IL remains Wild West of human cloning thanks to hold-up by Democrat House Leaders
Three public policy organizations (Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Concerned Women for America of IL, and Eagle Forum of IL) held a press conference yesterday in Chicago to spotlight last week’s unilateral hold-up by state Rep. William Delgado of HB4156, which would halt taxpayer funding of human cloning in IL and regulate documented gross human cloning and embryonic experimentations.
HB4156 has 51 cosponsors and enough confirmed votes to pass on the Floor of the Illinois House, yet Delgado refused to allow the Human Services Committee he chairs to even vote on it.
It seems to go that way in the IL General Assembly: Liberals hold up conservative bills in committee, rightfully fearing they will pass on the Floor; meanwhile, liberals force their own bills through committee only to see them rightfully languish on the Floor.
HB4156 with its proposed amendment would not only have stopped Gov. Blagojevich with his in-place plan to force taxpayer funding of human cloning experimentation, it would have provided controls on this unregulated research.
Delgado claimed to oppose human cloning, but he refused to let his committee vote on HB4156. Delgado also claimed public funding will force the industry to regulate, but he refused our amendment regulating the industry.
We can't help but wonder if Delgado has a conflict of interest, since he admitted in committee he has a relative in the in vitro fertilization business (which currently feeds researchers their eggs and embryos).
But Speaker Michael Madigan and Rules Committee Chair Barbara Flynn Currie refused to allow the bill to be moved to get a fair hearing.
So human cloning remains a free-for-all in IL, where in 2003 Chicago researcher Norbert Gleicher announced he had inserted human male cells into female embryos and allowed the "she-males" to live six days before destroying them. 
[Photo, courtesy of NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, is of an African green monkey into which researchers on the island of St. Kitts have implanted several million human neural stem cells.]
We can also look forward to experiments conducted here as in CA, where Salk Institute researchers announced in December they had successfully implanted human cells into mouse brains. Other researchers have inserted human cells into rabbit and cow eggs. In 2004, Mayo Clinic researchers announced they had created pigs with human blood.
Thanks to Delgado and House leadership, unethical research like this will not only go on unfettered, but the people of Illinois may have to pay for it.
And BTW, one wonders what Gov. Blagojevich will hide in his budget this year? Last year it was $10 million to fund the aforementioned.
21 comments:
who are the 51 co-sponsors?
I don't see any ethical problems with any of the experiments you have mentioned as already happening except for the "she-male" experiment as it is working on a human specimen. I'm pro-Life and against federal stem cell funding, but I don't really see what's wrong with putting human cells in animals. Such research has the potential to create models that could be essential for disease treatment. Sure, these experiments sounds weird, but they're completely ethical. I've worked with human cells in the lab and I don't really see why putting them in animals is necessarily wrong or any different. I'm quite amazed by these fascinating projects, and others that are likely on the horizon, such as for example, genetically engineering pigs to grow human kidneys or livers that could be then used to help suffering people who need transplants. Where is the harm in that?
The wild west resulted in some great technological advances, pretty piano music ans some great cities.
For the trillionth time:
"Democrat" is a noun.
"Democratic" is the adjective form of "Democrat."
A Republican, Democrat, or independent who uses the terms incorrectly: "moron."
Chicagooey-
I agree with you except on the she-male front. I could care less if human specimens are used.
I believe the point in listing the other forms of research are simple scare tactics designed to build support against the fictitious Island of Dr. Moreau scenario. Too bad we don't have any Brando look-alikes to point at.
-Gish
I'M A WHACK-A-DOO! THE DEMOCRAT PARTY ARE A BUNCH OF MAD SCIENTISTS AND NAZI EUGENCISTS! EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME! THE DEMOCRAT PARTY! HEY, OVER HERE! THIS BLOG IS MY PERSONAL PLATFORM TO PUSH AN INSANE AGENDA WITHOUT PROVIDING SUPPORTING FACTS OR REASONED ARGUMENTS! WHACK-A-DOO!
Oooh, the comments are gonna come rollin' in now! As long as people are commenting, people can say ANYTHING!
Right there is your problem Stanek. "ignorantly trvialize mad science." "Mad science!?" It's a buzzword, like saying "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic," because it focus groups better; or saying "abortion mill" instead of "abortion clinic."
In every era, something was considered "mad science"--like the first autopsies. They screamed and tore their hair out--"How can you cut open a human body and study it!? It's god creation!"--that was considered "mad science, too.
Your recrudescent Medievel bull makes you a whack-a-doo: that's why we object to your loaded language and monomaniacal obsession with things you define as sacred, and call us "fanatcs" for not agreeing. You see? Just because you call it "mad science" doesn't make it that: you only call it that because you affix "sacredness" and "holyness" and whatever to these things. We don't all agree. So you compare us to eugenicists and Dr. Mengele. Who's the fanatic? Who's the whack-a-doo?
Science is science. It will move on. Fighting it tooth and nail will only make us backwards. Maybe you'll go to heaven for it, but probably not. Here on Earth we have a civilization to try to improve. How about this: "Anybody who opposes cutting-edge science is a beany-eyed hillbilly." Stop being a beany-eyed hillbilly, this is cutting edge science!
Wow, your technique is pretty fun!
Jill-
There is some science that all thinking, moral people agree is out of bounds. One of those is human experimentation.
Generally people on both sides may agree with that statement. However, in dispute, is whether parital humans even qualify (and should they, at what quantifiable level do they start) under that statement.
Chimera is not a commonly-understood word among the populace. Most people might also not find laboratory-created chimeras to fall under the category of 'human experimentation'.
That is why I used the term 'scare tactics' in my previous post. You don't argue the status of these chimeras with the general populace in as much as you try to encourage people to fear the worst.
Although, it does make me wonder why you don't seem to be posting so much for the freedom of these chimeras since you believe they qualify as humans. I find it likely that they will be killed and examined. I don't hear your cries for their lives which so probably hang in the balance. Isn't all 'human life' a part of the 'culture of life'?
Of course, I don't think you do believe them to be human and therefore deserving of all the rights enumerated. It just leads me back to my thought you are simply using the Island of Dr. Moreau in Illinois as a scare tactic to aid you in your struggles.
-Gish
Stanek-
Your single-minded carelessness towards any living, breathing human being in favor of entities in the gray area of personhood--your crass disregard for humankind, makes you a soulless whack-a-doo. Surrender the fantasy and accept it, and we can start a conversation from there.
Oh, and I'm not Marty McFly. Calling me a "chicken" on the internet will not cause me to drag race you.
Jill Stanek said...
"I reported information gleaned from the mainstream media."
"Gleaned" would be the key word here. The AP article you reference from MSNBC is hardly an indictment of all such research. In fact the researchers quoted and studies cited in the article make a very strong case for the need for this research within ethical boundries. The problem is that it should not be left up to the religious right to determine what those ethical boundries are. When religion dictates the limits of science we end up with people being tortured for saying the Earth revolves around the sun and the teaching of "Intelligent Design" as science.
Jill, rumor has it that you may be coming to the University of Illinois at Springfield speaking? Is this so? Hopefully so because I am a fan and appreciate what you do for the conservative movement!
Whether or not someone posts anonymously, under a fake name or a real name is not the issue. The issue is whether or not what is being posted is factual, a lie, or only part of the story. To call attention to the fact that you took one line out of an article and attempted to represent it as the tone of the entire article is simply pointing out a fact.
And while there are those not associated with the religious right who have concerns about this science and want it to be regulated and know that there is a need for ethical standards to be created, they are not the problem. They can agree or disagree on the pros and cons of the research, debate the ethical standards, and reach some consensus based on the rule of law and the ethical standards of science. It is the the religious right who can't see it as anything but a black and white issue.
That's the same type of faulty reasoning that leads one to make the absurd comment that calling attention to your misrepresentations is somehow "alpha male chatter."
When the truth hurts just delete.
I daresay you're always the first to name call, throw mud against the wall, and make unsubstatiated and false claims. When your hypocrisy and lies are noted, you react like every demagogue does. Cover up, censor and lie some more.
It has to be tough when you spread your lies to a general (read thinking) audience rather than the usual cow-eyed true believers who come out to see you speak. Being held to a standard where facts and accuracy actually matter seems to be just too daunting for you. Hence the serial deleting.
You used one line from an article, (an article that you misattributed as an MSNBC piece, rather than a reprinted AP article...a small point perhaps, but indicitive of your lack of thouroughness and attention to detail) as evidence that there was a huge groundswell of support throughout the scientific community for your point of view. The full article, taken in context, paints a very different picture.
You ignored in all the other clips you cite any of the balance that was provided in those pieces by the responsible journalists who produced them. That balance would include the calls within the scientific community to set ethical standards for research while not ignoring the incredible possibilities such research may hold. In your world there are just a bunch of "mad scientists" and when one is discredited that becomes your "proof" about them all. I'm sure as a Catholic, you would condemn those who carry out violence against abortion providers, and would hate nothing more than to be considered the same as them. Yet you make the same associations all the time about people with a point that differs from yours.
Haven't noticed a retraction of the misinformation you provided when attempting to compare yourself to Peter Cartwright. Another example of truth taking a back seat to an agenda.
By the logic you use in all of your posts, the number of cosponsors on the bill is meaningless. One brave soul standing up for what they think is right, regardless of the means they use, seems to be your own Joan of Arc view of yourself. Delgado therefore is a kindred spirit.
The overarching problem is your refusal to see any shades of grey and your insistance that anyone who doesn't see the world just the way you do (which by extention means everyone who doesn't practice their own religion in the same way you do) are "baby killers," or any of the other pleasant labels you throw around so freely.
Any cause worth fighting for is cheapened and reduced when one is willing to cut corners or be less than accurate and truthful when making their case.
No, in fact there are very few absolutes when your argument is based on your personal religious beliefs. The question is not the sanctity of life as you well know, it is when life begins. You believe that what you believe about this point trumps what anyone else believes. Yelling it louder than anyone else is not the same as it being correct.
To suggest that you did not intend to mislead by pulling an individual line out of a story, or citing sources as in lock-step with your agenda, when a complete reading suggests otherwise, is nothing less than purposefully misleading.
I noticed you didn't rush to condemn those who carry out violence against people who legally provide abortions. That should be an absolute for anyone. Can you at least state for the record that those people are beneath contempt?
As chief mud thrower here, it's amusing to have you label any point you don't care to address as such.
All these conflicting posts tell the real story. This is a very controversal issue and one that won't be won or lost for a long time. This is exactly why taxpayer funds should not be used for embyonic stem cell research.
Let the private companies invest if they wish but it is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. If I'm not mistaken thats all the bill (HB 4156) did. End the use of taxpayer dollars. It did nothing to end the proceedure.
P.S. Blago made a serious blunder in proposing an additional $100 million for stem cell research - now how will the downstate dems be able to vote for the budget?????
There is nothing infered, you ignore answering direct questions that are posed to you that you cannot answer. You use partial quotes and out of context statements to make points that you cannot make honestly. You assume "facts" that are not facts. In short, you lie.
It's nice to see you've finally answered the question about the scum that think it's ok to kill people carrying out a legal function and helping women make a personal choice.
As for when life begins, that is a personal opinion that I hold based on my experience and religious beliefs. I am neither so ignornant nor grandious to think that my personal belief is the only and final answer and have no desire to foist it upon the masses. There are at least seven points during the process from conception to birth that honest, thinking people can debate as the point at which life begins. To claim absolute authority on which point is correct is to imbue oneself as the arbiter of the divine . You're prepared to see yourself in such a light, most reasonable people are not.
And simply putting your spin on Bible passages does not make it so either. Biblical scholars did not even begin to discuss the pre-natel state of John as proof of "life" until it became justification for the current abortion debate. Read Henry, Wesley, Spurgeon, none of them address the question because none of them were biased by the abortion debate.
And while you choose to silence those who point out your lies or address them with name calling and generalizations, those of us who actually live the religions we practice will say a prayer for you to have the faith required to carry out your crusade with just a bit of honesty and dignity.
I apologize for thinking you were a Catholic. That's countless misstatements for you, one for me. And I make it a point to apologize for mine when they're pointed out.
There are many differing scientific opinions regarding when life begins, that you choose to only accept one of those says much more about you then it does about science.
Your need to call victims "abortion mill workers" rather than "sons," "daughters,"
"mothers" "fathers," "friends" is curious given your side's insistance on calling "zygotes," "babies."
But then again you have no problem dehumanizing anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Post a Comment