60 Minutes, the popular CBS news magazine show, recently did a story on the issue of frozen embryos, stem cell research, and the seeming discrepancy between President Bush’s ‘pro-life’ policy which prohibits federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research because it causes the destruction of the embryo and the fact that thousands of embryos are routinely destroyed each month in fertility clinics around the country. In the story, CBS news reporter Leslie Stahl interviewed stem cell researchers, fertility specialists, and a member of Bush’s Council on Bioethics, as well as couples who currently have leftover frozen embryos in storage.
As many know, the infant (no pun intended) science of using stem cells to create human tissue shows promise for medicine because stem cells can be stimulated to grow into new human tissue, giving doctors the ability to treat organ disease with greater chances of success. One of the earliest researchers of stem cell development, James Thompson, showed a line of stem cells that had been transformed into human heart cells. The belief is that these cells could replace damaged heart tissue in patients, offering better chances for recovery, lower the chance of tissue rejection, and reduce overall chances of death due to heart injuries. This example is just one of many possible futures for medicine through stem cell research. And embryonic stem cells offer the best opportunity to tailor tissue for a specific purpose. Such scientific advances would seem to promote life for already living humans, or cure humans who are hanging to life in precarious medical situations, something that Bush and his party seemed eager to advance during the whole Terry Schiavo grandstanding last year. So, according to their actions in the Schiavo case, it would seem logical to assume that Bush would support this research.
But as with many things from the Bush administration, logic is not at the forefront of their decision-making processes. Despite the president’s desire to see things as either black or white, right or wrong, the fact is that the world is seldom that accommodating. Because in this case, in order to support the measures that would promote life for the living (or in the case of Schiavo and others like her, the lingering), advancing the research of embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of the embryos themselves. The question then, is whether these embryos are really life, in the sense that we know it.
According to Robert George, a member of the Council on Bioethics, the president’s position is that an embryo is human life, with all the same rights and dignity of a fully developed, fully formed human being. And to destroy one for stem cell research is the same killing a person walking down the street.
George says, “The principle that the president laid down and which I support is one that says all human beings, irrespective of age or size or stage of development or condition of dependency, possess the same human dignity, because human dignity is inherent.”
Yet, instinctively we know that Bush does not believe this, or else he would not have signed a law while governor of Texas that allows family members to decide when to pull the plug on life support measures for patients who can’t make the call themselves. We know this because recent congressional investigations into the Hurricane Katrina response by the government shows a lack of effort to save as many lives as possible. We know this because of the signing statements Bush made regarding the use of torture. And with regards to frozen embryos, we know that this “inherent dignity” is little more than talking points to drum up support from his religious base because laws allow the destruction of thousands of frozen embryos each year when couples decide they are no longer needed.
The news story went on to report that there are over 400,000 frozen embryos currently in storage in the U.S. Many will never be used for pregnancy, and in fact will slowly deteriorate if kept in their cryogenic condition indefinitely. Many others will simply be discarded. Some will make their way into privately funded research programs, but none will be eligible for federally funded research that could ultimately increase the quality and ‘dignity’ of life for the living because of Bush’s ban on such studies.
To insist that frozen embryos are indeed human beings at all is a stretch. Most scientists and medical professionals do not consider an embryo to be viable until it passes 22 weeks of gestation, and even then could hardly be expected to grow into a successfully functioning human being if brought out of the womb. The Catholic website, www.newadvent.org says that viability is not safely presumed until the 8th month. Clearly, there is some contention about when a fetus becomes a human being with the inherent rights of a born person, but few disagree that a frozen embryo is about as close to being human as a cup of freeze dried coffee would be. Sure the potential is there, but unrealized potential is just that- unrealized.
In his 2006 State of the Union speech, Bush proclaimed that, “Human life is a gift from our Creator — and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.” Yet when it comes to frozen embryos, this is hardly true. In fact, such embryos are created in a petri dish in a laboratory by human scientists. And they are discarded with regularity. And the president knows it. Why then can they not be used to advance the science of medicine that would better the condition of human life? For a man willing to sacrifice the living in poorly thought out wars, why the hesitation to use that which will never be life to help heal the sick or cure the diseases that plague humanity?
There is no rhyme or reason to this president’s policies, no logical strain to follow. Instead, what we get are inconsistent ideas that make good sound bites but fall apart when examined as a whole. When it comes to stem cell research and frozen embryos headed to the scrap heap, the only sane choice-the only humane choice- is to use what we have to make life better. After all, isn’t that what pro-life is all about?
This entry was posted on Friday, February 17th, 2006 at 6:23 am and is filed under Bush, Government, Health, Life, Politics, Religion, Science.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 17th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Yes, it’s exactly what pro-life is supposed to mean. Kind of like how being anti-war should be the montra of pro-lifers. But, like you said…no rhyme nor reason. Anti-choice, anti-privacy, and anti-female is really at the heart of that subject anyhow, and so many blind supporters don’t even get it. Yet they continue to throw money in that direction, fighting something they themselves can’t even get their minds around. It’s safer to be sheep though, so there they are, regardless of the cost to all of humanity. And you know what? I don’t think they have any trouble sleeping at night. What a shame. Thanks for the good rundown, I don’t watch much TV… except for Late Night, of course, like you. Keep up the good work.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:01 am
STRONG, as usual Ken.
Creating new arms, legs, lungs, and lungs is a “tewell ub da debil” to way too many idiots out there. To oppose stem cell research is a blatant violation of our Constitution, which puts science at a high priority, and church at a very LOW priority… in fact, it PROHIBITS “church” from even entering the debate, frankly.
Blog ON, my friend… blog ON…
February 18th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Sorry to not have popped over earlier Ken.I get distracted at BIO.
Anyway – to your post. I do believe you are right on your assesment of the w, Rove and Co leadership style – one in which it is dependent more on faith than on fact if there is any fact laced at all in their “intelligence” based decisions.
The big hypocrisy is that folks who claim to support a culture of life are the first to jump at the head of the “eye for an eye” chorus or support the carpet bombing of innocent individuals in the name of some “nobel” cause.
If you want to see what this kind of mentality brings us, have a gander at the presidential love fest that occured in Tampa Fl. today. Just the qeustions alone will floor you.
I’ve parsed them out for you if you don’t want to waist your time reading the whole text or surfing around the white house web location on your own. Here’s the link:
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2006/02/let-presidential-love-fest-begin.html
February 19th, 2006 at 6:08 am
(responses)
BonJ- I haven’t seen late night forever, or so it seems. Too much writing and such these days.
Yes, imitating sheep is becoming such a troublesome thing among Americans these days. Funny how we, as a country, can’t see the wolf among us as clearly as we should. Glad you dropped by.
GTL- Thanks- but as was brought to my attention, I originally forgot to include the words “federal funding” and so I have amended that part of the post.
I’m not so sure this is a constitutional issue (well, maybe in the sense that his argument is based on a faith premise), but it certainly is another example of the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration and shines another light on their false “Pro-Life” stance. Thanks for your comments.
Windspike- Yes, while I believe that there are plenty of people who believe in a pro-life mentality, most of the politicians and pundits, and even preachers, are merely spouting lines to keep their followers sending money. I’ll make sure to take a look at your post. I’m sure it will leave me shaking my head in disbelief, as most of the presidential conversations do these days.
February 19th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Ken, another excellent essay! Anything I might add would only be superfluous. Bravo.
February 19th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
In my way of looking at things, a “pro-life” or “culture of life” approach should apply not just to those about to be born or about to die, but all those of us who are in between those two extremes. ALL stations of life, not just a couple of places along life’s progression.
Ken, you deftly point out a number of contradictions that definitely don’t make sense for the administration… unless the POTUS is simply taking (or being advised to take) positions to insure the continued support of the religious fundamentalist wing of his party.
The amount of b.s. the Bush administration spews out gets awfully damnned tiresome. I think their motto must be “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but you CAN fool MOST of the people MOST of the time.” They seem to believe we are all nothing more than a bunch of dummies, to be manipulated for political purposes. Would that really change if the Bush administration was replaced?
I need to go take my meds. This is just to depressing to contemplate! 8-)>
February 20th, 2006 at 6:05 am
If, when you were in the embryonic stage, you were destroyed for embryonic stem cell research, you would not be here. Is that logical enough?
February 20th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
No, monika, it’s really not that logical. When I (and, dare I say, each of us) was in the embryonic stage, I was not in a petri dish, or a storage freezer, waiting to be discarded after years of non-use. Your comment is a ridiculous bit of misdirection, designed simply to inflame emotional response, and is the same type of disingenuous drivel that’s clouding this issue on a national scale.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:05 am
Islam recognizes that human’s soul is embedded into its organic vessel after 3 months of development
February 21st, 2006 at 5:07 am
I really can’t believe that this story hasn’t gotten more attention in the liberal blogosphere. All conservatives will dismiss this as not important because the piece was done by 60 minutes.
I almost thought the representative from the Bush administration’s ethics committee was joking when he said that we should have little funerals or cremations for embryos when they’re discarded.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:10 am
Monika, your reasoning here is ridiculous. The entire 60 minutes piece was about what to do with LEFTOVER embryos that are totally useless. Those which will not be adopted, implanted in an uterus, or used for anything. They will be thrown away like the soft boiled egg you overcooked last weekend.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:39 am
(responses)
Bob- Thanks again, as always.
Snave- Yes, pro-life does need to include those of us actually living in the here and now, not just to those who may be born or who are in the “last throes of life.”
I think that your estimation of BUsh’s rhetoric is dead on too. Just more empty rhetoric to whip up his shrinking base. Thanks for your thoughts.
Monika- (rolling my eyes, shaking my head…) If, when I was in the embryonic stage, nature herself decided to abort me I wouldn’t be here either. Do you also plan to rail against that? Besides, we are not talking about embryos that are on the way to life. We are discussing perpetually frozen and/or about to be discarded embryos that will never reach the point of possible life. Stick to the topic if you want to be taken seriously.
Bob- That’s right man. Monika is clearly not capable of grasping the fundamental difference between man made embryos in a science lab and the mixing of sperm and egg in utero. That must be frustrating for her.
Eko- Thanks for weighing in. Does this mean that for Islam, embryo’s created in a lab for artificial insemination are not considered life or sentient and therefore are completely viable for use in stem cell research?
Jeremy- Even 60 Minutes has some thought provoking, well researched stories. And yeah, that guy had me wondering how he got to be in the position he is in. Then I remembered…he was appointed by Bush the Inept.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:24 am
I’m a maniac, maniac. Dancing like I’ve never danced before. Dumbo!
February 24th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
When you put politics aside and ask a reasonable-minded conservative when they think life begins, I’ve found that the visceral, common sense answer seems to be, “When there’s a heartbeat.” Not that there is or isn’t any logic to this position, but having been in a doctor’s office and having heard the tiny little heartbeat of a tiny little fetus in my wife, I can understand where they’re coming from; that sound made the abstract concept of the baby become more concrete.
The point I’m getting at here is, even reasonable conservatives– well-intentioned, anti-choice conservatives– seem to concede that an embryo is not a person. Seem to believe it viscerally. And for the life of me, I can’t understand why we as a people seem to feel the need to indulge UN-reasonable conservatives.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Oh, one more thing: in the State of the Union address, when Bush bemoaned the fact that American children were falling behind other industrialized nations in math and science?
Seems to me that a first stpe in catching up with our global economic competitors in knowledge work, would be for us to elect a president who actually (thank you for at least this, John Kerry) BELIEVES in science.
“Intelligent design? That’s a good theory too!”
February 24th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
(responses)
Colonel- I am so happy you love to dance. When your head stops spinning, feel free to leave an intelligent comment.
Josh- Obviously, this president is neither reasonable or rational. And I’m with you- indulgence of unreasonable positions is becoming hazardous to the health of our nation, to say the least. Of course, what is reasonable to me or you may not seem so to another, but some positions just seem so overwhelmingly clear…like this one dealing with frozen embryonic tissue. Not life…just tissue.
Thanks for the comments.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:57 pm
What bonj said about pro-life: “Anti-choice, anti-privacy, and anti-female is really at the heart of that subject anyhow” is so true.
So no wonder that Bush administration views on pro-life, dead Iraqi children = “collateral damage”, and the excessive use of the death penalty in Texas, just can’t be organized into a coherent sentence…