That is why Embryonic Stem Cell Research fails. If they could sever the head and grow a brain in the lab I think they would do it. Fact is, that is basically what they want to do. A head is an appendage, the brain an organ – so what does it matter when you steal it from the human being?
These modern Frankensteins need to force the stem cells to not build the human being they were programmed to build. They need them to form only parts of the human being they were designed to create. That is the goal of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Ask any scientist involved. Left alone, the stem cells create every organ and tissue and cell type in the human body. Recall that is why the scientists want them so badly. This is clear as day.
When did we come to the uneducated and uncivilized stage where we could take a human, pull it apart and force the biological machinery to do something so unnatural? This is not the path to winning elections. I doubt you can even retain a soul and do this.
Update:: Recall the word ‘fetus‘ is a stage in development that applies to many animals. It is not a species and is not some building block of an organism. Many animals go through the fetal stage.
It’s confused because the propaganda press has been very, very careful to make sure the issue was never explained to the public.
Ultimately, this is all about abortion…..and anyone with a passing familiarity with the process of gestation (a surprisingly small number) will reach the same conclusions you have – and by the same route. Genetics tell the tale.
I’ll add that I have long maintained that the day that the pro-life advocates dropped religion as an axis of argument and made their main thrust along the science axis, they would sweep to victory.
Mike M.,
This is worse than abortion. Abortion is a choice by the mother to terminate a pregnancy. That is bad enough and there are situations with terminally defective babies (ones that won’t make it to term) where basically you let nature take its course.
But this is harvesting. This is medicine taking humans for parts to sell. Abortion looks reasonable in comparison to this. I should note I am not yet for banning abortions – so you can figure out how bad the embryonic stem cell issue must be.
A couple of points:
Embryonic stem cell research is not banned. Bush has only banned federal funding of same. The fact that the foundation created by Michael J. Fox isn’t doing such research tells more about its efficacy than anything else that could be used as examples. This is just another bludgeon with which the left seeks to beat about Bush’s head.
Additionally, paying for embryos will increase the supply as women already de-humanized by easy abortion as birth control can make a buck while ridding themselves of the non-viable tissue that just happened to be growing in their wombs.
How far a stretch then is it to going to term, having a partial birth abortion and then selling the little critter’s organs for spare parts.
Disgusting? Yes it is.
BTW – I don’t favor banning abortions either. I favor removing the issue from politics and dismantling abortion clinics which do receive federal funding and which make abortion far to convenient and making abortion a decision between both the prospective parents and their doctors.
AJ,
The president surrounded himself with children which were “snowflake” children, i.e. born from embryos which were left over from IVF, but what about those that were not rescued?
Those embryos were destroyed. Are you putting forth a plan to end the destruction of these embryos, or do you wish to ban IVF work, because one of the byproducts of this work is destruction of viable embryos?
It’s a tough to draw a line on these matters, I’m not sure I am smart enough, and I know that without honest discussion, those lines never get drawn very well.
One of the compromises on this issue which was not fully explored was the possibility of the couples who these embryos came from, and would normally be destroyed, being allowed the option of donation to scientific research without compensation.
While not a prefect compromise, it would put the decision back to where I like it, with the individual, not the state.
A couple of points. First of course, embryonic stem cell researchers were successful in making the term: Stem Cell Research. anyone who reads that and understands what that means, is not against it.
They manage to keep it from being labelled ’embryonic’. Anybody that reads that and knows what that means, should be against it.
You can state many conditions to make it clear and most people are, in fact, against that. An example: say you have a twin brother and you find that you have a liver that needs to be replaced. You also learn that all you have to do is kill your brother and you take his liver and you will live. Of course, there is one small problem: Your brother will not live.
The only difference is that, in this case, the brother was a little further along in his life cycle than his embryonic brother would have been.
Next point, the article, that was linked to, uses the term stem cell reasearch almost exclusively, only once using what they are talking about, ESCR. So I feel that writer was deliberate in her intent to make you, the gullibe(she hopes) reader believe that the Repubs are now seriously gonna cave on ESCR.
I googled that author and read other articles she had written. Believe me, she is a card carrying member of the Formerly MSM.
So she is not writing an article that she intends to be beneficial to the Republicans.
SteveWS,
I am not discussing IVF at all. IVF is the effort to create life for loving parents. I wish they technology was such that they did not need to create so many copies to have success. Hopefully that is their goal. But IVF has little to do with Embryonic Stem Cell Research except being a potential source of human beings. While the IVF subject is not straight forward and simply, the stem cell matter is.
I fail to see how we could let people bequeath human beings to scientific dissection. We would not allow that of a baby up for adoption? Would we say to the single mother “but the baby up for adoption or give to science to use it for spare parts”? IVF processes should recognize that there is more than a business at stake. The making of multiple embryos should be limited to truly difficult cases.
My personal hope is people deal with these issues from an informed position. Science proves embryos are human beings. Once that reality sinks into society we will probably make good decisions and adjustments in many areas. But first we need to accept the core truth and not let each issue derail the acceptance of that truth. Embryo’s are human beings whether IVF exists or not.
FE,
There are Reps ready to cave on ESCR. This is not the first time I have read this.
AJ, funny you should mention embryonic stem cell research and immigration in the same post. Which brings me to my point.
First, let me say that I am not for embryonic stem cell research. It kills human beings. And the science is just not there to support it. Many more advances have been made using adult stem cells and cells from cord blood, which I do support. But using the argument you used with me on guest worker permits, you must either be for a program, IN TOTO, are you are against it.
Last week I asked you about this very senario. Were you for or against stem cell research and if you were for it, using your agrument with me against guest worker programs, you must also be for “embryonic” stem cell research.
You tried to nail my feet to the floor saying that I was either FOR a guest worker program which included those who are already here, or I could not be for ANY guest worker program. So how can one be for a certain type of stem cell research without being for all types of stem cell research?
As I have said on this blog many times, I am for a guest worker program. I am for a program that benefits the host nation, not the nation of the immigrant or the immigrant themselves. You could not accept that. I am for the value of life, just as I am for the rule of law. If a law does not benefit the common good, then it is up to the people to change that law. ILLEGAL immigration, like embryonic stem cell research, does not benefit the common good. And both tear are the very moral fiber of our nation.
You refer to the treatment of illegals by the far right. That comment was indicating that the far right treats illegals badly. How so? Are they hung like black Americans were by the KKK? Are they denied basic human rights? Are they denied emergency medical care or has some “far right” group kidnapped thousands of illegals and denied them food and water thereby starving them to death? Have they been beaten, chained to plows and made to work long hours for no pay? The treatment that you talk about is the refusal to grant citizen status to non-citizens and the expectation that those who wish to enter our nation have respect for our laws. It is that simple. No one on the “far right” is harming illegals. Human rights laws prevent that and those who would violate those laws are prosecuted.
Both arguments are about respect. Respect for human life and respect for the law. In embryonic stem cell research, the respect for human life is removed. In acceptance of illegal immigration, the respect for laws designed for the common good are removed.
I can understand that your support of stem cell research is not black and white. You, like I, have a problem of harvesting human beings for research so you, like I, cannot not give a blanket yes or no when asked “do you support stem cell research?” You see, AJ, there are gray areas in any argument. There are shades of gray.
If I can understand your “yes on stem cell research with certain conditions” why can you not understand my “yes, on guest worker permits, with certain conditions?”
I would like to share with you an example of the harm done by illegals. Please bear with me.
When Katrina hit, I knew it was time for me to pitch in and help my fellow Americans. I hitched up my fifth wheel and went to Mississippi. There was much work to be done and volunteers were needed by the thousands. Katrina had taken almost everything in her path for 70 miles inland. The Mississippi coast line looked like Berlin after the bombings. People were not only out of a home they were out of jobs, as the buildings they once worked in had been blown or washed away.
FEMA came in and hired contractors to help with reconstruction. Many, many jobs were to be had. There was work everywhere. But not for the people of Mississippi. Not for the mechanic who was willing to nail blue tarps on roofs in order to feed his family. Not for the single mother who had been a hair dresser who was willing to help with clean up.
The RV park where I was staying was full of FEMA contractors. One was a roofer from Indiana. His story was typical of how workers had been hired for restoration. He had gone to Mexico and hired workers there. He told them if they could get to Gulfport, they would have jobs. So the illegals came to work. He showed up at the RV park with a new F350 and an $80K fifth wheel travel trailer, followed by a number of ragged out pop-up trailers that should have been junked out 20 years ago.
By January, ’06, a state that prior to Katrina that had an estimated 6,000 illegals now had over 100,000 illegals. And the citizens of Mississippi could not feed their families on the $4.00 an hour the Indiana roofer was paying. $4.00 an hour for a man’s labor plus staying in a ragged out fifth wheel that at least had running water and a toilet. And since there was no oversite on who he hired, he was getting away with taking jobs away from those Americans who desparately needed them. Americans who did not want government hand outs, who wanted to earn a living and who wanted to help rebuild their state.
Americans who desparately needed a job, any job, had been replaced by illegal Mexicans.
So you see, AJ, there is no black or white answers. Not to stem cell research and not to immigration. But there is right and wrong and there is a moral equasion to both issues.
You are wrong to try to label those of us who believe in “enforcement first” as radicals who have destroyed the Republican party. Just as you are wrong to label any of those of us who do not march lock step with everything our president says as anti-Bush. Do you also agree with the Security and Prosperity Partnership that Bush has signed on to allowing for the free movement of goods and people without borders?
If the only way that we could have stem cell research was to accept the harvesting of human beings, would you still be pro-stem cell research? Yes or no.
AJ,
Your example used “snowflake” children, products of children born from embryos produced by IVF procedures. The President, and your comment highlighted your position on the matter drawing on the point that IVF produced embryos could become real children.
My point was not that the destruction is not bad, but to point out that there is a point of view that the individual should be allowed to figure out morality for themselves and how they believe the products of their body’s should be used , with minimal governmental invention, a pretty Libertarian point of view. I have no problem with limited insertion of Governement in regulation of this matter, i.e. no financial compensation, no creation of embryos for the express purpose of use in experimentation, but I question at what level government imposed restrictions on matters of morality are appropriate.
SteveWS,
I understood your point – repeating it doesn’t make it any better. Yes, individuals can decide up to the point they kill or injure their children. As I said, we do not offer the single mom who wants to give her baby up for adoption the alternative of giving the child to science (where it will be terminated).
Retire05,
How many times do I need to say this – your views on immigration are irrelevant and what helped put the dems in contol of congress. There is not linkage between harsh, fence only immigration and ESCR except both issues will kill the Republican party if they embrace them.
There is a black and white answer to embryonic stem cells – you just got yourself all confused with another issue just because I mentioned it in passing. Your logic is not half as dazzling as you might think.
Many more advances have been made using adult stem cells and cells from cord blood, which I do support.
Retire, check out this unique source of what I guess would have to be referred to as embryonic stem cells. Pretty cool. I think medical science will, in the not too distant future, negate the entire argument over killing embryos to harvest embryonic stem cells. At some point, researchers are going to have to fish or cut bait on the ESCR issue.
Retire, you also make an interesting argument on the guest worker/illegal alien issue. I’m anxious to hear AJ’s response.
As I said, we do not offer the single mom who wants to give her baby up for adoption the alternative of giving the child to science (where it will be terminated).
AJ, do we give the single mom, or any mom, for that matter, the choice of donating left over IVF embryos to science or flushing them down the sink? I’m not trying to be a smart ass — I really don’t know.
Bottom line, I’m more concerned about right and wrong on this issue than on what position is going to be the most politically valuable for the Republican Party.
AJ…
Your premise o f this posting that supporting Stem Cell research would not help win elections is one that puzzles me.
It would seem to me that your and President’s position seems to have drawn a bright line on the topic, and where that line drawn is one topic which is not open for discussion.
You may disagree, but I think that the American people just rejected those who would draw those lines on moral/doctrinal basis. It’s a very hard sell to convince those who have lost a loved one to Alzheimer’s, or suffered a motor muscular disease or any of the other diseases that stem cell that the line is being drawn properly when you refuse to discuss where that line is drawn other than in doctrinal terms.
Look at the way Rush discussed the issue, mocking and making fun of those afflicted, in the case of Michael Fox’s commercial during the past election as one way to loose votes on the matter.
There is a strong moral case to be made for how the line is drawn, but that case has to be made thoughtfully and by someone who speaks with moral authority. I think someone like Franklin Graham would have both attributes to engage in a thoughtful dialog about how we as a society draw lines on these very tough moral matters, not a bunch of pandering Congresscritters or the Republican party, or for that matter the President of the United States. Doing so looses votes in the middle and on the Left, winning votes only over on the hard Right.
Retired Spook,
The choices as I understand them now are burial, destruction, adoption, hold onto them. I assume they could donate them to science. But we have to be careful here, people do not equate an embryo with a baby, which they should do.
Regarding Retire05’s immigration points I find them more and more repulsive. He wants to pretend he is for a guest worker program – just not for illegal aliens here. He wants illegals booted out first. It is a sad attempt at subterfuge which might make sense to him but is just flimsy packaging over bad policies. He dislikes immigrant workers – it comes out clear in his postings. He and Gig act like immigrants are destroying this country (which we have heard for 200 years now).
The more he posts his flimsy excuses the less and less impressed I become. He has come pretty close to hit rock bottom with me. The Fence Only crowd oppose a guest worker program for illegals already here where the penalty is back taxes to be paid and no recognition of time in country for any future citizenship application. These are tough penalties – but the Fence Only Crowd still opposes recognizing there are misdemeanors with fines and felonies with punishment.
It is this closed mindedness wish, as I stated, will keep the Reps in the minority. And with the Reps in the minority we are exposed to liberal insanity. It is the old “if I can’t have my way no one can” silliness I despise so much in politics. Politics is about compromise, not ultimatums. I wanted to be clear to you because my desire to respond to Retire05 is at the same level of responding to Ken. Retire-5 can complain about this and I am sure he will. But he has been offered the chance to climb off that dead limb and he refuses. Oh well – can’t save them all.
Retired Spook, as you can read for yourself, AJ’s response to my post is that my opinion on illegal immigration is “irrevelant” again using the term “fence only” and not “enforcement first” and goes on to qualify that there is a black or white answer to “embryonic” stem cell research, when he knows that I had lumped all stem cell research together as he has all guest worker programs.
It seems the rules here are you cannot qualify guest worker programs as applicable to “illegals” but can qualify stem cell research by using the term “embryonic”.
It seems AJ has a problem with killing humans for research but has no problem putting Americans out of work and allowing dishonest contrators from reaping the benefits of illegal immigration.
SteveWS,
Did you READ the post? This is not a moral argument. Science defines when life begins just like it states the earth orbits the sun. It is not more doctrinal/moral to say the earth orbits the sun than to say when life begins.
If you are for killing human beings for spare parts just say so! Don’t try and create fantasy science to ease your concience. There is no ambiguity on this issue. These are not my views, these are scientific facts. Get any doctor, scientist, PhD you want and I can get them to admit the human being is created at conception.
What they will do is try and dodge the hard facts by considering immeasurable states such as ‘conciousness’ and hide behind loosely defined words as ‘viable’. But not one will deny the fact the human individual is created at conception. They cannot and they know it.
This is why I asked when did we become so uneducated and incivilized. If you knew for a fact taking stem cells from the embryo was the same thing as harvesting organs from a live fetus would you change your position? Don’t debate the science – you may not be qualified. Just answer whether you would suppport gaining spare parts from babies or not.
Retire05,
What in the world makes you think your idiotic word game impressed me? Did I not clearly use the word “embryonic” everywhere to be precise? Do you think misusing the ‘stem cell’ lable like so many do to kill humans as you misrepresent your own positions on immigration was going to fool me? Look, I am nowhere near as dumb as that silly logic would imply. To think playing word games would make you all well on immigration is just dumb. And you wonder why I have less and less and less respect for you?
Oh boy Retire05 – you really got me on that there stem cell trick! Yuckity, yuckity, yuckity. You sure showed this dumb ‘ol hick how to correct his ways. Geez, give me a break.
AJ, is that your tactic? To label anyone who disagrees with illegal immigration as anti-immigrant? Give me a friggin break. I am not now, nor have I ever been, anti-immigrant. My ancestors were immigrants during the Irish potatoe famine and they helped build this nation, on the railroads, as police and firefighters. So don’t lay that crap down that I am not for immigration.
Word games? It seems that is your forte, inserting a caveat of “embryonic” into the stem cell research debate.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? I have posed question after question to you and you have refused to answer them. Was I not the one who asked you even more questions today that you have refused to address?
Here it is again; if you have to take stem cell research as a complete package, including embryonic stem cell research, are your for it or against it. No qualifiers.
AJ..
If you believe all life begins at conception, your point is valid. That would be an entirely consistent point of view under the Roman Catholic faith and many others. Under that point of view, you would also be against the death penalty, which by the way a tip of the hat for those that hold a consistent point of view on all aspects of this issue. I don’t agree, but I have great respects for those that are consistent in their beliefs.
I do not not agree with that point of view by the way. I probably more agree with the “First Blood” school of thought exposed by Doyle Doss and others on the matter. Under this point of view, embryos such as those produced from IVF would not be considered “babies”.
While we’re at the use of rhetoric, using terms like “babies” and others to make your point does not tell me you are serious in trying to rationally discuss our differing point of view. I doubt people who are troubled by the issue want to try and dialog with those that evoke rhetoric that demonstrate they have a closed mind on the issue.
Oh one other confusion, you have been addressing replies to SteveWS…I have been responding, I’m not sure if your comments were directed to me, if they weren’t….sorry.