|
Careful
Thinking
More
Critical
Than
Ever
--
Part
One
Part 2
If
you've
been
reading
TN&V
or
many
of
the
political
pundits,
you
know
that,
politically,
pro-abortion
Democrats
have
persuaded
themselves
they
have
found
the
fountain
of
youth.
Having
grown
weary
of
being
on
the
losing
end
for
much
of
the
last
12
years,
they
have
convinced
one
another
that
they
can
rejuvenate
themselves
in
the
upcoming
elections
by
exploiting
a
"wedge
issue"--stem
cell
research.
Noam
Scheiber
is a
senior
editor
with
the
New
Republic
and
no
friend
of
ours.
But
a
piece
that
ran
last
month
in
NR
that
I
just
ran
across--"Cell
Division:
Stem-cell
research
isn't
a
wedge
issue"--is
extremely
insightful.
Scheiber
gets
to
the
right
conclusion
even
if
he
misses
a
few
obvious
turns
or
takes
a
few
detours
along
the
way.
Scheiber
writes,
"Polls
consistently
show
anywhere
from
55
to
75
percent
of
the
public
favors
research
using
stem
cells
from
discarded
embryos,"
but
he
fully
understands
that
"stem
cell
research"
is
not
the
magic
bullet
pro-abortionists
think
it
is.
This
is
especially
significant
because
Scheiber
does
not
even
address
a
key
component
which
distorts
the
entire
debate.
This
is
illustrated
by a
discussion
that
occurred
yesterday
in
the
adult
Sunday
School
class
I
lead.
Our
always
lively
conversation
moved
unexpectedly
into
stem
cell
research.
Our
group
was
uniformly
against
lethally
harvesting
stem
cells
from
human
embryos.
They
vaguely
knew
there
was
an
alternative
which
avoids
the
ethical
freefall
that
comes
from
harvesting
early
human
life,
or
creating
embryos
for
their
stem
cells,
but
didn't
have
the
vocabulary.
[They
were
talking
about
"adult
stem
cells"
in
general,
stem
cells
from
umbilical
cord
blood,
in
particular.]
If
polled,
my
class
would
be
among
the
high
percentage
of
people
who
support
"stem
cell
research,"
but
NOT
if
it
requires
killing
human
embryos.
Because
the
distinctions
are
not
drawn,
carefully
or
otherwise,
that
overwhelmingly
significant
fact
is
lost
in
virtually
all
discussion
that
ensues.
As I
say
Scheiber
doesn't
discuss
that.
But
he
does
address
something
that
is
rarely
articulated.
"[U]underlying
the
stem-cell
issue
is a
deeper
debate
about
the
way
science
is
changing
our
lives,"
he
writes.
"On
one
side
of
this
debate
are
those
who
believe
biotechnology
is
mostly
a
force
for
good,
and
that
reining
it
in
is
basically
reactionary.
On
the
other
side
are
those
more
troubled
by
the
moral
and
ethical
questions
raised
by
advances
in
biotechnology.
The
problem
for
Democrats
is
that
the
American
public
splits
a
lot
more
evenly
on
these
questions
than
it
does
on
the
narrower
question
of
whether
to
extract
stem
cells
from
discarded
embryos."
This
is
part
and
parcel
of
something
wider--what
he
calls
the
public's
"deep
ambivalence,"
as
measured,
for
example,
by
studies
conducted
by
the
Life
Sciences
center
at
Virginia
Commonwealth
University
(VCU).
Scheiber
writes,
"According
to
the
most
recent
installment,
Americans
believe
by a
56-37
margin
that
scientific
research
'doesn't
pay
enough
attention
to
the
moral
values
of
society,'
and
by a
52-41
margin
that
this
research
has
'created
as
many
problems
for
society
as
it
has
solutions.'"
He
notes
that
the
numbers
of
people
who
support
"stem
cell
research"
[most
specifically,
when
people
are
not
given
the
option
of
supporting
adult
stem
cell
research]
has
grown,
adding,
"but
it's
done
so
without
changing
people's
underlying
attitudes
on
larger
questions
of
science
and
morality."
Scheiber
observes,
"When
people
learn
the
details
of
Bush's
policy
on
stem-cell
research,
they
frequently
disagree
with
him.
[Actually
that's
not
true,
but
we'll
let
that
go.]
But
many
of
these
same
people
don't
question
his
motives
or
his
overall
morality,
since
they
share
his
reservations
about
biotechnology
in
general."
Scheiber
concludes,
"As
long
as
as
that's
the
case,
it's
tough
to
see
how
stem-cell
research
becomes
a
wedge
issue
for
Democrats."
So,
there
is a
three-part
answer
to
why
"stem
cell
research"
shouldn't
be
an
anchor
around
the
ankles
of
those
who
don't
want
embryos
destroyed.
1.
The
public's
opposition
to
extracting
stem
cells
from
human
embryos
is
disguised
because
survey
questions
do
not
distinguish
between
support
for
embryonic
stem
cells
and
support
for
stem
cells
from
adult
stem
cell
sources,
which
include
the
human
body,
umbilical
cord
blood,
and
the
placenta.
We
are
all
for
"stem
cell
research,"
only
we
support
ethically
unobjectionable
stem
cell
sources.
2.
Most
people
are
very,
very
unnerved
by
the
slippery
slope
argument,
which
(come
to
think
of
it)
is
not
an
argument
but
a
truism.
Proponents
tell
you
straight
out
they
want
to
mass
produce
human
embryos
by
cloning--
a
commodification
of
life
that
unsettles
almost
anyone.
3.
When
we
explain
what
we
oppose
and
what
we
support,
people
will
agree
with
us
for
many
reasons,
because
they
are
profoundly
worried
about
a
biotechnology
without
limits
and
without
moral
direction.
I
will
e-mail
you
Scheiber's
full
article,
if
you
would
like
a
copy.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
comments,
please
write
Dave
Andrusko
at
dandrusko@nrlc.org.
Part
2
|
