Responding to the “Research, not human life” letter (10/7), I’m not seeing the “obvious” reasoning for concluding that human life begins “when an embryo implants in a womb.” The author is saying that a fertilized ovum cannot survive and grow into a “human” unless it’s transplanted into a womb where it receives the nutrition and shelter necessary for survival.
Well, guess what? One-year-old babies and, for that matter, 14-year-old kids cannot survive on their own either. Are we going to consider taking them apart and using them for replacement parts, too?
I still haven’t seen anything that convinces me to vote for Amendment 2. I support scientific research, but not cloning and not research at the expense of another human life.
Glen Ernstmann, Raytown
Oy. Where to start? With the intellectual dishonesty? With the feigned hysteria? With the ignorance? I'll forgo the ignorance. Some folks just can't help being ignorant. But intellectual dishonesty is a choice one makes, and it is a ploy deliberately invoked. The limits of the proposition are quite specific and a "slippery slope" arguement just won't fly.
And newsflash: A cluser of 32 cells is not "life." There is no sentience, no neural activity, no nervous system, no heartbeat - none of the hallmarks of life. Without a womb, there is no future of developing to the point of life. Every day, thousands upon thousands of women start their monthly cycles and fertilized eggs that did not implant pass unknown from the body. It makes as much sense to gather up women's bathroom trash and hold memorials as it does to compare stem cell research to parting out toddlers and adolescents.
Better idiots, please.
