Devil’s Advocate

Was just sitting the the GSU Law Library, as usual, when I got tired of reading Business Tax and went online.  So, on the Yahoo! homepage (yes, I still have not gotten on that fancy, shmancy Google yet) they recently posted an article about this woman’s cervical cells that have been continuously living outside her body for something like 60 years almost.  I mean, the woman herself has been dead for at least 30 years.  So, this got me thinking about the whole right-to-life/pro-death choice argument.  Here we have scientists clearly saying that these single cells (taken off of a cancerous tumor, no less) clearly belong to a person.  They have the same DNA as her, yadda yadda yadda. And that, though the majority of her body is dead, these cells are still alive.  What I don’t get is how they can make this argument that this is just as much her’s while still maintain that an embryo isn’t a person either.  I mean, the cells that make up an embryo are clearly different from the mother, they’ve got different DNA, etc.  If Henrietta Lack’s single cells are still alive, then wouldn’t the cells that make up the embryo be alive then too?

You guys know that I really don’t care about this, I mean it’s not my place to tell a woman if she can or can’t have an abortion, and my endless federalism issues with Constitutional amendments, etc.  I was just wondering what anyone thought on this issue.  Like I said in the title, just playing devil’s advocate here.

Update – now that I thought about it more, since there’s a part of her that’s still “living” is she still alive?  Man, I bet her back taxes are through the roof!

Here’s the story



Leave a Reply

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>