Posted on 06/24/2004 6:13:22 AM PDT by nina0113
Can you break out your pro-life ping lists?
This is probably the single, most succinct and accurate summation of the whole "stem cell research question" I have seen anywhere. An excellent article.
But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie. Of course, I thought it was cute and not creepy that she consulted an astrologer about Reagan's schedule after he was shot. That didn't make astrology a hard science. But liberals who once lambasted Nancy for having too much influence on Reagan's schedule now want to anoint her Seer of Technology.
Will do immediately. This article needs very wide reading, even making paper copies and sharing with Pastors and Priests. God-fearing people instinctively know embryonic stem cell harvesting from alive embryonic humans is wrong. They need the science facts as well, to debate the issues.
Typically, ESCs make people more sick or kill them
ASCs have have been used for decades to treat disease. Leukemias, immune system and other blood disorders, cancers, auto-immune diseases: the list is nearly 100 illnesses long , with more on the way. As you can see, adult stem cells work very well and they work right now.
Repeated for emphasis. Thanks for this article.
Specifically, his claims that ESC research has gone nowhere is probably false. That's unfortunate, because in making the claim that ESC's don't work, he has basically given up the moral argument in favor of a utilitarian one. Once you've done that, you've lost the war -- the first successful use of ESCs destroys the opposition.
The reason to oppose ESC research is that it is wrong. If Kellmeyer had left it at that, he'd have been OK. Once you've given that up, it's extremely difficult to get back on track.
Abortion provides a good analogy. The abortion industry thrives, and is primarily defended, on utilitarian grounds (primarily variants on "convenience of the mother"). The moral argument was lost long ago when convenience was placed ahead of a moral principle. These days, the pro-life side typically argues on utilitarian grounds, primarily the consequences that may befall a woman who has an abortion. It's rare that you hear the public argument broken down into a dissection of the moral implications.
(1) Embryos are torn apart, not fertilized eggs — zygotes are too immature. (2) This work requires the deaths of thousands of embryonic children. (3) This research is happening right now. It just doesn’t receive government funding. Yet.
That's all I need to know.
I'd rather remain in my wheelchair than be responsible for tearing baby embryos apart. It sucks being a paraplegic, but at least I can look at myself in the mirror.
BTTT!!!!!
"... the first successful use of ESCs destroys the opposition." Well, that's an astonishing bit of hyperbole! Kind of like saying, 'the first person kept from dying by eating fellow survivors of a plane crash on a remote mountain and everyone will start eating their neighbors.' Opposition to ripping the fetal stem cells from embryos doesn't fair or fall based on what the liberals can say about the person debating the issues or upon one man's way of phrasing the argument. Even if one 'trial' has found success, the entire methodology is cannibalism. Does that change when one success is rigged up?
No, it's not. Once ESCs are used successfully to treat something, the lid is off. The argument moves to whether or not you want to "deny this life-restoring treatment" just to save a "mass of undifferentiated cells." That argument ought to sound awfully familiar to you -- it's the same one used to justify abortion.
So, point out where he is wrong. Admittedly, I'm not a biologist (just a Ph.D. chemist), but AFAIK, his summation of the "state of the science" is right on target.
As ole Justin Wilson would put it, "I garontee" that if there had been even ONE successful use of embryonic stem cells, it would have been front page news in 3-inch high letters.
Thus far, the pro-ESC arguments are all theoretical, not backed up by facts, whereas the ASC arguments are based on multiple real-world successes.
Any appeal to utilitarian aspects of the debate is dangerour because it moves the terms of the debate onto their ground, rather than ours, which is the principle that killing for spare parts is intrinsically and universally unaccepable. So long as the argument is pragmatic, the pro-death side will always be able to argue the need for more research and better technique.
Oh, I agree that ESC work is bad on moral grounds, and that such is the basic reason it should not be done.
I'm simply pointing out that the article has a succinct, precise, and accurate statement on the current state of the technology.
Thus far, the pro-ESC arguments are all theoretical, not backed up by facts, whereas the ASC arguments are based on multiple real-world successes.
I won't dispute it. However, there are some very real theoretical advantages to ESCs over ASCs -- Kellmeyer's own article makes that point (if only to note that there are technical hurdles still to be overcome). Note also that the advantages of ASCs were also theoretical at one time -- so the fact that no ESC treatments currently exist, is not necessarily meaningful to the discussion.
Which is to say, it is not enough to hang our hats on "it doesn't work." Given time and money, it is very likely that some practical ESC-based treatments will be developed, just as has happened with Adult Stem Cells. It is also likely that the ESCs and ASCs would not be useful for the same things -- so we can't simply treat them as interchangeable approaches to the same set of problems.
We have to be honest, also, about the fact that one cannot help but be attracted to the medical possibilities, should ESC pan out. (That's the nature of temptation: it doesn't work if the potential results aren't attractive.) Once ESC does pan out -- as it probably will -- we will be hard-pressed to oppose it on anything other than moral grounds.
The utilitarian argument really does fail the first time a successful ESC treatment is found. That's why (just as with abortion) our only hope is to bolster the moral case against it.
But that IS the point. Those "theoretical advantages" have thus far turned out the be bullshit, despite the massive amounts of research already done in the area. The entire ESC position is based on hype and speculation---not real-world results. At some point, someone HAS to start pointing out that the emperor has no clothes on.
The same could be said of any number of other inventions which we now take for granted. How many thousands of trials did Edison make, before he finally invented a practical light bulb?
The unpleasant truth is that ESCs probably can, and thus probably will, be used to create successful treatments for certain ailments. You can't hang your hat on the failures to date, because the first success makes your argument moot.
Bless you.
That's a valid point.
But this article has explained to me why the ESC grant-seekers are seeking government grants. The article exposes their underlying motivation and is a useful addition to the argument contra, although not essential, as you point out.
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.