President Obama, through an executive order, signed in 2009, reversed an executive order, generated by President Bush, which disallows the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Also included in Bush’s ban was the use of embryonic stem cells, other than already existing lines.
What, exactly, IS the debate regarding “stem cell research”? The debate can be viewed from two different perspectives: funding and source.
THE FUNDING…
There are two primary ways to fund stem cell research: privately and publicly.
1. Privately means through private donations, venture capital, etc.
2. Publicly means through government funding.
One camp (Conservatives) believes that government-funded anything is wasteful spending (as the efficiency of money through the government is less than 10%). Additionally, conservatives believe that it is not the Constitutional function of government to fund things like stem cell research.
The other camp (Liberals) believes that Government should fund stem cell research. Liberals believe that the Government should fund everything, regardless of efficiency of tax dollars, cost or waste.
The reality is that, dollar-for-dollar, funding through private sources is FAR more efficient than funding through the government.
So, when Michael J. Fox tries to make Jim Talent look like a bad guy by saying that he does not believe in the funding of stem cell research, what he REALLY means is that Jim Talent does not believe in GOVERNMENT funding of stem cell research. Jim Talent would rather have 80% of each dollar spent actually go towards research, as opposed to less than 10% of a Government-funded dollar.
Jim Talent, like most other Conservatives, wholeheartedly believes in the PRIVATE funding of certain types of stem cell research….which leads to the other part of the debate…
THE SOURCE (of stem cells)
There are several sources of stem cells. Stem cells can be harvested from a fetus, from umbilical cords, from adults, from placentas as well as a host of other sources. But, actually, this part of the debate can be narrowed to just two categories: “fetal (embryonic) stem cells” and “all other sources”. The reason for the debate is twofold as well: prospects for cures and destruction of tissue source.
Fetal (embryonic) stem cells
Prospects for cures
Thus far, stem cells derived from aborted babies have resulted in precisely zero cures. ZERO. In fact, at this time, research utilizing stem cells from aborted babies hasn’t even shown any promise or hope of curing anything.
Destruction of tissue source
Fetal stem cell research requires the destruction of the source of the tissue. In other words: in order to obtain fetal stems cells, the fetus (also known as a baby) must be destroyed (also known as aborted).
All other sources
Prospects for cures
Research utilizing stem cells harvested from “other sources” is ALREADY showing tremendous promise in many areas. A few of those include:
- Remission of Lupus
- Remission of Crohn’s disease
- Remission of Parkinson’s disease
- Muscle tissue repair (in the case of congestive heart failure)
- Restoration of bone marrow in cancer patients
- Remission of Leukemia
- Treatment of urinary incontinence
- Treatment of Sickle Cell Anemia
- ……a host of others….
Destruction of tissue source
All other sources of stem cells (adult, umbilical cord, placenta) do not require the destruction of source tissue. In other words, no one is aborted in order to harvest “other source” stem cells.
CUTTING THROUGH THE CRAP
There are three REAL arguments regarding stem cell research:
1. Private funding is ALREADY taking place with regards to stem cell research, utilizing “all other source” material. Why?
a. It shows HUGE promise
b. It has ALREADY resulted in specific cures in humans
c. It does NOT require the abortion of an unborn baby
2. Liberals, when they ask for support (increased taxes) of “stem cell research” are actually asking for GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF FETAL (EMBYONIC) STEM CELL RESEARCH. You see, very few private sources exist for the funding of Fetal Stem Cell research. Why?
a. It show little or NO promise
b. Harvesting of cells requires the destruction of the source tissue (an aborted baby)
The facts regarding this debate really are not very difficult to ascertain. Nor are they difficult to interpret. The BIG question, then, becomes “WHY DO LIBERALS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH?” Why would they throw our tax dollars away on an area of research that has yielded zero results, zero hope for any result and requires the termination of a life in order to experiment? This leads to my third, and final, argument:
3. Liberals support “stem cell research” (as defined in point #2) for these reasons:
a. It makes for bigger Government.
b. It makes Liberals appear sympathetic to those with debilitating diseases such as Parkinson’s
c. IT ACTIVELY SUPPORTS ABORTIONS-ON-DEMAND. In fact, it creates a market for aborted babies.
TO SUMMARIZE
In truth, the key to understanding the debate over stem cell research can be summarized thusly:
1. Conservatives (Republicans) believe in private funding of NON-fetal stem cell research. Why? Because this method is already yielding myriad results and does not require abortion of a baby as a means of harvest.
2. Liberals (Democrats) believe in Government funding of fetal stem cell research because they wish to shore up support for abortion-on-demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment