On the two parties...

So, here's a dilemna - do you/can you help pro-life Democrats? And if so, how far do you help?

The only reason this is a quandry is because of the intentionally anti-life position of the Democrat party platform. The individual is normally a morally right-on person, well aware of the need to protect the most vulnerable among us and for this they should be commended, supported, and encouraged. But on the other hand, no matter how dedicated they are to protecting the unborn, their party will still fight against that cause tooth and nail.

So, what do you do? Can you help that pro-life Dem win an election b/c it is better to have a pro-lifer no matter what his/her party? How about this - do you blast their party when the majority of the party goes against a pro-life position even though the few who voted pro-life will get slammed in the process? Or do you evenly support the pro-life Dems and R's even though a Dem Congress or Presidency results in major losses for the pro-life cause?

How can you be unbiased in your party preference when one clearly embraces a culture of life and the other a culture of death? I want to be, and the pro-life Democrats would like me to be too...but how can I when their party undermines them (and therefore me as well) at every turn?

For cases in point just read through the Senate debate on Stem Cell research - the R's were much more moderate (and consequently accurate) in their statements, accusations, and facts. The D's got a bit ludicrous at times...ok, they came right out and lied... This actually surprised me a lot (see my earlier post on being surprised by outright lying). You'll get the same idea when you see that the Child Custody Protection Act got wide bi-partisan support UNTIL Senator Durbin (a Dem) put a parlimentarian hold on the already passed bill preventing it from going to conference, being reconciled with the House bill, and consequently getting to the President and being signed into law. One can only assume that he as Assistant Minority Leader may just possibly have had Leadership's blessing to hold up the bill...if not, Minority Leader Reid could easily convince him to remove his hold....So...what is one to think?

Not by their standards

Something remarkable about the debates in the House and Senate last week over stem cells, was the divergence of what constituted a "fact." Claiming exactly opposite things, both sides argued their cases, pointing to the other side as simply using "false research" or "junk science." Without being partisan since both Republicans and Democrats stood firmly on both sides of the debate, and after having read the studies and done the research myself, it is sickening to me the level to which the one side sunk in their attempts to "win."

The supporters of embryonic stem cell research went out of their way to ignore peer-reviewed studies that supported the opposite arguments of their own, to the degree of even claiming they did not exist. The medical advances that have come from non-embryonic stem cells were also claimed to be of no medical or scientific value, that they were hyped, over-evaluated, or simply mis-recorded. What is simply astounding about this is that non-partisan, non-pro-life groups have documented the advances of umbilical cord blood, of adult stem cells, and the possibility of de-differentiating (re-programming, taking back to an early development stage) adult cells to become more embyronic-like. These are not simply made-up arguments to suit the interests of those with moral conscience who object to embryo-destructive research. These are documented and real - check out the New York Blood Center or the National Cord Blood Inventory. There are numerous peer-revieded articles of different therapies that are being tried right now - this is the real science like it or not.

In contrast, the "advances" of emryonic stem cells are somewhat less than "advances." There are currently NO clinical trials involving humans using embryonic stem cells. None whatsoever. No one is being helped, no one has been treated, no one has enjoyed the benefits of the wonderful "promise" of these embryonic cells. Why? Because the cells are unstable, they cannot be controlled, they form tumors, they don't develop correctly into the cell type desired. Their promise is more in promising that scientists can continue to do research in whatever manner they choose without anyone telling them - that's not OK, that's too far, for the sake of what is good and right, you must stop.

Ummm, in case you haven't noticed, scientists don't like being told this. In fact, they fight any sort of oversight tooth and nail. There seems to be a certain aura surrounding science, that the scientists themselves quietly help propogate by the way, that they are untouchable, of the highest moral order, and are exclusively researching for the good of humanity. One might even uncharitably suggest that they rather like the god-like status they're held in after being found "responsible" for the technological advances and conveniences of the 21st century. One might even wonder if science itself hasn't become a pseudo-religion of sorts.

Unfortunately for them to use John Adams famous words - "facts are stubborn things." Their moral high-horse is a little blemished when you consider the unregulated work of the scientists and researchers in Nazi prizon camps - where in the name of science they conducted all sorts of terrible experiments on primarily Jewish captives. The horrific "ethics" of the Tuskigee experiments are another example of the extent scientists are willing to go to in the name of "scientific advance" or more nobly still, "the good of humanity" regardless of the need to trample on the rights and dinity of others. In this case the health and lives of hundreds of african-american men who were intentionally allowed to die of Syphilis so that the researchers could see the effects of the disease in their autopsies. As summarized in the words of News anchor Harry Reasoner these were experiments that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.” (For more information go to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html)

Even more recently is the scandal of Korean scientist Woo-Suk Hwang who not only fabricated his research, lying to thousands of people and shaming his entire nation, he also found no ethical problem in embezzeling money from the government and exploiting dozens of Korean women including several of the junior scientists in his own lab to obtain their eggs for his research. Clearly this is the mark of a scrupulous field where no one should even consider laying out ethical guidelines as a framework within which their work should flourish.

So, while scientists continue to claim that any kind of serious ethical overview and permission would cramp their style, those politicians in support of them and in the pocket of large pharmaceutical companies continue to advance their blatantly false arguments while simultaneously claiming that it is the other side that is making up research for their own convenience. Nevermind that those on the side of ethics and moral limitations have opened their arms to the most promising medical advances of our day, nevermind that their claims are all backed up with documented research and that they offer to give anyone who is interested copies of the studies they are citing, nevermind that the same ethics that they are touting as necessary for scientists regulates themselves as well.

Nevermind all that, let's just go ahead and assume that they are using the same set of ethics as the pro-embryonic side and are making up facts for their own political and self-gaining reasons. After all, if the one side is doing it, why should they have any reason to think someone else may actually be holding themselves to a higher standard?

Strange Bedfellows

While we don't always agree, it is so nice to have a disparate group of people behind the solid agenda of promoting science that helps people, or at least does no harm. Feminists for Life does great work with their "Women Deserve Better" slogan and their intentional effort at getting to the underlying issues of why some women chose abortions and attacking those issues as opposed to attacking the women themselves. Democrats for Life does a great job of reminding everyone that this should not be a partisan issues - everyone can and should be for life, for promoting the dignity and value of all humans.

With arguments that abortion is violent, pacificists join the cause. With arguments of exploitation, liberal feminists add their voices. With arguments of genoicide, gender-selection, disability-discrimination, and eugenics, civil rights, human rights, and disability-rights activists take an active role. Philosophers point out the incongruities of arbitrarily deciding life starts now but not then, simply depending on your politics without considering scientific definitions of life as well as the fact that life doesn't change its essence dependent on location (in a petri dish, within a womb, or outside the womb). Ethicists and religious-thinkers add depth by bringing in big-picture thinking on the good of humanity, the fulness and destiny of all people in relation to the Creator, the duties and responsabilities of us as humans, altruistic principles like self-denial, restraint, and sacrifice. Scientists do the work of gathering all the fundamental facts - showing how basic many of these questions are - this is how we determine what is alive and what is not, what is human and what is not, what this is developing to be, when it will develop, what it is capable of doing and becoming, and so on. Politicians and their aids work to put all the pieces together and craft laws that allow the most scientific freedom possible to explore and research cures and expand our understanding while yet not infringing on anyone's rights or over-riding the confines of humanity and ethics.

And there are many others who play a part in this puzzle - all trying to fit the pieces together so that this life of ours makes sense. It is strange but heartening to see so many different people agreeing on a few fundamental things while perhaps disagreeing on a single larger worldview.

First Post, purpose of blog

Hey Friends,

I've finally decided to bite the bullet, make a blog, and start writing! The topics will be on life in general, but particularly as it relates to DC politics and especially bioethics/life issues as those fascinate me and there's a lot of information and misinformation thrown around on these issues all the time!
I hope to be helpful and also to hear back from ya'll with commentary of your own, questions, clarifications, or...?

Ok, so my first post on bioethics/life issues and a commentary on politics in general - people lie. Flat out. Blatantly. Regularly. Maybe I am just naive, but I tend to cling tightly to the idea that when people are giving me statistics or arguments for their position that they're generally trying to actually logically convince me of their way of thinking. I may disagree and we can dialogue, but the idea that someone would intentionally tell me (and lots of others) something intentionally deceptive and misrpresenting is new to me.

For instance - Ron Fitzsimmons, the director of The National Coalition of Abortion Providers publicly admitted that he "lied through (his) teeth" when he told a TV interviewer that partial-birth abortion was "used rarely and only on women whose lifes were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged." He later explained that the truth was that the majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy fetuses, 20 weeks or more along, with healthy mothers. (See Congressman Chris Smith's speech in the Congressional Record for Feb. 8, 2006 available online through the GPO at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/06crpgs.html )

A former Planned Parenthood worker, Judith Fetrow, verifies this when she said, "It is extremely difficult to watch doctors lie, clinic workers cover up, and hear terrifying stories of women dragged out of clinics to die in cars on the way to the hospital without beginning to question the party line. I began to wonder if we were really caring for these women, or if we were just working for another corporation whose only interest was the bottom line." (Besides being subsidized by American taxpayers - technically for anything that's specifically not-abortion, but which allows them to save money on lighting, training, etc. and put their own money towards abortions - they generally receive between $350-650 per "medical abortion." Not a bad business proposition I guess, particularly if you're performing 255,015 abortions a year (2004 numbers). )

Abortion clinics commonly tell women that they will feel relief after their abortion, that this is an extremely safe procedure with little to no side-affects, calling post-abortion depression as well as side affects of the surgical procedure itself lies from "so-called 'crisis pregnancy centers'" trying to scare women (see Planned Parenthood's website). Yet, even abortionist Warren Hern says, "In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given given so little attention ans so underrated in its potential hazards as abortion. It is a commonly held view that complications are inevitable." (emphasis mine).

Anyway, you get the point and I don't want to belabor it just now. I was just surprised at all the fudging of numbers, data, claims...I don't know, it's a strange world where 'truth' is merely considered for its usefulness and is maleable to fit your own pre-existing views.