The Quality Of Life

The Pro-Life movement is gearing itself up to show it's true colors, and that is looking to be pretty black. You would think that the new technique just recently announced to enable harvesting of stem cells without destroying the embryo from which they are derived would be met with varying degrees of relief, and joy.

Before, the retrieval of stem cells required the destruction of the embryo, which had the Pro-Life movement up in arms, and still does, and has been a mainstay of Republican Party politics.

Now, a method has been advanced which, if proven successful, will make it possible to derive these cells at an earlier stage of embronic cell division. Here follows a description from yesterdays New York Times article:

The new technique would be performed on a two-day-old embryo, after the
fertilized egg has divided into eight cells, known as blastomeres. In
fertility clinics, where the embryo is available outside the woman in
the normal course of in vitro fertilization, one of these blastomeres
can be removed for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome.

In other words, this is already being done as a method of diagnosing potential medical problems based on genetic evaluation. It just so happens that this technique, which has demonstrated no adverse effects on any in vitrio children produced from these embryos as a result of the tests, has been found to enable the production of stem cells, as well as providing the necessary medical data.

It is to be expected that this would not soothe the objections of the Catholic Church. No surprises will be noted when you consider the following lunacy from The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director for pro-life activities at the
conference of bishops, said the church opposed in vitro fertilization
because of the high death rate of embryos in clinics and because
divorcing procreation from the act of love made the embryo seem “more a
product of manufacture than a gift.”

Helllooooo-one persons gift might be another persons curse if it is unwanted, but how often is that the case of a couple that desperately deires to have a child, yet can't do so without in vitrio fertilization. Out of all the children born by this method, what percentage of them were unwanted? What percentage of them become so horrified at the prospect of raising a child, or just the thought of going through pregancy or childbirth, or concern for the financial obligations or other responsibilities, that they run out and get an abortion?

And what business is it of theirs to begin with to interject their spiritual beliefs in a political debate? When did they become the arbitrers of decisions to be made by non-Catholics? This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder how the Catholic Church ever lasted two thusand years, but of course the answer to that would be their dictatorial exertion of political power they are evidently determined to regain.

Unfortunately, they have found allies in other religous Christian denominations, when it comes to such issues as abortion. On this matter, however, the degree of cooperation with the Vatican has been tenuous at best. Seventy percent of the American people, at least, are in favor of this research, and this by the way crosses both political and religous lines.

But if statements from Republican Party spokespersons of the last couple of days  are  any indication,  the will of the people  is at least in this regard an inconvenient hurdle to somehow be overcome by way of the usual political double talk.

Take this, for example, from White House spokewoman Emily Lawrimore:

 But Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new
procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush, who vetoed
legislation in July that would have expanded federally financed
embryonic stem cell research. Though Ms. Lawrimore called it
encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos,
she said: “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises
serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those
concerns.”

In other words, there is still a slight risk of damage to the embryo, or it's accidental destruction, if there were to be a mishap, for example, though you would have to imagine the odds of this are slight. Another objection that was raised by a spokesman for Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) was that even by utilizing this technique at an earlier stage, you would be creating a twin of the embryo which would then be destroyed.

To which Dr. Robert Lanza, vice president of Advanced Cell Technology and leader of the research team that developed the technique, had this to say:

Dr. Lanza said, however, that twinning is a phenomenon that occurs at a
later stage of embryonic development and that there was no evidence
that a single blastomere could develop into a person.

So it looks as though the Republican Party is circling the wagons, and I stand by my own earlier statements on the subject. This has little to do if anything at all with protecting the "life" of embryos, and probably very much everything to do with protecting pharmaceutical industry profits.

Of course, coming out publicly in favor of the suppossed constitutional right of pharmaceutical giants to make billions of dolars in profits off of illness, sufferring, and death doesn't make quite as attractive a political stance as standing up for the "right to life" of an embryo.

On the other hand, when you think about it from a purely cold yet  practical standpoint, it does at least make a little bit of sense.