Understanding The Stem Cell Controversy

(March 4, 2010) We have been hearing for years how those standing opposed to embryonic stem cell research are leading to deaths. We are told that stem cells hold the promise of an array of cures. In fact, we heard assurances from former presidential hopeful Jonathan Edwards that through embryonic stem cell research, quadriplegic Christopher Reeves (still living at the time of Edwards’ comments) would get up and walk again.

The ethically-challenged senator engaged in similar baseless grandstanding as a lawyer. Edwards successfully prosecuted a medical malpractice lawsuit whereby he made the case that babies that were being born with Cerebral Palsy were so afflicted because the doctor failed to perform a Caesarean section. He claimed, while arguing a medical malpractice lawsuit, to be “channelling” one child during her birth, stating “She said at 3 (o’clock) ‘I’m fine.’ She said at 4, ‘I’m having a little trouble, but I’m doing okay.’ Five she said, ‘I’m having problems.’ At 5:30 she said ‘I need out.’” Interestingly, despite his proclaimed empathic synergism with this unborn child, Edwards has been a staunch abortion proponent.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Proponents Cost Lives

Certainly in understanding the controversy surrounding the stem cell debate, the underlying point has been deliberately distorted and fingers have been pointed at pro-lifers for failing to get on board with “stem cell research.” Critics have suggested that opposition to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is costing lives as progress on research has been stalled. Standing in the way of ESCR is equated with preventing life-saving research. It’s time to point out that it is, in fact, those invested in ESCR who are the ones responsible for lost lives - and I’m not just talking about the embryonic lives sacrificed for this research.

The contentious issue is not “stem cell research,” but what type of stem cell we are talking about, just as abortion is not about who defends “choice,” but how to best deal with crisis pregnancies. Put another way, we know the issue of abortion is not one of choice, but whether it is acceptable to take innocent nascent human life to allow a parent to avoid the burden of giving birth to a child they don’t want. Pro-lifers are strong advocates of “adult (aka ethical) stem cell research” for the purposes of saving lives. In fact, there are pro-life services that store placental blood that so that these ethical stem cells can be accessed in the event of future health concerns.

Adult Stem Cells Provide Treatments

The facts are that adult stem cells have already amazingly resulted in over 70 treatments for illnesses. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells have treated absolutely nothing. Furthermore, subterfuge regarding President George W. Bush’s limitations on funding and access to stem cells created the impression that embryonic stem cell research was being restricted. The sad reality is that there were no legal restrictions placed on ESCR, only limits on what tax-funded procedures would be permitted. Clearly, private donors are not stepping up with the cash despite all the assurances of what great promise ESCR is purported to hold.

The right way to understand this issue is this: politicians who are refusing to sign onto legislation that would support adult stem cell research without provisions for ESCR are the ones who are standing in the way of research and are costing lives. Furthermore, when research dollars and efforts are being diverted from research already proven to be effective, and funnelled into methods known to kill embryos but having yet to show any results, means that adult stem cell advancements are also being slowed, thus leading to more potential deaths.

Like huckster Jonathan Edwards, those wrongly identifying the enemy are causing greater harm because of their efforts. Since Edwards’ successful lawsuits against doctors based on his false claims of the link between natural childbirth and Cerebral Palsy, the number of Caesarean sections skyrocketed, doubtless because of doctors fearing potential lawsuits. Despite this trend, rates of children being born with CP have remained unchanged. On the other hand, risks to women undergoing a C-section include infections, haemorrhaging, pulmonary embolisms, Mendelson’s syndrome, and death.

Once again we see those who do the most harm to women and who are responsible for causing the deaths of innocent human beings are those opposing the pro-life position.

From Tiny Acorns Grow Mighty Abuses

In the recent scandal over the group, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), I was struck by several parallels between this group and Planned Parenthood.

For those who know little of the scandal, ACORN was exposed in a series of videos revealing corruption within their organization. In the sting operation, two young people (James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles) enter several ACORN offices under the pretext of setting up a prostitution business for under-aged girls from El Salvador. The workers could not have been more accommodating, not only in how to hide their activities, but ways to keep the money hidden from the government. Prior to this, ACORN was already dealing with an array of court battles due to their alleged illegal voting registration practices that have been under investigation.

Now for a summary of the similarities:

1) ACORN, like Planned Parenthood, has been exposed thanks to undercover videos where they are shown to support the abuse of children. In the P.P. videos, girls went in requesting an abortion, giving their ages as 14 (under the age of consent) and stating that the men who impregnated them were much older. The law states that this is statutory rape under U.S. law. Consequently Planned Parenthood is obliged to report these situations, but fail to do so. Instead they coach the girls on how to lie in order to keep the adult male offender out of trouble.

2) Planned Parenthood, like ACORN, receives massive government funding for presenting one side of an issue, even given the exposed abuses and corruptions. Similarly, those trying to expose these harmful activities and present another viewpoint are vilified and refused similar financial aid for their work.

3) Both organizations have been allowed to have a major influence on both politics and legislation. Much of this is because of the ideology of a one-sided news media and education that has controlled the message.

4) Both ACORN and P.P. have made the messenger the issue. For their efforts, Giles and O’Keefe are being investigated for the means by which they exposed the abuses of ACORN. For pro-lifers, those engaged in peaceful demonstrations and prayer vigils outside of abortuaries have had special limits and sanctions placed on them regarding how close they can organize outside the clinics. They are treated as threats to others despite the evidence that violence has more commonly been acted out by pro-aborts, some clinic workers, and a few rogue anti-abortion groups or individuals not connected in any way with pro-lifers. These “bubble zones” are not intended to prevent violence by pro-lifers but to keep information from vulnerable women considering an abortion out of desperation.

5) Both organizations have previously enjoyed a lack of media scrutiny and it has required enterprising young people to expose their hidden activities. Another interesting connection is that James O’Keefe also exposed P.P. through recorded phone calls where he offers to donate to their work with the proviso that the money is just to abort “black babies.” The money is gratefully accepted with the requested strings attached.

6) Both have hidden political agendas based on manipulation of their position and mischaracterization of what they are all about. P.P. does not promote choice, but abortion as this is where the majority of their funding and political influence comes from.

7) Both groups are most abusive to those they claim to support (the vulnerable and disenfranchised). Women, children, minorities, and the poor are most impacted by both of these organizations, with the harm of course being lethal for children in the matter of abortion.

ACORN is an ironic acronym given that one of the long-standing arguments in support of abortion is that acorns are not trees just as the unborn are not people. Out of curiousity, I inadvertently tuned into Air America one evening where I heard a similar spin on this argument. The host happened to be talking about abortion and used the analogy that one does not chop up seeds for firewood. Beyond the distasteful image created when chopping living nature is equated with human life, there is a major deception behind such arguments.

The seed cannot be likened to the unborn but would more accurately compare the semen or ovum. A successful pregnancy where the issue of abortion comes into play arises only after the conditions have led to a union of the sperm and ovum, therefore we would need to compare with a seed that has been planted and has all the conditions for growth. Just as some may devalue the unborn, people similarly tend to have little interest in the roots that grow underground; but the subterranean growth is vital in order for the tree to live. Much as the child starts off growing where they are not seen, they differ from the root analogy as they do not remain hidden, serving only as a conduit, but are the actual human being in the early stages of growth that all people inevitably pass through. It is also one thing to have conditions fail to provide the necessary sustenance for growth (i.e. a drought, harsh weather, or poor soil conditions that prevent a tree from reaching maturity - just as miscarriages are beyond one’s control but due to conditions); but it is quite another thing to take aggressive action (spreading roundup or burning up a young crop or dismembering or otherwise killing a pre-born baby).

Facts cannot be dismissed merely as an inconvenience. ACORN should be forced to answer for their activities and face criminal charges based on an accurate investigation into their activities. They need to be stripped of their funds and political influence. Similarly, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations should have to face the same scrutiny for their activities and their messages. Before we go any further, however, we need to have a full understanding of what abortion really is and use this knowledge to separate fact from mythology.

Please note that a Canadian organization with the same acronym states on its website: “ACORN Canada is legally and operationally separate and independent from ACORN USA. We maintain no ongoing campaigns or projects with ACORN in the United States.”

For more background on ACORN in the U.S., please visit www.biggovernment.com