Michael J. Fox is a Cannibal

WorldNetDaily ^ | October 20, 2004 | Jill Stanek

[MisterRepublican]

Michael J. Fox is a famous TV and movie star. He is witty. He is charming. A few years ago, we learned he has Parkinson's disease.

PD is a slowly progressive neurological disorder, characterized by tremors, shuffling gait, a masklike facial expression, "pill rolling" of the fingers, drooling, intolerance to heat, oily skin, emotional instability and defective judgment (although intelligence is rarely impaired).

PD is currently incurable, although there are several methods to slow its advancement, including drug therapy and surgery.

PD is tragic, particularly in Fox's case, because it rarely afflicts persons under 60 years old.

Yet everyone faces tragedy at one time or another, in one form or another. A person's moral fiber is revealed in tragedy.

So we learned through Fox's affliction that he has either extremely poor judgment or a diabolical character flaw. He supports human embryonic stem-cell experimentation, thus contending that some humans are subhuman and expendable for others' personal gain.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The question of stem cell research is complicated

It's going to get a lot more complicated. Very soon, researchers will be turning adult stem cells into embryos which are clones of the adult donor, as a precursor to getting the cells to develop into specific organs or cell-types instead of into a whole baby. Those who try to turn this subject in a simple black-and-white issue are doomed to irrelevance.

[Netizen]

He hasn't lived in Canada since he was a child.

He moved to Hollywood when he was 18. He becane a citizen of America on July 18, 2000. He was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991.

[Netizen]

I agree an awful lot with what you wrote in #29. I'm just not sure if IVF is a good thing or not. It still seems a bit like playing God.

We know in the bible that some women were left barren and there was a reason for this. Sometimes God had plans for these women later. It's also possible that by having some women barren or men sterile was one of God's ways of keeping the population in check.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

You are not concerned about the potential for abuse?

It's one thing when nature discards embryos, that's natures doing. It's quite another when people become the discarders.

[FourtySeven]

It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Unlike most people who hold your view on the status of fertilized eggs/early embryos, you are genuinely interested in facts. It's quite refreshing!

Thanks! I have benefited equally from our discussion.

[FourtySeven]

You are not concerned about the potential for abuse?

I am not concerned with the potential for abuse, if everyone would just do it my way. hehe Seriously, if it were done so that all viable embryos were implanted at once, maximizing the number so that a reasonable number is implanted, without leaving any behind to freeze, and discarding any that were clearly dead (i.e, not using them for research), then there wouldn't be any avenue for abuse.

I realize this isn't how it's done now, but if a couple is fervently pro-life, there's nothing but the cost of the procedure stopping them from preserving the sanctity of life. In other words, it's not the actual procedure of IVF that's a threat to human life, it's the fact that it's more cost beneficial to fertilize a lot of eggs at once, and freeze any "extras", thus opening a door for abuse of the remaining viable embryos. See GovernmentShrinker's post #200 to me on this thread for more info.

Again, if you look at it from a purely scientific, medical perspective, there IS a way to perform IVF that will not produce any "extra" embryos; it's just a matter of money. So, I'd say to any couple that can afford it, great, go for it. But if you can't, sadly I'd have to say the life of a baby (embryo) is more important than your desire to have a baby. Someone might say to me, "Well, that's not fair, poor couples shouldn't be able to have babies through IVF then?"

I'd say, "Life isn't fair, get used to it".

Besides, as one can see from GovernmentShrinker's post #200, in a few years this entire issue will become moot, really, as the technology is developed to freeze eggs BEFORE they've been fertilized. This will obviously take the burden off of producing a lot of eggs at once, to save money, and indeed, will allow for an "optimization" (as I've suggested before) of the number of eggs to be fertilized, to produce a reasonable number of embryos that can be implanted at once, that WON'T be cost prohibitive for most couples.

[SoothingDave]

I realize this isn't how it's done now, but if a couple is fervently pro-life, there's nothing but the cost of the procedure stopping them from preserving the sanctity of life. In other words, it's not the actual procedure of IVF that's a threat to human life, it's the fact that it's more cost beneficial to fertilize a lot of eggs at once, and freeze any "extras", thus opening a door for abuse of the remaining viable embryos.

Yes, exactly. It all comes down to the money.

The other thing GS and others are not mentioning is that they implant multiple fertilized eggs and then if "too many" of them "stick" they counsel a "selective reduction." That is, abort the inconvenient surplus surviving embryos.

It's all a very ugly and callous business that preys on the infertile, promising them a baby of their very own, if they only pony up cash and set aside their morals.

SD

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The embryos used in research are not suffering in the slightest, but that doesn't seem to make any difference to the anti-stem cell research extremists.

I'm sure that if you killed a five-year-old with an overdose of general anesthetic, you could say he suffered not in the least, either, but you still killed him. Likewise, embryonic stem cell research (painlessly) kills a human being at an earlier stage of life.

The problem with doing embryonic stem cell research is that it might encourage people to advocate sacrificing human beings at other stages of life for research.

There is an ethical alternative: adult stem cell research.

[GovernmentShrinker]

"Selective reduction" is quite rare in IVF. It is actually more common in non-IVF procedures, in which women take fertility drugs, and then are inseminated either the natural way or artificially, with the eggs never leaving the body. This process is a lot less expensive than IVF, and overall is less likely to work at all. However, it also gives much less control of the number of eggs ending up fertilized and implanted, resulting in a significant incidence of dangerously high-number multiples.

Selective reduction can end up saving the lives of the remaining fetuses, since all fetuses are in serious danger when there are too many of them, but it can also end up causing the entire pregnancy to miscarry. It is not something anyone wants to do, and it can be avoided by choosing IVF, followed by choosing to freeze excess embryos rather than transfer a dangerously large number. If the parents feel strongly about not discarding any embryos, they can safely transfer all of them eventually.

[MHGinTN]

" Those who try to turn this subject in a simple black-and-white issue are doomed to irrelevance." It's the Halloween season so I suppose strawmen are in order. Leave it to one as dishonest as you prove yourself to be to obfuscate and erect starwmen, instead of honest discussion on the humanity of the newly alive human.