For Those Against Stem Cell Research
The current Conservative administration has not outlawed abortion, so it will occur. I don't think more women will abort for the purpose of furthering stem cell research, so until someone repeals Roe V. Wade, why not make something good of something you find despicable.
And yet other cells come from embryos stored by couples at fertility clinics. Once they get pregnant, or reach a desired goal, the rest of their stored embryos are thrown out at some point. So until someone decides to save all of these discarded embryos and make a commune of discarded humans from them, I say help find cures from the cells, which were taken from the woman with her consent, so don't throw in a violence towards women debate here.
Opponents of my opinion have said that you can get the same benefit from adult stem cells, but adult stem cells can't transform into any cell, which embryonic cells have the ability to do, no matter what part of the body they're from.
As far as cloning goes, I have yet to see any scientific document from an American scientific publication that states this will lead to the cloning of humans. Now there is SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer), which is labeled as cloning by the opponents (the link is to what I consider to be a funny, yet blunt domain for the opponents...http://www.nocloning.org/). It is therapeautic cloning, which differenciates from reproductive cloning, what people generally think of when it comes to cloning.
In SCNT, the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is replaced with the nucleus of an adult somatic cell. The egg evolves into a blastocyst, which is one of the earliest stages of an embryo, with about 100-200 cells. Compare that to an adult human with over 10 trillion cells. Once at that stage, the stem cells are taken and may be transplanted back to the patient with no danger of rejection, since they are an identical match. Maybe in that case, the adult stem cells could provide the same benefit, by creating embryonic stem cells.
Reproductive cloning would involve taking that blastocyst and continuing to help it along until it can exist outside of the body, but the chances of a healthy embryo coming from SCNT are still small.
I'm sure everyone knows of somebody that has died with a disease that could be helped with this research. And cures may not happen right away. What in science does without years of research? Whose to say that those folks and those with those diseases now do not deserve a better quality of life? If you are against that, then you are inhumane.
I myself have Diabetes and know others with it as well. It would be great to live without multiple shots in a day or a device connected to my body at all times in order to live. It would be great to not have to bleed everyday to better control my blood sugar. A life without messing up one insulin calculation and suffering with a seizure or being nauseated for days sounds really nice. And I'm sure Michael J. Fox would love to simply sit still. And Christopher Reeve would have enjoyed walking again or simply to live another day, but since you are humane people, we must deny people what may be available to us through science.
That makes as much sense as a war in a country that had nothing to do with killing our people and only takes more of our people's lives, especially considering that our tax money could be going towards saving lives instead of killing our boys and innocent Iraqis, not to mention it has more factual evedience backing it than the reasoning for that war. It's a shame that the President used the only veto of his tenure to prevent more lines of cells to be backed by federal funding. It only shows his continued ignorance. This whole debate may be based on an idea that doesn't have many years of research behind it, but the possibilities are backed by fact. This would require a bit of hope on our part, but as Michael J. Fox said when in St. Louis on October 5, "You can't quantify hope. And I'll come down on the side of hope every time."
Missouri, the state I have lived in all of my life, will be voting on this issue. This is from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
All eyes will be on Missouri for the Nov. 7 vote, the first of its kind in
the nation. Some say the outcome could provide clues on national voter sentiment
on a contentious political divide, perhaps spawning similar referendums in other
states. To this point, the legislative battle has largely been confined to
Congress and state general assemblies. In the case of Illinois and a handful of
other states, lawmakers have backed embryonic stem-cell research with state
funding.
The measure seeks to ensure that any forms of stem-cell research that are
legal under federal law also would be legal in Missouri.But voters are being
asked to do more than simply preserve the status quo. The measure would negate
the state Legislature's ability to ban certain forms of controversial research,
such as those involving cloning technology.
Once again, it's this cloning technology that scares people away, but I urge folks to look beyond the word "cloning" to see that it isn't bringing cloned humans into the world. Cloning technology is used in the world today to bring people like me our insulin. A lot of biotechnology today involves "cloning technology", but this involves human cells, so it creates the idea of creating humans. When used in SCNT, I believe an extension of the person is being used to save them. For it is their own adult stem cells that are being used in the process to prevent rejection. And while some would say that the blastocyst is a child being murdered, I would say you've gone too far. It's amazing that the anti-abortion movement doesn't stand up for the lives of those with these diseases, those fighting in wars, and those innocents our country kills in war. It's a bit of a double standard if you ask me.
4 Comments:
a couple thoughts here Jim:
1. the cloning thing is a "volatile" hot phrase--this opinion coming from a reputable Wash U researcher (who would be using the technology)
1a. accordingly, every twin is a clone and we believe twins have souls soooo draw your own conclusion there
1b. somatic nuclear cell transfer techncially is the "cloning process" in the "hyperbolized" sense
2. a constiutional amendment TIES researcher's hands. makes it more difficult for researchers if there are other ethical issues at hand. this is my biggest issue at hand actually. not the stem cell part but the constitutional amdendment part. too far.
3. the violence towards women, uh, already had friends at ivy-schools approached so the "violence against women" is legit and in backasswards MO, women are not going to be treated as well and as a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment, daddy's lawyer will not be able to fix this (though damn if this wouldn't be an interesting way to pay for graduate school...)
4. I'm voting "NO" sorry Jim on this initative because I think it's legalistic terminology is incomplete and too far stretching and not because I'm not for stem cell research. I just wanted you to know as a public health researcher myself. I would ask you to look at the policy issues at hand.
1. CLONING IS PURE EVIL. THE FIRST PERSON THE CATHOLICS WOULD CLONE WOULD BE JESUS CHRIST. IMAGINE A WORLD FULL OF CLONED JESUS FREAKS!!! TALK ABOUT A HELL ON EARTH!!! THERE SHOULD BE A SOUTHPARK EPISODE ABOUT JESUS CLONES.
2. WHAT MAIRE HAS STATED FURTHER BACKS MY THEORY THAT REPUBLICANS ARE THE CRAZY RADICALS!!! (2. SHE POINTS OUT THAT THIS AMMENDMENT IS A CONSITITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT) ALL A CONSERVATIVE IS IS SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO LEAVE THINGS AS THEY ARE. FREAKIN' LEFT WING REPUBLICANS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE!
3. I've read the pro-life pamphlets regarding this issue. What they are doing is fear mongering. The brochures use words like 'surgery' and phrases like '10 times the risk' to shock pro-life audience into believing that what the scientific world is trying to do is kill off a bunch of women in order to be able to clone more of themselves! It is a big bunch of horse shit. I was at a family gathering (my parents are raging Catholics) and they had a friend over, as I passed through the room I heard someone mention the word Talent and I blurted out that he is the knife in the side of science. So the lady handed me the brochures and she wants my feedback. We talked for a while about how ignorant and short sighted Talent is on this issue, and how it really comes down to a choice between letting a fertilized egg in a petri dish die, or studying it with the intent to help humanity.
To let the fertilized egg die in a pitri dish is not considered immoral, and yet these idiots want to say that studying it is immoral.
My whole philosophy on the abortion issue has been summed up in one phrase: You can't be both pro-life and pro-death penalty.
I believe this phrase relates directly to the stem cell research debate, and that those who implore the denial of science in the name of so called 'Intelligent Design' are as short sighted and backwards as a group of humans can be.
4. As to the 'legalistic' terminology maire has hused, the phrase 'legalistic' actually points a spotlight on the whole issue of ignorance. This lady is voting against the ammendment because she is ignorant and afraid.
5. I am confident that there are more than enough really stupid people in this state and that they have been thouroughly terrorized by their church (catholic pedofiles) and their party (republican pedophiles) and that no god fearing person will vote in support of stem cell research. They would all rather see these little baby embryos die in pitri dishes while we have our hope squashed because of their fear and ignorance.
Read Amendment 2 : http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006ballot/
Go to the website of those who support the bill: http://www.missouricures.com/ and ask yourself if they seem like people who are out to do no good?
Then visit any website of the opposition, and ponder who the champions of fear mongering and ignorance are?
Sergio trumps all and plays the Jesus Card:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoS7cGc0gK4
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home