posted on August 31, 2001 12:52:41 PM new
I don't believe that moral concerns motivated the Bush decision to restrict stem cell research but rather a concern about votes. That's what really motivated that decision and that is immoral!
Just consider the number of people who could have benefited from this research. They will die before we are out of the dark ages of the Bush frontier.
posted on August 31, 2001 01:13:34 PM new"Driven by ignorance, conservative thinking and fear of the unknown, our political leaders have undertaken to make laws that suppress this type of research," Clark wrote."
I think that this is untrue in the sense that these are the only people with the only reasons to prevent outright wholesale stem cell research. There are many other reasons having nothing to do with religion or conservatism.
Of monumental importance to me, as I've stated on here previously, is that there are not enough laws and regulations to protect us from a future that would be hellish to anybody but the greedy who would profit from it. I am referring to cloning and clones, as the medical use of stem cells is setting the precedence for how we'll treat human beings being grown for replacement parts. Don't laugh! It's closer than you think!
The problem is that one can make the argument that although these stem cells initially had the potential to become a human being, the medical benefits outweigh the sacrifice. And if we endorse this attitude and legal concept, then we are preparing the way for more horrific science than you thought possible.
Think about it. If a small cluster of stem cells is not "alive" or a human being, then neither will the corporately-owned human husks being cloned in the future for replacement parts. Can you imagine being alive then, when people are grown to order and exist, not live, immersed in a pool of liquid, never truly alive and functioning because that part of their brain was killed after conception? Can you imagine the horror of killing just that part of a human being so that it could not be legally called "alive" so that it can exist for replacement parts? And just because the genetic material classifies it as a "clone" makes it all OK?
Look - I want those new skin cells to replace the burnt ones; I want those brain cells to replace those destroyed by Parkinson's; I want those nerve cells that will enable a paraplegic to walk again. I do. But before we walk down this road to medical salvation, we had better create a whole new body of law that will exist to regulate and control the science and the ethics of future medical breakthroughs.
posted on August 31, 2001 02:58:24 PM new
There won't be less stem cell research, it will just be done in Italy, the UK, or somewhere else.
We have already had researchers leave the US to do the stem cell research elsewhere because of Bush's stupidity.
If it is done somewhere else, the US will have absolutely no control over what happens, nor will our Universities have patents on any of the discoveries.
20 years from now, instead of going to Cleveland OH, of NY for treatment, you'll be forced to go to another country, if you can afford it.
I think the drug companies may be more behind this policy than any conservative block.
posted on August 31, 2001 08:20:11 PM new
There are companies already in the business of helping people through the quagmire of the copyright procedure needed to protect their rights to themselves.
