Yesterday, President Obama signed an order that would effectively lift the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Yes, that’s right, your tax dollars will now be used to fund the destruction of innocent human life, and for what purpose? To advance science and keep up with the rest of the world? Or to over-turn Bush-era policies and to ensure that we “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology?” Obama also went on to say that “our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.” What he fails to mention and what the media fails to report on are the great strides that have been made with adult stem cells.
So, this begs the question, what are the differences between the two? In brief, here are the advantages and disadvantages to embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. The National Institutes of Health had this to say regarding adult stem cells:
A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient’s own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient’s own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.
Conversely, embyronic stem cells run a much higher risk of causing transplant rejection when they are introduced into a patient from a donor. Ok, so why use the embyronic stem cells in the first place? Considering that embryonic stem cells are “master cells” and they can morph into any cell in the body, they sound like a more practical option. But again, these are day old living human embryos! Where do we draw the line between the progress of science and the regard for human life? Do we respect life in all of its stages or do we turn against that ideology in favor of the possibility that we might be able to save and enhance the lives of others?
Dr. Curt Civin, the founding director of University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine said this regarding the lift on the research ban, “Now, the silly restrictions are lifted…” “…this was already life that was going to be destroyed,” he said. “The choice is throw them away or use them for research.” Hmmm…”already life that was going to be destroyed?”
In 2001, President Bush delivered a speech to the nation about his position on stem cell research and how he planned to move forward with it. Reading through that speech, it is clear that Bush was trying to find some way to allow science and ethics to coexist with one another. Ulitmately, he came to the decision to provide federal funding for research and experiments only dealing with those stem cell lines that had been previously discovered from privately funded research. Therefore, Bush was not making the life and death decision because it had already been made and could not be undone. For a while, this approach to embyronic stem cell reserach appeased the science community, but they quickly discovered the immense benefits of expanding the research and funding to include the other embyronic stem cell lines (i.e. ones that would require the destruction of human embyros). It was only a matter of time before the politicians and media began to pressure the Bush administration and label them as ‘anti-science.’ Yet, Bush never waivered and went against his moral conscience.
And so here we sit today with President Obama saying: “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” And yet, one can only help but guess the reasoning behind Obama’s blatant dismissal of Bush policies and such a reckless regard for human life-all this happening at at time when the focus should be on the worsening economic situation. But of course, I am sure that this executive order doesn’t serve any political agenda or a particular group of people (ahem, like those that he made campaign promises to). And I am certain that this is not guided by any particularly ideology. No, its just another sign of the moral decay happening in America today.
I totally agree, my heart is breaking for all the unborn lives that are being sacrificed for the sake of choice or questionable science. I feel the President is allowing and legalizing a form of infanticed here in American and throughout the world by resending all the executive orders allowing our tax money to not only fund abortions here at home, but using money we don’t have to fund abortions all across the world. Sad Sad Sad,
Joe, thank you for your comments. The big problem with issues like abortion and stem cell research is not so much the issues themselves as it is the mentality and logic used to support them. The postmodernist movement and way of thinking reject the idea of an absolute truth. It is this ideology that has led to heated debates on controversial topics like abortion and stem cell research. As a result, the secular, postmodern community rejects the idea that there is any truth to the argument of pro-lifers. It has become a common notion that just because there is not a consensus on a topic that there is no objective truth. This is absurd and it is a product of people thinking based on emotions instead of using logic reasoning. The truth is that abortion is morally wrong because it violates basic human rights, but I will save that for another post.
An interesting take on the policy change and how it affects the scientific community’s view on political intervention.
Totally agree, Jeff. This is really a worldview war. Every issue in our culture stems from differing worldviews. What needs to be shown is that secular humanism is a defunct set of beliefs that one cannot honestly live with in reality. Only Christianity does that. The President’s act (or acts) only shows his deception in claiming to be a Christian. Of course, he probably really knows nothing of true Christianity. Let’s keep him in our prayers.
Oh, and thanks for starting the blog, Jeff.
T. Ritter
“— and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”
But when looking back to high school biology what are scientific facts. They are scientific theories proven correctly.
If you take scientific theory out of the scientific thought process, you essentially stop scientific fact. Science is progressive, with technology moving forward as it currently is, five year old facts are four years out of date.
Nice article, Nauer. I completely agree that in this circumstance, it was not anti-science. It is a legitimate viewpoint, unlike many of the other attempts the Bush administration made in the realm of science. I won’t even touch that topic here.
“Yes, that’s right, your tax dollars will now be used to fund the destruction of innocent human life, and for what purpose?”
The destruction of innocent human life is funded by our tax dollars through the billions we have spent on defense spending. This is nothing new. Were the Iraqi children not innocent? This argument is not defensible. And Obama is not funding abortions abroad. Much of that funding goes toward family planning, which is not code for abortion. It goes toward re-educating children in Africa that condoms actually aren’t evil and don’t promote the transmission of AIDS. That saves human lives and human families across the world.
Are you opposed to the use of in vitro fertilization for couples who cannot get pregnant? Then you must be against the use of embryonic stem cells, as Bush must be. This is fine as long as you are consistent, like the Catholic Church. Also, even though adult stem cells do show some promise, the lack of federal funds for research has made an impact upon embryonic stem cell research. Anyone who does research on the national level can attest to this. This is why we are behind in certain aspects of science compared to countries such as China, France, and South Korea.
“The postmodernist movement and way of thinking reject the idea of an absolute truth.”
“What needs to be shown is that secular humanism is a defunct set of beliefs that one cannot honestly live with in reality. Only Christianity does that.”
The existence of absolute truth is highly subjective. Is all life sacred? No, it’s not, that is why we slaughter animals in greater amounts than we need. A basic human right? Do all fertilized embryos deserve the right to life? If we had to bring every single fertilized embryo to term, do you realize the amount of taxes we would have to incur to support the population? You forget about these repercussions. And as for rights, where do the rights of a woman begin and her child begin? A matter certainly not always dealt in black and white. And the closest thing to absolute truth that human beings can comprehend is the existence of scientific laws and theories. Anything else is purely faith and is not in the realm of human reason and understanding.
The issue I have with the concept of absolute truth is that it disregards the evolution of human intelligence and understanding. It is amazing to me that the writers of the Constitution were able to understand this concept, but many today do not. Absolute truth lends to the idea that the world, generally, exists in black and white. You will be hard pressed to find any humanitarian issue today that is not extremely complex. The founders of our country understood this and allowed for adaptation. We are no longer in the time of Jesus, Da Vinci, or Lincoln.
And secular humanism is far from defunct and you can honestly live with it in reality. In fact, it only consists of reality. Einstein lived with it, and he handled reality pretty well. A think quite a few others throughout history have done the same, and many will continue to do so happily with and for other human beings. And to claim that only Christianity, or any other belief system for that matter, allows one to live in reality is extremely arrogant and dangerous. It is exactly what the Constitution protects us against: theocracy.
[...] The Right to Life Here are my responses to some good questions that were posted back from the Stem Cell Research post: [...]