Campus reaction to stem cell research mixed
Mike's Politically Right
Michael Culver |
DUE TO THE overwhelming response to last week’s controversial topic, “Stem cell research should go forward,” and in the interest of being “Politically Right,” I feel it is warranted to give equal coverage to some of the well-founded arguments that oppose my view.
Debate has become misdirected
“This letter is a response to an opinion piece in The Collegian entitled, ‘Stem Cell Research Should Go Forward.’ As usual, this debate has become misdirected and overly divisive. But let’s all take a deep breath and approach this subject like the reasonable college-students we claim to be.
“Currently, the federal government does not limit private investment in stem-cell research. In other words, stem-cell research is not illegal. The true debate is over whether or not to dedicate taxpayer money to an ethically questionable science. So why aren’t private investors clamoring to fund stem-cell research. Because there has been very little, if any, hard evidence that stem-cell research works. Contrary to popular belief; no quadriplegics have stood to their feet and walked as a result of stem-cell related medical procedures. It is clear that if stem-cell related medical procedures yield successful results the private industry will fall all over itself to invest in this science… However, I cannot expect my government to fund questionable and controversial science that creates a public outcry and may be of little use.”
— Tal Eslick
President
CSUF College Republicans
Other options exist for research
“I would like to address what I believe are two errors in your article entitled, ‘Stem Cell Research Should Go Forward.’ First, you begin the article by trying to lay down ‘the fundamental principles of the research.’ I do not believe you presented these fundamentals completely, which gives a skewed view of the dilemma. Though your article’s intention was to address embryonic stem cell research, I believe it was a mistake to omit at least a brief mention of adult stem cell research. In fact, in most ethical debates regarding this topic, even the ‘pro-embryonic research’ camp acknowledges that the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate some distinction between the theorized benefits of embryonic s.c.r. and adult s.c.r. The problem comes when the pro-embryonic camp must acknowledge that, as of 2006, there are no documented medical discoveries from embryonic s.c.r., and there are many, many documented benefits that have come from adult s.c.r. In any case, I believe that it would be responsible at least to amend your article at a later time and address this...
“Second, you stated, ‘Given this [thousands of frozen embryos slated for destruction], why aren’t pro-lifers and legislators fighting to save the thousands of lives being destroyed at fertility clinics each year?’ This is in error. There are dozens of groups out there that vehemently have argued against destroying or using these eggs.”
— Doug Favelo
Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures
California State University, Fresno
Issues regarding embryos important
“I am very passionate about this subject and I believe issues concerning the conception of human life has a strong influence on the rest of our world view. To begin, I strongly disagree with your specious conclusion. You give credence to the pro-life argument then disregard it based on an argument concerning frozen embryos not being saved by the same pro-lifers. You are mistaken because you assume that the merit of the pro-life argument is dependent on or supported by the pro-lifers activity or lack of it concerning the well being of the embryo…”
— John Lo
Biology Graduate Student
Two wrongs don’t make a right
“I applaud you on your article — rarely has anyone in support of stem cell research approached the pro-life opinion so fairly, or so rightly. You are right, after all- why aren’t the pro lifers attempting to save those thousands of discarded embryos? Why is their outrage not directed at this waste? You are very correct in that respect. However, you are not at all correct in the assumption that just because these embryos are ‘left over’ that this condition necessitates their being used for research. Two wrongs, after all, do not make a right — they only make the wrong greater. Consider a give child, born but not wanted by the mother. Would you condone the use of that child for research? Of course not — you would be offended by the very idea, likely. What if the child were taken from the mother an hour before his or her birth? A day? A month? Where is the point of life? We pro lifers believe it is at conception — we cannot find the line that makes it okay to terminate the functions of those cells and leave them, to our minds, dead. So
just as we cannot say that the unwanted child should be delegated for a practical use rather than being left alone, we cannot say that the unwanted embryos should be delegated to a practical use rather than given the opportunity for life….
“I have drawn my lines in the sand, and I will not cross them. Not for ‘the good of millions of lives’, my dearest friend, my most beloved family member, and not for myself. No matter the justifications, stem cell research can never be right to me.”
— Katherine Burt
Animal Science major
I’d like to thank everyone for sending comments. Please keep them coming at [email protected].
Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>
|
