Unburdened by religious dogma, I am convinced nonetheless that a human egg and the sperm cells that unite with it are precious and life-endowing. But when asked to choose between the life and …
Stay informed about your community and support local independent journalism.
Subscribe to The River Reporter today. click here
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Unburdened by religious dogma, I am convinced nonetheless that a human egg and the sperm cells that unite with it are precious and life-endowing. But when asked to choose between the life and liberty of a fully mature human female vs. a smear of her spawned recombinant protoplasm, I am afraid (actually, I am not afraid!), the potential being will have to take a back seat to the fully realized human. However, it turns out that here and abroad, that is not always the case.
Late in his life, when former president Ronald Reagan was somewhat losing his grip on things, it was Nancy Reagan who pressed forward federally with a new emphasis on what was then considered promising stem cell research, in the hope of addressing the advancing morbidity of Alzheimer’s disease. Many years later, in 2001, spurred on by conservative religious pressures, President George W. Bush banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, citing that the use of these embryos, which otherwise would be discarded or deteriorate in storage, effectively diminishes the value of human (embryonic) life. So, it can be argued that beginning in 2001, federally, the “rights” of embryos were prioritized over the treatment of millions of elderly people with Alzheimer’s conditions.
The entire continuing matter is a problematic moral morass that has led to a lack of uniformity of laws regarding the permissibility of stem cell research throughout the world, as well as a wide variation of regulations in all 50 states.
The recent Alabama IVF argument comes to mind. Does a human embryo have rights? Do its rights supersede those of your grandma Sally—who might need that stem cell treatment?
Do stem cells have rights? Before you laugh, talk to the (many) people who believe that corporations are people with rights—as well as significant numbers that are likely soon to declare that AI has some form of sentience. Could this too lead to a discussion of AI “rights”?
For me, let us concentrate on the living and breathing humans before us who need our care and kindness. Treat the fully viable humans who might be suffering from physical or mental handicaps, drug addiction, poverty, famine, war, age-related conditions and debilitating disease. Protoplasmic life should form a queue behind the independent humans, such as your grandpa, your uncle, your wife and your daughter. Just ask living, breathing, independent people what they think. Then poll the cells.
John Pace lives in Honesdale, PA.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here