I will likely take some heat from fellow Conservatives on this topic but I feel compelled to put this out there for consideration...
I have a true dilemma. I am fully in favor of all of the means we can use to research and eradicate as many of the heinous diseases and genetic malfunctions possible. I am not in favor of abortion nor am I in favor of the use of labs to create babies. I believe there are pros and cons for both of these issues but find myself a bit of a fence-straddler here.
Why straddle the fence? Well, in the case of abortion I believe there are indeed cases where a couple must make some horrific choices -- the threat to a mother's life, rape/incest, and extreme genetic malformations. For that reason alone, I find it hard to support a total ban on abortion in this country. However, I do not believe that, even in the most difficult circumstances, abortion is a healthy answer because it does great harm not only to the fetus (obviously) but to the psyche of the mother. It's a horrible situation for both. Therefore, my stance is that I believe in more active education about it, tighter restrictions on easy access to abortion, as well as the elimination of funding for abortion clinics by the federal governement. Get the feds out of these types of social issues.
In the case of advanced scientific methods to produce children, there are some really sticky social, ethical, and moral issues that arise when you have no idea from whom an egg has come, from whom sperm has come, and "manufacturing" a human being. I understand the yearning of childless couples because I was one once. I'm now simply childless.
In some instances, it seems, we have let science lead us into situations we have no compass for understanding or dealing with. I'm a believer in consideration of consequences before taking action. There are health-related consequences to children born from unknown donors or from donors who've asked not to be contacted after his/her child is born. One of which is not knowledge of family medical history on that side of the child's genetic tree. That's important.
And so, I now find myself a bit torn about the President's threatened veto of a bill for funding stem cell research. (I apologize for providing no links but I can't seem to find the bill number in any of the text I've read so far.) It's unclear to me whether the bill supports using only embryos that would otherwise be "destroyed" or all fetuses that are destroyed.
Regardless, the point boils down to the fact that abortion and in vitro fertilization are still legal in this country. While they are legal, why should we allow perfectly good stem cells to perish along with the life (or potential life) that they were? Shouldn't some good or some promise come from that embryo or fetus, if it's at all possible that they may help to save another life?
It seems to me -- and this will sound odd, I'm sure -- that we're talking about banning smoking while keeping cigarettes legal. The practices in question in the President's mind are legal. As such, we should not allow a desire for them to be outlawed to be confused with the fact that they are legal. As such, they will be legally destroyed and have served no purpose on God's green Earth. It just seems wrong to me.
I have a true dilemma. I am fully in favor of all of the means we can use to research and eradicate as many of the heinous diseases and genetic malfunctions possible. I am not in favor of abortion nor am I in favor of the use of labs to create babies. I believe there are pros and cons for both of these issues but find myself a bit of a fence-straddler here.
Why straddle the fence? Well, in the case of abortion I believe there are indeed cases where a couple must make some horrific choices -- the threat to a mother's life, rape/incest, and extreme genetic malformations. For that reason alone, I find it hard to support a total ban on abortion in this country. However, I do not believe that, even in the most difficult circumstances, abortion is a healthy answer because it does great harm not only to the fetus (obviously) but to the psyche of the mother. It's a horrible situation for both. Therefore, my stance is that I believe in more active education about it, tighter restrictions on easy access to abortion, as well as the elimination of funding for abortion clinics by the federal governement. Get the feds out of these types of social issues.
In the case of advanced scientific methods to produce children, there are some really sticky social, ethical, and moral issues that arise when you have no idea from whom an egg has come, from whom sperm has come, and "manufacturing" a human being. I understand the yearning of childless couples because I was one once. I'm now simply childless.
In some instances, it seems, we have let science lead us into situations we have no compass for understanding or dealing with. I'm a believer in consideration of consequences before taking action. There are health-related consequences to children born from unknown donors or from donors who've asked not to be contacted after his/her child is born. One of which is not knowledge of family medical history on that side of the child's genetic tree. That's important.
And so, I now find myself a bit torn about the President's threatened veto of a bill for funding stem cell research. (I apologize for providing no links but I can't seem to find the bill number in any of the text I've read so far.) It's unclear to me whether the bill supports using only embryos that would otherwise be "destroyed" or all fetuses that are destroyed.
Regardless, the point boils down to the fact that abortion and in vitro fertilization are still legal in this country. While they are legal, why should we allow perfectly good stem cells to perish along with the life (or potential life) that they were? Shouldn't some good or some promise come from that embryo or fetus, if it's at all possible that they may help to save another life?
It seems to me -- and this will sound odd, I'm sure -- that we're talking about banning smoking while keeping cigarettes legal. The practices in question in the President's mind are legal. As such, we should not allow a desire for them to be outlawed to be confused with the fact that they are legal. As such, they will be legally destroyed and have served no purpose on God's green Earth. It just seems wrong to me.
Comments
That comment may well be the stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet. What it lacks in accuracy is more than made for in its smugness.
I personally don't believe in abortion under any circumstances.
That puts you squarely among the least credible ranks of the pro-life movement. Even Ann Coulter disagrees with you. "I've never heard of anyone who thinks abortion should not be "available" to save the life of the mother. There was never a law in any state that prohibited abortion to save the life of the mother."
Once the current crop of embryonic cells are used up, where will the next ones come from?
The twenty-some-odd established lines of embryonic stem cells (the only ones elligible for federal research funds) are currently being cloned in perpetutity. That's where new embryonic stem cells (for federally funded research) will come from. It's not like you can un-abort the embryos that went into creating those lines, you know.
... once the technology is out there, what stops the evildoers from creating clones for cannon fodder? Nothing I fear.
Are you seriously suggesting that our enemies are bent on creating an army of clones? This isn't a George Lukas movie, buddy. Sweet Christ, get a grip.
Look, I understand the frustration. When the pro-death crowd spouts assinine hypotheticals like, "OK, You're in a room with two buttons. One button will abort Hitler to save the life of the mother, and the other will doom the mother to spare baby Hitler," it gets annoying. And the natual reaction is to take a hard line position like, "I don't believe in abortion under any circumstances." But at some point you have to put your hand in the air and say, this is just silly. Go out and research the issue rather than posit hypotheticals that are just as assinine. Evildoer clone army cannon fodder? Sheesh! What planet do you live on? Is the weather nice?
Dawn? I apologize for flaming all over your comment thread. But I couldn't let that pass.
No apologies are necessary for any comments you leave on this blog! This especially applies to my fellow Conservatives as we comprise a wide variety of opinions on issues of our time. There are Conservatives who don't necessarily agree with each plank of the Republican platform -- I am one of them.
Keith, you're right; even when abortion was illegal it wasn't illegal if it endangered the life of the mother. I don't think "evil" or "not evil" entered into the equation when decisions like that are made, Scott. It's about one certain life saved versus the possibility of two lives lost in some cases.
As for the idea that the current "crop of embryonic cells" might dry up, unless in vitro fertilization and the cloning of the current established lines are made illegal, there will be no shortage whatsoever.
I guess my point all along was this: abortion, stem cell cloning (current line), and test tube babies are all a legal reality right now (despite what we might prefer); it seems to me a tragic waste of the gift produced from these legal endeavors to simply destroy a life that could improve the lives of others.
I would agree with you, RFM, from what I've read, cord blood and adult stem cells seem to hold a lot of promise right now and are certainly the right direction in which to continue research. I simply cannot rule out the idea that embryos that would otherwise be destroyed as if they were nothing might actually give us a gift from God after all through saving lives.
As a fellow "fence straddler," let me say thank you for your thoughtful post. I've been drafting one on the issue of stem cells for days now, and haven't been able to deliver the goods. But now I don't have to, as you've volunteered for lightning rod duty.
You know what? Lost in the heat of this debate (and I admit I've fanned the flames, as evidenced above) is President Bush's consistant, nuanced, pro-life position:
- No ban on stem cell research, embryonic or adult
- But restrict federal research funding to pre-existing lines of embryonic stem cells
Unlike Roe v. Wade (which essentially told half the country, "Sorry! Your views don't count!") Bush's position allows for the funding of potentially ground-breaking research while respecting the view of Americans who have moral qualms regarding their tax dollars going towards the destruction of future human beings. Win-win. It's freaking brilliant! And if Clinton had endorsed the exact same thing, he'd be praised to the stars by liberal commentators everywhere. But, you know as well as I do the double standard in play here.
For myself, I would not have vetoed the senate bill to allow stem cell research using extra embryos from fertility clinics. But I salute the President's consistant moral stance.
I think this whole debate centers on one thing really -- government funding or not? The truth of the matter is that the cures we seek from stem cells will be found in the private sector regardless of government funds.
I'm a firm believer that the Capitalist system provides far more incentives financially to the company that finds the first breakthrough than the government could ever provide. People often point to the government programs and research that lead to the internet we know today. However, I would point to the fact that the government created what it needed at the time and it was commercial entities who made the internet readily accessible to individuals.
The truth is that no matter how many or how few government dollars are allocated to stem cell research, private sector companies will make breakthroughs and those breakthroughs will benefit us all in the long run.