Professor David Gushee is entitled to his position, but his passionate argument appears to arise from his view of the unborn rather than the specific legislation that passed Congress by overwhelming majorities [“The stem cell veto,” Aug. 3]. The readers of the Religious Herald would have been better served had the opinion piece included the facts.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, H.R.810, was a very brief bill of only 321 words, and everyone interested in the subject should read what the President vetoed. This is the key part of the bill:
(b) Ethical Requirements — Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
I ask your readers, “What's wrong with using these stem cells in search of cures for Parkinson's and other dreaded diseases rather than discarding them?”
I would ask Professor Gushee, “If in your opinion the stem cells are human life, should they be kept alive — forever? Should it be unlawful to discard them?”
Also, does the writer possibly oppose in vitro fertilization?
A few years ago President Bush approved federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for research using embryonic stem cell lines created on or before Aug. 9, 2001.
What's different now? Could it be the election in November?
David Bailey, Richmond