ON THE ISSUES: Stem-Cells
Published November 09, 2004
Second, even if these cells were saved they would simply remain frozen and unused. We are talking about a ball of 100 cells. The basic beginnings of a simple nervous system doesn't even begin until there are more than 2000 cells in an embryo. Not that I am saying that I don't believe life begins at conception — which I do — it's just the simple fact that these cells are going to remain frozen or they are going to die a slow death anyway in a dumpster. Why not pressure the president to change his policies?
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) and Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Florida) have drafted bills that would outlaw therapeutic cloning — a technique scientists believe could be key to turning stem-cell research into cures and treatments, but which also comes with ethical concerns.
Weldon's bill has cleared the House, but Brownback's Senate version has languished since 2001.
With an infusion of Republicans in the Senate, the bill may be closer to passing. Most of the six new Republican senators will likely vote in favor of the bill. However, Sen.-elect Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) has spoken out in favor of embryonic stem-cell research. And the bill has also received surprising opposition from Republicans, including Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania). Such departures will likely leave the bill short of a majority, let alone the 60 votes the bill would need to avoid filibuster.
The bottom line is that this is a technology that needs to be used. Yes, we need to proceed with the highest ethical guidelines and care. But to simply stand up for a symbolic policy that means nothing not only shows the weak mind of this president and his followers, it shows how ready he is to continually stand and mislead his followers and the American people away from the truth.
Why is it justified for thousands of soldiers to die for the benefit of the American people? Why is it heroic for a fireman to die to save a child? Why would it not be heroic for a ball of cells to die by contributing to research that could save millions of people?
This is the question we need to ask ourselves.
- ON THE ISSUES: Stem-Cells
- Published: November 09, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: rageforward.com
- rageforward.com's BC Writer page
- rageforward.com's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I've written more about Proposition 71 here. Its passage with nearly 60 percent of the vote is encouraging. But, I wonder if California's law will become a target of the Bush administration as assisted suicide has in Oregon. On the bright side, the main harasser of states that try federalism, John Ashcroft, will be at home hiding from calico cats.
As a Californian, I think that the passage of Proposition 71 sucks. I'm all for stem cell research - any kind, anywhere.
But Proposition 71 ads did not make clear that there was a $3 billion dollar cost attached, actually $6 billion that will have to be paid back because California has to borrow the money.
That's approaching $200 for each man, woman and child in the state. Had they been asked in those terms, few would have voted for the Prop.
The problem is that Californians already have a huge debt hanging over them.
And it just gets worse and worse. To give the appearance of a balanced budget, Schwarzenneger borrowed $15 billion last year. He'll probably have to borrow another $10 billion this year. And yet another $10 billion next year.
There are a lot of good ideas that could be pursued out there, but some fiscal responsibility is required.
California should not have gotten further into debt and did not need to do so - the authorization for stem cell research could have been written without the huge financial hit.
This is another strike against Arnie. And my bank balance. And yours, and your children's and their children's ...
Assuming that the research leads to treatments, isn't the state going to get a cut of the profits? I seem to recall Stanford made a lot of money off of their research.
California will probably get a lot benefits from it, including a lot more jobs as new companies are created, etc.
I object to the Republican "SPEND, SPEND, SPEND and damn the consequences" approach to fiscal responsibility.
I did read material before the election that made reasonable economic arguments against Proposition 71. However, most of the opposition seemed to be coming from the anti-abortion movement. They have dubbed embryonic stem cell research "destructive." So, whenever you see that word attached to a claim of economic concern, something else is going on. I hope for the sake of Hal's great-grands that the law proves profitable for the state.
As I say in my most recent entry about ESC research, one of the positive things about Proposition 71 is that people will now consider what being in favor of 'life' means on higher ground. Finally, folks will be discussing quality of life.
I'm not sure the national GOP is behind the measure. Bush is obstinate about trammeling embryonic stem cell research. We'll see what happens.
It was tough for me to come to a decision on this one, MD, because I agree with pretty much everything you said about stem cell research.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/22034)
Well, I agree that life, scientifically speaking, begins at conception, because if scientists found a glob of 100 cells frozen in the ice on another planet, the headlines would scream, "We found life on another planet!"
And then we'd all read the article and realize that all they found was a glob of cells. And we wouldn't care one whit if they performed experiments on them.
So the glob of cells may have life, but it's not an individual human life with all the the rights bestowed upon an individual. They are really just a bunch of microscopic cells that should be used as best we can use them. And stem cell research seems like a promising use.