Responding to Responses
Man, don't you hate when you go two weeks between blogs. My last posting about my personal opinion about embryonic stem cell research really touched some nerves. While I appreciate Maire's opinion, I have to say that her two main points didn't do much for me or fellow diabeto, Mr. Momarsh.
The violence against women argument doesn't do much for me. For an argument coming from feminist groups, it doesn't say much about females if you say that they are completely susceptible to offers to buy their eggs. Why is it so wrong for offers like that to be made on the backs of our alternative weekly papers or on college campuses? People do desperate things for money, but at the same time, it must be their own responsibility to research the pros and cons of the procedure. It only makes sense for something that pays $2,000-$10,000 to look into things. And besides, this legislation bans buying or selling eggs for the purpose of obtaining cells.
I agree that SCNT is cloning. My argument is that feeding it to the general public in 30 second ads doesn't give them much background, and as much as listing a web address is giving background information, I don't think a lot of people actually take the time to read those partisan informational sources and consequently any opposing or bipartisan sources. I think when folks hear cloning, they think of Dolly in human form. Now, Dolly was conceived through SCNT, but the process is not taken any further than the blastocyst stage when extracting embryonic stem cells, which I don't think is really explained thoroughly by either side too much. By creating a blastocyst from my adult stem cells and an unfertilized egg, the idea is that it is an extension of me to heal me.
I must also emphasize that SCNT is a very small part of the current initiative being voted on in Missouri. The process hasn't progressed very far anyway to be a viable option anytime soon. The main point in my mind is to make use of the cells in embryos that are thrown out from fertility clinics and from abortion. Keep in mind that this is all legal already, but not federally funded. The most important passage from the initiative states it will "prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures". I would think that by making this an amendment to the state's constitution, it would help clarify the issue. While Maire states that the researchers she works with do not like the idea of this as an amendment, I have seen plenty of researchers on the other side as well, which only show how divisive this issue is.
The issue will continue to spark debate well after it is voted on because I am sure other states will follow with similar measures. It would be helpful to list more factual information in the ads and to inform anyone involved in any related process of the full scope of what is involved.
On a larger scale, I wish there was a check and balance system in political advertising to lessen the back and forth of he said, she said. There should be a bipartisan board made up of equal numbers of folks from the various parties, including the "others", that review each ad before it is run and release it to the public only after its claims are verified. I realize there are groups now that have ad watches in effect, but it should have to be done before the ads are aired instead of questioning them after folks are basing decisions on the information in those ads. I think it would cut down on campaign spending and wasting by negating the need to respond to every ad by the other side and simply state your case instead.
That's a dream though. Politics don't work that way in America, and it's a shame.
The violence against women argument doesn't do much for me. For an argument coming from feminist groups, it doesn't say much about females if you say that they are completely susceptible to offers to buy their eggs. Why is it so wrong for offers like that to be made on the backs of our alternative weekly papers or on college campuses? People do desperate things for money, but at the same time, it must be their own responsibility to research the pros and cons of the procedure. It only makes sense for something that pays $2,000-$10,000 to look into things. And besides, this legislation bans buying or selling eggs for the purpose of obtaining cells.
I agree that SCNT is cloning. My argument is that feeding it to the general public in 30 second ads doesn't give them much background, and as much as listing a web address is giving background information, I don't think a lot of people actually take the time to read those partisan informational sources and consequently any opposing or bipartisan sources. I think when folks hear cloning, they think of Dolly in human form. Now, Dolly was conceived through SCNT, but the process is not taken any further than the blastocyst stage when extracting embryonic stem cells, which I don't think is really explained thoroughly by either side too much. By creating a blastocyst from my adult stem cells and an unfertilized egg, the idea is that it is an extension of me to heal me.
I must also emphasize that SCNT is a very small part of the current initiative being voted on in Missouri. The process hasn't progressed very far anyway to be a viable option anytime soon. The main point in my mind is to make use of the cells in embryos that are thrown out from fertility clinics and from abortion. Keep in mind that this is all legal already, but not federally funded. The most important passage from the initiative states it will "prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures". I would think that by making this an amendment to the state's constitution, it would help clarify the issue. While Maire states that the researchers she works with do not like the idea of this as an amendment, I have seen plenty of researchers on the other side as well, which only show how divisive this issue is.
The issue will continue to spark debate well after it is voted on because I am sure other states will follow with similar measures. It would be helpful to list more factual information in the ads and to inform anyone involved in any related process of the full scope of what is involved.
On a larger scale, I wish there was a check and balance system in political advertising to lessen the back and forth of he said, she said. There should be a bipartisan board made up of equal numbers of folks from the various parties, including the "others", that review each ad before it is run and release it to the public only after its claims are verified. I realize there are groups now that have ad watches in effect, but it should have to be done before the ads are aired instead of questioning them after folks are basing decisions on the information in those ads. I think it would cut down on campaign spending and wasting by negating the need to respond to every ad by the other side and simply state your case instead.
That's a dream though. Politics don't work that way in America, and it's a shame.
posted by Diabetoboy at
10/24/2006 11:31:00 AM
1 Comments:
Diabetoboy! You propaganda tool! You advocator of Big Brother you! Why have you forsaken me! I want and need freedom of the press so that I can find Kurt Warner and Jeff Supan to be hiliariously ill-informed. I need political ads to be shotty ill informed stabs in the dark so that Rush Limbaugh can inspire people to hate evil! I'll have non of your bi-partisanship whore mongering where you would have my political ad scrutinized before I got the chance to make a complete fool of myself. You are a wonderful person. Your wit is inspiring. I thank you for recognizing me by name in your latest blog. My uncle Tom dragged me to a presentation in opposition to Amendment 2 where I had many false assumptions jammed down my throat. I was given an opportunity to respond, however I was at that point in a room filled with no more than 12 very angry and very well prodded old and now ill-informed cattle who were all in a mood to stampede. The presenter, a Harvard hack argued that as apparently they do on their website www.moroundtable.org, that despite the facts and the clear statements on the amendment that NO HUMAN EMBRYO MAY BE CREATED FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH, and that NO WOMAN SHALL BE PAID FOR THE DONATION OF EGGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH, and that NO PERSON MAY CLONE OR ATTEMPT TO CLONE A HUMAN BEING... they argue that the opposite of all these is true. Don't get me wrong here, I'm adamantly pro-life. I don't even like to call my position pro-life. I think the words are too soft. I'd much rather call myself a person who is anti-unborn baby murder. So as to the study of the otherwise discarded human embryo, I think it is the only ethical choice, and I am glad that somebody like Michael J. Fox has the audacity of hope, has the strenght of character, has the dignity of humanity as he marches for what can only be described as a truly good and moral cause: the advancment of science for the treatment of life threatening diseases. WATCH DIGNITY IN ACTION
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home