This is such a great essay because it brings us to confront, if we will, the
realities, priorities and choices we face. The futility of a "no embryo left
behind" crusade is quite clear if you really think about this issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nina P. Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Pro-Lifer's argument against ESCR


> 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
>

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