Thank God for Senator Frist!
July 29th, 2005 bySenator Frist has taken a brave stand in opposing President Bush’s shortsighted ban on using embryonic stem cells for research. The use of stem cells from embryos slated for disposal anyway will not cause a single abortion to happen, will not cause a single unanticipated death, and has nothing to do with “growing” embryos for stem cells.
The practical arguments against embryonic stem cell research are circular and poor. I was sitting here jsut a few minutes ago watching Fox news. They had Michael Reagan on as a commentator. He demonstrated, quite nicely, the self-contradiction of the pseudoscientific arguments against embryonic stem cell research. He advanced simultaneously two arguments. First, he argued that embryonic stem cells are not necessary because all the “good stuff” has come from adult cells. He said (from memory, so the quote may not be exact) that “all cell lines are not equal,” and embryonic cells are demonstrably inferior. Second, he argues that the extant cell lines provide all that is necessary for research.
The self-contradiction there is stunning. I don’t know how he thinks people will fall for it. If “all cell lines are not equal,” then how in the world can he claim that of the billions of lines around, the seventy some-odd selected by happenstance are the seventy some-odd best? That’s silly. Either all the cell lines are equal, and embryonic cells are redundant, or they are not equal, and the probability that at least one line is better than what is available now approaches unity. You can’t claim both.
And, of course, this self-contradictory argument does not address the real difference between embryonic and adult stem cells in terms of pluripotency. Reagan argued that adult stems cells were superior because all the good research has resulted from work with them. That rather begs the question since research on embryonic cells is not funded. The fact is that embryos provide a reservoir of more varied and more pluripotent cells than can be easily derived from adults. Embryonic cells have greater developmental potential than adult cells, in general, with more general potential application to such things as ocular repair, Parkinson’s disease, and many others. Those who oppose embryonic stem cells assert as a matter of faith that the same potential is present in adult stem cells, but this is by no means clear.
A hard-core pro-lifer can make the ethical argument about the fruit of the poisoned tree. If disposing of the embryos is unethical, then using the embryos is unethical. It is the same argument used to condemn Nazi experiments on concentration camp victims. Even had the Nazis done good research (they did not), it would not have been permissible. The argument that Jews were going to die anyway does not excuse experimentation on them. Similarly, the argument that the embryos are going to be disposed of anyway does not excuse the use of them for experimentation.
But, in fact, even most pro-lifers are not hard-core pro-lifers. Most pro-lifers I know oppose abortion for reasons other than really believing that a one-cell embryo is really a whole person. There is a whole range of ethical judgements about abortion, from being literally pro-abortion to being neutral to supporting some restrictions to supporting a limited ban to supporting a complete ban. I suspect that those on the far end of the spectrum think they have more support than they do.
In a pluralistic society, we must recognize that reasonable people can disagree. Frankly, I am pleased that Bill Frist chose the real pro-life position.
Posted in Politics, Religion | 5 Comments »
July 29th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
I was pleased to read that as well. I’d like to see more people from both sides break away from their party lines and take reasonable, moderate, principled stances on issues.
July 29th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Hi, Paula. Thanks. you got to this while I was still typing it!
July 30th, 2005 at 9:27 am
A hard-core pro-lifer can make the ethical argument about the fruit of the poisoned tree. If disposing of the embryos is unethical, then using the embryos is unethical. It is the same argument used to condemn Nazi experiments on concentration camp victims. Even had the Nazis done good research (they did not), it would not have been permissible. The argument that Jews were going to die anyway does not excuse experimentation on them. Similarly, the argument that the embryos are going to be disposed of anyway does not excuse the use of them for experimentation.
Bill – This is somewhat confusing as part of the basis of your argument. You are in favor of using the embryos for stem-cell research, Yes? But I am quite certain you would be opposed to using Jews for medical experimentation.
If anything, the logic of the pro-lifers in this instance is sound.
I therefore am confused why you would cite this scenario in order to try and bolster your argument that the use of embryos is NOT unethical.
July 30th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
No, Mark, I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to contrast the rather good ethical argument with the poor and circular biological argument. Hard-core pro-lifers are on much more firm ground when they stick to ethical and moral arguments. They fall apart when they move to biological ones.
It’s the same problem that creationists have. Creationists think that they are using (bad) science to defend their faith. They are not. Faith is orthogonal to any scientific findings. Instead, they are using their arguments to pretend there is a rational proof of God that does not depend on faith — in other words, Creationists are Creationists because of the weakness of their faith. If my reading of the scripture leads me to believe that water should flow uphill, when I observe the opposite it means that I have misinterpreted the scripture, not that I should lose my faith or that I should stubbornly insist that it flows uphill anyway.
Reagan’s pseudoscientific arguments against the use of embryologic stem cells are weak in part because they have nothing to do with the real issue.
The problem with the ethical argument I put in the pro-life mouth is that, at the level of embryonic research, it simply begs the question. The hollowness of this ethical position is that if they really felt this way, they should spend their time where the damage is done; they should work to ban in vitro fertilization. Oddly, I know a lot of “pro-life” people who have gotten pregnant using in vitro fertilization. They seem to have dealt with the issue of the disposal of the extra embryos. If that is they case,they have lost the basis for their ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research. They can’t say “Yeah, flush those extra embryos down the sink now that I’m pregnant” and also say “It’s a sin to kill them.” If using in vitro fertilization to bring the joy of life to infertile couples is a good, pro-life thing, then one cannot use that argument against embryonic stem cell research.
July 30th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Oh. Well. Why didn’t you just say so? LOL ;o)>