re: Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate by Ron Paul

Do the taxpayers have a right to be wrong in this debate? I'm not sure they do. The proponents of stem cell research have not done a very good job in their arguments, relying on a greater good argument rather than addressing the moral issue head on.

The opponents of stem cell research, such as the author, make the rather novel argument that blastocysts have an inalienable right to life, which implies that they have a soul. Even Catholic ethicists, when the bishop is not watching, would not assert that this is the case. The authors of embryology texts provide a clue of why this is the case, as they focus on the importance not of conception but on Gastrulation. There are three reasons why a blastocyst cannot have a soul. First, while the blastocyst does indeed have DNA from both parents, the father's DNA is not operational in governing the development of the organism. This does not occur until gastrulation. Secondly, products of beastiality cannot have a human soul. Again, most if not all transpecies hybrids develop from conception until gastrulation, when they die due to genetic incompatibility and probably the lack of a soul. Finally, and this is where Catholic ethicists will tell you the truth provided the Bishop is not listening, as long as the organism can twin, it cannot be said to have received a soul. In classical ethics, the soul directs the body. Two souls cannot exist within one body, so ensoulment is not possible until twinning can no longer occur. Again, this is Gastrulation. A further proof is in how directed development is after Gastrulation and how much the central nervous system is involved in that development. It really is miraculous.

I know some will assert a "slippery slope" argument about denying the humanity of any class of being. However, sometimes such an argument is appropriate - at least when it is true.

It would seem that the author's stand on the funding of medical research can be applied to all medical research, since the founders make no provision for such an activity in Article I.

I'm not sure, if elected, he would be able to get away with defunding National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. The taxpayers seem to like such things. Incumbents tend to trumpet their ability to announce such funds and insert earmarks to mandate them in their districts at election time. If the public didn't like this spending, they would vote against members who bring home the bacon. The opposite is often the case, although that may be because money talks and the beneficiaries of such funding often make sure they kick back some of these funds from their salaries into the members campaign coffers, sometimes within hours of the announcement of grant award.

I offer three prescriptions for this.

The first is to make national medical research self-funding by insisting on a share of any application developed from the research, as well as setting regulatory fees high enough to not only fund the FDA but also the NIH and NSF. Then enact a no-year appropriation taking this funding out of the legislative process altogether so no one can insert pork barrell into the research budgets of this and other such agencies. (Environmental, energy and transportion research can also be funded from fees, judgements and dedicated taxes which need not be subjected to the appropriation process).

The second perscription is to eliminate the lessen the incumbency advantage in nomination. All donations would go to a central combined campaign committee and would be shared equally between all candidates who can bring at least 15% of the total attendees to a district or state caucus held to determine who gets funded. This takes some of the incentive off of the constant fundraising, since any money raised would be shared with the primary opposition.

The third perscription is to create regional caucuses to oversee regulation, funding and taxation in that region, with a regional vice president to run most of the domestic government (save homeland security, the enforcement of civil rights and employment protection -- which will be self funded through fines -- self-funded science, park and environmental programs, the common currency and overseas military deployments). When it becomes clear that pet projects mean higher taxes for them, the rush to increase such spending and claim credit for it will diminish.

Michael Bindner
Alexandria Virginia