I have diaried on this issue before and as I am short on time this morning, I will use part of previous diaries and choice clips from other diaries as well. Apologies in advance for anyone who is being double exposed.
With so many conservative democrats and republicans in favor of funding for embryonic stem cell research, it seems that some well crafted arguments in its favor could make it a reality in the next few years. I have my own take on this and will include other lucid arguments I have recently read in this diary as well.
One of the primary arguments by those who oppose embryonic stem cell research revolves around the idea that it in some way diminishes human life and destroys human potential. I think it is easy to argue that neither is in fact the case.
Since when is saving or improving human life lacking in respect or dignity. Some could argue that their is no higher calling than the alleviation of human suffering or the saving of human life, which is exactally what these embryos which may be used for stem cell research would be participating in. This must be infinately more respectfull and dignified an end than becoming "bio-Waste". Which is the ultimate end of the vast majority of these embryos now. Now that is truly a Waste of life and human potential.
From Greg's Opinion http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/006017.html
On Killing Snowflake
'Snowflake' babies bring the debate to life
Embryos are "human beings from conception," Houston native Tracy Jones, 32, said Tuesday. She proudly showed the first picture of her child -- when he was just a mass of cells.
The Joneses were among more than a dozen families who traveled to Washington this week, with the children they bore from unused embryos they "adopted" from other families, to protest a House bill that would expand the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research.
...
The couple was matched with and adopted 10 unused embryos from a family in Michigan. Three survived the thawing process (the survival rate is about 50 percent), and were implanted in Tracy's womb. One took hold. The whole process cost them about $7,500.
The Joneses shared their story Tuesday in a private meeting with their congressman, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Austin who has five children and whose wife, Linda, served as a surrogate mother for her sister's child. McCaul voted against the stem-cell bill.
"This is human life from the very beginning," he said.
The Joneses nodded in agreement.
Getting to the emphasized part first ... what I'm reading is that, by their own definition, this couple just killed 9 lives to create one. That's hardly the best pro-life case for banning federal funding of embryonic stem cell research if you ask me. Yet the case that the Jones family makes on the initial point seems to dive head first into the cement pond of logic when the numbers are crunched.
Clearly, it is difficult to argue that the use of human embryos for stem cell research is any worse than individuals intentionally fertilizing eggs which they know have a 50% chance of being killed by the procedure, the majority of whom additionally have no intention of allowing remaining embryos to ever be implanted.
From the Congressional Record regarding a speech in favor of stem cell research by JoAnn Emerson on 5-24-05 also given in full on Greg's Opinion
http://www.gregsopinion.com/
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a profound deep and abiding belief in the right to life. I have introduced a constitutional amendment to ban abortions every session of Congress since 1997 and have a perfect pro-life voting record.
I have met with ethicists, scientists, two priests, and my own minister to talk about this agonizing decision. But when presented with an embryo, an embryo that cannot live outside a uterus, an embryo that is going to sadly be thrown out as medical waste, and the lives of little James Wood and young Cody, I ask do they not have as much of a right to life as that embryo that is going to be tossed away?
Mr. Speaker, my pro-life credentials are unquestioned. Who can say that prolonging a life is not pro-life? Technology and faith continue to present agonizing decisions and conflicts. Each life is precious, and so I must follow my heart on this and cast a vote in favor of H.R. 810.
And from dkos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/151918/796
Stem cells are described as omnipotent, meaning they have unlimited potential both to differentiate and to proliferate. I think the idea of potential is an important one in this debate.
What is Potential? Webster's defines it as follows:
- Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem.
- Having possibility, capability, or power.
Those who oppose the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research often use the term potential as a part of their argument. They argue that we are destroying a potential life. That each and every one of these embryos has the potential to become a human being. This is inarguably true; however, should we limit the idea of potentiality to that of becoming a human? Is becoming a human being a worthier conclusion of this potentiality than any other?
These embryos and the stem cells of which they are almost entirely composed have many potentials, only one of which is to become a human being. They also have within them the potential to save lives, improve the quality of lives, or become bio-waste.
Why is fulfillment of potential to save and improve life less worthy than potential to become an individual life? Many would argue that there is no higher purpose than to improve and save lives. Individuals who have dedicated their lives to this end have been declared heroes, heroines and saints.
For those who would argue that it is not God's Will that these embryos be destroyed, first it is important to note that they are not being destroyed, but are simply fulfilling a different potential. The potential to improve life and reduce human suffering. On the other hand, if not utilized for this purpose, they will almost certainly be destroyed, or maintained indefinitely in suspended animation, a kind of earthly purgatory. This is indeed a horrible waste of potential and a waste of life.
We should keep in mind that throughout the ages we have found means by which to utilize God's creations and laws to our own end. This is true for medicines and vaccines for diseases that at one time were always fatal, as well as for air transportation and refrigeration. Few would argue today that "if God wanted man to fly he would have given him wings" or that we should refuse medical treatment in order to allow for God's will. (There are some however who do, and I respect that, but for the masses who enjoy the fruits of scientific research and innovation the argument about God's will is somewhat artificial)
For those who continue to argue that the use of these cells is opposed to God's will, I say, "Who are you to presume to know the mind of God?" Where in the Bible are the specifics of stem cell research addressed, this argument is based on sanctimony and conjecture. Perhaps this is God's will, part of his plan to reduce suffering and prolong lives. This is a potential that is certainly worthy of respect.
It is important that we continue in the next few weeks and months as this issue gets pushed to the forefront of national discussion, that we continue to frame ebryonic stem cell research as a respectfull fulfilment of the potential of embryos to become the salvation of living breathing human beings in lieu of medical bio waste.