Stem Cells And Fox
Michael J Fox has been appearing in political ads asking people to cast their votes in favor of candidates who support stem cell research. I've loved Michael as an actor since he was on the show "Family Ties", and all through the "Back To The Future" movies, and I feel for him as he struggles with Parkinson's Disease. Now, I have little doubt that if he saw a small child about to be hit by a car, Michael wouldn't think twice about risking his own life to save that child. But these ads strike me as so very selfish. It's like looking at many unborn babies and saying, "Look at me suffering! Surely all of you won't mind sacrificing your stem cells and lives so that researchers will maybe be able to find a cure for me."
I don't have Parkinson's, thank God, but I like to think that if I did, I wouldn't sink to that level.
posted by DErifter @ 10/25/2006 06:04:00 PM
9 Comments:
Hey, derifter. You know I love you brother, but I feel like you've oversimplified the debate a little bit here. What is upsetting Michael J. Fox and millions of other people is the fact that we have, at best estimate, over 400,000 embryos stored in tubes that are slated to either be destroyed or to be stored indefinitely. These could be used for stem cell research, which many scientists believe could very well lead to some of the most marvelous breakthroughs in modern medicine, but instead they will, under current law, continue to sit. My personal feeling on this? I think most Christians are terribly inconsistent on what should be done.
If we say that all of those embroyos are people, then it's silly for us to simply fight for them to not be destroyed. We need to fight for them to be allowed to grow and turn into people. The problem? That's a shot in the arm of the U.S.A. of 400,000 additional people that have to be clothed, fed, and housed. That brings about its own set of problems.
The reality is this: saying that we shouldn't do research on the cells voids the opportunity to save thousands upon thousands of lives every year, but it destroys embryos, and thus at least some form of human life. Letting the embryos grow into adults saves 400,000 embryo lives, but it is extremely difficult to figure out how that would work practically speaking. Doing nothing wastes the lives of everyone. What should we do?
How we ended up with all of those extra embryos is irrelevant at this point (though you could certainly do your research and find some interesting details). Now that we have them, what is the Christ-like thing to do with them? I submit that it's a harder question than we often make it out to be.
Yeah, I did oversimplify that didn't I? It's more a gut post than an informational one. Fox says (I didn't check it out, I'm taking him at his word) that he has supported candidates from both parties who are in favor of the research. That tells me it's his one issue. From his perspective I can see that. From my perspective it looks selfish.
An important thing to keep in mind is that these embryos were meant to grow into those 400,000 people. That's what I can't get away from. Apparently, about 35% don't survive the thawing process. That's 140,000 less people we'd have to support, but somehow it doesn't make me feel better. And seriously- 400,000 people in a nation of 300 million? I think we could do it. We get by even with 10 million illegals, but that's another post!
I wouldn't say the two are equal, but I don't mind making a link between potential results of research on stem cells, and the results of Nazi research on Jews. Can we learn from it? Maybe. Say "Probably". But doesn't that validate the means by which that information was collected? At least to some extent?
What to do with the existing embryos is a tough question indeed. Infertile couples adopting them would be ideal, but I'm not them and I don't know how appealing that would be.
Lastly, WHETHER to do stem cell research isn't what's at issue in those ads, it's public funding of that research that's at issue. My money would be paying for it. Uh-uh.
First things first...save the babies and THEN we can focus on how to raise them. Once we've established that these are in fact human lives we're dealing with then the decision to destroy them will no longer be an option and we will be forced to refocus our efforts on how to give them the best chance possible at life.
Cadre,
I don't at all disagree with your statement. However, how many people have you heard crying out to save the embryos so that they can have a chance at life (I don't consider being frozen in embryonic form really having a shot at life in any sense of the meaning)? We can't just say, "Save the embryo's" and let that be the end of it. We have to think through the implications of our argument. Do either of you disagree with me on that?
I'm not saying we should keep them in a frozen state. In fact, I don’t even think that will be an option once we’ve established that these embryos are human beings. What I'm saying is that once we have firmly established that these are in fact living people, we will be forced to go to the next level. It will be ethically impossible to just sit by and let them remain in their frozen state.
If the police discover a group of homeless children living in the basement of an abandoned building, they don't just say "Well, we don't have a place to put these kids so let's just leave 'em there in the basement for all eternity". They would call child services or some other organization equipped to handle the situation.
The problem may be that there is no organization to deal with the embryo problem, but once we've established that these embryos are human beings, the next logical step (whether most evangelicals have thought it out or not) would be to provide for these people what they can't provide for themselves. Maybe that means an organization will have to be built from the ground up to deal with this specific problem.
I guess that what I'm saying here is that if we make a good decision here and now in favor of life for these embryos, then that good decision will necessarily lead to other good decisions in the future for them as well as we pioneer this new path.
"Cadre". Like a voice from the past.
Are you gunna see that new movie Deja-Vu? Sounds cool.
Hey, I like what you're saying. Probably because it sounds to me like you agree with me. Keep talking man.
Josh, I got the impression from your first comment that you supported research in some fashion. From your second comment it sounds like that's not quite your position.
Of course I agree with you completely even though I'm not sure what you're saying. (j/k)
Yes! Let's say they're people and either find them adoptive parents or find a way to support them until they're on their own. I don't like the idea of leaving them frozen forever, nor do I favor destroying them. I think Cadre hit the nail on the head. Let's grant them the right to life, and cross other bridges when we come to them.
Other types of research continue. And when it comes down to it, as cold as it sounds, don't we all have to die of something in the end? Is it really worth denying life to some to postpone the inevitable in others? (I'm of course going on the assumption that you agree they are, or at least could be, people. I'm also assuming that as is often the case, you may just be playing devil's advocate.)
Devil's advocate? Perish the thought (evil grin)...
Cadre is right when he says that "if we make a good decision here and now in favor of life for these embryos, then that good decision will necessarily lead to other good decisions in the future for them as well as we pioneer this new path." However, I don't think it's going to happen.
It's easy to throw out these answers as if they will change the world. At some point we have to ask ourselves, "what is the best thing given the real?" The real is that there is no way that you will ever get a majority of Americans to agree that these embryos are life. Americans are about 54% pro-choice and 38% pro-life, and that's when an embryo is actually in a woman's body naturally! We are not going to convince everyone, and realistically we probably won't even convince a majority. That's the real; like it or not, it's staring us in the face. We can talk about ideologies all day long and doing the right thing in the face of adversity. But the truth is that there are 400,000 embryos that will never truly see life so long as an unwinnable debate continues.
Given this conundrum...what do we do?
Devil's advocate? Perish the thought (evil grin)...
Cadre is right when he says that "if we make a good decision here and now in favor of life for these embryos, then that good decision will necessarily lead to other good decisions in the future for them as well as we pioneer this new path." However, I don't think it's going to happen.
It's easy to throw out these answers as if they will change the world. At some point we have to ask ourselves, "what is the best thing given the real?" The real is that there is no way that you will ever get a majority of Americans to agree that these embryos are life. Americans are about 54% pro-choice and 38% pro-life, and that's when an embryo is actually in a woman's body naturally! We are not going to convince everyone, and realistically we probably won't even convince a majority. That's the real; like it or not, it's staring us in the face. We can talk about ideologies all day long and doing the right thing in the face of adversity. But the truth is that there are 400,000 embryos that will never truly see life so long as an unwinnable debate continues.
Given this conundrum...what do we do?
I'm pretty sure I heard an evil laugh along with your evil grin. Mwaaahaaahaaa, or something like that.
I hear what you're saying, for sure. Using the embryos for research would be better than wasting them, and I agree that it would. But that seems to suggest that we accept an unacceptable solution to the problem. For example, imagine a terrorist group or rogue nation offering the United States this deal:
"If you execute your president and vice president, we will refrain from detonating a nuclear device in New York City."
To say the terrorists are pretty set on destroying New York and we'll never convince them to change their minds without killing the prez and VP might be a true statement. And if you look at the cost/benefit ratio, the loss of two people would spare millions. It seems like a no-brainer, to quote Cheney.
But in reality, however sensible it may seem, we're not going to execute our prez and vice-prez, or even two John Q. Citizens, to save NYC. We might risk them, or even lose them in an effort to avoid the more catastrophic consequence, but we're going to say that no matter what, executing them is not an acceptable option. We would try to negotiate other possibilities with the terrorists while trying to find them and the nuke, no matter how bleak the situation became, but we would not accept the execution option. Furthermore, while meeting their demands may seem like the most promising alternative to the destruction of New York, it does NOT guarantee that New York would be spared.
I think that may be where we are with the embryos, except that it's not quite the time-critical emergency that the terrorist example is. Keeping the embryos frozen until we find a non-destructive way to do the research, or grant them their lives seem to be the only acceptable answers. I can't bring myself to say, "Okay, let's destroy them." even if the research will result in cures left and right.
Also, (insert slippery slope argument here.)
Josh, you always bring up excellent points, often ones that I hadn't considered, and I appreciate it even when we disagree. Thanks for keeping me honest on this one, too!
Post a Comment
<< Home