CelticBear’s Musings

Phil Plait of BadAstronomy blogged today about Rush Limbaugh’s 1st Amendment protected* diatribes accusing Michael J. Fox of shilling for political candidates in favor of stem cell research as therapeutic cloning. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Limbaugh is nothing more than an administration’s lackey with no sense of reason or integrity.

I’ve blogged, at length, regarding stem cell research and the value of human life on:

Personhood and Value of Human Life

and said about all I can say. Now here in Missouri we’re about to vote on an amendment that would not prevent any therapeutic cloning and stem cell research that is allowed by the federal government. Amendment 2. My wife recently received a mass e-mail from a friend cautioning against voting for the amendment. My wife, who I adore and greatly respect her wonderful balance of faith, reason, and intelligence, wrote a reply that I’m reprinting (with permission) below. It says what should be said beautifully.

—quote—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

The “no cloning” battle cry has been raised, and I’m certain that nowhere in Missouri is it louder than in the southwest corner. Betwixt and between since the Civil War, Show-Me citizens in this corner of the state square off, draw lines in the dirt, and stubbornly dare our neighbors and brothers to cross them. And Amendment 2 seems to be no different. Proponents say it’s our chance for a cure for devastating and deadly diseases. Opponents say it’s immoral cloning of human embryos and pure trickery if you think otherwise.

Here’s what I know so far. The Amendment says that it will ban implantation of SCNT blastocysts into a womb, thus banning “cloning.” But since opponents say the process of creating Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer blastocysts (or embryos) is cloning, then the deed is already done, and that is a human life being destroyed (which would be considered wrong, no matter how many cures may come of it). So there are two points of view to the same issue.

Proponents of the Amendment would say that the blastocyst is not a human, but a collection of cells created in a Petri dish. With no chance of development, let alone survival, without being implanted in a womb, is it truly more than a collection of living cells? Does it deserve more reverence than, say, spermatozoa?

One of the other troubling arguments surrounding this Amendment is that of funding. I have heard opponents say that the Amendment writes biotech companies a “blank check” for their work. I sincerely hope those who believe this will read the Amendment itself, rather than listening to propaganda. I’ve included a link on this page. The Amendment simply guarantees that if the federal government or a private group provides funding for stem cell research, a local politician can’t divert the funds or block the research based on his own political beliefs. In other words, if I leave $2mil in my will to a biotech company in Springfield for stem cell research, the City Council can’t decide they don’t like my decision and divert the funds to Cox South or St. Johns, or worse yet, someplace like City Utilities. The Amendment does not give, guarantee or arrange any funding for stem cell research. It just says no one can take it away.

I find myself in favor of stem cell research. I think, like most Missourians, appropriate precautions must be in place. There are difficult decisions to make. And I think Amendment 2 goes a long way toward ensuring safety and moral behavior, though perhaps not far enough. But the potential benefits for saving lives and curing diseases is a worthy goal. If it is done using resources that are otherwise misused and discarded, I fail to see the abuse. Living cells that would be thrown away or left to die are instead used to save lives and stop suffering on earth. I like to believe even the angels would praise those efforts.

However, I think one thing most Missourians aren’t talking about is the fact that this Amendment will basically define for the entire state when we think human life begins. Are we human and alive (and sacred) when we are a collection of less than 100 cells in a Petri dish? Or does that happen later, when we are “knit together in our mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13)? Either way, is Missouri ready to deal with the consequences of having made that definition? I think that’s the question we need to ask ourselves when we go to vote on Amendment 2.

—end quote—

* The 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects ALL speech, even and most especially speech we don’t like and don’t agree with. And thank goodness for that!
(No, thank the rational and freethinking Founding Fathers!)