Michael J. Fox & Stem Cell Research
- Have them discarded.
- Donate the embryos to another infertile couple in what is sometimes called “embryo adoption.”.
- Donate the embryos for research
- Have the embryos preserved at very low temperatures.
There are very few parents willing to give their embryos to another couple for a variety of emotional reasons. There are very few couples willing to receive them for emotional reasons and because thawed embryos have such a low chance of starting a pregnancy. Preservation can be expensive. So most ask that they be discarded.
There are currently hundreds of thousands of surplus embryos in storage. One source estimated that there were 400,000 stored embryos by mid-2003. However, a minority of pro-lifers and a majority of pro-life organizations object to the use of embryos in research. They feel that a few-days-old embryo is a human person. Extracting its stem cells kills the embryo — an act that they consider to be murder. Stem cells can now be grown in the laboratory, so (in a pinch) some research can be done using existing stem cells. No further harvesting needs to be made from embryos. However, existing stem cell lines are gradually degrading and will soon be useless for research.
Stem cells can also be extracted from adult tissue, without harm to the subject. Unfortunately, they are difficult to remove and are severely limited in quantity. There has been a consensus among researchers that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness — that they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells in the human body. However, some evidence is emerging that indicates that adult cells may be more flexible than has previously been believed.
Research using embryo stem cells had been authorized in Britain, but was initially halted in the U.S. by President George W. Bush. He decided on August 9, 2001 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells. By May of 2003, most of these lines had become useless. Only 22 remained in mid-2006, and many of them were of limited usefulness because of DNA damage.
Research continues in U.S. private labs and in both government and private labs in the UK, Japan, France, Australia, and other countries. In September of 2002, Governor Davis of California signed bill SB 253 into law. It is the first law in the U.S. that permits stem cell research. Davis simultaneously signed a bill that permanently bans all human cloning in the state for reproduction purposes — i.e. any effort to create a cloned individual.
Following former president Ronald Reagan’s death due to Alzheimer’s in June of 2004 — a slow, lingering disease that took a decade to kill him — Nancy Reagan and all of her family, except for Michael Reagan, mounted a campaign to encourage President Bush to relax restrictions on embryo stem cell research. Fifty-eight senators, almost all Democrats, sent a letter to President Bush, urging the same action.
A federal bill passed the House on May 24, 2005 to allow government funded research on embryonic stem cells extracted from surplus embryos in fertility clinics. It is expected to be voted upon by the Senate this year, but President Bush has promised to veto it.
I’ll reiterate, if I’ve garnered enough interest in my readers to come this far - I support stem cell research, and believe goverment laws blocking progress in stem cell research is clearly a faith based decision and not a scientific one. I wanted to post this to ensure this topic remains clear in the minds of those of you who vote- if you believe your vote counts for something, in any case. It’s important to remain impartial while trying to see through the political bullshit covering the hypocrisy of President Bush’s standpoint on this research. Well, whoever made that decision for him, anyways. Consider this statement made by the President this past summer:
Unfortunately, Congress has sent me a bill that fails to meet this ethical test. This legislation would overturn the balanced policy on embryonic stem cell research that my administration has followed for the past five years. This bill would also undermine the principle that Congress, itself, has followed for more than a decade, when it has prohibited federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.
If this bill would have become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. And I’m not going to allow it.
Tell me, what is the difference between this and legalizing abortion? What is the difference between this, and compelling taxpayers to fund the war in Iraq? I could carry on- but I think that’s enough to get you all thinking; or at least see my point of view.
No, Michael J. Fox did not light a new fire beneath me- but it was a reminder: Always question the decisions they are making for you.
Filed under: Society
His body visibly wracked by tremors, actor Michael J. Fox appears in a political ad that was the subject of widespread discussion on Monday after conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed Fox was “either off his medication or acting.”
A victim of Parkinson’s disease, Fox speaks out in the ad for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who supports embryonic stem cell research.
“I think this is exploitative in a way that’s unbecoming of either Claire McCaskill or Michael J. Fox,” Limbaugh said on his syndicated show.
On his Web site Tuesday, Limbaugh appeared to back away from his accusation.
“All I’m saying is I’ve never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill,” says Limbaugh. “So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances.”