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.
Steve LA i read the link, it only stated exactly what you already had, nothing different. Just that people have difference in opinions of when life starts.
AJ has said as I do, that when life starts is not an opinion, it is scientific fact.
The only people that disagree that it starts at conception are the ones that want to justify killing a baby without it bothering them ‘morally’.
If having a clear conscience makes it okay to kill a baby, I would argue that those that can have a clear conscience about killing a baby may be a little bit short of that soul that entered themselves at some point.
After all, isn’t it the concept that having a conscience and soul are the basis for treating people as you would have them treat you.
Would you have an embryo kill you so that it could live?
Well, it would’nt like for you to kill it so that you could live.
Enforcement,
That’s a good question “Would you have an embryo kill you so that it could live?” Easy answer NO.
But the other question which I would pose to you; if the embryo was going to be killed in any event (in your terms), or destroyed in any event, should not that death have some purpose, and who should decide that fate? I’d argue that the parents that created the embryo should have the final say, not the state. I’m fine with the state making that decision fully informed, and fully regulated, but I come down on my Libertarian roots to leave it to the couple from who the embryo came.
If you’ve read the material at the link I provided, you understand that a large number of IVF embryos are indeed destroyed with no benefit to society. Where are the laws you are pushing to end those practices? AJ sited rather old case law where the issue came up in court, I did not follow up on how those cases were ultimately decided, but I can guess that the final outcomes did not please him.
Steve_LA,
So you are for harvesting spare parts from death row criminals? They are going to be disgarded anyway? How about from Michael J Fox? He’s going to die anyway? Why wait until the actually die?
Face it, you would kill others to stay alive. And if we give you that right we must give it to everyone. And when your loved one is the object of interest for spare parts, you might finally wake up.
AJ
So what are you doing to end the deaths of excess embryos in IVF clinics? What law do you propose the Republican party, or the GW Bush wing of the party propose? Close down all IVF clinics, severely restrict them, what? They are killing thousands of embryos every year.
It’s all or nothing it would seem to based on the position you are staking out, there is no Grey on this matter, it’s black and white.
So those that disagree with you are worshiping the Witch Doctors. I’ll send a note to Nancy Reagan and others who still call ourselves Republicans who disagree with you that we need to don the sack cloth soon.
Steve, I had read it as I stated. Here’s the problem with the left over IVF question. Suppose I said it was okay to use leftovers for experimentation. So in the future instead of having 8 leftovers, I’d guess we’ed start having 20 or 30. Would you then propose that they be paid for them, after all, it’s expensive to create them.
I am in favor of IVF if it’s necessary for a couple to have a baby. I think it should be limited to the number that will be implanted. No extras.
For the other question. It’s a non starter. We shouldn’t ever have humans deciding when to terminate one persons life for the benefit of another person’s life with the exception of an abortion if necessary to save mothers life. That decision could be either mother, faher, or parents of minor. Parents nor state should have that priviledge.
Capital punishment is an exception. If that decision starts being made, it would become a spare parts for humans world.
Grandpa is gonna die soon, go ahead and transplant his heart into junior to give him a long life.
I wouldn’t have any problems with laws to limit number of embryos created.
The point of the article was just to argue for a decision on when life begins. We don’t need that, God determined that when He created life.
Steve_LA,
Are you getting preachy?
LOL! Obviously I am doing a hell lot more about it than you!
AJ, as the parent of twins, you probably already know this, but other readers may not. When my daughter-in-law was having triplets six years ago, she was advised by one of her doctors to maximize the chances of the two strongest embryos survival by culling the weakest one. Obviously, she demurred and has three cutest kids on the face of the earth.
I was stunned when I learned this culling was a routine procedure — at least in San Francisco.
erp, that would have been an abortion, ‘just for the hell of it’ no matter what someone would like to call it. I bet a lot of people could find a reason to justify it.
This is such a silly issue to be debating at the federal level. First of all, embryonic stem cell research is not banned, there is just a ban on federal funding on any lines of cells outside those defined.
People have a hard time dealing with change. Not so many years ago federal funding was practically the only source for medical research funds and most research was done by academic institutions. That isn’t true anymore. Research is increasingly carried out by private companies using private venture capital as the biotech industry booms.
The existance or lack of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research is not likely to have much impact on the advance of research either way. It simply shifts that research for academia to private industry. Believe me, if there was a chance of some therepy evolving from embryonic stem cells providing a cure for a major disease, a private company would be all over it. If anything it would increase the pace of research because these companies would be in competition to be first to market with the cure.
Current law does nothing at all to limit private research with private or even non-Federal (i.e. Srate) government funds. So basically it is a non-issue. No research is banned. No cures are being prevented from development. It is all just a domestic political talking point.
AJ…
I have no doubt that you are doing all in your power to reduce the number of embryos destroyed as being excess to IVF needs, to do otherwise would not be consistent with your stated objections.
Oh did I forget to mention the ash we were to wear with the sack cloth?
Enforcement,
Well that’s where we have common ground on the issue. I would support outright bans, prosecution, throw in jail, you name it for paying any parent for donation of surplus IVF embryos. I’d go after the medial licence, the dog licence, the licence to do business of any clinic that in any way conspired to produce embryos for the express purpose of feeding medical research. We do this already with blood donations by the way.
I’d support laws that made donations of excess IVF embryos subject to waiting periods, education on all the facts of the matter and most of the other informed consent ideas posed by those who are pro right to life groups. It would be a serious thing for couples to make that sort of decision, and it should not be made willy nilly.
I’d go for Federal reporting and record keeping on donations.
AJ,
This is kind of off-topic, but since you were talking about Bill Kristol in previous threads, and since I don’t have an email address for you, I’m posting this link to an editorial he wrote for the Weekly Standard. For all of Kristol’s faults, I think this article hits all of the right notes:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/993eumeb.asp
Crosspatch,
I agree with your “facts ” but disagree that it’s “a silly issue to be debating at the federal level.” The issues it raises influence policy and legal theory.
AJ proposes moving beyond subjective definitions of human life. This is good. All human life should be recognized for what it is.
As the son of a mother who died of Alzheimers and the brother-in-law of someone with Parkinsons, I still think that our humanity requires us to respect every human individual. If we don’t, how can we respect ourselves?
Thanks Colin,
The email address is pretty obvious. ajstrata at you know where!
erp,
yeah I am aware of it. It goes by the name “reduction” and is a way for the doctor to avoid malpractice suits. Every parent of multiples has had to face that moment. Our twins shared a placenta so that option was off the table. We had many doctors telling us how bleak it was going to be for the little one, how she faced a life of struggle with physical and mental handicaps.
She is every bit the normal first grader now.
Her sister came out at 3’13” while she was 1’7″. Being the smallest baby delivered in the hospital at that time the dire predictions were plenty. Her doctor specializes in challenging births and nailed it perfectly. He was great. They had almost no issues from day one. But the medical determination by the other doctors was all negative. Goes to show you how much faith to put in the predictions of doctors.
If the option had existed, it would have been pushed on us. We had decided to say no in any event.
Happy Thanksgiving all, and AJ thank you for sharing with us. I look forward to your blog every day. Kathie
Crosspatch you are right. If ESCR was so promising venture capital will be flying to it. The truth is that is going to adult stem cells and viral modulation of cell by injecting genetic material and transforming the cells. These two are producing tons of real results. So the only hope of ESCR researchers is for the federal goverment to spend billions in their projects. These researchers have spent their lives doing this and they do not want to give it up despite the dismal results.
Their only hope is 2008 because as long as President Bush is there he wont sign the bill. so get ready to see Fox again intwo years.
Happy Thanksgiving To ALL!!!!
If only AJ were right (supporting stem cell research won’t win elections) — I think he was proven wrong a couple weeks ago. I don’t think it was the defining issue, but it seemed to be a contributing factor in several. The problem is that the media does not report on stem cell research accurately or properly. Whether it does so purposely or not, it routinely fails to cite the terrible results of ESCR and omit the promise of adult stem cell research and cord blood tests. So, as the repub pro-life candidate tries to explain the nuance, his dem oppoent and the media successfully label them as anti- whatever (basically, pro-disease, which is disgusting that they get away with that). And anyone who listens to Rush knows that he was on firm ground criticizing Fox for his flat-out lies.
But it would be wrong and dumb for reps to change positions on stem cells simply because they did not get the votes. Are you pro-life, or not? Lets not waver here.
Unfortunately, AJ goes astray, again, by misunderstanding the illegal immigration issue. All polls show the majority of Americans support comprehensive reform, which includes border security. If there is an order or sequence involved, we strongly favor fence/border security first. Election results proved this. AJ fails to acknowledge the role of perceived corruption, Foley, big spending, and anti-Bush/Iraq and other factors. The fact JD Hayworth and a few other so-called “hardliners” lost was not because of their position on illegal immigration — indeed, their dem opponent took the issue off the table by going way right.
Wiley,
Actually, my race predictions were quite accurate. I did not have all the races that were in trouble covered. And my one fault was assuming the Reps still held the Bush Conservatives. The fact I was wrong in assuming Reps had not yet repulsed the independents means that those who thought they could go far right and not lose the middle were wrong. But most people are pro life to one degree or another. Partial birth abortion ban, parental notification, etc prove this out.
My point in ESCR is the same as abortion – if people understand what is going on they will take the pro-life side. For clarity let me remind everyone that pro-life does NOT equate to banning abortion. It simply means being very cautious and conservative and avoiding the useless and meaningless death of humans.
I agree that if people understand ESCR, they will take the pro-life side. Unfortunately, I think most do not understand the nuances and complexities, and the MSM has failed miserably in presenting the issue to the public. That being the case, I think you’re wrong — supporting ESCR can win, or at least it won’t lose. I hope things change over the coming months, so that your statement does become true, but we’re not there now.
I also stand by my analysis of the election.
Steve_LA
The problem with using excess IVF embryos for research is that human nature being what it is there would be no limit on the number of embryos the IVF people create for sale. And creating embryos is not limited to the IVF people. This has the potential to become a huge business. This is a slippery slope that we really do not want to start down. There will always be people who take advantage of circumstances for money . But where would it end? It has already gotten to the point where human life is expendable for selfish reasons and embryionic research goes one step further than abortion. Whether you believe an embryo is a human being at conception or not is moot. The fact is that creating and/or using them for scientific research is criminal. And, in regards as to what to do with extra or excess embryos, as far as I am concerned the first option should be donating them to couples who cannot conceive.
Let me state now that I believe that the beginning of a human being is when the egg meets the sperm not for religious or moral reasons but because of fact and common sense. This is the first step in the process of life. We have not yet descended to using human beings as guinea pigs and I hope we never do. And embryionic stem research would be exactly that no matter how you try to justify it.