What I found incredible was that in one sentence the editorial erroneously claims that the state of Michigan has a ban on embryonic stem cell research and then a few paragraph later the editorial says that the University of Michigan is doing embryonic stem cell research. So is it banned or not? If embryonic stem cell research is banned in Michigan then how can the University of Michigan be doing it? Does the Free Press think its readers are that stupid? Or are the editorial writers that stupid?
The editorial also claims President Bush withdrew federal funding on embryonic stem cell research even though before Bush's policy was implemented there was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. It's kind of tough to withdraw something that wasn't there is the first place, isn't it?
The Press also pushes the "fairy tale" that embryonic stem cells could treat Alzheimer's.
The end of the editorial says that "(t)here's no moral victory in preserving embryos that could never be implanted or "adopted."" I have no clue how they can claim that. Why couldn't the human embryos be adopted and implanted instead of killed? How is that not a physical possibility?
And the Free Press also takes the inevitable cheap shot at human embryos.
Embryonic stem cell research doesn't kill anybody. Scientists want to use blastocysts -- three days old, devoid of brain waves, smaller than the period at the end of this sentence -- that fertility clinics would otherwise discard.
Actually, aren't the human embryos killed usually 5-7 days old (the lowest number I've seen before is 4 days old) and since when does age, size and level of development determine if an organism is an "anybody?"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment