Pet Peeve #4: Embryos

As seen on Diary of Fools.

Two humans are trapped in a burning building, a small, innocent child and a Petri dish of adorable little stem cells. You can only save one. Who do you save? I’d save the Petri dish because it’s easier to carry.

Pro-life groups have been bashing Obama for lifting the ban on stem cell research, calling the new administration the “culture of death,” similar to what democrats called the Bush administration. Way to be original, Republicans! Obama isn’t killing people like Bush did, he’s actually doing the opposite – he’s cloning them. Unfortunately, these clones won’t be old enough to vote for Obama by 2012. But it gives us plenty of time for brainwashing.

Women who oppose embryonic research should have them implanted into their uterus. Any takers? Put your hand down Octopus Mom.

Embryos do not have the same rights as me. They can’t vote. They can’t smoke cigarettes or buy porn. They can’t eat tacos or even flip people off. Basically, they suck. If there’s any moral worth in keeping them, it resides in the potential for further human development. To the religious conservatives, the destruction of these stem cells is no less of a crime than abortion (or murder). I’m starting my Adopt-a-Stem Cell program soon; hopefully I can milk some money out of these folks. The idea is similar to the Adopt-a-Highway program. They give me money and I don’t throw out the stem cells. It’s genius!

If I was having tea with the Pope, I’d probably ask him if an oocyte hosting a transferred DNA nucleus has more rights than an oocyte not hosting it? Or, does a fertilized ovum from an IVF clinic that has been borrowed in order to make a blastocyst have more rights than the pluripotent hES cell? And if it does have more rights because its trophechtoderm makes it totipotent, is each interior pluripotent hES cell less of a potential person just because it no longer has access to a trophoblast? If so, would the pluripotent hES cell be considered a potential person if we could discover how to turn on its trophoblast genes and make a placenta? Answer that Pope! (Source of big words: Ted Peters, Genetics & Ethics). He doesn’t believe Dinosaurs coexisted with humans, does he?

Maybe we shouldn’t name scientific discoveries cute, like “stem cells” and “embryos.” Let’s stick with the big long medical terminology. There’s only so much you can fit on a protest sign. “Stem Cells are People Too” fits perfectly. “Multicellular Diploid Eukaryote are People Too”, not so much.

There are activists that speak out for those “who don’t have a voice,” like, for kittens or those who can’t speak. But to support those who will never exist to begin with makes me question their mental stability. The potential for life does not equate to actual life. Ask any of the millions suffering from diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, acne, spinal cord injuries, etc.

Finally, stop holding signs up with dead babies on them! I’m trying to get lunch and I’m not exactly in the market for an abortion. All I can think about are the babies the protestors killed to make those signs and the poor guy at Kinko’s who had to print them. Do you think his supervisor made him do it?

1 comment:

  1. It's not about whether certain cells have rights, it's a matter of the ethical method which lead to the obtainment of those cells. Embryonic research is a Pandora's Box. We don't know if opening it will accomplish anything other than satisfying our scientific curiosity. The dreamers hope it'll unleash treasures, the skeptics that it'll only lead to more cancer.

    Last I checked adult stem cells, on the other hand, accomplished more than pipe dream results. If this field has so much promise, why get our fingers sticky with debatable embryo cells? Rhetorical question. We shouldn't.