Winnipeg MP Steven Fletcher, who is a quadriplegic, is quoted in the Free Press as cheering Obama’s decision to fund embryonic stem cell research, since scientists will be able to work “free from manipulation and coercion.”
Fletcher paints opposition to stem cell research as hypocrisy:
He said anyone who is upset by stem cell research should ask themselves: if they or someone they loved had an illness that could be cured, would they turn down the cure because it came from stem cells? “I think not,” he said.”
There are a couple of serious problems with this portrayal of opposition to research that involves the destruction of embryos, and that’s without getting into the science, about which it will suffice for now to say that a number of respected scientists in the field believe embryonic stem cells to have no advantages over other forms of stem cells.
First, the hypocrisy charge. A measure of compassion is certainly owed to Fletcher, and most of us, thank heavens, will never be called upon to stick to our principles at the cost of a (tenuous) hope of a cure for such a crippling condition. Becoming an MP, and then a member of cabinet, at so young an age would be a remarkable achievement for anybody, let alone someone with such a difficult physical burden to bear, and these accomplishments are a testament to Fletcher’s mental fortitude.
But that doesn’t change the fact that this is an ugly and intellectually lazy point to argue. For those of us who believe an embryo is a human life, albeit at a very early stage of development, the difference between embryo destructive stem cell research and the organ harvesting of political prisoners that (allegedly) goes on in China is one of degree, not of kind. I would like to think that if I, or a loved one, required a heart transplant, I would not in my desperation advocate executing someone and harvesting his heart to save my life or my child’s. If I were driven by my suffering to push for such an action, I hope the broader society around me, while feeling compassion for my plight and doing everything ethical that they could to help me, wouldn’t endorse the suggestion.
The other problem is in the motives ascribed to Bush and others who didn’t sanction embryo-destructive research, thereby creating “manipulation and coercion.” Good people can disagree about the morality of stem cell research, as they can about IVF, and all the other issues related to assisted reproductive technologies. But a good faith debate isn’t possible when, as with Kathleen Parker’s distaste for “oogedy-boogedy” conservatives, pro-life advocates are assumed to be operating from an irrational, anti-scientific or superstitious worldview. Post-modern sophisticates (correctly) point out that pure objectivity is impossible, but they seem to make an exception when it comes to their own positions, which are so clearly enlightened and correct that opponents act not out of conviction or logic but out of some Snidely-Whiplash small-mindedness coupled with a fondness for fundamentalist religion.
I expect this kind of rubbishing of pro-life values from the Liberals and NDP; I expect better from Conservatives.
______________________
Andrea adds: I know people, who faced with their own suffering in disease, choose ethical solutions. One of them, Mark Pickup, has a blog that is worth checking out.
It’s a tough leap for people to feel wonder and sympathy for a mere embryo, perhaps especially because we abort 12 week old fetuses with abandon. Tough issues–ones to address with compassion to be sure. But hypocrisy charges? Uncalled for.
_______________________
Tanya adds: What is a pro-lifer? Normally, it is someone who’s opposed to embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and euthanasia.
The opposite says it’s OK to abort a child with a deformity. The opposite says it’s OK euthanize someone due to undetermined and variable degrees of illness. The opposite says, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, the ends justify the means.
I may be biased, but it seems as though the pro-life side values life, whereas the opposite simply has contempt for sickness, illness, and deformity. It’s all a little Orwellian.
______________________
Andrea may be biased too: but also understands that we all are–and I’m pretty open with my bias. Seems to me I pretty consistently encounter folks in favour of embryonic stem cell research, in favour of euthanasia, in favour of abortion–none of these things should be forced, of course–and they think theirs is the “unbiased” position. I raise one eyebrow at them, that’s what I do. Later, I might bite my thumb at them, in a moment of Shakespearian anger.
by 
The funny thing about all of this is that there have been NO successful treatments ever recorded using embryonic stem cells. None. Nada. Zero.
On the contrary, there have been MANY reported cases of inducing tumours and serious problems using these same embryo-derived cells.
On the other hand, the use of adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells have both resulted in amazing treatments and results. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4938179/Two-year-old-girl-can-see-for-the-first-time-following-stem-cell-treatment.html) and (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/local/story/415974.html)
And the use of both of these kinds of stem cells is moral, ethical, and applauded by every single church since there is no destruction of life in the generation of these stem cells.
Countless examples of successful treatments using adult stem cells have been published (http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm) – but the mainstream media seldom picks up on these and reports them. Perhaps since they are not “embryo-derived”, the results are not “sexy” enough to warrant reporting?? Neither does the media make a habit of reporting the drastic failures and serious side effects of attempts (unsuccessful) to use embryo-derived cells. The result is that the general public is deluded into believing that embryo-derived cells are our best hope of treating many conditions. Whereas exactly the opposite is true….successful treatments are already being carried out using adult stem cells, whereas no embryo-derived cells have even come close to showing promise without debilitating side effects.
I agree with Cynthia, human embryonic stem cells have yet to be safe for therapeutic methods, while there are already safer and more effective treatments using adult or non-embryonic stem cells.
Just recently there was an article published showing even MORE promise for adult stem cell research:
http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/NR/exeres/9C7D4A8D-AE70-4FD5-A0C3-4F0D17159724?newsitemid=2749036028&feedname=CP-HEALTH&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False
I don’t understand why embryonic stem cell research is even done anymore, its not effective, its shrouded in controversy, and there are much much safer and less controversial options already available.
“Post modern sophisticates (correctly) point out that pure objectivity is impossible .. ‘ . I wonder if this conclusion is determined from a position of pure objectivity or some impure or subjective alternative. If it is from a position of pure objectivity then we can rest assured it is a reliable position. However, this presupposes the idea of pure objectivity which means that pure objectivity is not impossible – oh, oh, tautological problems arising. If it is from a subjective or impure position then it is as reliable as any whimsical idea. Perhaps a rethinking is warranted herein.
I personally don’t like the argument that we shouldn’t fund human embryonic stem cell research because it hasn’t yielded any treatments yet. A person can always respond to you that it may one day prove useful, and on the day it does, it will be used to justify the method.
That the research so far yields few results should only be a criteria to limit public spending. I think we need to win the argument that it is possibly helping some people by necessarily killing others.
He said anyone who is upset by stem cell research should ask themselves: if they or someone they loved had an illness that could be cured, would they turn down the cure because it came from stem cells? “I think not,” he said.”
Oddly enough, I have asked myself that question. And the answers is yes, I would turn down the cure. For myself, or for my loved one. My integrity cannot be purchased.
Nazi researchers made discoveries in the medical field as well. Yet, we still condemn their methods.
This is such a cynical viewpoint, but I just see my generation (I am 28) as so selfish!
The creation, cloning and destruction of embryos are solely for other people’s benefits. The only concern with abortion is that it isn’t accessible enough. Babies are designed for perfection and destroyed for lack thereof. Euthanasia will be used for whoever life is deemed “not worth living”. Seeing as all “unwanted” children are described as such by feminists – how long before those unwanted children in overburdened foster care systems are described as such? Elderly parents who no one has time to care for? Family members with disabilities? Mr. Latimer is already viewed as a hero by many.
My pro-choice gay brother always expresses disbelief that I am pro-life. He asked why he as a gay person should care about the abortion issue and not support “women’s rights”. I asked him what he thought would happen when doctors can screen for the “gay gene” as well as they think they can screen for down’s syndrome?
I should find the link to a scene from one of my favourite Southpark episodes. It shows Christopher Reeve next to a huge pile of discarded fetuses that he just finished sucking dry. They give him the power to walk, fly and jump over tall buildings and he says the ends justify the means.