To some, such research is equivalent to murder. To others, the prohibition of such research represents enormous cruelty in denying to very ill or physically limited persons the hope for cure. There is one development which could switch public sentiment in a very decisive way. That is the idea stem cells could be used to slow aging. Such research could suddenly make the whole issue very personal for Baby Boomer America. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how our morality shifts if the issue is suddenly personalized in this way?

The idea is not at all out of the main stream. As we get older, we start to produce fewer stem cells in our bone marrow. The ability to renew the various cells and organs of our bodies starts to deteriorate, and this is a key component of the aging process. Will science develop access to an occasional dose of stem cells which can slow this part of the aging process?

(Check out: http://www.anti-aging-guide.com/63stem.php or http://www.infoaging.org/b-stem-17-r-aging.html)

Whoops! Now,suddenly, we have a whole new view of stem cell research, don’t we? Never mind that some paralyzed person might be made to walk. I might get rid of my wrinkles! I might start looking and feeling so much younger. Are we now getting at what truly motivates America?

It could be a safe guess that middle of the road Americans who are not religious zealots could be more easily convinced to have a few more existing, frozen, test-tube-created embryos be sacrificed to petri dishes and cell lines, if they thought those cell lines could eventually slow aging. The fact of the matter is that multitudes of these frozen embryos exist and will ultimately be destroyed by the length of time frozen, or because they are not being used for in vitro fertilization as intended. The big argument is over what could be a brief period of gathering of stem cells for establishing cell lines which could exists in perpetuity.

What is also being overlooked in the stem cell discussion is the implication of the research for stocking (or having grown and frozen somewhere) a supply of our own stem cells. There is a booming business in this for newborns. Already sites exist for the collection of newborn cord blood and storage for later use. One can find organizations such as Viacord http://www.viacord.com/ and Core Blood Registry http://www.cordblood.com/index.asp on the internet.

Of course, we have become such a country of religious fanaticism, that just raising good democratic discussion of these issues is thought by some to condemn one to eternal hell. As for the left, this is another issue where the religious leaders there have been too wimpy to weigh in. What kind of an issue is it for the left when the Democrats have to use Nancy and Ron Reagan to make their arguments for them? Please! If the Democrats have a position on stem cell research, why aren’t they making a case for that position?

Some in this country believe that harvesting stem cells is no more sinful than wacking off in a tissue, and with the potential for a lot more positive long-range benefits. Those who are so vehement in their defense of embryos make the argument that theirs is a society that values life. In a certain way that is not true. The value is only on human life. In America is a society that gathers up millions of stray dogs and cats and puts them in gas chambers. We raise and slaughter billions of chickens whose little feet never touch the ground, and who go to their deaths on conveyor belts. We do not value “life.”

The difference (as we poor heathens understand it) is that animals are not seen to have what Christians call “souls.” One can only conclude, then, that what the Right really values is “souls.” They also believe that “souls” are eternal. Go figure!

The Right also does not oppose taking human life ( with a soul) in the name of a “good cause.” For example, they support war and the death penalty. Even if civilians die in war, that is just part of the “good cause.” If we sacrifice our own, innocent, Christian young people in war, it’s okay if it is for a “good cause.” Somehow, in those cases, the “Thou shalt not kill“ of inerrant scripture conveniently lends itself to creative interpretation. It is not, however, considered a “good cause” to sacrifice a frozen embryo, that will probably never see the light of day, to establish a cell line in perpetuity (that may be used to spare untold human suffering by treating infirmity and disease). What if we pinned a tiny Purple Heart on every one of the little five-cell bastards and gave them a monument in Washington? Would that help?

Many of these same Christians who block stem cell research say they believe in “divine healing through prayer and the laying on of hands.” They should either get behind stem cell research or get their butts out of the house right now and out into the streets healing everybody. If we meticulously go by their system, it is not our sin, it’s their lack of faith that’s the problem.

CNN has provided a pretty good, balanced summary of the debate http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/stemcell/ It is a debate which should be kept alive everyday until science can find a way to go full speed with this research.