I support laws banning abortions beyond points in gestational development where medical experts would conclude that the fetus has brainwave activity – and I mean peer-reviewed journals not wishful thinking on the part of various advocacy groups. Drawing bright lines with analogs in other areas of biomedical ethics stops the slippery slope and appeal to emotion arguments.
“Contrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb - they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a “person.” In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood. What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception.1 There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even “early” abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form.”
So basically, abortion kills a living developing human.
And as for stating that brainwave activity be the criteria to which you determine the “personhood” of a developing human, I have this to say in reply:
“Defining personhood on the basis of brain development results in several problems. Brain development is controlled by the DNA, and so, is programmed to occur in a continuous progression of virtually indistinguishable events. There is no point at which the brain suddenly becomes functional. In fact, many aspects of brain development occur after birth. Most aspects of newborn personality do not emerge until weeks to months after birth. Therefore, a definition of personhood on the basis of brain development would allow for infanticide - at least through the first month.”
ESCR hasn’t had a chance due to bans in major research nations and prohibitive funding restrictions in others, while ASCR has been vigorously funded as an alternative — that’s what I wrote earlier. If some nations banned chemistry and others severely restricted funding for it, but at the same time these nations actively promoted and funded physics, would it be so surprising to see developments in physics but none in chemistry?
"But do stem-cell researchers really need the feds? Already there is nearly $4 billion in private and state monies committed to stem-cell research over the next decade, with another three-quarters of a billion dollars under active consideration.
Setting aside commercial efforts like those of the California biotech company Geron, consider a few examples of private funding for academic stem-cell research. The Starr Foundation is providing $50 million over three years for human embryonic stem-cell research at three New York City medical institutions, including the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center. Weill Cornell Medical College, also in New York City, has established the Ansary Center for Stem Cell Therapeutics with a $15 million grant from philanthropists Shahla and Hushang Ansary. . . "
reason.com/news/show/34102.html
Why isn’t the US media or media much of anywhere providing accurate information concerning much of anything at all?
Because it’s liberal as I stated.
It’s not been tested, so how can it be a failure? Religious groups are fighting against it tooth and nail. It’s hard and expensive enough to do research science, but to do it without funds and with politicians and PACs opposing you is just not going to happen especially when a funded alternative is available. We really don’t know its efficacy yet.
The promises of ESCR are right now nothing more than hoped for possibilities. Successful clinical trials for people are years away at best. Why? The reality is that the scientific evidence so far does not support public statements.
First, one minor complication is that use of human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue. Second, another more serious disadvantage is that using embryonic stem cells can produce tumors from rapid growth when injected into adult patients. A third disadvantage reported in the March 8, 2001, New England Journal of Medicine was of tragic side effects from an experiment involving the insertion of fetal brain cells into the brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. Results included uncontrollable movements: writhing, twisting, head jerking, arm-flailing, and constant chewing. Fourth, a recent report in the Journal Science reported that mice cloned from ESC were genetically defective. If human ESC are also genetically unstable, that could materially compromise efforts to transform cells extracted from embryos into successful medical therapies. Finally, the research may be hampered because many of the existing stem cell lines were grown with the necessary help of mouse cells. If any of this research is to turn into treatments, it will need approval from the FDA, which requires special safeguards to prevent transmission of animal diseases to people. It is unclear how many of these cell lines were developed with the safeguards in place. This leads to a host of problems related to transgenic issues.
icr.org/article/314/
).
