Civil libertarian Nat Hentoff views the pro-life stance as an extension of the fight for human rights, in this case for the really, really tiny ones yet to be born. Yesterday’s reversal of the ban on federal funding of fetal stem cell research was claimed to be above politics and ideology. How can elected officials, or their official activities while in office, ever be above politics? Reminds me of the implied madness in the lyrics of Thomas Dolby song, “She Blinded Me With Science!”
Of course this reversal is political and ideological. To claim otherwise, that political acts are not political, is absurd. Many of the Obama campaign supporters were also pro-abortion, and this reversal may be viewed as a political reward for that constituency, as President Bush’s banning of further embryonic stem cell research in 2002 may be viewed as a reward for his political backers. The question is, which constituency’s position is right.
First, the facts (claimed by Presdient Obama to be that which should drive science). Adult stem cells match or exceed the medical potential of embryonic stem cells, in a way almost making the moral dispute over whether to use fetal stem cells moot. See here, here, and here.
There are at least three facts that make adult stem cells superior to embronic stem cells. Adult stem cells are non-immunogenic, meaning they aren’t rejected after transplantation. But fetal stem cells are immunogenic, meaning they likely will be rejected after transplantation. Furthermore, adult stem cells are non-tumorigenic meaning they don’t produce tumors. Fetal stem cells are prone to producing and promoting tumors. Finally, no harm is done to donors of adult stem cells taken from skin, muscle, marrow, or fat. But there’s total annihilation of the donor in the case of fetal stem cells.
Second, and almost as disturbing, is the double-think denial that any of this is political. Science left to its own devices can lead to horrible things. Science must be guided by moral considerations and ethical guidelines.
I think Cardinal George put it best: “If the government wants to invest in hope for cures and promote ethically sound science, it should use our tax monies for research that everyone, at every stage of human development, can live with.”
For President Obama to assert that his decision is above or beyond politics is both disingenuous and illogical. Clearly his most ardent supporters are appeased by such an action, yet the claim that such research will someday yield tremendous medical benefits is clearly unsubstantiated at present. I cannot agree with Dr. Haessler more when he states that “science must be guided by moral considerations and ethical guidelines” – without such direction it can lead to any number of unintended and dire consequences. It is an express obligation of the President, the Congress, and the courts to defend all Americans, especially the most vulnerable in our society, the unborn.
Tom Noonan
Marquette University High School
Thanks for your comment, soon-to-be Dr. Noonan. I’ve heard that President Obama has issued more executive orders than any other president in American history. Is this true? Does the Constitution say anything about executive orders, or is this an add-on? I’m concerned about the oscillation of policy between a pro-life administration then, with a new administration, pro-death. We need our elected representatives, our servants in government, to be consistently pro-life.
Excellent synopsis of adult vs. embryonic stem cell argument under “facts” and “here, here, and here” above Steve. Will be very useful in communicating with the obstinate, or those with family members with certain diseases who’ve been hoodwinked into believing embryonic holds the only hope.
And if one accepts the cynical view that politicians only care about votes and re-election, then perhaps passing legislation that supports the murder of future potential constituents isn’t the best practice.
Thanks for the comment. Hadn’t thought about the self-defeating implication of policy that reduces future constituents. Speaker Pelosi made a similar nod to this kind of distorted thinking in her ghoulish remarks about how condemns and birthcontrol funding (part of original stimulus package) would save the state governments’ money. Let’s do a thought experiment. To save the states more money, the House could consider outlawing births of any kind for a while. That would save the states even more. But that is not what matters. What matters is that the state governments use their resources to support and promote pro-family policies.