We have to talk about stem cells

President Bush has threatened to use his veto (he's doing that a lot lately) on any legislation that helps stem cell research. Why?

The legislation "relies on unsupported scientific assertions to promote morally troubling and socially controversial research," the White House statement of administration policy said.

You know, I don't even understand why this isn't on the table. Is cancer research next? We're talking about the possibility of great medical breathroughs and Bush is morally troubled by that?

I know, I know. It's because those embryos are lifeforms. Well, for every woman that is treated by in vitro fertilization, there are hundreds of fertilized embryos. The process is very hit or miss so they need lots of back up embryos. After the process is successful, and if the couple decides to have no more children, the embryos are thrown away! Stopping stem cell research doesn't save anything; it just eliminates the possibility that many more lives are saved.

Linking this to the abortion issue is just stupid. The two really have nothing to do with each other. With abortion, we're talking about a fetus that is as much as 6 months along in development. With stem cell research we're talking about fertilized eggs that have never and never will exist inside a woman's womb. There's just no comparison.

The only sticking point is the contention that life begins at conception. If that is true, then every sexually active woman over the age of 12 is a multiple murderer. Every woman has had at least one fertilized egg that did not begin to grow until too late in the menstrual cycle and was expelled.

This debate should not even be happening and a few courageous moderate Republicans are trying to break free in the House. This is something I never thought I would suggest, but here it is: I think Democrats everywhere should sign a statement of support for these Republicans.

Now, here me out. We need moderate Republicans. At some point in the future we will have a majority in either or both houses and we will need them, otherwise we will end up being dictatorial and drunk with power like the Republicans now. In the meantime, we need them if we are going to advance our agenda at all.

These people either need to be supported by Democrats or we need to win their seats. Not every district is going to be competitive for the latter so we need to consider the former.

'Stina from TexasLawChick blog has her own take.

Comments

[Christina]

You're missing two points:

1. Some of those embryos "left over" from IVF have been adopted. They're called "children." You can see some pictures of them here.

2. The real medical progress isn't in embryonic stem cells anyway. They tend to run amok and turn into nasty tumors. The real miracles are already being wrought with adult and cord-blood stem cells. These treatments are already restoring sight to the blind, saving the lives of children with a rare disease, and enabling the paralyzed to walk. Why are we obsessing with gutting 7-day-old embryos to get something that might work some day in the far utopian future, when we have all the stem cells we need in our own bodies, producing miracles right now?