Obsolete Procedure, Obstinate ArgumentDec 03, 2007
The recent stem cell discovery by Wisconsin and Japanese scientists of techniques that produce virtual embryonic stem cells from skin cells — thereby eliminating the need to harvest and destroy human embryos to achieve any possible cures from embryonic stem cell research — is great news for science, medicine and the cause of life, both for curing those who are ill and saving the unborn. This is great news for everyone except those who have chosen to use stem cell research as a weapon against anyone pro-life. Already the pro-abortion side, led by the likes of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), is giving us the, “Yes, but . . . .” routine. One would think that a discovery which eliminates the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and advances medicine is something over which all people can unify.
If motives truly are to find cures, and one side had ethical objections over a certain procedure only to have those objections overcome by a new technique with no deleterious effects, shouldn’t the other side agree to move forward to achieve their stated goal of advancing science? As noted before on this blog, the insincerity of the “safe, legal and rare,” crowd gets exposed when asked what policies they advocate to preserve unborn life. How they don’t consider this new embryonic stem cell replication technique a no-brainer reveals the depths of their dug-in, abortion-at-all-costs nature.
Let’s face it: the stem cell debate isn’t about science, which is clearly on our side, its about money and power and abortion. Not only does the new technique solve ethical problems, as pro-choice Charles Krauthammer, M.D., explains, it is an eminently simpler process, produces a more reliable and versatile cell, and is less expensive to produce than the labyrinth procedure of harvesting embryonic stem cells, all while holding the exact same potential for cures claimed by embryonic stem cell proponents. Furthermore, since these cells would be taken from the patient, there is no chance of rejection once used to repair or replace the cells or tissues causing the ailment in that patient.
Along with adult stem cells, from such sources as cord blood, which has produced 72 advances (compared to zero embryonic stem cell breakthroughs), we now have a full and ethical arsenal of scientific work that should be pursued. Additionally, because the new technique is simpler than the destroy-embryos method, hundreds of labs currently not equipped for embryonic stem cell research because of its complexity, can immediately start work on medical cures and treatments. That’s more research, which means quicker results — another reason Virginia should put its tax dollars toward adult stem cell research and not the now out-of-date research on embryos.
Even the more secular Europeans are excited. Germany announced an immediate doubling of adult stem cell research based on this skin cell discovery, while Dr. Ian Wilmut, the Scottish creator of Dolly the cloned sheep, has pledged to forgo human cloning and said replication of embryonic stem cells from adult skin cells is “the future.”
Another irony? The research that brought about this remarkable breakthrough was paid for by federal tax dollars targeted to find such a discovery included in President Bush’s directive banning federal money toward the development of new embryonic stem cell lines — the same “anti-science” President Bush (as the left derides him) — while Congress rejected funding for this very same program. Who looks like the flat-earther now? So advocates of destroying human embryos are in a quandary: If they embrace this new method of creating embryonic stem cells, they deny their rationale for abortion.
So expect resistance. Except, as noted above, market forces may just settle this argument. Dr. James Thomson, one of the University of Wisconsin project leaders, and also a pioneer in embryo-destroying stem-cell research, told the media, “If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable you have not thought about it enough.”
Hopefully, liberal, pro-abortion types will think about it and take this one step toward the side of life, and science. If they truly are sincere, then there’s a world of discovery and hope ahead for us all, unified. Otherwise, if they defend what will become an obsolete procedure with an obstinate argument, their true intentions will be exposed.