Log In | Register
In August, an injunction was placed against federal funding of stem cell research by U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, who also later rejected the Obama administration's request to lift his preliminary injunction, ruling that the administration's research guidelines violated a 1996 law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. On September 9th, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a request from the Justice Department to stay the injunction. In a major victory for supporters of the research, the court said the Obama administration could resume funding the research pending a full appeal of the case.
Moral Crusade Against Stem Cell Research Undermines Hope of Life for the Living
Seeded on Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:51 PM EDT
Article Source: www.rhrealitycheck.org- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (42)
The lawsuit leading to the injunction involves a serious moral issue that the Religious Right has seized upon as part of its crusade against women's reproductive rights and dedication to establishing its interpretation of Christianity in law: namely, the status of embryos that are the source of stem cells used for research. Halting this research shows great regard for embryos - but not the millions of people with incurable conditions including diabetes and Parkinson's who could benefit from this research.
- 7 votes
Soph.
Halting this research shows great regard for embryos - but not the millions of people with incurable conditions including diabetes and Parkinson's who could benefit from this research.
What is needed here is a reality check. If you ask yourself this question. My God made people. My god made cleaver people who can save lives. Then it follows this is part of the bigger picture. It is essential that we continue to research and develop ways to save life. Are these not the same people who are determined to prevent women from having terminations. Wait. Stop and think, is it they who now play God? As a consequence of what they think?
- 8 votes
Exactly Jo - control though fear based on biblical interpretation that has little to do with the people who can benefit from this. (BTW i have won the most important argument of all - life always goes on.....:):):))
- 2 votes
Lets just say if all does not go as planned and the news is not as good as we would hope - it does not matter anymore.....we will cross that bridge and come out the other side :)
- 1 vote
sent you a message on your column and will email in the morning:)
- 1 vote
hope you have the doc to keep you warm - with you not feeling well and all
Some days I wake up feeling kind. I think to myself, "Consider It, give the Christians a break. They are just doing what they think is right." And then I read stuff like this and all that bull@!$%# goes right out the window.
@!$%# You, Christians. There is a reason the left is always attacking you people in America. It's because you are ALWAYS trying to force your beliefs on us. When it's bake sales and billboards I don't mind so much, but when it's something that could save (or cost) millions of lives...it just means you suck.
- 10 votes
I was on my way to bed, you just made my day. A BIG BIG thank you. xx
- 4 votes
I think to myself, "Consider It, give the Christians a break. They are just doing what they think is right." And then I read stuff like this and all that bull@!$%# goes right out the window.
LOL - they never fail to disappoint
- 2 votes
Hey, Consider it! I'm a Christian, or try to be, and, from my comment somewhere, (below?), you may note that we are all on the same side...
- 1 vote
There is only one side when it comes to this sort of thing. Humanity.
I get that there are Christians out there who are not crazy. But until they speak up and become the voice of Christianity, I'm going to continue paying attention to the voices causing the problems.
I stand by my statement.
- 6 votes
There is only one side when it comes to this sort of thing. Humanity.
I think that is the key issue. I mean how many of these folks are acting out because (well many here think) that their religion tells them to, or they are acts of compassion?
The way I look at, it does not seem to have much to do about religion, but more so they would like to look for alternatives. Many do not like the idea of treating human cells in this manner. The point I am trying to get at is that many of these people feel this is just not natural or compassionate to treat early development of life in this sort of manner. They feel it is a loss of humanity.
At least that is just my own observation is on what drives people to be against stem cell research.
- 2 votes
The way I look at, it does not seem to have much to do about religion, but more so they would like to look for alternatives.
You can look for alternatives to stem cell research without shutting down stem cell research. The emphasis on shutting down the research indicates a motive much less noble.
The point I am trying to get at is that many of these people feel this is just not natural or compassionate to treat early development of life in this sort of manner. They feel it is a loss of humanity.
Well, sure, they're free to think that. However, I haven't see any major religious group speak out against things like human clinical trials, fertility clinics, war in general, etc.
If they actually gave a s--- about life and ethical concerns, those institutions are just as, if not more, ethically ambiguous, and they've been around for far longer.
- 4 votes
Jack,
I haven't see any major religious group speak out against things like human clinical trials, fertility clinics, war in general, etc.
Might I also add the death penalty? Or even just poverty and homelessness.
- 6 votes
You can look for alternatives to stem cell research without shutting down stem cell research. The emphasis on shutting down the research indicates a motive much less noble.
The way I understand it, they want alternatives so the current method becomes obsolete, but would prefer it does not continue because they feel it is inhuman the way early human life is being killed off during the research.
human clinical trials, fertility clinics
I think these two do not get much attention because they typically do not involve any killing of human life, but have very well researched and previously tested, or encourage the upbringing of new life.
war in general
I do not think anyone is really for war, but when someone is trying to kill you knowing what is coming will just cause more harm, they are more for defensive war, but would like to seek and option for peace.
death penalty
Again, it seems to be more so with the fact people feel that individual deserved it. I personally think this is wrong and do not mind my taxes going towards an individual to obtain help and have a chance at redemption.
poverty and homelessness
It is not like churches try to counter act this, but it seems every time this subject comes up, the "S" word makes its way in; Socialism.
I'm truly not trying to be stupid here, but, how is early life killed off during the research? Please, I would really appreciate it if someone would explain that.
Thank you!
It is that the embryo is destroyed with the extraction of the stem cells; this is were the ethical issue comes into the debate for most that are against embryonic stem cell research.
Thank you very much for your explanation and kind reply. I knew that, but somehow couldn't put it together.
Have a great day--
I think these two do not get much attention because they typically do not involve any killing of human life, but have very well researched and previously tested, or encourage the upbringing of new life.
Fertility clinics throw away thousands of unused embryos every year, and it's not uncommon for human clinical trials to result in deaths (and yes, some clinical trials are, out of necessity, conducted on children).
Heck, the only reasons that embryonic stem cells are promising for research is because they're used at the stage when the "early life" is literally a clump of a few dozen identical cells. I've asked many of those who use the "life begins at conception" canard to start counting first-trimester miscarriages as part of infant morality stats, or start campaigning to charge mothers who smoke/drink/go sailing/g[insert risky behavior] and who happen to miscarry with manslaughter. So far, none have shown themselves to take their own stance self-consistently enough.
or encourage the upbringing of new life.
This may "excuse" fertility clinics in their eyes, but I would say that finding a cure for currently incurable diseases, being able to potentially grow limbs for amputees, or growing perfectly immune-compatible organs for those who need them may not "encourage the upbringing of life" (whatever that arbitrarily applies to, considering the implantation success rate, per embryo, of in vitro fertilization), but it certainly fundamentally uplifts the lives of potentially millions of people.
- 5 votes
Fertility clinics throw away thousands of unused embryos every year, and it's not uncommon for human clinical trials to result in deaths (and yes, some clinical trials are, out of necessity, conducted on children).
I am not saying there are not people against the discarding of the embryos and I do not think it is as widely known. Those who would be against it, may try to ignore the facts since overall they know it helps to start life for those that are incapable of starting themselves, which does not make much sense to me when people are against stem cell research and not this. I guess embryonic stem cell research pushes the limit, since every time embryonic stem cell research is conducted the embryo is destroyed. I guess if they do succeed in outlawing embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds, fertility clinics may be their next step and try to impose stronger regulations on them.
As far as clinical trials, one has to consider they look at as people made those decisions themselves, even though they may not agree with their decision.
it certainly fundamentally uplifts the lives of potentially millions of people.
Now you really got something here. You mention "uplift" lives of others. It is very true that it would improve the lives of millions, but those against the embryonic stem cell research, would go about saying "is improving the lives of others worth the killing of another?" Plus the fact that life that is being destroyed does not even voice it's opinion yet. It is really acts of compassion for early life than anything else.
I personally do not think judge those who have such strong compassion for early life, that does not have a voice to speak, and try to do something about it.
Soph,
This is what I found out about this today. From a seed by Jedipunk (http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2010/09/stem-cell-heroes-and-villains.html):
The seeded article was disturbing enough. However, there was a link near the end of the article that took me to this previous article in the WSJ:
Both have been in the news before...
Dr. Deisher, 47, has spoken at anti-abortion events and gained attention when she accused a former employer of fraud, a charge that led to a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
She said she was transformed from a "radical feminist" after she saw the negative impact abortion had on some of her friends
Dr. Deisher is Catholic and wears a small gold cross, while Dr. Sherley is Baptist, but both say their views on the matter are driven by ethics, not religion.
Both said embryonic stem-cell research is morally objectionable and unlikely to produce promised treatments or cures. They said research using adult stem cells, the field each of them works in, has more potential to help patients.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704791004575466081896678078.html
I called the original article b.s. - it looks like it's completely motivated by anti-abortion religious philosophy. The fact that they were 'recruited' by lawyers for this lawsuit also speaks volumes.
This has nothing to do with science, or even scientific funding (although that was a clever way to get the issue before the courts). I am astounded that this issue hasn't been played out much more strongly in the press.
Two 'scientific' hacks, recruited by lawyers, successfully shut down stem cell funding based on their own religious views - and nobody notices.
But wait - there's more!
A little more research shows that the lawyer who 'recruited' these plaintiffs is Samuel B. Casey - former Executive Director & CEO at Christian Legal Society, whose mission is:
To inspire, encourage, and equip lawyers and law students, both individually and in community, to proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law, the provision of legal assistance to the poor, and the defense of religious freedom & sanctity of human life.
Even better, the two plaintiffs in this case are now:
canvassing Capitol Hill this week, anticipating the matter ultimately may be decided by Congress. They said they spent Wednesday meeting with Senate and House aides to make the case against the research.
Some lawmakers have talked of passing new legislation to nullify Judge Lamberth's ruling and clarify that stem-cell research derived from embryos is allowed. Congress passed such a measure most recently in 2007 but it was vetoed by then-President George W. Bush.Drs. Sherley and Deisher said they were talking with congressional aides about why reviving the legislation would be a mistake.
The religious right's new way of shutting down embryonic stem cell research.
BTW - the judges in the Appeals Courts that will be dealing with this issue are appointed by George Bush I and II.
Soph,
Sorry to take up so much space on this thread - I thought it was important. The original article was by a scientist who was complaining that this lawsuit was driven by unscientific arguments. Apparently, there's much more to it than that.
I've been furious about this all day - thinking about writing my own article. Glad to see that someone has picked up the ball on this one.
- 14 votes
#3 - Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:09 PM EDTThank you so much for such an informative comment - we can always rely on you:) they are on a crusade and i use that word advisedly
- 3 votes
What I find that makes no sense is when an embryo stem cell can be thrown away rather than use to possible save a life it has no reason for me.
- 6 votes
#4 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:01 PM EDTI feel that the soul, stipulating there is one, enters the body with the first breath. In vitro clinics do make many more (potential) than they implant. This is simple mechanics of the procedure, since it would be ridiculously difficult to try and get just one or two ova from the mother's ovaries instead of getting a lot while they're at it. Then, when combined with the father's semen, there are just going to be a large, indeterminate number of fertilizations. None of these is viable at the time, and only those implanted in the mother that go to term, or near term, will be born and be people.
Life begins at conception only in the biochemical sense; as much could be said for a culture swab in a Petri dish. If parts of those non-viable, never-to-be-implanted cell clumps can save another life, what sort of person would deny this? It is inhumane and wasteful, and unjustified however rationalized by those who insist upon remaining ignorant of human biology in favor of supernatural beliefs.
- 3 votes
#5 - Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:22 PM EDTStem cell research, in itself, is a very good thing. It can possibly save many lives, heal many sick people, and stop the grief associated with diseases, physical anomalies, etc. The minor fact that it is associated with the topic of abortion is the hot button. I want a good reason, Christians, why you despise abortion so much. It is a woman's choice to abort, or not, something that is theirs. It is not your decision. If a fetus is to be aborted anyway, why not make use of it?
If your a stem cell research protestor, I only hope one thing for you: You develop a specific, rare type of cancer, and the research you so actively objected is the only way to save your life.
- 4 votes
#6 - Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:20 AM EDT" . . . develop a specific, rare type of cancer, and the research you so actively objected is the only way to save your life."
This would be a fittingly ironic karma.
Consider the similarity to a white power bigot who gets open heart surgery and receives a transfusion during the procedure. Dr. Charles Drew invented the first blood bank, devising a means of storing plasma and saving hundreds of lives during WWI. Also, Dr. Daniel Hale Williams performed the first successful closure of a heart wound, opening the way to all sorts of cardiac surgery treatments. Both were black, so the white racist should not benefit either if he feels that blacks are all inferior.
Such a fate would be fitting for the anti-stem cell crowd.
- 3 votes
Absolutely not to be forgotten. Dr. Thomas' work has undoubtedly saved scores of children born with Tetralogy of Fallot (blue baby syndrome).
And that raises the further ethical dilemma for the bigot: Would s/he allow his/her blue baby child to be treated by a method that a black doctor developed?
(Fortunately for the kid, local authorities would not allow him/her to forbid treatment. Unfortunately, look what the kid will have for a parent.)
- 2 votes
(Fortunately for the kid, local authorities would not allow him/her to forbid treatment. Unfortunately, look what the kid will have for a parent.)
Actually, possibly depending on the particular ailment, parents do have the right to deny potentially lifesaving treatment. There've been numerous cases of Christian Scientists and other anti-medicine religious fundamentalists killing their children through denial of treatment.
- 2 votes
I have in fact read of these, but have there been any recently? I know of recent cases where the child was kept from even being seen, and died as a result, but I thought that once brought to the attention of medical authority, that court decisions had ruled that First Amendment freedom of religion did not apply to parents' religious objections when the patient is a minor. If your scenario is still the case, even in a few places, that is bad news. Thanks for the reply. Have you a link or two to recent cases?
- 1 vote
At the moment, I can't find instances of parents denying treatment after doctors/authorities were alerted. I don't know if they exist, since the alerting of doctors doesn't happen in the first place (as that would typically need to be active on the part of the parents).
It seems, though, that at least in a few states (Religious Exemptions >> 2002), laws prosecuting treatment-denying parents still have provisions for religious exemptions.
- 2 votes
Damn. Why do people who might be horrified by slavery treat their kids as chattel? This means people who don't know what's at stake (i.e the children) can be murdered by theologically-inspired neglect. I suppose it will take a SCOTUS decsision to rule that this exemption is not covered by the seperation clause just as yelling "Fire" in a non-burning theater is not covered by the free speech clause.
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
