Posted on 07/20/2006 6:57:09 PM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza
At a very young age, I was diagnosed with a congenital eye disease. I was suffering from something called retinoschisis and in the late 1950's surgeons did all they could to provide me with limited vision in one eye. I was technically considered legally blind, but I did have quality of life. Running and jumping, playing baseball and riding a bike are all activities enjoyed by children. Fortunately, with the breakthrough surgeries that were performed on my eye in the late 1950's, I also was able to enjoy these pleasant activities of youth.
This is not to say life was easy. I needed special equipment to read a book and I was limited in other things I could do. However, one of the hardest aspects of my condition involved the need to simply fit in. Children can be cruel. For that matter, so can adults, but those who are physically challenged can use such negative experiences to gain personal strength of character.
In early 2005, I noticed my eyesight was beginning to get worse. It was barely perceivable, yet it was obvious something was happening. After many surgeries, I ultimately lost all my vision. It is not important to go into the details of what led to my blindness, but I would like to think it has made me a stronger person.
I relate this story now because today the President is expected to veto a bill that would expand research into the use of embryonic stem cells. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation and I believe he should.
I say this even though some have told me embryonic stem cell research could one day restore my eyesight. I reject this idea for a number of reasons. However, perhaps the most important rationale for my disapproval of such research stems from my respect for human life. I will not sacrifice or have someone else sacrifice another human life for my benefit. I believe no one has the right to give moral sanction to such research either.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research frequently focus on individuals who would benefit from the results of these studies or have family members who might benefit from the research, some with spinal cord injuries, others with Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's. I believe there are alternatives to the use of embryonic stem cells in research that have not yet been fully explored or utilized.
"Both adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells have demonstrated promising research results," said William Beckman, Executive Director, Illinois Right to Life Committee. "These lab results have led to experimental treatments on human patients for over 70 human ailments. Many of these experimental treatments have provided amazing results for the patients who received these treatments. For example, successes have been achieved in treating a wide variety of heart conditions, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, incontinence, lupus, liver damage and many more human ailments. Most recently, in early July 2006, Colin McGuckin, professor of regenerative medicine at the University of Newcastle in Ireland, reported a major breakthrough by producing insulin needed for diabetic patients from stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood."
Beyond such alternatives to embryonic stem cell research addressed by Beckman, there is obviously a political agenda at work here. Legislators who have, in the past, voted to defend the sanctity of life have suddenly switched rails and decided to venture down a dark and dangerous path. Because of their political decision concerning this matter, the vision of Frankenstein-like experimentation in the future may soon become a reality, if not for the promise of President Bush's veto. But the politics of this issue are indeed interesting.
"The U.S. Senate debated, voted and passed three bills on July 18, 2006," continued Beckman. "H.R. 810 would allow federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research that involves killing 'excess' embryos donated by in vitro fertilization clinics. S. 3504 would ban fetus farming, and S. 2754 would fund research to find ethical sources for obtaining stem cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells without the need to kill embryos." Beckman concluded, "Curiously, under the agreement that Senators adopted to bring up these bills for a debate and vote, the three proposals each needed 60 votes to pass. This rule is highly unusual. It effectively establishes the 60 vote margin normally needed to end debate as the margin to pass these bills. Why was the standard majority of 51 votes not used for passage of these bills? Certainly, some behind the scene political considerations forced the use of this unprecedented special requirement."
Perhaps the saddest aspect regarding the debate over the use of embryonic stem cells concerns those who believe there is a magic cure for the diseases they suffer. A leading surgeon and researcher told me the use of stem cell therapy is at least ten years down the road. I feel, for political and economic reasons, many have been deceived into believing science is far ahead of where it is today regarding stem cell research. However, that really isn't the point. Embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong.
In writing this column, I am not looking for sympathy concerning the affliction that has visited me. I simply think there are moral imperatives that being overlooked regarding the issue. My heart goes out to those who are currently inflicted by diseases that will ultimately lead to their deaths. However, the killing of life should never be justified by the needs of another and President Bush's veto of embryonic stem cell legislation is not only justified, it represents a moral boundary which cannot be crossed.
It offers a valuable perspective on the issue. On this issue--like so many others--the Party of Death has managed to paint itself as the defender of the weak and vulnerable, and a great many so-called conservatives have bought right into it.
"In writing this column, I am not looking for sympathy concerning the affliction that has visited me. I simply think there are moral imperatives that being overlooked regarding the issue. My heart goes out to those who are currently inflicted by diseases that will ultimately lead to their deaths. However, the killing of life should never be justified by the needs of another and President Bush's veto of embryonic stem cell legislation is not only justified, it represents a moral boundary which cannot be crossed."
I admire you for reinforcing what is right despite your affliction.
Go back and re-read my column because what you wrote is the exact OPPOSITE of what I wrote and what I meant. You do yourself and others a disservice by not carefully reading what people, like myself, take time and effort to write. Did you only read the title and ASSUME I was for this legislation? You just didn't read it and that's sad. So, let me repeat it for you. The column clearly states: I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. PERIOD. Do you understand now? Does this help you in any way? At least the others who posted replies read my column and, if they disagreed, I have more respect for them because they made the effort to read what I said. Very sad.
Thank you for your column. It means a lot.
Could you READ reply #4?
"I admire you for reinforcing what is right despite your affliction."
Perhaps you should take your own advice - read ALL your replies. Admittedly, I made a mistake as a scanned your post. FOr whatever reason, I read it more closely and posted #4.
My mom is going blind. She agrees with you. I have health problems and I still stand FIRM on NO embryonic stem cells for ANY reason. I have a higher Authority to answer to.
To begin, I think we are on the same side concerning the stem cell issue and our "house" should not be divided. The reason why I did not see your second response, strangely enough, is twofold. The first is I am blind and therefore when my wife reads responses to the columns (that we post or someone else posts on FR) I have her read them to me in sequence. I don't normally answer replies on blogs. I guess, in a technical way, I do not participate in blogs in the way they are designed to be used, if there is indeed a design. When someone posted one of my columns in the past, some of the responses were mean-spirited and hurtful. I do not waste my time on those type of things. But when my wife saw that someone didn't read my column or misunderstood my point, as a professional writer, I was concerned. If I'm not getting my point across, I am failing in my profession. So I hope you will understand how I felt when my wife read your response to my piece on embryonic stem cell research and legislation. Therefore, can we start over? I'm glad you agreed with my column. We need to inform as many people as we can regarding the misinformation being spread on the subject.
God bless,
Daniel T. Zanoza
You bet!
We ARE on the same side.
I keep a close watch on ADULT stem research as I have M.S. and some other problems. I've made enough mistakes in my life ... I don't want anything to do with EMBRYONIC stem cells ... I have a Higher Authority to answer to and I'd like to have fewer disappointments in me.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
Embryonic stem cell research from a blind man's perspective
This is a wonderful commentary on stem cells by fellow FReeper Daniel T. Zanoza.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
**************
Amen. I can only guess at what President Bush was thinking when he vetoed that legislation. However, I believe it is likely that he was thinking both of the embryos and of all those who are ill. He's a good and brave man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.