The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) sponsored a poetry contest to promote Stem Cell Awareness Day last Wednesday, and the seemingly innocuous event kicked up a serious controversy.
One of the winning poems, published on CIRM's website and in a national publication, utilizes the language of the Christian ceremony of communion to make its point. Here's the full text of that poem, entitled "Stem C.," by Tyson Anderson:
This is my body
which is given for you.
But I am not great.
I have neither wealth,
nor fame, nor grace.
I cannot comfort with words,
nor inspire to march.
I am small and simple,
so leave me this.
Let me heal you.
This is my body
which is given for you.
Take this
in remembrance of me.
Anderson's poem doesn't strike me as being deliberately provocative -- its tone is clearly heartfelt. But using the language considered sacred by most opponents of stem cell research in order to promote the research is, well, provocative. The Life Legal Defense Fund, which has opposed CIRM since its founding in 2004, was, it's safe to say, provoked:
The choice of this poem for a prize represents the deliberate pilfering of the holiest of voluntary, sacrificial acts in the history of humanity for a shoddy pep piece in CIRM's campaign to promote the wholesale destruction of human life.
As if squandering taxpayer money on propaganda to promote "Stem Cell Awareness Day" were not enough, CIRM is bent on mocking the most sacred of Christian texts.
If Anderson is bothered by the Life Legal Defense Fund's hyperbole, it should comfort him that the group thought enough of his "shoddy pep piece" to use it as a basis for expanding their argument: "The poem's premise is that the embryo is a person wishing to give its life, but why we should assume that the embryo is saying, 'Let me help,' rather than 'Let me live'?"
This seemed the start of an enlightening debate, but CIRM chose not to continue it, instead removing the poem from its website and apologizing.
The AP covered the story this past week but was laughably off base in its description of the poetry contest as "an attempt to lighten up the heavy subject of stem cells through poetry." There is nothing light about Anderson's poem. And it has resulted in people taking a harder look at the moral implications of both the promotion and suspension of stem cell research. For that, Anderson should consider his poem a success.
Feel free to share your viewpoint in the comments section below.
http://www.xcell-center.com
One German clinic is working to save the lives of those plagued with the following debilitating diseases using stem cells taken from a person's own hip. While the US drags its feet, thousands of people are dying every day from the complications of the DRUGS they are told are "SAFE" and the outright ignorance of those in medicine about stem cell research.
*ALS
* Alzheimer's disease
* Autism
* Cerebral Palsy
* Macular degeneration
* Multiple Sclerosis
* Osteoarthritis
* Parkinson's disease
* Spinal cord injuries
Read more here:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2010/10/sensory-renewal-goldfish-eyes-hair.html
perhaps one thing needs to be emphasized i'm not well informed enough to know whether it is enough emphazised in professional circles and from them to media
adult stem cells ; functioning of stem cells in the body right now
can both cell death and replacement of the cell by a new one and the functioning of stem cells in the adult body be improved through meditation ?
extrapolating from what i've heard Maharishi say about transcendental meditation ( TM ) and having listened to MDs and PHDs who are TM teachers i say TM program improves cell regenration , DNA repair [ or replication correction ] ; gene expression
about more efficient functioning of stem cells in adults i simply assume it is also improved by TM
the stem cell debate must have two tracks the one it is on and the track of prevention ; thatis reducing the need for treating sickness bypromoting consciousness of healthy happy habits , less pollution , less stress
The embryos at issue can either be incinerated or used to help people. There is no other alternative.
Politicos preying on people who would collect just enough facts to make them dangerous would have people believe that these embryos have a future, that the people who made them would otherwise carry them to term.
They already got the baby or babies they wanted. These are what is left over. They will be destroyed and of no use to anyone.
It IS a pro-life position to support embryonic stem cell research.
'nuff said.
Obviously you disagree and believe these embryos are property or you wouldn't hold the opinion that you do. But what is the limit for you? Is your judgement regarding what can be done solely based on the good of the "living"? Is it better to be "useful" than to be granted the dignity of a natural death?
There can never be enough said about the choices and assumptions we make when dealing with the creation and protection of life.
this discussion is about life and death
#2
at least one other alternative comes to mind - allow/help them to grow up to be happy and productive members of society
#3
i dunno about 'politicos', but to say that the at-risk individuals being discussed axiomatically have no future is incorrect on its face - if they are viable and their parents *could* bring them to term, but don't want to, why *couldn't* somebody else bring them to term who can and wants to ?
#4
again you are overlooking the fundamental issue of the PERSONHOOD of the 'left over' individuals being discussed, and once again if the birth parents do *not* wish to bring them to term and raise them themselves, there is nothing in law or medical standards and practices that automatically prescribes the destruction of the embryos in question
#5
i believe you have here hit on the crux of the biscuit as some would put it and encapsulated what i believe is the biggest problem with your position on the subject. it is becoming quite apparent from your writing that you don't believe an human embryo is a human being. if this is indeed your underlying position, the only way to logically and honestly support your previous statements above is to convince myself and others that
a : life does not begin at conception, and
b : a human embryo is not a human being
['nuff said]
good luck sparky !
If this group really and truly cared so much about children born and unborn they would be fighting to get young women and families socialized health care so the children have good prenatal care and are born into families where health care is a given. The people that would actually benefit would be real live breathing individuals that absolutely are people.
The deliberate reference in the poem to the Last Supper and communion could reasonably be interpreted as the embryo's willing sacrifice on behalf of another life, as Jesus sacrificed His life for that of humanity's. That's what communion is supposed to represent, after all. The obvious disconnect is that Jesus gave His life willingly, while an embryo's life must be taken from it if it is not allowed to develop into a person.
NOT FACT!
Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.
So, if they were not destroyed, they would just die of themselves. To make them become human beings, each embryo would have to be transferred to a woman's uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy (which is by, no means, guaranteed).
May they and their family suffer from unbearably painful, but treatable diseases, so that they may better test their faith on the anvil of cold reality.
ObamaCare doesn't go far enough ... but it's a start ... toward a Public Option taking insurance company PROFITEERS out of the equation ... and finally ... Medicare for ALL (the basic human right in ALL civilized countries, except ours!)
She mentioned saving "snowflake babies" (implanting & impregnating with leftover frozen embryos), as one of her arguments against Embryonic Stem Cell Research. At first she claimed THOUSANDS of "snowflake babies" have been saved ... then lowered that number to hundreds.
Well here's a number for her. There are FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND frozen embryos. Wouldn't it be better for the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS not "adopted" to wind up as RESEARCH in cures for debilitating & deadly diseases ... instead of RUBBISH in fertility clinic dumpsters?!
The real problem with the LLDF criticism is that it is based on the assumption that their position is the only one a truly devout person can have. They are WRONG.
As a truly devout person, I believe that the alleviation of suffering we can reasonably hope for is a huge good for humanity. The loss of a potential life--for the embryo is at a stage too early to feel or think--is perhaps sad, but it is nothing to the tragedy of watching a loved one slowly drown in Parkinson's or dementia! It is nothing to the suffering of ALM, or quadriplegia. It is nothing beside a life made endlessly miserable by cerebral palsy--or type 1 diabetes, or any of a number of other problems.
In short, the objection is based on an invalid assuption which is grounded in ego (I'm right, darn it, so what I want is the only valid belief) and lack of compassion.
your argument will be that a potential life is not the same as a fully realized, living human being. then, you would have to eliminate your first two sentences - and the concept that in the poem that it is self-sacrificial.
Your argument is a false comparison.
And celebrating the greatness of the gift by understanding it is akin to the gift of His life is not an insult to Jesus or inappropriate, which is the point of the article.
These balls of cells do not have a nervous system, they are not fetuses. They are donor tissues - eggs and sperm from a couple who has already had one or more embryos implanted in order to have the children they wanted.
If the donors wish to donate these embryos for research and use in stem cell therapies, it is no different than donating organs after death.
Why don't the religious nuts go out and adopt children and help needy families instead of trying to stop scientific progress that might really help real, living, fully developed human beings?
But I totally agree, they need to buck up and put their big boy pants on.
However, I do not find this offensive in any way. In fact, I find it ingenious and most definitely winner worthy. It is thought provoking. Perhaps here in lies the problem; thought provocation is frowned up in religion...
If that doesn't convince you consider this:
There is no ethical controversy about adult stem cell research so why would you need to have a poetry contest about it?