Always Looking Up33

Written by the same author as Lucky Man, and still an autobiography, I have to say I was kind of worried that it was just a rewrite of an old book. Luckily this one covers the things in the 10 years after Lucky Man leaves off.

The things in this book are slightly different than the last one, "Lucky Man" was about Michael Fox learning to accept and cope with his condition, this book was more focused on his new outlook on life now that he has accepted it, optimism. Strangely enough, nowhere in the book (except on the cover) did I see Michael Fox refer to himself as an optimist. He simply details the things he did and how he refuses to give up on Parkinson's disease research.

It is agreed in the medical field that a cure for Parkinson's diesease is not a question of "if" it's a matter of "when." The key factor in the answer is government assitance, or at least the government getting out of the way. The best hope for a cure lies in stem-cell research, but there is a lot of contrversy about that research among religious conservatives.

I've already expressed my distaste for people who use religion as an excuse to hinder the acquisition of knowledge, and that same distaste carries over here, even more so now because of the complete idiocy of the arguements.

The religious arguement, in order to get the stem cells used for research scientists destroy embryos, which they argue is the same as murdering babies. Nothing more, no facts, no logic, just connecting two dots that don't really match up that well.

Now the evidence making that arguement rather invalid, scientists are not taking the embryoes from the stomachs of pregnant women, these embryoes are not born, they're made, and that is done in a test tube.

In addition to the fact that the fertilized eggs are in a sense artificial, whatever purpose they're made for never requires every created embryo to be used. There are thousands of embryoes that serve no purpose, they aren't allowed to become human beings, so they are marked for destruction.

So the "people" we "kill" are going to "die" anyway, whether or not we use their cells to further our research.

It's like when a pet is dying and we give it a lethal injection to end it's suffering, are we "murdering" the dog by doing so? Of course not, we're doing it a kindness and ending it's pain because it's going to die anyway. News flash: the embryoes are going to die anyway, by using them for research we're doing a kindness by working to end the suffering of millions of humans who  are not doomed to die.

Apart from Parkinson's disease, stem cell research could lead to a cure for Alzhiemer's, ALS, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. Millions of people would find their lives much easier if these diseases were cured, and many would actually have their lives saved by these cures. ALS is a horrible disease just to think about, it's a condition in which your body's muscle tissue slowly degenerates, it's a slow death, but a certain one. Depending on which muscles die first, the disease could drag on for years, but eventually the disease kills you. Remember that the heart, lungs, brain, and all your other vital organs are all muscles. They degrade as well.

Imagine how horrible it would be to sit there helpless as you felt your heart slowly degrade away, or to starve to death because you no longer have a stomach. Meanwhile you have no way of telling which organ will go first, your life is on a ticking clock, and there isn't much time left before you die an unpleasant death.

Stem cell research might be able to cure that disease. Yet religious conservatives still say that it's wrong to use the cells of the embryoes that are already doomed to die in order to try and find this cure. They call this stance "pro-life"

The fact that they call it pro-"life" makes me seethe with rage, if they were ignorant about these diseases then calling it that might be justified, but knowing about them and still having the nerve to call opposition to researching the cures "pro-life..." I can't describe those people in words apropriate for any academic writing, let it suffice to say that I think that stance is the most despicable thing I can imagine.

I'm not saying that the view is entirely wrong, I don't think we should extract embryoes from pregnant women  and use them in tests, those ones can be argueable called human beings, but artificial ones would not exist but for the scientists who created them, those scientists should be able to use their creations to help milions of people around the world.

calling the stance "pro-life" also implies that any other stance would be "anti-life," the negative connotations with that name are sickening. Therefore, Micheal Fox wisely dubs the pro-stem cell research stance "pro- LIVING," a name that I think is quite appropriate.

Another quote that popped into my head that fits here is "The needs of the many exceed the needs of the few." How can you say that the lives of a few hundred thousand unborn humans are more valuable than the lives of the millions of people with uncurable diseases? If you can somehow justify that statement I'd be very impressed, because I don't think it's possible to justify it well enough to stop me from slugging you in the face to beat some sense into you. Is that harsh? Perhaps, but if you try to justify that statement and fail it means that you're wrong, you know you're wrong and that your stance is one that causes suffering for millions of humans, and you simply don't care. Those people can suffer and die, just so long as you make sure that these unborn humans who are doomed to die one way or another die without purpose. If that's the stance you take you can think my reaction is as harsh as you like, and you can complain to my fist as it slugs you.

Alright so I wouldn't actually punch you, the legal issue that would cause would probably not be worth the satisfaction it granted. Still, I wouldn't push my luck with that, even if I don't lash out physically you'll probably feel the sharp side of my tounge, and if my anger is half as unpleasant as that of a certain parent whose blood runs in my veins then it's an experience worth avoiding. Insert a sweet, innocent, and unnerving smile along with that previous statement.

Well I really went off on a rant there, back to business, Michael Fox is heavily involved in the politics concerning the stem-cell debate, and towards the end I believe he said he won that battle, which means stem-cells are no longer banned, which is good, yippie!

Michaeo Fox also talks about his family life, and does so in a much more joking matter than the politics, though he inserts his fair share of jokes there as well.

A particular favorite of mine occured when he was talking about his kids and the cannon they were using.

"now, if you're a father reading this, you're probably asking "why didn't Mike help Sam fire the cannon? (too shaky) If you're a kid and you're reading this, which is okay, I guess you're probably asking "where do I get a cannon?" (from a pirate.) If you're a mother, you're probably screaming "You let them play with a freaking cannon?!" (... What cannon?)"

He's a funny one for sure. In all seriousness though the book is overall about his determination to not give up on his battle for a cure, to support his family, and to live life as best he can, which is admirable. Most people would despair if they had an incurable disease, but not him.

I'd continue writing about the determination thing, but I've been writing for about two hours, it's almost 8:30 P.M, and I have yet to eat dinner, so I hope you'll forgive my premature ending of this post. Farewell