If I wanted to study disease through embryonic stem cell research, I'd imagine that I would want to study only those with the disease or susceptible to the development of the disease. How many of the chosen, frozen embryos are likely to be diseased?
This is just one of the questions you need to ask your Senators today.
The debate on increasing tax funding for destructive embryonic research will begin today in the US Senate, with votes planned for tomorrow. I'm afraid that (except this vote will be the result of the representative democratic legislative process rather than a judicial fiat, which is a huge difference, I know) we will all look back at 2006 as the same sort of turning point that 1973 was.
Our Senators appear to be poised to pass all three bills, including the one that will allow government funding for research that depends on the destruction of the embryonic brothers and sisters of babies who have been born to and fill the arms of parents that desired children so much that they used the highest technology and complicated medical procedures to create them. These children were purposefully created, they passed the first tests of viability, but were "excess" or not as robust as their siblings who were implanted, and so they were abandoned to a freezer.
Nevertheless, these are human organisms. They were organized enough in the process of development that they were frozen rather than deemed defective or dead and flushed as waste. They deserve our protection and our affirmation that they, too, have the right not to be purposefully killed to harvest their parts.
This year, the researchers ask for funding for "left over" embryos. What is the ethical difference between newly and specifically created embryos or cloned embryos and these?
Call your Senators today and urge them to vote against the funding of destructive embryonic research. Again, you can access your Senator's information at Thomas.gov.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Human enough, no matter where or how
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The anti-stem-cell people have managed to create an image problem for themselves. Or rather, they have picked up some from the anti-abortion crowd.
Its that 'life is sacred from conception' position that does it. Regardless of its ethical correctness, its rather extreme. Extreme views usually stress credability.
Look at the anti-abortion crowd. Right, or wrong, I have many reasons to question their judgement. I notice many of the organisations that oppose abortion in all forms also oppose comprehensive sex education, and pornography. This puts them in the class of 'neo-victorian sex-hater' - and so it is clear their social attutude in that area is a large element of their motivation on abortion comes from a view that pregnency is a nessicary deterent from sex.
I can already imagine the pro-life calls attacking that. I am only saying that that is how the organisations appear from outside - and you can hardly deny the link in those topics.
The embryonic stem cell opposition are suffering from the same questionable motivations: It is unclear to what extent their concerns stem not from empathy, but from a need to maintain their extreme anti-abortion position, which is in turn motivated by very strict views on sex.
It renders their judgement suspect, and so makes them easy to ignore. This is not going to change until the pro-life movement tries to shift away from the Sacred Moment of Conception and towards a more moderate position and - most importantly - throws out all of those who are abusing it as a vechicle to press for ineffective 'abstinance only' education or to call for tighter control on pornography, and all the other things that are associated with pro-life but not directly related to abortion.
Post a Comment