Republicans stand on Stem Cell Vindication - Essay Example

Republican’s stand on Stem Cell Vindication People, is what democracy is all about. With respect to people, leaders are the sculptors of their dream worlds. Broadly classifying, there are two varieties of leaders one with republican stance while the other with a democratic stance. Whether they are democratic or republican, they too are people and do consider the various issues with people in their mind. In general, political scenarios change instantaneously, i.e. democrats and republicans, whoever comes to power starts with new ideologies to develop. But their ideology may counter to the thoughts of people. Earlier the leaders could easily maintain a fake impression with the people. But with today’s media and online facilities, thee public is more than aware and are able to know the in depth truth and hence there is less chance of making false pretences. Nowadays, Democrats have to prove – “Government by the People” and republicans “Government based on laws”. As a Democrat, Adlai E. Stevenson says,”If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them”. Peoples choice of democrats or the republicans changes instantly with various issues. A human mind is fast changing and a real leader needs to maintain a homeostasis of the things he does to maintain his stance in the minds of people. That is why politics is a tough job. No democrat can be convinced of republican thoughts or vice versa as Laurence J.Peter says - “A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” – Also people cannot be compromised that easily. Still they pretend to be convinced according to the wordings - “Popular Opinion is the Greatest lie in the World” – Thomas Carlyle. A leader still can’t be so sure of his republican/ democratic ideology can surely fulfill people’s wishes. He does it solely on the hope though he would have a bit of confidence too, as Martin Luther said, “everything that is done in the world is done by hope” Maybe someone be a democratic or republican, it is his ideology which makes him win and rule over. But still a democrat runs on the ideal of government by the people, of the people and for the people. So he amends laws, bends rules for the people, whereas a republican has laws, human laws as his ideals which are on a global perspective common to all humans. A democrat may bend rules in his country for his people’s sake, but a republican has human ethics as a background of his ideals. So republican is more global in his thought and leads the country to a more civilized environment. As John F. Kerry says, “Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class” Definitely not, a better and good democrat can bring up a better environment with his ideals too. This marks the success of a leader, may be a democrat or a republican. People’s life is all the busier with their pretty hasty job and pizza life style and still they drop out to cast votes and decide their leader. Mark Russell says “If you've got the brain-washed, that's the Democrats, and the brain-dead, that's the Republicans! “ So, this is only a global perspective, let us hook our vision towards the current stance, one of the two main political parties of the United States. Its origins could be traced back to the coalition formed behind Thomas Jefferson in the 1790s to resist the policies of George Washington’s administration. This coalition, originally called the Republican, and later the Democratic-Republican Party, split into two factions during the presidential campaign of 1828. One, the National Republican Party, was absorbed into the Whig Party in 1834; the other became the Democratic Party. It’s all capitalism over here and a blend of democrats and republicans ruling USA. The US’s man should essentially maintain its standard to prove its leadership past this many years, and uphold the virtues in the presidents before. Certainly, as John Adams says, "The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries." and "Fear is the foundation of most governments." “For three decades, Democrats and Republicans worked together to make our environment better” - Christopher Dodd Today the work of science amazes man for its cures and inventions and still rises conflicts with the human rights and laws and in short the human ethics. Stem Cells are the latest issue. They are specialized cells which are formed at the very beginning stages of human embryo development and are part of what is known as a blastocyst. These cells are unique because at this stage of development they are not specialized and have the capacity to develop into 130 different human tissue types. Stem Cell is the source of all body tissues. Stem cells can replicate themselves or make any type of cell required to build an organism. Our growth and development—from single cell to a mature adult—arises from and is maintained by stem cells. Moreover, stem cells may provide powerful tools for biological research and medicine. The use of embryonic stem cells in medical research raises a fundamental question: Do these cells come from human tissue or from humans? Some people oppose the use of anything, including stem cells, from an embryo that is viable. For people who take this philosophical position, stem cell research involves the destruction of a human life. An opposing viewpoint states that these embryos would never develop into humans, because they would be either discarded or kept frozen in laboratories for future research. Consequently, some people argue that this material should be used in any way that could possibly improve human life. Some people who oppose the use of embryonic stem cells point out those scientific investigators could rely on other sources. A variety of body tissues—including bone marrow and blood from an umbilical cord—can also provide stem cells. However, no one knows if these tissues produce stem cells that equal embryonic cells in their versatility and thus in their potential for treating human disease. So here we have discussed two editorials. One of the editorials was written by Charles Krauthammer and the other by the members of the eagle forum. In the conservative stand, Charles Krauthammer narrates that recently a new technology has been devised compromising our controversy, still Bush took various measures and followed different policies without knowing where he was headed to. As Sherrod Brown says, “Year after year, President Bush has broken his campaign promises on college aid. And year after year, the Republican leadership in Congress has let him do it”. Still Krauthammer says Bush’s measures were decent and worthy too though he gained only poor name as a public opinion. The tone of Krauthammer is pretty confident and straight forward in concentrating on the issue as well as the stand by a ruling republican – George W. Bush He was unknowing of the end results but did know where he was headed to and yet working for moral considerations. "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." - James A. Thomson A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells. Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. This allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president - so vilified for a moral stance - been so thoroughly vindicated, precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, to borrow Thomson's phrase, Bush was made "a little bit uncomfortable" by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn. In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity - a "moral ayatollah," as Sen. Tom Harkin (a democrat) so scornfully put it. “Stem cell research holds enormous promise for easing human suffering, and federal support is critical to its success” - Tom Harkin Bush got it right. Not because he necessarily drew the line in the right place. I have long argued that a better line might have been drawn - between using doomed and discarded fertility-clinic embryos created originally for reproduction, that is permitted, and using embryos created solely to be disassembled for their parts, as in research cloning, that is prohibited. But what Bush got right was to insist, in the face of enormous popular and scientific opposition, on drawing a line at all, on requiring that scientific imperative be balanced by moral considerations. History will look at Bush's 2001 speech and be surprised how balanced and measured it was, how much respect it gave to the other side. Here was a presidential policy pronouncement that so finely and fairly drew out the case for both sides that until the final few minutes of his speech, you had no idea where the policy would end up. Bush finally ended up doing nothing to hamper private research into embryonic stem cells and pledging federal monies to support the study of existing stem cell lines - but refusing federal monies for research on stem cell lines produced by newly destroyed embryos. The president's policy recognized that this might cause problems. The existing lines might dry up, prove inadequate or become corrupted. Bush therefore appointed a President's Council on Bioethics to oversee ongoing stem cell research and evaluate how his restrictions were affecting research and what means might be found to circumvent ethical obstacles. The mainstream media and the scientific establishment saw this as a smoke screen to cover his fundamentalist, obscurantist, anti-scientific - the list of adjectives was endless. "Some observers", wrote The Post's Rick Weiss, "say the president's council is politically stacked." “By restraining, spending and by cutting the deficit, Republican policies are helping to keep our economy strong” - Dennis Hastert As Dennis Hastert says in his words, republicans help in keeping economy strong by their policies. President Bush has limited taxpayer funding of this research on right-to-life, not fiscal-conservative, grounds. He's not against all federal financing of the research, but he doesn't want to expand what's already being done. Conservatives generally support him. On September 20, 2006 in an article titled - ‘It's Hard to Tell a Conservative from a Liberal’ by John Stossel says, “Many Americans think embryonic stem-cell research is immoral. Federal funding makes they pay for something they regard as murder” Liberal Editorial by Eagle forum The support for using stem cells in research was flagged green by senators like Bill Frist. It was a shock to those who viewed this as using the taxpayer’s dollars to kill human embryos. Senator Bill Frist supports the expanding of Bush's policy which prohibits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research on all embryos that would be killed after August 9, 2001. Senator Frist backs the scientific experimentation on human embryos that are considered to be the leftovers at most fertility clinics. He argues that having the parent's permission was more than enough to pursue a scientific research where the tax payers' dollars could be well spent on good deeds for humanity. After having demurred for months, Senator Frist has lent some support to the Castle/Specter bill which was found to undermine the Bush policy. Senator Bill Frist says "I am pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. An embryo is nascent human life. It's genetically distinct. It's living. This position is consistent with my faith. To me it isn't just a matter of faith; it's a matter of science. . . . We were all once human embryos. That human embryo has moral significance and worth. It deserves to be treated with utmost dignity and respect. I also believe embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported." - Senator Bill Frist, July 29, 2005 Senator Frist seems to be playing a dual game at this instant; he pretends to be a pro-life even though he encourages the stem cell research. Mentioning oneself to be a pro-life never makes a pro-life. Such a position claims that no human life should be harmed, destroyed or exploited in any way. The tax dollars could be prudently invested in stem cell research associated with non embryonic stem cells such as cord blood, bone marrow, placenta and the umbilical cord. These are sources of stem cells that do not claim the lives of innocent lives. This is vital due to the remarkable capability of stem cells to cure over 65 diseases in the human body. It should, however be noted that, the embryonic stem cell research has never been used in any kind of treatment purpose. The killing of babies for research called for the need to urge President Bush to rescind the federal guidelines for embryo based stem cell research. The congress outlawed the federal funding for stem cell research involving the human embryos that are destroyed, discarded or accidentally subject to injuries. Clinton administration helped issued new research guidelines permitting the federal funds for stem cell research using human embryos while not violating the law. Even though there can be no pleasing justification for the killing of babies at the embryo stage stem cell research advocates a necessity to find a way to cure various disease. With technological advances in medicine, the heart of the research debate has moved to stem cells, which are just cells that are not yet specialized and can develop into various body parts, such as bone, skin, organs, and nerves. Stem cells are found in embryos, placentas, umbilical cords, and even adult tissues. Until recently the only way to attain the stem cells was to kill a baby at its embryo stage. The embryonic stem cell research is the silver bullet to finding cures for a range of human diseases. Yet, embryonic stem cells are yet to produce any single benefit for human patients and clinical use is years away. In contrast, stem cells from adult tissues, bone marrow, and umbilical cord blood are already used clinically and are more promising scientifically. Adult stem cells have proved beneficial in treating brain tumors, cancer, strokes, and other diseases. The embryonic stem cell research is sometimes considered to be extremely unnecessary and immoral. But fortunately or unfortunately so many frozen embryos are being abandoned in various fertility clinics around the globe, such that the proponents of embryonic stem cell research say such undesired babies could be used for the greater public good in research. They see no value of life, only a value in stem cells. Also the research in stem cells has been extremely promising towards the cure of many otherwise incurable diseases. Killing cannot be justified when done on private fund, but unfortunately the NIH protocols instruct researchers to kill embryos first, using private funds, and document how they obtained and destroyed the embryos when submitting their grant applications. NIH has already received at least 3 grant applications. HHS has been reviewing the Clinton regulations for months and is under pressure to approve the grants. We must keep in our minds the fact that we are former embryos. The Castle/DeGette bill would allow willing parents using in-vitro fertilization technique to donate their leftover embryos for the purpose of medical research, which enables the killing of embryos for obtaining the much needed stem cells. It should however be noted that despite the media hype, embryonic stem cell research is not what is producing cures. No human or animal has ever been successfully treated using embryonic stem cells. However, over 58 diseases or illnesses have been successfully treated using adult stem cells. The adult stem cells come from almost any tissue found in the body such as, bone marrow, liver, dental pulp, and even fat cells. Stem cells can also be found in umbilical cords and placentas. These non-embryonic stem cells are completely ethical and require no taking of human life. Some of the diseases successfully treated with adult stem cells are Brain Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Lymphoma, Lupus, Crohn's Disease, Parkinson's disease, Spinal Cord Injury, Multiple Sclerosis and Heart Damage. Technology has very much proved that the stem cells are capable of delivering more than what is expected of them. Many venture capitalists refuse to fund embryonic stem cell research simply because it shows little promise of actually producing cures. Now scientists are reasoning as the liberals always have - when something fails, have the government fund it. Many Members of Congress are confused and uneducated on the issue of stem cells. Even some pro-life members are leaning the wrong way on this issue. The issue of unethical Stem Cell Research is discussed here. Rep. Dave Weldon, a U.S. Congressman from Florida who is a medical doctor, joined Phyllis on the August 19 program to discuss embryonic and adult stem cell research. Dr. Weldon is encouraged by advances in adult stem cell research, which involves taking a stem cell from the patient's own body to make cells that the patient needs, such as liver cells for a diabetic. Some researchers, however, want to take a cell and transfer its genetic information to an egg cell, essentially creating a twin of the patient. This embryo would be destroyed to harvest his or her stem cells to use in the patient. This process is called therapeutic cloning. If this embryo were implanted in a woman's womb, he or she would develop into a human clone. So, till now it was all through stem cell research in depth of various options and latest news on it. Now, let’s concentrate on the stand of politics with respect to this issue. As a liberal writer Noam Chomsky quotes, "In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than just ideals to be valued--they may be essential to survival." In the political purview, issues are the main means to attract public. The public/ people get biased mainly by the stand of the politicians in an issue. Based on how important the issue is, the people judge the politician’s stand. With respect to a democrat, his people are his main objective, so he would mostly support the stem cell research just to satisfy the requirements of his people. He would also make it better available for the people by new means and make offers for it, so that they are healthy and also keep his stand steady in the minds of the people. Whereas, a republican would have this issue in a different view and would see embryonic stem cell research as a human ethical issue and hence would concentrate on further researching for other methods. Now as the research closes to being successful in making stem cells using other parts other than the embryo, the ethical issues would be addressed and hence would cater to the mindsets of the people. Here, republicans address the whole world based on their ideals of human laws and thus compromise people universally. As Dennis Hastert points out - “America's economy is resilient, and I am confident that Republican pro-growth policies will continue to keep our economy growing - just as it has since after the September 2001 terrorist attacks”. There are also various other authors who bring out the voices of various other people. Republicans in general do better. A few may be exceptional in certain cases too. Still if they would have been an exception, they would have ruled by their good leadership ability. As we all know Newton’s III law, “Every reaction has equal and opposite reaction”. If someone says an opinion, we don’t stand there accepting it immediately, we think at least for a while and then react. Similar to it, Republicans are also continuously confronted by various thoughts of people. Howard Dean says, “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for” This proves that there are continuous oppositions to everyone. Still republicans prove better servers of human community though other parties may be there with different ideals. Works Cited Charles Krauthammer. 30 Nov. 2007. Conservative Editorial “Stem Cell Vindication”. Washington Post, 30 Jan. 2008 Barbara Ehrenreich. 23 Oct. 2006. Is It Safe to Go Back to Church?. The Huffington Post, 07 Feb. 2008 Read More