Yes, you read that right- I support stem cell research. And no, I am not going to change my mind on this one.
~~Added~~ The following IS NOT MY WORDS
This is one of the reasons why I am so for this kind of research.
Quantization 9 hours ago
I have a spinal cord injury that could be healed with stem cell treatments. I've had a painful surgery that left me crippled. With physical therapy and almost two years of trying, I regained the ability to walk. I will not have the ability to walk for very long. It is estimated that I will have to return to a wheelchair in my early thirties, or perhaps earlier than that. This means I have less than ten years before I can walk, and if I so much as step incorrectly I am bedridden for days.
I'm denied the only treatment that would work because of Christianity and "Life Starts At Conception" propaganda. If I could stand long enough to bomb a church, I certainly would.
~~end add~~the above WAS NOT MY WORDS!!
RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BASH IT DAMMIT!!www.iamprostemcell.org/blastoc…
Interestingly enough, that image is hosted on a religious site, but there are some interesting, and well stated, facts about stem cells on this site:
What is the link between stem cell research and abortion?
There is no link. Stem cell research does NOT involve termination of a pregnancy. The embryos used in stem cell research have never been implanted in a woman. As a sole entity, without being implanted in a woman, an embryo has the same chance a toothpick has of developing into a baby.
What is the link between stem cell research and human cloning?
People often fail to realize there is a difference between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Stem cell research involves therapeutic cloning, called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), where the blastocyst is not transferred into a woman’s womb. This isn’t the same as reproductive cloning (like Dolly the sheep). Additionally, some careful rules and regulations are already in place to guide scientific progress, and of course, careful legislation will need to be implemented as science advances. “Cloning” in various capacities, is already used in some medical treatments.
What if women in poor socioeconomic situations sell their eggs for money?
They can’t. Under current legislation the only embryos used for stem cell research are from leftover and unwanted eggs from in vitro fertilization. Eggs are donated with informed consent.
Why is there so much controversy surrounding this if it is so simple?
Opposition to stem cell research is quick to fuel the debate with misinformation and scare tactics. Additionally, stem cell research raises some ambiguities where elements of the debate must rest on opinions, not facts. Some people are of the opinion that it is more morally correct to throw a frozen embryo away than to conduct research on it. Not all minds are open to education, not all hearts are open to individual interpretation.
Are you pro stem cell research as well? Wear the wrist band! www.pro-curewristband.com/
An alternate phrase heard by anti-choicers is: "It's a life"—another ambiguous and vague term. A fetus is certainly alive, and it might fairly be argued that a fetus is a distinct living entity (a debatable point though, because of fetal dependence on a woman's body), but this reasoning can apply to any living thing, including worms and germs. Simply calling a fetus "a life" says nothing, unless the term is meant as another way of saying "a human being," which means anti-choicers are just begging the question again.
The same problem afflicts the anti-choice phrase: "Life begins at conception." Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since. A fertilized egg is simply life continuing in a modified form—only one small step removed from the separate sperm and ovum, both alive before joining together, and both representing the unique genetic potential of a human being. In an anti-choice context, the term "Life begins at conception" can only be translated as: "A human being starts at conception." Once again, this is begging the question. Perhaps a potential human being gets its start at conception, but the fact that life is a continuum makes even this equivocal.
Is a Fetus a Human Being?
Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 1869. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up.
Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.
Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.
type %%% in your comment if you read all this.