 |
 |
Dennis and group, You are as usual correct in your analysis. In talking about stem cells we are not talking about abortion, we are talking about the use of the of tissue which is being grown for IVF (in vitro fertilization) which actually results in the birth of babies who otherwise would not exist. Cells are harvested from extra embryos left over from the procedure which would otherwise be discarded. The embryos are in an extremely early state prior to differentiation into organs therefore there can be no consciousness and certainly it is not an interuption of a process which will result in the development of a human being. The process is occurring in a petri dish and cannot progress to full term. The embryo is doomed in any case. You are also correct that when life begins cannot be determined here. It is based on religion and faith (both sides). Those that believe in the literal truth of the Bible will not be dissuaded any more than are those of us who deal with the world in relativistic terms weighing the good and evil in something and taking a stand which we feel as moral. But clarification of the procedure and separating it from the onus of abortion is important. If one can accept the medical miracle of in vitro fertilization they should not have a problem with the use of stem cells in research. I think that unless one rejects pregnancy by IVF, they need to take a good hard look at stem cell research before condemning it. IVF promotes birth and therefore is pro life. Stem cell research promotes life also - its maintenance and quality and therefore is also pro life. Part of the issue is related to religion and morals if you don't believe the way I do please respect our rights to support stem cell research and don't impede scientists who are trying to find cures for PD and other illnesses and be pro-life or at least neutral rather than pro-death. Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Greene <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 6:28 PM Subject: Zealots/Faith/Stem cells > As everybody else is saying this time round exactly what they said last time > round I thought I might as well too. > > This is a meaningless argument. In the final analysis both the pro life and > pro choice arguments are based on an act of faith. No one has as yet been > able to determine when human life begins and it is highly unlikely that > anyone ever will. The pro life camp argue that you cannot condone the > wholesale killing of human beings. The pro choice camp argue that we are not > dealing with human beings. NEITHER side can prove its basic tenet, hence my > comment that each is based on an act of faith. > > The rights and wrongs of abortion will not be, CAN NOT BE, resolved by this > forum. Therefore any time spent discussing it/ arguing about it/ bickering > about it, is not only time wasted but also an unnecessary cause of stress in > a community that has a notoriously bad stress response. > > I am not suggesting that we should not debate the rights and wrongs of using > the tissue which results from an abortion. (Whatever its pre-abortion > status, tissue is its post abortion status ). I am merely pointing out that > it is more productive to separate the issues. I think the pro choicers > will find that a great many pro lifers have already separated the issues in > their minds and would be happy to discuss how to deal with aborted tissue > without being ridiculed for holding a belief that there is an issue at all. > It is a fact that there is an issue. It is not going to go away because we > don't think it should exist. In terms of being resolved it is only an issue > for the pro lifers (I presume that it is already resolved for the pro > choicers). However, its resolution will affect society as a whole so it is > reasonable for pro choicers to become involved in the arguments. As it > cannot be resolved by establishing as fact exactly when we become human I > would suggest that if the pro choice camp wants to have any meaningful > involvement in the discussion they need to stop talking as if they have a > monopoly on reason, acknowledge that their beliefs are simply that - > beliefs - not the laws of the universe, and argue the case for foetal > tissue/stem cell/whatever research on some other grounds than their belief > that the foetus is not human. > > (NOTE: I am not saying that the pro choice position is invalid - only that > it is not relevant of those in the pro life camp who are the ones who need > to work out their position on the use of foetal tissue - and consequently it > becomes a divisive distraction.) > > And now - back to sleep - Yawn > > Dennis > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dennis Greene 50/dx 37/ onset 32 > There's nothing wrong with me that dealing with PD won't fix! > email - [log in to unmask] > Website - http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/ > (most recent update -Nov 5, 1999) > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++