Josh Feit at The Stranger blog reports that Mike McGavick went on the record in support of the stem cell research bill pending before Congress. The bill passed the Senate today 63-37 with the support of Majority Leader Bill Frist and 18 other Republicans. I think this is a good bill and I'm disappointed the President intends to veto it.
Reader Tim sent me this e-mail:
Subject: WTF?!?Whatever, dude. Maria Cantwell also voted for the bill, so I have no idea what Tim thinks he's going to accomplish by asking to be "counted out." Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 18, 2006 04:14 PM | Email This[McGavick is] pro-choice...and now he supports research on human embryos. Count me out.
There has not been one single advance with embryonic stem cells. None.
Follow the money... that's what this "research" is all about.
Furthermore, the whole campaign to approve government funding is premised on the fact that private funding is scarce, and the reason for that is that the promise of embryonic stemm cell research is decades off, if at all. Meanwhile, adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research have already been successful in helping thousands. We hear little about that in the MSM because the elites are intent on forcing upon us the embryonic path. The argument that they would be killed anyway is specious. That never justifies doing wrong. Elementary logic and morality should make that apparent.
Posted by: Arnold Conrad on July 18, 2006 04:40 PMIf embryonic stem cells are the supposed to be the magic wonder that people claim they are how come we haven't heard about some other country working magic with them? I mean, we're obviously not the only country capable of moving forward with this research. Other countries have been researching. Where's the results?
Posted by: mikey on July 18, 2006 04:44 PMI think there are 2 things missing that should be in the bill. First: Labs that product the cells should not be compensated for giving the cells to research. Second: for the first couple of years there should be monthly reporting on where the cells are coming from to insure high levels of ethical behavior concerning the cell donation and transfer of ownership.
Posted by: Mikey on July 18, 2006 04:47 PMThis shows Stefan has a pretty low opinion of McGavick's integrity, which may or may not be a justifiable position to hold.
My opinion is that McGavick truly supports embryonic stem cell research. The man is not very conservative, and this is another indication of that.
I also don't think McGavick is especially liberal, so perhaps Stefan's inference that the man is unprincipled is just after all?
Posted by: huckleberry on July 18, 2006 06:25 PMEven if you could navigate your way around the moral implications for your own selfish ends, you would ask that I compromise my values for your experiments. That is repugnant to me (and a significant portion of the populace).
Just like federal funding of abortion, it is adding insult to injury.
my 2c...
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 18, 2006 06:47 PM"Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
" 1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
" 2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
" 3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation."
In addition, the bill requires the following report, which will obviously keep the issue under scrutiny:
"Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section."
This is a complex debate, where our understanding of the science (whether it be adult stem cells, the application of chord blood cells, the use of embryonic stem cells, etc.) continues to evolve. Moreover, any therapeutic advances in this field are a long way from coming to fruition so I encourage everyone to dial it down a notch. For example, the Cheryl's exhortation to "follow the money" on this issue is off-base since the issue is about government funded research, not about potential profits - which as noted are years away from materializing - for companies that may actually turn such therapies into reality, if those therapies ever materialize.
If the President vetoes the bill that's not the end of the world, and if the bill stands it's not an unbearable compromise. Both sides have some passionate arguments to make, and in our system of governments these sorts of compromises are routinely the result of such passion. People that insist on making decisions about candidates solely on one issue make me think they should exercise their right not to vote if they're going to be that careless about it.
Thank you for the informative read...
Does it mean that NO EMBRYOS from abortion/harvest other than from fertility clinics under the the guidlines above will be used in this research??
If that is the case, I think that I could support this....The possible cures that the research could produce will certainly help those that suffer currently....
I will of course do more research, but that is my take so far... Just my opinion.
Posted by: Chris on July 18, 2006 08:33 PMIt's just it is his first veto and that he could have vetoed a ton of bills that were more significant and pork laden and would have reduced the deficit, but NOOOOOOO...... He is better than the alternatives in 2000 and 2004. Howver, with all due respect, I can see some of Forrest Gump in him, especially when I hear him speak.
Posted by: KS on July 18, 2006 08:41 PMThose who have seen the embryo in a stage of growth inside the womb, compliments of the ultrasound machine, know that life started the second that human egg was fertilized & became an embryo, and when the growth is not interrupted it lives out the life it started with.
Is it any wonder that abortion is so popular, with such an attitude of...Life really isn't Life until it "looks" like it!
Posted by: Susu on July 18, 2006 08:45 PMI am with Sgmmac, It is MY body, and no one shall tell me what to do with it, but.....
From reading your posts above, I am making an assumption here, that you don't believe in Fertility Clinics either, or "test tube babies"......
From Eric's post @ #10, it reads that the embryos are from the fertility clinics that are no longer needed.....
The same Women & Men that go to the extent of Fertility Clinic's desperately want children, and the last thing would be to Kill a child/embryo/fetus....
So what should we do with the Un-Used embryo's. Have a funeral???
Posted by: Chris on July 18, 2006 08:53 PMIs it just me or does this sound like the bio-diesel fraud. I am pretty sure people have made big profits from government research projects. Just because the government is funding the research doesn't mean no one is making money.
I am a pro-choice Republican and I haven't made up my mind one way or the other on this issue. However, I take a dim view of people who try to woo people into thinking that the government is a non-profit orginization.
The Right to Life should be all of our #1 issue. That is why we form a government in the first place! ("...all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...Governments are instituted among men to protect these rights"--Declaration of Independence)
But for those who are so shallow to place a higher priority on taxes, then support of this bill should be a deal breaker too. We knew McGavick was "pro-choice", but didn't he say he opposed federal funding of abortion? So he's against federal funding of abortion, but not against federal funding of research on human embryos who were deliberately created for destruction. To bring up that Maria Cantwell would have supported it too, is a non-sequitor.
This is why the WSRP has got to stop shoving candidates down our throats so early on. Open up the doors for all candidates to get in and have a real debate about the issues. When was the last time you saw a debate between two primary candidates in our state party? Stop slamming the door on the competition! Competition is a good thing. It's Republican!
Posted by: Michelle on July 18, 2006 09:32 PMAnd as Eric notes, it's way, way to early to predict what cells, if any will be of benefit, and other issues realting to this research. Thus, Bush is on the wrong side of science on this one. We'd be better off continuing research to determine the implications for human life. I suspect that a large percentage of the population would be for even the use of embryonic stem cells if they knew they held the key to saving an actual human life, especially that of a child.
But never confuse the potential with the actual. An embryo is not a human. It is a potential human. Every single woman loses an embryo every month of her adult life that she does not carry a pregnancy. We think nothing of this loss, so why would we not choose to use these cells if they could help living humans?
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 18, 2006 09:50 PMA few years ago, embryonic stem cells showed promise. Since then, however, many of what were believed to be limitations of adult stem cells have been overcome. Adult stem cells have enough inherent advantages over embryonic ones (including the ability to, generally pretty easily, be produced to perfectly match an intended recipient) that it would be useless to develop a therapy using embryonic cells that could have been done instead using non-embryonic ones.
The only way embryonic stem cell research could serve any valid purpose would be if it were found to be possible to do something with embryonic stem cells that can't be done with adult ones. But it doesn't make sense to do that research unless or until something is found that adult stem cells can't (and likely never will be able to) do.
Posted by: supercat on July 18, 2006 10:29 PMI think this is a right to life issue. If the government gets in the business of funding embryonic stem cell research, researchers will impregnate eggs to create embryos. If you don't think that embryos are humans, then when does the embryo become a human? Many believe that life begins at conception. Many seem to believe that an embryo is not a human. When, then, does it become a human? An embryo becomes a fetus at approximately eight weeks. Is it a human then? If so, why then? How can you differentiate? Is there a distinctive point in time when an embryo becomes fetus, which then becomes a human, or are those timelines and distinctions artificial, crude definitions created by mankind for simplicity? If you believe that an embryo becomes a human only at birth, then partial birth abortions should be legal.
Every woman does not lose an embryo every month. She loses an unfertilized egg. There's a huge difference. Some fertilized eggs don't get implanted in the uterus, but that's nature's handiwork.
Yes, there are hundreds of embryos that will probably get discarded. Does that make it right to destroy them to harvest the stem cells? I'm not trying to further a point of view, just asking a question. Perhaps they never should have been created in the first place.
Is Bush really on the wrong side of science on this issue? Says who? This argument reminds me of the global warming debate; "the debate is over." From what I read there is much debate about the promise of stem cell research. Again I go back to an earlier argument that private researchers would conduct this research if they thought it would pay off. Arguing that the federal government should fund the research is an emotional argument, not one necessarily grounded in science.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 18, 2006 10:49 PM1) Eric, you quote a section of the bill in which it clearly says that the embryonics in question will have been derived from embryos donated by fertility clinics. As it currently stands, federal funding is limited to about 70 pre-existing lines of cells, with no additional embryos sacrificed. Your asserion that this bill would modestly expand funding for research is simply wrong. Any funding in this area will represent an infinite increase in funding, as the current funding level is zero.
2) I thought there were some conservatives here. I was under the impression that the purpose of the federal government was to manage the relations between the states, defend the national borders, coin money, and a few other necessities of that sort. Can someone point out where in the Constitution there is an authorization to throw money down a black hole in vague pursuit of some elusive medical treatment that the private sector has all but given up on?
3) The wasting of embryos is not a necessary byproduct of fertility treatment. A couple of friends of mine made a point of going to one which did not.
4) Jeff, women naturally shed an egg once per month, not an embryo.
5) Last I checked, there were about 65 working treatments in practical use resulting from research on adult stem cells. From embryonics? Zip, zero, nada. Because thousands of very bright researchers have spent numerous years and hunderds of millions of dollars trying to figure out how to tame embryonic stem cells, i.e. to slow down their tempo, keep them from developing the inevitable cancers, and manage the genetic instability and rejection by the immune system, but without even any dim hope of luck. That's why the private investment money has dried up. And with the private money gone, investors are still vaguely hoing that someone will ride to the rescue with billions of dollars and magically find something that will salvage their investment. That's where the taxpayers come in.
6) If embryonics actually could be made to work, the demand for human egg cells would go through the roof. Natural production rates are low, and the percentage wasted in the process is extremely high. So for each aging Hollywood starlet who wants to get rid of the bags under her eyes, thousands of egg cells would be required to be produced, and the like source of these eggs would be women in the Third World on some very unhealthy drugs intended to supercharge their ovaries. That's if embryonics can (slim chance) be made to work. And if they can't be made to work, it's a waste of money anyway.
7) Oh, by the way... each embryo is an individual human life. For what it's worth.
Posted by: TB on July 18, 2006 11:12 PMElaine @ 18 - I think biodiesel is peculiar issue, just like you, but this one isn't comparable. I used to work in government relations in the biotech industry. I didn't agree in full with stem cell advocates, but I can tell you there is no profit to be made in the field right now. It's a minute part of the industry, and any research, whether federally funded, state funded, or privately funded, is years away from treating patients (and thus earning a profit).
Michelle @ 19 - You say, "human embryos who were deliberately created for destruction." While I admire your passion about the issue, it would helpful if you did some research on it. I can't say I fully support this bill, but anyone can tell with a bit of reading that it just has to do with frozen embryos from fertility clinics that are otherwise not going to be used. The process you describe isn't being discussed. Indeed, the other bill I referenced in my first comment specifically prohibits variations of the process you seem concerned about - which I've never heard given serious consideration in any Congressional discussion of this issue.
The objection is on moral grounds. The assumption is Christian morals. Well, for you Christians out their (I know what I speak, since I am a Christian), the Bible does not state that life begins at conception, nor that the life begins at the formation of the egg (or sperm). The most common quote is from Psalms where God (through David) states that "I knew you in your mother's womb." This could mean life could begin at any point. If you are for not killing of embroyo's harvested for fertilization, then you should be against the harvesting in the first place. You should also be against all forms of contraception, except the rythmn (natural) method. The Catholic Church at least is consistent in its stands. Many Protestants are hypocrits.
The problem is the religious stand that life begins at conception is only 20-25 years old. For the hundreds/thousands of years before that the Christian stand was neutral to when life begin. You can still be against abortion and not believe life begins at conception. My belief is life begins when their is recognizable brain wave and/or the heartbeat (i.e., opposite of when life ends). This would rule out abortion in all cases, but not the Day After pill, nor stem cell research.
Posted by: tc on July 19, 2006 06:04 AM
Dude you hit it right on the head!
Plus I would like to remind everyone that California is doing it's own cell work (tax payer) have you heard anything from them on advances? Nope.
Plus does anyone remember the Korean doc who faked his work on stem cells?
Need I say anymore.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 19, 2006 06:51 AMFor the people who say ( It's my Body )
Fine and your right. I have no problem with that, but at the same time, if you want to play "DON'T" ask me and the other taxpayers to pay for YOUR so called mistake.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 19, 2006 07:07 AM
I respect your opinion, but IMO if there wasn't "choices" (ie birth control, abortion, ect) for the woman, the "mistakes" would be costing you hundreds times more, in health care for both the prenatal and future baby care.
I don't believe in Abortion, but It's not my right to take away the right of another for that choice....Just because I don't believe in Abortion, doesn't make another womans choice WRONG. I can't force my opinion on another.
So, if we flip to the other side, if you take away the "choices", DON'T ask me to pay for the medical/social care of those mothers and children who didn't have a Choice.
Posted by: Chris on July 19, 2006 07:26 AMI think there is a role of government to promote science for general welfare of the people when the private sector will not invest because there is little profit motive. But I think this money can be better spent at this point on science that has shown more promise.
Posted by: Palouse on July 19, 2006 08:22 AM
You say, "human embryos who were deliberately created for destruction." [...] I can't say I fully support this bill, but anyone can tell with a bit of reading that it just has to do with frozen embryos from fertility clinics that are otherwise not going to be used.
Eric,
My weird cousin Enos used to work at the hospital back home. Whenever a woman went in for a hysterectomy, Enos would sneak around back to the parts bin, dig out the uterus, and eat it. We all thought that was a pretty peculiar thing for Enos to be doing, and spent considerable effort to pursuade him to stop doing it. But old Enos just said to us, hey, it was just a pound and a half of tissue, and they were gonna just throw it out.
Eric, your argument reminded me of Enos.
Don't be so condescending, Eric. I know exactly what this is about.
Posted by: Michelle on July 19, 2006 09:46 AMImagine you are in the privacy of a doctor's office with your child, secure in the doctor patient confidentiality agreement. Your child has a debilitating condition and will die very soon if not for one promising treatment. The treatment involves embryonic stem cells, taken from discarded embryros from a fertility clinic. With that treatment, your child would most likely live on, as many other children had before when this doctor performed the treatment.
Which staunch pro-lifers would condemn their own child to death, for the sake of a few cells in an embryo, that were otherwise going to be discarded? Many might comment back sanctimoniously, but if this was your choice, in your own private world, I bet you are going to choose for your child. I know I would.
If you want to be consistent and a staunch pro-life advocate you must be against in-vitro fertilization. Period. Currently, unused embryos are destroyed; is that not the same thing being railed against? Wouldn't you want to mandate that ALL embryos are implanted, none are left out?
Essentially, to me, if you want to argue that using embryos for research is abortion, then you must also argue that in-vitro fertilization is abortion, for it leads to the destruction of unused embryos.
Personally, I think once an embryo is implanted, abortion is off the table. While the embryo is outside a womb, though, I do not think there is an issue.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on July 19, 2006 11:09 AMIn a perfect Pro-life society what do we do with all the unwanted children? I doubt there are enough infertile couples to adopt them all.
Do we limit the number of children couples can have?
Does the goverment fund orphanages(sp)?
Do we encourage other countries to adopt them?
Who will feed, house, and clothe them? Who will be responsible for these babies that no one wants?
I dont believe in abortion, but I will not tell another woman what she can do with her body.
I can answer that question for you. Back on
March 2nd Mike McGavick told the Seattle pi
that he supports a woman's right to an abortion.
Chris,
You won't tell a woman she can't kill her baby with an abortion even at seven or eight months in the womb? Does McGavick think it is a decision between a woman and her doctor?
Also, certain ethnic populations (e.g. east Indian, other Asian) from British Columbia regularly come across the US border into Washington to abort babies in order to "choose" the male gender over a girl. You think that's OK too, Chris?
I will not tell any woman what to do with her body...Period.
I already stated I don't believe in abortions, so by you sarcastically implying that I would encourage someone to have an abortion is rather rude.
Well, I'm not trying to be condescending. Your initial position implied lack of research on the issue since you accused people of creating embryos specifically for destruction. I don't believe most people would agree with your assertion that couples creating embryos as part of fertility treatment are "creating them for destruction." So I'll amend my comments to say that instead of doing more research, you should take a more realistic view of the motivations of the couples that actual go through such treatments.
Moreover, for the benefit of remaining readers, it would be fair to acknowledge positions you've taken at this site before on issues related to conception that are neither in agreement with a majority of Americans nor a majority of Republicans: that being that the use of contraception even by married couples is wrong. I'm not trying to argue that point since it is a whole different debate, but it adds a degree of understanding to your position on this issue.
I don't have a problem with the President's veto earlier today, but I don't believe you're going to get consensus support that the bill in question is "'donating' these extra babies for research.'"
I will not tell any woman what to do with her body...Period.
I already stated I don't believe in abortions,
________________________________________________
Chris. I never said a woman doesn't have a choice, but if they want a abortion.
Please pay for it yourself and not us taxpayers.
I'm pretty sure if we started doing this, both men & women will think about it. (protection)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 19, 2006 12:33 PMAnd yes, I do believe as the Catholic Church teaches on abortion, contraception, invitro-fertilization, and embryonic stem-cell research. I'm more interested in being in line with my Church and my God than I am with the majority of Americans or Republicans. That said, the majority of Americans are against abortion atleast, and definitely the majority of Republicans.
Posted by: Michelle on July 19, 2006 12:52 PMRight on, tc! Nobody who objects to harvesting embryos can make a coherent argument why it's murder, unless they're also willing to argue for a redefinition of what constitutes the death of a human being. Should we redefine "death" from "irreversible lack of brain-stem activity" to mean "not until every individual cell in a person's body has died"?
That would be absurd, and yet those who believe that a person's life begins way before the brain even starts to exist (8 weeks or so AFAIK) are logically basing their passionate beliefs on exactly that kind of absurdity.
Posted by: EmmaPeel on July 19, 2006 01:47 PMConversely, supporting federal funding for embryonic stem cells isn't much of a blow against the Constitution - not in this day & age when it's studiously ignored daily by both administration & Congress when they write up their unconstitutional budget bills.
Posted by: EmmaPeel on July 19, 2006 02:06 PMThe bulk of the discussion in the comments has been about what to do with the research in question, but since you, correct me if I'm wrong, oppose the very creation of the those embryos to begin with your argument is somewhat of a moot point. You saying you don't support the original bill in question is a no-brainer since I don't believe you support in vitro fertilization period. And as "Edmonds Dan" pointed out, that's the logical extension of such a position. But it means you're even beyond the President's position since his veto ceremony today included "snowflake children," the product of other unused embryos. I just think it's worth noting since it is an important distinction given the complexities of this debate.
Yes, I'd agree that my pro-life views go beyond the president's. But you haven't even asked my postition of "snowflake" babies. It is a difficult one, of course. The difference however, is that with "snowflake" babies, an attempt is made at SAVING the life that was unethically created in the first place, rather than destroying it. BIG difference. Very much like caring for or adopting a baby that was conceived out of wedlock. However, I have difficulty in supporting this move as well, because it might perpetuate the demand for babies created in this unethical manner. Still, I understand and support the sentiment.
Posted by: Michelle on July 19, 2006 03:29 PM"Women don't HAVE to get pregnant. There are intelligent ways to avoid that."
_____________________________________________
If this was a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your viewpoint is yours, but don't expect the 12 year old neighbor girl to understand it. Or the 16 year old neighbor boy who was messing around with the 12 yr old neighbor girl. Or the woman/child in a home of incest, or the rape victim at your local university.....
Explain your viewpoint to those people. Help them through the next nine months. The mental health counceling, providing a safe place for them to sleep, eat, and feel whole and wonderful.
I had a "spontaneous abortion" (aka miscarriage) when I was 23, the "fetus" didn't represent a Baby in any respect. I experienced the mental and physical "pain" of losing this "blob", because that is truly all it was, a blob. I know first hand what an "abortion" is, although it was not of my choosing.
So the next time you read of a rape or incest crime , remember your own words
"Women don't HAVE to get pregnant. There are intelligent ways to avoid that.Posted by katomar at July 19, 2006 12:33 PM"
I know there are those who will immediately dismiss it because of its source (LifeSiteNews.com) or for whom it was originally written (The National Catholic Bioethics Center), but if you do dismiss it that quickly you will have missed an opportunity for another point of view and further discussion. How very sad to be that closed minded.
Why Embryo Destruction is Worse than Abortion
Special to LifeSiteNews.com by Professor Richard Stith
Several prominent anti-abortion politicians, including Orrin Hatch and Bill Frist, joined the Senate majority in endorsing the public funding of embryonic stem cell research. To the casual observer it might appear that the arguments against abortion must be stronger than those against publicly funding the destruction of embryos. This conclusion, however, would be mistaken. The funding of destructive embryo research is actually worse than legal abortion.
Some might disagree, arguing that the continuing identity of a developing being means that embryo research cannot be better or worse than abortion. The politicians are wrong to say it is not as bad as abortion, but it is also wrong to say that it is worse. "All stages of life are stages of the same being. Each of us was once a human embryo. Each of us is just a human embryo that has grown up. And we have been alive the whole time we have been growing and developing-that is, since fertilization. If one of us had been killed at any time before we were born, a human life would have been lost. So abortion and lethal research on embryos are equally bad."
Others might argue that, if there is any difference, abortion is the worse of the two. For abortion involves not only killing but betrayal.
In abortion, parents destroy an unborn child entrusted to them, who depends on them, a child whom they have a moral duty to nurture. By contrast, the scientist who dissects an embryo is not harming his own offspring. He wrongs life, but not necessarily the family. So how can one possibly contend that embryo research is worse?
*Dehumanization*
Let us take a closer look. Someone choosing abortion need not be completely set against life. She typically does not want abortion with all of her heart. Rather, she is filled with desperation and panic. She often has been, or fears she may be, abandoned or harmed by one or more persons whom she herself has trusted. Even if her fears are not so great that moral culpability is absent, she is not fully an enemy of her unborn child. She may profoundly regret what she feels compelled to do.
If only the circumstances were better, if only she had enough support, she would let her child live.
The abortion provider, of course, is not under such duress. He is not pressured by circumstances to perform abortions. And yet, in a sense, he too is only contingently against new life. He performs abortions only because his clients ask him to do them. By contrast, the scientist seeking funding for embryonic stem cell research wants to destroy life-and convince the public to pay for it. His lethal aim is not even contingent in the sense that "if only there were another possible route to cures," no embryo killing would occur. There is, in fact, a shorter route, via adult stem cells. Would-be embryo researchers demand to be carried by the public down the longer and more uncertain path.
Moreover, almost all abortions aim to preclude an "unwanted child." Of course, this is profoundly contrary to the care owed by parents, as has been mentioned. But abortion paradoxically reaffirms the very parent-child bond that it betrays. The fetus is unwanted precisely as a child who must eventually be cared for by her parents. They fear and reject her because she is their own offspring. Because she is their child, they feel a duty to care for her if she lives. Therefore, so that they may escape this duty, she must die. Both a parental relationship and a parental obligation are acknowledged by the act of abortion.
Therein lies its tragedy.
Embryonic stem cell research, by contrast, is wholly dehumanizing. When parents turn the living human embryos they have begotten over to science, they not only forget them as children but also turn them into commodities, donate them for eventual body parts. The embryos become wholly instrumental, they become resources to be calculated and consumed. They are degraded before they are destroyed. Like human embryos created by cloning, they do not die as unwanted children, or even as human beings, but as things to be used and used up. No greater negation of human dignity is possible.
*The End of Choice*
Lastly, tax-funded embryonic stem cell research is worse than legal abortion for our public community. Legalizing abortion is not quite the same as desiring abortion. It is logically possible, even if unjust, for a legislature to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice, just as people could once be anti-apartheid and yet defer to the sovereignty of South Africa.
By contrast, no one in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research can say "I'm not for killing embryos. I'm just pro-choice." Such legislators want human embryos to be dissected. Stems cells must be extracted. In states like California and New Jersey, where embryonic stem cell extraction is funded by the public, the law can no longer be labeled even euphemistically "pro-choice."
Even where abortion is publicly funded, the government does not insist on death. No officials are angry if funds previously allocated to subsidize abortion are left unused because women have freely chosen life. The abortion-related equivalent of embryonic stem cell funding would involve using taxes to pay women to abort their children, as part of scientific experiments aimed at distant and uncertain cures.
Richard Stith, J.D. , Ph.D.
Valparaiso University
School of Law
Indiana
This article was originally published in Ethics & Medics, volume 39, no. 9 (September 2006). © The National Catholic Bioethics Center. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
Permission to republish granted but acknowledgement of source (use LifeSiteNews.com) is *REQUIRED*
How would I know your opinion on "Victim Pregnancies" I am not a mind reader...Your post put all women in one catagory, "Women don't HAVE to get pregnant. There are intelligent ways to avoid that.Posted by katomar at July 19, 2006 12:33 PM"
I got over my miscarriage many years ago, but I still remember the emotional pain of it. The questions I asked of myself, the DR's response when I asked him why. He said it is for the best because it probably was retarded anyway......So do you really think that I could support abortions? I don't....But I still feel it is a womans choice. It is a personal decision...I am not the judge or the jury, only my "god" is.
IMO, you can't be on both sides of the fence on this issue. Take away the choice of abortion, and you will find back alley abortion clinic's popping up all over...Keep the choices, and Educate society about the available options other than abortion , and hope your point of view is recieved.
Cheryl,
Thanks for the other point of view. BTW it wasn't too long :)
Posted by: Chris on July 19, 2006 06:35 PMBRAVO...... I agree totally.
Posted by: Chris on July 19, 2006 09:49 PMThe URL for the article is:
http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
I would state based on the description the Embryological View or the Neurological view best describe how I view the situation. To me, as a Christian, what is important is when can we state a "soul" or a distinct individual exists. For those who believe in life at conception, please refer to the discussion in the article about twins (i.e., distinct individuals may not happen until up to fourteen days after conception and each with the same genetic DNA -- identical twins) and with the term conception itself (i.e., conception is a process that can take 12-24 hours to complete--there isn't a single moment).
Posted by: tc on July 19, 2006 11:31 PMThere are two things I took away from this article above all others: 1. One can easily choose any one argument and claim justification for their already formed position, and 2. from the last line of the article
"While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."
These two points make it clear to me that one cannot use either the justifications of the arguments presented NOR science itself to answer the question of when human life begins.
And therein lies a huge problem.
The problem is that no matter what choice you use for your "transition" from non-human to human, you run the risk of that very same justification being extended beyond the confines in which you are currently comfortable. By this I mean once you make some established demarcation between what makes one human you have to also define what is not human regarding an entity that is fully and completely genetically human. In other words, you do not decide based on the genetic makeup of the being but on some measure of that being. and once you open the door to "measuring" the quality of a being, you allow further extension of those very same arguments to expand the definition of what fails to qualify as human. It is inevitable.
The thing about human life is that it is a continuum of development. There is no discrete separation between not-human and human EXCEPT FOR CONCEPTION. I will concede the point at which conception occurs is in dispute, but that leads me to conclude that once the chain reaction begins, you have started down a path of development that would require intervention to halt. It is when this automatic chain reaction begins that we must acknowledge as being the most precise demarcation of the transition between not-human and human. Any other reference point is disputable.
What happens after the sperm enters the egg is a series of self-perpetuating events that leads to the culmination of a you or a me. But the you or the me that is today was not the you or the me that was yesterday, last week, 2 years ago, 20 years ago. We are in a perpetual state of "becoming". I am becoming who I will be. This fertilized egg is in a state of "becoming" who it will be. Who are we to say when that becoming has sufficiently "become" to be considered human?
That clearly forces us to define "human" in terms that are consistent morally, philosophically, and maybe scientifically. But again, brain waves, physical developments, ability, reason and all those measures are not sufficient to answer the question without positing the question of what happens if someone has a deficiency or a defect that leaves them short in a particular measure?
But I digress. My point is the process of "becoming". We all are becoming and are not yet who we will be later. All fertilized eggs are becoming. It is a continuum that begins at "conception" and ends at death unless that process is deliberately interrupted by human action, natural events notwithstanding. But, the debate here is the question of human intervention. When is it acceptable to interrupt the "becoming" nature of a developing human being, for it is the intervention that is occurring in the case of abortion. If left to its own, this life would continue its progression to it full "becoming".
What does that then say about the creation of a set of cells that are genetically equal to that "becoming" life and yet has no hope of fulfilling its potential without the intervention of human science? That is the ethical question we must grapple with once we begin to intervene in the actual CREATION of life outside the framework that would allow it to "become" on its own. These questions will only get harder as science gets more sophisticated. Without a clear and substantive position on what "human" life is, we will be subject to constant debates and arguments and erosions of our morality as justifications for "improving" the existence of those who have achieved an acceptable state of "becoming".
A question posed much earlier about whether if I was sitting in a Doctor's office and told that my child's disease could only be cured by technology used though embryonic stem cells. My response to that would be a definitive NO. It appalls me to no end the level of selfishness that is implied in that process; that one would be willing to sacrifice an unwilling life in effort to save one's own or the life of a loved one. We will all die. Many of us sooner than we would like, and plenty much too early and much too tragically, but I would not extend that tragedy by sacrificing another life or in this case hundreds or millions of lives in the effort to extend mine or another. I will die, and when I meet my maker, I want to be able to look him in the eye and answer the question "what did you do to the least of these." And this is no idle position. Two of my adopted children have congenital heart defects, and were adopted with us knowing that fact, so I am aware of the potential for an abbreviated life.
I fully understand the heart of those who have compassion for those afflicted with disease. It is noble to want to find a cure and to wish all could live happy, healthy lives into their 80's and 90's, but I question the cost. I question the contract with the devil and whether it is even necessary. Sure it is possible that embryonic research might present a cure. It is also possible that some other therapy will solve it in the future, making the embryonic solution obsolete. The question is, how many must die to extend one life? In my view one is too many. We have our lots, we should not be so quick to sentence others to a less fulfilling fate for our benefit.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on July 20, 2006 10:40 AMThe problem I see it however, is no matter how well you write the laws, can you write them well enough. I will give an example. A couple finds out that their unborn child has a very, very rare disease that has cause the brain stem to fully form. The likelihood of life after birth is 0%. The likelihood that the fetus is already dead or will die prior to birth is extremely high. Should the mother be forced to carry a dead fetus, or should the mother be allowed for labor to be induced with all likelihood that the premature fetus will die in the process (if not already dead)? Should this case be allowed or disallowed under an abortion law?
You see the law can be "fuzzy." The minute you start writing exceptions you open up a can of worms. The minute you exclude everything a case may come along that doesn't fit the pattern. The above case is very, very rare medical condition.
Posted by: tc on July 20, 2006 02:57 PMalso agree that there should be a consensus on what is life. However, I don't believe that right now the majority of Americans would agree (absolutely) with your (or my) definition of life. This is where I think the politicians need to work on where there is a majority opinion, such as third trimester abortions.
Something bothers me greatly about the idea of life being defined by what the "majority" believes at the time. As it stands now, most people are ill-infomed on just about every subject under the sun. If you asked the average person about stem-cell research I bet you will find that they have no idea about the difference amoung adult, plecental and embryonic stem-cells. They would not know which ones have been proven effective in any therapies nor what the current state of research is in any of these fields. They would have no way to judge the moral implications of their "opinion" as asked by an opinion poll taker or as described in a ballot measure.
If you remember from your article, there were societies in the past (and mybe some currently) where the majority believed leaving a baby out to the elements to die was acceptable.
I would much rather have something a little more concrete than the opinions of the fickle population in this country.
From another part of the post:
I will give an example. A couple finds out that their unborn child has a very, very rare disease that has cause the brain stem to fully form. The likelihood of life after birth is 0%. The likelihood that the fetus is already dead or will die prior to birth is extremely high. Should the mother be forced to carry a dead fetus, or should the mother be allowed for labor to be induced with all likelihood that the premature fetus will die in the process (if not already dead)? Should this case be allowed or disallowed under an abortion law?
I counter with this: What is better, the aborting of 1 million babies a year so that this rare case is not wresteled with when it comes up or having the parents of this child risk carrying to term a child that probably will not survive? One cannot eliminate the tragedy already existing, but is it worth the allowing of a million other tragedies to lessen that one?
No one has a perfect solution. You can come up with scenario after scenario that will represent a "worse-case scenario". But if we we truly "value life" as we say, and believe unequivacally that live begins at conception then we cannot simply remain silent while tragedies at the clip of a million per year continue. I don't want to say that ther are no exceptions to "no abortion", I would much rather see a society that equates abortion with tragedy and live birth as something to celebrate at all times regardless of any unfortunate circumstances that might have lead to that conception. But our society values personal convenience above nearly everytying else and seems practicaly allergic to self-sacrifice. The richest nation in the world and we cannot even step up to care for our own children. History will not remember us well in that instance.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on July 20, 2006 04:48 PM(Note: A mother known to LifeSiteNews.com, and who would like to remain anonymous, wrote the following article in response to an op-ed that appeared in the Globe and Mail. That op-ed was written by a mother, calling her self C. Smyth, who told how she chose to abort her unborn child because the baby suffered from a chromosomal disorder. "Isn't it more cruel to bring a child burdened with so many disadvantages into the world?" Smyth wrote.)
July 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The graph is still taped to the inside of my kitchen cupboard, pencil on a string dangling down beside it. It depicts the progression of my newborn daughter's weight, most days showing a moderate increase, and thus reflects a thriving child. It ends abruptly at 80 days.
Recently, C. Smyth shared her agonizing and very personal decision to terminate a pregnancy after testing revealed a severely disabled child.
My husband and I were faced with a similar difficult decision. We too were in our 40's, educated and financially stable. We have 5 children at home and we love sports and travel. The kids do well at school, are athletic, and all are healthy as horses. Life was good to us.
We first heard of our daughter's genetic condition long before she was diagnosed. It was considered a lethal condition, an extra 13th chromosome. Most babies don't make it to birth and those that do live a few years and are severely disabled. I thought, "Well, what is the point of that life?"
When the geneticist uttered the dreaded words, "your daughter has trisomy 13," and it was a diagnosis about my baby and not someone else's, the reality was entirely different. With the ferocity of a lioness, I wanted to love and protect this little girl, and do all that I could for her. If her existence was only to be a few more months of kicks and flutters in utero, then I wanted her to have that life for the sake of both of us. We named her Annie.
After the diagnosis, the research began. It was frantic, and went long into the night for months. I researched medical details and personal stories. We communicated with parents all over the world who had a child with this very rare condition. We discovered that the babies can live longer, but they may need a lot of medical treatment. The most amazing discovery was that the parents continually stated that they treasured and delighted in every day of their child's life. They knew with certainty that the gift of that life was not theirs to keep. The children, called "survivors" were blissfully happy and progressed developmentally, albeit slowly. It became increasingly clear to us that unless the medical intervention to provide life was excessive, Annie was better off alive than dead.
We were not sure how we could do it. I was the kind of mom who usually forgot to pack a diaper bag. I would often be impatient when one of my children couldn't master the math skills in their homework. Could I ever develop the patience for a child who may not be able to sit on her own for a year? How could we fit Annie's care and needs into our busy schedule? We had 5 soccer teams in the summer! We were more frightened than we had ever had been in our lives. Love for Annie compelled us forward.
Annie was born full term, crying. She was mildly afflicted, as the syndrome goes. She needed a very small amount of oxygen and had hypoglycemia. Annie could not take all of her nutrition orally and so she had an NG tube (nasal gastric tube), which was a tube that went in through her nose down into her stomach. I became skilled at its reinsertion, every 3 days. We fed her expressed breast milk. Somehow, we dealt with all of the issues. We knew that with time Annie would take more feedings orally and her need for oxygen would lessen, and likely be eliminated completely.
We knew the first year would be rough. Everyone pitched in. Our 12 year old son took over the lawn maintenance and his older sisters took on Annie's developmental progress and bought "mind stimulating" music and ordered her a "Bumbo seat" to help develop strength.
The whole family came together in ways that I never dreamed possible. We discovered how true our friends and family were by their support and encouragement. Somehow, the homework got done and the gang made it to their soccer games.
At age 75 days, Annie smiled at us for the first time. Even now, a year later, the memory of that first and only smile causes me to cry.
Annie experienced respiratory distress at age 80 days and was transferred by ambulance to the Children's hospital. The physicians told us she had pneumonia. Our beloved baby died less than 24 hours later.
There are two ironies to this story.
The first is that we thought we had a choice of life for Annie but the reality is that we did not. The medical records, which we instinctively felt compelled to obtain and have had reviewed, reveal no signs of pneumonia. An effective "Do not resuscitate" was ordered without our knowledge or consent. The final computerized medication report from the intensive care of an excellent hospital is inexplicably missing.
The hospital issued a letter of apology stating that sometimes "... communication does not occur in as clear and consistent a fashion as we would wish. For that, we are very sorry." Recent developments in medical science can be used to diagnose and terminate certain lives but the choice to use medicine to prolong these lives doesn't seem to be an option.
During her 80 days, our little Annie taught us our greatest lessons in life. Through her life, we experience the deepest sorrow and the most intense love. She taught us the true meaning and purpose of life and we are forever changed as a family. Our children have learned that if they are ever in need, their family will love them, protect them and do anything to support them, just like we did for Annie. They developed an incredible empathy for the disabled and the vulnerable.
The ultimate irony is that this little girl who seemed so broken, flawed and seemingly without purpose or value, was in fact, perfect after all.
(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com, a production of Interim Publishing.
Permission to republish granted but acknowledgement of source (use LifeSiteNews.com) is *REQUIRED*
I am hesitant to state that legislation is the answer. We had legislation before Roe vs Wade and we still had illegal abortions being performed. Did it reduce the amount? Yes, but it didn't eliminate them. How many pro-life proponents obey the speed law? Laws in themselves don't always dictate behavior.
As for majority, I think the starting point is a vast majority of the country, outside of the minor group that believes life begans upon the child exiting the mother's cervex, would agree in outlawing third trimester abortions unless the mother's physical life is in danger (not whether her mental health would be impacted). This is a start. The problem is it never gets off the ground because of the over emphasis on Birth at Conception and when does life begin issues that there isn't a majority in any camp. As long as it is an all or nothing battle we will not move anywhere, and needless abortions continue to occur.
I wish the battle would move to common ground and not stay so polarized. The referenced linked article provides evidence of an evolving line of thought that involves philosophy, theology, and science. One field doesn't have the complete answer. I say give it time and let's do act on what we can agree on today. I would start with third trimester abortions and then look at second trimester abortions. I wouldn't worry about the unclear battles of the morning after pill or stem cells. Why can't we work on what the majority already is agreeance on?
Cheryl,
A gripping story, but it isn't necessarily related to the issue I brought up. In the story you state, the infant did have a possibility of living but potentially in a diminished capacity. In the story, I stated, the issue was the fact that the core functioning vehicle to transmit the neural impulses to the rest of the body did not form. The organs, even, would not function upon birth. I wish I knew the name of the disease. There have are only a few (less than 10, or lower, I believe) cases per year. The other unfortunate fact is that once it occurs in preganancy it has a high likelihood of repeating in future pregnancies (I believe). I am somewhat fuzzy on the facts. To me it was a heart-wrenching story that the parents agonized over. They did end up inducing labor early and mourned the death of their unborn child.