Proposition 71
My take on Proposition 71 -
NO
This is part of my ongoing series of posts on
each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the
original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my
scorecard and links to each of my
arguments.
Proposition 71 - No
In the interest of full disclosure, I must start by saying my main reason for opposing this Prop is my ethical concern. I think that this alone is reason enough to oppose Prop 71, but if you disagree with these reasons, read on for my fiscal concerns (which are also reason enough by themselves to oppose 71).
The ethical issue is this - what gives human beings their value? Human stem cells come from... thats right, humans.. So the question is - Are we endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights? Or are we valuable for functional reasons (we can do certain useful things, etc.) I think most people in America truly believe the first, but misunderstand its application in the area of embryos. For an in-depth ethical argument on this, please refer to Stand To Reason. Here's a quick summary:
7 day old humans, embryos, can only be differentiated from you and I by means of the SLED test - size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency. In other words, they are smaller than you and I, they aren't as developed as you and I, they are in a different location than you and I (a freezer as opposed to a uterus, or a crib), and they are more dependent than you and I - they need something to survive that they can't provide on their own. Each of these can be shown to be insufficient grounds for denying the humanity of embryos. For instance, lets say we found that 5-year olds possessed an enzyme that encourages rapid brain growth and would cure Alzheimer's - would anyone suggest it was ethical to kill a 5 year old simply because the cure would be an overwhelming good?
I won't go too deep into the issue here, but please do read the STR column if you disagree with the ethics of the matter. If we're right, then we are being cavalier with the lives of real, human persons, and thats a serious enough problem to warrant a lot of consideration. I'll close the ethical argument by reminding everyone that essentially all of us are simply clumps of cells, and that a 7 day old embryo is just 2 weeks - just 14 days - away from a beating heart. It will need nothing else to develop other than proper care and nourishment, the same as any other new born or even toddler.
On to the fiscal arguments. First of all, this is a bond measure and as we said in the ground rules, bond measures are credit cards for government. This Prop is a perfect example. We will be spending 6 BILLION dollars over the next 30 YEARS, and only getting 3 billion dollars worth of stem cell research (the other 3 billion is simply debt service). It also means we are going to add a line to our state's budget to the tune of 200 MILLION dollars. Our state is already having enormous financial troubles, and can't seem to pay for all the services it currently offers (look at how many Props are trying to fill revenue gaps), and yet we are going to commit to paying out 200 MILLION dollars a YEAR for 30 years for something that is at best a long shot?
Which brings us to another point - the riskiness of stem cell research. Stem cell research reminds me a lot of fetal tissue research - which, as far as I know, generated a lot of controversy but little else. Now all the same promises are being made about stem cells. Somehow people would have us believe that government dollars are so magical that they can produce results that private dollars simply won't. Supporters of 71 will counter with "well, private companies can't bear the risk, so the governments have to chip in the initial cost to get the research to where private money makes sense." OK, thats a reasonable point. But notice that that also says something else - this research is no where near providing the things it promises. Either stem cells are incredibly promising, in which case we should see plenty of private companies fund their own research, or stem cell research is a long way off and we should stop promising that we can make the paralyzed walk, the blind man see, etc.
Consider what these two points taken together mean. Here's not only a possible, but highly likely scenario. The voters approve this measure, we spend 3 billion dollars on stem cell research. The money is used up within, say, 2-3 years. The science advances, but not far enough to create any cure for anything, or worse yet, far enough to find out that there is another more promising line of research. This means that we will still be paying 200 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, to fund research that is no longer promising and didn't produce anything. If you don't believe this point, at least think about this - sure, stem cells are cutting edge right now, but will they be worth 200 Million a year in 30 years? Of course not, science will move on to much more promising things, and we won't be agile enough to move with it because we're locked into a huge, costly bond.
Bottom line: We should not carelessly use human life for research, and a state with a budget crisis has no business paying out 6 billion dollars for 3 billion dollars worth of risky research that will end up costing 200 million a year.
Proposition 71 - No
In the interest of full disclosure, I must start by saying my main reason for opposing this Prop is my ethical concern. I think that this alone is reason enough to oppose Prop 71, but if you disagree with these reasons, read on for my fiscal concerns (which are also reason enough by themselves to oppose 71).
The ethical issue is this - what gives human beings their value? Human stem cells come from... thats right, humans.. So the question is - Are we endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights? Or are we valuable for functional reasons (we can do certain useful things, etc.) I think most people in America truly believe the first, but misunderstand its application in the area of embryos. For an in-depth ethical argument on this, please refer to Stand To Reason. Here's a quick summary:
7 day old humans, embryos, can only be differentiated from you and I by means of the SLED test - size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency. In other words, they are smaller than you and I, they aren't as developed as you and I, they are in a different location than you and I (a freezer as opposed to a uterus, or a crib), and they are more dependent than you and I - they need something to survive that they can't provide on their own. Each of these can be shown to be insufficient grounds for denying the humanity of embryos. For instance, lets say we found that 5-year olds possessed an enzyme that encourages rapid brain growth and would cure Alzheimer's - would anyone suggest it was ethical to kill a 5 year old simply because the cure would be an overwhelming good?
I won't go too deep into the issue here, but please do read the STR column if you disagree with the ethics of the matter. If we're right, then we are being cavalier with the lives of real, human persons, and thats a serious enough problem to warrant a lot of consideration. I'll close the ethical argument by reminding everyone that essentially all of us are simply clumps of cells, and that a 7 day old embryo is just 2 weeks - just 14 days - away from a beating heart. It will need nothing else to develop other than proper care and nourishment, the same as any other new born or even toddler.
On to the fiscal arguments. First of all, this is a bond measure and as we said in the ground rules, bond measures are credit cards for government. This Prop is a perfect example. We will be spending 6 BILLION dollars over the next 30 YEARS, and only getting 3 billion dollars worth of stem cell research (the other 3 billion is simply debt service). It also means we are going to add a line to our state's budget to the tune of 200 MILLION dollars. Our state is already having enormous financial troubles, and can't seem to pay for all the services it currently offers (look at how many Props are trying to fill revenue gaps), and yet we are going to commit to paying out 200 MILLION dollars a YEAR for 30 years for something that is at best a long shot?
Which brings us to another point - the riskiness of stem cell research. Stem cell research reminds me a lot of fetal tissue research - which, as far as I know, generated a lot of controversy but little else. Now all the same promises are being made about stem cells. Somehow people would have us believe that government dollars are so magical that they can produce results that private dollars simply won't. Supporters of 71 will counter with "well, private companies can't bear the risk, so the governments have to chip in the initial cost to get the research to where private money makes sense." OK, thats a reasonable point. But notice that that also says something else - this research is no where near providing the things it promises. Either stem cells are incredibly promising, in which case we should see plenty of private companies fund their own research, or stem cell research is a long way off and we should stop promising that we can make the paralyzed walk, the blind man see, etc.
Consider what these two points taken together mean. Here's not only a possible, but highly likely scenario. The voters approve this measure, we spend 3 billion dollars on stem cell research. The money is used up within, say, 2-3 years. The science advances, but not far enough to create any cure for anything, or worse yet, far enough to find out that there is another more promising line of research. This means that we will still be paying 200 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, to fund research that is no longer promising and didn't produce anything. If you don't believe this point, at least think about this - sure, stem cells are cutting edge right now, but will they be worth 200 Million a year in 30 years? Of course not, science will move on to much more promising things, and we won't be agile enough to move with it because we're locked into a huge, costly bond.
Bottom line: We should not carelessly use human life for research, and a state with a budget crisis has no business paying out 6 billion dollars for 3 billion dollars worth of risky research that will end up costing 200 million a year.
Posted: Mon - November 1, 2004 at 07:51 PM | | | | | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Highlighted posts
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 22, 2005 08:27 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 22, 2005 08:27 PM
Search
The Tip Jar
Counter provided by
Brought to you by
