Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Thesday, October 18, 2005
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
PARKER HOWELL
EDITOR IN CHIEF
SHADRA BEES LEY
MANAGING EDITOR
MEGHANN M. CUNIFF
JARED PABEN
NEWS EDITORS
EVASYLWESTER
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
KELLY BROWN
KAIY GAGNON
CHRISTOPHER HAGAN
BRITTNI MCCLENAHAN
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTERS
JOE BAILEY
EMILY SMITH
PART-TIME NEWS REPORTERS
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
SCOTTJ. ADAMS
LUKE ANDREWS
JEFFREY DRANSFELDT
SPORTS REPORTERS
AMY LICHTY
PULSE EDITOR
TREVOR DAVIS
KRISTEN GERHARD
ANDREW MCCOLLUM
PULSE REPORTERS
AILEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
(LABE BRADLEY
IESSICA DERLETH
ARMY Finn
COLUMNISTS
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTO EDITOR
NICOLE BARKER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
KATE HORTON
ZANE RTI'T
PHOTOGRAPHERS
KATIE GLEASON
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER
JONAH SCHROGIN
SENIOR DESIGNER
JOHN AYRES
JONNY BAGGS
MOLLY BEDFORD
KERI SPANGLER
DESIGNERS
CHRIS TODD
GRAPHIC ARTIST
AARON DUCHATEAU
ILLUSTRATOR
ALEXANDRA BURGUIERES
REBECCA TAYLOR
COPY CHIEFS
JENNY DORNER
BRYN JANSSON
JOSH NORRIS
JENNA ROHRBACHER
MATT TIFFANY
COPYEDITORS
STEVEN NEUMAN
ONLINE/SUPPLEMENTS EDITOR
TIMOTHY ROBINSON
WEBMASTER
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDYRIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
LAUNA DEGIUSTI
RECEPTIONIST
RYAN JOHNSON
RANDYRYMER
CORR1EN MUNDY
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
JOHN KELLY
UNDSEY FERGUSON
WINTER GIBBS
KATE HIRONAKA
DESI MCCORMICK
STEPHEN MILLER
KATHRYN O'SHFA-EVANS
EMILY PHILBIN
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
BONA LEE
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541) 3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
USA CLARK
ANDO
AMANDA KANTOR
KERI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JAMIE ACKERMAN
CAMERON CAUT
CAITUN MCCURDY
ERIN MCKENZIE
JONAH SCHROGIN
TERRY STRONG
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memonal Union.
The Emerald is private property
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
■ In my opinion
A step forward for stem cells
This weekend, scientists unveiled
what may be the first step toward re
solving one of the great ethical de
bates of the early 21st century.
For years now, controversy has
surrounded the development and
use of embryonic stem cells. These
cells, which have the potential to
form in any type of human tissue,
are believed to have incredible po
tential in the study and treatment of
numerous degenerative diseases.
The only catch is that most meth
ods for obtaining these cells involve
the destruction of human embryos.
This catch is no small matter for
those who believe that personhood
begins at conception. Those who
hold that belief argue that the de
struction of embryos is the destruc
tion of human life; therefore, they
oppose stem-cell research almost
without exception.
Most of us agree that the deliber
ate destruction of human life is an
unacceptable research method. If we
all believed that embryos were hu
man life, we would probably also
agree that it is wrong to deliberately
destroy them in the name of science.
So the core issue is not what to do
with these embryos, because that
question is itself wrapped up in the
question of what embryos really are:
Are they people or not? Sadly, even
if there were an answer to this ques
tion, we would have no way of
knowing it.
I’m not coming at this issue from
a “what’s right for you may not be
right for me” perspective, mind you.
I absolutely believe in right or wrong
answers, and I can’t stand it when
intellectually lazy people don’t both
er looking for those answers in an
effort to appear tolerant or open
minded. In this instance, however,
we cannot find a correct answer be
cause it’s a question of intuitive,
subjective differences disguised as a
question of semantics disguised as a
question of science. No matter how
GABE BRADLEY
THE WRITING ON THE WALL
we answer the question, we’re still
pasting clean, inaccurate labels onto
a messy, organic process.
Life is a process. There are certain
points in the process on which we
almost always agree and certain
parts of the process on which we
find it impossible to reach consen
sus. When an adult is walking
around, eating, and talking, we
agree that this being possesses per
sonhood. Upon looking at someone
in a persistent vegetative state —
alive only by way of a feeding tube
— it’s harder to reach consensus on
whether this someone has person
hood, or what personhood even
means, in this specific case.
Similarly, when considering hu
man embryos, it’s difficult to agree
whether these embryos have person
hood. The embryonic stage is a part
of the process of life; there are points
during this process when we regard
the subjects as people possessed of
certain rights and entitled to certain
protections. But after that, it gets a
bit foggy.
A taxonomist’s approach on the
subject is to establish a set of crite
ria for personhood, observe a speci
men and decide the category in
which it fits: Person or non-person.
Various attempts to do this have re
sulted in the line between person
and non-person being set at different
points in the process of life. This
couldn’t be any other way. These
criteria are not based on any objec
tive or even common understanding.
The criteria are largely based on a
gut check — intuition. Because the
concept of personhood is an abstrac
tion, our understanding of the con
cept is almost entirely subjective,
making agreement on the topic
quite difficult.
The question of personhood
is equal parts science, language
and intuition.
There are those who say, “when
in doubt, err on the side of life.” I
normally agree with this old adage;
however, there’s something I’d like
to know: Which life are we talking
about? The potential life of the em
bryo or the life that could be saved
through research on embryonic
stem cells?
As a political issue, this controversy
has crossed party lines with prominent
members of both parties coming down
on either side of the issue.
Recently, experiments on mice
have led to the development of two
new methods allowing researchers
to develop stem cells without de
stroying the embryos. These discov
eries, published Sunday in the jour
nal Nature, may lead the way toward
a solution to this impasse. If human
embryonic stem cells can be extract
ed without destroying embryos, we
won’t have to wring our hands
about the issue.
This discovery also represents
everything I love about human inge
nuity. The human spirit has done a
nice little run around an ethical
dilemma, reaching a solution that
we can all appreciate. The way of
the future is a slick, elegant method
of extracting stem cells that need not
ravage embryos, unlike current
methods that will no doubt become
antiquated and obsolete.
The most important thing that
may come from this discovery is the
easing of political pressure that
blocks increased freedom and fund
ing for this crucial medical research.
gbradley@dmlyemercdd.com
INBOX
Cartoon misrepresents
College Republicans
In response to the cartoon in
Thursday’s paper depicting College
Republicans as “misdirected,”
stressed-out alcoholics, I am literal
ly outraged and disgusted.
As the chairman of the UO College
Republicans, I am disappointed with
the cartoon reflecting all College Re
publicans as drunks. Many members
within our club identify as Christians
— ones who don’t drink, to be more
specific. This cartoon was pathetic
and Aaron DuChateau should be
ashamed for labeling anyone with the
College Republicans the way he did.
Why is it he felt the need to attack
CRs? Aaron has never spoken with
me about the College Republicans’
cause on campus, our activities or
our membership. I find it comical
that Aaron can assume all these char
acteristics and has never spoken with
virtually any College Republican that
I am aware of. Who did Aaron get his
opinions from, Chuck Hunt?
As for the “misdirected passion”
comment, I’m sorry, Aaron, that you
obviously don’t have any grasp on
American politics, or else you might
know the meaning of the word man
date. It is what the American public
awarded President Bush with his re
election. Not only did the Republican
Party win the White House again, it
also retained majority in the House,
Senate and Governorships. Not to
mention the 11 or so states that
passed very conservative constitu
tional amendments banning gay mar
riage. Smell that, Aaron? That is the
smell of freedom and the conserva
tive movement once again solidifying
its leadership across the country.
If you disagree with the Republi
can Party or with the presence of
College Republicans — who voice a
much-lacking opinion — on cam
pus, please don’t hesitate to stop by
the office for a fireside chat. If you
like guns, a strong defense, individ
ual rights and freedom, we might get
along. Though I will say kudos to
you, Aaron, for getting my attention.
If it wasn’t for this horrible comic I
doubt I would have ever noticed
your existence on campus. However,
your cartoon was offensive to those
within the College Republicans who
take their faith and prohibition of al
cohol seriously. Your “misdirected
passion” comment, however, just
shows your inability to understand
politics and what an election can
teach you. We at College Republi
cans are saddened by your confu
sion, Aaron, for a mind is a terrible
thing to waste. And unlike the depic
tion of College Republicans in your
cartoon, you definitely fall under the
wasted category.
Anthony Warren
Chairman, College Republicans
■ Editorial
Estate tax is
necessary; it
should not
be repealed
As national debate continues over the repeal of
the federal estate tax, it is upsetting to observe
how such a government decision could affect
Oregon citizens and University students.
The estate tax — spun by the current adminis
tration as a “death tax” — allows the government
to tax a person’s property, cash and other assets
after they die at rates up to 47 percent, but only if
those assets total more than $1.5 million.
It should be clear from this statistic that this tax
only affects a select group of wealthy individuals.
In fact, estate taxes have only applied to the
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in recent years,
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Yet lawmakers in Washington, including Sen.
Gordon Smith, R-Ore., continue to campaign for
repealing the tax. They say it hurts small business
owners and farmers.
Although determining the exact effects of the
estate tax is difficult, calculations suggest just the
opposite — that abolishing the estate tax will
benefit few farmers and entrepreneurs while po
tentially limiting a much-needed source of in
come for Oregon and public universities, includ
ing this one.
Foremost, we must question why Republicans
in the House of Representatives chose to rekindle
this debate last spring. Iraq war debt, financed by
emergency loans to the tune of roughly $300 bil
lion, had already caused our national debt to sky
rocket. Moreover, Bush tax cuts had already de
creased revenue using the misguided philosophy
that cutting taxes will spur our national economy.
Didn’t anyone pay attention to the section of high
school economics class about Reaganomics?
Moreover, the estate tax has already been re
formed under the Bush administration. During
the final year of the Clinton era, the tax applied
to people who made $650,000 or more, accord
ing to the CBO. Following the Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the
amount of assets exempt from the tax is sched
uled to rise until 2009, at which point the tax will
equal about 45 percent of an estate’s assets worth
more than $3.5 million.
Even ignoring historical implications, we must
remember our nation remains in the midst of a
serious deficit. Costs from Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita continue to mount while neither the House,
nor the Senate offers any tangible method to fi
nance rebuilding efforts.
Closer to home, some experts predict repealing
the estate tax would slash Oregon’s revenues.
Should the federal government stop collecting the
death tax, every state will have to deal with the
financial ramifications of such a move.
Likewise, the effect of a federal tax repeal upon
our University can only be detrimental. We in
creasingly rely on private donations to con
struct new facilities and improve our University.
Some donations are made after people die, and
some of this giving is likely spurred by the fact
that charitable contributions are tax write-offs.
If the tax is repealed, the incentive to donate
may decline, leading to fewer donations.
The University, Oregon and the nation sim
ply cannot repay its debt or begin to thrive
without the assistance of tax revenue. Now is
not the time to repeal the estate tax, and we
urge Smith to consider who will benefit if the
tax is repealed. Hint: It’s not University stu
dents, and it’s not average Oregonians.
CORRECTION
Because of an waiter's error, tie headline for Monday's
“OSPIRG proposes project to support progressive candi
dates" should have clarffied that speater Jefferson Smith
described such a project at tie meeting and OSPIRG
didn’t propose It.