Thursday, January 14, 2010

Stem Cell Research - Embrionic is murder. Period.

The subject matter changed my life. I was certain I was destined to go to California for acting. Not a doubt lingering. I had my bags ready. Then Arnold S. (I wont even try to spell his last name) allowed Proposition 71 to pass in California and I said to Hell with them. my tax paying dollars will NOT support the murder of children. I spent 3 days crying and praying. Then I turned to talk radio. If I really wanted to make any difference, then I wanted it to be something I believed in.

(PS - Don't miss the next article down, as Prop 71 may now be nixed!!!)

I wrote this back in 2005 when I was an intern for Syndicated News Talker Neal Boortz out of WSB Radio, Cox Radio Inc. Atlanta, Ga.

Aug 2, 2005

Here are some musings from our intern, Heather Jackson. Now ... let's make it clear here, I don't particularly agree with what she's written. The idea that we shouldn't expand stem cell research to using embryonic stem cells because that research hasn't yet produced any results is, to me, just a wee bit absurd. Hey, you have a choice here. Throw those embryos away, or use them for research. To me, the choice is clear. Heather thinks otherwise. So .... Let's set her up on a pedestal here and see what happens! - Neal Boortz

Vein-ly Induced Life

Stem cell research began back in the sixties, since then it has never 'cured' any disease. Canadian scientists Ernest McCullock and James Till, trained in hematology and biophysics, discovered that stem cells help to regenerate damaged tissues and organs. Together they discovered that if they injected mice with bone marrow cells that a nodule that was produced in their spleen came about as a direct reaction to the marrow growing a stem cell, or that which was proportionate to the amount injected. These men moved on to researching cures for cancer specific to leukemia and variations of it. Chemotherapy treatment for cancer will kill off the stem cells needed to help produce the red and white blood cells.

The debate over stem cells is not that the study should stop, but a debate over the sources for the extraction. There are three types of stem cells, but I am choosing to focus on the source of them and how the life is affected by their removal with adult and embryonic stem cells. Adult cells can come from bone marrow, cadavers and umbilical cords. Embryonic stem cells come from fertilized human eggs at a stage where they consist of 50-150 cells. Adult stem cells do not hinder growth if removed, whereas embryonic stem cells will kill the embryo that it is being taken from. Since there is debate over when life actually begins, I am convinced that a seed from a tree is also alive the second it starts to grow within its seed coat.

Cord blood has been extracted since 1988, from umbilical cords. Even though it is from a newborn baby, the cells are matured and called adult stem cells. These are being used in treatment of Gunther's disease, hinter syndrome, Hurler syndrome, acute lymphocytic leukemia and many other problems with children. In 2004, South Korea credited them with helping a woman with a spinal injury to walk again, but I only found a couple one-sided sources to verify this.

These stem cells can be extracted from a living person as well as a dead one. Studies have shown the highest concentration of matured stem cells come from cadavers. Other studies have used stem cells extracted from umbilical cords. Like blood, we each have our own variety; like DNA, common cells between people are rare unless from the same blood line. Therefore the cells from your own umbilical cord are a direct match for your own stem cells. It's too bad that we have not been saving umbilical cord blood for more than 17 years. If you are reading this, we can assume that your parents did not have the option to save yours, however now you can request it be saved for your own children, at a substantial cost.

In 2001, President Bush assigned around 30 million tax payer dollars to embryonic specific stem cell research. Our hard earned money was being used by the government to purchase and dissect fertilized eggs (blastocyst) from fertility clinics that no longer need to store them. Three years later Bush ended the funding when he realized that it wasn't a lack of funding or availability that prevented finding a use for stem cells, rather the fact that they were useless in curing any potentially fatal disease. This did not, nor does it currently, restrict private funding if someone feels the need to donate or contribute to it.

Limits are pushed on issues everyday and eventually things that were taboo will be commonplace. In my own (and vastly supported) ideas, once we allow any type of embryonic stem cell research, they will have to wait for more and more mature embryos. In fact, they will one day be so mature that there will be no denying on any side whether or not it was an aborted fetus. Of course, that is assuming they aren't already being bought for adult stem cell research. Allowing federal funding means that one day we will be paying abortion clinics for the later and later developed fetuses. This will make the abortion taboo less of a reason to avoid it as long as the baby is used for science. It would be a 'gift' of life, rather than an abortion, right? No one should be able shirk responsibility and have the easy out of scientific use. And don't write to me about the people who are victims of rape and incest, they only make up less than 1% of abortions.

Neither side is going to change their stance on abortion. You either feel strongly on one side or the other. Sometimes arguing with someone about the value of life is like "trying to teach a pig to's a waste of your time and it annoys the pig." My biggest problem is those people who support this are trying to make me pay for it. In 1997 Clinton banned cloning in saying that "any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleatered egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term." About eight months after Bush came into office he put a ban on 'future' stem cell research, being stem cell sources that came about after his policy came into effect. Then in 2004, President Bush signed a law into place that prevents tax payer's mandatory support of such studies . But Proposition 71, passed this last November in California, went against the federal law that Bush had signed now stating that California tax payers money would contribute to 3 billion dollars over the next 10 years, not to mention the interest on that which nearly doubles it. Yes, you Californians get to pay for something you may not support while the rest of us don't. Thank a rino.

Stem cell research has recently come back into the spot light since another politician has apparently become a flip-flopper, meet Sen. Bill Frist. Just before the elections he was debating with Sen. John Edwards against Edwards' support of embryonic research claiming false hope. All of the sudden "it isn't just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science."  Make up your mind Senator.   Didn't you learn anything from Kerry's flip flopping loss?

Heather's Movie Review:

I am a self-proclaimed 'movie narcoleptic:' likely to fall asleep during any and all movies. So it was quite a feat that I actually made it to one yesterday, but for matters of relevance, I decided I had to do it. If you are Conservative and want to see a great movie, with time sensitive themes... you'll wonder how on earth this one managed to sneak out of Hollyweird... go see this movie! The Island is about a man who realizes that science and the gift of life from man, is likely not Utopic at all. Finally, a movie that will make you uncomfortable for all the Right reasons.

No comments:

Post a Comment