An alternative to embryonic stem cells

A Church article with View Comments posted 20 November 2007.
Tags: , , , ,

In case you haven’t heard the news, there is a new approach to creating stem cells for research, one that does not involve human cloning or the destruction of human embryos. First Things’ Joseph Bottum had this to say about the development:

If the news of major breakthroughs in cell research should turn out to be correct, we are about to witness something like victory in the fight over embryonic stem cells.

And that will open a nest of interesting questions, beginning with this one: All those editorialists and columnists who have, over the past ten years, howled and howled about Luddites and religious fanatics thwarting science and frustrating medicine—were they really interested in technology and health, or were they just using all that as a handy stick with which to whack their political opponents?

You may remember back in the last election I opposed Missouri Amendment 2 because it authorized human cloning and destroyed embryos. Supporters even put Michael J. Fox on television, declaring that embryonic stem cells were the only hope to cure his Parkinson’s disease. But as the First Things article above suggests, support for embryonic stem cell research was not pro-science, it was pro-abortion.

With 2,000,000+ votes cast in 2006, Missouri Amendment 2 passed by less than 50,000 votes. With new science under our belts, perhaps now is a good time to begin efforts to repeal it.

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.