October 11, 2004, What a HERO is
I'm saddened to learn of the death of Christopher Reeve at age 52, from heart failure caused by complications from quadriplegia.
As you all know, Reeve, an actor best known for playing Superman in the movie series of that name, was paralyzed from the neck down after a horseback riding accident nine years ago. Rather than fade away and die, as a lesser man might have, horrifying circumstance intervened and Reeve went from being a make-believe super-hero and drove him to become a real one, as he used his public stature to lobby and publicize the plight of those in similar circumstances, including vocal advocacy of stem cell research and other medical endeavors.
While many (including himself) dreamed of the day he would walk again (and a rather freakish commercial to that effect aired during a recent Super Bowl), simply still being alive (and outspoken) at all was miracle enough. His nearly decade long courageous fight just to breathe has, sadly, come to an end. But-- the hell with the cliche-- he will live on as an inspiration.
Rest in peace, Brother Chris.
Comments
Amen, TD.
BTW, have found key to deciphering Bush's bizarre reference to Dred Scott. Apparently, pro-lifers consider Roe v. Wade to be "Dred Scott II"--denying "rights" to a "class of human beings." When Bush said he would appoint judges who do not agree with Dred Scott, what he meant was he would appoint judges who will respect the "rights" of all human beings, including, presumably, proto-human cell clusters.
Posted by mamayo at October 11, 2004 11:59 AM
Does it matter who wins when people casually refer to human life as "proto-human cell clusters." What was the German term for the Jews which denied them their humanity?
Posted by Ken at October 11, 2004 2:57 PM
Actually, Ken, I'm glad you brought that up, so I'll suspend Godwin's Law for the duration.
I actually have a problem myself with "embryonic stem cell research", and Kerry kind of hinted at it at the debates. I'll start with Bush's unbelievably hypocritical position: if embryonic stem cells are "human life"-- then ANY USE-- even of existing stem cell lines-- is a horrible abomination (like using the results of Dr. Mengele's research, because A"it might be effective".) If so, Bush committed a "moral comprommise" that says volumes about his character: he'll compromise ANYTHING for political benefit-- and is a billion times worse than Kerry-- because Bush compromised "a core value".
Without telling which side I come out on (and that's honestly because I have (1) real "Brave New World" problems with this area-- but (2) ALWAYS-- ALWAYS regard pandering to Bible-thumping Neanderthals as a univerally bad thing) I really do not view it as all that slippery a slope from now when we will see poor Latin American mothers (for example) considering DELIBERATELY getting pregnant and terminating the pregnancy so that compatible tissue recipients in the First World might have a better shot at
therapeutic benefit... would I be alone in seeing the problem with such a scenario, when human life itself became (more of) an inustrial commodity (than it already is)?
Not an open and shut issue. Reeve's position is obvious, and easily supportable: he would be willing to push the entical envelope farther than most of us, for obvious reasons, and frankly, he may well prove to be right.
But I think this is one of those issues we need to be a lot more careful on, for a number of reasons: (1) to date, embryonic stem cell research has not proven its universal effectiveness (it leads to a higher incidence of collateral tumors, for example, than adult stem cells), (2) WE HAVE THOSE ETHICAL PROBLEMS absent from other forms of therapy, and (3) we really do need to filter out the abortion factor from this-- this really is a separate issue, even if, politically, it serves both sides (too well) to link it to abortion.
But that's just me.
Posted by the talking dog at October 11, 2004 3:22 PM
No, I do think there is such a thing as "proto-human cell clusters," which are NOT in fact human lives. The idea that "life begins at conception" is a religious belief, and I can respect that as a ground for personal behavioral decisions, but I do not view it as a valid basis for governmental decision-making.
Posted by mamayo at October 11, 2004 4:55 PM
No question, "proto-human cell clusters" are, at best, "potential" human life... and to the extent (maybe Kerry would agree with this) that the limitation on this research is ONLY
fertility clinic frozen zygotes which WOULD BE DISCARDED ANYWAY, and under no circumstances, from any other source, I would acknowledge that most (if not all) of my own concerns would be addressed.
I disagree with the premise that "life begins at conception" is simply a "religious" belief and dismiss it at that. I'm willing to concede, however, that it may be an irrelevant question-- and what MATTERS is when some sort of meaningful human consciousness arises (which might be some time later than conception-- approaching the point of viability for example).
I DO wish there was a way to de-fuse the abortion issue once and for all (a "constitutionally protected right" no unavailable in 86% of the counties in the United States), so that it doesn't continue to bite Democrats on the ass... again and again... as it has now, for 30 years.
And I certainly hope its an issue that gets separated from medical research issues.
Posted by the talking dog at October 11, 2004 6:14 PM
The problem is the science. It is possible, right now, to clone using bits of adult tissue other than reproductive cells. Dolly the sheep, for example, was grown from adult sheep mammary tissue. Would we refuse to do breast reduction surgery, biopsies, or other procedures that eliminate and discard bits of adult tissue because it contains DNA that is not, but might become if a lot of unlikely "ifs" are realized, a human individual?
Does it really make sense to do away with fertility clinics that help people to have wanted babies, because of the possibility that extra cell clusters may be discarded--cell clusters which have no serious prospect of passing through a long list of "ifs" before anything resembling a living individual would result?
Is there any coherence to a political view that wants to "protect" these cell clusters, but is willing to give lethal injections to adult humans, is willing to put children in prison for indefinite terms, is willing to bomb civiilians in Iraq for I'm not sure what reason, is willing to allow corporal punishment for schoolchildren, and is determined to have guns in private homes for the purpose of shooting "intruders"?
It is very hard to take the anti-abortion crowd seriously on anything other than late-term abortion of potentially "viable" fetuses. Which are already "protected" under Roe v. Wade.
Posted by mamayo at October 12, 2004 12:50 PM