No way is stem cell a fetus. It's a cell

Hats off to George Blinick, whose excellent letter was criticized by Kathleen Muhr in a recent Fence Post. Ms. Muhr seemed upset that Mr. Blinick had suggested that those who oppose stem cell research should refuse any new medical treatments resulting from this research if they don't want to be hypocrites. She responds by saying that she would "not want to be cured at the cost of destroying a human fetus."

Before lecturing Mr. Blinick, Ms. Muhr should make sure she knows a little something about the subject. Wikipedia defines a fetus is an unborn vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal. On the other hand, stem cells are cells found in most, if not all, multicellular organisms, and are characterized by their ability to renew themselves through cell division and differentiating into a diverse range of specialized cell types. By no stretch of the imagination could a stem cell be considered a fetus.

Regarding embryonic stem cell research, Ms. Muhr says we can get "just as good results" from adult stem cells. Obviously, she does not know what embryonic or adult stem cells are. How can she make an informed decision concerning stem cells without bothering to go to Wikipedia or any number of other sources where she would have learned that a significant difference between embryonic and adult stem cells is that embryonic stem cells can repair or renew almost any part of the body while adult stem cells can work their wonders only on the specific body parts for which they are preprogrammed.

Ms. Muhr asks, "Why is it that some people don't get it?" Ironically, her own letter to Fence Post answers that question.

Gene McDougall

Arlington Heights