Stem cell research

Rants:

• Many people say that "now we are basing our decisions on science rather than religion." The truth is, nothing about the science of a human embryo can tell you whether you ought to destroy it for some benefit. Only ethical guidelines (which are based on religion for many people) can tell you that.
• When people say that embryonic stem cell research does not imply cloning, they are misinformed. My friend's medical textbook explains: we don't just want any old stem cells, we want stem cells that are a genetic match for the person undergoing the treatment. Which implies that we need to create an embryo with the genetically identical stem cells. Which means we need to clone the person undergoing the treatment.
• There are many people who have diabetes, spinal cord injuries, etc. who do not want their diseases treated with embryonic stem cells. These people are never interviewed on the radio for programs about embryonic stem cells.
• The president's decree today rescinds another order of President Bush which encourages funding for non-embryonic stem cell research. This seems unnecessary, and backwards, since these stem cells have actually been useful against disease.
  
• I can't believe that the same people who are against genetically modified food are so in favor of genetically modified people. Cloned animals have a much higher rate of birth defects, for example. We really don't know what we are getting into.

More on the first objection: we really don't let scientists work on whatever looks good. For example, we have very strict laws about experimenting with human subjects. I remember a blood substitute trial that scientists wanted to run in Minneapolis: in order to show that the techniques and products they were using saved lives, they needed lives that were in danger. But the scientists couldn't run the experiment because the people whose lives were in jeopardy couldn't sign the consent form. There was some talk about getting everyone to sign a blanket consent form, but then the doctors were accused of racism since the study was being done in the city where there was a high proportion of minorities.

Was this letting religion trump science? No, it was respect for human beings and their rights. A created human embryo is a potential human being---an individual human. Does it have value? Science can't answer. For goodness sake, YOU were once an embryo.

Sigh. My friend the pathologist's objection is that there is no guarantee that we would stop at an embryo. What if a blastocyst were more useful? What about aborted fetuses? What about a 15 week old fetus? It would be much easier to get liver cells from a cloned liver. People will say that no one is arguing for this, but it is also true that the arguments in favor of ESCR have nothing to say against using more developed human babies for "parts".

There is much more to be said, but it has been mostly said well on stand to reason (str.typepad.com/blog) and thinkingchristian.net.