Thursday, December 02, 2004

Cures Without Killing

Towards the end of the Presidential election, stem cell research became a hot issue almost out of the blue. The liberals wanted as much embryonic stem cell research as possible paid for by, who else, the government. The conservatives did not favor federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Indeed some conservatives are opposed to any kind of stem cell research. But most point to the promising field of adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cells can be aquired from places like umbilical cord blood after birth, thus not requiring the killing of any fetuses. Most scientists will agree that the future of adult stem cells is much brighter than anything that could be expected from embryonic stem cells. Especially in light of a recent success of astonishing magnitude. With prospects like these and the seeming lack of need for embryonic stem cells, it puzzled me as to why the liberals insisted on making this such a huge issue.

It's possible that they were just using it as one more issue to try and demonize the President and all conservatives. Culminating with John Edwards ridiculous assertion that if he and Kerry were elected that people like Christopher Reeves would walk again. Hwang Mi-Soon was in a situation very similar to Christopher Reeves, paralyzed after an accident. And yet her successful treatment was done with stem cell procedure supported more by conservatives. Couldn't we have the best of both worlds? Stem cell research and treatment procedures without the killing of unborn children. But no, it continues to be an issue thrown in the face of our President and conservatives.

S. T. Karnick has a piece in the American Spectator that sheds some light on the subject:
Why aren't the ESC supporters interested in pursuing ASCs? Let's ask the classic question, qui bono? The only people in the world who benefit from the harvesting of ESCs who would not benefit from ASCs are people who make a living by destroying human embryos. And if we were to find that we simply harvest ESCs so that we can have all the wonderful benefits they provide, then we would have a real, truly positive good coming from all those abortions the nation's doctors perform each year, wouldn't we?

If that sounds cynical, so be it. At this point, it is in fact the only plausible explanation for the stubborn preference for embryonic stem cells over the adult variety
This seems reasonable, and tragic. I do have a problem with thinking of Christopher Reeve as a shill for the abortion industry. But I can see how he may have been blinded to that aspect of the issue considering his situation. Superman aside, using the promise of miracle cures to insure the relevance of the abortion industry is disgusting and absurd.

Wouldn't it be nice if some of the money that went from the abortion doctors to activist groups dedicated to keeping abortion legal(abortion generates aprox half a billion in revenue each year), instead went somewhere that could deal with the actual problem of the need/desire to have an abortion? But don't expect that to happen any time soon. Why should these places spend money on something that will decrease their revenue stream?