Twenty-one percent of those polled said they knew someone with a disease or disability who might benefit from the research. Of these, four percent said they still opposed the research based on Tom Cruise's assessment of the late Christopher Reeve's ventilator dependence as "pseudoscience."
Cruise made the comment last week in a now famous interview with NBC Dateline's John Hockenberry. Cruise was said to have misunderstood John's reference to studio executive Izzy Furee's comment that Cruise "can get all his perks back when he agrees to make Top Gun 2, in a jet, wearing an oxygen mask."
After pointing out that Cruise had confused the name "Izzy Furee" with “Christopher Reeve" and Izzy's reference to oxygen, Cruise became visibly excited and breathlessly insisted, "John, John, John, John, John, John, you don't know the history of oxygen. I do." After Cruise hyperventilated and fell to the floor, Hockenberry rolled over him, the back wheel of his wheelchair snagging the hinge that held what is now known as Cruise' electronic brain in place. Wanna-be widow Katie Holmes has announced his memorial service will be a small affair, to be held upon a privately funded space shuttle scheduled to launch in the coming days from an undisclosed location at Area 51.
Ahem.
The entire stem cell research debate may not be of political concern much longer and isn't much of a voting concern now. America's attention deficit disorder has kicked in with regard to the issue with a whopping fifty-five percent of registered voters saying they care, but only when talking to pollsters. Seventeen percent of voters openly admit they don't care about their candidate's position on stem cell research, and 22 percent show up and vote for whomever has the catchiest name.
President Bush remains rigid on the issue of stem cell research, despite the breakthrough, saying "This technique does not resolve my concerns, and don't ask me what those concerns are, either! God almighty, I can't get a friggin' break from these people. What? Jesus Christ, if you can tell me what to say, you can sure as hell tell me when to stop saying it! Clear your throat, wave a flag, something, anything. When's lunch?”
Newsweek's poll showed 31 percent of Americans think Bush's handling of the issue is just dandy, while 52 percent think he's the reason scientists now know stem cells can be extracted without destroying a potentially big fat crybaby.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mark Schannon
I knew it. I knew it all along. If I could only figure out what it is you revealed, I could shout it from the rooftops.
Outstanding analysis of a very difficult topic. I'm sure America is a better place tonight because of the hard truth you've thrust upon us.
In Jameson Veritas
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
Deep down I think we're all a little against Soft Cell.
...I don't think I understood the question.
3 - Clavos
10% of those polled answered:
"Cell?... Cell?
Waitaminnit, I want my lawyer!!
4 - Jared Wright
Fantastic, Diana. Great way to start the day.
5 - diana hartman
thanks yous guys :)
6 - Al Barger
Someone may wish to get Miss Diana some oxygen before she chokes to death on her exquisitely smelly smug farts.
Still, surely all intelligent folks will readily concede that only a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal would have any reservations whatsoever about chopping up little humans for medical research. I'm told they also make great cocktail weanies.
Meanwhile, Pre-Born might have a few words to say in response.
7 - Robin
LOVE this! Especially the last part.
Somebody should tell Bush that "Stem Cell" research has nothing to do with his champaigne flute...
8 - V. Smith
Al, when did anyone ever suggest cutting up humans for research? Embryo does not = human being. Maybe you think so, but you probably believe that masturbation is killing millions of children.
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
No, it kills millions of kittens.
10 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
An embryo is technically anything larger than one cell big, so once a fertilized egg (visible only with a strong microscope) divides, it is an embryo. It does not look like a human, act like a human, have ANY nerves whatsoever, have ANY awareness of its surroundings or even of its own existence, and is largely no different than the specks of skin cells that fall off your arms every day, except perhaps that those skins cells are far older and wiser and much more nutritious. Salty :)
11 - Clavos
except perhaps that those skins cells are far older and wiser and much more nutritious. Salty
Well mine are certainly far older, but according to my wife, not wiser.
12 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Your notion of chopping little humans is absolutely absurd Barger. The cells harvested are from the blastocyst stage of embryo development and have NO consciousness whatsoever as I clearly explained in my last post. The blastocyst is round and has no human appearance, unless of course your mother is round. In which case, I sincerely hope she doesnt need a new liver any time soon.
13 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Your notion of chopping little humans is absolutely absurd"
When isn't it absurd?
14 - Al Barger
Setting aside momentarily the pure sarcasm naturally inspired by this asinine post, you don't get to claim scientific and moral territory by mere baseless derision.
V Smith, for example, wishes simply to assert as fact that human stem cells are not human. There's certainly some major room for debate on such things- but you have to earn it, and it's certainly not cut and dried. As Suss makes the point, what are they cutting up, kittens?
Some right-wingers will not listen to any reason that doesn't make it past their religious blinders- granted. But that certainly applies both ways. I don't know how much unique good specifically stem cell research does- not much that I can see after some years.
But then that's largely beside the point for many of it's most fervent pro-abortion supporters, who are anxious to calm their consciences and show that abortion is GOOD. To many of them, an eight month child in utero with hands and feet and brain waves and a beating heart isn't really a human.
Obviously that's just dishonest at some point. A stem cell has a full set of human genes, all they ever are going to have. The blueprint is laid, and the building has begun- but there's minimal to it physically yet.
You might make a reasonable argument that it's not quite a real baby yet- but it's going to take a lot more than this utterly unearned nonsense presumption of moral and intellectual superiority to prove it.
15 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
My information on the harvesting of cells from blastocysts is not my claim to intellectual territory. It is the Campbell Biology textbook's. Campbell is by the way perhaps the most respected general Biology textbook in the field. In fact, taking stem cells from anything BUT a blastocyst is utterly pointless. Once the cells have begun differentiating into basic different kinds of cells, they are completely useless and are no longer stem cells. That's pretty much basic biology for you. If you're going to dispute it, you're going to need some material evidence that scientists harvest embryonic stem cells from anything but a blastocyst. So again I repeat until any sort of contrary evidence is offered, stem cells come from clusters of cells that
1. Do not look or act like a human.
2. Do not have nerve cells.
3. DO NOT Have any awareness of there surroundings or even of their own existence.
4. Are in a round bundle known as a blastocyst.
5. Are NOT any different than a clump of cells that have fallen off your arm, except your arm cells have specialized to act as arm cells.
Get rid of the chopping up fetus attitude real quick or offer up some evidence to the contrary.
16 - Mayank Austen Soofi
It was so funny!
17 - Al Barger
Pleasexcuse- Again, more mere belligerance - this time coupled with some half-assed appeal to authority. Why, I've got a textbook that says stem cells aren't anything like people!
The real "argument" there seems to be simply that they don't look identifiably like people yet.
You might make an argument for that position, but that's what you'd have to do. "Lose that attitude" is not a convincing argument in the absence of other considerations.
At some point, a lot of this stem cell argument is more philosophical than specifically medical. When does life begin? At what point should it enjoy how much legal protection as a person?
And how far does this go? Would it be cool and groovy and scientifically and morally unquestionable to chop up month old fetuses for parts, if we find that useful and convenient at some point? Why not?
But then of course, those are the kinds of questions only asked by Neanderthals who need to lose the 'tude.
18 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
No one is chopping up a fetus for stem cells. There are no embryonic stem cells in a fetus. That's why it's called a fetus. Not an embryo.
Yes certainly you can make the argument that a blastocyst is a human life worthy of as much protection as you or I. That's a perfectly viable argument that I have a lot of respect for.
But if you want to make that argument, you have to have the facts. And the fact is the embryos (not fetus) that embryonic stem cells come from do have any of the qualities I listed in post #15. Any science text book in the country will tell you that. The most important quality I listed was not that it doesnt look like a human, as you say. You should also notice that the blastocysts stem cells are harvested from have no nerve cells. They cannot feel pain, and they do not have a consciousness. You can debate that if you want, but your going to need some science to back you up, not personal theorizing. All im saying is you need to get rid of the notion that scientists chop up fetuses. It's just not true and has no use to stem cell research.
But again, feel free to argue that the blastocyst is a human life already, the building block for a baby, worthy of as much protection as you or I.
19 - Dave Nalle
Are 'polled citizens' something like 'polled herefords'?
Dave
20 - Matthew T. Sussman
"No one is chopping up a fetus for stem cells."
Speak for yourself.
21 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Would it be cool and groovy and scientifically and morally unquestionable to chop up month old fetuses for parts, if we find that useful and convenient at some point?
First of all, there is no such thing as a month old fetus. The embryo does not form a fetus until it is 2 months old.
But for the sake of the argument lets just pretend you said 2 month old fetus. And the answer to your question would be ABSOLUTELY NO. There are few scientists in the world that are sick enough to kill a 2 mo old fetus to scavenge for parts. That's not the question here at all, and it has nothing to do with stem cell research. Again, there are no embryonic stem cells in a 2 mo old fetus. The only reason you might even consider killing a fetus is for young organs, or to put it on display. Not for its stem cells.
I think my argument is that it is ok to use stem cells from an embryo ONLY BEFORE it developes nerve cells. Once it has nerve cells (1-2mo), and an awareness of itself and its surroundings, then it is MURDER.
22 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Sussman, did you hear nothing I said? THERE ARE NO STEM CELLS IN A FETUS. Hence, "no one is chopping up a fetus for stem cells." Maybe they chopped it up for some other reason, but there is no good reason for chopping up a fetus. If you know of anyone in specific, please let me know.
23 - Matthew T. Sussman
"THERE ARE NO STEM CELLS IN A FETUS."
Maybe not in the ones you've chopped up.
24 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
wth sussman? I havent chopped up any fetuses. What I know is that a fetus is defined by the fact that its cells have differentiated and are no longer embryonic stem cells. If there were embryonic stem cells, it would not be a fetus. Did you miss 6th grade biology or something?
25 - Peter J
Some people just can't pull that stick out of their ass and smile.
It is satire, and pretty well done, Diana!
Lighten up, loosen up your wrist and go flush a coupla thousand presidents down the toilet
(where they belong)