The Hornell Evening Tribune is the only newspaper in the 29th that consistently attends and reports on Randy Kuhl's press conferences. In this week's press conference story, both the Kuhl and Massa conferences get coverage.
Federal funding of stem cell research is the main issue covered in the story. Massa supports the bill. Kuhl calls his opposition to the bill "ethical", and says "embryonic research destroys embryos and I don't believe we should be destroying life".
This argument is always fascinating to me, because the source of embryonic stem cells is extra embryos from fertility clinics practicing in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Aside from embryo adoption plans like the Snowflake program, which place a tiny fraction of those embryos, the rest of the surplus (currently 400,000 embryos) are simply thrown away.
The sponsor of the Snowflake program, the Nightlight Christian adoption agency, calls those embryos "pre-born children". If that's true, then why is it "ethical" to kill thousands of children to allow infertile couples to have babies? Apparently, the "Christian" position in the case of infertility is that the end justifies the means. It's OK to kill children to make children. In the case of stem cell research, which has the potential to alleviate the pain and suffering of millions, the end does not justify the means. It's not OK to kill children (who would have been killed anyway) to potentially cure diabetes or Parkinson's.
The National Right to Life Coalition's position IVF, as contained in their factsheet [pdf] on stem cells is to bury their head in the sand. They simply mention that a large percentage of parents use frozen embryos for a second IVF attempt, and then juxtapose the number of adoption seekers with the number of embryos, showing that more people are seeking adoptions than there are embryos.
That position denies two critical facts about IVF and IVF adoption: First, IVF frequently requires multiple implantation attempts during which "pre-born children" die. Second, IVF adoption, which involves out-of-pocket medical costs along with adoption and embryo transfer fees, is far more expensive and risky than regular adoption.
The NRLC position, and that of politicians like Kuhl who take their line, isn't "ethical" or "Christian" -- it's one of pure political expedience. It would be politically impossible for the right-to-life movement to challenge IVF. The backlash from infertile parents would spell the end of the movement as a viable political entity. So, instead, they hypocritically appropriate extreme language like "pre-born children" when it suits them to fight a battle that will garner media attention, contributions and votes.
In fairness, I should point out that IVF was also developed without federal funding, because of issues of "ethics". However, now that it's an established practice, those ethical concerns are largely forgotten. The same will undoubtedly be true of whatever cures come from private- and state-funded stem cell research. Today's right-to-life politician or activist may be tomorrow's cured Parkinson patient. It will just take a little while longer because they had to gather a few bucks, and a few votes, along the way.
Update: The Hornell Evening Trib changes its links the day after the story is published. The new link is updated now. Also, thanks to reader Elmer, the pdf images of the pages are here and here.
Comments
"I don't believe we should be destroying life."
This from the guy who sponsored a bill in the State Senate to include animal rights protesters under the definition of terrorists. I believe he was then in his role of protecting farmers from PETA. Ethics can be so complicated.
I am both Christian and pro-life (By pro-life I mean anti-abortion and anti-death penalty). I see no problem with stem cell research. I am not pro-life when it comes to animals. I think we go down a slippery slope when we start to equate human life with animal life.
I understand and respect the consistent pro-life position. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of the self-declared pro-lifers, who want to pick and choose the life they are "pro", is what gets to me.
As for my position, I'm pro-abortion and pro-death penalty, so I guess I'm pro-death. I don't think much of PETA, either, but I have to agree with Vincent that calling them "terrorists" is a step too far.
I have never understood how people can be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty or anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. Millions are and I don’t understand them.
I have two objections to the death penalty – I don’t like to “play God’; and there is no way to correct a situation after someone is executed and then the real killer is found afterwards.
Abortion bothers me in several ways
1. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. Abortion would be much more widely accepted if it had been legislated by the various states.
2. My daughters can’t take an aspirin at school without my permission but can have an abortion without my input.
3. We have lost millions of potentially brilliant people.
I don’t see a time when abortion will be outlawed, but I would like to see a few more restrictions placed on it such as parental notification.
I agree with #1 - Roe v Wade was a shortcut that didn't need to be taken. I think we'd have had less agita on this issue over the past 34 years if the trend of state-by-state legalization that was already occurring in the early 70's had been allowed to run its course.
I'm OK with reasonable parental notification. I don't follow this issue closely, but there seems to be a lot of Mickey Mouse thrown into notification bills (like waiting periods) that has as its real purpose making abortions extremely tough to get. The Mickey Mouse stuff just makes it hard for poor people to get abortions.
As for #3, condoms have probably stopped the creation of more potential Einsteins than abortions.
the hornell evening tribune has no news to report on, therefore press conferences like kuhl's are always covered, since it provides some news, but thats why the Rochester paper doesn't really participate, since they have actual news to report on instead of incumbancy protection programs. Thats why Massa is smart for shadowing Kuhl where ever he is. I am actualy surprised that Massa doesnt start following Kuhl with his meetings and have shadow meetings with national elected democrats around the district, and constituants where he actualy answers and can take care of their concerns.
I thought it was very interesting that this was top of the front page news.
You're right that Massa's tactic of having a press conf. was smart - now Kuhl's answers and Massa's answers will have to be juxtaposed.
Michael - you are right – today’s D&C covers such wonderful news as a firefighter charged with internet sex, a shot teen dies and a problem with a child killer’s sentence. These are on the front page of their web site. I wonder what else is there if I were to dig deeper?
And to think the people in the Southern Tier think some of their northern brethren are elitists. How could they? I do appreciate you letting us live in the same congressional district with you. I’ll take the news in the Hornell paper over the news in Rochester any day.
The Snowflake embryo adoption program was developed to give families with embryos stored another choice as to the process for donating them to another family. We recognize that clinics have been transferring embryos from one family to another for many years.
Because not all embryos survive the thawing process, we believe it is important for families going through infertility to only create embryos which they plan to implant -- and not create "extras". It is also important to recognize that the theory that embryos that aren't adopted will be "thrown away anyway" is completely false. The families who created the embryos have total control over their destiny. A Rand survey showed that only 2.5% of the families planned to have their embryos "thrown away", approximately the same percentage that planned to donate them to another couple or donate them to research. The remainder are being held for the families' use for future implantations.
But the real thrust of the pro-embryonic stem cell research advocates is cloning. They might say they do not believe in "reproductive cloning" -- only in "therapeutic cloning", but the process of creating the embryos is the same. Creating life to destroy it for research is what cloning results in. Do you really want to go there?
I'm sure the Snowflake Foundation, and your adoption agency in general, do great work and I don't mean to criticize that. However, I disagree with what you said and I think the reasoning on which it is based is faulty.
I understand that, technically, an embryo that remains in a freezer isn't "thrown away". However, there are 400,000+ embryos in freezers now. Only 2% of embryos are ever put up for adoption, a smaller percentage than those donated for research [1]. I can't believe all of the rest are going to be implanted by the parents. No matter: the longer the embryos are in the freezer, the less viable they are. So, whether or not they're physically thrown away, the end result is the same -- a dead embryo. Quoting polls, and wishing that parents didn't freeze embryos, doesn't change this fact.
As for your slippery slope argument (embryonic stem cell research leads to reproductive cloning), let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most scientific discoveries (e.g., nuclear energy) has applications that we don't like. Saying that we shouldn't do any research in a given area of inquiry, because some of that research might lead to results we don't like, is a way of burying your head in the sand. It fails to recognize that the history of scientific advancement, which shows that discoveries will be made no matter how we feel about them, especially if there's money involved for the discoverer.
[1] http://www.slate.com/id/2120222/
I appreciate your comments and your point of view. My point about not supporting the creation of more embryos than would be used in a "fresh cycle" was meant to clarify the position that the ends justify the means -- I don't believe that embryos should be destroyed or subjected to potential destructin for any purpose. However, once they are frozen, I advocate to give them a "chance" at being born rather than no chance.
I am a strong advocate of stem cell research, and am pleased that there has been progress made in obtaining embryonic stem cells without destrying embryos. Necessity is the mother of invention (or discovery) and it seems that scientists are becoming more creative when faced with obstacles to obtaining embryonic stem cells the easy way.
However, I think you have to acknowledge that unless the family who created the embryos voluntarily chooses to donate them for research, those 400,000 + embryos will not be available for research. I don't think you are suggesting that we legally mandate embryos that are not being used be made available for research.
This entire discussion of embryos has helped focus many peoples attention on when life begins (clearly at the point of conception from a scientific standpoint) AND at what point that life is deserving of protection. It is refreshing to discuss ideas and not labels. Thank you.
I definitely acknowledge that families should control how embryos are used, and also that the best result is implantation. However, the next-best result -- far better than expiring in a freezer -- is use in research.
I'm not so sanguine about the detours scientists are making to avoid embryonic stem cell research. Perhaps those are expensive dead ends. Scientific research is most productive when it follows its own agenda, not one dictated in part by political or theological priorities.
I agree that life - in the sense of potential life - begins at conception. This life is a fragile thing. In the natural state, 1/3 or more of it dies in the first few weeks. I'm OK with making a relatively arbitrary decision that this life can be ended well before it is viable. So I'm pro-abortion and pro embryonic stem cell research. I understand that others aren't. What I'm looking for from them is consistency.
Since you say that you "don't believe that embryos should be destroyed or subject to potential destruction for any purpose", I assume you oppose IVF, since whole process of IVF is just a embryo slaughter -- embryos are lost during fertilization and grading, and during implantation, as well as through freezing. If that's so, then your opposition to embryonic stem cell research is consistent. Which is more than I can say for a lot of opponents, including, apparently, NRLC.