The Irish Stem Cell Foundation today called for legislation to allow human embryonic stem cell research to take place in Ireland. The Supreme Court ruled last year in R v. R (frozen embryos case) that human embryos outside the mother’s womb do not enjoy Constitutional protection. This decision, however, in no way impedes the Government from introducing legislation that protects the human embryo from destructive research or abuses in assisted human reproduction.
Responding to the Irish Stem Cell Foundation's call for legislation to allow human embryonic research, Dr. Ruth Cullen of the Pro-Life Campaign said that since its launch the Irish Stem Cell Foundation has been a staunch promoter of embryo research so it’s not at all surprising that it now seeks legislation to give it legal backing.
What is disconcerting is the manipulative way it distorts any alleged benefits of this type of research without mentioning the fact that it also involves the destruction of human life at its earliest stages of development.
The Irish Stem Cell Foundation states correctly that false claims about cures for debilitating conditions are being made by some stem cell practitioners. However, these scams occur in both embryonic and adult stem cell research and, unfortunately, are not uncommon in medical research generally. To use this, as the Irish Stem Cell Foundation does, as a cover to promote embryo research is both bizarre and intellectually dishonest.
The reality is all breakthroughs and treatments we read about in the media involve adult stem cell research, which is perfectly ethical. Embryo stem cell research on the other hand is highly controversial, unethical and has led to no valid treatments for patients.
Instead of calling for socially divisive legislation sanctioning embryo destructive research, the Irish Stem Cell Foundation should join with others in seeking to make Ireland a centre of excellence for adult stem cell research, which is extremely promising scientifically and does not lead to the destruction of human life at its fragile beginnings.
Showing posts with label human embryos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human embryos. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Time and Newsweek Magazines highlight 'waning' influence of pro-choice movement
Remember Roe!’, an article by Sarah Kliff in Newsweek (21st April 2010), paints a dramatic picture of a greying abortion rights leadership in the US racked by a growing anxiety about who will take over the torch from them when they retire.
One of the strongest abortion rights groups in the US is the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), founded in 1969.
Its current president, Nancy Keenan, described in the article her response to the huge crowds flocking to the March for Life in Washington DC this January - ‘my gosh, they are so young - there are so many of them and they are so young.’
There were 400,000 at the March for Life. Two months earlier, the pro-abortionists held a rally against Congressman Bart Stupak’s proposed abortion opt outs in the Health Care Bill and only 1,300 turned up. Over 300-times as many activists came to the March for Life as bothered to turn up to oppose restrictions on abortion in Obama’s health-care package.
In her Newsweek piece, Sarah Kliff says that the difficulties encountered by pro-choice activists during the recent US health care debate marks ‘the day when they became aware of their waning influence in Washington.’
The Newsweek article said that research carried out by the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws found that 51% of under 30s opposed to abortion see it as a ‘very important voting issue’. Only 26% of young people who support abortion see it as a very important voting issue. Their research found a similar though lesser difference among older voters.
This means that it is a live political issue for the pro-life voters especially the young, whereas it is not a hot issue for those who are pro-abortion. So the pro-life activists are pushing an open political door that the pro-abortion activists are not holding shut.
In a separate article in the current Time magazine (3rd May 2010) Terry O’Neill, President of the pro-abortion National Organization for Women, concedes in passing that those on the pro-life side ‘are winning the abortion fight.’
Her intuition was reflected in a number of polls in the last year suggesting that a tipping point may have been reached in American public opinion with the pro-abortion view on the brink of slipping into a minority position as the trend edges in a pro-life direction.
Polls by Gallup and Pew have found rises in the numbers taking a pro-life position and falls in the numbers taking a pro-abortion position. Gallup’s poll exactly a year ago, found ‘51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice”.’
Gallup says “this is the first time a majority of US adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”
At a time when pro-choice campaigners should be exulting in their current successes – the election of the most pro-abortion politician in America as President, control of Congress by the Democrats, pro-abortion since 1980 - they are instead keenly aware that things are not going their way. Without becoming complacent, pro-life supporters should take heart from these encouraging and uplifting developments.
One of the strongest abortion rights groups in the US is the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), founded in 1969.
Its current president, Nancy Keenan, described in the article her response to the huge crowds flocking to the March for Life in Washington DC this January - ‘my gosh, they are so young - there are so many of them and they are so young.’
There were 400,000 at the March for Life. Two months earlier, the pro-abortionists held a rally against Congressman Bart Stupak’s proposed abortion opt outs in the Health Care Bill and only 1,300 turned up. Over 300-times as many activists came to the March for Life as bothered to turn up to oppose restrictions on abortion in Obama’s health-care package.
In her Newsweek piece, Sarah Kliff says that the difficulties encountered by pro-choice activists during the recent US health care debate marks ‘the day when they became aware of their waning influence in Washington.’
The Newsweek article said that research carried out by the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws found that 51% of under 30s opposed to abortion see it as a ‘very important voting issue’. Only 26% of young people who support abortion see it as a very important voting issue. Their research found a similar though lesser difference among older voters.
This means that it is a live political issue for the pro-life voters especially the young, whereas it is not a hot issue for those who are pro-abortion. So the pro-life activists are pushing an open political door that the pro-abortion activists are not holding shut.
In a separate article in the current Time magazine (3rd May 2010) Terry O’Neill, President of the pro-abortion National Organization for Women, concedes in passing that those on the pro-life side ‘are winning the abortion fight.’
Her intuition was reflected in a number of polls in the last year suggesting that a tipping point may have been reached in American public opinion with the pro-abortion view on the brink of slipping into a minority position as the trend edges in a pro-life direction.
Polls by Gallup and Pew have found rises in the numbers taking a pro-life position and falls in the numbers taking a pro-abortion position. Gallup’s poll exactly a year ago, found ‘51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice”.’
Gallup says “this is the first time a majority of US adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”
At a time when pro-choice campaigners should be exulting in their current successes – the election of the most pro-abortion politician in America as President, control of Congress by the Democrats, pro-abortion since 1980 - they are instead keenly aware that things are not going their way. Without becoming complacent, pro-life supporters should take heart from these encouraging and uplifting developments.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Ireland and Stem Cell Research
Killing Embryos in Stem Cell Research Unnecessary, Expert Says : 22nd Feb 10
Professor Tommie McCarthy of the Department of Biochemistry, University College Cork (UCC), has taken issue with Dr Dolores Dooley’s recent dismissal of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research as more effective and ethical alternatives to human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.
Writing in "The Irish Times", he said a search of the world’s largest registry of clinical trials shows more than 1,900 current trials using adult stem cells, compared to only three hESC transplantation trials. Dr Dooley, who headed the recently disbanded Irish Council for Bioethics, had argued that hESCs are required as controls for adult stem cell research.
But Prof McCarthy said that was incorrect, because adult stem cell research has been in progress for decades without hESCs. Dr Dooley’s argument about hESCs as controls is purely relative because human iPSC research (which emanated from equivalent research in mice) will advance rapidly with or without hESCs.
“The justification that ‘all forms of stem-cell research need to continue and all are important’ is only academic, and academic endeavour, in my view, should never undermine the dignity of human life”, Prof McCarthy concluded.
The Irish Times. February 3.
Source: Family and Life
Professor Tommie McCarthy of the Department of Biochemistry, University College Cork (UCC), has taken issue with Dr Dolores Dooley’s recent dismissal of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research as more effective and ethical alternatives to human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.
Writing in "The Irish Times", he said a search of the world’s largest registry of clinical trials shows more than 1,900 current trials using adult stem cells, compared to only three hESC transplantation trials. Dr Dooley, who headed the recently disbanded Irish Council for Bioethics, had argued that hESCs are required as controls for adult stem cell research.
But Prof McCarthy said that was incorrect, because adult stem cell research has been in progress for decades without hESCs. Dr Dooley’s argument about hESCs as controls is purely relative because human iPSC research (which emanated from equivalent research in mice) will advance rapidly with or without hESCs.
“The justification that ‘all forms of stem-cell research need to continue and all are important’ is only academic, and academic endeavour, in my view, should never undermine the dignity of human life”, Prof McCarthy concluded.
The Irish Times. February 3.
Source: Family and Life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
