TN: Vanderbilt Dr. makes weak claim for federal funding of Embryonic stem cell research...they are going to die anyway!

Dr. Frank H. Boehm, a pro­fes­sor and vice chair­man of Van­der­bilt Uni­ver­sity Med­ical Center’s Depart­ment of Obstet­rics and Gyne­col­ogy pens an opinion piece for the compliant and left leaning Tennessean on ESCR.   He should have started off with a disclaimer that he is an employee of Vanderbilt who will losing millions of dollars of federal funds unless the law is changed on this issue.  He starts off with a story about  11th cen­tury, reli­gious lead­ers warning  that treat­ing ill­ness with med­i­cine demon­strated a lack of faith in God. Well, that is not a good example, but of course he was trying to say those who oppose ESCR are ignorant.  By treating the illness you were not causing the death of one individual ,no matter how small, to do research in the hopes of improving the life of another. Here are some of his points.

While I respect those indi­vid­u­als who con­sider har­vest­ing stem cells from embryos akin to abor­tion, I am also mind­ful of the axiom that is spo­ken by trans­plant sur­geons, “Don’t bury organs, trans­plant them to save lives.” This slo­gan can be used by those who sup­port research on human embry­onic stem cells.

There is no ques­tion that frozen embryos rep­re­sent poten­tial life and unfrozen embryos rep­re­sent end of life, but we no longer live in the 11th or 18th cen­tury. We need to come to terms with the real­iza­tion that although dis­card­ing embryos may be con­sid­ered a form of death by some, using embry­onic stem cells for research can mean life for others.

His biggest argument is that the embryos are going to die so why not try to get some good out of them. Scott Klusendorf uses a simple example to that tired argument.  Why not take the prisoners on death row who are destined to die and kill them for their organs....the argument is the same. They are condemned to death....all appeals exhausted, then kill them and use their organs. For those who say this is a religious or moral argument in disguise.....science must always answer moral arguments.

From Klusendorf:

Consider President Obama’s own justification for funding embryonic stem cell research. He’s repeatedly told the nation that ideology should not interfere with scientific progress.
Really? First, the claim that ideology should not get in the way of science is itself an ideological claim — and a highly controversial one at that. Second, if he is correct that scientific progress trumps morality, one can hardly condemn Hitler for grisly medical experiments on Jews. Nor can one criticize the Tuskegee experiments of the 1940s in which black men suffering from syphilis were promised treatment, only to have it denied so scientists could study the disease. Pro-life advocates are not anti-science. We are not anti-cures. We just insist that scientific progress be tied to moral truth.

photo credit: Tennessean