Embryonic stem cell research is murder
Regarding Amber Gafford's letter on the benefits of stem cell research: Like others who promote stem cell research, she fails to recognize, or perhaps does not care, that each embryonic stem cell use always results in the death of a human being at the earliest stage of development - a morally wrong act, constituting the commission of murder.
The media, politicians, entertainers and others would prefer we believe their erroneous opinions, but the fact is that stem cell research, which uses cells derived from sources such as umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, the placenta, muscle, fat, nerves and even the pulp of baby teeth - none of which pose moral problems - has been successfully used, as reported by the June 24, 2001, American Diabetes Association documenting that 15 people with serious Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes became insulin-free after treatment with islet cell transplants.
The New England Journal of Medicine (July 15, 2000) reported some legally blind people can now see more clearly after treatment with corneal stem cells.
Like these, other successful cures have been made without resorting to the immoral use of embryonic stem cells.
Mary Santomauro
Stagecoach
Health care reform
doesn't add up
You are a business who is not providing health insurance. You struggle to remain profitable. They are now requiring you provide insurance. Would you hire somebody new? Would you terminate more people? Do you just close the doors and find something new?
What makes health reform so important? A sudden interest in fair play? The cry goes out: "The bodies pile up while insurance companies rake in obscene profits." The fact is that the health insurance industry ranks 35th of 53 industries ranked for profitability. They operate at a
6 percent margin. How is this profiteering?
Then we hear the lament: "Forty-seven million uninsured." It's 15 percent of the population. Now, imagine you could afford health insurance but do not purchase it. Is it safe to assume you do not want it? Twenty million people in this country could reasonably afford health insurance if they wished. What does that do to our 15 percent? Let's say we take it down to 8 percent.
Pundits say under reform, 96 percent of the people will have insurance. Only an 11 percent gain. Don't forget those 20 million. Subtract that and get maybe 6 percent.
So we risk stagnating the economy, or worse. We double the national debt with all the negative consequences that could bring. For what? To bring health insurance to 6 or 8 percent of the population that can't afford it and might want it? Does that pencil out for you?
Kelly Jones
Carson City