This page has been formatted for easy printing
www.partialobserver.com

THE BULL AND THE BIZARRE
Crossing the Stem Cell Line
But is it a good line or a bad line to cross?

by Richard 'Mr. Moo' Moore
May 29, 2005

Two bills went through the House of Representatives this week on the issue of stem cell research. One bill received overwhelming support; the other passed but is not veto proof. One of the bills that passed (HR810) would allow the use of human embryonic stem cell research under certain strict conditions. The bill, that had acquired 202 co-sponsors, had three conditions. According to the Congressional web site:
Limits such research to stem cells that meet the following ethical requirements: (1) the stem cells were derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment and were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment; (2) the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and (3) such individuals donate the embryos with written informed consent and receive no financial or other inducements.
Now those of you who read this column on a regular basis know how much I love the rhetoric that is spewed by legislators and groups tending to influence matters. Here was a copy of an email that I received from a right of center group claiming strong religious beliefs.
The snowflake babies (adopted frozen embryos that were implanted in an adoptive mother and carried to term) are procreated during in vitro fertilization for infertile couples. During the procedure "extra" babies are produced and frozen for possible future use after one is chosen for implantation in the mother.
Extra babies? These folks make it sound like the kiddos are lined up in a nursery freezer. It's not a baby! It is a sperm and an egg that could become a child if the circumstances were right including implantation. These frozen fertilized eggs are not produced for possible future use of just anyone, especially a mad scientist. They are to be used by the donors for implantation and the hope of one of the many fertilized eggs will develop into an embryo. Many eggs need to be fertilized in order to provide the best chance for one of the eggs to actually "take".
It is those frozen babies, about 400,000 of them, that social liberals want to tear apart and extract stem cells from to allegedly find cures for diseases. At least that is what they want for now. This is one step toward cloning human beings for the purpose of extracting spare parts and the President understands this completely.
Tearing apart babies? This procedure is not a "partial birth abortion". And it is more than allegedly finding a cure. Oh, yeah. For those parents that would spend upward to $20,000 for a shot at having a child through IVF (in vitro fertilization), I'm sure their first thought is producing spare parts. An IVF clinic is not a NAPA parts store. It is not the desire of most desperate parents to be involved in cloning. They want a baby. As one of those parents-to-be, I know what goes through their mind. My wife and I were there 25 years ago.
The President told the snowflake babies and their parents, "This bill would take us across a critical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake."
"Ongoing destruction of emerging human life"? Mr. President, please! The fertilized egg in its' current state is not emerging anywhere in the freezer.
Later that same day House Democrats with the help of 50 Republicans passed the bill to use tax dollars to experiment on embryos. The President has promised a veto of the bill. There are not sufficient liberal votes in the House to overturn that veto.
Let's blame it on the Democrats! Of course the saintly GOP wouldn't suggest such a barbaric procedure. Wait a minute; wasn't it a Republican that introduced the bill? Must have been another liberal RINO, Republican in Name Only.
 
Actually, I will give the president credit for one thing. He did say that this procedure would be "crossing the line". Yes, it would. It could be the most pro-life thing to emerge in years. After all, being pro-life shouldn't stop at birth. Using these eggs could provide the answers to many diseases that we deal with daily. I would rather have use of these eggs for a positive pro-life cause than to allow the critters to get freezer burn. Personally, I think the legislation voted on and passed is more of a pro-life alternative than anything that is currently being tossed about.
 
Giving credit where credit is due, adult stem cells have been used with some success in this area. We are told the reason to reject embryonic cells is that "no one has any idea what can or cannot be done with embryonic stem cells". After seven years of solid research, scientists do have an idea of what can be done. 
 
The final accusation would be laughable if so many people didn't buy into it:
Bottom line: 238 congressmen including 50 Republicans voted to experiment on and destroy human life as a means of extending the lives of others. This line of logic is a direct offshoot of Roe v. Wade. When the government at the direction of the Supreme Court labeled unborn babies as non-human the gloves came off for eventual Nazi type experiments on human beings. What Nazi scientists only dreamed of doing in the 1930's and 1940's is being done in America today.
Did I miss the Supreme Court ruling that said that the pre-born were non-humans? That is not what Roe v. Wade said. Nazi experimentation had nothing to do with improving quality of life issues for all people. It was all about the government saying do anything you want because we have an unlimited supply of "less than human" subjects.
 
In a perfect world, we wouldn't even know about IVF and would have no need to research stem cells. This is far from a perfect world. For a couple to donate any unused fertilized eggs, with the possibility of finding a cure for destructive diseases sounds like making the best of an unfortunate situation. This is not experimenting with life and destroying babies. This is saving lives and allowing babies to grow up in a world that has been freed of medical issues that can destroy lives and families.


About the Author:
Mr. Moo knows this column will upset many. But he is equally convinced that the logic of some folk is udderly ridiculous.


This article was printed from www.partialobserver.com.
Copyright © 2017 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.