« Giddy-yup | Main | A grateful citizen »

May 30, 2005

It's morally wrong to kill embryos. Tossing them in a landfill is just dandy.

Indiana Representative Mike Pence must be very disappointed since House approved the Castle-DeGette stem cell bill. The bill would allow scientists to use donated embryos for stem-cell research. Pence believes it's morally wrong use embryos to save lives and that millions of people agree with him. And if millions of people disagree with embryonic stem-cell research, they shouldn't have to pay for it through federal funding. If they agree with it, they are out of luck since George Bush has said he'll veto it if it passes in the Senate.

Destroying human life is wrong, but the debate is really about the veracity of the research.

Well, Jeffrey, as a pro-life American, I believe that life begins at conception. And I believe it's morally wrong to destroy even embryonic human life for the purpose of research. And -- but really that debate, or the potential promise of embryonic stem cell research, which despite what Ms. DeGette says, there's some real question about -- we'll hear tomorrow on the House floor from many members of Congress who are physicians who genuinely doubt the potential of embryonic stem cell research.

Well, Mr. Pence, not all members of Congress would agree with you.

"These are human lives. When did each of your lives begin? When did your life biologically start? And we should not be researching on that life at any time during the continuum unless we have your consent," [Sen. Sam Brownback] said.

"I am a lot more concerned at this point about when my life is going to end," responded Senator Specter bluntly.

More on Pence's embrace of irrationality:

Adult stem cell research has produced 58 treatments. And even though it's legal in America today, embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce a single treatment in a lab animal.

That is not true. According to the National Institutes for Health, there has been treatment in a lab animal from embryonic stem cells.

For example, paralysis and damage to the central nervous system:

[R]esearchers selected from laboratory culture dishes barely differentiated embryonic germs cells that displayed the molecular markers of neural stem cells, including the proteins nestin and neuron specific enolase. They grew these cells in large quantities and injected them into the fluid surrounding the spinal cords of partially paralyzed, Sindbis-virus-treated rats.

The response was impressive. Three months after the injections, many of the treated rats were able to move their hind limbs and walk, albeit clumsily, while the rats that did not receive cell injections remained paralyzed.

Autoimmune diseases:

Jon Odorico and colleagues have shown that expression of MHC proteins on mouse embryonic stem cells and differentiated embryonic stem cell progeny is either absent or greatly decreased compared with MHC expression on adult cells [ 8]. These preliminary findings raise the intriguing possibility that lines derived from embryonic stem cells may be inherently less susceptible to rejection by the recipient's immune system than lines derived from adult cells. This could have important implications for the transplantation of cells other than hematopoietic stem cells.

And diabetes, an all-too-common problem here in the US:

Last year, researchers in Spain reported using mouse embryonic stem cells that were engineered to allow researchers to select for cells that were differentiating into insulin-producing cells [ 19 ]. Bernat Soria and his colleagues at the Universidad Miguel Hernandez in San Juan, Alicante, Spain, added DNA containing part of the insulin gene to embryonic cells from mice. The insulin gene was linked to another gene that rendered the mice resistant to an antibiotic drug. By growing the cells in the presence of an antibiotic, only those cells that were activating the insulin promoter were able to survive. The cells were cloned and then cultured under varying conditions. Cells cultured in the presence of low concentrations of glucose differentiated and were able to respond to changes in glucose concentration by increasing insulin secretion nearly sevenfold. The researchers then implanted the cells into the spleens of diabetic mice and found that symptoms of diabetes were reversed.

There are others, of course, but you get the picture.

Oh yeah? Well. . .well. . .it's really about funding and consent!

But the debate tomorrow really is about federal funding. Inasmuch as I believe that it's morally wrong to destroy human embryonic life for the purpose of research, I think it's also, Jeffrey, additionally morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to support research that they find morally offensive. And that's really what the debate is about tomorrow.

When we talk about the consent -- and Ms. DeGette is quite sincere in her effort here, and adding informed consent is a logical and in her mind appropriate addition here -- but I would ask, where is the consent of the American taxpayer who believes, as I do, as millions do, that life begins at conception? Where is their consent about the use of their tax dollars for this research?

Where is the consent of the American taxpayer who believes, as I do, that it's morally wrong to invade and occupy another country, torture prisoners of war, and kill civilians? I hear nary a peep from these so-called pro-lifers about it. Have I mentioned that we are paying for this via our tax dollars? Has anyone mentioned that this dubious project is, well, expensive? Not to mention immoral? I'd rather pay for health care for kids, education, or housing for the poor.

But Pence isn't done yet. Nope, he's gotta tapdance around Godwin's law when it's pointed out to him that we'd be disposing of the embryos (which would be donated) if we don't use them for embryonic stem cell research.

Well, I have to tell you that when you look at the steady march of human history, including, frankly, some very frightening chapters of the 20th century, the human record is not very encouraging when we come across societies who step across that the human life is sacred.

Uh huh. As long as they are embryonic "human lives." They are then sacred enough for disposal. Very logical, that.

And this business of arguing a utilitarian argument, instead of the larger argument that science ought to always back carefully away where human life is involved, would be the position that I would hold, and that millions of American taxpayers believe today.

Except, as Diana DeGette pointed out, that wasn't true either. Millions of American taxpayers have no problem with it. (Can someone tell me why the will of the people is infallible when it comes to denying gays the right to marry, but it's to be ignored when it comes to treating debilitating and fatal diseases and injuries?)

Using donated embryos to further embryonic stem cell research: bad, evil, and immoral. Forcing taxpayers to fund it: horrible.

Throwing away donated embryos to develop effective treatments for ALS, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and other diseases and injuries: a life-loving act.

Gotcha.

Posted by at May 30, 2005 07:41 AM