Just ask “Which ones?” next time
The stem cell controversy need not be. But it’s been an easy one to exploit. As usual, that’s largely because of semantics and deception.
Like the underlying message of the Michael J. Fox ads (and others like them) in the Missouri stem cell debate before the November ’06 election….’if you don’t vote to approve research on stem cells, you’re not compassionate’.
Same thing was tried in the recent general election.
One of the most common complaints registered during the recent election season, is that certain policy positions of political candidates are wrongly characterized, or worse, just outright falsely presented by the opposition. Nowhere has this trend been more prominent than in regards to the stem-cell research positions of politically conservative candidates at virtually every level of government.
For some reason, probably strategic and, in order to play on emotion, the argument is usually presented as a false dilemma: Some are for stem-cell research, while some others are against it.
Exactly. But it’s easy to clarify this debate simply by defining terms. Say what you mean. If the issue is ’embryonic stem cells’, say so. That changes the conversation dramatically.
The real argument is between the use of either embryonic or the adult varieties in stem-cell research, not whether or not stem-cell research should be done. The question is whether medical research will, or ought to be, tethered to ethical concerns, namely the sanctity of human life, or whether we ought to discard these concerns for the assumed possibility of greater utility ascribed to the embryonic method.
Research with adult stem-cells is deemed as “less promising,” even though it has been the experimental means by which actual breakthroughs have occurred.
That’s the second most important feature of embryonic stem cell research, after the fact that it destroys a human being. It’s also unsuccessful, when it’s been tried.
I have always wondered why it is necessary to demonize nearly one-third of Americans who morally object to embryonic stem-cell research, based on that group’s definition of when human life begins, rather than to collectively focus on the proven promise of adult stem-cell research instead.
I believe the answer lies not in appeals to compassion, scientific reality, or any rational motive. Instead, I think that it comes down to ideology and, a clash of worldviews.
Meyer’s got that right. If supporters of embryonic stem cell research conceded the fact that it destroys a human being (and is thus immoral), they would lose the argument on abortion. And everything in the liberal political culture comes down to abortion and the worldview that supports it.
