« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

New York Times Endorses ‘Anti-Science’ Stem Cell Position

Nothing like intellectual honesty, eh?

In its review of President Obama’s expected reversal of the Bush Administration’s policy on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, the New York Times swerves into the truth, repudiating the mainstream media’s position on the Bush policy to date. The Times now says the following about the heretofore derided Bush stem cell policy:

“But in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President Bush opened the door a tiny crack, by ordering that tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, or colonies, of stem cells already extracted from embryos – so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves.”

Of course, rational people have always known that Bush’s stem cells decision was carefully crafted and appropriately balanced on scientific and ethical grounds. But that is not the position the left media took during subsequent political campaigns.

When the goal was electing Democrats, the media dutifully portrayed the policy at best as arbitrary and ideological, and at worst as anti-science, unfeeling, and even harmful. Moderate Republicans that supported the policy, like former Missouri Senator Jim Talent, were tarred as radical and dangerous extremists, in league with those who would return America to the days before modern medicine – when diseases were thought to be caused by one’s sins, and cured by purification or forced conversion.

But now that Democrats are in control, the goal is somewhat different. Now the left-wing media wants to provide cover for President Obama’s radical expansion of federal funding for embryo-destroying research. In that context, Bush’s policy must be presented as a good thing. Obama is only opening up even more opportunity for cures building on the “careful compromise” of his predcessor.

In truth, the policy reversal exercised by the Obama Administration hasn’t the least bit to do with ethics or science. If it did, Obama would likely have only modified the Bush policy slightly. Today’s decision is about repaying the abortion industry, that’s right I said industry, for it’s support of the most radically pro-abortion president in history. The sad aspect to this is that the result of the Administration’s political payback will be further delays in finding cures for the myriad afflictions that stem cells are purported to be able to treat. This will be the natural result of scarce research dollars being pumped into investigating treatments that don’t work, embryonic stem cells, instead of those that have been proven to work, adult stem cells. And all facilitated by the Administration’s loyal minions in places like the New York Times.

Shame.

COMMENTS

  • Rod_Patrick
  • Old_Crow

    Scam the taxpayers out of billions of dollars and falsely raise peoples expectations of cures while tinkering with human life in a laboratory.

    Josef would be proud of Omaba.

  • Next93

    I actually agree with you; I see IVF as abortion with a smiley face. If it were up to me, IVF would be illegal as long as there was one child waiting to be adopted, or one woman waiting to abort.

    Where I come from, traffiking in human beings is aborrent.

    • Next93

      “Reply to This” is your friend. I meant this in response to KneeJerkLefty’s comment upthread.

      Sorry

      • kneejerklefty

        I agree. I hate that children wait for adoption while parents pay thousands and thousands of dollars on the off chance that they may be able to conceive a “real” child.

        Plus, when you adopt and older child, you get to skip all that messy diaper changing (hopefully!).

        But as long as there ARE frozen embryos that are being tossed (tens of thousands every year), does it compound the sin to use them? I’m not asking this rhetorically.

        Should we mandate that only one ovum can be fertilized at a time in vitro?

        Corollary argument: should medical science be researching ways to reduce the number of blastocysts that are “thrown” by pregnant women? This embryonic stage is later than the single-cell stage in IVF, thus closer to being a fetus.

        More than half of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted within the first few weeks, most with the female never knowing she had been pregnant. Is there a moral imperative to save these embryos?

        • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

          kneejerklefty,

          Are you willing to go down the road that China has traveled, on which executed convict organs became so valuable that whole new crimes were defined in order to get healthier and less damaged organs to the foreigners who came to China for the organ trade? Ask the Falun Gong what has happened to them as a result.

          And once you’re willing to kill for scientific experimentation, much as Josef Mengele defended his actions, why not enslave humans for similar reasons? After all, slavery isn’t as bad as death. At least you get three squares a day, right?

          The problem is that your argument is indefensible on moral grounds. It will always amount to the objectification of human beings and treating them like property. And it will lead to far worse than you or I can imagine.

          • Next93

            It’s amazing how much China has come to resemble a number of dysutopian novels.

            Welcome to the worker’s paradise!

          • char

            To paraphrase: “Who know that I had predicted what China was doing now”

            In Niven’s future tax cheats would have their organs harvested so as to help people obtain immortality. And you couldn’t have children without a permit. Gil “the arm” (a police officer) commented that the legal code was geared towards finding nee crimes that resulted in organ harvesting because Democracy would do anything to itself for immortality.

            I miss Niven & Pournell writing Sci-fi.

        • Menlo

          She’s preparing to introduce legislation to allow and fund the creation of human life specifically for destroying it.

          As an aside, Italy prohibits the creation of “surplus” embryos; and they ban experiments on them. Germany also bans the “research” based on its similarity to Holocaust practices. There are issues of Nuremberg Code violations.

          The UK has taken it an extra step, giving the nod to cannibalism by allowing experiments using the remains of aborted babies to treat diseases.

  • Praying

    Researchers can do stem cell research, and have been able to all along, just not using federal money for stem cell research on EMBRYOS. But here is the interesting thing, that I have not heard in any of the medial coverage today. There has been some stunning progress made on research using adult stem cells. Not so much with embryonic stem cells. British researchers used embryonic stem cell therapy on a boy with severe epilepsy – and tumors formed through out his body. On the other hand, there have been some very encouraging results using adult stem cells, which seem to be more stable.

    Even stem cells from umbilical cord blood (the baby’s blood remaining in the umbilical cord after birth – if the mother gives permission, that blood can be “harvested” and used for research – no human life is killed to obtain this source of stem cells). There was a blurb on Fox News tonight with Nancy Reagan applauding the president for this action today – in hopes of finding a cure for alzheimers disease which President Reagan suffered from. Why does that research need to be done using embryonic stem cells? It doesn’t. Especially when so to date, there is far greater success using adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells. All government decisions are political, which raises the question, what exactly does this say about the current administration, and the value they give life? Why is it so important for them to go out of their way to ensure the needless destruction of embryos – little human beings?

    • aardpig

      I hear the claim often that adult stem cells have been more successful than embryonic ones. But I’m not aware of the evidence. Could you point me toward some relevant peer-reviewed literature? Thanks!

      • Martin Knight

        Try this link. – citations to peer reviewed studies of successful medical treatments of different classes of ailments using Adult Stem Cells.

        So far though, no treatment using Embryonic Stem Cells has similarly ucceeded in any sense of the word – in fact, a significant number develop into teratomas and other cancerous growths. Others are outright rejected by the recipient.

        Here’s a study comparing both ASC and ESC by David Prentice – who is not a disinterested observer, but whose research has not yet failed the peer-review process if I’m not mistaken.

  • Brian Hibbert

    Every time I see this mentioned on TV or in a paper it’s always “The Bush administration banned stem cell research.” It makes me scream. Even last night when it came on the news, my wife didn’t understand why I was screaming at the TV. She also didn’t like me explaining the difference between embryonic, cord blood and adult stem cells and how they collect the embryonic ones.

    Anyway, now that it’s too late to matter the Times finally gets it right.

  • kneejerklefty

    … that if you oppose embryonic stem cell research, you should oppose IVF (in-vitro fertilization).

    IVF generates more fertilized ova than are implanted, just in case the first implantation doesn’t work. If those blastocysts aren’t needed, they are eventually destroyed.

    Unless you support passing a law that every one of those fertilized ova MUST be kept frozen in perpetuity, how can one argue that they can’t be used to hopefully help cure horrible diseases?

  • Uma Richie

    generate extra babies for back-up, as you said. It is done because the procedure is so expensive.

    I do not believe that IVF is morally acceptable, but I would not outlaw it. I do believe that every embryo that “takes” should be implanted.

    And you forgot one alternative — Many pro-life women (including myself) would be willing to carry someone else’s embryos to term if the alternative was to have them destroyed or frozen in perpetuity.

  • Martin Knight

    Did it ever occur to you that your idea of what constitutes “ethical consistency” is not the same as anyone else’s?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …I think that we can safely avoid getting advice on ethical consistency from you.

    Shoo.

  • JustLeaveMeAlone

    If we drain your blood and harvest your organs, we can probably save 30 people. You won’t mind, will you? It’s for a good cause.

  • Menlo

    It should not only be prohibited, but anyone who would even WANT to create or experiment with creating or destroying human life in a lab or clinic ought to be hauled off by the men in white coats and locked up in a mental institution. It shouldn’t even be deemed acceptable or rational as a desire or thought.

  • barry915barry
  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    There is no reason why IVF, which is a repeatable procedure that any decent lab technician can perform, should be as expensive as it is if if if there is enough of a demand for it. With time and added demand, IVF should go down in price much as lasik surgery and hair replacement surgery went down in price.

    What could raise the demand for IVF? If a culture that valued life were promoted in the US and Europe and other parts of the world that aren’t even reproducing at population sustainment levels, then the older married women, 40 and 45 years old, who have achieved in their careers but who waited almost too long to conceive, would be a perfect market for IVF. Then we would have a situation that pro-human-life people can support, one in which IVF does bless parents with children but does not result in the killing of embryonic children.

  • Uma Richie

    I have misgivings about how infertility is handled in the US from high school sex-ed to pre-menopause, but I don’t want to threadjack with a litany about one of my own pet peeves. I will say that my friends (three couples) who have experienced long term (5 years +) infertility, were so desperate and exhausted and at times depressed by the whole baby chase, money was not an object. So I don’t know if the price would come down even with economies of scale. I also suspect that the stakes are high enough that a woman would prefer a specialist physician to a lab tech poking around her ovaries.