|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
| |
Embryonic Stem Cell
Research A college student, a young lady, addressed the following question to Presidential can- didate Barack Obama at West Chester Uni- versity, in Pennsylvania, on Chris Mathews' Hardball show on MSNBC yesterday: "As a type 1 diabetic I was just wondering what you're going to do to gain further sup- port for stem cell research?" Barack Obama: "The thing is, actually, we have enough support in the Senate and the House to pass this bill. George Bush has vetoed it. Here's what we'll do. We just need one more vote, and that's the vote of the President. Since I'll be the President, we will sign the stem cell research bill." - - - Comments: As a type 1 diabetic, I was deeply disap- pointed that George Bush blocked federal funds going towards further embryonic stem cell research at an arbitrary point almost -7- years ago. I am encouraged that the likely Democratic candidate for President made the above comments regarding stem cell research yesterday. Here are some links to some posts I made on the matter back before and after Bush blocked federal participation in further embryonic stem cell research past an arbi- trary point: Stem Cell Bill to Wait a Year October 24, 2000 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/stem_cell_bill_wait.htm Stem Cell Research -- Comprehensive Report July 31, 2001 http://prohuman.net/science/stem_cell_research.htm Israeli Teams Grows Heart Cells and Insulin Producing Cells From Human Embryonic Stem Cells August 1, 2001 http://prohuman.net/science/stem_cell_research2.htm Typical Political Machinations ... August 9, 2001 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/political_machinations.htm Type 1 Diabetic Pro-Humanist Responds to Bush Stem Cell Decision August 10, 2001 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/stem_cell_decision.htm Type 1 Diabetic Pro-Humanist Responds to Bush Stem Cell Decision, Part 2 August 12, 2001 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/stem_cell_decision2.htm The end (promoting god/faith/religion) does not justify the means (lip service to embryos) August 14, 2001 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/end_does_not_justify_means.htm A search for the meaning of life August 18, 2001 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/stem_cell_decision3.htm Dog Days for God (religious violence, stem cell decision) August 22, 2001 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/dog_days_for_god.htm Enlightenment - Stem Cell Research - Wide Range of Views ... August 24, 2001 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/stem_cell_decision4.htm Protest of Federal Research Blocks on Stem Cell Research and other news September 1, 2001 http://prohuman.net/prohumanistfreeloverdaily/090101.htm - - - Further posts on the matter: Stem Cells: New Horizons, New Challenges and other news September 18, 2001 http://prohuman.net/prohumanistfreeloverdaily/091801.htm US Government $$$ Needed for Stem Cell Research and other news September 26, 2001 http://prohuman.net/prohumanistfreeloverdaily/092601.htm Stem Cell Showstopper, Without Cloning They Aren't Likely to Work and other news November 18, 2001 http://prohuman.net/2001/11/18.htm First Human Cloned Embryo and other news November 24, 2001 http://prohuman.net/2001/11/24.htm Advance in Curing Human Diseases and Prolonging Human Life and other news November 25, 2001 http://prohuman.net/2001/11/25.htm Cloning Ban? Scientists Use 'Virgin Birth' Technique and other news November 26, 2001 http://prohuman.net/2001/11/26.htm Therapeutic Cloning Ethics and other news November 28, 2001 http://prohuman.net/2001/11/28.htm Bush Anti-Cloning Klutziness and other news November 29, 2001 http://prohuman.net/2001/11/29.htm Breakthrough for Stem Cell Research and other news November 30, 2001 http://prohuman.net/2001/11/30.htm Bush's Stacked Deck Bioethics Council and other news January 16-18, 2002 http://prohuman.net/2002/01/16_to_18.htm Some news on stem cell research and other issues January 24-31, 2002 http://prohuman.net/2002/01/24_to_31.htm Reeve Hopes for Stem Cell Cure and other news February 19-24, 2002 http://prohuman.net/2002/02/19_to_24.htm God versus the Pope (embryos and stem cell research) January 10, 2005 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/god_pope_embryos.htm Embryonic Stem Cell Research Support from Europe, China, South Korea, California, JDRF February 25, 2005 http://prohuman.net/science/embryonic_stem_cell_support.htm Poll -- Stem Cell Use Gains Support May 24, 2005 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/24/opinion/polls/main697546.shtml The Pro-Cure Movement June 1, 2005 http://prohuman.net/social_legal/pro_cure_movement.htm Progress on Potential Stem Cell Treatments / Cures February 12, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/2yol69 - - - Someone wrote: > Yes, I'm sure it's all just a matter of health... Many support embryonic stem cell research, even though opposition by the religious right and the head of the catholic church is present. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research include many Republicans, many christians, and many others. Recent polling indicates a majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research. In my view, the blocking of federal support for embryonic stem cell research, in 2001, was/is an immoral stance, and did absolutely nothing to spare embryoes from either termin- ation in an effort to impregnate a woman, or from termination due to the decision of the owner(s) of the embryoes at issue. So, while you and those like you dictate to the majority how federal money and embryoes cannot be used to further research into cures for diseases, and millions upon millions suf- fer due to the handicap inflicted on the entire country by the religious right (and the head of the catholic church), and billions of sperm and eggs (both fertilized and unfertilized) fail to become humans due to the manner in which nature (or a supposed God in the case of be- lievers) operates, and countless numbers are born with birth defects and die prematurely due to diseases ... ... I trust that when you look at yourself in the mirror, and pat yourself on the back for furthering an anti-human stance that saves NO embryoes, you'll realize that the conse- quences of your stance is ... ... well, in your case, you'll pretend that you have the upper hand on issues of morality, and you'll dismiss the consequences as irrelevant -or- of lower moral standing than is your opinion regarding embryo sanctity. - - - Someone wrote: > Links are not support, make an *argument*. Creating human > life in order to consume it to benefit the living is reprehensible. > Debate that. If you can. Your statement is directed at intent. In fertilization clinics, the intent is to birth life, but in that intent, many embryoes are terminated in an effort to yield a successful pregancy, and many embryoes are in the deep-freeze, never to be im- planted, and many embryoes, once a successful pregancy occurrs, are ter- minated due to the decision by the parties who contributed to the crea- tion of the embryoes. As to the decision of some to allow their unused embryoes to, rather than being discarded -or- left in permanent deep-freeze, to be used for embryonic stem cell research (across the world -and- by some non-federal entities, like the state of California, in America) to contribute to understanding, knowledge, and potentially to solving some of the most horrific maladies which adversely impact birthed human life? Obviously, the most pro-human stance to adopt is *not* permanent deep-freeze, is *not* discarding, but instead, is the path iterated for research above, in my opinion, within ethical boundaries (and we can discuss those ethical boundaries if you wish, though those exceed the 'no research at all' parameter which you are presently bound by). But, opinions differ, on this matter and on many others, among the religious, and among those apart from religion. - - - Aside Human life. Over 6.6 billion of us on the planet, presently. About 700,000 newly birthed humans every couple of days. To put that into perspective, the number of non-human great apes on the planet, total? About 700,000. End Aside - - - Human life, beginning. Here's a view from a religious perspective: - - - The beginning of human life in the Bible Human Quest, May/Jun 2000 by Baughman, Charles W http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_200005/ai_n8895445/ - - - Excerpt: ... I believe this look at when human life begins in the Bible demonstrates that, in the early life of Israel and even later Judaism, they believed that life entered the child when it was born and became a living, breathing being. While many Roman Catholics have claimed for a long time that human life begins at con- ception, only recently has this position been adopted by some Protestants, clearly it conflicts with the Biblical understanding. - - - end excerpt - - - Comments: Upon this understanding, religious indi- viduals are clearly faced with a paradox. -If- the Bible is inspired by -or- the words of God, then why is the position in the Bible so far removed from a definition of life even remotely close to conception, what with so many in the religious com- munity being told, by assorted religious leaders, that that's the position of God today? Put another way, who in the religious community wishes to act in the manner that the original Bible writers did, and speak for God today? If someone does, by what method would the Bible get updated and by what method would the religious ascertain the legitimacy of the Bible update? You, for example, might want the Bible to include writings specifying conception as the beginning of life, but many in the religious community would want the original writings of the ancients to pre- vail. Who would win, and who would dare (today) to try to update ancient liter- ature? Once that decision was made, where would one stop? Would one want to remove a lot of the ancient anti-humanism from the Bible, putting a more modern pro-loving God focus into it? After all, if one adopts the position of anti-abortionists, if one sanctifies the embryo, what would the Biblical passages be updated to say about all the embryoes that fail to implant, all the miscarriages, all the birth defects and early death? Would the new writings blame that on humans, or would they say it's the will of God, a pun- ishment for human sin, or would they assert God plays no role in that? Difficult questions for the religious to address, whether they decide to update the Bible, or simply continue to try to spin it in a manner that fits into their political and social and religious leanings, as has been the case since all the interpolations and changes were made to the long-lost original versions long ago. - - -
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
