Stem cells: behind the hype
While the media informs us the nation and the international community are in an uproar over President Bush's first veto - expansion of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), an actual investigation of the facts tends to deflate much of the hype involved in the stem cell debate.
First, embryonic stem cell research is not banned in the United States. The US leads the world in ESCR funding, and has the largest number of established embryonic stem-cell lines available for research. In 2004, the U.S. government spent $24 million on human ESCR. Bush's veto merely kept in place the expansion of research beyond the ESCR lines already destroyed.
Second, not surprisingly very few of the media hype stories about ESCR mention the very risky side-effects. Those who have done little research believe that you can simply get a shot of ESC's and it will cure diseases. That is far from being the case.
A New York Times article goes into detail about the difficulties in the realm of ESCR. Researchers have been working with mouse embryonic stem cells for 20 years and have yet to cure a single mouse of a disease. [Ed. note: The information, which came from the NY Times article, appears to be outdated as demonstrated in the comments by Cineaste. So, now we have 20 years of research and one success.]
Scientists do not know how to control the growth of the embryonic stem cells in the laboratory, much less in the human body. Dr. Gail Martin, a mouse stem cell researcher at the University of California at San Francisco, said when the cells grow in the lab some of them spontaneously change, with genetic material moving from place to place. She said that if such changes gave cells even a 5 percent growth advantage in the laboratory, the altered cells completely took over the stem cell population within three generations. And if such cells were put into patients, they could cause cancer.
In fact, many animals who were given embryonic stem cells as a potential cure developed tumors all over their bodies because of the rapid growth.
When scientists tried to supply fetal brain cells to patients with Parkinson's disease the fetal cells apparently grew too well. They turned out too much of the brain chemicals, and there was no way to remove the cells or turn them off.
The most logical and possibly hardest to overcome obstacle to ESCR is rejection. Just as the risk of rejection is there when an organ is transplanted, ESC's pose similar if not greater risks. If successful, the patient merely traded a lifetime of one type of treatment for another, shots to decrease the immune system (which has risks of its own). If not successful, doctors have no means to extract the offending cells, as they do with an organ. Even cloned cells have not shown an ability to significantly reduce the risk of rejection.
This also indicates that we are dealing with a seperate human being. We reject material from someone genetically different than ourselves. These human embryos are seperate human beings. You can have a discussion of personhood if you like, but there can be no real debate about their being human. What else could they be? They are not dogs, monkeys or trees.
As Joe Carter explains in the comment section on one of his posts on ESCR, the fact that an embryo is a human being is not up for discussion. Human being is a scientific term and the only plausible beginning point for that is at the moment of conception. A human person is a philosophical term and can be debated, but without a doubt ESCR destroys human beings. Some may question if they are actually persons, but it is a fairly bad group of characters who have tried to deny personhood to those already classified as human beings.
So while the media and many scientists have downplayed the risks involved, they have oversold the potential benefits of ESCR. Those in favor love to point to Nancy and Ron Reagan as they implore Republicans to allow for the research that could have saved President Reagan. The only problem is stem cells hold no promise of a cure for Alzheimer's.
Stem cells can morph into any cell type. Researchers hope that by guiding them into specific cell types they can be used to treat diseased or injured tissue. But Alzheimer's is a whole-brain disease. It doesn't affect a subset of cells that could be replaced to produce a cure.
While ESCR has of yet produced no successful treatment, one type of stem cell research has brought about the successful treating of 65 different human diseases, including paralysis. Why is there no flood of stories on these success stories? Why is no one calling for increased funding? Because the success stories are from adult stem cell research (ASCR).
Here are just a few of the success stories from ASCR, which harvests stem cells from humans without destroying them. A woman who had been a paraplegic for 19 years recovered feeling in her body and improved on an almost daily basis. This research has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Cythotherapy.
Keon Penn was essentially cured of sickle cell anemia using stem cells from umbilical cords.
Citizen Link has a list of several documented cases of individuals being cured of or at least positive research on Acute Myloid Leukemia, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Paralysis/Spinal Cord Injury (60 documentable cases), Parkinson’s Disease, Sickle Cell Anemia and Stroke.
Proponents of ESCR claim that ASCR does not hold the same promise because ESC's mutiply better and are able to develop into all types of cells. Those beliefs are either grounded on either bias or ignorance of the latest research.
Dr. John Huard, director of the Growth and Development Laboratory at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, confirms that adult stem cells have the same ability to multiply. This publication appears in the July 2005 edition of Molecular Biology of the Cell.
Dr. Mariusz Ratajczak, director of the stem-cell biology program at University of Louisville's James Graham Brown Cancer Center, has recently completed research which indicates adult stem cells have the same ability to transform as ESC's. Several other labs have followed suit with similar findings. Ratajczak's team coaxed stem cells from adult mice to change into brain, heart, nerve and pancreatic cells - mimicking embryonic stem cells.
I'm doubtful if ASCR will lead to the magic bullet we long for with so many of these terrible diseases, but I do know that it is a safer and much more ethical way to work toward the cure. Why is there a need for the destruction of human embryos when we have adult stem cells that can do all the things that embryonic stem cells can do and have a proven track record of success?
First, embryonic stem cell research is not banned in the United States.
Misleading. While it's technically true that no law bans embryonic stem-cell research, current administration policies have had much the same effect as a ban. Under an executive order, no federal funding can be used for research on embryonic stem-cell lines that were created after 9 p.m. on Aug. 9, 2001. That has had the practical result of stymieing U.S. embryonic stem-cell research, and is one of the main reasons HR810 was drafted in the first place.
Second... Researchers have been working with mouse embryonic stem cells for 20 years and have yet to cure a single mouse of a disease.
Bush stems the tide of progress
Maybe the idea of rats running around doesn't make you want to jump for joy. Maybe it just makes you jump. After all, you take the subway.
But these rats are cause for celebration.
That's because we are talking about formerly partially paralyzed rodents, 11 of them now up and walking, if not quite scurrying, in a lab at Johns Hopkins University. They had damaged spinal cords, but then regrew the circuitry it takes to move muscles. This is a medical miracle, a harbinger of hope for everyone with a spinal cord injury or nerve-destroying disease. And we owe it all to embryonic stem cells.
Human being is a scientific term and the only plausible beginning point for that is at the moment of conception.
A clump of cells does not a human being make. Aaron's and Bush's views that "human being = moment of conception" are the views of hypocrites...
Another lie is...
Did you know that Bush was the first President to actually allow for embryonic stem cell research? -Aaron
Not true. President Clinton put in place the first policy (.pdf) to allow federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research. Bush halted this policy upon entering the White House and didn't take up the subject again until 2001.
For more about how Bush and his fellow conservatives lack compassion and are completely out of touch on this issue see Bush to stem cell community: Drop dead
Posted by: Cineaste | 20 July 2006 at 10:47 AM
The techniques dealing with IVF are something that trouble me. I think the Salon article is misleading about the embryos, but I agree that IVF should be looked at from a moral and ethical standard.
ESCR is not banned in the US, that is not misleading. If it was so promising private funds would be flowing into it, eliminating any need for government money. Government funds go to research on those already established lines.
I apologize for having not heard about the John Hopkins research. After 20 years, they have one successful treatment in mouse ESCR. I will add a correction to the post.
Cineaste, can you please explain to me scientificially when a human being is produced? If it is not at conception where is it? Every argument used in ESCR debates and abortion debates deal with personhood status. I would like to find some type of scientific statement that illustrates a different beginning for human beings.
Notice in your own words you called this practice "human embryonic stem-cell research." This is research done on human beings. Again if you want to debate personhood fine, but this is human beings - even in your own words.
My original statement in the comments may have been misleading about Pres. Bush's funding, but President Clinton could not fund human ESCR unless he violated the law. The Dickey Amendment, which has been reimplemented every year since 1996, does not allow for the federal funding of any research that creates human embryos for research or research which results in the destruction of human embryos.
I don't view Dr. Arthur Caplan (author of your last linked column) as being an unbiased source. Clearly he disagrees with Bush and he is clouded by that bias, as his article indicates. He is a liberal and, judging by that column, he is not above using the sick and children to try to advance his political agenda. Caplan is supportive of human cloning. He is on the left of virtually every bioethics issue. He along with many other bioethicists attack a project by the President's Council of Bioethics without dealing with the substance of the report, according to Slate. He merely called it "a politically conservative report" that espouses "the quasi-religious view that the natural is good."
He taints much of his piece with personal, petty, political attacks instead of discussing the issues in an honest, adult manner. He also is apparently misinformed about the currently available lines of ESCs. As I said yesterday, Geron CEO Tom Okarma recently told Wired News, “the stuff you hear published that all of those lines are irrevocably contaminated with mouse materials and could never be used in people—hogwash. If you know how to grow them, they’re fine.”
My question remains - if we can accomplish every thing with ASCR why not rely on it? Another recent study found that placental stem cells have as much ability to morph as ESC's do.
Even if you do not see the moral quandry present by ESCR, you should acknowledge that it is present for others. Why not simply fund ASCR and avoid the ethics issues that ESCR brings up? Why the rush to destroy human embryos, if we can do the same thing with unneeded tissue from adults or placentas?
Posted by: Aaron | 20 July 2006 at 12:53 PM
Hey, while we're at it, why don't we arrest women who have miscarriages, those craven murderers! And the women whose embryos don't attach to the uterine wall! Yeah, anything to protect the sanctity of human life. And while we're protecting that sanctity, let's engage in war, and capital punishment, because there's absolutely zero chance that anybody innocent will ever be harmed by either. What an f-ing joke. Either you're pro-life, or you're not, and it's very easy to argue that nobody here is pro-life.
Posted by: Sam Wilkinson | 20 July 2006 at 01:01 PM
I think it is safe to say that we are all pro-life when the situation suits our purposes. But when the shoe is on the other foot and you are oppressed, watch how quickly that pro-life sentiment withers and dies.
- Rhetoric God
Posted by: Rhetoric God | 20 July 2006 at 01:27 PM
Cineaste,
Can I request that when you reference an article, you don't insert the entire text of the article here? You are free to excerpt and comment on it, but I can click over there if I want to read it.
Aaron,
1. I think it is dangerous and wrong to attack ESCR on the basis of efficacy. What if it suddenly becomes useful? Will it now be morally OK? The only reason to bring efficacy up is to counter misinformation about it's *current* value and possible future lack of value. But to combine the efficacy argument with the moral arguments is a mistake.
2. I am a little confused about the actual developmental stage of these "embryos" we are experimenting on. Are they at the gastrula stage? Are they literally just a "clump of undifferentiated cells", or are they further along? And how and where do we stop them from being further along?
3. As you know, I think that legally, we can and should define "personhood" at some point after conception, even though the zygote is "human" in origin, I'm not sure we should give cells "human rights." The question that I debate is, if we use some later criteria, what is it?
The best compromise position that most liberals can agree too (the ones that aren't comitted to personhood at birth) is personhood at the point of conscious suffering, at about 24 weeks. As Cineaste has shown, any appeal to the human likeness of the fetus before that point are derided as appeals to emotion not logic, and any appeal to other life-like qualities such as brainwaves and heartbeat are countered with the "lack of maturity" argument, i.e. until they are smarter than, say a fish or a chimp, they are not persons.
Of course, the latter reasoning may be used to justify the killing of comatose, or mentally handicapped people.
3. While the definition of personhood at conception is clean, it depends entirely on the "potential" argument. Since there is no real suffering of the zygote if you kill it (that happens in normal coitus all the time), the only reason to preserve it is that it could *become* a person. But my skin cells, though differentiated, have the same DNA as the original, blessed zygote that I came from. I somewhat agree with Cin that while a zygote most definitely is human in origin, I don't think it could really be considered a person.
I still think that the best criteria we can leverage is that used for end of life discussions, with modifications for the unique beginning of life factors.
So, we kill a Schaivo - she had arguably no brain function, but she had a heartbeat. I still think that if a person is:
- genetically human
- has a heartbeat
- ha brainwaves and are able to cognitively feel emotional and physical pain
then they are definitely a person. This last point about "cognitively" is a compelling argument for a later date (the 24 week date), but I am not convinced yet.
Posted by: seeker | 20 July 2006 at 02:05 PM
Either you're pro-life, or you're not, and it's very easy to argue that nobody here is pro-life.
It's very easy to make such simplistic statements and convince yourself that you are right.
Posted by: seeker | 20 July 2006 at 02:11 PM
Aaron,
The techniques dealing with IVF are something that trouble me.
Given your position "human being = moment of conception", you have no choice but label all doctors and staff of fertilization clinics, and all the "wannabe" parents as murderers for "wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn." If not, there is no other word to describe the obvious discrepancy of your views other than HYPOCRITE. I'm sorry for being so harsh Aaron, but I am being truthful here.
ESCR is not banned in the US
As I previously showed above, for all intents and purposes, ESCR is banned.
I apologize for having not heard about the John Hopkins research. After 20 years, they have one successful treatment in mouse ESCR. I will add a correction to the post.
This is an example of why I find you much more credible than Seeker. I applaud your honesty here sir.
Notice in your own words you called this practice "human embryonic stem-cell research." This is research done on human beings. Again if you want to debate personhood fine, but this is human beings - even in your own words.
I think I have made my position clear. A clump of cells does not a human being make. -Cineaste The word "human" in this context, describes the genetic origins and not the humanity of the embryo. If you really want to argue semantics, I submit that the word "blastocyst" is more accurate, as stem cells used are from 5 day old blastocysts.
The Dickey Amendment, which has been reimplemented every year since 1996, does not allow for the federal funding of any research that creates human embryos for research or research which results in the destruction of human embryos.
Wrong. The Dickey Amendment was a rider on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations act. As a result, it would not have been affected by HR810. Aaron if you persist on giving credit to Bush for stem cell research and not to Clinton, then you have gone past ignorance (not knowing) to lying.
Cineaste, can you please explain to me scientificially when a human being is produced?
This is a philosphical question. My view can be found here.
I don't view Dr. Arthur Caplan (author of your last linked column) as being an unbiased source.
You too list sources that I would view as biased, yet as you and Seeker have told me many times, you still have to address their arguments.
My question remains - if we can accomplish every thing with ASCR why not rely on it?
What you are saying sounds a lot like what Senator Coburn said...
This is false. "While some researchers have reported anecdotal successes, no adult stem-cell therapies have been shown with scientific certainty to cure any of these diseases or illnesses." -Wired Magazine
I'll put a similar question to you now. If the embryos in the fertilization clinics are going to be discarded anyway, why not use them for stem cell research?
Posted by: Cineaste | 20 July 2006 at 02:11 PM
I'll respond tomorrow.
Posted by: Aaron | 20 July 2006 at 02:16 PM
Cineaste,
Can I request that when you reference an article, you don't insert the entire text of the article here?
No problem Seeker. It wasn't the entire article I posted, just what I thought people needed to read because it was integral to my point. I understand what you are saying though, the last one I posted was very long so I'll try to keep the length of my quotes resonable in the future.
Posted by: Cineaste | 20 July 2006 at 02:21 PM
think I have made my position clear. A clump of cells does not a human being make.
I don't think you have made your position clear. At what point does the zygote no longer fit the description of "clump of cells"? At birth? You have yet to define criteria for personhood. Please don't refer me to the article - can you paraphrase your position? The article you refer to seems to only tear down all possible definitions of personhood, without providing any positive criteria FOR it.
Given your position "human being = moment of conception", you have no choice but label all doctors and staff of fertilization clinics, and all the "wannabe" parents as murderers for "wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn."
I mostly agree with your extension of conservative logic here, and I think that "killing zygotes" seems rediculous, which is why I stray from the pack on this issue.
However, after a point of personhood, even as early as 4-8 weeks when you have a well-differentiated fetus, not just a blastula, I think you most *certainly* are murdering a human being, and that both clinician and mother (as decieved and scared as she might be), are guilty of murder, just as if they had killed a one day old infant.
I look forward to a day when second and third trimester abortions are treated in criminal courts as infanticide, not because I want mothers to suffer, but because I want the killing of children to end. The mothers are also victims here, in that they are being deceived by the choice-only advocates into doing what is unethical and immoral. They are almost as guilty of these deaths as the Nazi leaders who signed the papers to kill the Jews. It's just another type of human slaughter.
Posted by: seeker | 20 July 2006 at 02:51 PM
And btw, Cin, can I just say that you don't give me ANY credit for my position on stem cells, but instead, slander me as some unthinking conservative just because of my strong stand on other topics. That is unfair and wrong.
The fact that I fail to line up across the board with all of the far right positions means something important - that I am open to argument, and do think through the issues.
Also, the fact that I am willing to argue the point of personhood is unique among many conservatives. Not only that, I don't openly fight against global warming (still on the fence).
I think the reason that you think I am closed minded is that I am not as charitable in conversation as Aaron, and am unfortunately willing to stoop to snide remarks, esp. when you start it ;) :p But as for actual argument, I think you unfairly peg me as unyielding and uncritical. Well, maybe the unyielding part is true %\
Posted by: seeker | 20 July 2006 at 02:57 PM
Seeker,
You can be dismissive all you want, but you're not pro-life when you're supporting the execution of those who MAY have committed crimes. Similarly, if you're going to support war, even wars waged for good causes, then you're not pro-life because logic dictates that innocent people are going to be killed.
Incidentally, I agree with Rhetoric God, or whatever his name is. Everybody's pro-life. Everybody. Some people support reproductive freedoms for women, but that doesn't make them anti-life, anymore than supporting the execution of guilty (hopefully!) human beings makes you anti-life.
Posted by: Sam Wilkinson | 20 July 2006 at 04:24 PM
but you're not pro-life when you're supporting the execution of those who MAY have committed crimes. Similarly, if you're going to support war, even wars waged for good causes, then you're not pro-life because logic dictates that innocent people are going to be killed.
So, you consider that pro life means:
- against abortion
- pacifist
- against the death penalty
- against assisted suicide / right to die
- against euthanasia
That is known as "consistently pro-life", but in common usage, pro-life in general is understood to be against abortion specifically. Maybe this position should be called a "Pro-Justice Pro-lifer"?
I am glad to help coin a more specific positive term ("anti-abortion" won't do). What do you suggest? No, wait, let me suggest first just in case ;)
I am pro-fetus, pro-death-penalty, pro-just-war, pro-right-to-die, anti-euthanasia, pro-ESCR.
But I understand your objection to the common use of "pro-life."
Posted by: seeker | 20 July 2006 at 05:41 PM
Some people support reproductive freedoms for women, but that doesn't make them anti-life, anymore than supporting the execution of guilty (hopefully!) human beings makes you anti-life.
Maybe. But this is also like saying "just because you are against the Emancipation Proclomation doesn't make you pro-slavery." Fine line there.
Posted by: seeker | 20 July 2006 at 05:43 PM
I don't think you have made your position clear... At what point, then, would you consider the fetus unlike these other creatures, and distinctly human? (from a previous post)
I guess what you are really asking is when does the fetus become a person, as a blastocyst is clearly genetically human from the moment of conception.
Sometime past 8 weeks and before birth. It's impossible to pinpoint but just as you feel the moment of conception does not equate to a person (though the zygote has all the genetics of a human), I feel that personhood comes later than 8 weeks.
All I can tell you is that I don't know exactly when a fetus becomes a person (with rights). I don't think anyone can yet. I think that drawing any line is somewhat arbitrary but a line in the sand at 8 weeks is too soon for reasons the article fleshes out.
You have yet to define criteria for personhood.
I am sure you realize how complex this question is. Everything hinges upon this yet I could find no legal definition of a person that is universally agreed upon. And maybe that’s a good thing because then there could conceivably be "illegal" humans like clones: shades of the movie "Blade Runner", "More human than human." BTW I do believe clones would be considered persons. I don't mean to be evasive Seeker, but my honest answer is that no one knows exactly. The closest I can come is "A person consists of the ability to have rights and duties; and of the ability to actually take action in using those rights and performing duties." Again, I must emphasize that any definition of “person” must be open to revision.
Cin, can I just say that you don't give me ANY credit for my position on stem cells, but instead, slander me as some unthinking conservative just because of my strong stand on other topics.
Sorry Seeker. Though, I do think I gave you credit as not being a hard liner on the abortion issue when you first referred me to your website. Please look it up as I can't remember the name of the post. I think that you think issues through. For example, I believe you hold your position on stem cell research, not because of anything I have said, but because you are perceptive enough to recognize that it is too difficult a position to maintain reasonably, although your moral compass may point you to agree with Aaron emotionally. Kudos to you for this.
I don't think you are open to argument though. I say this because, and you admit as much; you are “unyielding.” I'm not talking about just on large issues but also on little points. When I try to make any point with you, any point, it usually meets resistance, sometimes to the point of absurdity. This makes you lose credibility in my eyes, not that I’m implying you even care. I think this is because you feel that any concession on your part is a display of weakness. Conversely, you would view any concession on my part as weakness. I think the opposite though. You know the song lyrics, "...your best friend always sticking up for you, even when I know you're wrong.” (Train, Drops of Jupiter)
I also feel that you like to press people’s hot buttons. While this may be fun for you, it does not endear you to the person whose buttons you are pressing; again I’m not implying you care. I’ve come to recognize this in your posts and replies and so I respond in kind, usually proactively. Everyone has their style, Mynym for example, likes to overwhelm people with wordiness, thinly veiled insults and convoluted speech but I agree more with you on more issues than I do with him. We have no rapport because I don’t trust you will concede anything, no matter how good the opposing argument is. You will always be one to fall upon your sword no matter how futile your position may be and you will always be ready to decapitate someone with that same sword if you see an opening. In other words, talking with you is like talking to G.W. Bush, or a wall. I feel guilty for sounding harsh but it seems that is what you respond to. You've never responded well when I really try to be nice. No, I am not patronizing you.
Posted by: Cineaste | 20 July 2006 at 07:25 PM
Okay, lots of things to respond to.
Sam, you polemic remarks about miscarriages, etc. do nothing for this discussion and you know that. I'm not sure how Cineaste can charge seeker with purposely hitting hot buttons for no real purpose when you state things like that. Honestly, you are better than that.
Cineaste, no one has yet to tell me how the embryo is not a human being. I see arguments against the personhood for the embryo, but not against it being a human. Again personhood is a philosophical term and is and has been debated over the course of human history, but establishing an embryo as human is set scientifically.
I realize the latest bill would have went past the Dickey Amendment, but I am not sure how an act by President Clinton could have avoided violating the amendment. I don't really want to "give Bush credit" for funding ESCR, but so many people have exaggerated what his position and his actions for political gain. I'm sure if Clinton could have he would have funded ESCR. He may have found a loop hole around Dickey. (Okay this is a very serious discussion, but that is a funny line, especially in connection with Clinton!)
Your quote from Wired about ASCR seems odd in the current debate since ESCR has not brought any success stories, save the John Hopkins research on mice. ASCR has brought many success in people for a host of diseases and conditions.
I don't think I am any more reasonable than seeker. I did not take your word for it on the John Hopkins story and I didn't take the work for it from the column you linked, clearly written by a pro-ESCR columnists. I found press releases discussing the finding. That is different from say the evolution debate, where inference plays a much larger role. This is hard results from lab experiments.
Caplan didn't make any arguments and he got some of his facts wrong, which I found surprising from someone of his stature. In the article you linked to, Caplan merely spent the column space attacking Bush politically and making snide comments about him lying about war and Karl Rove being a rat - not sure what either of those has to do with ESCR.
First Things has a good piece about the media's role in this and how proponents of ESCR have already changed positions because IVF leftover embryos will not be enough to satisfy the desires of researchers. More embryos will be needed, which will lead to several unintended consequences one of which is cloning.
The First Things article quotes from this Weekly Standard piece that clearly outlines other means available and gives a good sustinct statement on the moral issue - "The most important arguments for maintaining the Bush policy are moral: The federal government should not be a party to the destruction of nascent human lives. Yes, such embryos might be left over in fertility clinics, but the fact that they are unwanted does not change what they are or give us a license to destroy them."
Also, Richard Doerflinger has an excellent letter to the Washington Post that clears up many of the issues concerning IVF. First of all, if we take the same position on ESCR as we do on IVF we would be in the exact same position we are in now. Since 1979 every administration of both parties has declined using federal funds for IVF. So if IVF is essentially the same thing (as the argument goes), then we should give it the same amount of federal funding - $0. Also there is only a very small percentage of frozen embryos designated for research that could be opened up under the House and Senate bill. Less than 3 percent would be used. The vast majority are on hold by the parents for possible future attempts at pregnancy.
I do think there are at least two big moral differences between IVF (which I think needs to have some limits placed on it as well) and ESCR. First, the embryos in IVF can and are adopted and many are healthy growing children right now. Once the embryo is destroyed in ESCR that possibility is no longer there. Second, IVF is used for parents to bring about a new life, not destroy it.
Parents don't go into IVF seeking to grab a few sparts parts to make thier life easier or ease some suffering. They want to have a child. ESCR destroys early human life (whatever you may call it) and uses it essentially as a chop shop to benefit other people.
Seeker, I do not make the effectiveness argument as a subtititute for the moral argument, but I do think it plays a role. I view ESCR as morally wrong. Other people, most people, do not. If I cannot convince them of the morality issue, I can at least point out that ESCR is not as needed (because of ASCR) and has been oversold and overhyped (for a whole host of reasons - money, politics, etc.)
Sam, do you honestly not see a difference between killing someone innocent and someone guilty? Of course you do because you see the death penalty (and war?) as being unjust because some innocents have died and/or have the possibility to die. What about the unborn baby? They are the ultimate of innocence. They have committed no crime and have done nothing deserving of death.
A murderer has a chance at life. They chose to committ a crime punishable by death. An unborn baby or embryo has not made that choice. They were put to death without even making a negative action.
I have repeatedly said this and I will say it again - if I could trade the death penalty for abortion I would. I would much rather let criminals stay in jail instead of put them to death, if that means that abortion would end as well. I can support and live with being completely pro-life. Can you? Or was that just an argument tactic to try to trip up me (or seeker)?
But to close I will address Cineaste's question: If the embryos in the fertilization clinics are going to be discarded anyway, why not use them for stem cell research?
How about the Socratic method - If death row inmates are going to be killed away, why not use them for medical research?
The destination of a life does not determine its usability.
Posted by: Aaron | 21 July 2006 at 06:58 AM
Aaron,
An embryo or fetus has not made any concious decisions because they're unlike the being that's capable of making decisions. In other words, they're unformed, particularly the embryo.
And Aaron, of course I see a difference between killing an innocent and killing the guilty. Which is why I'm aghast at the possibility that human beings who are innocent have been electrocuted to death. Why that doesn't bother you is what's so damned confusing, particularly considering your aversion to cells in a testtube somewhere being used for medical science. How you can tolerate the execution of your neighbor while objecting to medical testing on a few cells boggles the imagination.
Posted by: Sam Wilkinson | 21 July 2006 at 08:10 AM
Cineaste, no one has yet to tell me how the embryo is not a human being. I see arguments against the personhood for the embryo, but not against it being a human. Again personhood is a philosophical term and is and has been debated over the course of human history, but establishing an embryo as human is set scientifically.
You are just repeating what I have already said. You should come up with your own points instead of parroting me.
If death row inmates are going to be killed anyway, why not use them for medical research?
Simple. Because death row inmates are people and blastocysts are not. People have rights. Blastocysts do not, nor should they. You have more compassion for a clump of cells than you do for living people. It's no wonder the oxymoron of "compassionate conservativism" is so pervasive. So, my question still stands as you cannot answer my question by posing a new one. If the embryos in the fertilization clinics are going to be discarded anyway, why not use them for stem cell research? They may be genetically human, but they are not people, so no rights. If you argue that a blastocyst is a person, I'll call you a fool, and deservedly so, and have done with this conversation since I would essentially be arguing with your faith and not your reason.
If you really thought blastocyts were people too then you would be calling people involved with fertility clinics murderers. Period. You are a hypocrite and so is Bush. There is no other term to describe the obvious discrepancy of your views. Sorry, but it is true. I'll wait for your denial now.
I don't really want to "give Bush credit" for funding ESCR
Then don't. He does not deserve it. Good God, if Bush wanted to fund ESCR he would not have vetoed it.
ASCR has brought many success in people for a host of diseases and conditions.
No cures according to scientists. Scientists see far more potential in ESCR. It stands to reason that if ASCR were all that successful scientists wouldn't be clamoring to have ESCR funded.
This is hard results from lab experiments.
Seeker would have denied them.
Caplan didn't make any arguments
Yes, he sure did.
Posted by: Cineaste | 21 July 2006 at 10:08 AM
I see arguments against the personhood for the embryo, but not against it being a human.
I think that "personhood" is what we need to define, from a legal point of view. Although this is not a simple task, I think that we can and must come to a reasonable consensus.
Posted by: seeker | 21 July 2006 at 11:14 AM
If the people in fertility clincs throw out/destroy embryos then that is the equivalent of ESCR in my mind.
Some are destroyed at IVF clincs, but they are not designed for that purpose. The intent of IVF clincs is to give people a child, not to destroy embryos. Now they may do that in the process and that is where they go wrong, in my opinion.
As to what scientists are clamoring for - they are clamoring for funding period. Scientists are not without their faults and they know a cash cow when they see one. They know the hype going on with ESCR right now and as the NY Times article I linked earlier said, many, if not most, have hyped this beyond what it is worth. It is pure potential right now, kind of like an embryo. And since it is just potential we should have no problem killing it off.
See here is where we get into the question of compassion again. I am not "compassionate" because I don't want experimentation on and the destruction of human embryos. If that's compassionate - the left can have it.
I find it funny that you claim you are arguing with my "faith" and not reason because of how we define a philosophical (not scientific) term. Personhood is not something that can be nailed down scientifically. I choose to place personhood at the moment of humanity. You choose to place it somewhere else, not because of any scientific data, but because of your own feelings or thoughts. But I am relying on faith and you reason.
I would argue the most scientific and most reason orieneted place to begin personhood is the moment you begin a human being. As it has become apparent in this conversation, you have a hard time deciding where personhood begins. When it is moved away from the beginning of life, personhood becomes very easy to manipulate - allowing people to define away the personhood of unborn babies, blacks, Jews, etc.
I answer your question again how I answered it and my Socratic question before:
The destination of a life does not determine its usability.
Meaning simply because a life is going to be "thrown away" does not mean that we can use it for whatever we want to. Do you not see the danger in that logic?
Posted by: Aaron | 24 July 2006 at 07:09 AM
Personhood is not something that can be nailed down scientifically. I choose to place personhood at the moment of humanity.
Well, let's not quibble over this for a moment. The fact is, legally, we have a current standard which states that the fetus is not a person or human with rights until it is born. That philosophical/religious/moral/ethical definition is one that HAS been comitted to, and to say that we should not change it because it's a philosphic position that won't yield to science is a copout.
It will yield to reason and argument among people who are concerned for human life and ethics as much as they are for human choice. I think it is criminal that we are allowing the infancticide of the unborn up until birth because of some quasi-ethical concern that the discussion is too hard to pin down.
I think that we MUST answer the question of fetal suffering, the right to life and protection of that life, just like we have done for children who are born. At what point does the fetus have rights? Most liberals would admit that it should be at some time before birth, but if they are unwilling to help in determining that point rather than leaving it up to the conscience of the mother, then they really don't believe that the fetus is a life we are snuffing out. How could they if they value it less than a mother's inconvenience?
Thinking people should debate moving back the date for legal abortions, at least to 24 weeks, if not 4.
Posted by: seeker | 24 July 2006 at 11:07 AM
I don't think we should leave something alone because it is closer to a philosophical question rather than a hard science issue. I was merely pointing out how Cineaste was affirming some "squishy" constantly changing definition of personhood, while forcing me into the "faith" realm of the debate.
Science plays a role in philosophic issues, as it does in the abortion/ESCR debate. Clearly, unborn babies feel pain and other scientific phenomenon so that weighs in the philosophical debate over personhood.
Again, my point was to simply illustrate the absurdity of maintaining Cineaste's position of personhood while charging I was arguing from faith, not reason.
Posted by: Aaron | 24 July 2006 at 01:19 PM