Why I Don't Really "Hate" Michael J. Fox...

Apparently I need to clarify my last post to some...

1) First off, I didn't realize I linked to an article which required registration - sorry about that. The gist of the article can be found from the Life Issues website:

"One Study of Parkinson's patients showed an average improvement of sixty-one percent increase of coordination, as well as fewer symptoms after transplants of the patient's own neuronal stem cells."

Now, the quote is a bit misleading, I'll be upfront about that. The patient size was quite small, and the use of the word "patient's" makes me wonder if only one person experienced the improvement, or if all participants did, and this is just a typo in the study. Looking through the study myself, it's pretty dense, and I haven't determined that. Though, again, the results seem promising that adult stem cell therapy can produce positive results for Parkinson's patients.

2) I don't really hate Michael J. Fox - but I do hate what he did. Please note that not once did I make fun of Michael J. Fox or deny the fact that he has a right to his opinion - I actually came right out front and said he can support any candidate, and we want him to get better. I feel this is universally accepted...

The comment posted to my website, however, did make fun of Rush Limbaugh, saying he was likely "doping up or something" while apologizing for his actions against Michael J. Fox. Do I condone what Rush Limbaugh did in mimicing Fox's symptoms? No. But did he have a valid argument to make? Yes - and here's why:

a) Rush supposed that Michael J. Fox was faking his symptoms...was he? I don't know...but was it a valid question? Well, he has admitted to doing as much in his "Lucky Man" memoirs...(emphasis mine)

"Arranging life in order to be 'on' in public, and 'off' for as little time as possible, is a balancing act for any P.D.er. In my case, the gut-wrenching prospect of losing my balance, figuratively or literally, on The Late Show, say, or at a public event where there was no way to avoid close scrutiny, loomed ever larger the longer I remained in the closet.

"Learning to titrate medication so that it kicked in before an appearance or performance, sometimes within minutes of my cue, became a process of continuous tweaking and refining - lots of trial with little room for error. Timing a punchline was a joke if I hadn't timed my meds accurately. I became a virtuoso at manipulating drug intake, so that I'd peak at exactly the right time and place."

Now, this was written back in 2002, so who's to say he is still a "virtuoso" at faking his symptoms? I don't know, but, again, isn't the question worth asking?

b) Michael J. Fox admitted not reading the bill he advocated in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous: (per page 2 - again, emphasis mine)

"Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, 'You betray me with a kiss.' And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.

"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."

(Quick aside: page 1 of the transcript of this interview, look at the tone of Stephanopolous's questioning, Fox's response, and the joint response following Fox:

"Stephanopoulos: Rush apologized — I guess he apologized for saying you were acting. He didn't call you, did he?

Fox: He would've had more qualifications at an AA meeting.

(LAUGHTER) "

But there's no such thing as media bias, right?)

So, now we know that Michael J. Fox was uninformed at least when he campaigned for Claire McCaskill, and possibly Ben Cardin and others. Fine. Be uniformed, misinformed, whatever - lots of voters are. But do other voters pretend they are experts in a field in which they have no expertise? Are other voters aware of their "human shield" status when entering themselves into public discussion? As Ann Coulter said about the "Jersey Girls," we have a right to respond to you...

c) Fox makes the distinction in this ABC interview between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, admitting common ground with Jim Talent and Michael Steele. He did not make this distinction in the campaign ad for Ben Cardin, however - here it is right on Ben Cardin's website.

Sure seems like he's posing as an expert, doesn't it? Sounds like he knows that embryonic stem cell research is the most promising, though we know it's basically been a dead-end thus far. He also says "Cardin fully supports life-saving stem cell research. It's why I support Ben Cardin." Sounds like the implication is that Michael Steele didn't support life-saving stem cell research! Who could vote for him?

People with Multiple Sclerosis could, for one.

Put in this perspective, don't Fox and Cardin seem tasteless?

3) A USA Today article from 2004 was left for me to read to make the argument that "both sides do it." Fine - I never said that only one side was guilty. But I don't see that point made in this article. Is there a slant? The article busily quotes University of Wisconsin "research pioneer" James Thomson for his viewpoint in the last section of the article. Excerpts, including the "last impression":

"If politics were not involved, 'the field of embryonic stem cell research would be much more advanced than it is today,' research pioneer Thomson says.

"It is difficult to estimate just how damaging the current restrictions have been to the field to date, but if the current restrictions are not eventually lifted, patients will suffer needlessly."

And...

"And despite all the debate, embryonic stem cells may end up offering insight that is more scientific than therapeutic, Thomson says. 'The real lasting contribution of human embryonic stem cell research may be increased knowledge of the human body, which could change human medicine even more dramatically than new transplantation therapies.'"

Where do you think USA Today stands on this issue? Need more?

Senator Sam Browback, Republican and outspoken against embryonic stem cell research, is described as "complaining" when he speaks out against the viewpoint of the President's Council. And read this excerpt attempting to highlight the two differences:

"Opponents cannot even agree on terminology. Brownback believes all cloning is reproductive, his aides say. Research supporters suggest therapeutic cloning, in which harvested stem cells are transplanted into a patient, involves research embryos that would never produce cloned children."

So, one opinion is based entirely on "belief" while another is based on "research"...what's the connotation there? And who are these research supporters, anyway? There's no support to this statement. And what exactly is a "research embryo"? I don't know, but I'm glad I wasn't labeled as such...

4) From the comment left on the last post:

"I will even say this: I don’t care if the government funds embryonic stem cell research. I recognize that there are tax payers who may not want their money contributing to something that they are morally opposed to. The private sector can, and will handle it fine without government money."

Well, I care. The moral aspect is only a part of it. If the private sector can handle it without government money, why aren't they? Because they don't have the private sector support to finance the research that scientists want to do (or, the amount of money that scientists want). Again, maybe because the research has produced no tangible results.

5) "I do understand the logic of your interpretation of these cells being 'human beings', but the fact of the matter is without further intervention this material will not become a person. In this way it becomes a kin to a woman’s eggs or a man’s sperm."

In no way is the fertilization of the woman's eggs and the man's sperm akin to the two as separate entities. When they are separated, they do not produce life itself. When they are joined, they do. It's that simple.

6) "I do have issue with your dismissal of embryonic stem cell research. First off comparing the accomplishments of adult stem cell research to embryonic stem cell research is a bit of a cheap shot."

This is no cheap shot. The distinction between the types of research has been made necessary because of people like Michael J. Fox. The merits comparing the two is a natural by-product of Fox's misrepresentation of the facts. To call my comparison a "cheap shot," I feel, is a real mischaracterization, and only defends the ideas of Fox and others (if only indirectly).

7) "I believe both should be researched, and if some one does not like the idea of the embryonic stem cell research than they should avoid any treatment which could possibly become a result of it."

This is kind of like saying "If someone doesn't agree with racism, then don't be mean to black people."...Racism itself is morally objectionable, as is creating human life for the purposes of destroying it. Racism produced great riches for those who practiced it (i.e., slaveowners), and its victims were left forever wounded...does that mean that, if you know racism is morally wrong, you should let others practice it? Of course not. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research. If you know it to be morally wrong, should you let others practice it?...

I also have to address one last topic: the fact that my ideas about when human life begins are dismissed as being "religious" and have no connection to "science". This really angers me. Science and religion can be used in conjunction with each other. This from the Pro-Life Physicians website:

"How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?

A scientific textbook called 'Basics of Biology' gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte (life created through cloning excepted)."

Now, it does make an exception for cloning, but it doesn't say what the exception is (I wish it did, actually). But it does define "conception" and does not specify that conception has to take place in the mother's womb. Further,

"Genetically and biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, but this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it."...

Especially if it's being produced outside the mother's body in a petri dish!

More evidence (emphasis mine):

"...Some claim that the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), formed by the implantation of the nucleus of a somatic cell into an enucleated ovum, can be treated differently from a zygote, formed by the fusion of sperm and egg. The argument is made that the product of SCNT, called a "clonote," is different from a zygote because they are created differently and because they are intended for different purposes. Systems biology denies, however, that one can know what something is if one knows only where it comes from. It is also inaccurate to define something based upon its intended use. Scientifically, the key to knowing what something is, is to know what determined trajectory that something will actively follow. A zygote is clearly a determined embodied process with a human trajectory as known by the way it is manifest."

This underscores my earlier point that I didn't realize that intention was part of the definition of cloning. I don't believe it is - and it's comforting to know that others agree with me.

One more point:

"Perhaps in order to determine if a clone is a human, we should ask: was Dolly a sheep? If Dolly walked like a sheep, sounded like a sheep and looked like a sheep, then it must have been a sheep. Which is to say, it began its life as a SCNT and became a sheep.

Although SCNT is a form of asexual reproduction, once the transfer is made and a stimulus applied to effect the first cell division, that is the moment equivalent to fertilization. So, yes, a human clone is a human being. Even with the prospect of being flawed, as was suspected of Dolly."

So, now at least you know that there are some in the scientific community who see the combination of religion and science as useful in debating the "right to life" topic.

Thanks for the comments, and keep them coming.