Lincoln - Douglas Debate

As many people know (hopefully, the number of people who know is larger than the number of people who don't), 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's birth. When he was a young candidate for the office of U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois, Lincoln engaged in a series of debates against another great orator named Stephen A. Douglas. The seven debates were held during the 1858 campaign, and they primarily focused on the topic of slavery, although they touched on other subjects, as well.

When I was in high school, I belonged to the NFL. Obviously, not the National Football League! The National Forensic League is the body that generally sets the rules and governs the various styles of public speaking contests that make up the format of high school debate. The type of debate known as Lincoln-Douglas Debate posed two speakers, one against the other, to argue for or against a given position. The key difference between Lincoln-Douglas and other forms of team debate is that in Lincoln-Douglas, the speakers offer primarily value-driven arguments, rather than policy-driven arguments. I remember having to take the pro-abortion side in one practice argument, trying to make the value of the mother (whose own life very well could depend on having a successful abortion, in some cases) outweigh the value of the unborn baby. I was unsuccessful.

I bring this up today, because President Obama lifted the Bush 43 ban on federal funding for stem cell research. That made me think about how I would argue either for or against such a move. What is the greatest value proposition we could make in the debate over federal funding on stem cell research?

Most Americans, if you believe the polls, place a higher value on the medical research potential offered by stem cell research. A 2001 poll offered by ABC News found a 60-40 split in Americans, with the majority favoring stem cell research, so the support has been fairly steady throughout the years. What that support for stem cell research effectively means is that most people in America place a higher value on potential future gains in medical treatments for any number of ailments than they place on the embryos that must be destroyed for their cells to be harvested. It's an either-or value proposition.

Do we destroy life before it is born in the hopes that current humans can live their lives better in the future?

I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I see value in helping people lead better lives. If we can find the cures for paralysis, blindness, Parkinson's Syndrome and other neurological disorders, then we should make every attempt possible, right? People live longer and longer these days, and why shouldn't those adults be able to live better?

I'm actually reminded of a similar value proposition I've heard circulated by means of explaining the culture clash between America and China. Say a father, his mother, and his only child are involved in a car crash, and both the mother and the child are hurt badly. He has to decide which person to save, and he can save only one. Does he save his mother, who already lived a full life, with grandchildren? Or does he save his only child? In America, we almost always opt for saving the life of the child. In China, with their greater respect for their elders, the man chooses to save his mother.

In effect, we are making the same type of choice when it comes to stem cell research. Do we value our elders' lives higher than we value our children's lives? We already have medical advances and treatments that offer much longer life expectancy than existed in America 30 years ago. People understand the need to exercise and eat right. Americans nearing retirement today can expect to live almost as many years out of the workforce as they spent toiling in it. That's remarkable!

The real question during the Bush 43 administration was whether the Federal Government would spend its dollars to finance public or private stem cell research. Bush decided he would take a stand, and he forbade the use of taxpayer dollars on the research. Private funding still was available, but many research labs depend on Federal grants and other government funding for their studies. Not very many breakthroughs were reported during the past eight years. That was the value choice that Bush decided to make.

Obama today made the opposite value decision, which is his right. Again, the majority of Americans tend to support his value choice, and our notions of democracy tend to abide by the idea that the majority should rule.

My own value choice? If we're going to commit millions or billions of taxpayer dollars on the research, we'd better get some nifty new medical treatments out of it.