An Emotional Conviction: Cautiously Advocating Embryonic Stem Cell Research
History is littered with truth-seekers who paid dearly for engaging in religious contradiction. When Galileo observed planets moving in space through his newly-discovered telescope, the Church of Rome quickly branded him a heretic. The field of medical ethics has long been the central venue for debating, in a public forum, similar controversies. Science, religion, and ethics have been, and still are, a necessary triad for arriving at rational opinions about similar issues of human discovery. When reasonable discourse unfolds, often over a span decades or centuries, an evolution of human thinking occurs – usually to the benefit of civilization and culture. But, it seems to be the natural disposition of the human species to cling to deeply-held spiritual beliefs about the place and purpose of life on Earth. Stem cell research, one issue currently under attack on religious and ethical grounds, must continue to be debated and responsibly researched due to its potential to improve human health and the quality of life of our descendants.
As a teacher of first-year composition at a local community college, I have been informed of the standard practice of steering budding rhetoricians away from topics related to “sanctity of life” issues, not only because they tend to be knee-jerk in content and commentary, but are based, primarily, on personal, religious, and/or socio-political beliefs. The hot-button topics at the top of the list are usually abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and more recently, embryonic stem cell research. More often than not, due partly to the inexperience of the youthful essayists, there are tired and predictable outcomes to the opposing arguments: the pro-choice stance comes off sounding like cold-hearted, secular-humanistic, rationality, while the pro-life position takes a position based on religious faith, a stubborn morality, and a general suspicion of medical science. The best of these papers simply employ sources that support their respective positions – riding them like a long-shot nag at Pimlico, lacking any sense of concession.
It is here where I stubbornly concede the futility of debating faith-based issues. Minds have been made up, opinions must be respected – this is simply the world we live in. I admit this concession with a full respect and appreciation for the beliefs of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research based on a personal sense of faith and morality. The one thing I cannot concede to is the employment of emotional hyperbole – a strategy that many who oppose embryonic stem cell research resort to in their predictably impassioned, but somewhat manipulative, attempts at argument.
Even though I am somewhat more experienced at argumentation than many of my students, I still carry an instinctual reflex to stay clear of issues strong on murky beliefs, and weak on empirical discourse. Interestingly, these are the reasons that even the best writers and debaters often fall short in persuasion. The starting point for the stem cell debate stands, and will continue to reside, at the stage where human life supposedly begins. Pro-life advocates stubbornly, and chauvinistically, bestow the mantle of life exclusively on the human coupling of sperm and egg. Again, there is a futility of arguing theological and philosophical positions here because “faith” and “belief” cannot be extracted from the discussion. The emotional, exploitive side-taking cannot be denied .
This extension of the abortion debate is, to many, a logical connection: sacred conception, a fertilized egg, and moral obligations. But it is one connection that “right to life” moralists are all too quick to adapt to any topic that make them philosophically uncomfortable. To me, this is a one-trick pony. If I were to employ the same strategy, I would quote humorist George Carlin. Carlin’s problem with the sanctity of life plays as an absurd, but thoughtful, concept: since all “life” on Earth is carbon-based, should we be burning all this coal? Granted, it is absurd on its face, but it draws out the primary essence of the debate.
There are currently two types of stem cells that have long been in use, advancing medical science and the hopes of many sick people over the years. According to the book, Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine, Thomas and Blume are quoted as saying Hematopoietic stem cells are “adult” stem cells which are crucial in the treatment of “bone marrow transplants in increasing the survival of patients with leukemia and other cancers, inherited blood disorders, and diseases of the immune system” (The Natl. Academy of Sciences, 19). Another type, fetal blood stem cells, are drawn directly from the umbilical cords of newborn infants. These cells can be stored indefinitely in event that the donor or relative, later in life, “encountered a serious, life-threatening illness,” where these specialized cells “would come to the rescue” (The Natl. Academy…).
The most heated controversy about stem cells concerns the embryonic type which can only be useful if extracted five to seven days after fertilization. This early development of embryonic stem cells is what also makes them so promising and special to medicine. The book, The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and Their Promise, articulates the specific nature of these early cells, stating that “what generally sets (these) stem cells apart from other cells is that it is of immature status (some versions more than others) and unspecialized (some versions more than others) and more fancy-free than a mature cell that has specialized” (Parson, 2). When looking at it from this perspective, it is this non-specificity which makes all the difference. But, instead of facing an alternative possibility for stem cell research, opponents apply more emotional hyperbole about the precious gift of individuality – in reality, it’s simply apples and oranges. No two grains of sand are alike. Does that mean we should not melt them into glass? The early formation of this cell blastoma, its lack of “identity” as a potential human are critical facts in the “life” debate that suffocates reasonable discourse on stem cell research. This issue of “holy” semantics is one of the frustrating aspects of debating an issue such as embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research needs to continue, as the potential benefits are currently unknown. Currently in America, around 134 million people, with conditions ranging from heart disease and diabetes, to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, could benefit from continued embryonic stem cell research,. The philosopher John Stuart Mill, who conceived the theory of Utilitarianism over 100 years ago, suggests that “The greatest good for the greatest number of people,” was a morality in itself. This gem of common sense continues to be a mainstay for governments and individuals. If we exercise some amount of responsible empathy and respect, stem cell research could improve life in the years to come, not destroy it.
As a teacher of first-year composition at a local community college, I have been informed of the standard practice of steering budding rhetoricians away from topics related to “sanctity of life” issues, not only because they tend to be knee-jerk in content and commentary, but are based, primarily, on personal, religious, and/or socio-political beliefs. The hot-button topics at the top of the list are usually abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and more recently, embryonic stem cell research. More often than not, due partly to the inexperience of the youthful essayists, there are tired and predictable outcomes to the opposing arguments: the pro-choice stance comes off sounding like cold-hearted, secular-humanistic, rationality, while the pro-life position takes a position based on religious faith, a stubborn morality, and a general suspicion of medical science. The best of these papers simply employ sources that support their respective positions – riding them like a long-shot nag at Pimlico, lacking any sense of concession.
It is here where I stubbornly concede the futility of debating faith-based issues. Minds have been made up, opinions must be respected – this is simply the world we live in. I admit this concession with a full respect and appreciation for the beliefs of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research based on a personal sense of faith and morality. The one thing I cannot concede to is the employment of emotional hyperbole – a strategy that many who oppose embryonic stem cell research resort to in their predictably impassioned, but somewhat manipulative, attempts at argument.
Even though I am somewhat more experienced at argumentation than many of my students, I still carry an instinctual reflex to stay clear of issues strong on murky beliefs, and weak on empirical discourse. Interestingly, these are the reasons that even the best writers and debaters often fall short in persuasion. The starting point for the stem cell debate stands, and will continue to reside, at the stage where human life supposedly begins. Pro-life advocates stubbornly, and chauvinistically, bestow the mantle of life exclusively on the human coupling of sperm and egg. Again, there is a futility of arguing theological and philosophical positions here because “faith” and “belief” cannot be extracted from the discussion. The emotional, exploitive side-taking cannot be denied .
This extension of the abortion debate is, to many, a logical connection: sacred conception, a fertilized egg, and moral obligations. But it is one connection that “right to life” moralists are all too quick to adapt to any topic that make them philosophically uncomfortable. To me, this is a one-trick pony. If I were to employ the same strategy, I would quote humorist George Carlin. Carlin’s problem with the sanctity of life plays as an absurd, but thoughtful, concept: since all “life” on Earth is carbon-based, should we be burning all this coal? Granted, it is absurd on its face, but it draws out the primary essence of the debate.
There are currently two types of stem cells that have long been in use, advancing medical science and the hopes of many sick people over the years. According to the book, Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine, Thomas and Blume are quoted as saying Hematopoietic stem cells are “adult” stem cells which are crucial in the treatment of “bone marrow transplants in increasing the survival of patients with leukemia and other cancers, inherited blood disorders, and diseases of the immune system” (The Natl. Academy of Sciences, 19). Another type, fetal blood stem cells, are drawn directly from the umbilical cords of newborn infants. These cells can be stored indefinitely in event that the donor or relative, later in life, “encountered a serious, life-threatening illness,” where these specialized cells “would come to the rescue” (The Natl. Academy…).
The most heated controversy about stem cells concerns the embryonic type which can only be useful if extracted five to seven days after fertilization. This early development of embryonic stem cells is what also makes them so promising and special to medicine. The book, The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and Their Promise, articulates the specific nature of these early cells, stating that “what generally sets (these) stem cells apart from other cells is that it is of immature status (some versions more than others) and unspecialized (some versions more than others) and more fancy-free than a mature cell that has specialized” (Parson, 2). When looking at it from this perspective, it is this non-specificity which makes all the difference. But, instead of facing an alternative possibility for stem cell research, opponents apply more emotional hyperbole about the precious gift of individuality – in reality, it’s simply apples and oranges. No two grains of sand are alike. Does that mean we should not melt them into glass? The early formation of this cell blastoma, its lack of “identity” as a potential human are critical facts in the “life” debate that suffocates reasonable discourse on stem cell research. This issue of “holy” semantics is one of the frustrating aspects of debating an issue such as embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research needs to continue, as the potential benefits are currently unknown. Currently in America, around 134 million people, with conditions ranging from heart disease and diabetes, to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, could benefit from continued embryonic stem cell research,. The philosopher John Stuart Mill, who conceived the theory of Utilitarianism over 100 years ago, suggests that “The greatest good for the greatest number of people,” was a morality in itself. This gem of common sense continues to be a mainstay for governments and individuals. If we exercise some amount of responsible empathy and respect, stem cell research could improve life in the years to come, not destroy it.
posted by Scott Schuer | 1:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home