At The Border

Most of you will know the good news about research performed on cells drawn from amniotic fluid recently. In fact, many of the unfulfilled promises about the glories of “tiny-human-harvesting-for-the-purpose-of-serving-big-humans” research (i.e., embryonic stem cell research) were actually met through the amniotic fluid research. Various tissue forms were grown (muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells). And no embryos were destroyed in the offing.

Now, you’d think our country would be rejoicing. Here, at last, is one possible answer to a national debate. We can get these cells, no life is lost. While some of us still get a little chill when we think about the fine lines being skated in biomedical research these days, at least this research isn’t a blatant form of human-life-as-commodity. You’d think that an answer had been reached.

But no. It hasn’t. The editors at the New York Times are insisting: We need to give the researchers an unfettered right to do what they want!!! Look at this little collection of excerpts (with helpful commentary from yours truly):

QUOTE: “House Democrats are poised to push through a bill this week that would loosen President Bush’s restrictions on federal support of embryonic stem cell research. The bill will be opposed by legislators beholden to religious conservatives.”
COMMENTARY: Isn’t it strange how only legislators who represent evangelicals are ever “beholden” to anyone? I mean, was Nancy Pelosi “beholden” to anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan when she adopted Sheehan’s precise language a day after their most recent protest? Was Supreme Court Justice Henry Blackmun “beholden” to his daughter when he, by his own admission, took her personal opinions and experience into account when forming his own opinions in the Roe v. Wade decision? Are the liberals pushing this form of research “beholden” to secular humanists? Nope, just the duly-elected legislators who underhandedly represent their evangelical constituents. Interesting.

QUOTE: “The new study, while certainly intriguing, in no way lessens the need to widen the array of embryonic stem cells available for research and ultimately therapy. The Democrats’ proposal is extremely modest — about the least that could be done to accelerate progress in this promising field.”
COMMENTARY: Again, always remember that this “promising field” has yielded no advances. It is only from adult stem-cell research and the most recent research that anything promised has actually happened. Also remember, there is not one law preventing scientists from harvesting small humans to do their experiments. The only thing up for debate is whether our tax dollars will pay for it.

QUOTE: “…it would be a mistake to use this promising research, which has yet to be replicated or fully accepted by other scientists, as another excuse for hobbling embryonic stem cell research.”
COMMENTARY: The NYT has just finished telling us that the “new research” has actually yielded NERVE TISSUE. Realize the implications of that? They’re huge. Major potential. And, by their own admission, obtaining the cells to do this was “relatively easy.” But even with that, we still need to be sure the government is giving our money to certain scientists for harvesting small humans (yes, I keep using that phrase. Just trying to overcome the euphemistic drag of phrases like “cells derived from human embryos.”)

QUOTE: “At this point, it is important to explore all approaches: using ‘adult’ stem cells, which can grow into a very limited range of body tissues; the cells found in amniotic fluid, which may yield a broader range of tissues; and the most versatile cells of all, those derived from early human embryos.”
COMMENTARY: And here we have the money phrase. This is journalistic-propaganda prowess at its most refined. You see, even if the undiscerning reader has thought, “I still don’t like the idea of embryonic stem cell research,” this cool little turn of phrase has just established a moral equivalence between the three lines of research. If you’re not careful, you’ll read over that sentence without ever realizing that the last form of research is qualitatively different than the former two. But that’s what they want.

TO SUM UP: When you boil this editorial down to its essence and provide a slight southern twang, it reads like this: Please, please, please, let us do some good ol’ fashioned killin’. Okay, okay, we admit it, at this point, it’s virtually pointless. I mean, we’ve just gotten everything we were promised by embryonic stem cell research. But, just in case, let us do some killin’. I mean, we bought the rubber gloves, medical masks, test tubes and all. So…pretty please, give us the money. We’ll even wear a three-piece-suit to pick up the check.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 3:35 pm and is filed under Uncategorized, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.