Abortion and Stem Cell Research
Conservatives must guard the moral underpinnings of the pro-life stand. That stand is: LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT BIRTH. Pre-birth creation is sacred.
Will pro-life conservatives surrender their stand to a frontal attack? Of course not. But, are pro-life conservatives adequately guarding their flanks? No.
Abortion advocates will not convince a majority of Americans that abortion on demand is acceptable – at least not immediately. So, they seek ways to suggest that pre-birth creation is not always sacred. They argue that sometimes an embryo is nothing more than a farm product – a mere commodity to be harvested and used.
What if abortion advocates could get the federal government to officially recognize that position – that pre-birth creation is not sacred? That would undercut the pro-life stand.
Currently, the greatest threat to the pro-life stand is the effort to use taxpayer money to conduct scientific experiments on human embryos. Once the federal government takes the official position that embryos are no longer sacred – that, instead, they are farmable products – the battle is redefined.
As President Bush stated, “This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake.”
I will not make that mistake. I will be consistent in my efforts to oppose abortion and to support the underpinnings of the pro-life stand.
UPDATE (7/30/05): Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is moving much closer to a veto-proof majority.
It is important to note that science is not standing still at the present. Without taking this step, science is leaping forward. Enormous advances are being made through non-embryonic stem cell research (this is where all the cures are being found). Also, research methodologies are being developed to produce embryo-quality stem cells (pluripotent stem cell lines), without growing an actual embryo for a couple of weeks just to harvest it. See here and here.
And it is important to note that currently nothing prevents embryonic stem cell research. Congress is simply deciding whether the federal government should fund it. The market is not shy about funding scientific advances that might yield health care remedies. If the potential advances from harvesting embryos were to significantly outweigh the actual advances being realized through non-embryonic stem cell research, doesn't it seem like the market would get things going without needing the tax dollars of conservatives who believe embryonic stem cell research is ethically wrong?
UPDATE (8/3/05): Travis Grant makes some additional observations.
Will pro-life conservatives surrender their stand to a frontal attack? Of course not. But, are pro-life conservatives adequately guarding their flanks? No.
Abortion advocates will not convince a majority of Americans that abortion on demand is acceptable – at least not immediately. So, they seek ways to suggest that pre-birth creation is not always sacred. They argue that sometimes an embryo is nothing more than a farm product – a mere commodity to be harvested and used.
What if abortion advocates could get the federal government to officially recognize that position – that pre-birth creation is not sacred? That would undercut the pro-life stand.
Currently, the greatest threat to the pro-life stand is the effort to use taxpayer money to conduct scientific experiments on human embryos. Once the federal government takes the official position that embryos are no longer sacred – that, instead, they are farmable products – the battle is redefined.
As President Bush stated, “This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake.”
I will not make that mistake. I will be consistent in my efforts to oppose abortion and to support the underpinnings of the pro-life stand.
UPDATE (7/30/05): Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is moving much closer to a veto-proof majority.
It is important to note that science is not standing still at the present. Without taking this step, science is leaping forward. Enormous advances are being made through non-embryonic stem cell research (this is where all the cures are being found). Also, research methodologies are being developed to produce embryo-quality stem cells (pluripotent stem cell lines), without growing an actual embryo for a couple of weeks just to harvest it. See here and here.
And it is important to note that currently nothing prevents embryonic stem cell research. Congress is simply deciding whether the federal government should fund it. The market is not shy about funding scientific advances that might yield health care remedies. If the potential advances from harvesting embryos were to significantly outweigh the actual advances being realized through non-embryonic stem cell research, doesn't it seem like the market would get things going without needing the tax dollars of conservatives who believe embryonic stem cell research is ethically wrong?
UPDATE (8/3/05): Travis Grant makes some additional observations.
posted by steve u. at 7/28/2005
Subscribe
25 Comments:
When you say "sacred" I think you really mean "protected under the law," i.e. protected under the same statutes that outlaw harm to another individual. Arguments about what's "sacred" belong in church, not in politics.
He might also mean "ethically mandated."
anonymous-
First off, how hard is it to fill in your name on a post? Secondly, I disagree completely with your point. You claim:
Arguments about what's "sacred" belong in church, not in politics.
Although sacred can refer to religion, it can also mean something of extreme value or importance. Secular society has always defined what is most important to the majority, whether it is family, environment, or economy. I have often heard those on the left talk about the sacredness of land they would like to preserve. Sacred is not a term that signifies religiousness.
There are nine months post-conception and pre-birth, Mr. Urquhart, and embryos are far closer to the beginning than the end of that range. If you believe that human life begins at conception and wish to alter the law of this land to conform to this belief, state so plainly and proudly. But state also what you will do to save the lives of the vast majority of zygotes which are naturally aborted by the mother's next period.
I think "sacred" works when talking about life ("entitled to reverence and respect").
Tom, if I was not clear, I believe life begins when the egg is fertilized and the embryo begins to divide. Though the Court has undone democratic process by declaring its fiat rather than allowing the issue to be decided by the people, I do believe it got it wrong. Congress should not follow that lead by providing funding to harvest embryos.
Josh,
You are wrong, sacred is a term used almost exclusively religiously however I do see your point that it can be used in other ways.
Steve,
You say that life begins at conception but my biggest problem with this is that you have no evidence for it. Infact nobody does, because assuming life begins at conception implies that life or conciousness effectively is a supernatural phenomenon, unexplainable by science. Unless of course, you believe there is a scientific basis for believing that life begins at conception (I apologise this is extremely badly worded)
My question is this, given you believe life starts at conception and assuming that you don't believe there is a scientific explanation for life, what do you think of 'lesser animals'? Are they 'less alive', or not mentally alive / concious at all? Should we treat all animals as we do pests, are they below attaching morals as they do not posess conciousness?
This is what has convinced me that life begins at around the end of the second trimester, when the brain first starts interpreting signals from senses and being able to articulate muscles etc. Sure there isn't any memory or any real coherant structure for quite a while but i'm being safe, not sorry. I'd be interested to hear your opinions, even though i'm a filthy limey.
Regards
At first I was wondering why you choose to lump these two together. But as I read your statement, I understood it. I think that there is another good reason you might not want to support government funded embryonic stem-cell research. And that comes down to the purpose of government. Stem cell (as well as other forms of researcy) really belongs in the private sector. However, government funded research appears to be here to stay. So, you might want to center the argument more around government funding of such controversial research is not appropriate.
Filthy Limey, I mean Paul,
You remind me of a Biology teacher I had a few years ago. On more than one occasion he boastfully informed us that he did not belive in God and implied that religious people were fools and that only things explainable by science could ever exist. The last time I checked "science" had not give me proof that life doesn't start at conception. Therefore, I will be safe rather than sorry and belive that life starts there.
Steve, I whole heartedly agree with you on this subject. However I must say I'm not a big fan of the way you said it. It comes across as some kind of cross between a grand pronouncement and an ugly strategy statement. I would really like to see you just humbly state what you believe. I for one believe that all life is important and worthy of respect, however I believe human life is special. While I recognize that not everyone will agree with me on this, I believe that humans are endowed by their creator with a soul. I believe that their soul is given to them at inception, and therefore if given the opportunity I will work to give further protection to innocent human life.
I just believe that an honest, humble opinion is so much more important (and less threatening) than a strategy. Just put your cards on the table. Then people can decide whether they like it, they can live with it, or they can't live with it. I think that if you are honest and upfront and not arrogant about your opinions, most people will find they don't mind disagreeing with you on a few things.
or... conception
The question here is when does life begin. To answer that you need to define human life. Usually religous people will argue that 'life' begins at conception, when the egg is fertilized. While more a more extreme view is that birth control is, in itself, a form of murder in that it denies life. Those with a more scientific point of view might argue that some semblance of consciousness is required.
Let's face it, you will never be able to get everyone to agree about this. You cannot prove to a very scientific person something that is based on faith. You also cannot disprove a very religous person's faith based belief. So what to do?
Well perhaps the answer is to compromise. Maybe we should look for a humane solution to the problem that involves some give from both sides. I don't want to start a flame war by making suggestions about what that is. However, I think we're all being infantile if we believe that one extremist view or the other will ever result in a solution to this problem.
So if you want to placate your constituency and propose something that is entirely unnacceptable to 50% of the people, then by all means, do it. However, if you truly want to come to resolution on this issue then put a little more thought into it. Proposing the same thing over and over won't solve a thing.
It makes me uncomfortable than all "religious" groups are lobbed into one big whole. Just because the Catholics decided that life begins exactly at conception doesn't mean all of us should beleive the same or do. The predominant religion in Utah (a very pro-science religion) specifically doesn't support the idea that life begins at conception.
The problem is that people think if we concede that "life" doesn't begin at conception then we can't be against abortion.
While I am adamantly against abortion. I can be discriminating enough to admit there IS a difference between an embryo and a fetus carried to full term. I still reserve my right to vote to protect an embryo.
Steve, you don't beleive fetuses should be harvested? What about families trying to conceive?
This position seems more extreme than your other positions. Is this just to differentiate your position from Hatch?
IE: Hatch is pro Stem Cell Research therefore SteveU is against it.
This is just a transparent attempt to put some daylight between you and Senator Hatch. Please don't pretend it's a position of principle.
Hiding behind the slippery slope argument is specious at best. Is the LDS Church undermining the pro-life position by allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest?
anonymous-
1st-You make it sound as though Steve has been in favor of stem cell research in the past but is grasping at straws to find some difference in what he and Sen. Hatch believe. I know that Steve as never been for stem cell research and Sen. Hatch has come out publicly in support of it. Do you have some reason to believe that Steve is not standing on principle with his argument?
2nd-As far as standing behind the slippery slope argument, I think it is irresponsible and uneducated to believe this is not a "slippery slope" subject.
3rd- The answer is no, the LDS church is not undermining the pro-life position by allowing abortion in rare and tragic cases. Are you going to expect Steve to justify and expound upon every position the LDS church takes?
Hey people, forget about religious or supernatural reasons about why life begins at conception. To me, LIFE begins at conception because at that moment you have a NEW CELL that shares part of the DNA of the father and part of the DNA of the mother, but taken as a whole, it has it's own DNA. In other words, at conception, you have created something new with its own rights and privileges.
I think Steve's statement is clear and persuasive:
"Once the federal government takes the official position that embryos are no longer sacred – that, instead, they are farmable products – the battle is redefined."
This doesn't sound like nit-picking, or advocating an overly controversial (especially from a conservative standpoint) strange, or naive slippery slope. I would be interested to hear how the trajectory of treating embryos as farmable products does not or would not redefine the life/choice battle, especially from a conservative perspective.
"To me, LIFE begins at conception because at that moment you have a NEW CELL that shares part of the DNA of the father and part of the DNA of the mother, but taken as a whole, it has it's own DNA. In other words, at conception, you have created something new with its own rights and privileges."
So are animals, trees and in fact anything that meets the 7 criteria for life entitled to the same rights and privileges?
Paul Robins,
I think only a new creation having 48 chromosomes would earn these same rights and privileges. Of course that is just my opinion.
Good comments. Thanks to all. Though I don't entirely catch the gist of it, Adam seems to argue that any position on abortion is flawed because opinion is scattered and any stand will upset some people; therefore, we should just go with the flow. Fortunately, our country was not built on the idea that people who care deeply about an issue (as advocates on both sides of the abortion battle do) must sit back and go with the flow. Because, on issues of importance, someone always will be controlling the flow.
Typically, we help determine the flow through the push and pull of democratic process. Though that process appears awfully ugly at times, it is a tremendously effective way to handle society's disagreements. Our revolutions now are fought largely in legislative chambers instead of the streets. We erupt inward instead of outward. The wounds from legislative battles heal -- largely because remedies exist. If you don't like someone's vote, throw him out and replace him with someone who will vote your way. Hope is only an election away.
The abortion issue, however, mostly has been ripped from that healthy process. In Roe v. Wade, the Court took from the people their debate and decision-making authority. Judicial activism leaves wounds that are very slow to heal. As shown by these comments, huge disagreement exists. Submit the issue to the wisdom of the people.
Ashley, thanks for the tip. As my wife says, "You sound too much like a lawyer." Hey! I paid good money to learn to sound this boring! If you want to volunteer to help put my thoughts into elegantly simple expressions like yours, go to www.steveu.com and sign up!
Jack F., along with my conclusion that we could have more energy and focus (and better results) from this Senate seat, I also am drawn into the race by certain policy concerns. Embryonic stem cell research is one. Though you label my position "extreme," to me it is simply my position. As the commentor succinctly notes, if an embryo has its own DNA, how can it be called anything other than life?. You can disagree. That's your right.
Thanks, again.
I am just seeing if this works. I do, however, agree with Steve.
Mr. U.,
Again, good luck in your journey!
I thoroughly respect your decision to run for office, and set your priorities in order. I may disagree with them, yet you are entitled, and will either succeed or fail because of them. However, I would like to vent some issue with your recent posting.
YOU SAID: "Though you label my position "extreme," to me it is simply my position."
Well said. BUT, if this is true for you, then I assume that it is true for anyone else who disagrees with or takes an opposing position. Have you ever used the term liberal, left wing, or democrat in a negativistic or derogatory fashion? If so, then what you say is hypocrisy.
Leter in your response to another poster you said:
"The abortion issue, however, mostly has been ripped from that healthy process. In Roe v. Wade, the Court took from the people their debate and decision-making authority."
The term "Choice", to me, implies that people retain decision-making authority. If people were forced to have abortions, or were never allowed them, then decision-making authority would be lost. Can you please explain?
Finally, I believe that the embryos being considered for use in stem cell research are ONLY those that will be discarded from freezers that will soon lose viability, or who's limit in storage has run out. I do not think that anyone, not even the liberals, would consider asking women to have abortions just to use their embrionic cells. And while abortion is legal at this point, then why not use what's available...until or if it is ever outlawed?
Doc!
Thanks for clarifying your stance on this issue. While opinions on this matter are broad and varied, I believe your stance is closer to that of the majority of Utah voters than is Senator Hatch's.
Ah, this is a slippery slope. If this is your position then you should take a good look at in vitro fertilization. Here is where it all starts. A couple creates maybe 6-10 embryos in the hope that a couple of them will take and produce a baby. Those that are left over are discarded. And we're talking tens of thousands of them each year. So if we take your logic to its conclusion, fertility clinics are a bad thing. You cannot have it both ways.
Wow, lots of good opinions! Perhaps the one thing we can agree on is that we all disagree. It's obvious that there is no consensus on this particular issue.
In my opinion, the divisiveness of this issue mandates that we act on the side of caution by continuing NOT to Federally fund EMBRYONIC stem cells research. If, in the future, a clear majority of constituents favor this particular type of research, then so be it.
But let's get one thing straight... EMBRYONIC stem cell research has been ultra-hyped by the media. It is not likely that it will prove to be "Holy Grail" of medicine to cure everything. There are alternatives, including other types of stem cell research, that have no moral issues attached. We should continue to focus on these other methods. If you don't know the difference between EMBRYONIC stem cell research and other types, please do some research and find out for yourself!
Steve - I'm glad you have asserted your position so firmly.
<< Home