Remember Alex P. Keaton? The Republican son from Family Ties?
He's gone.
Enter: Michael J. Fox - Stem Cell Crusader.
Does Michael J. Fox have a right to support Claire McCaskill, Ben Cardin, and others for political office? No doubt...
Does he have a right to lie to the American people to persuade their vote? No way...
Here's Amendment 2. Keep in mind this is for a Constitutional Amendment - very important.
Now, you may think that the Amendment bans the idea of human cloning, as it says: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
Fair enough, right? Wrong. Here's why, from the proposed, and now passed, Amendment:
"(1) 'Blastocyst' means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.
"(2) 'Clone or attempt to clone a human being' means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being."
What does the term "blastocyst" look like it means to you? Sounds like the early stages of a human being to me...and what two activities lead to the creation of a "blastocyst"? Well, one would be fertilization. We all know what fertilization leads to. What's the other one? "Somatic cell nuclear transfer"...
Hmmm...
Could that be...CLONING????
According to the bill, my conclusion is preposterous. Cloning involves implantation in a uterus...I didn't realize the definition of cloning involved "intention"...
So, if you create human life for the purposes of destroying it (to borrow a phrase from Laura Ingraham), that's not cloning. But if you implant the "product" of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" into a uterus which could result in the birth of a human being, THAT'S "cloning"...
OUTRAGEOUS.
Back to Michael J. Fox. He claimed that both Jim Talent and Michael Steele did not support life-saving stem cell research, implying that neither one of them cares about his fate. First off, does anybody know anyone who doesn't support adult stem cell research? Here is just one summary of the wonders of adult stem cell research. Real progress has been made for patients with the following (not an all-inclusive list):
1) spinal cord injuries
2) skull bone damage
3) damaged heart muscles
4) blindness
5) Crohn's disease (definition)
6) lupus
7) multiple sclerosis
8) leukemia
9) rheumatoid arthritis
and...guess what?
10) Parkinson's disease
Hopefully Michael J. Fox is aware of this.
What has embryonic stem cell research produced, in the way of cures? Ummm...nothing. But they may produce brain tumors...
I don't think we need to add that to the list of Fox's ailments...
Look, we all want Michael J. Fox to get better, right? Of course we do. But do we really want him misleading the public at large to push his own misled agenda? I don't think so...
Too bad the campaign was a success.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Chris: First off nicely put together blog, it is very well crafted and you have put a good deal of time into being eloquent about expressing your views and backing them up with your choice of information sources. Secondly I recognize that you have religious beliefs which are opposed to what you believe is the destruction of human life. I am not prepared to attempt to try and convince you of otherwise, because I think it would take an extraordinary effort on my part which really would be a waste of both of our times. (I admit there is a little blurb below… but perhaps others will appreciate it :D )
I think “hating” Michael J. Fox, is a bit harsh… kind of sounds like something Rush might say, and then half-heartedly apologize for (while doping up or something). I’m certain Michael J. Fox himself would even understand and respect your beliefs… but you can’t blame the guy for fighting about something he (and many people) believes in and is passionate about.
I think there is a giant misinformation campaign by both sides to politicize an issue which should not be.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-04-20-stem-cell-cover_x.htm
The link above is a nice article on the politicizing issue in itself.
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. I also have no problem with the government regulating cloning to ban it for the sake of creating human beings. As far as I’m concerned the technology is far from safe, and I would hope adoption or other means would be encouraged over this method of creating offspring. However I do think it is something that should not be banned for the creation of embryonic stem cells.
Next, stem cells should not have to be created, (but it should not be removed as a viable possibility). Fertility clinics often create multiple embryos to attempt to implant into a woman’s uterus so that she may bear children. (I’m sure you’ve heard of people having septuplets, etc.) The extra embryos are placed in suspended animation (frozen) and ultimately will likely be discarded at some point. I’m not sure if you are morally opposed to fertility clinics but given this particular entry, I think you should be. (For the record, I’m not) What researches have done, and intend to do is take material from these otherwise discarded embryos, and create cell lines via Somatic cell nuclear transfer. The cells created from this material do not progress in development to form a human being unless implanted in the womb. They will not be.
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. Do you believe that a woman should always have a bun in the oven? Are you morally opposed to prophylactics?
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. Adult stem cell research is easier to conduct, has been researched for a longer period of time, and has useable material readily available in every living person.
As human beings we are always trying to improve our situation. It is inherent to our nature. For example just because we have one system of doing something doesn’t mean we should avoid trying a new direction. I work creating and developing monoclonal antibody drugs which will specifically target a region of the body that is affected by ex: cancer or other diseases such as Crohn’s Disease. This attempts to avoid the harmful effects that various medicines (Chemotherapy) can have over the entire body, by specifically targeting the problem area. It is a slightly unconventional method, but is one being looked at by pharmaceutical companies as a whole. We could sit back and continue with existing methods because they work (on some level) but instead we are attempting to improve.
Next you are claiming embryonic stem cell research has yielded no cures, well honestly it is new. Next… all of those diseases you listed have not been cured by adult stem cell research either. In other words… “progress” as you said.
More progress has been accumulated in adult stem cell research. This is true, although it mainly due to a lack of viable cell lines in embryonic stem cell research at this point.
Links with some Embryonic Stem Cell Research:
http://www.stemcellfunding.org/resources/Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research_Progress.htm
The above has a nice brief summary of many research areas.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/52094.html
This one is about the creation of cell lines for therapeutic uses. This indicates that in the future cell lines will likely become more prevalent without the creation of new embryos. This is resulting from cloned embryonic cells. I work with cloned material myself although it happens to be from hamsters… only peta gets upset I guess.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2006/ninds-20.htm
This article deals with nervous system applications. Research is currently conducted in rats, as will be the case with most for several years as embryonic stem cell research is new.
And lastly…. Here’s a little gem for you Chris because it suggests the possibility that Adult stem cell may in fact turn out to be the better of these avenues. It also touches upon the possibility of embryonic stem cells causing brain tumors, which you touched upon. But 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.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
In the end it may well be that embryonic stem cells have no applications what so ever. But I think it would be foolish not to find out.
Cheers….
I look forward to checking in on the blog occasionally!
Post a Comment