A Tolerable Form of “Murder”
Digby points out a good contradiction in the GOP’s stance on stem cell research :
The Republicans are taking a new tack on stem cells. In response to the Michael J. Fox “backlash” Ken Mehlman just said on CNN that Jim Talent supports stem cell research but he just doesn’t think the government should pay for it. He pointed out that nobody says that the private sector shouldn’t pursue stem cell research. What’s the problem?
. . .
This argument worked back in the day with the Hyde Amendment banning public money for abortion because some people object to the expenditure on moral grounds. Maybe it will work again. But I don’t think stem cell research has ever had the kind of visceral punch that abortion has and the benefits to everyone are far more obvious.
. . .
Mostly, though, it undercuts the moral argument the Republicans have been making about their (phony) “culture of life.” Back in the 70’s, when the Hyde Amendment was passed, Republicans could get away with making practical arguments like “people shouldn’t have to pay for things that morally offend them.” But this isn’t the “me decade” anymore. The Republicans are no longer supposed to be just the defenders of traditional values — they are supposed to be true believers. I don’t see how the religious right could support such a “split-the-difference” strategy.
The “culture of life” warriors have been making similar arguments recently in regards to the (imminent) overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Rather than look like the religious extremists that they are, they do their best to assure the mushy middle that repealing Roe won’t outlaw abortion, it’ll just make abortion laws “revert to the states”. Y’know, so Alabama rape victims will be forced to have their babies, but women in California and New York will still have control of their bodies.
Of course these are the same people who insist abortion and embryonic stem cell research are “murder“. Here’s what Tony Snow said in regards to the President’s feelings about stem cells :
Q Can you remind us why the President believes that it is not appropriate to use — that it is more appropriate for stem cells to be thrown away than to be used, in this case, for medical research?MR. SNOW: The President — I don’t think that’s the choice that the President has presented. What the President has said is that he doesn’t want human life destroyed. Now, you may consider that insignificant, but the President has said — and you have had in a number of cases the Snowflake babies, where some of those fetuses have, in fact, been brought to term and have become human beings. The President believes strongly that for the purpose of research it’s inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder; he’s one of them.
Personally, I think the insistence among conservatives that stem cell research and abortion are murder is completely absurd, but that’s not half as troubling as the thought that there are conservatives who think an act of “murder” is perfectly acceptable as long as it’s decided by the states and isn’t funded with tax dollars. Which reminds me of this great quote that sums up conservatism in a nutshell :
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”-John Kenneth Galbraith
And with the abortion and stem cell debates, we’ve seen this hypocrisy reach to it’s limit. The GOP stance on “murder” is that it’s fine with them as long as it doesn’t happen in their back yard and they don’t have to pay for it. That’s not a defensible position, it’s insanity.
11 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’m morally opposed to the Iraq war because of the innocent life that is being lost and all the suffering we are causing. Republicans don’t want to pay for things they don’t morally agree with, yet I don’t recall having been given the choice of not paying 30% of my federal taxes that go to support the military. It’s the hypocrisy that comes out of the mouths of conservatives that really repulses me more than anything.
Comment by Camille — October 25, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Greg:
I love the piece. Two quick notes:
The last line says “back year”, and I’m assuming you mean “back yard”. The place of the typo saps some of the power out of the punch. (And don’t forget to fix it over at ThisModernWorld where I found it, too.
Also, Tony Snow was forced to backtrack from the “murder” line, as I recall. Yes, I know, he did so much the way Limbaugh just “apologized” to MJFox, but still….I think you ought to note that fact. If it is in fact a fact.
Comment by Hudson — October 26, 2006 @ 5:10 am
I’m impressed that the unnamed WH press corps reporter framed the question the way they did, alluding to the fact that the majority of the “snowflake babies” get poured down the drain. The choice is not between preserving life and committing murder for science, it’s between utilizing cells for research and destroying cells as waste.
But as Tony Snow said,
Comment by Cris — October 26, 2006 @ 7:41 am
I did a series on this on my blog back when Bush vetoed the stem cell bill. It’s true, they want to get away with calling the research “murder” (apology notwithstanding), but it’s not “murder” enough to actually outlaw. Which means they don’t really morally have that much of a problem with it.
I think it’s more an economic policy - their free market policies run amok. Instead of using public funds to do the research (like they successfully did with polio) they want corporations to handle it - and make lots of money. Nobody’s stock price goes up if the medical breakthrough is make in the public sector.
Just a bunch of people get cured. And really, what good is that?
Comment by The Idiot — October 26, 2006 @ 7:59 am
Also, in regards to the snowflake babies, they likely had to implant several embryos for each one that took hold and successfully developed. So, even there, they are killing several embryos with each attempt at successful gestation.
Comment by dAVE — October 26, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Sweetheart, the Republicans do not oppose stem cell research - it’s EMBROYNIC stem cell research and cloning we oppose. There’s a lot of stem cell research happening right now. Look it up! As far as the first person who said they oppose funding the war in Iraq - well - that’s why we have “elections”. So you have the opportunity to vote for people who would cut off funding for the war in Iraq. You could also vote for someone who wants to publicly fund embroyonic stem cell research and cloning… do you see how this works? Really - you should have learned this in the 5th grade, but I’m glad I could teach you something. As far as “just a bunch of people getting cured” there is no proof whatsoever that using an embroyo (or a “human being” as us insane over the top conservatives like to call it) will produce better results than adult stem cells. None.
Comment by BCMG — October 26, 2006 @ 11:01 am
I like the fact that BCMG puts “elections” in scare quotes.
Comment by Cris — October 26, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
Also, I wish they’d use the term blastocyst stem cell research. These aren’t embryos with little flipper limbs we’re talking about here. These are little balls of a few dozen cells. No nerves, no heart, etc.
Comment by dAVE — October 26, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
BCMG:
I don’t know what your training in science is, but as a cell biologist who has done research involving adult stem cells, let me address your point. There is only one type of stem cell that can become all of the several hundred different types of cells that are in an adult body: a fertilized egg. With each passing division, the cells become more and more specified for a specific fate, meaning that while embryonic stem cells can be used to generate many, many different cell types, adult stem cells can only differentiate into a specific group of cells (that’s why there’s one type of ‘embryonic stem cell,’ but many types of adult stem cells (skin, bone, blood, etc.).
Furthermore, the idea that adult stem cells hold the same, or more, promise than embryonic stem cells, means that you are framing advocates of embryonic stem cell research as people not interested so much in curing disease, but killing (so called) babies. Why is that? Do we have a blood lust? Do we hate 64- to 128-cell blastocysts with all our hearts?
In fact, if adult stem cells had a similar plasticity as embryonic stem cells, or even close, they would work much, much better. In this case, adult stem cells could be removed from a patient, treated (with drugs or genetically) and returned, and there would be no ethical quandry, nor an issue of immune rejection, since the tissue would be the patient’s own. Since adult stem cells have as of yet proven extremely limited in treating disease (with the major advance being in bone marrow transplantation), and though years of research have gone into learning as much as possible about adult stem cells (and will and should continue), they are not versatle enough to be considered as promising for as many diseases as embryonic stem cells.
Which is funny, because I came here to post on how I thought capital punishment was murder and my tax dollars were paying for it, but that’s life (or at least, a ball of cells).
Z
Comment by Zuckerfrosch — October 26, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
With 2820 deaths of US servicemen and a low estimate of 44,736 Iraqi deaths sinch march 19 2003, the 30 plus deaths a day in Iraq are an acceptable form of murder. Hope we find those weapons of mass destruction soon…..
Comment by Kamachanda — October 27, 2006 @ 2:29 am
“…it’s EMBRYONIC stem cell research and cloning we oppose…”
We?
Who’s “We”?
It’s hard to reconcile this mindset with old-school Republican values.
Comment by Doobie — October 27, 2006 @ 9:23 pm