Missouri Amendment 2 is not the answer

A Family article with View Comments posted 23 October 2006.
Tags: , , ,

Unfortunately, three facts have gone unacknowledged in the debate over Missouri’s proposed constitutional amendment 2 in the upcoming midterm elections.

  1. There is no established scientific reason why any therapy possible with embryonic stem cells would be impossible with adult stem cells. A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell – a cell that could become any other cell.
  2. While there are over 50 proven treatments which use adult stem cells, there are no treatments using embryonic stem cells which have been approved by the FDA. Moreover, the big problem is that embryonic stem cells cause cancer.
  3. No matter where the embryo comes from – whether the product of a sperm or an egg or the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer (aka “cloning”), an embryo is a genetically unique organism, capable of developing into a human being. Such a thing is, like you and me, created in the image of God, and ought to be respected and protected.

This debate isn’t just about embryonic stem cells, of course. I oppose the amendment because it is only designed to give up the right of Missouri to choose for itself different policies than the rest of the country. This is an issue of states’ rights – should we be allowed in the future to make decisions about stem cell treatments, or do we choose now to let the federal government impose a policy upon us in the future?

Proponents of this amendment are like those who are afraid of what will happen when Roe v. Wade is reversed. Reversing Roe v. Wade won’t immediately illegalize abortion across the United States. It will give the states the right to choose their own policies. Why is it that people who say they are in favor of “choices” oppose this one? What are they afraid of?

For another Christian perspective on Missouri Amendment 2, visit this site.

You might also enjoy:

  1. An alternative to embryonic stem cells
  2. Talent concedes in Missouri, still hope for killing Amendment 2
  3. Michael J. Fox and stem cells
  4. 25th anniversary of Missouri Scholars Academy
  5. Dégénération

  • You've got the US Amendment 10 side of things backwards. Unless the federal government specifically legislates openness towards using embryonic stem cells, the states may add restrictions. In essence, what Missouri Amendment 2 does is restrict the state's future choice in applying it's US Amendment 10 rights on this issue. Why bother?

    As for equating embryonic stem cell research with abortion, the comparison is apt. You define abortion as "the purposeful destruction of an embryo." You also state that "stem cell research is...the creation of embryos and/or embryonic stem cells." To be completely correct, stem cell research that does not use existing stem cell lines create and destroy embryos by definition. So if in stem cell research we're creating embryos, and we're destroying them on purpose to perform research, we have met your definition of abortion.

    I'm in the process of writing a post regarding the definition of human life and I'll state my views more clearly there.

    I have to agree, however, that too many people who are pro-life are pro-death penalty. In theory, the death penalty can be a just punishment for heinous crimes, but as carried out in the United States, with the biases (especially racial and economic) inherent within the system, it is abhorrent to continue it. But that's a discussion for another day. :)
  • There is no established scientific reason to use embryonic stem cells because the field is still in its infancy. We don't yet know which will be more effective for what (http://www.nbc11.com/stemcells/6681406/detail.html).

    I can't get to your embryonic stem cells cause cancer link. But for what it's worth, it appears that the idea that badly controlled stem cell therapy of any kind could result in cancer - though you might be correct that embryonic stem cells are more likely to grow uncontrollably. In fact, this, as far as I can tell/have read is the primary reason embryonic stem cells are interesting, medically - they have the potential to divide for a year or more, whereas adult cells "can't self-renew for more than a couple of weeks (same source as above)." Yielding hundreds of pluripotent genetically identical stem cells would obviously speed research faster than a few adult stem cells.

    Amendment 10, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    The language in the proposed Amendment is simply restating the obvious. Bad form, possibly, but not implying or inviting anything other than the fact that if the Federal Government legislates something, the states have to comply. Furthermore, the idea that this Amendment could never be repealed is specious.

    Equating stem cell research with abortion is preposterous - abortion is the purposeful destruction of an embryo (or worse, a fetus). As you've mentioned, stem cell research is cloning - the creation of embryos and/or embryonic cells. Moreover, the elective abortions that are so generally opposed often terminate a viable pregnancy, whereas embryonic stem cell research often uses embryos that (would) have been consigned to the freezer or the "biological waste" can. Would you rather that continue to be the case, or should those embryos help further the research for cures to disease?

    Next, the nits: an embryo is not inherently a genetically unique organism (identical twins, other corner cases), and "An embryo is ... capable of developing into a human being" implies that it is not yet human.

    Finally, finally. What everyone is waiting for - and what I mentioned in my out of order post re: Michael J Fox. The real debate. And the really unanswerable questions. What is a human? Does humanity require a soul? One interesting argument I heard relies on the power of God - is it not possible that He decides, or decided, which embryos grow to be human and which embryos grow towards a cure to some debilitating disease?

    For relevance and interesting stages, consider:
    http://www.visembryo.com/baby/1.html

    The only problem with throwing our hands up and saying, we don't know when a person becomes a person is that questions about abortion and embryonic stem cell research are very hard to answer (well, we would also have much less to argue about). For my part, I don't believe the joining of two cells, whether sperm and egg or nucleus inserted into another cell, immediately results in a human life. As you said, the potential is there, but it is only potential.

    I've tried for about two hours to write things along the lines of, "Considering the development as outlined in the link above, I'd have to say the earliest sign of any kind of development is the time 13 days post-ovulation as the embryo first begins to shape itself," but I just don't think humanity is well-definable. Which does create a problem when advocating stem cell research. Mightn't it be reasonable to hold that which is easily labelled human life above that which might become human life?

    On a nearly related note, I wonder whether pro-life (abortion or stem cell issues) stances extend, in general, to the death penalty.

    Regardless, excellent post and a good discussion starter. Obviously.
blog comments powered by Disqus