A Disconnect?
By John Cole Posted in User Blogs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I think I might be seeing a serious disconnect here that is helping to cause part of the problem with your perceptions regarding the stem cell debate.
Perhaps the reason you believe you are 'losing the debate' on whether or not using embryonic stem cells for research purposes is not because you are actually losing the debate, but because many people refuse to entertain it as a valid debate. While for many of you, this may be a valid moral issue based upon your religious or other personal beliefs, for a vast majority of people, this is might not be a debate over moral v. immoral, as it is to them not a moral issue.
I don't view embryonic research as any more moral or immoral than I view an appendectomy, a blood transfusion, cutting open and examining semen, etc. It is simply not a moral issue for me, it is a medical/scientific one. You, of course, are free to disagree with me on that issue, but it might be that a lot of people look at this issue the way I do, and simply reject moral arguments.
While you are all operating from the perspective that an embryonic stem cell = an embryo = a first trimester fetus = a newborn, the rest of the folks who you are trying to convince look at your attempts to portray a blastocyst as the moral equivalent of a person as overstating the case.
One of the reasons the pro-life movement has had success with abortion limitations is in large part due to the fact that people recognize abortion as a moral issue, and are willing to debate the issue as such. Thus, when sonograms and other images of three month old fetuses are presented, as well as other agruments offered to make the moral case against abortion, you convert others. But there, there is at least consensus that this is a moral debate. It may be possible that no such consensus exists regarding stem cell research, and IMHO simply stating something is a moral issue no more makes it one than me stating that the debate over using live versus dead worms is a moral issue that fishermen should examine.
BTW- I agree with Adam. If you want to make a winning argument, use financial arguments. I reject opposition to this research on moral grounds, but I am sensitive to the fact that as Americans, many of you are opposed to this on moral grounds, and perhaps I should honor your request to not be a party to funding something you disagree with so strongly.
There is also the distinct possibility that people do view this as a moral issue, I don't know what the hell I am talking about, and they simply reject your arguments. In that case, you are right- you are losing the debate.
I see absolutely no reason the government shouldn't fund this research and (potentially) be a leader in the area of treating some of the world's most destructive diseases.
You want the Chinese capitalizing on it instead of us?
- Greg
There is indeed a discoonnect on stem cells, fueled by media spin.
The MSM would like the "sheeple" to believe that embryonic stem-cells are the cure-all for all degenerative diseases, and all we have to do is get past those medieval pro-life ignoramuses, and hero scientists would cure Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.
Except that this is not true, but don't bother the MSM with facts.
Clinical research thus far with embryonic stem-cells has been a dismal failure, and worse: no one has yet been cured of any disease using embryonic stem-cells, and many patients end up worse than before, such as having bone tissue growing in their brains and uncontrollable seizures.
Adult stem cells, and stem-cells taken from umbilical cord blood and human placentas have shown very promising results in many clinical studies, and have cured some diseases. Adult stem cells can be extracted with minimal harm to the donor, and umbilical cords and placentas are routinely discarded after birth, so using their stem cells does no harm to either mother or child.
But, thanks to the media hype, there is a disconnect between public perception and reality. Public perception: embryonic stem-cells are the miracle cure, whose promise is blocked by obstinate pro-lifers. Reality: embryonic stem-cells are ineffective, while adult and cord-blood stem cells are very effective, and pro-lifers have no objection to using them.
The media tend to hype embryonic stem-cells as able to develop into any type of cell, and therefore more potent than adult stem cells. From a scientific point of view, the problem is that embryonic stem-cells are enabled to develop by chemical conditions in the womb. Transplant the cells into an elderly person's liver or brain, and the stem-cell becomes very unpredictable, usually causing harm.
Adult stem cells are already adapted to the organ in which they are found, and if transplanted into the same organ in another person, they will do exactly as they did before, and help the patient.
Use of adult or cord-blood stem cells is scientifically proven, and the moral equivalent of a blood transfusion, and pro-lifers have no problem with it.
Use of embryonic stem-cells kills the embryo, and has little or no therapeutic value.
Science and morals agree on this issue: adult and cord blood stem-cells, yes; embryonic stem cells, no.
only thing to add is that we are losing the debate because of a cohesive message. I offer mine below.
"Private Business has no restrictions to create cures with Embryonic Stem Cells. They have repeated tried and failed. There are no cures to date after decades of trying. Private Business has given up spending money on this research because its a loser. Why should Government waste money on this as well. There are 100's of better places this money can be spent on you and your family and anyone telling you different is blinded by hopeless dispair or wants the money for themselves. Embryonic Stem Cell research is bad business, bad government and bad science".
on stem cells, but I am also profoundly unsympatheic to any argument that dismissess the American people as "sheeple". IMO, that sort of logic leads to dictatorship.
And yes, the impression has been given that all sorts of wondrous cures are just around the corner. But the media is not at fault for that: they are only reporting what they are being told. It is of course the researchers and the concerns they represent (companies, universities etc.) which have spun that line for the obvious reason of garnering more funding.
the majority of the Visual media do not give both sides of the story... especially in an election cycle
Re: I don't agree at all the majority of the Visual media do not give both sides of the story... especially in an election cycle
The visual media is not by its very nature capable of giving a full, in-depth treatment to any story. Which is why I rarely watch TV news-- the only exceptions being in major crises like 9-11 or when a hurricane is looming near us.
As someone who is both pro-choice and strongly opposed to government funding of abortions, it seems to me that it shouldn't be that hard to construct a convincing argument that this sort of research should not be funded by the government, as long as it isn't accompanied by further suggestions that the government actively hamstring private research in the area.