Friday, November 7, 2008

Stem Cell Research

Somewhere along the line, there has been such a misconception about stem cells and stem cell research. You do not need to kill unborn babies to collect stem cells. Your baby is born full term, the cord is clamped and cut. The cord is then saved to gather the remaining blood stem cells and sent to a storage facility for future use, similar to bone marrow, blood and sperm banks. Stem cells can also be gathered from bone marrow. You cannot "grow people" with stem cells, it is not related to cloning in any way.

Your baby’s cord blood stem cells are a valuable potential medical resource for your baby and family. These valuable cord blood stem cells, like the stem cells found in bone marrow, are non-controversial and free of political and ethical debate surrounding other types of stem cells. Here’s what we know about cord blood stem cells today:
  • Cord blood stem cells are now used to treat over 70 life-threatening diseases including many cancers.
  • A baby’s cord blood stem cells have the potential to be used for the baby, siblings and other family members.
  • A stem cell transplant using cells from the family is recognized as the best treatment option. Transplants from a family member have twice the success rate as transplants using donated cells from outside the family.

Diseases that are currently being treated with Stem Cells:

  • Blood Cancers, including leukemia, liposarcoma, and lymphomas.
  • Anemia and other bone marrow failure syndromes
  • Immunodeficiencies such as Wiskott-Aldrich and Thymic Dysplasia
  • Inborn Errors of Metabolism such as Gunther Disease, Hurler Syndrome and Batten Disease
  • And several other diseases totally 70 diseases.

Potential of Stem Cells are Alzheimers, Stroke, Heart Disease, Lou Gehrigs Disease (ALS), Muscular Dystrophy, Spinal Cord Injuries, Liver Disease, Diabetes, Bone Regeneration, Multiple Sclerosis, Organ Transplant, and burn victims.

Rethink your position on stem cells. It could save your children, your spouse, your parent. It could make a paralyzed person walk again. And it does NOT "kill babies".

What I think about having the first black President

First of all, I never looked at him for his color because he is just as much white as he is black. And I still don't look at him as our first "black" president but our first "biracial" president.

But more than anything, I believe in his values and beliefs. I stand for what he stands for on the issues. I believe in stem cells so that we can defeat diabetes and leukemia and no longer have an organ transplant rejection. I believe in peace and not war. I believe ALL people should have equal rights regardless of race or sexual orientation and I believe that my God would not discriminate or judge others for those reasons. I believe we CAN find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life.

On the economy, I believe money has to filter up and not filter down. I believe that hate crimes are intolerable. And I believe we have to have alternate and greener fuels in order to save our planet.

Yesterday, voters gave voice to their hopes and values. They voted for change because they didn't just WANT change, they NEED change. They understood his vision of a fairer and more just America and embraced it. I cried for all people, but especially for black people, because they have unfairly been held down for so long and this gives them HOPE.

As this election showed, racism is still alive in America and this is unfortunate for all Americans. How can we be a united country when we are so divided within?

I am a republican who voted for Barack Obama for his beliefs and he just happens to be biracial. I feel that my party has become full of more and more extremists, hate mongers and people who feel they are above the law.

This was my moment to say "There must be Change, for everyone." What a wonderful opportunity for us as a country!

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Equal Human Rights Regardless of Race, Religion or Sexual Orientation

I am a married, white, 40-ish heterosexual, christian female with children but I found myself very disappointed on the ban of same-sex marriage. My husband was very supportive of my feelings by stating, "you'll get over it". My mother reminded me that the bible states that marriage is only one man and one woman. My oldest daughter accused me of being a "people lover" like it's a bad thing and my youngest daughter just doesn't know what to think.

With all that, I guess my sadness about the issue comes from the fact that church and state are supposed to be separate according to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. By banning same-sex marriage, are we supporting the notion that christianity is a superior religion, even more supreme than equal rights?

First Amendment to the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Many Meanings of "Marriage": Marriage is not a monolithic, unchanging institution, even though many people define it that way (or believe that God has defined it that way). Civil marriage and religious marriage are different institutions, but are often confused with each other because states allow the religious ceremony to double as the state ceremony. There are different marriage laws in all the states and different definitions of marriage in every religious tradition. In addition to this diversity, civil marriage rights in the U.S. have been significantly broadened during the last fifty years.

Civil vs. Religious Marriage: Unlike some religious definitions, civil definitions of marriage do not usually mention childbearing, sexual relations, living arrangements, or religious beliefs or observance. clergy or congregations marry couples it is a religious rite, not a civil ceremony, although the government may recognize it.

Clergy and congregations choose whom they marry. They aren't compelled to accept the state's marriage definition, and indeed, many religious institutions don't accept it. Many religious institutions are more restrictive than the state, rejecting interfaith marriages or remarriages after divorce. And some have a broader definition, blessing the unions of same-gender couples.

The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy. The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies. The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender unions with terminology restrictions.

Marriage, as defined by the civil law, is currently available to same-sex couples in six countries. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with two states in the United States: Massachusetts and Connecticut[14]. From May 2008, California allowed for same sex marriages, though Proposition 8 has overturned that right as of November 2008. In 2005, Spain became the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage (including adoption rights) on equal terms and under the same law.