The False Controversy Of Stem Cells
Kinsley explains, "If you think it through, the case for embryonic research is an easy one":
An embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope. It has no consciousness, no self-awareness, no ability to feel love or pain. The smallest insect is far more human in every respect except potential.Is destroying that microscopic dot the exact moral equivalent of driving a knife through the heart of an innocent 6-year-old girl? Some stem-cell enthusiasts think that even antiabortion absolutists can support stem-cell research, since it uses surplus embryos that are doomed anyhow. But that logic would justify Nazi experiments on doomed Jews in the concentration camps. If the microscopic dot is a human being with full human rights, the answer is easy: no stem-cell research.
But you don't have to be an abortion-rights advocate to reach the opposite conclusion. In fact, for abortion opponents whose views fall anywhere short of fanatical absolutism, the answer ought to be easy as well: full speed ahead. To the nonabsolutist, it ought to matter a lot that restricting stem-cell research doesn't actually spare the lives of any embryos. That means the lives of real people desperately awaiting the fruits of stem-cell research are being weighed against a purely symbolic message.
It also ought to matter to the nonfanatic that embryos are needed only to start the research process. Most of the research and all the treatments that come out of it will use so-called lines developed out of a few initial stem cells in the laboratory. That makes the stem-cell issue different from ó and easier than ó the one about fetal tissues a few years ago. Fetal-tissue treatments use brain tissue from several aborted fetuses for each patient. An embryo used in stem-cell research has nothing resembling a brain.
A difficult issue is one in which you hold two or more conflicting values. Stem cells are not a difficult issue: either you think a microscopic embryo has the same human rights as you and I, or you don't. Do you believe that a woman who gets an abortion should be prosecuted for murder, just like a mother who hires a professional killer to off her teenage son? Are you picketing around fertility clinics, which kill hundreds of thousands of unborn children ó if that's what you believe a 5-day-old embryo to be ó just like abortion clinics do? If so, you are entitled to oppose stem-cell research. If not, please get out of the way.
Yes, Mr. Bush, do step aside. I think there are a few people out there who'd rather not suffer or and die from diabetes, Parkinson's, and a host of other diseases just because you take marching orders from the Christian fundamentalists. It's still a secular country. Or was -- last time I looked.
It's been called the most faithful nation on the surface of the globe. I'm OK with that! My best (well, only) muslim friend says it's a great place to practive his faith. Many Christians in my life feel the same way about the good ol' USA.
Somethin' fer everyone.
Crid at June 1, 2004 11:50 AM
"Somethin' fer everyone."
Translation for the non-hillbilly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Lena at June 1, 2004 10:05 PM
I don't understand why only Christian fundamentalists are bad. From where I stand, the "liberal" fundamentalists have their own problems. I used to toe the Democratic party line and never questioned it. Now that I think for myself, however, I am labeled a fascist/racist/hatemonger.
Well, if it's a choice between actual freedom and agreeing with what the elites say, I'll take the freedom. It requires more work, but it's more worth it in the end.
Jon at June 3, 2004 11:52 AM