Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael J. Fox is a Cannibal
WorldNetDaily ^ | October 20, 2004 | Jill Stanek

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-210 next last
To: gridlock

>>> if human embryos are too primitive or too unlike born human beings to merit protection, then the rational position is that they should be used for everything or anything. if human embryos are too primitive or too unlike born human beings to merit protection, then the rational position is that they should be used for everything or anything.

To play devil's advocate (I support the President's position because it is the President's): why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't these life forms have less value than a developed human but more value than Baco's? Should we be using cats as salad garnishes because they are not as "valuable" as humans?

Basically, while I always support the President, I am not sure your "only rational" approach to this issue is rational at all.


61 posted on 10/20/2004 12:57:10 PM PDT by dubyain04jebin08and12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
Yes, there would virtually always be more eggs fertilized than implanted, and the number that are fertilized can't be tightly controlled without driving success rates into the cellar. Depending on the woman's age, reason for fertility problems, individual response to stimulating drugs,etc., there can be a huge variation in both the number of eggs retrieved per cycle, and the percentage that are successfully fertilized, and the percentage of those that continue to develop long enough to try implanting. The older the woman, the lower percentage will usually fertilize and develop, and male factors can also substantially impact fertilization and development rates.

A typical cycle involving a woman in her mid 30s and no male factor issues would go along these lines:

--12 eggs retrieved
--8 fertilize (after attempted fertilization on all)
--by day 2 only 7 are still developing
--by day 3 only 6 are still developing, and one or two of those show clear signs of problems (significantly fewer cells than they should have at that stage, and/or cell fragmentation)
--around day 5 (protocols vary as to when transfer is done) the strongest looking 2-3 embryos are transferred, and the remaining 1-2 that are still developing are frozen in case this transfer doesn't result in a pregnancy, or for use in attempting to have a second child later (number of embryos transferred is limited according to age-related guidelines, so as to limit the possibility of high-order multiples, and the associated complications which can include miscarriage; in 40+ year old women, often 4 are implanted, if she managed to produce that many, and yet there is still only a small chance that even one of those will develop into a baby; on the other hand, with a woman in late 20s, whose fertility problems aren't usually realted to egg quality, no more than two would be implanted, and if the embryos were of good quality when implanted, there would be close to a 50% chance that at least one of them would develop into a baby, and significant chance that both would).

But there is limited predictability in these numbers, so there would be no way to ensure that you don't end up with more embryos than it would be safe to transfer, unless you take a huge chance that the whole set of procedures will end up with NO embryos to transfer. A woman might produce 12 eggs, as in the example above, but then have only 3-4 fertilize and then have one or none develop far enough to transfer. So if you decided only to try to fertilizing 4 of them, it's more likely than not that this particular woman would end up not even having one embryo to transfer, much less having a baby result -- and you really don't know in advance whether her rates will look like the example above, or like my grimmer second example. For a couple who has just scraped together the money for one cycle and may have to wait 2-3 years to scrape together enough for a second (while the woman's fertility continues to decline over that period), or whose insurance covers a maximum of two cycles, this is not a realistic or reasonable approach.

It is not possible to fertilize the eggs one at a time and wait and see how they develop before fertilizing another one, because the eggs will lose their capacity to fertilize if they're left sitting around (though within a few years, improvements in egg-freezing technology will change that factor), and because the woman's body has to be at just the right stage in the hormonal cycle for the embryos to have any chance of implanting.

62 posted on 10/20/2004 12:59:30 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker (Donate to the Swift Vets -- www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HassanBenSobar
Sorry about your pop...Watching a loved one go through something like that...is never pleasant.

Supporting stem cell research is one thing...advocating "harvesting", "growing" human's for donors is another.

I support stem cell research myself...but not at the expense of innocent human life.

FRegards,

63 posted on 10/20/2004 1:02:36 PM PDT by Osage Orange (I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. Maybe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican
"He supports human embryonic stem-cell experimentation, thus contending that some humans are subhuman and expendable for others' personal gain."

Exactly.

I wonder how Michael J. Fox would feel if so meone were to suggest that we sacrifice people with Parkinson's Disease in order to do experiments that might one day cure cancer.

I know that I would recoil in horror at the thought of sacrificing one human being in order to do experiments that might find a cure for a disease.

But, apparently, Michael J. Fox (and others) see nothing at all wrong with this sort of sacrifice.

I think it is because they feel that the embryos are just going to be thrown away anyway.

To which I say, people with Parkinson's are just going to die anyway also.

64 posted on 10/20/2004 1:05:58 PM PDT by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

The predictability issue complicates things, and for real extremists on the issue, rules out the whole process. For example, I met one woman in her late thirties who had unexpectedly produced 26 embryos from a single IVF cycle. Producing this many eggs (regardless of whether they fertilize) creates a high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can be very serious (in rare cases even fatal), and which is aggravated by pregnancy, threatening both the woman's health and the survival of the embryo/fetus. So, having expected to produce a handful of embryos, and have all or most implanted, this woman had 26 in the freezer. She was getting ready to have a few thawed and implanted, but it's highly unlikely that she'd ever have them all implanted.


65 posted on 10/20/2004 1:06:00 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker (Donate to the Swift Vets -- www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
"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."

You know, you're right.

And I guess, using your logic, it would be OK to take comatose people who are going to die anyway and use them for experiments for new techniques on curing diseases.

Comatose people aren't suffering in the slightest.

66 posted on 10/20/2004 1:12:05 PM PDT by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chs68

With their consent yes, because in the case of comatose people who were old enough to comprehend the matter, they'd have had the opportunity to give consent. For anyone who never reached that stage (embryo, anencephalic, profoundly retarded, etc.), I would delegate the decision to the parents. Personally, if I were comatose and clearly going to die without regaining consciousness, I would want to either donate my organs to help other people live, or let my body be used for research. It wouldn't hurt me a bit, and would be selfish not to.


67 posted on 10/20/2004 1:16:21 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker (Donate to the Swift Vets -- www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
Big deal.  Lots of people at one time or another have wondered what it would be like to eat another person.  Some of us just let the curiosity get the better of him.  I did a lot of things in college that I wouldn't do now.  So I stayed out late before mid terms- does that make me irresponsible today?  So I dropped Acid a couple of times- does that make me a burned out druggie? 
 
I tried cannibalism one time, just once, and I'm not going to be smeared as a cannibal.  It's an issue between me and that guy I met on the internet.

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”


68 posted on 10/20/2004 1:18:16 PM PDT by End Times Sentinel (All Your Vanities Are Belong To Us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican
It's very easy to criticize Fox for his leanings and his support of Stem Cell Research. But if any of us were in his shoes would we not also be doing anything we could to find a cure? I can't fault the guy for what he believes in or for trying to find a way to have a normal life and see his kids grow up.
I think a little Charity here would be in order.
69 posted on 10/20/2004 1:22:13 PM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Consent?

Who said anything about consent?

If the criteria that are important here are (1) finding a cure for diseases like Parkinsons, and (2) making sure that there is no suffering, then why in the world shoud it matter whether you -- or anyone else who might be comatose -- gives h is or her consent?

Why shouldn't the State, in the best interests of minimizing suffering caused by dieseases such as Parkinson's, simply allow the sacrifice of those sub-humans whose sub-humanity is defined by the fact that they are comatose? And isn't finding a cure for something as awful as Parkinson's much more important that giving you -- or anyone else who might be comatose -- your own dignity as a human being?

70 posted on 10/20/2004 1:22:47 PM PDT by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

"Stop it, stop it. Stop this cannibalism. Let's have a thread about clean, decent human beings."


71 posted on 10/20/2004 1:26:52 PM PDT by dfwgator (It's sad that the news media treats Michael Jackson better than our military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood
It's very easy to criticize Fox for his leanings and his support of Stem Cell Research. But if any of us were in his shoes would we not also be doing anything we could to find a cure? I can't fault the guy for what he believes in or for trying to find a way to have a normal life and see his kids grow up. I think a little Charity here would be in order.

Really, I think it depends upon what you believe about life and death. For those with no belief in God, this life is it. Preserving THIS life is more important than anything else. The highest "moral" is staying alive so that, anything is justifiable.

I don't believe that today. I won't believe that tomorrow. It won't matter what disease I am faced with. Staying alive is important to me, sure, but not at the risk of my soul.

72 posted on 10/20/2004 1:35:07 PM PDT by Dianna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

With a headline like that, regrettably, I can't help but think of the Christopher Reeve episode of South Park, but it's the image that comes to mind.


73 posted on 10/20/2004 1:42:06 PM PDT by Shqipo (The gloves are on and the corners are empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
"The embryos used in research are not suffering in the slightest."

And you know this how? Or is just that your suffering is of greater value? And the goal of those that support stem cell research is to use stem cells from aborted babies. They do suffer, that is a fact, but again your tragedy and suffering justify ripping a baby apart while it is alive. Wouldn't it be ironic if the person who would have found the cure for PD was murdered in an abortion.
74 posted on 10/20/2004 1:43:21 PM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us." That includes demonrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: hill488
From the article:
"...Some may think I'm going over the top to compare Fox to slave owners or Hitler or the Sudanese government."

I do.

Be honest, you would have thought that even if Stanek hadn't given you permission.

75 posted on 10/20/2004 1:45:53 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Never apologise. Never explain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
Cannibalism? Is he actually eating the embryos?

No, unlike the people who worship by eating what they claim is their god, and who are most likely the ones condemning Michael Fox.
76 posted on 10/20/2004 2:00:19 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chs68

If consent/non-consent is reasonably available, it should be a requirement.


77 posted on 10/20/2004 2:02:31 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker (Donate to the Swift Vets -- www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: MPJackal

Huh? An embryo which still consists of completely undifferentiated cells can suffer? How? It has no brain, no nervous system whatsoever, no capacity for sensation of any kind.


78 posted on 10/20/2004 2:04:12 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker (Donate to the Swift Vets -- www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
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.

Well, federally funding embryonic stem cell research isn't going to do doodly squat about Parkinson's or Alzeimer's disease.

The reason this issue is a political football is because people see the President as being vulnerable on his position, because they know people will not look at the ugly side of the "utility of life" argument.

79 posted on 10/20/2004 2:05:28 PM PDT by gridlock (BARKEEP: Why the long face? HORSE: Ha ha, old joke. BARKEEP: Not you, I was talking to JF'n Kerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dubyain04jebin08and12
To play devil's advocate (I support the President's position because it is the President's): why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't these life forms have less value than a developed human but more value than Baco's?

Oh, a lot of people make this argument. Of course, a lot of people make the argument that a quadrapalegic or somebody with Parkinson's is a life form with less value than a "normal" human being. Once you start assigning relative values to various kinds of human life, it does not make sense to draw a line at some arbitrary point.

Of course, people do. That doesn't make it right.

80 posted on 10/20/2004 2:10:21 PM PDT by gridlock (BARKEEP: Why the long face? HORSE: Ha ha, old joke. BARKEEP: Not you, I was talking to JF'n Kerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-210 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson