The War Over Fetal Rights

MSNBC.COM ^ | 6/1/03 | Debra Rosenberg

[GirlyGirl2003]

The War Over Fetal Rights By Debra Rosenberg, Newsweek It was nearly Valentine's Day, 1992, when Tracy Marciniak's estranged husband, Glenndale Black, showed up at her Wisconsin apartment. A 28-year-old mother of two, Marciniak was expecting another baby in just five days. But the night was hardly romantic. Within hours, the two argued and Black punched her in the stomach. "IT FELT LIKE IT had gone all the way through me," says Marciniak, now 39. The baby, whom she'd already named Zachariah, had seemed fine on a prenatal visit just the day before, she says. But when she arrived at the hospital that night, doctors couldn't find his heartbeat. Marciniak pulled through, but the baby did not. Because Zachariah was not considered a "born person," prosecutors could not charge Black with homicide. They attempted to try him under an old state law banning illegal abortion, but Black's lawyer argued that the baby would have been stillborn anyway. In the end, a jury convicted Black of reckless injury and sentenced him to 12 years in prison. Though Marciniak has long supported abortion rights, she became furious when she discovered that the law didn't protect her unborn son--and that women's groups wouldn't back her quest for a state law punishing his killer. Now she is allied with the National Right to Life, appearing in an ad for the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act. "There were two victims," Marciniak says. "He got away with murder." See the rest of the article here: Click

[MHGinTN]

What most scientists mean by the word "cloning" is the isolation of a single gene from an organism with its subsequent insertion into a piece of carrier DNA for use in research. Cloning as such has been going on since the 1970s, and is a common technique. That other kind of cloning, although newsworthy, is done very rarely in real life. NIce try, not honest since you have assumed that which you wish to obfuscate, that the salient 'cloning' is conceiving new ORGANISMS rather than sub-units of organs. The 'other kind of cloning' is what is now endangering our society because it is designed for cannibalizing embryonic (or older, as in early fetal) life conceived through somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The term 'research cloning', as used by the Advanced Cell Technologies people refers directly to somatic cell nuclear transfer into an enucleated human ovum, cloning, conceiving via nuclear transfer (taking the nuclear material--the DNA directives-- from a live donor cell and injecting that DNA into a human ovum which has had the nuclear material removed). This is distinctly not like PCR (which is what you described). While most of the people working in 'cloning' are technicians doing what you describe, the dangers ahead are associated to human reproductive cloning that some scientists are trying to re-name as research cloning simply because they have a different goal with the newly conceived embryos they create, and it doesn't involve being allowed to live until 40weeks from conception and birth, hence they name their cloning as therapeutic/research cloning thought he truth is it starts with reproductive cloning but kills the conceived individual before a birth date.

[cgk]

Apologies for any duplicate pings. Hoping everyone sees this... the tide continues to turn.

Click on the link provided for the article (long, but a good read), and scroll down for this poll, with current stats:

What legal rights should fetuses have?

• The same rights accorded children and adults (66%)

• The same rights, but only after they are viable outside the womb (19%)

• None until they're born (14%)

[cherry_bomb88]

Bump for later reading!!! Thanks, cgk

(((((((((((((((ping))))))))))))))))

[Coleus]

Thanks, I voted last night..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[DLfromthedesert]

Thanks for the alert. Science has come a long way since 1973.

[Scothia]

The Coenraadses believe that the only hope for their daughter and for the estimated 15,000 children like her is embryonic stem-cell research, which requires destroying human embryos. "My conscience tells me that for me personally having an abortion would not be the right thing to do. That same conscience tells me that stem-cell research is needed," says Monica, who now helps run the Rett Syndrome Research Foundation from her dining room.

Here are the people who can't have it both ways! "I wouldn't consider aborting my child, but I want yours dead so mine will maybe be healthy."

Congratulations, Coenraadses. You've just made the leap upstairs and joined hypocrites everywhere in the chorus of their hit song "I'm Personally Against Abortion, BUT..."

[Scothia]

The Coenraadses, quoted as supporting stem cell research on living human embryos resulting in the death of those human beings, say that having a daughter born with Rett's Syndrome is what changed their minds.

I have worked with a Rett's Syndrome patient. Susie couldn't talk, but she could certainly communicate. Her sweetness literally lit up the room, any room she was in. Yes, we had to care for her. But doing so was pure joy, because Susie was pure love.

I believe God gives us angels unawares in our midst, such as Susie, to measure the kind of people we are and to teach us compassion. Since our culture seems bent on destroying them before they ever have breath, I guess we can see how we measure up.

[MHGinTN]

I have yet to find the poll of which you speak. Any suggestions as to how to identify it on the MS NBC page?

[MHGinTN]

Don't be too harsh on the Coenraadses. They have likely bought into the lie that a human embryo is not a human organism, and by default therefore not a human being at the age of embryo. This attitude is so pervasive in America that to correct the lie is near impossible now ... and some intelligence had it planned that way, IMHO. We have a poster named exDemMom who is claiming to be a researcher in cell science and she is claiming that there is NO point at which one can say an individual life has begun. And she knows that's a lie but continues to assert it. Clearly, such people have an agenda to serve and their service to that untruth leads people like the Coenraadses astray.

[Scothia]

They have likely bought into the lie that a human embryo is not a human organism, and by default therefore not a human being at the age of embryo.

And yet they said they opposed abortion? Nah, I stand by what I said before: anyone who says "I am personally against abortion, BUT..." has already given their conscience away for personal expediency.

Of course it is heartbreaking to have a child with a birth defect. But what would these people have said if their little girl, instead of developing Retts at age 2, had fallen down some stairs and had resultant serious brain damage? Would they then have proposed that those first two years were of no value or consequence, because she was no longer perfect, and neither would, ostensibly, be the rest of her life? And that killing other children for the possibility of regaining their own child's perfection was moral and right?

As far as I'm concerned, stem cell research on living embryos is ghoulish and evil, and stealing those cells and using them is nothing short of cannibalism. So, call me harsh. But letting this situation get to the freakish, Frankensteinish point it already has, has devalued us all as human beings. It will only get far worse from here.

[No Dems 2004]

America needs to continue to create the culture of life that President Bush is working on. Ultimately, we must overturn Roe vs. Wade and offer full protection for ALL of our citizens, whether born or unborn.

[cgk]

It's only showing results for me now...but if you click Here and scroll down right past the photo of the woman on the bed and right past the "Live Talk" feedback form, it's on the left margin towards the bottom of the page. And the percentage is dropping sadly... 65% now from 66%.

[Saundra Duffy]

I can hardly stand it! After all these years of fighting against abortion, so many people still just don't get it. It's a life - a real life.

[sultan88]

"You can judge a society by the way it treats it's most helpless."

Excellent! And our society needs some help right now.

[cpforlife.org]

Fetal Fotos, the Nationwide Leader in Prenatal Imaging

Imagine the bonding that occurs when you first see your unborn child. At Fetal Fotos, our exclusive imaging techniques and state-of-the-art ultrasound technology come together in a warm, inviting environment to create an experience to treasure for a lifetime.

Enjoy our private, relaxed and fun atmosphere with family and friends at any of our convenient locations nationwide with new, extended hours. Our welcoming, informative staff and comfortable viewing room create an experience centered on you and your family.

[GirlyGirl2003]

I agree. We must overturn Roe v. Wade, but first, we must overturn some hard hearts in our land. How can a person harm an infant animal is beyond me, but certainly a human life is more valuable though I think my pets are probably more valuable than many of the liars in politics. I couldn't harm a baby animal, or an innocent baby human. How can people make a living killing children every single day in their clinic? I must be from a different planet because I don't understand the hard hearts of some people.

[exDemMom]

NIce try, not honest since you have assumed that which you wish to obfuscate, that the salient 'cloning' is conceiving new ORGANISMS rather than sub-units of organs. The 'other kind of cloning' is what is now endangering our society because it is designed for cannibalizing embryonic (or older, as in early fetal) life conceived through somatic cell nuclear transfer.

I am trying to clarify, not obfuscate. When scientists talk among themselves of cloning, they are speaking of one thing, the removal of a piece of DNA from its native context and inserting it into a specialized piece of carrier DNA for further experimentation. This is very common.

The other kind of "cloning" is reported a lot in the news, but in real life, it rarely happens. As far as I can tell, those hyping it are looking for publicity, not promoting valid science.

The term 'research cloning', as used by the Advanced Cell Technologies people refers directly to somatic cell nuclear transfer into an enucleated human ovum...

See above. Publicity seekers. They want investors, particularly of a certain political leaning. As I have said in previous posts, there is no scientific reason to think that such research will actually lead anywhere.

This is distinctly not like PCR (which is what you described).

No, I didn't describe PCR. Some cloning requires PCR, some doesn't. PCR has several uses, and there are different kinds of PCR.

While most of the people working in 'cloning' are technicians doing what you describe

I'm not a technician, I'm a post-doc

the dangers ahead are associated to human reproductive cloning

I really wish there were another word for that, since that process, technically speaking, is not cloning.

that some scientists are trying to re-name as research cloning simply because they have a different goal with the newly conceived embryos they create...

As I said before, this kind of "cloning" is very rare, and an objective, scientific consideration of the subject doesn't lead to the inevitable conclusion that any miracle cures will come of it. (I see a high risk of cancers developing; hardly what I'd call miracles.) "Reproductive cloning" has its own host of problems.

You seem to be rather adversarial. I try to impart knowledge because I've spent years stuffing it into my head and I am a natural born teacher, frustrated by the fact that I do not actually teach for a living. Is there something about the way I present myself that you interpret as argumentative, so you respond in kind? If I come across that way, I am truly sorry, because that is not my intent. I intend only to engage in intellectual discussion. I purposely leave out a moral component to my discussion since I firmly believe that research into "therapeutic" or "reproductive cloning" will not be stopped by people insisting that it is wrong, but by people pointing out valid scientific reasons to stop it. My purpose in trying to explain what real cloning is versus the highly hyped "therapeutic/reproductive cloning" is because the more people who know the facts, the less likely it is that I will go to work one day and find out some idiot Congressmen who didn't know the difference passed a bill making my work illegal.

[MHGinTN]

As I said before, this kind of "cloning" is very rare [Historically, it is rare compared to the DNA splicing you refer to. But the growing current and future effort is to do SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) and conceive living human embryonic individual organisms from which to derive stem cells (body parts) as a means to treat the infirmities of others. If you are not aware of this 'trend', I can cut you some slack, but since you claim to be in this area of research, I question your obfuscation via misdirection.], and an objective, scientific consideration of the subject doesn't lead to the inevitable conclusion that any miracle cures will come of it. [And that uncertainty is precisely the argument these scientists use to justify doing the 'research cloning', to find out if anything can actually be derived from such a cannibalistic effort! ... But I think you know that already.] (I see a high risk of cancers developing; hardly what I'd call miracles.) "Reproductive cloning" has its own host of problems. [I can perceive that if you don't consider an embryo as the earliest age of an individual human lifetime, you would ignore any moral basis for contemplating cloning as a 'bad thing'. And as you know, all somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning is reproductive, for it conceives an embryo genetic near duplicate of the somatic cell donor; Dolly the sheep is a higher mammal example of this successful cloning; research cloning will conceive embryos but not let them have life support to a birth age, but they will still reproduce the somatic cell donor, else the 'protein signature' would be not much better than organ donation from other individuals. ... But you knew that, also.]

You seem to be rather adversarial. [In opposing the cannibalistic exploitation of individual human lives, yes, I'm quite adversarial. I refuse to 'agree to disagree' when such a stalemate is designed to allow the wrong to continue, unopposed.] I try to impart knowledge because I've spent years stuffing it into my head and I am a natural born teacher, frustrated by the fact that I do not actually teach for a living. Is there something about the way I present myself that you interpret as argumentative, so you respond in kind? [Since you are so knowledgable, yet you diminish (and at points try to deride) the looming cloning trend, I'd say there is quite some effort by you to mischaracterize the actual current situation, re cloning. You continue to refer to the past use of cloning at the DNA splicing level, as if the current efforts to do somatic cell nuclear transfer into an enucleated human ovum is a passing phase. The situation is far more serious than you would lead a reader to believe with your misdirection and mischaracterizations.] ... I intend only to engage in intellectual discussion. I purposely leave out a moral component to my discussion since I firmly believe that research into "therapeutic" or "reproductive cloning" will not be stopped by people insisting that it is wrong [You want an amoral environment in which to continue pressing the exploitation of individual human life.], but by people pointing out valid scientific reasons to stop it. [The cannibalizing of individual human embryos, whether conceived via cloning or IVF is a morally reprehensible practice. If you wish to 'leave out a moral component', you are seeking to do precisely what I address in the Thread titled 'The Amorality Of Science Has Won' to be found on the righthand margin under the FreeRepublic section ... and I believe even you have posted at least one response on that thread.] My purpose in trying to explain what real cloning is versus the highly hyped "therapeutic/reproductive cloning" [So called research cloning IS what real cloning is all about right now. Have you not seen that Congressional debate over SCNT cloning is about to heat up? Are you unaware that the U.S. Senate is about to debate whether to ban this cannibalistic practice?] is because the more people who know the facts, the less likely it is that I will go to work one day and find out some idiot Congressmen who didn't know the difference passed a bill making my work illegal. [At last I think we're getting to the reason for your obfuscatory approach, in trying to midirect this discussion, to imply that somatic cell nuclear transfer is a passing flash unworthy of public consideration or opposition. And yes, the more people know the facts, re taking the nuclear material from a donor cell and injecting it into the enucleated ovum to conceive a duplicate alive individual human organism from which to cannibalize body parts (stem cells), the more likely people are to oppose such a brave new amoral world. You got my particular attention when you chided me that you were considering IVF. Since you don't consider the embryos the technicians will conceive from your ova in a dish to be individual human lives in need of life support, upon what do you think rests the objections I have raised? You have dehumanized the embryo to suit your chosen objectives. I asked that you reconsider the truth of the life you intend to manipulate.

[MHGinTN]

As I said before, this kind of "cloning" is very rare [Historically, it is rare compared to the DNA splicing you refer to. But the growing current and future effort is to do SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) and conceive living human embryonic individual organisms from which to derive stem cells (body parts) as a means to treat the infirmities of others. If you are not aware of this 'trend', I can cut you some slack, but since you claim to be in this area of research, I question your obfuscation via misdirection.], and an objective, scientific consideration of the subject doesn't lead to the inevitable conclusion that any miracle cures will come of it. [And that uncertainty is precisely the argument these scientists use to justify doing the 'research cloning', to find out if anything can actually be derived from such a cannibalistic effort! ... But I think you know that already.] (I see a high risk of cancers developing; hardly what I'd call miracles.) "Reproductive cloning" has its own host of problems. [I can perceive that if you don't consider an embryo as the earliest age of an individual human lifetime, you would ignore any moral basis for contemplating cloning as a 'bad thing'. And as you know, all somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning is reproductive, for it conceives an embryo genetic near duplicate of the somatic cell donor; Dolly the sheep is a higher mammal example of this successful cloning; research cloning will conceive embryos but not let them have life support to a birth age, but they will still reproduce the somatic cell donor, else the 'protein signature' would be not much better than organ donation from other individuals. ... But you knew that, also.]

You seem to be rather adversarial. [In opposing the cannibalistic exploitation of individual human lives, yes, I'm quite adversarial. I refuse to 'agree to disagree' when such a stalemate is designed to allow the wrong to continue, unopposed.] I try to impart knowledge because I've spent years stuffing it into my head and I am a natural born teacher, frustrated by the fact that I do not actually teach for a living. Is there something about the way I present myself that you interpret as argumentative, so you respond in kind? [Since you are so knowledgable, yet you diminish (and at points try to deride) the looming cloning trend, I'd say there is quite some effort by you to mischaracterize the actual current situation, re cloning. You continue to refer to the past use of cloning at the DNA splicing level, as if the current efforts to do somatic cell nuclear transfer into an enucleated human ovum is a passing phase. The situation is far more serious than you would lead a reader to believe with your misdirection and mischaracterizations.] ... I intend only to engage in intellectual discussion. I purposely leave out a moral component to my discussion since I firmly believe that research into "therapeutic" or "reproductive cloning" will not be stopped by people insisting that it is wrong [You want an amoral environment in which to continue pressing the exploitation of individual human life.], but by people pointing out valid scientific reasons to stop it. [The cannibalizing of individual human embryos, whether conceived via cloning or IVF is a morally reprehensible practice. If you wish to 'leave out a moral component', you are seeking to do precisely what I address in the Thread titled 'The Amorality Of Science Has Won' to be found on the righthand margin under the FreeRepublic section ... and I believe even you have posted at least one response on that thread.] My purpose in trying to explain what real cloning is versus the highly hyped "therapeutic/reproductive cloning" [So called research cloning IS what real cloning is all about right now. Have you not seen that Congressional debate over SCNT cloning is about to heat up? Are you unaware that the U.S. Senate is about to debate whether to ban this cannibalistic practice?] is because the more people who know the facts, the less likely it is that I will go to work one day and find out some idiot Congressmen who didn't know the difference passed a bill making my work illegal. [At last I think we're getting to the reason for your obfuscatory approach, in trying to midirect this discussion, to imply that somatic cell nuclear transfer is a passing flash unworthy of public consideration or opposition. And yes, the more people know the facts, re taking the nuclear material from a donor cell and injecting it into the enucleated ovum to conceive a duplicate alive individual human organism from which to cannibalize body parts (stem cells), the more likely people are to oppose such a brave new amoral world. You got my particular attention when you chided me that you were considering IVF. Since you don't consider the embryos the technicians will conceive from your ova in a dish to be individual human lives in need of life support, upon what do you think rests the objections I have raised? You have dehumanized the embryo to suit your chosen objectives. I asked that you reconsider the truth of the life you intend to manipulate.