Rhetoric On Stem Cell Research

In just one hundred generations, humankind has leaped from the Stone Age to the Computer Age. From weak to strong. From hunters and gatherers to being human as we know it. One might ask how we had done this all in one hundred generations. The answer is human innovation. Human innovation is at another milestone in its righteous place as the benefit of society. That milestone is known as embryonic stem cell research. Research, which has been denied federal funding in the United States. Funding which has no real reason to be denied and absolutely should be funded.

What are embryonic stem cells? Embryonic stem cells are cells that can develop into each of the more than 200 cell types of the adult body when given sufficient and necessary stimulation for a specific cell type. It is predicted that the research will lead to the treatment of any disease. Yet there is an opposing side to this research that is entirely based on moral values.

President Bush mentions the moral controversy over the research, "I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but I've made it very clear to congress that the use of federal tax payer's money to promote science that destroys life in order to save life, I'm against this." There is no need to point out the hypocrisy or the blatant grammatical error in the statement. It contradicts itself with the intention of satisfying those for and against the funding of stem cell research.

Let us analyze "destroys life in order to save life". What is life? Several centuries ago the Church accepted Aristotle's view of the embryo's animatus (Soul) and formatus (Human Form) being created at the same time of roughly 40 days after fertilization. This was their definition of life. Then in 1869, Pope Pius IX declared that any embryo at the moment of fertilization had a soul and destroying the embryo was a mortal sin. This was their definition of life. Now evangelists cry murder when a single embryo is destroyed in the process of retrieving the stem cells of that embryo. An embryo has become life. If so where is the grieving for the many embryos that are destroyed in a woman's reproductive life cycle? Should they not be saved as well? How far can we go back and define the term life?

Say life was understood to be sentience, the ability to form links in the world such as smell, pain, touch, feel, sight. Then we can view the embryonic stem cell research as "retrieving cells to save life". For that is what it is. There is no need to mention that scientists believe that stem cell research holds infinite value in the understanding of growth and treatment of disease, or that it holds the greatest potential since antibiotics, or that it can cure spinal cord injuries and cancer and diabetes and multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease and hundreds of immune system and genetic disorders. No need to mention it at all.

Some say that adult stem cell research has already cured some diseases and the reason why we aren't progressing is we are funding embryonic stem cell research instead of adult. What they don't say is that adult stem cells can only form into a few of the 220 cells in the human body. Embryonic stem cells on the other hand are completely