Delores,
Would you please send me your email address...to [log in to unmask]
Thanks,

 Nina
"Circumstances determine our lives, but we shape our lives by what we make
of our circumstances."


-----Original Message-----
From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dolores Gross
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
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