Nov 22 2006
Supporting Stem Cell Research Will Not Win Elections
Update:Would people believe an Embryologist?
Update: For those unfamiliar with basic biology here is a layman’s version of DNA (the core of your existence) and how it is created. In addition, courts have already declared a human embryo a human being. This decision will stand because of the science backing it. More here. – end update
I know High School biology can be a tough subject for some people, but the idea being run around Republican circles now is a disaster in the making. That idea is to support the killing of a human being for their spare parts (which have not formed yet, but if we get the materials and force the cells to do our bidding all is good). Look folks, I am as mad as any independent at the Republicans, they squandered a lot – including a two term Presidency. The confidence in Reps collapsed nation-wide the exact same way it collapsed here in VA: through infighting and paralysis. VA was a deep red state until Reps started fighting and then holding everything hostage. They have been booted out. No one tolerates impotent squabbling for long. But this latest idea is even worse!
I am not religous anymore, I do not attend church. So I come by my opposition to embryonic stem cells because the science is clear – the human being is created at conception and it doesn’t matter at which stage you destroy it, or whether you do it inside or outside the womb, the destruction is of a human being. So if the Republican party will not stand up for life then this country must trulybe lost. When Bush had surrounded himself with the children who resulted from adopting embryos (also out of the womb) I thought the public would finally get it. But apparently this subject (which is as simple as 2+2=4) is too hard for people to get their heads around. It really is simple.
Each individual is defined by their genetic code (it is not their complete essence – but it identifies the individual uniquely). It is their blue print. The code determines hair color, eye color, sex and much more. One blueprint is copied in all your cells. Just one – yours. That blue print is the combination of your biological mother’s and father’s blueprints, and it was created once – for all of time. The blue print is created at conception when the sperm and egg integrate two halves of the parental DNA to create one new copy.
And this new human being with their new and completely unique DNA is easy to identify through the DNA itself. Because the new human’s DNA is different from the parents – very different. It stand apart since it is the combination of two unrelated individuals. Since every cell in your body has a copy of your DNA, science can detect foreign DNA from other organisms present (humans are organsims, so are bacteria and viruses). The very same tests we use in courtrooms across this country will show that a son in his mother’s womb is not part of the mother but a separate human being. The easy distinction to identify is the sex. Obviously a woman’s body will not contain a male’s cells (excluding rare genetic defects).
Those calling for the destruction of an embryo think the term ’embryo’ defines a form or class of life – like cell, limb, organ. But it does not. Elemental biological structures like cells, limbs, organs do not have an ’embryonic’ stage. The words ’embryo’ and ‘fetus’ define a stage in an organism’s life. The ‘organism’ is the individual of any species. Complex beings like humans have all sorts of elemental structures like blood cells and tissue and organs and limbs. But these are parts of the whole individual. Taking stem cells is literally taking away the organism’s limbs and organs and tissues. The cells being robbed from the young human are the precursors to that young human’s organs. That is why scientist want them. They want to complete the maturation process outside the human being – so they can market them as a cure.
Does it matter when science steals a body part to make money? No – of course not. It doesn’t matter if the lungs are yanked before they are even lung tissues, or as the lung tissues are first forming in a ‘blob of cells’. The lung tissue is required for survival and therefore the removal at any stage means death.
Right now I am not interested in being aligned with Republicans. I am a Bush Conservative. But two things could make this estrangement permanent. The first is supporting the killing of humans for their parts. I say this as one deep in science with a similarly deep respect and awe for life. The second problem I have is the treatment of illegal aliens by the far right. In both instances the vaulted Republican cause for ‘sanctity of life’ is shown to be a pathetic charade.
But Embryonic Stem Cell Research kills people – that is a scientific and legal fact that can be proven over and over again. Sadly it is also medical snake oil, because the Frankensteins have not yet figured out how to control the stem cells to build body parts outside the human being instead of the whole person as an integral element of the human being. That is why Embryonic Stem Cell Research fails. If they could sever the head and grow a brain in the lab I think they would do it. Fact is, that is basically what they want to do. A head is an appendage, the brain an organ – so what does it matter when you steal it from the human being?
These modern Frankensteins need to force the stem cells to not build the human being they were programmed to build. They need them to form only parts of the human being they were designed to create. That is the goal of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Ask any scientist involved. Left alone, the stem cells create every organ and tissue and cell type in the human body. Recall that is why the scientists want them so badly. This is clear as day.
When did we come to the uneducated and uncivilized stage where we could take a human, pull it apart and force the biological machinery to do something so unnatural? This is not the path to winning elections. I doubt you can even retain a soul and do this.
Update:: Recall the word ‘fetus‘ is a stage in development that applies to many animals. It is not a species and is not some building block of an organism. Many animals go through the fetal stage.
Steve, I think you’re going a little astray.
First Rush was only ‘mocking’ in the same sense that Micheal Fox did. I’ve watched Fox and he only had those terrible gyrations when he did that ad. They can make all the excuses they want, but M J Fox was ‘acting’ to gain sympathy for his point of view. That’s what Rush was saying.
I’ve lost relatives to Alzheimers and I have no sympathy toward killing babies in a quest to accomplish something that Can’t be accomplished.
ESCR will never hold any hope for that disease and probably no other disease either. Those that imply it will are most likely the ones that will gain by ESCR being approved. It’s not disapproved now, just no Federal money for it.
I don’t understand the holding of Franklyn Graham as some sort of authority as opposed to Pres. Bush. To me, Pres Bush has just as much moral authority as Graham does. Being a minister gives no one ‘moral’ authority.
Having people decide issues on ‘their opinion of what is moral’ may be the very worst way to decide an issue. I also don’t want others using their version of what is moral to determine what is moral to me.
Teddy Kennedy apparently felt like he was moral in driving a young lady into the water. I wouldln’t put that in the moral category.
Killing babies (still in the womb) is okay with me if the life of the mother is in danger and their is a choice. Their are a few other reasons morally for me to abort but they are few and far between.
Killing an embryo(not talking abortion) to save someone is murder.
Are you saying you are okay with that, morally?
Enforcement,
Well that’s a position you hold I suppose, but the point of the original diary entry was how supporting stem cell research was not a vote getter.
My read of the American public is that they are much more Libertarian, or at the very least, leave me alone, than both parties give them credit for. The issue of stem cell research falls into one of those areas where a point of view espoused by the President and others is faith based and is a imposition of a moral code on a matter which a lot of people have exposure to. You’re on very thin ice with the vast number of the public when doing so, and you have to be careful.
I think while most people have some degree of spiritual makeup, they don’t have a great deal of interest in being preached at by the President or for that matter any other elected official. If they want religious guidance, they go to church, if they want the government run, they go to a politician. Two different roles with some overlap.
That’s not to say that politicians should be silent on matters of morality, just not being seen to shoving one specific moral code down folks neck.
SteveWS,
There is no “I believe” to this. Each individual’s blueprint is created at conception – that is when the life starts (you need the blueprint to start!).
Now for us uneducated BS majors in biology, why don’t you prove – contrary to all the science – a human being (a life) is created sometime later. Go for it.
Don’t go to Gospel. I am not saying this from the Gospel. It is not science’s fault the Catholics guessed right. What is it about you folks and just not understanding I am saying these are indisputable scientific facts? Proof in point – I support the death penalty.
Maybe you should just stop guessing and try and focus?
SteveWS,
I am going to ban you for just being ignorant. I oppose ESCR because it kills human beings and I came to that position from a scientific position. If you continue to ignore my points and lump me in with those who come at this from faith then it is clear you are the one with the closed mind. Science is clear – this is not an opinion anymore it is my opinion the earth orbits the sun. I am not exaggerating – that is a one to one analogy.
And my point has been that ESCR is like abortion. The more people understood what was happening the more unpopular it became. But you know what? People like you are the problem. You cannot grasp the science so you pretend it doesn\’t exist. You strike me as those who think the moon landings where faked in Hollywood. They have reasonable story lines – as long as you ignore the facts and reality.
So is it \”preaching\” to provide the scientific facts and include those in the debate? What do you call people who ignore science and rely on mythology for their basis of debate? It would be funny if human lives weren\’t being debated.
Steve_La, here I am sticking my opinion in again.
you said:”If you believe all life begins at conception, your point is
valid. That would be an entirely consistent point of view under the Roman Catholic faith and many others. Under that point of view, you would also be against the death penalty,”
First, what do you mean by ‘if you believe life begins at conception’. That’s not a debateable question. The sperm and egg either combine and create a new life, or it doesn’t. If they combine and do not create a new life, no baby will be born 9 months later.
Would also be against the death penalty? There is no relationship at all.
If a baby is created, he is entitled to a full life. If at some point, that person chooses to do some act that is punishable by death, he himself freely made the choice to forfeit his own life. He didn’t make the choice to forfeit someone else’s life as in an abortion( unless he chose to kill someone which is the act that qualifies him for the death penalty.) The Death Penalty is an earned punishment. The death penalty for an embryo is not earned.
Steve you ever seen a film of all the stages of life beginning with fertilization. At which of those stages would you start calling it a baby? After it is born? before?
By the way, when life begins is not a matter of what faith you are. It’s a matter of scientific fact.
AJ.
The question is not one of science, it’s one of what makes us a human, when is there a soul in that clump of cells ?
The science is well known, sperm and egg come together, fertilization occurs and the cell begins to divide and multiply.
As a matter of science and I suppose law, we draw a line; that before this point in development it’s a clump of cells, after this point it is a human life with a soul. It where we draw this line that people have a difference of opinion. You seem to want to draw that line at the point where the sperm meets the egg, I have given you an alternate point to draw the line. I’m not sure how you decide scientifically or morally who’s right. You have your point of view and I have mine.
Back to the original premise of this blog, the politics of drawing that line. You seem to claim that drawing a line in one place vers the other is something that the American people will reward, I think outside of those who believe as you do that it is not the case.
Steve, the presence of a ‘soul’ is a religious determination, there is no sceintific basis for ‘soul’.
Actually, the best thing I can say is: re-read what you just wrote and ask if that’s reasonable.
You’re saying that an egg is fertilized and starts dividing and at some point there is enough cells that a soul enters? Do you wonder if they have attempted to determine how many cells are required to contain a soul. What if that number were One.
you said:
I’m not sure how you decide scientifically or morally who’s right.
Scientifically there would be no debate. Morally, there should be no debate. The only moral debate is amonst those who want to be able to kill the baby early in the development without feeling guilty about it.
The debate about abortion is not a winning issue for either side.
abortion is certainly not a winning issue for a baby.
SteveWS,
As I predicted. A ‘clump of cells’ is all you are and there is no way to measure the presence or absence of “the soul”. I could argue that you don’t have one! But I could not prove it, so that whole point is mute.
Science has defined much more precise terms for life and obviously you are not aware of them. Life is broken down into basic structures: viral (no cell wall), cells, tissues, organs, limbs, organism, colony, etc. “Clumps of cells” is a term used by the naive and ignorant. It is a term more accurately aligned with mythology. It has nothing to do with science.
The ‘soul’ is not a scientific recognized entity because we cannot measure it or detect it. This is, again, a term used with mythology and religion. What is laughable is you accused me of basing my opinions on religion. Well Pot, meet Kettle.
As you will note on my updates at the top of the post, the law is now catching up with the science (since mythology and opinion cannot be the basis of truth). See a myth is the sun orbits the earth or the earth is flat. A scientific fact is the earth orbits the sun and is a sphere. A myth is a soul inhabits a human being at some time and leaves it later. A fact is the human life begins when the individuals DNA is created and it begins to create what it will be.
It is thinking like yours that demonstrates the ignorance which can lead to killing people. There once was a myth blacks were less than human. There once was a myth bleeding a patient helped them. There once was a myth burning witches killed the evil soul inside….
I don’t believe in myths.
AJ,
I applaud you for putting this subject on a rational level.
We each have our religious or philosophical underpinnings. But we all have our humanity in common. It strikes me that our default position should be to privilege all human life, from beginning to end. That is the only guarantee that all humans will be protected and that we will preserve our dignity as the intelligent species.
Enforcement,
I’m not going to disrespect your point of view by arguing against it, but I will point out not everyone shares your beliefs. Other faiths believe differently and in our pluralistic society we try to get along and respect those we don’t agree with.
Once again, going back to a political matter, the Republican party, or Bush Conservatives if you will, seem to be staking out the position of they are the only ones that are right on this matter. I don’t think you win elections by telling people their beliefs are wrong, and you adhere to the only truth possible.
Even in South Dakota, the people of the state rejected an abortion ban that did not allow for abortions under rape, incest and the life of the mother. This vote can only be seen as bending from an absolutist position of morality on this issue.
Macker,
I too wonder why life is not held in higher esteem. But I am very comfortable using the scientific basis to debate this subject because science, by definition, it the broadly accepted features of reality and truth. Science may be inconvenient – but it simply measure what is and looks for what is still to be learned. People confuse the processing of what still needs to be learned (what is not yet fact) with what has been established (what is now determined to be real, without question).
Once you point out to them the two classes of ‘understanding’ in science (what we know vs what we think is correct) then it becomes easier to grasp the concepts. For example, we think we know somethings about how the earth formed. BUt we know it orbits the sun. Theory vs fact. When a life is created falls in the ‘fact’ category.
SteveWS,
In a discussion revolving around scientific fact, your beliefs are irrelevant. If you want to believe the sun orbits the earth – go right ahead. But do not pretend that kind of personal mythology is a credible basis for determining the policies of this country or life and death issues.
Science is clear here. You may ignore it, but it means your arguments are based on simple beliefs – fantasies. And those fantasies result in the scientific conclusion that kills humans. Rationalizing the killing of humans has a long history in mankind. But not usually in the modern, civilized era. But we do tend to backslide now and then.
Aj,
The problem with all of this started with the poorly regulated IVF clinics. In order to obtain the eggs the woman has to undergo a laparoscopy which carries surgical and anesthetic risks. They will obtain all the eggs they could and fertilize them all thus creating embryos. Then they impalnted several in the uterus in hope of prgnancy. The techniques have advanced considerably,increasing the number of pregnancies and thus the neeed for less eggs. They are a big cash cows and if they have a low pregnancy rate they go out of business,thats why they created this unnecessary number of embryos.
The problem has been with the regulation and is all the FDA and congress fault for looking the other way. They actually are so successful that the rate of multiple pregnanacies is high and they are now doing selective reduction ie. killing perfectly fine babies in uterus to reduce the number of babies. They give the excuse that they lower the chances of early delivery(complications) for this procedure but if they implanted less eggs we wouldn’t have the problem. They charge incredible amount of $$ for the procedures (laparoscopy, implantation of eggs) as well as all the fertility drugs. Nobody is regulating them properly.
As we all dicussed before the proven therapies are all coming from adult stem cells and viral modulation of cells. The true embrionic stem cell is so primitive that it will be hard to mudulate to create the so called spare parts. The result could be the destruction of thousands
of embryos for nothing. The big pharma and genetics companies will support what gives proven results. I hope that these two therapies outbeat the morons of ESCR. They need money for these huge programs. Why they want federal monies is beacuse the big companies so far have refused to give them the billions they need for this experiment. Once again Fox is nothing but an opportunist. His meds are not working in controlling his Parkinson and he so desperately wants a cure he’ll support anything. He doesn’t care how many embryos have to be sacrificed. It’s a G-dless position but quite common in liberal circles.
AJ..
The original tile of your topic “Supporting Stem Cell Research Will Not Win Elections” is what I was trying to respond to. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, serves no point in me insulting you about your beliefs nor does it do a lot of good for you to insult my beliefs. It is your house after all.
While you and I may disagree on as I call it “drawing a line”, it’s the electorate that decides in the end what party and what policies get to draw that line. That’s a political matter, and that was the original point of this topic, but I may have misread. From a purely political point of view, a point of view that life begins at conception is not winning the day outside of the hard right social conservative wing of the Republican party.
Good Doctor,
Yes, that is exaclty how we got here. Having twins we belong to a parent’s of multiples organization (ours are natural and identical) and most are IVF children. What is criminal is the selected killing of the babies. They implant so many the mother has to increase the odds by reduction – or face losing them all.
I wish Congress and the FDA would correct the process because right now they do not need to create these throw away lives. And the suffering by the parents as they authorize and deal with reduction is devastating.
Our twins arrived 8 weeks early. To illustrate the idiocy around the term ‘viability’ and being inside or outside the womb, our twins would not have remained viable inside the womb! So how was it they are healthy and normal? Since we knew the womb was a death trap, the doctor prescribed hormone shots to accelerate lung development. Thus the doctor tooks steps in the womb to increase viability outside the womb! Talk about twisting the arguments upside down.
The twins came out with top APGAR (sp?) scores. Their viability demanded removal from the womb 2 months early and intervention at the NICU to keep them alive. By some people’s definitions they were reasonable sources for spare parts. Thankfully we did not have to face the reduction question – but it comes up in every birth. The doctors are afraid not to maximize one live birth, so the push reduction pretty hard.
SteveWS or Steve_LA (Lost who I was ranting at),
For the very last time. I do not \’believe\’ anything. Science it the collective basis of confirmed fact and reality and what is yet to be confirmed. It is not a belief system. Gravity is real. If you jump from a building you do not have to believe for it to work.
Your views are not on the same level as my pointing to science because your position is based on mythology. The reason the post is titled the way it is because people like you are not the majority. People know gravity is real and they cannot ignore it. They know viruses are real (they are not evil spirits invading your body for transgressions). Your mythology is not reality. But science is. That is what it represents – measurable, undeniable, unambiguous facts.
You can no more dismiss the science of life than pretend my \’belief\’ in gravity is just an opinion. So we have two choices: some people who are ignorant of science and live in a fantasy world of mythology, and others who deal with the harsh reality of life. And you don\’t think these distinctions will not effect how people vote?
It\’s like putting a witch doctor up against a heart surgeon. Not many will support the witch doctor.
AJ.
You’ve made up your mind on the issue, but for more reading by others, like myself who are not so sure, here’s a link to a pretty good web site that discusses the matter.
Sponsored by a group called Religious Tolerance
http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm
Steve_LA (OK, I now have you two totally confused!),
Yes, I made up my mind gravity is real and only fools believe otherwise. I would suggest you take a jump off a building to prove to me beliefs are stronger than science – but I am afraid you might try.
Tolerance of ignorance is fine with me. But do not pretend to stand shoulder to shoulder because you believe in myths and I believe in facts. And yes, people like you will not get broad support. I have to go with the neurosurgeon over the witch doctor every time.
You know, human sacrifices are an ancient mythology which believed the taking of life would bestow benefits on the living. We have not really evolved much beyond that state apparently.
AJ..
Yea that will work, denigrate those who hold a view on a matter of science different than you do as believing in “Witch Doctors”. That will draw voters to your position.
After all, as a matter of scientific fact it was known and enforced by the church as a matter of faith, at least before Copernicus published “De revolutionibus orbium coelestiumthat” in 1543 that the Sun orbited around the earth, not the other way around.
Steve_LA,
Denigrate? I am just pointing out how mythology compares to science. This is not a debatable issue, despite what you have been told. The idea life doesn’t begin at conception is as uninformed as a witch doctor compared to a neurosurgeon. I wasn’t being mean, I was being accurate.
I don’t know what to tell you. The mythology around life is just like the mythology that used to surround medicine. For some reason well meaning people refused to adapt. You think the Witch Doctor cares less for his patients that the surgeon? Nope. He just pales in his skills and abilities.
You keep trying to equate mythology with science. It is not me who generated the comparison. A witch doctor to believes in mythologies to guide his hand. A nuerosurgeon’s is guided by science. He knows nerves are required for mobility, so he does not remove them. He knows blood is need to stay alive and pump oxygen to the body – so he does not bleed his patient.
Sorry you feel insulted. But I have been saying over and over and over the science doesn’t allow me to insert my beliefs. It requires me to conform to reality. Just like a disbelief in gravity will not allow you to fly off a building unaided. You think these comparisons are over the top – but they are not. Established scientific fact doesn’t provide for alternate realities. It just doesn’t.
Feel uncomfortable? Well, now you understand the point of my post. A Republican party that abandons the sanctity of life for mythology is going to die itself. While many republicans came to their conclusions because early Christians guessed correctly about when life began, that does not mean you can replace their mythology with another and poof! there goes 100’s of years of proven scientfic fact.
I truly do not understand how any would believe myth trumps proven reality. There is no difference in a myth saying you can fly and that gravity on earth is just some people’s opinions and your views on embryos. None. Sorry, but that is not my fault because I do not own science. Humanity does. It took a long time to establish the idea of gravity and its existence. Seems it will take time for people to grasp what life means.