The why and wherefore of embryonic stem cell research

A recent Newsweek survey indicates that George W. Bush has a 26 percent overall job approval rating with 65 percent disapproving of his leadership as president. It is doubtless that some Georgia Baptists disapprove of the leadership of the nation’s 43rd president, but all Georgia Baptists should applaud his veto on June 20th.

Bush used his third veto since becoming president to nix legislation to expand federally-funded embryonic stem cell research, saying that scientific advances now allow researchers to pursue the potentially lifesaving work without destroying human embryos.

In his message to Congress, Bush said the legislation crossed an ethical line. “The Congress has sent me legislation that would compel American taxpayers, for the first time in our history, to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos,” Bush said.

Obviously, the majority of the members of Congress disagreed with the president on the stem cell legislation. Senator Hillary Clinton voiced her displeasure with the president’s veto, saying, “This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he [really is].”

Issues like embryonic stem cell research often become political footballs that force debates where legislators choose sides. Occasionally such issues result in emotionally-charged quandaries where the hope of curing heartrending medical conditions is pitted against the deeply held moral convictions of many Americans.

One of the first celebrity proponents of embryonic stem cell research was Christopher Reeves, the handsome Adonis who starred in the Superman movies prior to the horse- riding accident that left him a quadriplegic. He spoke in favor of the aforementioned research, calling it “therapeutic cloning.”

Michael J. Fox, another popular and appealing celebrity, has also become an advocate for embryonic stem cell research. Fox suffers from Parkinson’s, a chronic disease of the central nervous system that causes muscular tremors and physical weakness. During the last election season he had a series of political campaign ads in which he was trying to persuade Americans to vote for candidates who supported embryonic stem cell research.

The physical condition of Reeves and Fox and the plaintive appeals of such luminaries as Nancy Reagan and her son, Ron, have stirred the hearts of the most calloused Americans, but the emotional appeals of such celebrities frequently ignore or mischaracterize the scientific facts.

Make no mistake about it, I am for stem cell research, but I am not for taking stem cells from an unborn or aborted baby to conduct research. Stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos – adult cells, umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, human placenta. Many scientists feel that research on these types of stem cells is extremely promising.

Dr. Mary Davenport, a practicing OB/GYN and member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stated, “The plain truth is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells.

“Scientists know that claims of imminent cures of disease using embryonic stem cells are junk science, whereas progress in adult stem cell research has been nothing short of spectacular. It is unfortunate that the mainstream media has exaggerated the prospects for embryonic stem cell research while ignoring the real results achieved with adult stem cells.”

The January 2006 Journal of Investigative Medicine states that while embryonic stem cells seem to have much potential for good, the results of research thus far have been modest and fraught with problems. The Journal details, “There are many scientific hurdles to overcome before embryonic cells might be used clinically, including generation of functional differentiated cells, tumor formation, and immune rejection.”

A personal physician friend has concluded that keeping embryonic stem cell research alive gives legitimacy to the abortion issue, because the ethical arguments that support fetal or embryonic research assume that the fetus and embryo do not have rights equal to individuals further along in their human development. In short, one must define the embryo as a human cell mass that does not have the same right to life as us, more developed, differentiated cell masses.

Furthermore, what is the primary principle articulated in the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights establishes a government whereby the rights of the individual transcend the perceived rights of the State. In the American experiment when people are no longer able to retain their individual rights as expressed in the first ten amendments, a just government would devolve into one in which the majority could inflict injustice on less favored people.

That is precisely what occurred in the Nazi regime in Germany when the Aryans felt they had the right to liquidate Jews. It is also frighteningly reminiscent of the days prior to the American Civil War when some of our forefathers claimed the right to own slaves.

Therefore, it would be the height of hypocrisy to vigorously condemn slavery with a haughty scorn and yet vehemently defend the right to abort an unborn child. However, since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 we have lived under the rule of law that actually circumvents the Bill of Rights and gives the rights of one individual precedence over the rights of another.

Anton-Lewis Usala, M.D., in his white paper on The Case Against Funding Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, stated, “[Since Roe v. Wade] the right of the mother to terminate her pregnancy takes precedence over the right of her developing child to live. By proposing federal support for human embryo research, the State will be deciding the best use of an individual for the State’s purposes, for the first time in American law.”

Thankfully, the president’s veto prevented the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research this year. It is difficult to see what is on the horizon regarding this issue, but we must not trivialize the protection that the Bill of Rights affords to all individuals, including embryos.