"One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one."and:
"And, so for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground — and by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform — is: how do we reduce the number of abortions?"
Those quotes were a part of Obama's response to Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum question "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?". When asked the question "Would you favor or oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?" by Rick Warren at the Saddleback Forum Obama responded with:
and:"I think that that is a legitimate, moral approach to take. If we’re going to discard those embryos and we know that there’s potential research that could lead to curing debilitating diseases — Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease — you know, if that possibility presents itself, then I think that we should, in a careful way, go ahead and pursue that research.
Now, if in fact, adult stem cell lines are working just as well, then, of course, we should try to avoid any kind of moral arguments that may be in place."
"I think what they say is: we would not tolerate a situation in which, you know, we’re encouraging human cloning or in some ways diminishing the sacredness of human life and what it means to be human. But that in narrow circumstances, you know, there is nothing inappropriate with us pursuing scientific research that could lead to cures so long as, you know, we’re not designing embryos for that purpose."(Click here for full transcript.)
Let's compare Obama's response to questions posed to him at the Saddleback Forum with the lifting of the ban on embryonic stem cell research.
From 1970 to 2005 over 37 million abortions have legally been preformed in the USA. Taking into consideration that in nearly every case, I would imagine, the decision to have an abortion was not easily made and agonized over. That said, how difficult will it be for scientists to destroy fetus' that are a handful of cells that they have no connection to? In my opinion many millions more fetus' will be destroyed in the name of science over the next four years. In Obama's defense I suppose he did say he wants to reduce abortions and didn't say he wanted to reduce the number of fetus' that were destroyed. At the end of the day he's advocating the slaughtering of fetus' which is de facto abortions.
Now let's also consider his strong opposition to cloning. As the title of this post states: Why not a Mini-Me? I don't see how one can be open to abortion but opposed to cloning. What can and can not be done with embryonic stem cells is still, mostly, science fiction and not science fact. So, sticking with fiction, let's for arguments sake say that a brainless clone could be made in a lab made from your very own cells. You potentially would never run out of organ replacements that would be an exact match genetically to your own organs. This would essentially be immortality. As you age and your heart gets weak you can just head over to the clone bank and get yourself a new one. How are brain pithed clones any different than destroyed fetus'? You're harvesting parts from both. You're creating and manipulating human "life" for the sole purpose of prolonging another's life. To be opposed to one and not the other doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
In addition, if you're only making a copy of yourself to be used solely to prolong your own life where's the harm? I mean it's essentially the same argument that abortion rights activists make on a regular basis....the right to choose what I do with my own body.....a clone is really just an extension of your body. To my knowledge the number one cause of death in America is death. No that's not a typo. Embryonic stem cell advocates want you to believe that their salvation can be found in the destruction of fetus'. So why not support cloning as a means to avoid death? At least with my method you're not destroying life. Also, where are they going to get the fetus' from? Fertility clinics? OK but eventually the demand for these stem cells will be so great that the clinics won't be able to deliver to meet demand. So what then? Pay people to donate their eggs and sperm? So now we create an entire industry around destroying fetus'? I think brain pithed cloned humans are a far more ethical way to curing diseases.
OK so clearly I don't support either cloning nor embryonic stem cell research. The last two paragraphs were my attempt at sarcasm. I think though that there is not a great leap between destroying embryos and clones for destruction. Especially, if those clones never attain consciousness.
The one question we should all be asking ourselves is if embryonic stem cells were so important why haven't there been any huge advancements in this field? What do you think, that just because the US isn't funding something it won't get done? It was private industry that decoded our DNA in significantly less time than it took the government. Why would we assume that embryonic stem cells are any different?
Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research didn't mean that private and state money couldn't be spent to do the research. It meant that US federal money couldn't be spent on it. California passed a $3 billion bill to fund embryonic stem cell research. Other nations have spent a lot of money on studies involving embryonic stem cells. One should ask the question if there was so much potential to be had with embryonic stem cells why hasn't the private industry taken the ball and run with it like they have with both adult and cord blood stem cells? Maybe it's because there have been some very disturbing findings regarding embryonic stem cells. There are cases where embryonic stem cells have created tumors. In one case instead of a cure the patient now has a brain tumor . In one study, 20% of mice which were treated with embryonic stem cells to cure their Parkinson's developed brain tumors. It's also been discovered that embryonic stem cells develop chromosomal anomalies which cause cancer if they are stored for too long. If this is true more often than not that really blows up one of the biggest benefits to using embryonic stem cells. That is that supposedly they can be stored for long durations. There are lots of cons rather than pros to using adult, cord, and embryonic stem cells. I think though that most of the recent evidence from around the world is starting to call into question the validity of embryonic stem cells usefulness.
Lastly, take look at his response. Did he not say that if adult stem cell lines are working that we should avoid using embryonic stem cell line? Yes he did and yes they are. In fact, there have been incredible advances in both cord blood and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have been improving lives of people that have fought everything from Leukemia to Parkinson's. They're even being applied to people that have been paralyzed. It seems to me like an odd time to be lifting the ban when so many advances are being made without embryonic cells. I believe Obama has lifted this ban purely for political reasons. He has done this to appease his base as he has not yet delivered on a single one of his promises. I think he will be shamed by this and it might even cost him a re-election. I believe he has underestimated the ramifications of this act and underestimated the silent majority.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents for the day. It's time to get back to work and the real world.
No comments:
Post a Comment