There's been a lot of debate lately about stem cell research, and also a lot of misinformation on both sides, but mainly--I hate to say it--from the pro-stem-cell research side. By lumping in all stem cells with human embryonic stem cells, they make it sound like those who are opposed to research on human embryonic stem cells are anti-science fanatics opposed to all stem cell research, and that simply isn't true. They are being intellectually dishonest, and I wonder why. There has to be an agenda somewhere.
Another thing that the public is not being told about regarding embryonic stem cell research--and I can say this because I work in the industry--is that while human embryonic stem cells are being touted as the magic cure-all, that is also far from the truth. I recently attended a seminar on the subject sponsored by my company and in comparing the various types of stem cells, they came right out and said that there seems to be an increased risk of cancer when using embryonic stem cells. I have also seen this in a veterinary magazine talking about stem cell treatments for dogs with cancer. The article stressed that the stem cells used were NOT embryonic stem cells because research has indicated that this increases the risk of cancer. But you won't hear that in the debates.
So I am thinking that the public is being sold a bill of goods and I am wondering why. And I think it has to do with the whole debate about when is it permissible to terminate a developing human life. Now there are a lot of opinions on the subject but I am not interested in opinions. I am interested in facts.
What is a scientific fact is that when it comes to sexually reproducing organisms, fertilization/conception marks the start of a new individual organism. In mammals such as ourselves it gets a little tricky, because unlike birds or fish or even plants, this new individual must implant in the uterus in order to continue developing. And it is also a scientific fact that not all fertilized eggs implant. We do reproduction studies in rats and rabbits where I work and by counting the corpora lutea and the implantation scars we have a pretty good idea of how many fertilized eggs go on to implant and develop. Especially in rabbits, which like cats are induced ovulators, meaning their ovaries don't release eggs until they mate. (Which by the way is why you should spay female cats if you don't want them to have kittens, because keeping them unmated is bad for their health.)
Now some very interesting things can happen on the way to implantation, and again, these are scientific facts. The fertilized egg can split into two, and both embryos go on to develop (a form of natural cloning leading to identical twins), or more rarely, two fertilized eggs can merge into one and go on to develop as a single individual (a chimera, and yes, there are human chimeras), or it can simply not implant for various reasons. This is where the personhood/soul debate comes in and why I think the argument that the soul is infused at conception is faulty. Later on, the developing embryo/fetus can spontaneously abort or miscarry due to defects. I notice that the "God doesn't make mistakes" argument never seems to come into play here, because obviously God does make a lot of mistakes. There's a good many of "us" that never make it any farther than the stages I am describing here, but you never hear anything about their supposed eternal fate.
Now it is no use going thumbing through your Bibles for the answer because contrary to what a lot of people believe, the Bible wasn't written as a bunch of children's stories for children; it was written by adults and for adults and children only have a peripheral role to play. The focus of the Bible, both Jewish and Christian sections, is on adults and how they should relate to God (and each other). Jesus may have blessed the little children, but he did not preach to them. Neither did Paul or any of the other apostles. Children are basically the property of their parents and have few, if any rights. They are to obey their parents. The Torah explicitly says that rebellious children are to be put to death. Scholars don't know if that was ever enforced, but it was on the books. What I am saying in this little digression is that the idea that children are "little people" and have value in themselves, even the right to life, is fairly modern. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the modern concept personhood, as far as the Bible is concerned, applies mainly to adults. Because you have to understand that in those times they knew very little about prenatal development and absolutely nothing about the female ovum. So this issue couldn't have come up in those days.
To get back to science, it is very interesting that when we do reproduction studies, we never have any debates on whether this embryo or fetus is a rat or a rabbit or whatever species. There's none of this talk about it not being life or it only being a cluster of cells, etc. And the reason, I think, is because there is no stage in a rat or rabbit's life where it is not legal to kill it. There is no point where we can say, we have to let it live now, because it is ____. Animals don't have the same right to life as human beings.
So what we are debating is when can we legitimately end this developing life and when can we not. This is where the personhood issue comes in. Some years ago I was in Florida and I stopped in at the DeSoto Landing National Monument near Sarasota. There was a historical marker there that chronicled DeSoto's atrocities against the Native Americans. It ended by saying that the Spanish thought (opinion!) they were justified in their actions because "they felt that the Native Americans were not fully developed human beings possessing souls." Not fully developed human beings. Not human beings. Not possessing souls. Meaning that if you don't fit that criteria, anything goes, mostly nasty stuff. Well, maybe I should shut up here because this is getting awfully uncomfortably close to animal rights as well. But I notice that some of our animal rights "friends", most notably Peter Singer, seem to have no trouble saying that a pig has more right to life than a handicapped newborn--and for those of us on the spectrum, I think we ought to pause at that. It may well come down to it that some of the people who we don't think are friends and who are despised and ridiculed right now for their views will turn out to be our friends, and those we think are our friends may well in fact be devoted to ridding the world of us.
There is a lot more that I can say on this subject, having been an observer for several decades. Yes, I am pro-life. I think that embryonic stem cell research is going to turn out not to be the sure cure its proponents are claiming and that it will cause more troubles than it is worth. I also think that artificial wombs are coming and that they will probably be seen in veterinary and farm use at first, much like other reproductive technologies. I've heard it said (and I do believe it is true) that abortion rights is on a collision course with science and what we are learning about prenatal development. Certainly there are a lot of people who don't buy the argument that this is just a clump of cells. I have co-workers who proudly display fuzzy grainy ultrasounds of something they have no problem calling a "baby." So we as a society know what we are doing, but we are too squeamish to come right out and say it for the most part.
Another thing that the public is not being told about regarding embryonic stem cell research--and I can say this because I work in the industry--is that while human embryonic stem cells are being touted as the magic cure-all, that is also far from the truth. I recently attended a seminar on the subject sponsored by my company and in comparing the various types of stem cells, they came right out and said that there seems to be an increased risk of cancer when using embryonic stem cells. I have also seen this in a veterinary magazine talking about stem cell treatments for dogs with cancer. The article stressed that the stem cells used were NOT embryonic stem cells because research has indicated that this increases the risk of cancer. But you won't hear that in the debates.
So I am thinking that the public is being sold a bill of goods and I am wondering why. And I think it has to do with the whole debate about when is it permissible to terminate a developing human life. Now there are a lot of opinions on the subject but I am not interested in opinions. I am interested in facts.
What is a scientific fact is that when it comes to sexually reproducing organisms, fertilization/conception marks the start of a new individual organism. In mammals such as ourselves it gets a little tricky, because unlike birds or fish or even plants, this new individual must implant in the uterus in order to continue developing. And it is also a scientific fact that not all fertilized eggs implant. We do reproduction studies in rats and rabbits where I work and by counting the corpora lutea and the implantation scars we have a pretty good idea of how many fertilized eggs go on to implant and develop. Especially in rabbits, which like cats are induced ovulators, meaning their ovaries don't release eggs until they mate. (Which by the way is why you should spay female cats if you don't want them to have kittens, because keeping them unmated is bad for their health.)
Now some very interesting things can happen on the way to implantation, and again, these are scientific facts. The fertilized egg can split into two, and both embryos go on to develop (a form of natural cloning leading to identical twins), or more rarely, two fertilized eggs can merge into one and go on to develop as a single individual (a chimera, and yes, there are human chimeras), or it can simply not implant for various reasons. This is where the personhood/soul debate comes in and why I think the argument that the soul is infused at conception is faulty. Later on, the developing embryo/fetus can spontaneously abort or miscarry due to defects. I notice that the "God doesn't make mistakes" argument never seems to come into play here, because obviously God does make a lot of mistakes. There's a good many of "us" that never make it any farther than the stages I am describing here, but you never hear anything about their supposed eternal fate.
Now it is no use going thumbing through your Bibles for the answer because contrary to what a lot of people believe, the Bible wasn't written as a bunch of children's stories for children; it was written by adults and for adults and children only have a peripheral role to play. The focus of the Bible, both Jewish and Christian sections, is on adults and how they should relate to God (and each other). Jesus may have blessed the little children, but he did not preach to them. Neither did Paul or any of the other apostles. Children are basically the property of their parents and have few, if any rights. They are to obey their parents. The Torah explicitly says that rebellious children are to be put to death. Scholars don't know if that was ever enforced, but it was on the books. What I am saying in this little digression is that the idea that children are "little people" and have value in themselves, even the right to life, is fairly modern. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the modern concept personhood, as far as the Bible is concerned, applies mainly to adults. Because you have to understand that in those times they knew very little about prenatal development and absolutely nothing about the female ovum. So this issue couldn't have come up in those days.
To get back to science, it is very interesting that when we do reproduction studies, we never have any debates on whether this embryo or fetus is a rat or a rabbit or whatever species. There's none of this talk about it not being life or it only being a cluster of cells, etc. And the reason, I think, is because there is no stage in a rat or rabbit's life where it is not legal to kill it. There is no point where we can say, we have to let it live now, because it is ____. Animals don't have the same right to life as human beings.
So what we are debating is when can we legitimately end this developing life and when can we not. This is where the personhood issue comes in. Some years ago I was in Florida and I stopped in at the DeSoto Landing National Monument near Sarasota. There was a historical marker there that chronicled DeSoto's atrocities against the Native Americans. It ended by saying that the Spanish thought (opinion!) they were justified in their actions because "they felt that the Native Americans were not fully developed human beings possessing souls." Not fully developed human beings. Not human beings. Not possessing souls. Meaning that if you don't fit that criteria, anything goes, mostly nasty stuff. Well, maybe I should shut up here because this is getting awfully uncomfortably close to animal rights as well. But I notice that some of our animal rights "friends", most notably Peter Singer, seem to have no trouble saying that a pig has more right to life than a handicapped newborn--and for those of us on the spectrum, I think we ought to pause at that. It may well come down to it that some of the people who we don't think are friends and who are despised and ridiculed right now for their views will turn out to be our friends, and those we think are our friends may well in fact be devoted to ridding the world of us.
There is a lot more that I can say on this subject, having been an observer for several decades. Yes, I am pro-life. I think that embryonic stem cell research is going to turn out not to be the sure cure its proponents are claiming and that it will cause more troubles than it is worth. I also think that artificial wombs are coming and that they will probably be seen in veterinary and farm use at first, much like other reproductive technologies. I've heard it said (and I do believe it is true) that abortion rights is on a collision course with science and what we are learning about prenatal development. Certainly there are a lot of people who don't buy the argument that this is just a clump of cells. I have co-workers who proudly display fuzzy grainy ultrasounds of something they have no problem calling a "baby." So we as a society know what we are doing, but we are too squeamish to come right out and say it for the most part.
