Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research is one of those issues where almost everyone thinks they know more than they actually do. The common perception seems to be that the stem cells come from aborted fetuses. With this, pro-lifers are kind of alienated from supporting the research while pro-choicers figure it's at least some good that comes out of abortion.

But, as it often is, the common perception is wrong. Embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. There is, in fact, a difference between a fetus and an embryo - fetuses are at a much later stage of development. The embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are at their earliest stage of development. So early in fact that they haven't even seen the inside of a womb. You see, these embryos are leftovers from in vitro fertilization clinics. Eggs that were fertilized in a test tube or petri dishes, or something along those lines.

When these fertilization clinics do their thing, they fertilize a few eggs, then they implant only the most viable embryos - at this point what's known as a blastocyst. Between 50 - 250 cells generally make up the whole thing. So, what happens to the rest? Well, the couple can opt to preserve them for possible later use, but that's expensive. They can also opt to give them to other hopeful mothers to be, if any are in need of them. More often than not though, these embryos are simply disposed of like a prom night dumpster baby. Or, they can also (if current laws allow it) opt to donate them to stem cell research.

Stem cell research does have a lot of potential, and contrary to what some nay-sayers say ("nay"), there have been results. Mostly in using one's own (or a close relative's) stem cells. This is likely simply because there have been so many roadblocks in embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are more desirable because they have more potential to adapt. The thing is that if you put an embryonic stem cell in with another cluster of cells, it generally will take on the properties of its surrounding cells.

Stop and think about this. You know all that stuff that can't heal or be replaced? This can change. Rather than waiting and likely dying while waiting on transplant lists, a new organ can be grown. One in which you don't need to take immunosuppressants for the rest of your life to prevent your body from rejecting said organ. Maybe this can also help repair spinal cords, maybe this can also cure or more effectively treat autoimmune disorders. Use your imagination, it's all being looked at.

As always, I encourage you to do your own research. Then come to your own conclusions based on your research rather than letting someone else do your thinking for you.

This post done, I leave you with the Prom Night Dumpster Babies!

Religion and Medicine

Catholic church is furious about being required to provide birth control through church-linked hospitals and healthcare.

Admittedly, this did require some thought on my part. My initial reaction is, "so the Catholic church hates birth control. What else is new?" My feelings about how much involvement the church has taken in politics and in holding back science as a whole are no secret. This did require a little more thought, however. The reason? Quite simply because I do respect the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does protect religious freedom... it does say that government and churches should not tread on each other's turf, despite how often the churches in particular try to do so. I do however believe in leading by example, as "...but they started it!" comes off as a rather childish argument. So initially, it does seem that there is some merit to the church's argument that the government just treaded on church turf.

Let's take a closer look, though. When you start looking at the various hospitals, it seems that a lot of them have some sort of religious affiliation at least by name. Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic (or mention of saints), etc. For one reason or another, healthcare seems dominated by religious organizations. I suppose it makes sense to expand spiritual healing to physical healing, and the churches actually do have some history of this, at least as far back as medieval nuns and monks in Christianity, and druids with the pre-Christian Celts, and the list goes on, I'm sure.

The question however is whether we should be able to deny treatment based on religious beliefs. Should atheists or other non-believers be turned away from such church-connected hospitals? Birth control in itself may seem a small issue. But for the woman who just got raped and needs a Plan B pill, it's something of a bigger deal. It's also a predecessor to a bigger issue. What about those churches who feel that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from their god, and therefore should receive no treatment? It wouldn't be anything new - the same has happened throughout history, whether it be disease such as smallpox, or a tragedy such as an earthquake or hurricane. Should any organization that can call itself a hospital be allowed to deny treatment over religious beliefs on these? I don't think so.

While it is kind of churches to build these hospitals, if they are going to treat them as public hospitals (not to mention accepting government aid and funding as such), then they must accept, at least in their hospitals, the same treatments accepted by other healthcare organizations. No one is dictating that churches change their doctrines, just that their hospitals catch up.

Indoctrination in Public Schools

Back when I was in high school, for some idiot reason, PETA was allowed to set up shop in the hallway near the front office during lunch. Predictably, they were pushing off all their pamphlets, mostly trying to guilt people in to a total vegan diet. Me, being who I am, I would always double back to grab a burger or something in which meat was the main ingredient in that could easily be held in one hand while I browse the pamphlets talking about how meat is murder.

Being older and wiser now, I still grin ear to ear about that. But, I also find myself kind of irritated. I never saw anyone else being allowed to set up shop in the school hallways during lunch to present any kind of counterpoint. It was indoctrination. That PETA would do that doesn't surprise me - they have no ethics in how they get their message across. Show them the studies that plants do, indeed, feel pain too, and their smug little heads explode. Why though were they allowed to set up shop in a public school? Why were no opposing views doing the same?

I'm pretty certain that any conservatives reading this will be saying, "yup, that's what I'm talking about! Liberal propaganda is being forced into our children's minds. Indoctrination at public schools has gotta stop here and now!"

With that statement, "indoctrination has to stop," I fully agree. Why then, are so many Republicans forcing creationism into the curriculum of public schools? And universities? Creationism is not science. There is no scientific evidence to back it up. If it belongs in any curriculum in a public school, it would belong in one such as "Comparative Theology," Not something that teaches fact based on evidence.

Intelligent design also is not a compromise. Again, it is not based on fact or any kind of evidence, it is based on one religion trying to find some way to force their agenda into schools. So conservatives, guess what? It's still indoctrination, even if it's under your agenda.

This is something that people are being forced to learn, and being graded on for learning "correctly." It's being passed off as science, not for the theology it rightfully is, regardless of the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the students.