Replies

I'm going to have to mull this over very carefully.

I clearly recall the debate early in my life about whether heart transplants were "ethical". He makes some good points in this speech.

Also, his noting that only 22, not 78 cell lines are now available is a clear and good argument.

I'm still not finished reviewing this speech and thinking it over, so I'm not going to comment further.

SUBJECT: Stem Cell Statements should lead to the REAL Question...

"Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?
			...would this change the argument? or, at this point will the argument really just begin?"

HUMAN LIFE and RIGHTS

We have to respect and Protect All human life

To each individual their life is sacred. As a people, to begin to pass judgement or sentence on human life by age, quality, position or potential has the effect of placing a price or a measure on what can only be deemed a gift from our creator.

However, there is a paradox of life and rights:

Our rights as a people for individual-self-government are based upon the uniqueness of human life with rights granted by 'nature's God,' which in turn are protected by our Constitution.

One must follow the other, or else the entire argument of human rights becomes based on man's opinion. Either life with rights is given at the same time that life begins or we have no rights beyond which other men or governments are willing to allow us.

If we as a people do not respect the sacred notion of human LIFE how can we expect to have respect for RIGHTS that are dependent upon the concept of human LIFE itself?

Any society that diminishes the value of one life from another risks its very existence.

thoughts on human stem cells...

Nearly every discussion about the stem cell question has centered on the question of the sources of stem cells - adult versus embryonic - and the potential each has with regards to medicine - and of course the argument that some embryonic research had ended in disaster during research. To see the truth, I personnally believe that we should look at the stem cell argument from a totally new perspective.

I don't think that any of the questions so far are going to the heart of the matter. Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question:

What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?

Would this change the argument? Or, at this point would the argument really just begin? Does it matter if embryonic stem cells are proven to be the medical equivalent of the elusive 'fountain of youth?'

Most civilized nations and people throughout history have been willing to sacrifice themselves so that the next generation will survive. Are we on the verge of becoming a people who are willing to sacrifice the next generation so that our current generation can continue to survive?

I don't think that it matters if we are capable of creating or using one life so that we can save another life. Either we respect all human life or we respect no human life. We cannot have it both ways at the same time.

The reason we as a people must have moral judgment and values which are clearly defined is that any action we take can and could be 'justified' from some practical standpoint. Our morality forces us to draw a line that we won't cross. It is only our sense of morality that allows us to be called human and it is only that which separates us from the jungle.

Once the line is moved from the moral high ground the very concept of morality becomes prosituted and becomes a matter of group or power opinions.

For example, if the Titantic were to sink today, using today's standards of morality and ethics - who would get to climb into the lifeboats first and who would be expected to go down with the ship? I'm not sure that today's society or medical community would stand back and save the women and children...

Any people who move from the position of protecting human life from its beginning to its end becomes just another part of the immoral mob - no better with any opinion - no worse without one. Just a mob.

In the end, the line that we draw on the argument of individual human life will become the line that is drawn to define individual human rights.

...post thoughts part I

As for the argument about the eventual destruction of frozen embryos - the 'they are going to die anyway' logic - history is full of examples of this 'foot-in-the-door' argument.

For background, read about the post WWII 'ethical' use of medical information that resulted from Nazi experiments on institutionalized and concentration camp men, women, and children. For starters, read about the following 'respected 'members of the WWII medical community including one who was a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation:

Dr. Julius Hallervorden a distinguished academician, who occupied the Chair of Neuropathology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut in Berlin-Buch throughout the war years and following the war was a neuropathologist at the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt. The following is a post-war quote from Hallervorden during an interview: "I heard that they were going to do that and so I went up to them and told them, 'Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all those people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized'." He is also is documented to have directed the selection of certain children for extermination and subsequent pathological studies as their brains were suitable for a research project.

Dr. Sigmund Rascher a researcher in neurophysiology and originally a Captain in the Luftwaffe Medical Service he wrote of his 'Experiments on Escape from High Altitude' where he had vivisection carried out on his subjects even prior to the heart completely stopping. He also experimented on exposure to hypothermia by the immersion of subjects in ice cold water and took part in a top secret report entitled "Freezing Experiments with Human Beings." Rascher was quite proud of his work with humans. "I am the only one in this whole crowd who really does and knows human physiology because I experiment on humans and not on guinea pigs or mice."

Dr. Georg Schaltenbrand a pre-eminent German clinical neuroscientist who had served as a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation who used humans for multiple sclerosis experiments designed to find a cure for the disease.

"If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state." - Christopher Hufeland, 18th century German physician

...post thoughts part II

To Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the great celebrities like the late Chistopher Reeves - Michael J. Fox - Mary Tyler Moore - or any pro-stem cell politicians if they really support the use of human embryonic stem cell they should please follow these instructions:

#1) Go to a clinic with your 'better half' and create a fertilized child embryo.

#2) Use that particular embryo for your own research and your own cure or to help others.

OPTION: If you are past the production point ask one of your children or grandchildren to provide(or be) the raw materials for your miracle cure.

Regardless of the political decisions, we can be certain of one thing: those who support and yell the loudest for embryonic stem cell research funding will NOT be the people who will provide their embryonic offspring to the research laboratory.

K&V Jenerette...

�

Orrin Hatch was just on on Fox News / Special Report w/Brit Hume questioning advice the President received re: embryonic stem cell research.

I was against it, but this was never a major issue for me. In fact, I haven't really thought about it beyond the surface level. However, today Sen. Orrin Hatch came on FOX to state that Frisk's stand on this is good for America. Reading what Frisk has to say, I've reversed my position on this. I am on Orrin Hatch's side on this one.

So now I guess I am counter with Bush on several issues.

I am counter on Bush regarding the border, and the refusal of Bush to protect the border with Mexico, and he angers me to no end regarding this.

I am counter on Bush regarding Islam as "the religion peace".

I am counter on Bush regarding CAFTA.

And now, I guess I am counter on Bush regarding this.

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Okay, here are Frist's weasel words. Read 'em and weep. It's only acceptable under certain circumstances. Well, well, well. I bet you anything that there will be a lot more of these special circumstances. Anyone know how the House may vote on this cannibalism proposal?

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

Note: There's a lot of other thoughts running around in my brain about this topic. Don't have time to express them right now. But here's a synopsis: No one lives forever. All flesh is prone to some kind of illness and pain. Perfect health, perfect comfort, and everyone being equal in all regards will never - NEVER - happen in this mortal world.

What does this have to do with embryonic stem cell research?

A lot.

Must be a clip of that new movie called:

"How To Lose Your Strong Conservative Base in 3 Years"

To obtain Frist's comments of July 18, 2001 ...

Click here -> 107th Congress - July 18, 2001 - Senate
Navigate to : 14 . STEM CELL RESEARCH -- (Senate - July 18, 2001)

Or, if you prefer, PDF version of Frist comments at pages S7846 to S7851.

If the PDF link is broken, it can be found with the following procedure:

Click here -> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/advanced.html
Choose a volume(s): "2001 CR, Vol. 147"
Select a section(s)*: "Senate Section"
Search: embryonic AND frist

The first hit from that search should be "cr18jy01S STEM CELL RESEARCH," and you can choose between text and pdf forms.

We should not let the potential of this research drive the moral considerations themselves. Thus, we must set up a very important, strong, transparent, ethical construct in which this decisionmaking can be made, and needs to be made, on an ongoing basis. We do not know what the next great discovery is going to be 6 months from now. We cannot lock into place either the moral considerations or the way we consider whether or not it is appropriate to look in a new field of science.
So the oversight process has to be responsive, has to be ongoing. It has to
[[Page S7847]]
recognize that science moves very quickly. The lack of predictability means there is the potential for abuse of the science itself. Again, that is why we must consider this issue in this body, why politics or policy must be engaged to prevent the potential for abuse. Anytime we are talking about the manipulation of life or living tissues at this early point, there is the potential for abuse. Thus, I conclude that embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research should be federally funded within a carefully regulated, fully transparent, fully accountable framework that ensures the highest level of respect for the moral significance of the human embryo, the moral significance of the human blastocyst.
There is this unique interplay of this potentially powerful research--uncharted research--this new evolving science with those moral considerations of life, of health, of healing. That interplay demands this comprehensive, publicly accountable oversight structure I propose.
I very quickly have addressed this issue in a comprehensive way. The reason I am in this Chamber and take this opportunity to speak is for people to actually see that the issue is a complicated issue but one that has to be addressed in a larger framework than just to say: Funding, yes or no.
There are basically 10 points I think we must consider, and I have proposed an answer. Again, I don't know the answer, and I struggle, like every person, on this particular issue to make sure we have the appropriate moral considerations. But I will outline what my 10 points are.
No. 1, we should ban embryo creation for research. The creation of human embryos solely for research purposes should be strictly prohibited.
No. 2, we should continue the funding ban on the derivation of embryonic stem cells. We need to accomplish this by strengthening and codifying the current ban on Federal funding for the derivation of embryonic stem cells.

My take on that second point is that it draws the line at Federal funding for research in such a way that it does not fund the fertilization process. "Derivation" is a term of art that I don't fully understand.

But clearly, Frist has said for some time that he is in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

To put it crudely, there are 2 polar political advantages:

1 - the left says, "you should use left-over embryoes from fertility clinics." public agrees (I don't)

2 - right says, "you should ban human cloning." public agrees.

Why is point one prevailing and point two losing? Although Frist has disappointed us, he could make us some ground by saying no number 1 until number 2 is secured.

Oh, to unravel all the tangles and to be able to see the threats to liberty involved here!

We have wandered (or have been led) so far away from the philosophical premises of our liberty, laid out in our Declaration, incorporated in our Constitution's limitations on government power, and articulated in the massive writings of America's Founders, that we cannot easily identify the basic premises the Senator's position violates.

How about pulling out just 2 strands as a start?

1. "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."- Jefferson. A "first principle" of our liberty is incorporated in the Declaration's assertion of "Creator-endowed" life, liberty, and rights, one of the "self-evident" truths Jefferson claimed reflected what he called "the American mind" of 1776. JFK said it differently: "The world is different now....And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

The Founders' declaration, if it is to mean anything, must mean that no person or collection of persons--not an overlord in a fiefdom; not a king; not a dictator; not a Priest, nor a President; not a Supreme Court or a Congress; not even a parent--can arrogate to him(her)self(ves) power to either grant or deny what is "Creator-endowed." President John Quincy Adams called the Declaration's assertions, "the only legitimate foundation of civil government."

If the foundation is eroded or abandoned, then where is the security for liberty for any person of any age?

2. "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."- Jefferson

These words should guide the President and the Congress in considering public funding for purposes that conflict with the deeply-held beliefs of a large segment of the population of citizens. Senator Frist can hold whatever personal position he wishes on embryonic stem cells and their uses. So can the Reagan family and all families who are struggling with illnesses. Under current law, all privately can contribute funds for research.

The Founders' Constitution, however, provided no mechanism by which government possessed a legitimate right to "compel a man" or to "take" from a citizen his/her hard-earned money to support the spread of ideas that were "abhorrent" to him/her. The talking heads of the Left loves to quote Jefferson when they wish to "exclude" the use of public funds for "religious" purposes. They should be equally fond of his recognition of the danger of "tyrannical" use of the funds of religious citizens for purposes they consider to be threatening to the liberty of all citizens.

Though we are faced with difficult questions, many of them rooted in scientific discovery, science and technology also have provided us with advancements which allow us to "see" and observe human life in its earliest stages (making it less likely for ignorance to lead us to buy into the "antics with semantics" that devalue life in the womb). Technology also has made it possible for us to have easy access to the writings of the Framers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and to the wisdom of the ages that preceded them. Armed with that knowledge, we can be better prepared to refute "counterfeit ideas" that might lead us to erroneous conclusions.

President Jefferson's First Inaugural contained these words:

"The essential principles of our Government... form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety." --1st Inaugural Address, 1801

In addition to the other quotations from the Founders, we might look at this one, although Jefferson was discussing the subject of a popular perception of that day--slavery--the underlying principle is the same.

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" — Thomas Jefferson

By whatever mechanism or semantic confusion employed, the "removal" of the "firm basis" of liberty as a "conviction in the minds of the people" is dangerous to the liberty and rights of all.