The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The chimera and the discounted women > Comments

The chimera and the discounted women : Comments

By Susan Hawthorne, published 24/11/2006

Stem cell research - why would we ignore the use of women as commodities for science?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Well, two interesting stem cell articles today - be interesting to see which one garners more support.

To this one, I can only say, refer to Cannold's piece. The idea of women as 'raw material' does women a disservice and implies they are incapable of exercising choice.

By the same logic, all male sperm donors are 'raw material' clearly unable to make a rational choice. Blood donors, organ donors, bone marrow donors... all these people. Are they merely 'raw material?' should their right to give 'raw material' be stripped?

In a free society, people should always have the right to make their own choices, provided it harms no one else, and does not have a negative impact upon society.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 24 November 2006 8:59:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said TurnRightThenLeft. I think you sum up the issue nicely.
Posted by Billy C, Friday, 24 November 2006 10:18:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The vote should be put to Women in an Australian referendum.

It should be this outcome, to make the decision whether medical science and mankind should be privileged to take this next step in an idea for curing disease.

Instead our vote was syphoned on the cheap through our store blind parliamentarians, one of whom confused the name of a popular identity who weeks ago lost his wife to bone cancer.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Friday, 24 November 2006 11:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A referendum among just half the population? Not likely.
And the Rove gaff? It's a non-starter, let it go.

Turnright has pretty much summed up where the issue will likely end, debated among the churches and feminist groups, while the scientists and politicians do their thing regardless.
Posted by bennie, Friday, 24 November 2006 11:39:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Hawthorn writes that "The sub-clause (f) of the same excised Subsection 20(1) that refers to "creation of embryos by the fertilisation of an animal egg by a human sperm" was left in. So hybrids can still be made. The chimera survives and neither Senator Bartlett nor anyone else seems to have noticed."

This is a difficult issue and I have no problem with people not suuporting my position or my amendment. But I wish they wouldn't accuse me of being completely stupid.

I drafted the amendment to prevent the use of animal eggs in SCNT embryonic stem cell research. I quite consciously left in the subclause referred to by Dr Hawthorn, because it deals with the area of testing sperm quality for IVF purposes, not for creating embryos for stem cell research.

The full text of sub-clause (f) allows the issuing of a licence for the following:

"the creation of hybrid embryos by the fertilisation of an animal egg by a human sperm, and use of such embryos up to, but not including, the first mitotic division, if:

(i) the creation or use is for the purposes of testing sperm quality; and
(ii) the creation or use will occur in an accredited ART centre."

Animal eggs have already been used to test sperm quality. It would have been more honest to point out that taking out this section of the legislation (or opposing the legislation in toto) would impact on future research into IVF, but most opponents of the Bill don't because they know most people support IVF.

I feel there are valid arguments for either position against and in favour of the legislation. I would have been much more likely to vote against (and as it turned out, caused the defeat of the Bill) if more of the opponents of the legislation had been more honest in their assertions and the consequences of further applying the logic of their argmuents. I don't deny some of the proponents of the Bill were also less than complete and accurate in some of their assertions too.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Friday, 24 November 2006 12:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would really appreciate a rational and sober analysis of the position put forward here. As it stands, any facts are carefully obscured behind a veil of emotion.

I personally would like to understand more about the "suffering and potential long-term health risks to women whose ovaries are hyperstimulated in the name of science". Is this a necessary condition of collecting the raw material? Is it in fact damaging to a woman's health? If it is not, then the argument about "the integrity and health of women's bodies" tends to collapse.

The author tries hard to equate disagreement with her position as being, somehow, unethical.

>>No one mentions the biotech corporations who stand to make a healthy return on their investment from desperate people<<

Would the author's stance change, if the work were to be perfomed pro bono? Or by governments, using taxpayers' money? I somehow doubt it. So the argument is pure furphy.

>>But what of bodily integrity? What of the critical stance many of us take on interfering with plants to create GM foods? There is room here for a more ethical approach<<

"Bodily integrity" is an interesting choice of word association. In using it in conjunction with a reference to GM as "interfering with" plants, the author is clearly suggesting the donor is effectively a rape victim. This is surely scraping the bottom of the emotional barrel.

I'd still like to know more, but accompanied by far less hysteria.

If that is possible.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 November 2006 12:29:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy