Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stem cells: Give us the cures, spare us the sermon
Newark (red)Star Ledger ^ | 12/22/02 | JOHN MCLAUGHLIN

Posted on 12/23/2002 1:21:54 PM PST by Incorrigible

Stem cells: Give us the cures, spare us the sermon

Sunday, December 22, 2002

[Newark, NJ] -- Paul Byrne has been a political operative in Jersey City for 25 years. He is one of those guys for whom politics is both vocation and avocation. He knows everybody in Democratic politics, and everybody knows him.

Nine years ago, Byrne was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, which has led to a retina condition called macular degeneration. At 57, and despite two operations on both eyes, he has lost 98 percent of his sight. But he keeps up with the news because four or five friends call and read him the newspapers.

Among the stories that came to him this way was a piece about a breakthrough in stem cell research in India that has led to the successful restoration of damaged retinas.

It left him furious. It is a fury directed at President George W. Bush, who is an opponent of embryonic stem cell research because the technique results in the destruction of embryos. Accordingly, Bush has ordered that federal funding be denied for this kind of research. And never mind that the embryos at issue are those left over from in-vitro procedures at pregnancy clinics and would be destroyed in any event.

So, freeze in perpetuity superfluous embryos created in a lab to induce birth, and you are doing the Lord's work. Destroy embryos after their stem cells are extracted in an attempt to cure people suffering from a dozen different diseases, and you are in league with Satan. Insert a recipient's DNA into a stem cell to reduce chances the body will reject it and you are paving the way for human cloning.

Last week the state Senate passed a bill that would make New Jersey the second state in the nation to legalize embryonic stem cell research. (NJ Senate Votes to Harvest Babies for body parts (My Title))  The bill is sponsored by Richard Codey, the Democratic leader in the Senate. It passed in a party-line vote with most Republicans abstaining. It passed over the objections of the Roman Catholic Church and various anti-abortion allies. The Codey legislation may be altered a tad but Gov. James E. McGreevey is a supporter and it is going to become law.

Not surprisingly, Paul Byrne is an enthusiastic supporter of the Codey bill. It may help him see again. He believes it's good science and good politics in a state chockablock in pharmaceutical research firms.

Of the opponents, he says, "They are the very people who believed in miracles, yet they would deny me my miracle." And they are hard at work.

Joan Quigley is a Democratic assemblywoman from Hudson County. She is being flooded with form letters informing her that the Codey bill "is not part of God's plan."

"I tell them that it's more important that God help those to whom he's already given life," Quigley says.

For years now, I've been reading about the promise of stem cells as a cure for a bunch of diseases. Parkinson's disease as often as not heads up the list. This interests me because I've had Parkinson's disease for about six years now. I'm not complaining. If you have to get a heretofore incurable, degenerative disease, this one is not the worst. Still, it hasn't been much fun and it's nice to know there's a potential cure out there.

So I could do without President Bush playing politics with my future by buying into the religious right's contention that it knows what God is thinking and God believes the destruction of embryos in course of research isn't much different than killing babies.

As for the Catholic Church, if the bishops want to take the position they know the mind of God on the question of embryonic research, so be it. But they might want to think about confining their efforts to people who still put stock in what they have to say. Their moralizing rings a little hollow these days.

Let God and me handle this. If the bishops don't mind, I'd like the opportunity to be treated if and when the researchers come up with the right technique.

And I'm willing to take my chances that God won't make me out to be a mass murderer.

Not for commercial use.  For educational and discussion purposes only.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: abortionlist; catholiclist; cell; newjersey; prolife; research; stem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-166 next last
To: Marysecretary
It has been proven that adult stem cells are the answer, not embryonic ones. They continually die off but the adult stem cells don't. It's another deception.

Don't confuse the selfish and bloodthirsty with facts. Mr Mc Laughlin is another pro death liberial who rationalizes evil as noble. BTW Mr McLaughlin, God will not be happy.

101 posted on 12/23/2002 8:33:30 PM PST by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
"There is plenty of evidence that umbilical cord blood and Adults have plenty of stem cells used in PRACICE already today, it's just not reported"

I presume you are qualified to comment on what is and is not useful research? C'mon, you would completely shut down a legitimite area of research using a flimsy excuse. I'm not buying.

It goes without saying that I don't buy the "harvest and kill" emotional appeal, either. Save it.

102 posted on 12/23/2002 8:35:49 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: carenot
"What is it then? Maybe a frog egg?"

The proper term is a "zygote" if it has implanted in the uterine wall, "embryo" if it has not.

Hold your fire on the slogans until a target is visible.

103 posted on 12/23/2002 8:37:56 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Johnny Shear; marajade; APBaer
Bump.
104 posted on 12/23/2002 8:39:28 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I am aware that not everyone considers stopping the beating heart of an unborn human slaughter, not everyone would consider stopping any humans heart murder, but that doesn't stop rational people from enacting laws against it.

"Likewise not everyone considers those embyros "Human" , and in fact they who do not have the preponderence of evidence on their side." I would love to see some of that evidence that proves the critter growing inside a human woman's womb is in reality some lower form of life than is she and the other human who put it all together.

Seems that those of your ilk are incapable of arguing your point effectively without assuming that every anti-abortion spokesman is pushing a religious point of view and that is supposed to win the argument for you. THe fact is that recognizing the humanity of an unborn child these days, with all the technology available is more a matter of common sense and believing what ultra-sound reveals to our eyes and the fact that no one has offered any evidence other than conception,that anything else need happen other than time and uninterupted developement to humanize the unborn. Protecting the unborn is merely enforcing the guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness enjoyed by every other human in these United States of America.

Hey, I bring up the Nazis, but I bring up the even bloodier communist regimes as well-I despise all cowardly butchers of the innocent equally, except for our baby butchers whom I consider far more contemptable than the others, because they shame us all.
105 posted on 12/23/2002 8:40:52 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
First, there is no chance of the embryo being born, or becoming human. None.

Wrong. Every embryo is human. What else could they be? Spinach? Sponges?

These embryos are dead babies -- nothing more, nothing less. They should be given Christian burial, not hacked to bits to provide spare parts for other people.

Better a long, lingering painful death from some horrible disease than one minute of extra life at the price of human blood. There are worse things that can happen to a man than disease and dying.

106 posted on 12/23/2002 8:42:40 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
"Are YOU qualified to make this descision?"

Yes, I think so.

You seem to think rights are forever, if not fought for.You advocate a "willing" transaction betwen two vastly unequal participants, even if it is unarguably loathesome, as long as you, or the people you personnally approve of, needs are met.

And finally, you bypass medical ethics, and blame religion as the sole stumbling block to the mystical scientific theoretical cure you would seek.

Based on your own responce to my post, I am obviously much more capable of making this decision than are you.Using your own rather shallow reasoning,medical experimentation on the poor, or prisonors, is justifiable.How much furthor evolved scientificably we would be if the human costs were never weighed!

Will you also deny me feeding tubes if I have a stroke? After all, it would be so much easier and more cost effective if I just died by starvation, rather than drain my insurance company's funds, on the off chance that given therapy, I may yet recover.

BTW, I am not a member of an organised religion. I am apparantly much more concerned with humanity as a viable concept than you appear to be, so most emphatically YES, I am able and willing to make this decision, even though I do not have an advanced degree in biology or chemistry.

Common sense is all that is needed here.

107 posted on 12/23/2002 8:44:21 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
You have NO RIGHT to tell someone like him that he should not seek a cure for his illness.

It's done all the time.

108 posted on 12/23/2002 8:50:28 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I also have a family FULL of people who have been wracked by diseases which could be cured by such research.

Nah. Let's let nature take its course.
109 posted on 12/23/2002 8:50:52 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan; Johnny Shear; marajade
"Better a long, lingering painful death from some horrible disease than one minute of extra life at the price of human blood."

ANOTHER judge. Nice of you to pass sentence for the rest of us. Too bad you, like others here, lack the authority OR the basic right to do so.

I watched my uncle die. I wouldn't wish that on an enemy; in fact, on my enemies I only wish a quick death, that I might not share this Earth with them too long. The fact that YOU would wish it on ANYONE is telling.

"Wrong. Every embryo is human. What else could they be? Spinach? Sponges?"

Already covered previously. Not everyone agrees with you, and you cannot force them to. And the comparison is foolish, even if it makes a good bumper sticker.

"These embryos are dead babies -- nothing more, nothing less. They should be given Christian burial, not hacked to bits to provide spare parts for other people."

Excellent EMOTIONAL response. Now, how about a reasoned, logical one? BTW, how do you know they are Christian?

110 posted on 12/23/2002 8:51:45 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
Stem cells: Give us the cures, spare us the sermon

Human leather: give us lampshades, spare us the sermon.

111 posted on 12/23/2002 9:00:44 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
Am I right in stating that the Bush decision does nothing to stop greedy biotech companies from doing research with stem cells to their heart's content?

If so, then it seems that everyone is mad because my tax dollars aren't paying for such research, and the corporations wan't to leach off the public dole as usual, instead of spending some bucks themselves.

No public money for abortions. No public money for using the dead babies' body parts.

112 posted on 12/23/2002 9:09:16 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
Chuckle.

Its always about "me" - masked as "compassion for others" - but the concern is really "I want to my wife or my kid orr me to live forever, who cares who dies in the process".
113 posted on 12/23/2002 9:11:25 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
watched my uncle die. I wouldn't wish that on an enemy; in fact, on my enemies I only wish a quick death, that I might not share this Earth with them too long. The fact that YOU would wish it on ANYONE is telling. Pure failing hyperbole. You are revealing the heart of the modern cannibal, 'take from other individual human life to keep me alive, to keep mine alive'. It's not hard to get to the heart of the matter, without citing our Creator as the final authority, though I do believe God is the final judge. Let's look at science, the reality of this heinous game being foisted on the American public.

I asked R.J. Cogburn about the usual higher mammalian studies. R.J. cited research where HUMAN cells are implanted in mice, and there are also studies where HUMAN cells are implanted in swine. Those are not the non-human higher mammalian studies because they involve using human cells. The usual scientific regimen would involve studies in non-human higher mammalian species, before jumping to the human trials. That is not what these 'scientists' are seeking to do and seeking to have uninformed American citizens embrace ... because the potential for wealth and fame is supposed to be enormous if human embryos can be exploited in their pluripotent stage to grow organ cells.

So, what is the individual embryo conceived in an in vitro clinic? Well, the woman seeking to become pregnant isn't trying to birth a pig or mouse or ape, she's fully expecting that the 'thing' she will provide life support to is an individual human life, else she would be visiting a zoo, I would suppose, for her fertilization. Jump over that if you choose, but it establishes that the life of the embryos in the nitro tanks is individual human life. You appear ready to assign worthiness to that individual human life based on utility, since you want us to focus on the embryos that are destined to never be given further life support in a human body. The very same line of faulty reasoning may and is applied to the in utero individual human life --'it isn't going to be allowed to reach natural birth so it is fair game for exploitation for body parts'.

It might help for you to honestly tell everyone just when you think the individual life that IS implanted in a woman's body actually becomes a life worthy of support and protection. Oh, and when is that 'nascent' life to be considered a human being. That would give those interested in discussing this with you a fix on the individual continuum of life as you perceive it. [BTW, don't hold back, I and many others here are well qualified to understand any scientific quotes you wish to choose in your description, and I'll even translate such verbage into laymen's language if you wish. HINT: our next step in this discussion, after you give us a clear picture of your decided time frame for humanity and protection, is to then debate the merits of your chosen scientific position, but you might take into consideration that scientists will be cited, experts in their fields of genetics, obstetrics, and gynecology, researchers in stem cell utilization and exploitation. We use facts here at FR when we wish to be precise.]

114 posted on 12/23/2002 9:21:23 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
". You are revealing the heart of the modern cannibal,"

I quit reading at this point. Just WHO is using hyperbole?

115 posted on 12/23/2002 9:27:32 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Go back and read it all. There you go taking short cuts again.
116 posted on 12/23/2002 9:29:49 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
metaphor \me-te-for\ n : a figure of speech in which a word for one idea or thing is used in place of another to suggest a likeness between them

(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

117 posted on 12/23/2002 9:38:24 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
"Better a long, lingering painful death from some horrible disease than one minute of extra life at the price of human blood."

ANOTHER judge. Nice of you to pass sentence for the rest of us. Too bad you, like others here, lack the authority OR the basic right to do so.

It's not me that judges such people. "Thou shalt not murder" is the decree of God, not of man. The idea of murdering a child in order to gain personal benefit was the basic tenet of the worshippers of Moloch, not the followers of the true God. If people wish to bargain with Moloch in return for longer life, that is their affair, but they should be prepared: when the bill comes due, the Almighty will collect every penny owed

. I watched my uncle die. I wouldn't wish that on an enemy;

I'm sorry about your uncle, but so what? I watched my saintly grandmother die a long, lingering death, too. Not once did she ever hint that we should go hack up an innocent baby to prevent that death. Suffering is not the worst thing a man can experience.

in fact, on my enemies I only wish a quick death, that I might not share this Earth with them too long. The fact that YOU would wish it on ANYONE is telling.

I don't wish death on anybody. But the FACT is that ALL OF US are going to die sooner or later, and if the price for a few months or years of extra life is the blood of innocent children then that price is too high.

"Wrong. Every embryo is human. What else could they be? Spinach? Sponges?"

Already covered previously.

Sez you.

Not everyone agrees with you, and you cannot force them to.

First: I don't care if anybody agrees with me or not. Matters of right and wrong are not subject to the popular will. Second: I cannot force people to do anything -- but the State can; indeed, that is the reason God institutes governments among men. And in time either the State will fulfil its duty to protect human life, or God will allow it to fall.

Believe it: Abortion will be illegal again someday, and with it the barbaric practice of growing children to order for the purpose of using their corpses for spare parts. And at that time the idea that all children are human will be forced upon people, at gunpoint if necessary.

And the comparison is foolish, even if it makes a good bumper sticker.

Thank you for sharing that unsupported opinion.

"These embryos are dead babies -- nothing more, nothing less. They should be given Christian burial, not hacked to bits to provide spare parts for other people."

Excellent EMOTIONAL response.

Thank you. Are you trying to imply that an emotional response is somehow inferior to a so-called "rational" response in every circumstance?

Now, how about a reasoned, logical one?

Very well:

1. The deliberate killing of an innocent human being is murder.
2. A baby is an innocent human being.
3. Therefore, the deliberate killing of a baby is murder. QED

BTW, how do you know they are Christian?

I don't. They cannot be, since they are unbaptized. However, Christ can through his infinite Grace save the souls of those human beings who have yet to commit sin, including those of aborted children. Since God is infinitely Just, we may rest assured that every human being will receive the eternal destiny they deserve; for our part, we may give the dead children the benefit of the doubt and allow them Christian burial.

As one who has the blood of aborted children on my own hands, I urge you to reconsider your beliefs on this issue -- for your own sake, if not theirs.

118 posted on 12/23/2002 9:40:20 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
ANOTHER judge. Nice of you to pass sentence for the rest of us. Too bad you, like others here, lack the authority OR the basic right to do so.

Who's the judge here? You, who wants to forcefully take our tax dollars to fund your human experimentation? Or us, who want to give the issue some time to examine the ethical implications?
119 posted on 12/23/2002 9:42:30 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
"First: I don't care if anybody agrees with me or not. Matters of right and wrong are not subject to the popular will. Second: I cannot force people to do anything -- but the State can; indeed, that is the reason God institutes governments among men. And in time either the State will fulfil its duty to protect human life, or God will allow it to fall."

As the title says,"Spare me the sermon." You do not even know my religion.

". And at that time the idea that all children are human will be forced upon people, at gunpoint if necessary. "

That a fellow conservative could write this phrase with a straight face chills me to the bone.

"I'm sorry about your uncle, but so what? "

This speaks for itself. We have nothing further to discuss on this matter.

120 posted on 12/23/2002 9:49:12 PM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson