Re the religious response to Niagara Falls, in Spain in the 1930's
anarcho-syndicalists thought electricity was the work of the devil.  This
kind of mindset is enjoying a resurgence today, it never goes away
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dolores Gross" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:37 AM
Subject: Pro-Lifer's argument against ESCR


>                                In a perfect world, individuals and
> societies would be able to bring all embryos to term.  One-third of all
> pregnancies would not end in miscarriages. In vitro fertilization would
> not be necessary.  Families would be able to have as many children (or
> none) as they want, and there would be no need for family planning as
> everybody would be very healthy and very wealthy and everybody would have
> everything they wanted and needed.  Decisions about whether to go to war
> or not would never need to be made by leaders who consider life to be
> sacred because it would be obvious that war is evil and involved the
> taking of lives.  Also, our judicial system would be very simple -  there
> would be no tough decisions about balancing rights, including rights that
> often are presented to us in absolute terms
>  .
>   However, we don't live in a perfect world and so judges must decide
> between competing rights, governments must decide whether to go to war or
> not, and societies have to make difficult decisions about which social
> policies to endorse.
>
>  The issue is not whether Scott's views are right or wrong "scientifically
> and philosophically"  The issue is that his position is an abstraction and
> is fit only for a world other than our own - a perfect world.  In the
> actual world, the one we occupy, there are people who suffer from diseases
> like juvenile diabetes, spinal injuries, macular degeneration,
> Alzheimer's, and of course, Parkinson's.  Embryonic stem cell research is
> among the technologies that hold the possibility of curing these diseases.
> When hydro-electric power was brought to Niagara Falls a century or so ago
> constructon was sabotaged because there were those who said it was the
> devil's work; when Dr. Christian Barnard undertook the first heart
> transplant there were many who thought it was terrible.  the Wright
> Brothers' first flight was a far cry from outer space.  The turning point
> for ESCR research is now.
>
>  People like Scott need to look at the issue in terms of a tough choice to
> be made between saving the life of someone who is sick, and prolonging the
> existence of embryos which will never be born.  The solution is not always
> absolute although he would like to think it is.  Difficult decisions have
> to be made all the time in the real world.  A mother who has lost a
> 15-year old son in an auto accident, or a 5--year old daughter to cancer
> and who has also experienced a miscarriage is most likely to tell you that
> she grieves more for the son or daughter with whom she has shared love,
> memories, experiences.The common sense experience of grief is worth more
> than 100 embryology textbooks.  Considering this common sense experience
> of  real life parents we can explain why people endorse ESCR.  Arguing
> "scientifically and philosophically" in the way that Scott does, produces
> attitudes and conclusions that are divorced from the reality and
> experience of people.  Scott argues primarily!
>  from
> abstract examples and uses the phraseology of those on the President's
> Bio-ethics Committee who oppose ESCR;  and of Senators Frist and
> Brownback.  We all know how the choice of words convey images and his use
> of phrases such as "abortion advocates," "pro-lifers," "athiests and
> secular libertarians" cause me to question whether he is swift-boating the
> intent of ESCR.  If he were to consider the issue from the perspective of
> parents who have raised a child, or from the perspective of those who are
> hopeful that ESCR holds answers, not just from the view of abstract
> embryological science, he might gain some empathy and see that the
> argument is about human beings after all, and as for his not having "seen
> a principled argument defending" ESCR all he has to do is open his eyes
> and read chapter 11 of Senator Orin Hatch's autobiography, or Dr. Arthur
> Caplan's writings on the subject, or the comments of Dr. Harold Varmus and
> so many other Nobel Prize recipients.  And if he is truly
> interested in "the whole human beings that have yet to grow and mature"
> how many of the 400,000 in in vitro clinics will he and his peers adopt
> before there is a further melt-down?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn