Stems cells have been in the news a bit lately in part because of Bill Frist's comments regarding embryonic stem cells (which I learned about via Instapundit - my thanks to Glenn Reynolds for his always excellent work!). This is clearly an emotive issue and one on which the MSM are seeking to hammer President Bush. That often makes me suspect that we may not be getting the whole story about stem cells. So, I asked myself, what do we actually know?
Well, here is what I know (which may of course be wrong - if there is an error in this please let me know - thanks).
First, it is my understanding that there are two sorts of stem cells - adult and embryonic. Adult stem cells can be harvested from various places on a person's body - the mucous lining of the nose, or various sub-cutaneous regions, for example. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos that are obtained from in-vitro fertility treatments (although not, as far as I am aware, from clinical abortions). A third source of stem cells may be from umbilical cord blood, but I am not sure whether these are indeed classified as stem cells, or are something else. If they are stem cells, I think they fall into a third category, since they can only be harvested once and at one particular time (unlike adult stem cells) yet they are not the same as embryonic stem cells - I'd appreciate input from anyone with clarification on this point.
Second, as far as I am aware, the only clinical treatments that currently make use of stem cells, use adult stem cells harvested from the individual being treated. One example is the use of adult stem cells to cure or mitigate spinal cord injuries as discussed in this testimony before the Senate in July 2004. As far as I know, emryonic stem cells are not currently being used in any treatments of humans at this time.
So, what do these facts do to help us address the moral issues involved in embryonic stem cell research? The first thing I would note in this regard is that when such issues are discussed in the MSM, the issue seems, to me, to be deliberately confused by a failure to differentiate embryonic stem cell research from adult stem cell research. I would also note that the use of adult stem cells is very similar to the use of skin grafts for burn victims. That suggests to me a moral continuum that might help to address some of the issues herein.
At one end of the continuum we would have adult stem cell usage, which is morally equivalent to the use of skin grafts, and thus to me seems to be morally unobjectionable. At the other end, let's put the growth of human embryos to a point at which they are sufficiently developed that organs could be harvested from them for use in transplants. As far as I know, nobody is advocating such a practice (publically at any rate) at this time, and such a practice would be considered morally abhorrent by most people today.
If this moral continuum is a valid one (a point of view that is certainly debatable) then the issue is where along this line does the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research lie? My own sense on this is that such usage is not equivalent to the use of skin grafts. In fact, it seems to me that the use of embryonic stem cells is in fact much closer to the use of embrtos to grow organs than to skin grafts.
I acknowledge that others will have a different view on this point. However, I would suggest that while this remains an issue that requires moral debate (which it does) it would be immoral to press forward with the usage of embryonic stem cells beyond what is already being done. Thoughts?
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Exploding the apologists
An article in the UK Guardian by Norm Geras looks at the various folks who have been making apologies for the actions of the terrorists. As Mr. Geras notes, this tendency toward apologies for atrocities is generally limited to those of a liberal bent, and applies only when they have sympathy for the cause that has committed or spawned the atrocity.
As further noted by the Instapundit, the press appears to be one of the bigger bunch of apologists out there. Glenn notes that the questions, in relation to today's bombings in London, seem to say that the bombings all arise because of the invasion of Iraq and so forth (yadda, yadda, yadda...). Glenn's translation of John Howard's response is well worth noting:
Translation: You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.
Leaving aside the long overdue denouement of the press, it strikes me that I have heard this sort of apologist approach before, and in extremely unsavory circumstances.
It was not so long ago (perhaps twenty years, perhaps less) that if a woman was attacked and raped, one of the issues raised was what she was wearing at the time of the attack. If she was wearing clothing that could be considered in anyway provocative, then she was judged to be "asking for it" and more often than not, the rapist would be acquitted. We rightly view such a mindset as barbaric and sexist in the extreme today. Indeed, those on the left who are so quick to apologize for the terrorist acts we see would protest most loudly about such an attitude. Yet they are guilty of exactly the same sort of "blame the victim" mentality in their apologist approach. Such blind stupidity is a sad reflection of the hate they must feel toward those who are leading the global war on terror - Bush, Blair, and Howard, along with others. Further, the split thinking that is required for these apologists cannot be good for their mental health. It really must suck to be a liberal these days!
As further noted by the Instapundit, the press appears to be one of the bigger bunch of apologists out there. Glenn notes that the questions, in relation to today's bombings in London, seem to say that the bombings all arise because of the invasion of Iraq and so forth (yadda, yadda, yadda...). Glenn's translation of John Howard's response is well worth noting:
Translation: You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.
Leaving aside the long overdue denouement of the press, it strikes me that I have heard this sort of apologist approach before, and in extremely unsavory circumstances.
It was not so long ago (perhaps twenty years, perhaps less) that if a woman was attacked and raped, one of the issues raised was what she was wearing at the time of the attack. If she was wearing clothing that could be considered in anyway provocative, then she was judged to be "asking for it" and more often than not, the rapist would be acquitted. We rightly view such a mindset as barbaric and sexist in the extreme today. Indeed, those on the left who are so quick to apologize for the terrorist acts we see would protest most loudly about such an attitude. Yet they are guilty of exactly the same sort of "blame the victim" mentality in their apologist approach. Such blind stupidity is a sad reflection of the hate they must feel toward those who are leading the global war on terror - Bush, Blair, and Howard, along with others. Further, the split thinking that is required for these apologists cannot be good for their mental health. It really must suck to be a liberal these days!
Monday, July 18, 2005
This free speech thing
I am sure that these musings on free speech are very obvious to most folks, but as an immigrant to the US, perhaps I have a bit more thinking to do about these things than many other folks.
I remember being struck a few years ago (post 9/11) that some people, especially in the entertainment industry, had a very strange idea of what free speech entails. I do not mean in the legal sense - I am sure I am just as clueless as any non-lawyer in that regard. I mean rather in the common sense sense (sorry about that word repetition!).
What triggered my musing was, if I recall correctly, some comments by the Dixie Chicks (or at least, by one of them) that were less than flattering toward President Bush. Yes, I know this happened a long time ago - so I do not think (or at least commit to paper) very quickly - I will not say "so sue me" because somebody might!
Anyway, an inevitable response to the comments by the chick or chicks was a certain public outcry condemning them, and encouraging folks to boycott their music. The next step was a (possibly tearful?) interview with the offending chick saying in essence how everyone was very mean, and by disagreeing with her, and threatening to boycott her music, they were trampling on her right to free speech.
This is of course, total nonsense. As I understand it, the constitution does indeed allow us free speech, but it does not guarantee that everyone will like what we say. Furthermore, those who dislike what we say are at total liberty to let the world know that they disagree with us. And, if we happen to sell stuff, they can refuse to buy it.
What I found most disheartening in the Dixie Chick response was that she expected that there would be no repercussions to what she said, and clearly felt that the repercussions (people disagreeing with her, and possibly even a drop in her sales) were terribly unfair. This is a typical elitist response - the little people have to do what I want, because I clearly know better. At the time that this event happened, I had a little chuckle to myself wondering how exactly one could enforce "fairness" toward the outspoken Dixie. Perhaps certain people who disagreed with her would be required to not only buy her albums, but even listen to them!
Of course, the absurdity of this is obvious. But what is also fairly obvious to me is the unwillingness of some to accept the consequences of their actions (or, indeed, their inactions). We are learning these days in very real ways that "freedom is not free." But this applies not only in the sense we now face in the ongoing War on Terror, but also in a more mundane sense. I am free to exercise the liberties guaranteed me by the Constitution, but that does not mean there is no cost attached!
I remember being struck a few years ago (post 9/11) that some people, especially in the entertainment industry, had a very strange idea of what free speech entails. I do not mean in the legal sense - I am sure I am just as clueless as any non-lawyer in that regard. I mean rather in the common sense sense (sorry about that word repetition!).
What triggered my musing was, if I recall correctly, some comments by the Dixie Chicks (or at least, by one of them) that were less than flattering toward President Bush. Yes, I know this happened a long time ago - so I do not think (or at least commit to paper) very quickly - I will not say "so sue me" because somebody might!
Anyway, an inevitable response to the comments by the chick or chicks was a certain public outcry condemning them, and encouraging folks to boycott their music. The next step was a (possibly tearful?) interview with the offending chick saying in essence how everyone was very mean, and by disagreeing with her, and threatening to boycott her music, they were trampling on her right to free speech.
This is of course, total nonsense. As I understand it, the constitution does indeed allow us free speech, but it does not guarantee that everyone will like what we say. Furthermore, those who dislike what we say are at total liberty to let the world know that they disagree with us. And, if we happen to sell stuff, they can refuse to buy it.
What I found most disheartening in the Dixie Chick response was that she expected that there would be no repercussions to what she said, and clearly felt that the repercussions (people disagreeing with her, and possibly even a drop in her sales) were terribly unfair. This is a typical elitist response - the little people have to do what I want, because I clearly know better. At the time that this event happened, I had a little chuckle to myself wondering how exactly one could enforce "fairness" toward the outspoken Dixie. Perhaps certain people who disagreed with her would be required to not only buy her albums, but even listen to them!
Of course, the absurdity of this is obvious. But what is also fairly obvious to me is the unwillingness of some to accept the consequences of their actions (or, indeed, their inactions). We are learning these days in very real ways that "freedom is not free." But this applies not only in the sense we now face in the ongoing War on Terror, but also in a more mundane sense. I am free to exercise the liberties guaranteed me by the Constitution, but that does not mean there is no cost attached!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)