We know who defines what "is" is, but who will define what "abortion" is ? --
12/02/1999
Defining "Abortion" -- 12/06/1999
Who should subsidize Stem Cell Research --
general public or private organizations? -- 9/15/01
The Republican Congress managed to make only one useful decision last
November, and it was a limitation of federal spending on groups that promote
abortions abroad. Yet the way the American contribution is spent in the
developing countries largely depends on local laws than on the laws propagated
from Capitol Hill.
Presently, the biggest recipient of American birth control aid is a Muslim
country, Bangladesh, that is considered by the UN demographers among the world's
most populous, sickest, and poorest.
On one hand, the government of Bangladesh prohibits abortion (except to save a
mother's life), on the other hand, it is a fierce proponent of birth control. In
contrast, the non-government Family Planning Association of Bangladesh (which is
an affiliate of International Planned Parenthood Federation in London)
officially condemns practices that prevent pregnancy in the first 10 weeks;
however, unofficially, this organization is the major propagandist of abortions
and the largest recipient of the American money in Bangladesh.
What is going on? Why is the problem so convoluted and twisted?
The commoners of either country, of course, will blame the lawyers and
bureaucrats, and the latter's convoluted minds; and they will be politically
correct.
Following the American trail of money we can discern where the official and
non-official bureaucrats are efficient in spending our money and where they are
not.
We will start from definitions and, then, trace the deeds that are based on
those definitions.
In Bangladesh, if a woman complains to a doctor of having missed a period, her
lining of the uterine wall (including any fertilized egg) can be suctioned away
rather than being given a pregnancy test. It is happening because the
government and the international abortionist organizations call this procedure
the "menstrual regulation".
The official bureaucrats define this procedure as "an interim method of
establishing non-pregnancy". They do not consider the procedure as an abortion.
They assume that a woman, who does not take a pregnancy test, acts
unconsciously, and therefore, can be considered insane, and therefore, in not
responsible for her own deeds. And yet, internally, she can exonerate herself
because she is not sure if she was really pregnant.
Thus, in Bangladesh, abortions are illegal; however, they are fiercely promoted
by the government.
On the other hand, the bureaucrats of the non-governmental organizations can
continue to promote contraception; however, they should agree not to lobby for
looser regulation of abortion. In this manner, these non-governmental
abortionist organizations are operating within the laws established by the
American Congress and can continue to receive American aid.
For a long time, the greatest foe of the pro-life supporters has been the
International Planned Parenthood Federation, the international abortionist
organization in London that has affiliates in more than 140 countries. A
high-ranking bureaucrat of this organization recently stated that, in 1998, only
its London bureaucracy spent more than $90 million for abortion propaganda. The
affiliates of this organization "independently" collected about $400 million,
which came on three-quarters from their own local sources and other private
foundations, including Ford, Gates, Mellon, Packard, Rockefeller, and
others, that have been handsomely contributing too in the programs of condom and
contraceptive pill distribution.
Even if it is true and the federal government contributes only a quarter of the
budget of such abortionist organizations as the London federation, even then, we
have the right to ask our bureaucrats for our money. We do not have the right to
ask the Gates and Rockefellers how they spend their private money, but we have
an inalienable right to ask the federal bureaucrats how they spent ours.
Following by the letter of the American law, London's abortionist federation is
not directly using the American grant ($9.2 million the past year or 10 percent
of its budget) to perform or promote abortion. Rather they prefer to violate the
spirit of that law and indirectly pay the salaries of its bureaucrats from that
grant, using the private grants for direct abortion propaganda. Thus, the
Democrats and their sycophants show once more that they were, are, and will be
the party of social tricksters and perjurers.
In past November, Congress passed a legislation to restore American finance aid
to the United Nations Organization. The Republicans managed to include a
restrictive clause for the bureaucrats of the International Development
Agency (IDA), which restricts the latter in using American money for abortion
propaganda (family planning) abroad to $385 million per year. This limitation is
in force from 1995, when the Democrats managed to increase the spending level to
perform or promote abortions to $547 million.
The legislation also has a penalty of $12.5 million if the president waives the
provision. It means that each transgression in spending will be punished by a
deduction of $12.5 million from the IDA budget of $385 million. The accumulated
fine will be diverted to children's health programs.
Retrospectively, in 1973, the Democratic Congress prohibited subsidies to
foreign non-government organizations that used them for abortion propaganda.
In 1984, the Republican president signed an executive order that prohibited
American aid to those foreign organizations that also used other sources of
money to propagate abortion. The Democratic president revoked that order in
1993, and it lasted until November of 1999 when the Republican Congress managed
to put the previous executive order into a law.
Arguing about the provision, the Republicans pointed out that international
abortionist organizations should decrease their dependence on American aid. At
the same time, the Republicans stopped short saying that the abortionists'
efforts were helping reduce birth rates in many nations.
The UN statisticians estimate that the governments of the industrial countries
spend nearly $2 billion a year propagating abortion in the developing countries,
and the United States remains the largest contributor into that sum. The
Netherlands, Germany, Britain and Japan are following the American lead.
The IDA reports that in the developing countries that receive American money for
abortions, the fertility rate, or the average number of babies born to a woman,
dropped from 4.4 in 1985 to 3.3 in 1997. In Bangladesh, the fertility rate
dropped from 6.0 in 1971 to 3.0 in 1998. Therefore, the bureaucrats of IDA
considered their spending of our money as a very efficient way to prevent us
from war and pestilence. Indeed, we have not had a major one since 1945. But the
question is still there -- is the abortionists' way the most efficient way for
our (Americans) survival on this planet and on this continent? And not a simple
survival but one in liberty and happiness (with property). And it means that the
American middle class should think twice to whom it can entrust the power to
manage its money.
Now the world population is 6 billion, and it is increasing with a rate of 75
million per year. The liberal demographers guess that the fertility rate of 2.1
children per woman in the developing countries would stabilize their population
and relieve pressure on the world resources. However, the conservative
demographers argued that the present level of agricultural technology can
sustain some 30 billion people and the problem can be resolved through the
efficient usage of that technology, which largely depends on free and
responsible workers, whose interest is largely less bureaucracy and more
self-control.
The liberals argue that about fifty percent of pregnancies worldwide were
unintended mistakes that resulted with unwanted children. However, the
Republicans argued that there wouldn't be unwanted children at all if the
parents would have freedom from bureaucrats. Such a freedom would lead to
self-governing and is inseparable from responsibility and conscious
self-regulation, particularly in the matters of procreation. But the liberals
insisted on freedom from responsibility, not on freedom and responsibility, as
the Republicans did.
Under the Democrats' pressure, the newly cooked bill left many loop-holes to the
abortionist organizations. Although Congress prohibits the IDA to finance
foreign non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions,
whether with American money or on their own, the American organizations
operating abroad and foreign governmental organizations can still get American
money because the definition of terms is left to the IDA and the foreign
governments. Therefore, what Bangladesh bureaucrats call "menstrual regulation"
is not considered "abortion" under the American law.
The Republicans in Congress say that they agreed to leave to the Democrats to
define what "abortion" is, and you know who defines what "is" is. The
Congressional Republicans released themselves from their constitutional duty to
define the abortion law and transferred their sovereign and defining powers to
the executive bureaucrats of the IDA by saying that the latter ought to say what
"abortion" is, and consequently, what the abortion law is. Then the American
representative in the UN "would regard that [procedures like aspiration or
suctioning of the uterine lining, or heavy doses of contraceptive pills, VS] as
abortion."
If the Democrats would define those procedures as "abortion," then, the foreign
abortionist (governmental and non-governmental, alike) organizations would have
to stop the practice or lose their American subsidies. But the buck would not
stop there, nor would the Democrats, because it would mean for them to redefine
their definitions of life, liberty, and property (particularly, liberty and
property of women). And now it depends on you -- will you yourselves define what
"abortion" is or will you let the perjurers to do it for you?
12/02/1999
In 1973, the Supreme Court, in its Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton
decisions, "defined" abortion, thus, legalizing it in all 50 states. This
precedent happened because the Democratic Congress relinquished its sovereign
and defining powers to the Supreme Court. Last November, the Republican Congress
refused to exercise its sovereignty and relinquished its defining powers to the
executive branch of government (to the International Development Agency -- IDA),
the bureaucrats of which will define what "abortion" is. And we know how this
branch defined what "is" is. Will we let 'em define for us what "abortion" is?
The consequence of that 1973 broad interpretation of the Constitution by the
Supreme Court and the narrow interpretation of it by Congress is that now
abortion can be done during all nine months of pregnancy, for any medical or
social reason.
Two generations ago, the term "abortion" usually referred to any premature
expulsion of a human fetus, whether spontaneously ("naturally"), as in a
miscarriage , or artificially induced, as in a surgical or chemical abortion.
Today, the most common usage of the term "abortion" applies to artificially
induced abortion, which was the subject of an unintentional eavesdropping that I
hope will be interesting to the public at large and not to the Maryland Courts.
Somewhere in Florida, one day of last summer, three men had been playing in
golf. One man, I will call him Mr. Liberal, was from the upper class and sought
the votes of the lower class voters, thus hoping to be reelected to a high
office in the approaching elections. The second man, I will call him Mr.
Conservative, was from the upper class, but he struggled for support of the
middle class voters. And the third man, I will call him Mr. Moderate, was my
employer, whose caddy I was at that time. Mr. Moderate hoped for the support of
both -- middle and lower class voters.
While going to the third hole and doing poorly with the ball, Mr. Conservative
launched an attack on the ideological front. He spit and said, "You know, you
liberals always tries to get something for nothing, but what will you get by
supporting abortion?" Being a savvy man, Mr. Liberal didn't blow his top from
this slight provocation, and only the tic of his left brow betrayed his Olympic
coolness.
Hearing nothing in response, Mr. Conservative continued his invective - "You
know, abortion ends a pregnancy by killing (you, liberals, prefer the term
'destroying') and removing the developing child (you, liberals, would prefer
term 'fetus' or 'embryo'). By the time the would-be mother misses her period and
begins to wonder if she might be pregnant, the would-be child's heart has
already begun to beat . Such a situation usually happens about a month later,
after the would-be mother’s last menstrual period. You know, surgical abortions
are usually not performed before seven weeks, after the last menstrual period.
By that time, the would-be baby has identifiable arms and legs (in the 7th week)
and displays measurable brain waves (in the 6th week). During the 7th through
the 10th weeks, when the majority (80%) of abortions are performed, fingers and
genitals appear and the would-be child’s face is recognizably human; he/she can
certainly be discerned from a fetus of a pig or a chicken, with whom a human
fetus is very alike until the 4th week."
At this point, Mr. Liberal's right brow begun twitching and Mr. Moderate decided
to rescue the rest of the company's peaceful mood. He said, "If you so darn
sanctimonious today, do you know someone who is thinking about having an
abortion? When you, conservatives and liberals talk about abortion, you usually
talk a great deal about the social, moral, and even religious reasons for having
or not having an abortion, but little about the basic medical details. In fact,
many women make the decision to have an abortion without ever discussing either
the medical procedures or the health considerations with anyone. Perhaps no
other procedure is performed with this degree of patient ignorance. There is no
reason why any would-be mother should go through surgery of any kind, especially
induced abortion, or take powerful drugs that induce abortion, and not even be
informed about potentially serious side effects. Therefore, to have a meaningful
and amicable conversation on this theme, I propose the following plan of
discussion -- firstly, we have to choose a chairman, who will keep our
discussion in order; secondly, we should start from the implications of abortion
on the would-be mother and would-be child, then we will go through the
entanglements of abortion on would-be father, and then we will go through the
implications of abortion on the society at large."
Mr. Liberal and Mr. Conservative agreed with Mr. Moderate, and pronounced the
latter the chairman of the day. The following pages are the transcript of their
discussion on the abortion topic.
Mr. Moderate: I think, Mr. Liberal has already suffered enough from his tic,
therefore, he may start.
Mr. Liberal: No doubt an unwanted pregnancy can cause intense stress and
hardship on a would-be father and the rest of society in a variety of ways;
however, the medical evidence is clear -- the physical and psychological
consequences of abortion can be far worse for a would-be mother, and of course,
the deadliest consequence of all can be for a would-be child. From a physician
point of view, abortions can be discerned by surgical and chemical
techniques. Among the surgical techniques can be suction, aspiration,
and dilation; among the chemical techniques can be anti-progesterone
(French abortion pill), prosta-glandins, and poisonous salts.
Suction aspiration (vacuum curettage) is the surgical abortion
technique used in most first trimester abortions. A powerful suction tube with a
sharp cutting edge is inserted into the womb through the dilated cervix. The
suction dismembers the fetus and tears its parts and the placenta from the wall
of the uterus, sucking blood, amniotic fluid, and placental tissue into a
collection bottle. A surgeon must take a great care to prevent the uterus from
being punctured during this procedure, which may cause hemorrhage and
necessitate further surgery. Also, infection can easily develop if any fetal or
placental tissue is left behind in the uterus. This is the most frequent
post-abortion complication.
Dilation (Dilatation) and Curettage is the surgical abortion
technique when the cervix is dilated or stretched to permit the insertion of a
loop shaped steel knife. The fetus is cut into pieces and removed and the
placenta is scraped off the uterine wall. This surgical method is also used to
treat abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, etc. Blood loss from dilation, or
'mechanical' curettage is greater than for suction aspiration, as is the
likelihood of uterine perforation and infection.
Dilation and Evacuation is used to abort the fetus as old as 24 weeks.
The difference of this technique from the above mentioned is that forceps with
sharp metal jaws are used to grasp limbs of the fetus, which are then twisted
and torn away. This dismemberment continues until all parts of the fetus are
removed from the womb. Because the fetus’ skull has often hardened to bone by
this time, the skull must sometimes be compressed or crushed to facilitate
removal. If not carefully removed, sharp edges of the bones may cause cervical
laceration. Bleeding from the procedure may be profuse.
There are several more surgical techniques we should take into consideration,
and one of them is partial-birth abortion. Aborters sometimes call these or
similar types of abortions using such euphemisms as 'Dilation and Extraction,'
which obscure to the abortee the realities of how the abortions are actually
performed. This latter surgical abortion technique is used to abort 20 weeks and
later pregnancies. Guided by ultrasound, the aborter reaches into the uterus,
grabs the unborn baby’s leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth
canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At
this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive.) Then the aborter
jams scissors into the back of the baby’s skull and spreads the tips of the
scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction
catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby’s brains are sucked out. The
collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.
Sometimes aborters used hystero-tomy, a surgical technique that is
similar to the Caesarean Section and is often used if the chemical abortive
techniques, such as salt poisoning or prosta-glandins, fail. Incisions are made
in the abdomen and uterus and the baby, placenta, and amniotic sac are removed.
Babies are sometimes born alive during this procedure, and it raises questions
as to how and when these infants are killed and by whom. This technique offers
the highest risk to the health of the abortee.
The so-called 'French abortion pill,' (RU 486) is the chemical abortion
technique that actually uses two powerful synthetic hormones with the generic
names of mife-pristone and miso-prostol to chemically induce abortions in women
five-to-nine weeks pregnant. This technique requires at least three trips to the
abortion facility. In the first visit, the woman is given a physical exam, and
if she has no obvious contra-indications ('red flags' such as smoking, asthma,
high blood pressure, obesity, etc., that could make the drug deadly to her), she
swallows these pills, which blocks the action of progesterone, the natural
hormone vital to maintaining the rich nutrient lining of the uterus. The fetus
starves and balloons out as the nutrient lining disintegrates. At a second visit
36 to 48 hours later, the woman is given a dose of artificial prosta-glandins
(usually miso-prostol), which initiates uterine contractions and usually causes
the embryonic baby to be expelled from the uterus. Most women abort during the
4-hour waiting period at the clinic, but about 30% abort later, outside of the
clinic, up to 5 days later. A third visit about 2 weeks later determines
whether the abortion has occurred or a surgical abortion is necessary to
complete the procedure (5 to 10% of all cases).
There are several serious well documented side effects associated with the
chemical abortions, including prolonged (up to 44 days) and severe bleeding,
nausea, vomiting, pain, life-threatening heart attacks, and even death for the
would-be mother. Long term effects of the drug have not yet been sufficiently
studied, but there are reasons to believe that the chemical abortion technique
could affect not only a woman’s current pregnancy, but her future pregnancies as
well, potentially inducing miscarriages or causing severe malformations in later
children.
The chemical abortion technique can also be done with metho-trexate,
which is similar to the French abortion pill, though administered by an
intra-muscular injection instead of a pill. Metho-trexate was originally
designed to attack cancerous cells by neutralizing the B vitamin folic acid
necessary for cell division. Metho-trexate apparently attacks the fast growing
cells of the trophoblast as well, the tissue surrounding the embryo that
eventually gives rise to the placenta. The tropho-blast not only functions as
the 'life support system' for the fetus, drawing oxygen and nutrients from the
would-be mother’s blood supply and disposing of carbon dioxide and waste
products, but also produces the human chorionic gonado-tropin (hCG) hormone
which signals the corpus luteum to continue the production of progesterone
necessary to prevent breakdown of the uterine lining and loss of the pregnancy.
Metho-trexate initiates the disintegration of that sustaining, protective, and
nourishing environment. Deprived of the food, water, and oxygen, the fetus dies.
Three to seven days later (depending on the protocol used), a suppository of
misoprostol is inserted into a woman’s vagina to trigger expulsion of fetus.
Sometimes this occurs within the next few hours, but often a second dose of the
prostaglandin is required, making the time lapse between the initial
administration of metho-trexate and the actual completion of the abortion as
long as several weeks. A woman may bleed for weeks (42 days in one study), even
heavily, and may abort anywhere. Those found to be still pregnant in later
visits (4-5%) are given surgical abortions.
Even those physicians who support abortion are reluctant to prescribe
metho-trexate because of its high toxicity and unpredictable side effects. Those
side effects commonly include nausea, pain, diarrhea, as well as less visible
but more serious effects such as bone marrow depression, severe anemia, liver
and lung damage. The manufacturer warns in the package insert that while
metho-trexate has shown itself useful in treating certain types of cancer and
severe cases of arthritis and psoriasis, 'deaths have been reported with the use
of metho-trexate,' and recommends that its use be limited to 'physicians whose
knowledge and experience includes the use of anti-metabolite therapy.' Though
researchers performing metho-trexate abortions have dismissed such concerns
because of the low dosage used, other physicians in the abortion industry have
disagreed, and the package insert clearly warns that 'toxic effects may be
related in frequency and severity to dose or frequency of administration but
have been seen at all doses'.
Among the chemical abortion techniques that are used in the 2nd and 3rd
trimesters is instillation.This technique involve the injection of drugs
or chemicals through the abdomen or cervix into the amniotic sac to cause the
death and expulsion of the fetus. Several drugs have been tried, but the most
commonly used are hyper-tonic saline, urea, and prosta-glandins.
Hyper-tonic saline or salt poisoning (also known as 'saline amniocentesis
or 'salting out') is a chemical abortion technique that is used after 16 weeks
of pregnancy, when enough fluid has accumulated in the amniotic fluid sac
surrounding the fetus.
A needle is inserted through the woman’s abdomen and 50-250 ml of amniotic fluid
is withdrawn and replaced with a solution of concentrated salt. The fetus
breathes in, swallowing the salt, and is poisoned. The chemical solution also
causes painful burning and deterioration of the fetus' skin. Usually, after
about an hour, the fetus dies. The would-be mother goes into labor about 33 to
35 hours after instillation and expels a dead, burned, and shriveled body.
About 97% of would-be mothers expels the dead would-be children within 72 hours.
Hyper-tonic saline may initiate an uncontrolled blood clotting throughout the
body of the woman that may lead to severe hemorrhage as well as other serious
side effects on her central nervous system. Seizures, coma, or death may also
result from saline inadvertently injected into the woman’s vascular system.
Because of the dangers associated with saline techniques, other instillation
techniques, such as hyper-somolar urea, are sometimes employed, though
these are less effective and usually must be supplemented by oxy-toxin or a
prostaglandin in order to achieve the desired result. Incomplete or failed
abortion remains a problem with urea technique, often precipitating the
additional risk of surgery.
Another chemical abortion technique uses prosta-glandins, which are
naturally produced chemical compounds that normally assist in the birthing
process. The injection of concentrations of artificial prosta-glandins
prematurely into the amniotic sac induces violent labor and the birth of a child
usually too young to survive. Often salt or another toxin is first injected to
ensure that the baby will be delivered dead. Since some babies have survived the
trauma of a prostaglandin birth, this chemical technique is used only during the
second trimester.
In addition to risks of a retained placenta, cervical trauma, infection,
hemorrhage, hyper-thermia, broncho-constriction, tachy-cardia, more serious side
effects and complications from the use of artificial prosta-glandins, including
cardiac arrest, rupture of the uterus, and even the death of the woman, can
occur. As with other instillation techniques, gastrointestinal side effects such
as nausea or vomiting are frequent, but the most common problem with second
trimester techniques is cervical injuries, which range from small lacerations to
complete detachments of the anterior or posterior cervix. About 2% of abortees
that used urea technique were hospitalized for treatment of endo-metritis, an
infection of the uterus' lining.
Mr. Moderate: Your turn, Mr. Conservative.
Mr. Conservative: Blah-Blah-Blah. Making a long story short -- nine months of
pregnancy is a relatively small cost for a would-be mother to pay in light of
her lifetime of potential physical and mental health problems, isn't it?
Mr. Liberal: Not so fast and so short, Mr. Conservative. The argument used by
many of my colleagues, that abortion is safer than childbirth, is difficult to
defend in light of medical evidence to the contrary. However, in the spirit of
the party, our executive branch -- the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
maintains that induced abortion is safer than childbirth and that the
serious complication rate is less than one percent. Yet there is no agreement
among investigators as to what constitutes a major complication and no real
federal system for the reporting these kind of statistics, making the accuracy
of such assertions questionable.
Furthermore, the experiences of private physicians and gynecologists contradict
the CDC’s claim. These physicians see abortion on the body of an abortee as
grave and always negative. Why is this so? One of these gynecologists thus
answered the question, "Because induced abortion is the premature, willful, and
violent penetration of a closed and safeguarded system -- a system in which
nearly every cell, tissue and organ of a woman’s reproductive system has been
specially transformed and activated to carry out the function of sustaining and
nourishing the developing child. Not surprisingly, any violation of the
integrity of that system can lead to serious complications. Physical problems
range from hemorrhage and infection to sterility and even death. Psychological
effects range from depression and mental trauma to divorce and even suicide."
Despite the use of local anesthesia, 97% of women having abortions reported
experiencing pain during the procedure, which more than a third described as
"intense," "severe" or "very severe." Compared to other pains,
researchers have rated the pain from abortion as more painful than a bone
fracture, about the same as cancer pain, though not as painful as an amputation.
Studies also reveal that younger women tend to find abortion more painful than
do older adults, and that abortees typically found abortion more painful
than the aborters or counselors expected. The use of more powerful general
anesthetics can reduce the pain, but significantly increases the risk of
cervical injury or uterine perforation.
Even more harmful long term physical complications from abortion may surface
later. For example, overzealous currettage can damage the lining of the uterus
and lead to permanent infertility. Overall, women who have abortions face an
increased risk of tubal pregnancy and a more than doubled risk of future
sterility. Perhaps most important of all, the risk of these sorts of
complications, along with risks of future miscarriage, increase with each
subsequent abortion.
The particular type and severity of complications depend a great deal on the
experience of the aborter and the particular abortion technique used. Because
most abortions are performed at abortion clinics rather than by a woman’s
regular gynecologist, the aborter is likely to be a stranger of whose skill and
experience an abortee knows very little. Such things as an inadequate
gynecologic examination prior to the operation, the carelessness of the aborter,
or the retention of fetal and placental tissue can all bring on complications.
These kinds of complications can usually be treated and generally subside
(though not always), but few women ever return to the clinics for crucial
post-operative examinations.
There is also strong evidence that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.
A study of nearly 2,000 women that was published in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute in 1994 found that overall, women having abortions
increased their risk of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. For women
under 18 with no previous pregnancies, having an abortion after the 8th week
increased the risk of breast cancer 800%. Women with a family history of breast
cancer have had even worse probability of getting cancer. Twelve women, who
participated in the study and were the abortees before 18 and had a family
history of breast cancer all got cancer before age 45.
Clinical research provides a growing body of scientific evidence that having an
abortion can cause psychological harm to some women. Abortees report horrible
nightmares of children calling them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood.
Being reminded, these women re-experienced their abortions with terrible
psychological pain. They feel worthless and victimized because they failed at
the most natural of human activities -- the role of being a mother.
The emergence of chemical abortion methods poses a new possibly more devastating
psychological threat. Unlike surgical abortions, in which women rarely see the
cut up body parts, women having chemical abortions often do see the complete
tiny bodies of their unborn children and are even able to distinguish the
child’s developing hands, eyes, etc. So traumatic is this for some women that
both patients and researchers involved in these studies have recommended that
women unprepared for the experience of seeing their aborted would-be children
not take the drugs. The long-term psychological implications of this experience
have not been studied.
Researchers on the after-effects of abortion have identified a pattern of
psychological problems known as Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS). Women suffering
PAS may experience drug and alcohol abuse, personal relationship disorders,
sexual dysfunction, repeated abortions, communications difficulties, damaged
self-esteem, and even attempt suicide. Post-Abortion Syndrome appears to be a
type of pattern of denial which may last for five to ten years before emotional
difficulties surface.
Now that some clinicians have established that there is an identifiable patterns
to PAS, they face a new challenge. What is still unknown is how widespread
psychological problems are among women who have had abortions. With the growing
awareness of Post Abortion Syndrome in scholarly and clinical circles, women
with PAS can expect to receive a more sensitive appreciation of the suffering
that they endure. Many abortees have also been speaking out publicly about their
own abortion experiences and the healing process they went through.
Mr. Moderate: Mr. Liberal, some of your party colleagues in medical circles, who
often counsel women on their options, usually act as if abortion is a woman’s
only real alternative. I wouldn't say so.
Throughout the United States, there are nearly 3,000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers
staffed by volunteers ready to provide real help to women facing unplanned or
untimely pregnancies. In addition to providing pregnancy tests and counseling,
these centers often offer a full range of services, helping women obtain
housing, maternity and baby clothes, baby equipment, pre- and post-natal medical
care, legal assistance and financial support, information about adoption, and
even advice on how a woman in school can continue her education. Offering
real and tangible assistance, these centers have helped thousands of women to
realize that they didn’t have to choose between their own lives and the lives of
their unborn babies.
Unlike their counterparts at the local abortion clinic, the volunteer counselors
of the Crisis Pregnancy Center do not have a vested financial interest in the
ultimate decision that a pregnant woman has to make. Their concern and
commitment are genuine, so the would-be mother can really count on them.
Mr. Conservative, what you think about our [liberal and moderate, VS] programs?
Mr. Conservative: Blah-Blah-Blah. All of what you both said is a half-truth and
psychobabble about the woman's feelings and emotions. A half-truth is more
dangerous to the truth than the naked lie. If you really want to dig to the
truth, then, you should take into your consideration our minds. Our perceptions
comprise our subconscious, not our conscious (intellect or reason), on which our
Constitution and our society are based and thanks to which they are moving
forward. There is no defining reason, defining principle behind all your talk,
after which I fail to see how a woman or her man can even conceive the idea
about abortion right.
People, who assert the abortion right have tragically mixed up the ideas of
freedom and anarchy. Our Constitution is a product of a collective reason and a
reflection of the individual reasons that comprised the collective, the society.
The main principle of any society is the rule of the majority, which allows the
society to survive and progress; otherwise, anarchy and disintegration follow.
However, the tyranny of the majority has its limitations, and the Founders of
our Constitution foresaw those limitations and incorporated them into the
Constitution. Thanks to the wisdom of the Founders, the limited powers of the
majority allowed, first, to protect the rights of the religious minority, then
the rights of the rich minority, then the rights of the racial minority; now you
try to protect the rights of the female "minority," but your idea is clearly
bogus because females comprise 53% of our society and only qualitatively (by
money and intellect) can be a minority. But who can stop them from
acquiring intellect, if only not themselves? If they prefer feelings and
emotions above reason and intellect, how long will you try to protect them?
Although our Constitution clearly pronounced that the might is not always
right, and it has checks and balances on the might; nevertheless, it is still
the rule of majority. The latter chooses its legislators, who defines the rules
(laws) for all of us. And if our legislators relinquish their defining
sovereignty, then the people will take their sovereignty back, until they choose
new representatives who will really work for the welfare of people. Meanwhile,
people should live by the old rules trying to redefine for themselves those
rules, which clearly do not work.
Because an individual is the least part of any minority, his-her rights cannot
supercede the rights of majority or society as a whole. Theoretically, they can
be equal; however, history shows that at this point the society begins to
crumble and disintegrate. Although the idea of freedoms (rights) for minorities
and individuals is the corner-stone of our system of checks and balances on the
majority, neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence
contain the abortion right of a female.
Clearly such a "right" would violate the rights of the male minority, who are
47% of population. Moreover, contrary to our explicitly stated rights, the
proponents of the female abortion right are denying the most fundamental right
to life to a human offspring (both - male and female) in the womb. Such liberals
are also denying the right of the would-be father to his offspring. On one hand,
liberals would like to hold him responsible for his deeds that led to the
conception, on the other hand, they are denying his right on the product of his
past desire; thus, they effectively exonerate his delinquency in child support
and transfer it to the shoulders of the whole society, which now becomes
responsible for the individual's desires. Ha-Ha! Only slaves can have
responsibilities without rights.
In respect to human life -- only society can take it away, when it is in the
long-run interest of the majority; an individual cannot take the life of another
individual (and if it happens, as in a self-defense situation, the society will
define if it really was in self-defense or not). This means that, except
where necessary to save the would-be mother, abortion involves the unjustifiable
taking of a human life. The mere fact that the individual in the womb of another
individual and is temporary dependant for sustenance on the latter, gives the
would-be mother no right whatsoever with respect to the life of the would-be
child, since her might can never supercede the prerogative of the society in the
matters of life and death. Her might does not make her right. The right of a
female for abortion is, therefore, a breach of the fundamental public right and
the breach of the moral creed of the majority.
You, liberals, of course, assert that an individual has the right to draw the
line to determine which other individuals have rights the former must respect --
and which do not. If we accept your view, we utterly vitiate the doctrine of
human rights presented in the Declaration of Independence, in accord with which,
God (the society) has the sovereignty to define the rights of an individual, and
not vice versa. But if an individual can arbitrarily decide who is another
individual and who is not, the rule of the majority ceases to exist and a
society disintegrates. Whenever you, liberals, wish to propagate a right of a
female for abortion, you are denying the rule of the majority and the society
itself; thus, you descend from socialism to anarchism.
To avoid the absurdity of your logic and the injustices that follow from it, you
must acknowledge the limited rule of the majority as the line that separates
humanity from the beasts.
The Declaration of Independence also clearly indicates how you can recognize
this line, since it states plainly that 'we are all created equal,' which means
that the criterion of our humanism must be such as to provide no
institutionalized grounds for external distinctions (such as big or small, white
or black, male or female, rich or poor, wearing cross or the David's star, old
or young) between individuals. Only one criterion meets this requirement -- we
all born in the same manner and are all equal in parentage. Our parents were
humans, so should be we. In respect to the act of creation, the life of an
individual after his-her conception, life in the womb, is no different than life
outside the womb. Therefore, an individual should oblige to treat another
individual as him-herself from the moment of own conception; only then he-she
can demand the same respect for him-herself.
Mr. Moderate: So, if you had your way, there would be a constitutional amendment
to ban all abortions except when the life of the would-be mother is in danger?
Mr. Conservative: The Supreme Court, in its Roe vs. Wade decision,
which was not properly argued and did not have proper grounding in the
Constitution, has recognized that the abortion right of a female doesn't really
exist; nevertheless, the Supreme Court took on itself the defining sovereignty
of Congress and went ahead in the party spirit, stating that it virtually
exists. Therefore, we need a constitutional amendment in order to clarify the
situation.
Mr. Liberal: If you had your way, who would go to prison - the doctor who
performed the abortion or the woman who had the abortion?
Mr. Conservative: Both - the aborter and the abortee. The aborter is not a real
doctor; the latter publicly swear to sustain life, not to kill it. To kill is
the society's prerogative, not an individual's. Therefore, medical techniques
resulting in fetal loss (except as a collateral and unintended consequence of
efforts to save the life of the would-be mother) should be, unlawful.
Mr. Moderate: I agree with you that the doctors (who swear to cure, not to kill)
should be prohibited to assists in the suicides. However, I think that there
would be nothing wrong in such helping when it become one of the long run
interests of the majority. When the majority would embrace euthanasia as its
core value and interest, then it will institutionalize the euthanasionists into
a distinct profession, with its own sets of rules of engagement and levels of
accountability. However, I still failed to see how such a discernment between
doctors and euthanasionists will help us in a case where we must choose to save
a would-be mother or to kill a would-be child. What do you think, Mr.
Conservative, should be the punishment for those aborters and abortees, who
would neglect your rule?
Mr. Conservative: Murder is unlawful in this country, and now so-called "doctor"
Kevorkian knows it too. Talking seriously, the Constitution leaves the
specifics, as to how to deal with murderers, to the States and to the
localities. That's where the proper law-enforcement takes place in the United
States of America. Each case has its own specifics, grounded in time and
locality where it happened; therefore, its circumstances would certainly vary,
and so should vary the penalties.
Mr. Liberal: That's fine with me, but there are many women, of course, who would
argue that they are the ones, who have to go through the deliverance of the
would-be child; therefore, what gives you, a man, the right to tell a woman
whether or not she should carry that would-be child to the proper term?
Mr. Conservative: I would ask them, 'if they live in an Amazon society?' When
they will organize their own Amazon society, then they can live by those rules
that they choose, but living in a normal society they should follow the rules,
chosen as the right ones by both - men and women.
I would ask those Amazons, 'if they believe that all women are "responsible"
enough to make any abortion decision, no matter what their age or other
circumstances?' If they say 'yes,' then, I would ask them, 'if all women are
responsible enough to make any abortion decision, why were they not responsible
enough by getting in the abortive situation in the first place?'
When I asked such Amazons, 'what they would do different if abortions were
harder to get,' almost all of them answered that they would be more selective in
who they slept with. So, the Amazons' interest lies in pursuing their sexual
appetites and neglecting their parental duties; that's what all this about. But
the average American woman is not an Amazon, and I wouldn't fear such questions
if I would be in your shoes, Mr. Liberal.
Taking into consideration all your lovely modern abortive techniques, it seems
that abortions should be minimal. How many abortions would be needed to save the
would-be mother? Should not the numbers be small? Surprise, surprise. There are
about 1.6 million abortions a year in the US. About one third of all pregnancies
ends with abortion, and most of them for other reasons than to save the life of
the would-be mother. Whites have three-quarters of abortions, blacks -
one-quarter, other minorities are insignificant. This means that the black
would-be mothers have a disproportionate number of abortions, about 90% more
than the whites.
All the Amazons agreed that there are too many abortions being performed in the
US, and that women are not acting responsible enough. Some of the Amazons are
saying that men should be more responsible too. Fine. But then do not say to me
that it is your body, and the would-be child is in your body, and therefore, you
have the right to kill an individual. Since only the woman can have abortion, it
should be her main responsibility to prevent malicious and repugnant abortions;
that is her only prerogative over the man, whose main responsibility is to
provide for the whole family, including the woman.
Finally, if the Amazons believe that the would-be mother’s health should be a
higher priority, then, they should be against abortions, which increase the
likelihood of getting breast cancer before the age of forty five at 800%.
Mr. Moderate: Very well, Mr. Conservative, you presented your extreme position
exhaustively. However, there is a breach of logic in your argumentation too. I
have a doubt about your consistency as an extremely pro-life and
pro-death-penalty person. And we will go nowhere if you will continue to repeat
your mantra that it is very simple, because, in cases of rape or incest, you are
asking yourself, "who am I to judge and to kill an innocent human being," and in
a case of a guilty person -- "the society, including me, has the right to judge
and kill the guilty person."
Your fallacy can be seen with an unarmed eye. First, you consider an innocent
person from the point of view of an individual, then you consider a guilty
person from the point of view of society. Thus, you are consistent when you
cannot kill an innocent baby, and you are consistent when you, as a part of
society, can kill a guilty person. Your scholasticism and formal logic, Mr.
Conservative, only highlights the lack of substance in your convictions. That is
why you hardly offer any real solution to our problems that would move our
society forward.
The theoretical solution of your dichotomy is that, in the cases of killing
either innocent or guilty person, the society must have the upper hand over the
rights of an individual, either innocent or guilty, green or fat, in order to
survive as a distinctive society. Consequently, collectively, with all cautious
procedures, the society can kill either innocent or guilty persons if it decides
that such a course of action would benefit the ruling majority. Such exceptions
as rape and incest only confirm the general rule – the rule of the majority.
If you insist that the majority cannot make any concrete exceptions (for
abstract "life is sacred"), then, you negate the rule of the majority and
dissolve the society into anarchy and chaos, theoretically of course. Rape and
incest, coupled with other exceptions of the Bill of Rights, are such social
precautions that supposed to protect the essential rights of a minority of a
kind and to curb the potential abuses of the ruling majority.
The founders of the Constitution were very keen about the boundaries of the
federal bureaucracy, which the latter should overstep rarely, if ever. That is
why the Constitution grants the federal bureaucracy no authority to legislate
against common crimes -- murder, theft, adultery, and so forth. In fact, only
three crimes are important from the federal vantage point: treason, piracy, and
counterfeiting.
Therefore, in general, I am "pro-life," but with the four exceptions -- in the
cases of impending death of the would-be mother and in the cases of rape,
incest, or Down syndrome. Therefore, I oppose the fake authority of the federal
bureaucracy in resolving abortion problem. Therefore, the federal funding of
abortions must be stopped, because it is wrong and unconstitutional to compel
someone to pay for a cause he finds immoral. The Constitution gives the federal
government no authority to be involved in the abortion business directly.
I believe firmly that the Constitution grants very few powers to the federal
bureaucracy. The federal judges should recognize that the federal executives has
no authority to be involved on a constant basis in the general public's
education, health care, and safety on the streets, or in any of the dozens of
other areas in which federal politicians have illicitly meddled, trying to
expand their personal fame and power.
The federal judges should recognize the 9th and 10th Amendments for what they
are -- the core of the Constitution, limiting the power of the federal
bureaucracy and protecting the rights of the people that weren't specifically
turned over to the local or central bureaucrats.
I hope that the federal judges will recognize that the Roe vs. Wade
decision was an example of judicial activism at its worst. Therefore, I expect
the Supreme Court will overturn its previous ruling someday. Instead, there
should be a competition among the state bureaucracies -- competing with each
other to attract the best citizens. Some state legislations may choose to outlaw
abortion, others might impose few restrictions in this area of the public
activity; and we will see where better to be.
The rule of the federal bureaucracy is not always the best answer to local
problems. The federal bureaucrats have waged a War on Poverty -- but seventy
years later and spending $8 trillion dollars, poverty is still the same. The
federal bureaucrats have waged a War on Drugs, but seventy years later and
spending $1.5 trillion dollars, the drug and crime problems are even worse than
they were before the war began. Following the evolution of the big federal
bureaucracy, it shouldn't be a surprise that the War on Abortion will be just as
disastrous.
Every day that the commoners spend trying to get the federal bureaucrats to do
something to stop abortions is a wasted day, which could have been spent doing
something truly effective, like. . . encouraging private educational efforts to
show young women the alternatives to abortion and repealing the income tax so
that parents can spend more time with their children, teaching them values that
will minimize drug-abuse and teenage pregnancies.
As with the majority of the local problems, only a program of education and
persuasion -- undertaken voluntarily by individuals, not forced upon them by the
federal bureaucrats -- can work effectively. Therefore, I am with those who work
hard to dissuade young women from rushing into abortions, who arrange adoptions
for pregnant women, and who spend their own money on advertising and celebrating
the lives of the not aborted children. Abortion is a local problem, and the
federal bureaucracy is not the solution of this problem.
The Democratic or Republican politicians, who want the federal bureaucrats to
stop abortions, demonstrate that they see the federal bureaucracy as an
effective tool for every problem on this planet. So, the commoner should not be
surprised when they disappoint him in other local problems by reaching for
aggrandized solution that would take no local nuances into consideration.
If the commoners actually want to see the number of abortions dramatically
reduced, they should help themselves by choosing the most responsible to them
persons into the federal bureaucracy -- who will definitely not destroy their
families, their values and interests. The most important litmus test for such a
representative is his-her eagerness to reduce the commoner's burden of federal
taxation that forces both parents to work, and that denies parents the
economical means to choose an education for their sons and daughters that
represents their values and concurs with their long-run interests.
At this point, my employer finished the 18th hole and the threesome decided to
continue the discussion in a private lounge, where I hadn't been allowed.
Consequently, I do not know how they finished their discussion, but some of you,
I am sure, have plenty of imagination to finish it for yourselves.
12/06/1999
Right after 9 pm on August 9, the moment Mr. Bush announced the decision of his
team of bureaucrats to fund from federal budget those stem cell researchers who
had already got the object of their search and not to fund those who were only
going to get it, some of the anti-abortion rightists who believed in the rule of
majority praised him for a Solomonic solution that would not allow to spend
public money for further sacrificing human embryos in the name of research,
though the American public is still going to pay for research on those embryos
who were already sacrificed. Thus, rev. Jerry Falwell, the founder of a
conservative religious group -- the Moral Majority, and Pat Robertson, founder
of the Christian Coalition, proclaimed the compromise of the White House (WH)
bureaucrats "an elegant solution to the thorny issue of stem research by firmly
protecting the rights of the unborn."
However, those rightists who believed in the rule of minority, such as Catholic
Bishops, denounced the decision of the WH bureaucrats. Soon the leftists, who
also believed in the rule of minority, joined with the rightists, comparing the
continuation of research on the already sacrificed embryos to the medical
experiments of the Nazis, saying that it would be wrong to accept the gold
melted from the tooth-fillings of the killed Jews. They say that, "Though money
has no smell, the public money stinks in this case."
The split within the anti-abortion coalition does not fall along purely
theological lines, because it does not pit one religious group against the
other, for instance, the Protestants against the Roman Catholics, because some
evangelical preachers were just as critical of the WH bureaucrats as the bishops
were. Instead, the anti-abortion movement is splitting along the class lines,
between the commoners who believe in the rule of majority and the aristocrats
who believe in the rule of minority. The former are pragmatists who believe that
the interests of the majority have to prevail, while the latter are the
ideological extremists who believe that the moral of few should dominate the
entire society.
Such an aristocrat as Kenneth L. Connor, president of the Family Research
Council, thus characterized his pragmatic anti-abortion colleagues -- "I find
their positions difficult to square with the fundamental principle that human
life is precious and ought to be preserved." Mr. Connor suggested that some of
his anti-abortion colleagues might be driven more by loyalty to Mr. Bush than by
their principles. He said that, "If a President Al Gore had come out with this
position, I am left to wonder whether or not their reaction would have been
entirely different," because the anti-abortion coalition previously had
unanimously agreed on the principle that life begins at conception, and
therefore, even a microscopic embryo is a human life. Consequently, harvesting
stem cells from a human embryo by killing that embryo renders stem cell research
the equivalent of killing a human being. Other aristocrats speculated that the
positive response of some of their anti-abortion colleagues to the compromise of
the WH bureaucrats was a result of relief at learning that the latter had not
taken an extreme position that would permit more extensive embryonic stem cell
research. Others said that the stem cell issue was so new that many
anti-abortionists have not formulated yet their responses.
Realizing that their core constituents were deeply confused, the WH bureaucrats
tried to heal them by publishing an article in The New York Times, signed by Mr.
Bush, in which they underscore own devotion to anti-abortion principle -- "We do
not end some [human] lives for the medical benefit of others, [because we
believe] that life, including early life, is biologically human, genetically
distinct and valuable." Referring to the development of a vaccine for chicken
pox, which came from aborted fetal tissue, the WH bureaucrats thus underlined
their pragmatism -- once the vaccine's benefits were evident, the origin of it
was seen as less important. "Many ethical and religious leaders agree that even
if the history of this vaccine raises ethical questions, its current use does
not," That is why they approved federal funding for research on only 64 stem
cell colonies (or lines) that had already been harvested, and no new stem cells
would be harvested with public money; therefore, no more embryos would be
destroyed with taxpayer dollars. However, probably because the leftists are not
their core constituents, the WH bureaucrats decided to ignore their accusations
in Nazi-like behavior.
While the Clinton's team of bureaucrats required the cells to be derived only
from frozen embryos held by fertility clinics, to ensure that fresh embryos were
not taken from couples just after the moment of conception, the Bush's team has
been requiring that some of the cell lines approved for use were derived from
fresh embryos that were created in excess of patients' need. That is why the
aristocratic anti-abortion allies accused the Bush's team of bureaucrats in
missing a historic opportunity to close the door on stem cell research. For
example, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America thus expressed her disdain
for the compromise -- "The president's position contradicts the Nuremberg Code.
We should be horrified at the prospect of participating in research on embryos
who are deliberately killed for the same reason that we are horrified that gold
fillings were taken from the teeth of Holocaust victims." Lauren Newell of the
Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth said -- "I am ashamed of our president,
who compromises and gives my generation the disposable human life mentality that
human life can be picked apart, abused and destroyed. If the president wants to
be a strong man and a moral man, then I urge him to reconsider his decision."
The leaders of such evangelical and Catholic organizations as Human Life
International, the Christian Legal Society, the Traditional Values Coalition.
the Eagle Forum, the Prison Fellowship, and Family Research Council expressed
their disappointment in the policy zigzag of the WH bureaucrats, though they
stopped short of saying that their anger at the WH bureaucrats would translate
into direct political opposition to them in 2004, Meanwhile, they said, they
would try to stop the research through legal action, hoping that the Supreme
Court (SC) bureaucrats are not such pragmatists as the WH bureaucrats.
If we look at the ethical morass of stem cell research from the scientist point
of view, then, we would see the following picture. First and foremost, as Dr.
Pool of a San Antonio fertility clinic put it, "If the embryos already existed,
were unwanted byproducts of in vitro fertilization, and were never going to be
used to make babies, people could ask, 'could I save them and do some good with
them?' and that would be a warm and fuzzy way for people to get around the
question of making them. It's an easy way to go around the salient question --
what are these things that we make in our fertility labs?"
Indeed, are these embryos things or animals? Stem cells, which the scientists
extract from those embryos, are the human body's primordial master cells; and
they have the potential to develop into any type of cell or tissue — for
example, insulin-producing cells that might treat diabetes. Scientists hope
eventually to use the stem cells to create replacement tissues and organs for
people who are sick or injured, that we (humans) can beat the crap out of
lizards with our own tails. Kidding, of course.
When the embryos are not frozen, they move around searching for food and
pleasure; therefore, they are animals. If so, are they humans or like pigs, the
few of which (without cruelty, of course) the scientists can kill without keen
regret for the benefit of the majority of us? Even if they are humans, such the
WH pragmatists as Mr. Cheney, would sacrifice few of them for the benefit of
many, with crocodile tears, of course, as he did with 46 actual people when he,
protecting hundreds of the WH bureaucrats, ordered to shoot down the liner that
crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11. Because the vast majority of scientists
are pragmatists, the stem cell research will probably go on even without the
public funding. However, the pragmatists are questioning the time of fruition of
this research because the late medicine might be useless for those who are dying
now.
The lay public has a distorted premise that the fertility centers have tens of
thousands of frozen embryos, which the scientists can use to develop new
supplies of embryonic stem cells. In fact, the embryologists of 400 fertility
clinics around the country are telling the different story -- the patients
rarely if ever donate their embryos for research and very few couples have
agreed to do so. The vast majority of couples use or plans to use their frozen
embryos in the pregnancy attempts. Creating human embryos and nurturing them
solely for experiments that will likely destroy them, leaves the vast majority
of the patients deeply uneasy, though they all support the research.
Although there are no national data on the number of frozen embryos, the
scientists of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology say that most of
the approximately 400 American clinics that offer in vitro fertilization have
also frozen embryos, which are in the blastocyst stage (one to five days old)
when the stem cells can be isolated. Each of those embryos has from one to 120
microscopic stem cells. As Dr. Gibbons of the Jones Institute put it, "Even if
every one of the 200 embryos that stored in his institute might be available for
research and were in the best possible condition, only 1% of them or fewer would
grow to the blastocyst stage, because even if scientists did want to use frozen
embryos for research, there would be hurdles to overcome. Each patient who has
agreed to donate embryos must be contacted and agree to the particular stem cell
project. Then scientists must buck the odds in getting the embryos to grow and
isolating stem cells from them. Those odds can be plenty. There is no guarantee
that we would get any stem cells from those 200 frozen embryos. In our
experiment that we reported last month only 3 out of 110 embryos [2.7%] yielded
stem cells. The embryos were ideal, formed from the eggs and sperms of young and
healthy volunteers and never frozen."
The frozen embryos at fertility clinics are much less robust, poor quality, and
would rarely if ever yield stem cells because they were not in optimal solution,
so even healthy embryos frozen in previous years may not produce stem cells.
Another difficulty is that most frozen embryos are from older women who had
trouble conceiving. Their embryos are less likely to grow, and stem cells
derived from those embryos might be of lesser quality. Dr. Behr of Stanford
University said that, "the vast majority of embryos that are frozen are not
good. If we thawed 10,000 embryos, we would get 100 [1%] or so that are
viable." That is why lamenting softly about very low probability of frozen
embryos to become viable, the researchers more bitter about "moral rigidity" of
patients and doctors of the fertility clinics who cherish every embryo. Thus,
embryologists of the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St.
Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., have frozen 11,402 embryos since
August 1995, from a total of 1,595 patients, but only 22 patients [1.4%] signed
or indicated a desire to sign a form allowing their embryos to be used for
research. For patients, their embryos represent a chance at future fertility,
and that is why so few of them want to give up those embryos, obtaining which
takes their time and money -- a patient has typically spent years trying to have
a baby and usually invests more than $10,000 a month for the fertility center
and $3,200 a month for drugs. That is why patients have deep emotional
attachment to their embryos.
To reform an egg and a sperm into an embryo, a team of embryologists has also to
labor a lot. As Dr. Gibbons put it, "An embryo is a clump of cells, but it is a
very important clump of cells that may not be a human being, but it certainly
has potential and I think it deserves respect that is greater than that accorded
to an egg or sperm. An embryo is more important if for no other reason than all
the work it takes to get it." And that is a typical attitude of a pragmatist to
the conundrum of stem cell research, and that is why this typical attitude may
give us a clue how to define the embryo.
An embryo from a couple of human would-be (potential) parents is a potential
(would-be) human being. It is not an actual human being yet, as a child is not
an actual adult yet. It is not an actual human being yet, because it is not
conscious yet. A being is a human being only then when he or she consciously
defines him-herself as a human; that is, he or she can relate him-herself to the
human species. And that means having a certain level of abstract thinking that
we know as self-consciousness that makes us able to discern self from other
humans and species. And those beings (notably with Down-syndrome and insane) are
not the actual human beings (though appearing in the human form), unless they
managed to develop and to maintain self-consciousness.
The beings with Down syndrome and insane are legally protected, though not as
the fully humans. Therefore, they may be forcefully compelled to such hazardous
"therapies" as the shock-therapy, which can be as deadly as the separation of
stem cells from the embryo. The majority of us consider such therapies as
permissible and in the long lasting interests of those patients and us. And the
majority of us propagate its rule to the minority of us through our governing
body. However, because our interests are constantly in flux, and what was an
interest of the majority yesterday might become an interest of the minority
tomorrow, our governing body has its mandate only for four years.
By deciding to pay with the public money only those researchers who will work
with the already discovered 64 lines of stem cells while there may be only a few
useful to us, the WH pragmatists acknowledged that they can do only this much
for the four-year period that they will be in charge for the national surplus.
They are keenly conscious about the public resources, and therefore, they are
human beings. Kidding, of course.
However, some proponents of expanding stem cell research say that the
development of new stem cells is necessary because the existing lines are
insufficient and may not be safe for human use, because most of these human
cells were exposed to mouse cells while being coaxed to grow in the laboratory,
to prevent them from developing prematurely. Those stem cells could transmit
mouse viruses to human patients. Therefore, the stem cell research should be
expanded. if not with public money then with private. That is why the Democratic
senator of Massachusetts and chairman of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions, Edward Kennedy said recently that, "The concern
is that the door has been opened, but it hasn't been opened quite far enough,"
However, the aristocratic moralists are arguing that any such research would
constitute not only the murder of human beings but also their "cruel and
unusual" punishment.
The cards are opened, and now, the Americans must decide at the ballot box who
of those ideologists reflects the long-lasting interest of the majority. The
Republican senator of Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, supporting extensive stem
cell research, says he intends to attach an amendment to an appropriations bill
that would allow scientists using federal money unfettered ability to conduct
stem cell experiments. Such a measure might gain support the majority of Senate
but is unlikely to pass the House, where a more moderate bill is pending.
Moreover, the stem cell issue could get tangled up with a related one, human
cloning. In July, the House passed a broad bill banning cloning, not only for
reproduction but also for medical research, because the American majority
believes that the humans have millennia-long experience in human breeding and
know enough about the dangers of an aristocratic disease -- hemophilia.
The stem cell issue could become more problematic for the WH bureaucrats in the
long run. Stem cells are delicate and costly to grow, and very few researchers
around the world have worked with them. It could be months, even years, for
researchers to learn how to handle the cells and to determine the usefulness of
existing cell lines. Therefore, the legislative bureaucrats are taking a
wait-and-see attitude; rather than rush in to alter the plan of the executive
bureaucrats, they would prefer to give researchers a chance to study the cells
and would revisit the issue in a year or so. That might put the Bush's team on
defensive in 2004, when more lines will undoubtedly have been created in private
companies and university laboratories overseas, and scientists and patients
groups might be infuriated by the road-blocks that the WH bureaucrats erected on
the stem cell research highway, swaying the American majority on their side.
9/15/01
[email protected]
Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on
04/13/03