 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Out of Ideas? AR al-Habib Environmentalism Michael Berliner Nationless Others Kate Huber Caucasus Fears A Abdurasulov Media Warfare JA Taylor Confront It... Salman Rushdie Jack Jihad C Beenfeldt The Goliath S Froestchel |
The anti-life opposition to embryonic stem cell research
By David Holcberg and Alex Epstein
Posted: June 11, 2006
Harvard scientists should be applauded for their decision to try to clone human embryonic stem cells
in an attempt to find treatments for a number of devastating diseases, including diabetes and Lou
Gehrig's.
"We are convinced that work with embryonic stem cells holds enormous promise for developing
treatments for a host of presently intractable adult and childhood diseases," said Harvard Provost Dr.
Steven E. Hyman.
Yet many people oppose embryonic stem cell research -- and do so under the banner of being
"pro-life."
The opponents of embryonic stem cell research claim that their position is rooted in "respect for
human life." They say that the embryos destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells are human
beings with a right to life. In Pope Benedict's recent words: "The loving eyes of God look on the human
being, considered full and complete at its beginning."
But embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are manifestly not human beings -- not in any
rational sense of the term. These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist of at most a
few hundred undifferentiated cells. They have no body or body parts. They do not see, hear, feel, or
think. While they have the potential to become human beings -- if implanted in a woman's uterus and
brought to term -- they are nowhere near actual human beings.
What, then, is the "pro-lifers"' reason for regarding these collections of cells as sacred and attributing
rights to them? Religious dogma.
The "pro-lifers" accept on faith the belief that rights are a divine creation: a gift from an unknowable
supernatural being bestowed on embryos at conception (which many extend to embryos "conceived"
in a beaker). The most prominent example of this view is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church,
which declares to its followers that an embryo "is to be respected and treated as a person from the
moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be
recognized."
But rights are not some supernatural construct, mystically granted by the will of "God." They are
this-worldly principles of proper political interaction rooted in man's rational nature. Rights recognize
the fact that men can only live successfully and happily among one another if they are free from the
initiation of force against them. Rights exist to protect and further human life. Rights enable individual
men to think, act, produce and trade, live and love in freedom. The principle of rights is utterly
inapplicable to tiny, pre-human clusters of cells that are incapable of such actions.
In fact, to attribute rights to embryos is to call for the violation of actual rights. Since the purpose of
rights is to enable individuals to secure their well-being, a crucial right, inherent in the right to liberty
and property, is the right to do scientific research in pursuit of new medical treatments. To deprive
scientists of the freedom to use clusters of cells to do such research is to violate their rights -- as well
as the rights of all who would contribute to, invest in, or benefit from this research.
And to the extent that rights are violated in this way, we can expect deadly results. The political pressure
against embryonic stem cell research is already discouraging many scientists and businessmen from
investing their time and resources in its pursuit. If this research can lead, as scientists believe, to the
ability to create new tissues and organs to replace damaged ones, any obstacles placed in its path will
unnecessarily delay the discovery of new cures and treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, and osteoporosis.
Every day that this potentially life-saving research is delayed is another day that will go by before new
treatments become available to ease the suffering and save the lives of countless individuals. And if
the "pro-lifers" ever achieve the ban they seek on embryonic stem cell research, millions upon millions
of human beings, living or yet to be born, might be deprived of healthier, happier, and longer lives.
The enemies of embryonic stem cell research know this, but are unmoved. They are brazenly willing to
force countless human beings to suffer and die for lack of treatments, so that clusters of cells remain
untouched.
To call such a stance "pro-life" is beyond absurd. Their allegiance is not to human life or to human
rights, but to their anti-life dogma.
If these enemies of human life wish to deprive themselves of the benefits of stem cell research, they
should be free to do so and die faithful to the last. But any attempt to impose their religious dogma on
the rest of the population is both evil and unconstitutional. In the name of the actual sanctity of human
life and the inviolability of rights, embryonic stem cell research must be allowed to proceed
unimpeded. Our lives may depend on it.
### ### ###
David Holcberg is a media research specialist and Alex Epstein is a junior fellow, both at the Ayn Rand
Institute in Irvine, California.
By David Holcberg and Alex Epstein
Posted: June 11, 2006
Harvard scientists should be applauded for their decision to try to clone human embryonic stem cells
in an attempt to find treatments for a number of devastating diseases, including diabetes and Lou
Gehrig's.
"We are convinced that work with embryonic stem cells holds enormous promise for developing
treatments for a host of presently intractable adult and childhood diseases," said Harvard Provost Dr.
Steven E. Hyman.
Yet many people oppose embryonic stem cell research -- and do so under the banner of being
"pro-life."
The opponents of embryonic stem cell research claim that their position is rooted in "respect for
human life." They say that the embryos destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells are human
beings with a right to life. In Pope Benedict's recent words: "The loving eyes of God look on the human
being, considered full and complete at its beginning."
But embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are manifestly not human beings -- not in any
rational sense of the term. These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist of at most a
few hundred undifferentiated cells. They have no body or body parts. They do not see, hear, feel, or
think. While they have the potential to become human beings -- if implanted in a woman's uterus and
brought to term -- they are nowhere near actual human beings.
What, then, is the "pro-lifers"' reason for regarding these collections of cells as sacred and attributing
rights to them? Religious dogma.
The "pro-lifers" accept on faith the belief that rights are a divine creation: a gift from an unknowable
supernatural being bestowed on embryos at conception (which many extend to embryos "conceived"
in a beaker). The most prominent example of this view is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church,
which declares to its followers that an embryo "is to be respected and treated as a person from the
moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be
recognized."
But rights are not some supernatural construct, mystically granted by the will of "God." They are
this-worldly principles of proper political interaction rooted in man's rational nature. Rights recognize
the fact that men can only live successfully and happily among one another if they are free from the
initiation of force against them. Rights exist to protect and further human life. Rights enable individual
men to think, act, produce and trade, live and love in freedom. The principle of rights is utterly
inapplicable to tiny, pre-human clusters of cells that are incapable of such actions.
In fact, to attribute rights to embryos is to call for the violation of actual rights. Since the purpose of
rights is to enable individuals to secure their well-being, a crucial right, inherent in the right to liberty
and property, is the right to do scientific research in pursuit of new medical treatments. To deprive
scientists of the freedom to use clusters of cells to do such research is to violate their rights -- as well
as the rights of all who would contribute to, invest in, or benefit from this research.
And to the extent that rights are violated in this way, we can expect deadly results. The political pressure
against embryonic stem cell research is already discouraging many scientists and businessmen from
investing their time and resources in its pursuit. If this research can lead, as scientists believe, to the
ability to create new tissues and organs to replace damaged ones, any obstacles placed in its path will
unnecessarily delay the discovery of new cures and treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, and osteoporosis.
Every day that this potentially life-saving research is delayed is another day that will go by before new
treatments become available to ease the suffering and save the lives of countless individuals. And if
the "pro-lifers" ever achieve the ban they seek on embryonic stem cell research, millions upon millions
of human beings, living or yet to be born, might be deprived of healthier, happier, and longer lives.
The enemies of embryonic stem cell research know this, but are unmoved. They are brazenly willing to
force countless human beings to suffer and die for lack of treatments, so that clusters of cells remain
untouched.
To call such a stance "pro-life" is beyond absurd. Their allegiance is not to human life or to human
rights, but to their anti-life dogma.
If these enemies of human life wish to deprive themselves of the benefits of stem cell research, they
should be free to do so and die faithful to the last. But any attempt to impose their religious dogma on
the rest of the population is both evil and unconstitutional. In the name of the actual sanctity of human
life and the inviolability of rights, embryonic stem cell research must be allowed to proceed
unimpeded. Our lives may depend on it.
### ### ###
David Holcberg is a media research specialist and Alex Epstein is a junior fellow, both at the Ayn Rand
Institute in Irvine, California.
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |