|
|
|
« The Tyranny of the Majority | Main | Clinton's Army No More » December 09, 2004Moving Beyond the 'Ick' FactorRamesh Ponnuru offers an interesting look at some new methods for extracting stem cells for use in medical research. As most probably already know, stem cells are currently considered an excellent avenue for medical research into many medical problems, to include Parkinson's disease and spinal injuries among others. Because some prominent celebrities suffered from these ailments, stem cells received perhaps more attention than they otherwise would have, given that their potential remains still almost entirely potential at this point. Since their rise to prominence, however, they have become another heated front on the pro-life/pro-choice battlefield, as the pro-life activists fight to save the lives of what they consider people and the pro-choice activists rail against what they see as snatching potential miracle cures away from other people. As with just about all discussions that involve when life begins, the rhetoric gets pretty heated on all sides. Ponnuru points to two instances where activists on both sides may be able to agree: there are some embryos that are no longer viable, and whose stem cells can therefore be harvested without causing the unnecessary loss of life (from the pro-life standpoint; to the pro-choice side, the argument is that no loss of life is occurring in the first place). Also, it may be possible to create clones that are not viable, but which still possess stem cells that could be used for research. Ponnuru is pro-life, but he notes that he can see no moral objections to the use of either of these techniques. Pro-choice activists may not see this as much of a concession, since they see no reason to object to any use of stem cells. They would be unwise not to use this concession in the spirit in which it is offered. I often hear pro-choice proponents argue that pro-life people care more about the lives of the unborn than the lives of the already born (and please, spare me your examples and we'll just agree to disagree). Ponnuru is clearly trying to find a way around this impasse that would address the concerns of both sides. Maybe it's not enough; maybe it's just an empty gesture (although I don't think so). But it is a concession that would permit greater use of stem cells for medical research. As I understand it, the real issue here is whether or not medical research can find new cures for some of the maladies that plague mankind. Jumping on any opportunity to improve those chances without a prolonged political fight seems a wise option. Posted at December 9, 2004 07:28 AM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI agree that researchers may be able to develop ingenious ways of extracting stem cells without offending anti-abortion groups. And as a matter of politics, it would be wise for stem-cell proponents to encourage researchers to do this. But as a matter of principle, a prohibition on extracting stem cells from "viable" embryos has no merit. This is because both sides are blind to the central moral question in the abortion debate. Pro-lifers insist that life begins at conception and therefore it is immoral to use the embryo for its parts. Pro-choicers insist that life begins at birth and therefore a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. Both sides seem to think that the question of when life begins is absolutely crucial. But it isn't. Indeed, it's entirely irrelevant. To see this, note that this is essentially a question about human biology, and it is not our biology that gives us a right to life. For consider. The reason why it's permissible to eat a cow but not a person has nothing to do with the biological fact that a cow has, for instance, a four chamber stomach or that it has a different number of chromosomes in its cells. Mere biological differences do not create moral differences. If it is indeed permissible to eat cows but not people, there must be some other difference between us and cows (i.e. a non-biological difference) that justifies this. So, the question of when life begins is either a question about biology or it isn't. If it is, it's not relevant to the moral status of the embryo or fetus because we don't have rights in virtue of our biological characteristics. If, however, it is not a question about biology, then I'd like to know what it's about. Only then will we understand whether the embryo or fetus is entitled to the same protections that a fully grown human being is entitled to. There's more to be said but I'll stop for now. Check out sorestloser.blogspot.com for more of my incoherent rants.
Posted by: Mike at December 9, 2004 08:42 AM I agree it is a start and can maybe lead us to see if it is even worth further debate. I just think that there are people on both sides for whom the only acceptable compromise is total concession by the other. Posted by: Scott at December 9, 2004 10:09 AM The truth is that stem cell research is going on now. This includes the use of various sources. The debate is about whether US government grants should be used in these circustances. If it is, research may proceed somewhat faster, it it is not, it will slow research to some extent in this country but not in Europe and the rest of the world. Even California and Wisconsin are jumping into the act, funding research in this area with, as far as I know, no restrictions on the source of the cells. I hope some good comes from this research. The best outcome would be to find ways to create variations in stem cell performance without having to take unused embryonic cells. If we truly learn how stem cells differentiate within the body, we can use existing stem cells in each person to change body chemistry. This would be the ultimate good outcome. Posted by: dad at December 10, 2004 01:17 PM Post a comment |
