 |
 |
On embryos and acorns By Reggie Rivers Denver Post Columnist Thursday, July 19, 2001 I will always choose real people over theoretical people. There's an ethical and moral debate raging about whether scientists should use human embryonic stem cells in the search for cures to diseases. Many people say that extracting the cells is wrong. They believe that an embryo, even at just a few days old, is a human being and destroying it is murder. I disagree. At that stage of development, an embryo is a theoretical person. If you want to meet some real people, go visit a children's hospital. You'll see kids who are suffering from brain disease, heart defects, cancer, diabetes, paralysis and a whole lot more. You'll see parents walking out of the hospital with exhausted, desperate faces. They're frustrated because there's nothing they can do to take the pain away. If someone ever tried to pick up your child and walk away with her, you'd do anything you could to stop him, even if it meant giving up your own life. But what do you do when the enemy is inside your child's body? What do you do when there's a growth or a deficiency that is taking your child an inch at a time and all you can do is watch? You turn to God and doctors and technology. You pray that they'll find a cure and that your son or daughter will be saved before it's too late. Go meet some of those kids and ask yourself how many of them you're willing to let die in order to protect the lives of theoretical people. The answer for me is none. I want scientists to do as much research with as many human embryos as necessary to find the cures for some of these diseases. I believe an embryo is a theoretical person who should be sacrificed to benefit real people. An acorn is not an oak tree. A seed is not a rose bush. An embryo is not a human being. An acorn, a seed and an embryo all have the potential to "become" something, but that doesn't mean that they are that something right now. Given the right temperature, water, nutrients and exposure to the sun, that acorn might eventually become an oak tree. But a squirrel who eats the acorn is not killing an oak tree, he's merely eating an acorn to sustain his own life. A scientist who extracts stem cells from an embryo is not committing murder, he's destroying an embryo to extend the lives of real people. The cells, called pluripotent, are capable of developing into any one of the 210 different types of tissue in the human body, so scientists believe they can use the stem cells to regenerate nerves, organs, muscles or blood. They would be extracted from embryos that are just a few days old. These embryos don't have brains, they don't have nervous systems, they don't have organs, they don't have anything except DNA and the building blocks for making a human. The crux of this debate is framed the same way as the abortion issue. When does life begin? When does a human soul develop? Is it at conception? Are women who use birth control pills committing murder? I think the real issue is in the competing lives involved. Even people who are opposed to abortion are willing to allow it if the life of the mother is in danger. Why is the mother's life more important? If both lives are of equal importance, wouldn't it make just as much sense to abort the mother to save the baby? Of course not. The mother is a real person; the fetus is a theoretical person. Not every acorn will become an oak tree. Some of those acorns are going to be consumed to sustain the lives of others. Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers ([log in to unmask]) writes Thursdays on the Post op-ed page and is a talk host on KHOW Radio (630 AM, weekdays from 3 to 5 p.m.) SOURCE: The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,155%257E70489,00.html * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn