8mm
Posted on 08/17/2008 12:18:42 PM PDT by wagglebee
“As a mother of a diabetic child, I don’t care where a cure comes from — adult or embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cells — as long as a cure is developed.” — Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).
Some of us have watched our loved ones succumb to such debilitating diseases as Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. At CWA, we have watched our own editor struggle against the bane of diabetes. Yet, while curing such diseases is undoubtedly a compassionate goal to pursue, the means by which we arrive at that goal matters very much.
Does the path we take require us to take unethical actions? In addressing the issue of destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), how congressional members answer this question matters a great deal if they want to make a compassionate and ethical decision regarding ESCR. Embryonic stem cell research requires the creation of a human embryo — and its destruction — in order to use the cells to do research that may or may not lead to treatments.
Having lost ground on the ethical debate over the appropriateness of ESCR, proponents argue for the ability of ESCR to yield positive results. There’s only one problem: ESCR hasn’t yielded positive results. However, adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) are already yielding positive results. Mounting evidence for the effectiveness of adult stem cells iPS have highlighted the reasons to raise the standard for stem cell research. Positive and negative legislative developments reflect this.
At the first major hearing on stem cell research in this Congress, Rep. DeGette announced that she, along with lead co-sponsor Rep. Michael Castle (R-Delaware), plan to introduce a bill which lifts the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Despite the lack of evidence for the need for such a measure, Rep. DeGette states that, in light of all the new stem cell research advancements, this is the best legislative plan of action for Congress to take.
Thankfully, not every member of Congress is willing to blindly follow Rep. DeGette. In fact, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) introduced H.R 2807, the Patient’s First Act of 2007, last summer to federally fund stem cell research which shows evidence of substantial clinical benefit to patients.
Proponents of ESCR remain convinced that it will one day produce cures, despite the complete lack of evidence that it actually can and regardless of its unethical implications. Adult stem cells can be taken from the placenta and umbilical cord blood cells with no harm done to the baby. As was pointed out by Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-New Jersey) at the hearing on the future of stem cell research held by the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health, hundreds of thousands of babies are born every day, making resources for adult stem cells from placenta and umbilical cords readily available for research purposes today and for years to come.
Considering the fact that embryonic stem cells are scarcer than adult stem cells, increasing the demand for them will lead to greater pressure for egg donations to create embryos, aborted embryos and fetuses. This spawns even more unethical problems.
Proponents of ESCR argue that adult stem cells are limited in their ability to successfully treat varying medical conditions. Currently, there are 73 different conditions in which patient health has been documented to improve through the use of adult stem cell therapy.[i] This is “limited”? ESCR has not produced even one.
Sidestepping this fact, ESCR proponents assert that it is the novelty of the approach that accounts for ESCR’s zero record of successfully treated patients. At 73-0, adult stem cell therapy is the hands-down winner, and yet, ESCR is still the “gold standard” of stem cell science for liberals. Unlike ESCR, iPS cells do not present ethical challenges by using eggs or embryos. And iPS cells have already been credited with the ability to produce real results.
And yet the mainstream media and the left all but pretends that the ONLY stem cells worth researching come from murdered babies.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
What if we discover the most viable and useful stem cells come from babies that were already born but not wanted? What if the best cells come from babies partially delivered live but then "harvested" for these cells? Would she care then? Probably not.
Moral equivalency will be the end of us. There IS such a thing as right and wrong!
The left desperately needs some moral justification for abortion. The millions of women who have either had abortions themselves or have friends who have done so seem to think that the only way they or their friends can be vindicated is if abortion somehow becomes moral. The people who would preach against abortion need to spread the message that people who have had abortions can justify themselves morally if they repent and help encourage others to do so. IMHO, if that message could reach critical mass, there could be a sea change on both the abortion issue and the political stage (I don't think the newly-repentant would be happy with the Party of Manipulated Guilt).
Yes, it seems adults stems cells can provide cures for some disease.
That is not what these ‘liberals’ want. They figure there are many ways to cure certain diseases, and many ways to avoid disease.
What they want the ESCR for is the ‘fountain of youth’.
They ‘believe’ that somehow a way will be found to stay alive forever, so they can maintain their power in the physical world, and their wealth, and avoid the thought of dying and having to meet their ‘creator’ and be judged.
Excellent analysis in both your posts. ESCR, in my opinion, is a form of magical thinking - human sacrifice to the god Science. “If I do the worst thing possible, maybe Science will cure me (my spouse, my parent, my child).”
I really don't think that's it. I think they fundamentally believe that the only way they or their friends can be 'good people' is if abortion is somehow okay. They're more interested in ensuring that aborted fetuses can be put to "good use" than they are in anything that the "good use" might actually accomplish.
I don't think people who have never been liberals can really understand liberals' thought processes. Many liberals aren't really immoral; rather, they act in a fashion which would be proper and moral if the world was, in fact, as they believe it to be. To the extent that actual reality disagrees with their perceptions, actual reality is defective.
I suppose that's true. You may be correct in your whole view point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.