My Oped on Amendment 2.

[usregimechange]

Mark Sloneker (Globe, Oct. 10th) recently expressed his opposition to the Amendment 2.
Mark objects to the wording of the stem cell initiative saying that stem cells “come from fertilized human embryos that this organization calls blastocysts.” To object to an amendment allowing scientific research because the amendment contains scientific language is a bit reaching. This is an emotionally charged issue and it is important to know what the amendment actually says.

First, a blastocyst is an embryo about 1 millimeter in diameter defined by this amendment as less than 14 days old and not implanted in the uterus. The Amendment prohibits blastocyst from being produced solely for research. It prohibits purchase or sale for research. It requires informed consent from the donors. It requires Institutional Review to ensure the research complies with federal law.

For those who have been swayed by people pushing for the use of adult stem cells in order to prevent embryonic stem cell research please be aware of this. According to the National Institutes of Health: “Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells” (NIH website, 2006). This is true because adult stem cells are “limited to differentiating into different cell types” whereas embryonic stem cells can develop into many different cell types.

There are many good people that oppose this amendment that are writing letters mischaracterizing this reasonable amendment for emotional reasons. Let’s all get the facts and start by reading the amendment itself.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Embryo means 'early', NOT 'baby'

No way will this 'embryo' ever become a baby unless it is implanted in a womb. And it has already been rejected by the egg donor.

The real choice here is research or discard. Do we use these left over stem cells for research or do we throw them away? And how pro-life is it to discard them?