SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (10158)7/22/2006 3:45:35 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Splitting Stem Cells
Believe it or not, a constructive Senate debate.

Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Politics always trails the rush of science, especially on matters of moral import. So we'd like to break type and praise this week's Senate debate over federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Congress is finally drawing some policy lines and working toward a social consensus rather than abandoning the ethics to an unelected scientific elite.

Supporters of unlimited taxpayer support are upset that President Bush cast his first veto on a bill that would have lifted his 2001 restrictions on federal funding. Under those rules, federal cash (some $90 million) has flowed to embryonic stem-cell lines that existed as of that date, but no taxpayer money supports research that would destroy new embryos.

To many scientists and Democrats, this issue can be distilled to a choice between America's leading the world in medical progress, or lapsing into Luddite religiosity. Their pressure inspired 63 Senators, including 19 Republicans, to oppose Mr. Bush and support more federal funding. Yet as the President's veto--and Congress's failure to override--shows, many Americans disagree and are troubled by what they believe is the destruction of an early stage of human life.

Our own view is that the embryos from which stem cells are collected have the potential to be--but are not yet--human beings. This is the dominant view across U.S. society, which is one reason there is little controversy over fertility treatments, in which embryos are routinely created and discarded. Private stem-cell research on these discarded embryos remains legal, and, contrary to much political spin, private funding is plentiful.

No fewer than 11 private stem-cell research centers exist across the country; Harvard alone employs more than 100 researchers and has 17 new stem-cell lines. More than 60 U.S. and international companies are pursuing stem-cell research--from such giants as Johnson & Johnson to start-ups. In 2005, the venture-capital industry put more than $102 million into the stem-cell industry. All of this casts doubt on the claim that America is "losing" quality researchers to other countries for lack of funding.

The main political rub concerns taxpayer funding, and several states (such as Connecticut and Illinois) have already decided to allow it. California, as usual, is spending the most at $3 billion. But Mr. Bush is hardly taking some extremist point of view in opposing it. At least since the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976, a similar compromise has prevailed on abortion. Abortion is legal, but taxpayers aren't obliged to pay for a practice they find morally objectionable. The European Union is currently having its own debate over whether to allow public funding of embryonic research, with those member states opposed to government involvement poised to win that battle.

Especially at the start of this brave new world of genetic research involving humans, some moral caution may be wise. As Mr. Bush put it in his veto statement: "If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers for the first time in our history would be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos." Whether or not you agree with Mr. Bush's moral judgment about embryos, you can't deny that he's representing a significant chunk of American public opinion.

Lost amid the veto politics this week was the fact that Congress also moved in other ways on ethics and medical research. Mr. Bush signed a bill passed unanimously by the House and Senate that outlawed "fetal farming," or the practice of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research. The Senate also passed legislation that would have encouraged greater research into exploiting the stem cells scientists need without destroying embryos, as well as research into adult stem cells. That bill failed in the House, mainly because Democrats think they can use stem cells as a political issue against Republicans this fall.

There are other issues that Congress could usefully address in the months ahead. The Senate still hasn't passed a ban on human cloning, a practice that the public widely opposes and which dozens of countries (and even the U.N.) have already outlawed. And a California taxpayers' group recently filed legal challenges to patent protections on embryonic stem-cell research, a reminder that issues of intellectual property and trade secrets in medical research are still contentious and unsettled. Only this week, a story in the Journal pointed to patent problems as a bigger factor than money in driving stem-cell research out of the U.S.

This week's partisan jockeying aside, the good news is that politicians have begun to debate these profound moral questions. Yes, politicians will sometimes succumb to cheap rhetoric and distortion, but given enough time and information the public can usually understand the real stakes.

In any case, we'd rather have a messy political brawl than leave such matters to elites in science, the media or the judiciary to settle. As we've seen with global warming and other issues, scientists can also be motivated by self-interest and partisanship. The louder and longer the political debate, the better informed the public will be. Come to think of it, maybe we need a few more such veto fights.

opinionjournal.com



To: PROLIFE who wrote (10158)8/17/2006 9:29:24 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Petitioning for Life
"I had an abortion," Ms. Magazine urges its readers to declare. How about "I wasn't aborted"?

BY JULIA GORIN
Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Web site of Ms. Magazine--yes, it still exists--is calling on readers to sign a petition: "I have had an abortion. I publicly join the millions of women in the United States who have had an abortion in demanding a repeal of laws that restrict women's reproductive freedom."

Well, so much for the right to privacy. If Ms. readers hadn't had so many abortions, there might be more Ms. readers. As for the rest of us, here's a petition we could all sign: "I wasn't aborted."

Having narrowly escaped being aborted, I'd be the first in line.

Like most Soviet-era fetuses conceived in Russia by couples who were already parents, I was scheduled for abortion as a matter of course. In a society where abortion was the only form of birth control, it wasn't uncommon to meet women who had double-digit abortion counts. Often a couple would schedule the appointment before they even stopped to remember that they wanted a second child.

My husband, also a second-born, and I were lucky to have been two such afterthoughts, each brought into the world thanks to one of two parents' change of heart. (Actually it was Anya Isaakovna, my mother's usual at the public clinic, who sensed a tinge of reservation and kicked her out.) Coincidentally, both my husband and I were to be the third abortions, each of us having had two siblings who weren't so lucky, which unfortunately was lucky for us.

Not quite so for my parents. Life's turns dealt them a hand they couldn't have foreseen 30 years ago while aborting, an act that people living in a nation of miserables can't exactly be judged for. Indeed, among Soviet émigrés from the 1970s and '80s, it's very rare to see families with more than two children, the self-imposed quota among Russians of that wave. But in hindsight, as my mother said a few months after my newlywed elder sister and her husband died in a five-vehicle collision in 2000, had she known she would outlive one of her only two children, she would have had more.

In America there is room to judge, despite what the "sanctity of choice" crowd wants us to believe. Yet rather than do that, my intention is to plant a seed of consideration that may otherwise never occur to America's reluctant with-child women and even girls. It's a consideration that, for all our endless debating, goes unspoken, but that could alleviate heartache in later life and enrich our lives in ways we can't predict.

My father was another abortion-to-be. In 1941, my then 17-year-old aunt Dina barely managed to convince my grandparents that the invading Germans meant to kill Jews and that the family needed to evacuate from Odessa. They got onto literally the last ship out of the city, an overcrowded barge that had no food or clean water. Dina's 2-year-old brother, Rudik, didn't survive the journey to Uzbekistan. Heartbroken and shunning the idea of any "replacements" for Rudik, Grandma didn't think twice before setting out for an abortion when she became pregnant at 42. But through very insistent implorations, her Uzbek landlady talked her out of it.

That fetus went on to become a world-class violinist, first for the Bolshoi Symphony Orchestra and later the Baltimore Symphony. He blazed one of the earlier trails out from behind the Iron Curtain to America, inspiring and facilitating many relatives and friends to abandon Russia for the free world.

Soon after arriving in Israel, a family friend named Zoya discovered she was pregnant with a second child and went in for the abortion routine. She was dumbfounded to encounter the following whispered line of questioning from the admitting nurse: "Do you not have a roof over your head?" There was a roof. "Do you not have enough food on the table?" There was plenty of food. Then an altogether alien concept to Zoya: "So why kill it?"

"I was shocked," Zoya recalled. "No one had ever told me I was killing anything. I'd never thought of it as a person. As soon as someone told me I was killing something, I didn't even consider it. I left." Much like my grandmother, today Zoya is the mother of a master violinist.

Even in the case of teen mothers-to-be, for all the ruination and dead dreams we are told will be visited upon their lives if they keep the baby, if someone has ambition to begin with, nothing has to stand in her way. Consider the story of Beverly D'Onofrio, dramatized in the 2001 Penny Marshall movie, "Riding in Cars with Boys." Beverly, played by Drew Barrymore, gets knocked up at 15. She marries the father, an older boy, only to discover that he is a drug addict. Over the next few years, things at home fall apart and the two separate, with Beverly retaining custody.

While for a time her opportunities are more limited than they would otherwise be (a chance to get into an elite writing program at New York University is dashed when she has to bring the kid with her to the interview), ultimately her dreams stay intact and her personal story paves a way to literary and cinematic success--not an easy feat even for the privileged. Beverly D'Onofrio got to have her cake and eat it too, and while the men in her life since no doubt have come and gone, she will always have her son.

Rather than debate what it is we're killing, we should consider what we may be saving--for our sakes as much as for "its" own. When you choose to abort, you alter the course of history. While the child up for abortion may or may not be the next Einstein, saving his life could one day save yours.

Every day of my mother's parental life was lived with a dread fear that something might happen to either of her children, and the reality of this possibility loomed large in our lives. In 1982, my father's aunt lost her only daughter and son-in-law in a plane crash that killed 50 and orphaned my cousin, whom our family adopted. In 1990, my older cousin lost her teenage firstborn in a car accident. Looking at my own family, and at our circle of acquaintances, I estimate that at least one in three couples has outlived a child.

Common wisdom in Russia--subsequently confirmed by science--was that you always keep the first child, since not doing so could affect your ability to bear children in the future. The apparent lesson in my family has been also to keep as many of the others as possible, since that firstborn's fate isn't assured.

My mother today aches to have more "close people," as she calls immediate family, and mourns how few are those whose love is unconditional. Every time I get into a car or plane, I'm paranoid about my safety for her sake. Every time I think of taking a foreign writing assignment, I think of her and don't. Every time I imagine moving to another city, I think of my parents' desolation.

We don't have a crystal ball, but there's someone who does, and there is a reason for every stork He sends along. I am religiously illiterate, but I have come to understand on the most visceral level why pregnancies are called "blessings"--even if, as often as not, the blessing comes in disguise.

For all the reluctant mothers-to-be out there, you should know that when you're having even a momentary second thought, someone you can't see is whispering in your ear. Fortunately for my husband's and my families, on the third occasion our parents listened.

Ms. Gorin is a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com. She blogs at JuliaGorin.com.

opinionjournal.com