Home › Blogs › americanmale's blog ›

Can We Ever Get On Board With Stem Cell Research?

Submitted by americanmale on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 00:30
in

The Stem Cell Debate


The Stem Cell debate is going to take center stage almost immediately after Obama takes office. In fact, as of December 20th, 2008, he has filled his scientific staff with not only experts on climate change, but also with experts in the field of genetics. Thus, it behooves the republican party to have a thorough understanding of the issue...and more importantly, to form on a position consensus.


Definition Of Stem Cells


According to the National Institute Of Health (NIH), Stem cells have two important characteristics that distinguish them from other types of cells. First, they are unspecialized cells that renew themselves for long periods through cell division. The second is that under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, they can be induced to become cells with special functions such as the beating cells of the heart muscle or the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.


Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, which have different functions and characteristics. Scientists discovered ways to obtain or derive stem cells from early mouse embryos more than 20 years ago. Many years of detailed study of the biology of mouse stem cells led to the discovery, in 1998, of how to isolate stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in the laboratory. These are called human embryonic stem cells.


Human Embryonic Stem Cells have unique characteristics in that they are unspecialized, they are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods, and that they can give rise to specialized cells through a process called differentiation. It is this differentiation process that can be used to create specialized cells which form the basis for replacement or regenerative therapies.


The Issue


It is widely believed by the scientific community that theoretically, Human Embryonic Stem Cells can be used to form the basis in providing cures to many of the advanced ailments of the human condition. The problem politically however, is that the only way to obtain Human Embryonic Stem Cells is through extraction of a fertilized embryo from a woman's utereus; in other words, through Abortion. And we, as republicans, are adamantly against this.


However, one cannot ignore the great healing potential that the Stem Cell approach could offer. So much so, that if successful, Stem Cell therapy can literally be categorized as something that contributes to the betterment of mankind...right up there with penicillin, the Polio vaccine, the Malaria vaccine, and all the other great medicinal breakthroughs.


So on one hand, we have an abortion...and on the other hand, we have the potential to cure that little kid with bone cancer, or that father of four who was paralyzed due to Multiple Schlerosis. Which do we choose? The saving of a life or the taking of a life for the betterment of humanity.


Indications And Current Perception


The 2008 election has indicated that the majority of the citizenry is for Stem Cell research simply through election of a candidate who has stated in no uncertain terms that he is adamantly in support of such research. The issue was clearly not a disqualifier for the majority of the electorate. And because of this, it can also be deduced that anyone, or any group that opposes Stem Cell research will be regarded as against the betterment of humanity.


By being against stem cell research, we, the republican party risk being seen as the ones who don't want the Michael J. Fox's to stop experiencing those violent tremors. We'll be seen as the ones who don't want the Christopher Reeves and others with devastating spinal cord injuries to get up and walk. And we'll be seen as the ones who don't want to help the young experiencing the leukemias and other life threatening diseases. In other words, we'll become the party of the cruel. And that alone will turn others off to our message both now and in the future; especially if success is achieved with Stem Cell reasearch.


Can We Ever Get On Board With Stem Cell Research?


Being against the eradication of the ravages of disease is not a popular position. Since elections are all about popularity, it might behoove our party to find ways to get on board with Stem Cell research.


It is widely understood that the conservative christian component of our party is the most vocal and the most adamantly opposed to Stem Cell research. In their mind, Stem Cell research is an abortion, plain and simple...and they are right. It is the taking of a life. But could this issue be reframed such that it can at least get an important part of our party to open up to the idea; if only for a limited but not full time basis?


Sacrifice For The Betterment Of Mankind. Does That Thought Process Make Stem Cell Research Viable?


The bible has taught the concept of sacrifice through the story of Abraham in the old testament and most definitely through the story of Jesus in the New Testament. The bible also teaches the concept of healing and also answers the question as to whether or not we should be messing with this advanced stuff through the parable of the ten talents. So does this thought process open up some wiggle room on this issue for our conservative christian friends?


If so, then the issue further breaks down into an issue of ratios. i.e. what is the acceptable number of lives that can be positively affected / saved by the taking of a single life that exists within that fertilized human embryo?


Guarding Against The Pitfalls Of Supply And Demand


Since Stem Cell research is going to take place, what I believe we all can agree on is that we don't want the number of abortions that are going to take place to become a function of supply and demand. That is, we don't want all these research firms to be offering huge sums of money for the fertilized embryos. We don't need a bidding war and we don't want abortions to become like the modern day practice of giving blood for a fee. That should be non-negotiable. And, I believe there is a good moral basis for this in the minds of everyone whether pro or con on the abortion issue.


Furthermore, Stem Cell research is still just a theory. We need to loudly remind everyone of that. This might buy us some temporance on the abortions performed to "stock" the research shelves. Being the moral majority on the issue might hold water in the minds of all. The opposition knows our position. They'll understand our watchdog mentality on the issue. In fact, they'll expect it. Transparency of the research MUST be provided.


Publicly Stating We're On Board....For Now....


Is it better to be included than excluded from the process. If we're seen as divisive on this issue, we'll be excluded and we won't get any say. We need voice and thus we need to be perceived as part of the solution. I personnaly believe that we can't afford to be marginalized on this issue.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

We should stand AGAINST fetal stem cell destruction

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 00:53.

We should stand AGAINST fetal stem cell destruction in all cases no matter who it "might" help. It violates the sanctity of life to use fetal stem cells. Besides, no progress has been seen with fetal stem cells while adult stem cells have shown promise.

Adult stem cell research is a great idea.

Your theology should not determine public policy

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 01:38.

The position that life begins at the moment of conception is a theological one. If you don't want to benefit from therapies developed from stem-cell research, you can decline them. But you can't deny  the rest of us becasue of your religous beliefs. Have you ever contemplated what goes on at an IVF clinic? Hundreds of thousands of embryos on ice now, that will eventually be stroyed. Why isn't that an outrage? Becasue IVF is huge benefit to hundreds of thousands of families. (If you've ever lead a campaign against IVF, I salute you for your consistency, even though I still disagree with you.)

What "theology"? I stated no

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 08:31.

What "theology"? I stated no premise of "theology." Nor did I mention a word about "when life begins." As usual, you are all about inferring.

The simple fact of the matter is, it is unethical to treat human life as a commodity. If we do that, then there are NO moral limits to what use can be made of the human being.

But, if you are all about mere practicality, perhaps you won't mind giving up your heart to someone in need? After all, why is your lowly life any more important than theirs?

Capice?

Because I am a person

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 09:58.

A few hours old clump of cells is not.

Why is your theology any better?

Submitted by WoodbridgeVa on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 12:29.

Examination of scientific literature indicates substantial debate regarding when life begins including conception, gastrulation, the development of brain cells, viability and birth.  Nevertheless, biology 101 teaches that living organizms tend to expel dead cells from the body as rapidly as possible, the alternative being a variety of nasty often fatal medical conditions.  This would seem to indicate that either the ferilized egg is alive, or it's mother's body is failing to function properly.  The fact that abortive intervention is required to prevent further development is an additional indication that life has begun.  These are not theological arguments, they're scientific and biologic facts.

You can make a legal argument that a ferilized egg, undiferentiated stem cells, or fetus does not have any more of a seperate identity from the mother than her kidney's and it is her choice to modify or remove body parts as she sees fit.  However, that is a legal not a scientific argument unless you bring brain waves and/or viability into the discussion.

Voltaire, who was no bible pounding Christian, pointed out that athiests tend have the most fundamentalist theology because they can look at a clock and still argue there is no proof of a clockmaker.  Your dogmatic rejection of the possibility that life begins at conception is, in its own way, every bit as theological as the opposing argument. 

BTW, traditional Christian theology actually provides a stronger aregument for your case than science.  Prior to about 1820 almost all Christian denominations, including Roman Catholicism, accepted the idea that life began at what was called "quickening" when the fetus could be felt to move within the womb.  Abortions prior to quickening were considered the ending of a potential not an actual life and still considered sinful but venial not mortal and more of an unfortunate decision than the taking of a human life.  It was actually the scientific knowledge regarding fetal development gained during the 19th century that motivated many religious leaders to push back thier view of when life begins to ultimately embrace conception.

My theology ISN'T any better.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 12:56.

We don't make laws on the basis of theology in this country - that is the point.

The fertilized egg isn't a person.

Have you ever worked in a legislative body?

Submitted by WoodbridgeVa on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 13:53.

In the real world, legislators at local, state and federal levels base laws on science, prior law, philosophy, theology, popular opinion and gut feeleings.  Many of them may be ignorent, mendatious, venial etc. but most of them are honestly trying to craft public policy that promotes the public good.  And over time, they define the public good as whatever the overwhelming majority of voters indicate is what they want.  Those who fail to accept this critieria tend to have short careers and are quickly replaced by those who do.  Last time I looked, voters are free to base their votes on any criteria that appeals to them.  You might choose pure science. WTH may choose pure theology.  I tend to favor reason and logic informed by both science and theology.  I agree that no individual denomination's doctrain should determine public policy but if we abandon theology all together than where does the state gain its moral authority to define right and wrong in the criminal code?  From pure majority opinion?  That sounds a lot like mob rule to me.

So, is majority opinion good or not?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 14:30.

You've got it cutting both ways in your comment.

A majority of legislators may enact a law promoting Catholicism becasue they genuinely believe it promotes the public good. But it will still be struck down by the Supreme Court becasue it is unconstitutional.

Theology is not the only source of moral authority. Our Founding Fathers were deists and the Constition and Declaration of Independence are shot through with the application of reason, not consultations of religous texts.

Umbilical Cord?!?

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 12/21/2008 - 02:58.

I thought this debate was setteled when we discovered that umbilical cord stem cells and human baby stem cells were identical.