Comments on Stem Cell Research and Chris Reeve

Oct. 18 Infidel Guy Radio Forum

Comments on Stem Cell Research and Chris Reeve

Like Chris Reeve I am a quadriplegic. I also just as he am for embryonic as well as adult stem cell research. Bothh will be ueseful but for now only embryonic stem cells are capable of total pluripotency, with the possible exception of cord blood but alas mine is long gone. I am also for somatic cell nuclear transfer aka therapeutic cloning but further than that I have no objection to reproductive cloning whatsoever.

I've never heard yet a cogent argument against reproductive human cloning from anyone religionist or atheist that did not invoke some religious reason or airy fairy 'yuke factor'.

I do not believe that a clump of cells only several divisions from the first split has the same rights as a fully formed and living human being that has memories and loved ones and plans for the future, hopes desires and feelings. It's not human while not yet possessing a brain and nervous system. In fact the interesting thing about religionist arguments against SCNT is they decry it as being little different than reproductive cloning and also abhor reproductive cloning while at the same time insisting that the SCNT engineered embryo have full human rights.

How can they be against cloning and yet insist clones are deserving human rights, deserving of their humanity -- the very humanity they deny that clones have in their first objections to them. Those first objections being that it's against god and inhuman/inhumane science. Hell most don't even believe a clone would have a soul, notwithstanding no souls exist to begin with. So if it has no soul in their opinion then what's the problem? If clones now have by fiat human rights then why is it so bad to make a clone of a dead child or to clone oneself say to avoid the cruelty of nature where one has been left childless and unable to conceive and possibly the last of your family line?

For the record I have always maintained fully formed clones deserve human rights. It would be murder of a human being and totally unethical to salvage them for parts, if they have formed a human brain. But if not then I feel it's ok. Without development of the brain, such as in anencephalia or an induced state therein then there would be no consciousness and hence an unaware bag of parts. However, this is acedemic theorizing over something that need never be done. Tissue engineering will develop methods for organ cloning and repair that will never require harvesting of parts from fully formed bodies, which I admit most could not accept and would see as ghoulish.

For me the cells harvested from an engineered non developed embryo [division vehicle] doesn't even need to be from a human egg. I'd be happy with a bovine shell, just transfer a human mitochondria [so there's no residual foreign DNA] along with the whole neucleus of one of my cells and what we have is spare parts for me that belong to me! and made eniterely with my DNA so no autoimmune tissue rejection. It's my DNA, MINE!

I'll do with it what I want including and not limited to making it possible for me to walk again. And if I should need to replace my excised right kidney or the other one under so much stress right now or a new liver or a new heart or replace my telomeres so my cells rejuvinate and slow my aging I'll damn well do that to. My business what I do.

I'll close with a word or two for Chris. I'll miss him. I'll miss his bravery and gumption. Man I thought I was sooper-quad! [inside joke] I hope someone good can pick up his torch and carry it forward for us all and I do mean all, not just those of us afflicted with spinal injury or disease as in my own additional affliction of diabetes.

FutureQ