 |
 |
Att: Stephanie Dorsch, (AND all other anti-stem cell research personnel) Your comments on the Toronto Server were read with interest. Many who are against abortion look upon the issue of stem cells as a different issue and not an abortion issue at all. Let me point out the following: The NIH regulations say that the only source of stem cells allowed will be from surplus eggs leftover from an in vitro fertility program. If the woman who created these eggs does not donate them to use in stem cell research, her surplus eggs are incinerated. You tell me -- which is preferable? Incineration of her eggs or use to better mankind? (Assume stem cells could show promise to cure Downs Syndrome when you answer.) Please bear in mind that birth control -- or lack thereof -- is not the issue. Question #2 Would you deny an infertile couple the right to create a wanted infant through test tube conception? Your thought re use of pig cells or adult hair and eye stem cells. First: Adult stem cell don't seem to have the staying power of newly created stem cells. Second: Until they can experiment with all types of stem cells, they will not know the true benefits and risks. They are beginning to back-off of pig cell usage because of the possibility of new diseases for mankind from the world of swine. It is possible to be Pro-life and pro stem cell research all in the same person. If you wish the name of a ProLife ethics committee that is Pro-Stem Cell research, just ask, I'll gladly supply it. Consider the question I raised about the Hobson's choice of incineration or research for stem cells: They use pluripotent cells which are incapable of producing life under ay circumstances (Totipotent cells might produce a life, but only if implanted into a womb.) Abortion and a woman's right to choose are not really an issue for - or against - the use of surplus eggs for stem cells.