Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Ken Connor :: Townhall.com Columnist
The State of Human Life
by Ken Connor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


With his recent encouragement to Congress to ban human cloning, President Bush is sure to come under the fire of the scientific research community and a media that wants nothing to stand in the way of the progress of science towards "future cures." The development of stem cells derived from adult skin cells in late-2007 provided hope for the pro-life argument in the field of bioethics. Human lives may yet be saved despite the rampant disregard shown by much of the American public.

As President Bush explained in his State of the Union address, scientists recently "discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells." This development holds the promise of new, ethical research and may eliminate the "need" for research that destroys embryos, produces clones, or harvests women's eggs. These adult stem cells provide hope for human life in a culture that seems willing to destroy its young to heal its old.

This willingness to destroy life began when scientists clamored for funding and attention as they explored the potential of embryonic stem cells. The media and many politicians were only too happy to oblige, trumpeting the "promises" of embryonic stem cells long before anything was actually tested. Moreover, any resistance to the idea of leaping into embryonic stem cell research was immediately labeled "ramblings of the religious right" and promptly dismissed.

This hasty move dismissed the need for care and wisdom in medical ethics, but that's not surprising in a culture that kills millions of its own when they become "inconvenient." If we can kill the unborn because they are inconvenient, why not kill even younger humans if they can provide us with cures for diseases?

No one proclaims the fact that embryonic stem cell research has yet to provide one approved treatment. The research moves forward on the basis of hope. Ethical and fiscal concerns are ignored on the basis of hope—hope that old humans will one day be able to harvest cures from the lives of small, young humans.

Thankfully, science itself has provided a practical hope for those who find their culture's embrace of death deplorable. In September, Toronto researchers used stem cells derived from skin cells to treat the spinal cords of rats. These cells, termed induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), have most of the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells, but forming them does not require the destruction of embryos. In November, James Thomson, a Wisconsin scientist, was able to do produce the same pluripotent stem cells from human cells.

In addition to removing the "need" to destroy human embryos, the creation of iPSCs from adult cells holds the future possibility that a diseased person could be treated with stem cells derived from their own cells. This would solve the "need" for cloning, since cloning is performed in the hope that it will produce stem cells which are not rejected by a patient's immune system. Stem cells derived from a patient's own cells would not be rejected by their immune system. Moreover, the iPSC method would eliminate cloning's ethical problems: the common destruction of embryos, the harvesting of women's eggs, and the possible ethical nightmare of cloned humans.

The potential of iPSCs is so great that it may very well eliminate the "need" for typical embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Embryos would not be destroyed, because similar stem cells would be produced from regular adult cells. Cloning would not be "needed", because these adult stem cells would be accepted by the patient's immune system.

There is much to be excited about in this development. So much, in fact, that two prominent scientists have already declared that the future lies with iPSCs. Professor Ian Wilmut, whose work in cloning originally produced Dolly the sheep, said in November that he was turning away from cloning in order to focus on the better prospects of iPSCs. Dr. James Thompson, who developed the first human embryonic stem cell lines, declared that the development of iPSCs was a huge step forward that would probably make the stem cell wars a distant memory: "Isn't it great to start a field and then to end it?"

The development of adult stem cells is a great technical boon that may allow the culture to move beyond the ethical questions of the stem cell debate, but as wonderful as this technology is, there are deeper questions which remain unresolved. Americans have been unwilling to impose strict moral limits on the progress of science. In fact, such efforts have been labeled foolhardy and fundamentalist instead of what they really are: careful and wise. But much evil has been done in the name of progress or science—one need only recount the terrors inflicted on Jews prior to World War II. The progress of science should be undergirded by sound moral and ethical principles.

Americans have abandoned a full understanding of human life. The destruction of human life for convenience through abortion has run rampant for over three decades. Advancing science is encountering new questions which may further undermine the definition and value of human life. Americans must rediscover the importance of human life before that life is completely trampled through their own selfish hunger for cures at any cost.

President Bush recognized this connection between human life and stem cell research in his State of the Union address. Regarding the adult stem cell development, he said, "This breakthrough has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life…. And as we explore promising avenues of research, we must also ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves."

The President's remarks prompted all present to stand and applaud. His words were an important reminder that human life should be respected and protected at every stage of existence. A just society must never loose sight of that foundational principle.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Good News, Bad logic

It would be a wonderful thing if it proves possible and practicable to "derive" stem cells from skin or other somatic cells especially because, as Mr. Connor notes, the genetic makeup of these derived cells is that of the person being treated and immune system rejection would not be an issue.

But it remains to be demonstrated that these 'iPSCs' are the equivalent of stem cells in all respects, and I'm offended by Mr Connor's glib charcterization of those pursuing stem cell research as being "kill even younger humans if they can provide us with cures for diseases."

As I've demonstrated elsewhere, Mr. Connor's (and the pro-life genral) claim that newly-concieved, just-fertized human egg cells are fully human beings is not even consistently adhered to by those most loudly and piously trumpeting it. Those of us who support stem cell research do not believe that the embryo's from which they are derived are fully realized human beings, and we therefore do not consider it murder to harvest and try to use them.

But wouldn't it be' nicer and better'
if we could use cells from an adult to make his or her OWN stemcells of any sort??

Like they recently did in (Finland?) with a man's jawbone grown from his own fat cells.

There are some of us who think life BEGINS at conception and should not END there. If a life HAS begun, isn't it murder?

I do hope this whole issue is soon a thing of the past...

Will this help or hurt GOP in 08?

‘Human Life’ Amendments Latest Challenge to Roe


NPR- Tuesday marks the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. Today, in many state courts, there is a push for “human life” amendments aimed at granting legal status and rights to embryos.

Listen Now

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/human-life-amendme nts-latest-challenge-to-roe



imposing personal morality onto policy
I think most Americans reject making abortion illegal, but they also reject some procedures, as, for instance, late-term abortions...unless the mother's life, or at least her PHYSICAL HEALTH, is in jeopardy.

I still think instead of a president, instead of the courts, state legislatures should decide this. They most closely reflect the will of the people.

And I think most Americans favor great latitude in scientific and medical research for spinal cord injuries, parkinsons, diabetes, and a host of other afflictions.

I think Bush was wrong to veto additional government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Recent scientific procedures may render that specific form of research moot.

But that is irrelevant. The problem was Bush's imposition of HIS notions of personal morality onto a public policy that was dedicated to exploring procedures to cure the tragedies of parkinsons and other afflictions.

I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but I just don't see where a few cells in a petri dish constitute a living human being, and if they do, I guess we will soon have a plethora of attorneys asserting the petri dish cells have constitutional rights, and may, with parental consent, enter into contracts.

Ridiculous? You decide.

Talk about Bad Logic?
Flaming Liberal -- Since Science is proving that infact using adult stem cells is more successful than than using embryonic stem cells, how can you still be so adamant about fighting for the latter. You liberals are insane. You don't even make an attempt to listen to logic.

Moral Implications
jeraboub: I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but I just don't see where a few cells in a petri dish constitute a living human being, and if they do, I guess we will soon have a plethora of attorneys asserting the petri dish cells have constitutional rights, and may, with parental consent, enter into contracts.

Ridiculous? You decide.

Jen: You can't be serious? Have you not read the many stories now popping up all over the place about custody battles and parental rights regarding embryos from petri dishes due to IVF procedures? Our society thinks because we are medically capable of doing something, we should do it. They are unable to see that there are infact consequences to actions. How confusing to go through life thinking there are no moral standards. Thank goodness abolotionists IMPOSED their moral standards on others to rid our country of slavery. Heaven forbid we IMPOSE others to value human life. How dare we!

Comment
RE "ours society thinks that because we are scientifically capable of doing something, we should do it": I remember reading somewhere a letter, I think it was from Einstein to Roosevelt, discussing this very point in regard to developing atomic energy in the 1940's. The argument was that if the science is now available, somebody else (who may be less ethically concerned than we) will quickly utilize that science. If the science is there, then it is there. We can't make it be not-there by ignoring it. We need to take control of it so we can shape it---not leave it to others who may not shape it well.

I would point out too that all of us profit every day from the advances of science and that for the most part these advances are owed to a secular view of science. It was not the church that gave us anesthetics, antibiotics, plastic, pasteurized milk, the cell phone, motorized farm equipment, polio vaccine, artificial hip joints, the elevator, refrigeration, and the jet plane. Personally, I believe that God reveals himself to us through science---and scientists.

From the standpoint of the law
... arguing, as Flaming Liberal does, that you don't believe that a human being is a human being, and so you "don't consider it murder" to destroy them is simply bad logic. And bad law. Oh, and by the way, it has been argued before, successfully. Blacks had no rights under the Constitution, so it was not considered a violation to enslave them, own them, lynch them.

And what was used to support that argument? Bad science. All kinds of it, used to support the arguments that they were "inferior" and thus not "fully human."

Those same rationales can AND WILL be used to support termination of (and thus "beneficial" medical experimentation on) the elderly, the terminally ill, the permanently disabled, and even the incarcerated.

Without an ethos that exalts the inherent value of EVERY distinct human being (not sperm, not ova), any human being is potentially subject to a calculus that measures their worth against the relative benefit of destroying them for some "greater good."

Therefore, to Lilly I say that while it is not religion that gives us scientific advances (although many of the most notable scientists in history were religious), what religion does give us is a context through which to view science and its appropriate applications. Without that context, all of us are expendible, without regard to our developmental state.

FLAMING LIBERAL MULTICULTURALIST

.....I want to clone Raquel Welch and have her programmed to be my sex slave .....COLOSSUS

Lilly
You made your point, and its a good one. You could have left out the jet plane.

LILLY

.....Like the scientists at Auschwitz that performed experiments on live children ...such as how long a newborn could live without receiving any food? ...

.....Science without a moral code of ethics is the ultimate evil .....COLOSSUS

doc?
Don't you think that isn't already in the minds of some?

JEN

.....The reason Liberals fight so hard for embrionic stem cell research is because it gives them a legal basis for abortion ...

.....If it is legal to kill embrios in a petrie dish ...would it not also be legal to kill them in the womb? .....COLOSSUS

jerabaub
ALL policy is derived from some moral stance. If it doesn't happen to be YOUR moral stance, it's bad. Policy doesn't just appear.

ergum @10:16
What an excellent post. Thanks.

Lily
You sound like my 6 year old. "But Mom, why can't I dive from the top of the bookshelf to the couch below? I've done it before and didn't get hurt. Don't worry, I know what I'm doing. How else will I advance in my diving skills?" I suppose you believe the risk to human life takes a backseat to "personal freedom". Like 6 yr olds, Liberals are incapable of seeing beyond their own instant gratification.

BTW, you might want to research history a little a bit. You might find that atleast half of the scientific advances you sight were infact due to the sweat and tears of devout christians. It is infact The Church that has given us far more medical/scientific advances then you realize. It is precisely christian principles that motivate individuals to better mankind. There was only one thing you stated correctly, "I believe that God reveals himself through science". I couldn't agree with you more!

Reread Ergum's post. He states it perfectly. No one denies Science can do good, but rise above the level of a 6 yr. old and be mature enough to admit it can do bad.

Carelessly Creating and Destroying Life
Getting the government to stop funding the destruction of life is only a part of the battle. When IVF was allowed to go on without restriction, life was allowed to be created that would never become fully developed and born. As a result, these babies are in suspended animation. It is just as anti-life to carelessly create life as to arbitrarily destroy it.

Steve (12:29pm)
EXcellent point, often overlooked.

Two Things
First, President Bush says, "And as we explore promising avenues of research, we must also ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves." This is the same person who had an innocent Canadian citizen flown to Syria and tortured, wants mercenaries who gun down innocent Iraqi civilians to be given immunity, and whose abstinence-only policies in Africa have stunted progress that was being made to curb the number of AIDS related deaths. "Pro-lifers" need to realize that life doesn't stop after birth.

Second, I'm intrigued by the belief that "life begins at conception." The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. What is it that happens at conception that leads to belief that life begins there?

SunThe1
If policy must derive from a moral source, then why do we not kill those in our nation who do not accept the God of the Israelis, or later, Christians(thru His son)?

Did not the Bible countenance such sanctions, given on high to Moses?

It matters little whether it is my moral stance(on abortion, or stem cell).

My point was that no politician should deem himself so morally absolute as to presume to impose his personal morality on public policy.

If indeed there is some moral basis in law, let that body closest to the will of the people decide, and that is why I said state legislatures.


Mike H
"The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. What is it that happens at conception that leads to belief that life begins there?

What happens? The two become one. :)

when will we learn
that playing God is serious business with vast, unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle and embryonic stem cells are in the petrie dish. Abortion, stem-cell research, climate change are all products of insufficient research and imprecise conclusions leading to moral and ethical breaching. This is a quote from the LA Times with regard to Polar Bears being considered for extinction status: "all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others, and then there is the Polar Bear." - Kassie Siegal, attorney for Center for Biological Diversity. That is how those who wish to control go about their business. Good luck will not be enough to stop this madness.

JIMMYJAMES

.....I am in favor of hunting the Polar Bears to the brink of extinction and only maintaining a large enough population to supply food for native eskimos ...of what other possible purpose do Polar bears serve that is beneficial to man? .....COLOSSUS

'ESCR' Destroys Human Life
Michael Fumento has said that embryonic stem cell research has failed to produce a cure for even one disease. This despite billions of dollars of funding all over the world. Moreover, there is not even one clinical trial in progress.

Adult stem cell research has developed cures for 70-80 diseases and maladies, many not requiring FDA approval for use. More than 1200 clinical trial are on going according to Fumento's articles (> 1 year ago).

There has never been a need to destroy human life for medical research, even in stem cell research.

The scientists exploiting the totally failed embryonic cell approach really want to develop a master race-free of African Americans and other people these 'scientists' want to eliminate.

Defending human life is not an option according to God. Christians need to get educated and take action to stop the deliberate destruction of human life

What's this WE stuff?
jerabaub writes: Sunday, February, 03, 2008 12:58 PM
SunThe1
If policy must derive from a moral source, then why do we not kill those in our nation who do not accept the God of the Israelis, or later, Christians(thru His son)?

Did not the Bible countenance such sanctions, given on high to Moses?

It matters little whether it is my moral stance(on abortion, or stem cell).

My point was that no politician should deem himself so morally absolute as to presume to impose his personal morality on public policy.

If indeed there is some moral basis in law, let that body closest to the will of the people decide, and that is why I said state legislatures.
-------------
As I noted in a conversation with a workmate that said all religions were good, as long as they believe the others are good, your logic is ridiculous.

Jesus and his Apostles directly told us what we need to do relevant to salvation, responsibilities to our fellow Christians, responsibilities to our fellow humans, and responsibilities to God. Just because it's not your "feel good" solution doesn't make it right, or you relevant.

Unfortunately, the craziest part of your logic is that you then apply it to the innocent.

Autonomous science has no morals…

‘The progress of science should be undergirded by sound moral and ethical principles.’-Ken Conner

Mr. Conner how do you expect science to be governed by ethics when there is no authoritative definition of morality nor a consensus of right and wrong? Morals must be based on truth rather than opinion. In a culture that has grown accustomed to lawlessness we expect every man to do what is right in his own eyes.

Much of what is called science today exists to undermine the foundation of law and morality. If the Creation and Flood accounts in Genesis are nothing but myth, then nothing in the Bible is trustworthy because Christ references Genesis as authoritative…

[Mark 10:6] & [Luke 17:26].

If the Bible cannot be trusted and the Christ of the Bible is not eternal truth revealed in flesh, then we agree with the culture that there is no truth. Men are limited, ignorant and blind. We cannot possibly know truth in the realm of existence and morals apart from revelation; the infinite God who is outside His creation must reveal these things in order for His image bearers to know them.

We deceive ourselves to think otherwise for ‘the heart is deceitful above all things’. How do you know what you know about origins and morals is true?

Here is a TownHall classic to illustrate the point…

‘Those of us who support stem cell research do not believe that the embryo's from which they are derived are fully realized human beings, and we therefore do not consider it murder to harvest and try to use them.’ –TH Comment

There it is. They do not ‘believe’ that the embryo is a ‘fully realized’ human being. So it is OK to kill a partially realized person or that which is to be a person?

More on blog...

jerabaub
I didn't say policy derived from the bible. I said it derived from some moral source- meaning someone's idea of a moral judgement.

Your post was entitled "imposing morality onto policy", and you seemed to be saying that if states had the say, that wouldn't be the case.
Actually, I agree that states should have the say in most issues.
I was just commenting on the part that seemed to be saying that that wouldn't be imposing morality on policy. It would be--it'd just be the collective morality of the people of a state.

If there was no morality...
...there would be no laws. Laws are the result of anger on the part of the constituency over some action by people most people deem immoral. Hence the phrase, "There aughta be a law."

Laws are the opposite of disinterestedness.

BTW, laws deal with more topics than sex. (People who say laws shouldn't be based on morality generally mean sex.)
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.