 |
 |
As I have watched the debate unfold on this thread of stem cells I cannot help but think back just a few short years ago.... Remember the uproar that was created in the '60s when heart transplant surgery was first introduced? The moral outcrying was overwhelming. And then I think of that lovely child, Louise, who was conceived in Petrie dish and was born to the world on July 26, 1978. And I remember the outcry then. These are both good examples of how biomedical advances create more questions than they answer. In identifying the salient point of all these posts of whether or not the blastocyst in question is a human life, I can only conclude that the answer is no. I am comfortable in that position by taking into account the millions and millions of similar blastocysts that are passed every month in the natural cycle of a woman's life. I also believe that there are no equivalent choices to Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Technology. This is the only technology that I know of the uses my own genetic code and thus is recognized by my body as being a part of me without rejection. And so having said that, here is my take on this thorny issue of stem cells, and more specifically Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer stem cells. I look upon this as God's gift to all of us with chronic diseases. Kind of like the story in John Chapter 9 " ... you will see God work a miracle for him." I come to this conclusion after reading a large amount of the body of work concerning this issue. And finally, I can make this important bioethical conclusion knowing that God is kind to us in a way in which we do not deserve. What I'm saying is that I do not want to become bogged down in some type of bombastic legalistic form of religiousity. Terry Bowers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn