Religious Right Turns a Blind Eye to a Real Life Issue
Originally posted at Talk to Action.
With the imminent inauguration of Barack Obama, the issue of embryonic cell research is again coming to the fore. The Religious Right, looking for any issue on which to stage their comeback, will certainly do their part to make the most of it in pursuit of their never-ending culture war.
While the Religious Right claims to have a corner on being "pro-life" -- there is nothing more pro-life and pro-family than fully funding this vital medical research. I should know, because I speak from experience.
As many readers know, a progressive neuromuscular condition has left me a virtual quadriplegic, LMG muscular dystrophy. And although I earn a decent income as a private attorney, an ever larger portion of it goes to home-aides and medical devices -- most of which are designed to keep me working. My disposable income, and even my income earning capacity, has become a hostage to my affliction. This really hit home when a doctor said I should think about divorcing my wife and give her all my assets so that I would be able to qualify for Medicare. I was flabbergasted.
But apparently this is a situation faced by many families as they have to consider spending down everything they have before they can qualify for state or federal assistance. But all this makes me think that if we were to identify the true destroyer of American families, it is not the red-herring thrown by the Religious Right, such as LGBT marriage equality. It is the lack of universal health care.
This is the side of disease that the unaffiliated rarely see. And it is certainly the side of disease that Religious Right opponents embryonic stem cell research and their neoconservative allies most definitely do not want to talk about. The Knights of Columbus spent millions is support of Proposition 8 so that LGBT couples would be denied marriage equality. Yet when it comes to defending my family from possible financial ruin -- they don't give a damn at all. In fact, they actually oppose this research that could help me.
Long-term disease and disability have devastating consequences for any family. Sons who should be playing catch with a father instead is forced to lift his hand to help him scratch a head itch; daughters who should driven to a friend's house must instead help him eat his dinner; a wife who works and takes care of her children has the added stress of rolling her husband over on his side simply because he cannot do so on his own.
But that is only part of the stressful scenario. Income that would ordinarily pay for the upkeep of a house or family vacations, instead pays for home-aids and drivers to take the afflicted family member to work -- that is if he is fortunate enough to have a job. Longtime friends cannot be visited simply because there is no way for a power wheelchair to get into a friend's house with a flight of steps by the front door. These and a thousand other circumstances affect my life and tens of thousands of people in circumstances like mine. Some of the circumstances are obvious, some are subtle and are the kinds of things people who are fully able bodied as I once was, take for granted.
Many lives are put on hold because of one with disability. Families without health insurance cannot afford the medical equipment -- ventilators, toilet lifts, leg braces -- that may actually improve a
patient's quality of life. Isolation is an ever-present reality.
How ironic it is that many of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research also oppose universal healthcare! Neoconservative William Kristol is a perfect example. In 1993, when President Clinton attempted some form of national health insurance, Kristol circulated a memo to fellow Republicans in which he claimed: "There is no health care crisis."
In the coming weeks the Religious Right will take their culture war of aggression to the Obama administration. They will cite stem cell research, along with marriage equality and universal health care as the things that will break down the American family. No one should be fooled by the diversionary battles of the culture war couched in the language of religious orthodoxies. The real agenda for Kristol and his neoconservative pals is an irreligious economic libertarianism. It is the same ideology of economic buccaneerism advanced by the likes of Ludwig Von Mises, Fredrich Hayek and Milton Friedman -- and embraced by political leaders in both parties. And we have seen what their ideas have wrought in the current economic crisis.
May God help us if they once again prevail. If they do, they will certainly further weaken the very thing they claim they want to defend, the American family.
- NYGaribaldi's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
First Reply to BSOR: Stem Cell Research
To keep things concise I will reply to each point you raise in separate responses:
1. Stem Cell Research – You say:
Here you obfuscate by omission. You have conveniently failed to mention that while adult stem cell research has been around in one form or another since the 1930s, human embryonic stem cells were only first isolated in November 1998. Beyond that, while there are undoubtedly treatments coming from adult stem cell research, there are also setbacks. For example, in ALS the focus has been on embryonic stem cell research because of bad results with adult stem cells. In that area Dr. Hans Keirstead of UC-Irvine has successfully used embryonic stem cells to create motor neurons. In fact, Geron Corp. has filed an FDA application for clinical trials using this process. And then there is this on spinal chord injury as well as this regarding brain injury and Parkinson’s Disease.
Then you claim:
Using “hope”to avoid doing promising medical research is bad science. More importantly, you’re talking about reprogrammed stem cells. What you leave out is that just about every researcher in this field warns that embryonic stem cell research must continue.
And reprogrammed have this hurdle to clear:
Now I’m not saying this impossible to solve – far from it. But when embryonic stem cell research was in a similar stage its opponents were quick to raise the tumor issue (an muscular dystrophy researcher has advised me that Keirstead has overcome the tumor issue in embryonic stem cells). Oddly enough, those who only want to do reprogrammed cell research all-too-conveniently ignore the problem in this research. That is why all stem cell research must be explored.
You also make this unsubstantiated claim:
Let me explain why you are wrong.
Until Obama’s election many private companies – who do translational research - were hesitant because NIH was restricted from funding the basic research (only about 20 viable stem cell lines were usable with federal funds).
And then there are the restrictive state laws as well as right-to-life lawsuits in states such as Missouri and budget problems in states such as California. That is what is truly delaying the research.
More importantly, the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research cause the lawyers for many research centers not to do the research unless they can build separate facilities – a highly costly venture. Research facilities could now lose federal funding if they were to do privately funded research on stem cell lines created after August 2001 would have this onerous restriction lifted. And that would get the ball rolling.
It's just not feasible in a typical laboratory where researchers are called upon to work on several projects simultaneously. Has the person you are arguing with ever worked in a lab? Even if you could tag centrifuges etc. "no stem cell research" most labs don't have the space to house all of their equipment in duplicate. Most investigators won't touch embryonic cells with a ten foot pole because of the disruption it would cause in their labs to try to sort out dedicated space, equipment and staff. I can't image any university opening themselves up to the potential liability.
The fact of the matter is that because we don’t know where the research will lead us both embryonic and adult stem cell research must be fully funded and fully pursued.
Perhaps the Bioethicist Arthur Caplan said it best in an interview I did with him last year:
Thankfully, President-elect Obama intends to do just that.
response to reply
NYGaribaldi, thank you for your comments.
I have clicked on each of the links that you provided, but found that the vast majority of them were broken or obsolete. Also, I could not find information on the "restrictive state laws" you mentioned via the link you provided.
Some of the information you provided was new to me. I appreciate the information, although I was not able to verify any of it through the links you provided.
Regarding induced pluripotent stem cell research, research on mice has already resulted in a cure for sickle cell anemia (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR200712...). I believe that at this point, there is more than a "hope" that iPS cell research will lead to promising results in humans.
You are right that pro-lifers have noted concerns about the tumors that have resulted from ESCR. I understand your point that we should be just as concerned about those results from research on iPS cells. I would respond that if unproven research techniques with an uneven track record are going to be used anyway, it would be better to use unproven techniques that do not destroy a developing human life.
I had not heard that President Bush's stem cell policy and other pro-life laws have resulted in limited funding availability for ESCR. I find that encouraging.
I noticed that despite your wide-ranging response to my post, you had no response to the core issue of the sanctity of human life -- even at the embryonic level. Even if all of your other points are true, I believe that ESCR is still morally indefensible.
Question And Commentary.
Picture yourself in an IVF lab and a fire broke out. You have a few seconds to get out. And in those few seconds you have to choose between rescuing a nine-year old child and a bunch of petri dishes containing embryos. Which would you choose?
And if you oppose the creation of spare embryos, why aren't you trying to outlaw IVF clinics? And please don't tell me that your alternative is embryo "adoption." The demand doesn't even come close to covering the 400,000 excess embryos created by IVF clinics.
An embryo is no more an individual human being than an acorn is an oak tree. Embryos, before aligning to the uterine wall (nidation), can either split into multiple embryos or merge with another to create a single embryo, Beyond that the outer wall of the embryo does not become a human being, but instead, the placenta which is usually discarded. Your view that personhood begins at conception is at odds with other Judeo-Christian views (as well as most of Islam). It deliberately ignores the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, United Methodist, UCC and perhaps most relevant of all, Jewish theological points of view that personhood does not begins at conception.
And the Jewish view matters a great deal for several reasons. Perhaps most importantly, it takes into account that sometimes justice requires a balancing of interests to achieve an equitable result.
All four branches of Judaism support embryonic stem cell research pursuant to the halakic doctrine of pekuach nefesh -- the preeminence of saving a life in being. Under Jewish Law a fourteen-day embryo has the same status as water. It would follow that a Jewish interpretation is vital.
But perhaps more importantly, the Gospels consistently detail Jesus' adherence to Pekuach nefesh through His many acts of healing. And as a Catholic who has read the Gospels, I cannot recall Jesus directly refuting pekuach nefesh. It logically follows that a Jesus who lived by Jewish law raises a presumption that He would not oppose this vital medical research. If anything, His healing of the infirmed and disabled along with raising the dead for me is what contradicts both Warren's and the Vatican's position.
Although I am a Roman Catholic, I agree with the Talmudic scholar Adin Steinsaltz, who said in defense of embryonic stem cell research, ''We believe that mankind is given not only the permission but the admonition to make the world better.''
As for you links, I'll have those for you by Monday afternoon.
reply
Thank you for your comments, NYGaribaldi.
I was unaware of the current Jewish position on the ESCR issue; thank you for informing me. I strenuously take issue with Mr. Steinsaltz's proposition that ESCR would somehow make the world better. This notion presupposes two extremely debatable propositions: (a) that ESCR will yield therapeutically significant results (not a sure thing, to say the least) and (b) that God will bless the use of the results of ESCR.
What is the basis for your statement that under Jewish law, a 14-day-old embryo has the same status as water?
Please see my response to Gary Vance below, which is responsive to some of the questions you posed.
You mentioned that my views would lead to the conclusion that IVF clinics should be outlawed. I agree, and I do take that position. The Lord is the giver of life. The scenario that you posted would not happen if we were not attempting to "play God" by making embryos in test tubes in the first place.
I think that your analysis regarding Jesus is strained and far-fetched. None of Christ's words or actions while he was on earth in the flesh would support the proposition that it is permissible to destroy a human being for any reason -- let alone for the purpose of using that human being's parts to perform research that might conceivably help someone else at some future point in time. ("Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.") Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead; he did not harvest Lazarus' cells for use in some good deed he was planning to do. This, of course, leads to the crux of the issue: The humanity of the embryo.
If an embryo truly is a living human being, its human rights must be protected. This includes not destroying the embryo because we think that we have a better use for it. If an embryo is not a living human being, what is it? Is it not living? Not human? How should our laws treat an embryo? Should we treat it just like human tissue or organs? Like an acorn? Or is an embryo something more than just a bunch of cells? At what stage of development should someone be accorded human rights?
ESCR Is Morally Defensible
Hello BSOR,
You say, "I believe that ESCR is still morally indefensible."
There are many frozen embryos that will never be used for their original intended purpose of giving a child to a couple who otherwise wouldn't have one. Is it morally defensible to dispose of them in a medical dumpster? Which is more pro-life, offering these same embryos for medical research or treating them as disposable waste?
Check out NYGaribaldi's (Frank Cocozzelli) white paper, "An Unholy Alliance", for a more comprehensive statement on this issue...
http://www.instituteforprogressivechristianity.org/?q=node/11
Gary
reply
Gary, thank you for sharing your views.
I attempted to access your link, but was greeted with "page not found" when I attempted to download the white paper.
Moving on to the question you posed:
1. Neither discarding embryos nor destroying them to harvest their cells is "pro-life." If the amount of money and effort that is currently being expended by those who wish to use taxpayer money (in the midst of a recession) to fund scientifically questionable research that destroys a human life were to instead be expended by encouraging couples to adopt frozen embryos, there might not be a "surplus embryo" problem.
2. Because of the very scenario that you mentioned, it should not be legal for anyone to create a human embryo in vitro for any reason.
3. Many of the scientists and others who are lobbying for government funding for ESCR are not planning to simply perform research on already-existing frozen embryos. In fact, President-elect Obama was a co-sponsor of legislation that would allow for "therapeutic cloning," the misleading euphemism that the pro-ESCR community uses to describe mass-producing human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them and harvesting their cells for research purposes (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.1...). Thus, your question is reminiscent of the "rape and incest" question that is brought up in arguments about abortion; it concentrates on one knotty subset of a larger issue that is more clear-cut.
4. The Bible teaches us that human beings are made in the image of God and are of great value and worth in His sight. To deliberately destroy a human life in the hope that such destruction will benefit some other human life at some vague and indefinite point in the future completely flies in the face of the Scriptures and of the unalienable right to life that was spoken of by the founders of this nation in the Declaration of Independence. To take the next step and create human life for the sole purpose of destroying it for research purposes is appalling. Human beings are an end in themselves, not a means to an end. Our abortion culture has clouded and distorted our understanding of the sanctity of life.
BSOR...There Are Gray Areas in Moral Choices
BSOR,
Frank has mentioned gray areas of ethical choices which you seem determined to overlook, nor have you offered alternative approaches other than ideological posturing. Reality shows us hundreds of thousands of embryos suspended in a frozen state that will never be used for their intended purpose of IVF. These embryos are currently set on a course of pointless destruction as medical waste, regardless of what you or I think about such science.
The fact that these otherwise disposable embryos could be utilized for life saving research certainly creates a gray area of moral choices that eclipse the ideals you espouse. The proponents of ESCR are only asking for those embryos scheduled for destruction to be redeemed from their pointless fate and to utilize their potential for developing cures and saving of human lives.
Gary
not so
Gary, with all due respect, you are off the mark. Number one, I suggested that more efforts be made toward embryo adoption. Number two, I suggested that in-vitro fertilization should be made illegal so that we do not continue to struggle with this type of moral quagmire. Number three, ESCR advocates are most certainly not content to perform research only on frozen embryos; if they were, the clone-and-kill bill that I mentioned above would never have been drafted. Even though our positions differ, I would ask that you please have enough respect to read what I have said more carefully before making accusations. Thank you.
BSOR...Not Intending to Accuse
BSOR,
Sorry for overlooking your proposal regarding embryo adoption and I did not mean to come across as accusing you of anything. It's just that your proposal would only cover a fraction of the embryos on ice and therefore seems somewhat paltry to me.
Perhaps IVF might be outlawed in the future...that still doesn't address the reality of the present. What do you think should be done with the hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos?
Gary
Good Point, Gary
And he accuses me of non-answers!
BSOR is typical of many on the Religious Right: you answer their questions and then they act as if you never did.
NYGaribaldi, I am sorry to
NYGaribaldi, I am sorry to hear about the difficulties you encounter because of muscular dystrophy. I am praying that you will experience God's healing from this condition.
You clearly are very passionate about the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I can understand why you would be so passionate about it, given that you see the research as something that could provide therapies that would help you.
As someone who is also passionate about the issue of embryonic stem cell research, but who respectfully disagrees with your position, I have a few thoughts on the subject that I would like to share.
1. Based on everything I have read on the topic (not an insignificant amount), I am unaware of any currently-existing medications or treatments that have resulted from embryonic stem cell research. All of the existing stem-cell-related therapies I have ever heard of have resulted from adult stem cell research (or possibly amniotic stem cell research).
2. Embryonic stem cell research proponents seek government funding for their research. As far as I can tell, ESCR is (for better or for worse) legal throughout the United States; no prohibition exists. The reason that ESCR proponents are so concerned about obtaining government funding has a lot to do with the fact that private funding is not available because the research is so speculative and has a very limited and mixed track record. This raises the question: If researchers cannot get private funding for this research, would it be a good use of taxpayer dollars? Or should we look to publicly fund the more promising avenue of adult stem cell research? Is it realistic to think that ESCR will provide the solutions and treatments that we seek?
3. As you probably are aware, recent advances indicate that the entire embryonic issue could be sidestepped by programming adult stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. It is my hope that this will make the entire controversy obsolete.
4. On a different note, I agree with you that same-sex marriage is not the greatest threat to the American family. (I would identify the two greatest threats as single parenting and divorce.) I do believe that same-sex marriage raises a variety of problems and concerns, and that Proposition 8 was the right thing to do; however, it would be unfair and untrue to blame the woes of our society on those who identify as gay or lesbian.
5. On another different note, I respectfully disagree that economic libertarianism is the cause of our current economic crisis. I believe that the crisis has more to do with the free-spending habits of our federal government (both parties) and the unwillingness of Congress to deal with the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem until it became an all-out disaster (again, both parties -- but more Democrats than Republicans, I believe). Based on his record, I don't think President Bush can seriously be accused of being overly fiscally conservative. Many would say that he has not been fiscally conservative enough.
6. What concerns me most about your words is the series of accusations you advance against those who are opposed to ESCR. You accuse us of not caring about families, of cynically using the ESCR issue to mount a religious right "comeback" and a "culture war of aggression," and -- worst of all -- of using this issue as a smoke screen to introduce an "ideology of economic buccaneerism." I certainly hope that these charges are not true of anyone who claims to be part of the pro-life movement. I personally have not met any pro-lifers who are using pro-life rhetoric to mask some insidious economic agenda (most of us don't have the money to have any kind of an economic agenda). In actuality, we believe that all human life is sacred -- including the lives of the elderly, those living with illnesses and disabilities, and the unborn. That belief leads us to stand for "the least of these" -- tiny embryos -- who are precious in the sight of God and cannot speak for themselves. You are certainly welcome to disagree with our position, but I would ask that you refrain from impugning our motives and integrity.
Second Rely to BSOR: Marriage Equality
2. Marriage Equality – You say:
Really?! Then what are those “problems and concerns”? My wife and I are married over twenty-one years and we have no such concerns for gay couples. Your lack of specificity undercuts your credibility.
And if you come back at me that you only want to protect the “traditional view of marriage of one man to one woman” that doesn’t wash either. Traditions of morality evolve throughout history. In the days of Moses, marriage was more of a property concept, with love and passion playing a much smaller role than today. Beyond that, marriage was often not about "one man and one woman," but often about one man and several women.
Our concept of morality has evolved to the point where marriage in Western society is now built upon a foundation of love and companionship more than being a contract about property. Moreover, we have learned from medical science that homosexuality is a healthy mental state and not the aberration of natural law that many of us once believed it to be. I think it is difficult to argue that allowing a marriage between two gay people who love each other does not fit the modern moral definition of marriage -- although I know that there are those who will do so anyway.
marriage reply
NYGaribaldi, please see my comments from January 2 and 3 under "Focusing on Gay Rights" on this blog for a comprehensive list of "problems and concerns" regarding same-sex marriage. Thank you.
A Forthcoming Reply to BSOR
Look for my reply - in great detail - early afternoon, Thursday, January 8.