Posted on 10/20/2004 10:42:20 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
> someone who believes that life begins at conception
That's pretty much everyone in the modern world. The individual sperm and eggs are *also* alive. The question is not whether the fertilized egg is "alive," but whether it is legally and ethically "human."
"The dead are dead, and not using their bodies won;t make them any less dead."
It's the idea of making them dead that bothers me. By your logic, we're also wasting alot of protein by not eating or making fertilizer out of them. And I suppose we'd be splitting hairs to neglect the necrophiliacs.
And I'm not sure I know how to 'councel'.
> human embryos are human life and merit protection, then to say they should be utilized for very important research or to alleve great suffering is no more valid than proposing to use toddlers for the same purpose.
How about adults? Should we stop organ transplants using dead adults? What makes dead embryos or dead toddlers more important than dead adults?
Whether you like it or not, the embryos under discussion here are ALREADY DEAD. Not using them for research will not bring them back.
The real question is: what is it you are opposed to... medical research... or abortion? If the latter, focus on that, do not focus on what is essentially a ridiculous arguement.
Charles Krauthammer wrote "George W. bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem-cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Dr. Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.
"Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry constantly talk of a Bush "ban" on stem-cell research. This is false. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding."
> It's the idea of making them dead that bothers me.
They are not being made dead for the purposes of research. It is my understanding that making them dead for the purposes of research is illegal. Making this research illegal will not stop them from being made dead.
So... if your problem is with them being made dead... focus on changing society and the law so that making them dead stops.
> And I'm not sure I know how to 'councel'.
Ah. A spelling lamer.
Usage of embryonic stem cells is not the answer. Although this research gets all the publicity, the work done using adult stem cells (ie. "mature" stem cells) has been much more successful, both in tests and in actually helping people in need.
See www.stemcellresearch.org for information and examples of people who have been helped.
It may be too late to help your dad (I'm truly sorry), but adult stem cell research does hold promise for many people and illnesses.
A lot of us are sensitive to suffering, and see the difference bewteen suffering and not suffering as significant.
Interesting. In my thoughts today, I had considered the point that one needs to (in IVF) usually "try" multiple fertilized eggs in order to achieve pregnancy, which is why I arrived at the suggestion to only try one egg at a time. I wasn't aware however, that in IVF, multiple eggs are inserted at one time. Is this true? Is this what you were saying? (I'm not entirely sure).
If that's the case, then I still don't see any problem with that, since they're being given a chance to develop in the uterus. My only concern would be that there would be "left over embryos". In other words, I would seek out a protocol where each egg is given a chance to fertilize (no matter how many there are) and the whole mixture of sperm and egg be simply dropped into the uterus, hoping some of the eggs were fertilized.
So, I would also ask: In common protocols, are more eggs fertilized than are implanted? Do you know?
As for whether or not a fertilized egg can reasonably be called a "baby", I've decided long ago it's not my place to decide that, as that starts the slippery slope down to abortion. I've reasoned that a nice cut off is a fertilized egg. Before that, there is clearly a difference between a non fertilized egg/sperm, and a fertilized egg, as the latter can, under optimum conditions, develop into an infant, but an egg or sperm never can. We can disagree on that I guess; I'm just clarifying why I believe what I believe.
"Ah. A spelling lamer."
Actually the whole sentence was unintelligible.
Well, it's certainly "human" as opposed to feline, avian, etc. But I don't see that as the important distinction. Whether it legally a "person" matters (a human kidney is "human", but it is not a "person"). However, I think capacity to suffer and capacity to survive independently of another human host, are both relevant considerations, and these embryos have neither. I'd a lot rather see a human embryo used for research which it will be unable to sense in any way, than to have a fully sentient dog or monkey tormented for research. But even with the latter, we must not be extremists like the PETA nuts, and must weigh the possibility of the research alleviating a lot of other suffering against the suffering it causes.
I guess he'll take those stem cells any way he can get them!
So, it would seem there aren't any moral impediments for anyone who's pro life for IVF. The embryos are given just as much (and even more really, as you pointed out) a chance to develop as "natural" embryos.
Anyway, thanks for the original post, it was very informative.
You don't think this whole issue of Embryonic Stem Cell research is all about abortion?
The abortion-rights crowd was getting trounced on the Partial Birth Abortion argument, so they decided that they would much rater fight on the opposite end of the gestational spectrum.
Harvesting the unborn is simply too grotesque to contemplate.
I read somewhere that he claimed to be an alcholic at the age of 11. You don't think, maybe that helped fry his brain before he even hit puberty?
> You don't think this whole issue of Embryonic Stem Cell research is all about abortion?
Abortion is a related issue, but that's not what this is "all about." Banning or funding this research won't do doodly squat about abortion one way or the other.
alcoholic
Prayers for both your Dad and Mom, HBS.
Does Kerry eat eggs? That would make him a cannibal. No, wait, he would have to eat chicken guano to be a cannibal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.