Date sent: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:04:10 -0500
To: "Parkinson's Information Exchange Network" <[log in to unmask]>,
"Bob Fink, MD" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Charles T. Meyer, M.D." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: stem cells
> Bob
> My point is about the humanity of all embryos regardless of whether
> they die spontaneously or are killed you think they are human just the
> same. I submit that that if the embryo or preembryo dies- that by
> your logic is the loss of a human being and should be seen as a death.
> I agree that it would be more horrific if a person dies as the
> result of germ warfare than a spontaneously contracted infection but
> it is a loss of a person(with your logic) nevertheless and I don't see
> any campaigns to prevent theses "deaths". I presume the reason for
> this is that most people are do differentiate between the death of a
> person and the death of an embryo. How many funerals do you see for
> embryos? Your logic says that we should not regard the loss of both
> equally that those "persons" killed by their mothers are somehow more
> valuable than those lost by natural means. After aren't all lives
> equally valuable.
They are. AND, there is quite a bit of "mourning" involved with
miscarriages by the women who miscarry (you must know that from
your own practice in psychiatry). AND there is increasing evidence
that actually having some sort of a "ritual" for miscarried or stillborn
babies is a good thing in order to help the people who have suffered
the loss. Remember, "No man is an island..." and "For whom the bell
tolls..."
>
> >You missed the point again, Charlie. I *do* believe that
> >unrestricted abortion leads to the cheapening of life, but that is
> >not a "small step" to Nazism. It is a fairly "large step" and we
> >haven't gotten near to that yet; but there is a potential for such.
> >At least with abortion, we can assume (at least I hope so) that the
> >pregnancy was not intended so that it could be killed.
>
>
> It is a large step only if you accept the notion that it is a human
> being that is being killed. I don't believe that rigid position is
> possible. It is a religious precept as to when life begins.
Nope, Charlie, it *may* be a religious position, but I defend my
position based on science, not religion. See my comments about EEGs
and brain activity. Until there are better criteria, we have what we
have (the "brain death statutes").
>
> If one wanted to he could assert that pre life was sacred and no egg
> should go unfertilized since it was potential life.who could grow up
> to be , Bob Fink, Charlie Meyer or Hitler, I think that position is
> as supportable as yours. It becomes a matter of religious faith and
> belief. In this multi cultural society how someone can presume to
> inflict their beliefs on others in the most personal of situations is
> beyond me. It is like saying that because you don't believe as I do
> that you are going to Hell but I will purify you by converting you
> or maybe by burning you at the stake- after all isn't that the caring
> thing to do. A few minutes of pain for an eternity with God. What a
> deal !! That is the real threat of Nazism- the subversion of the
> right and responsibility for a person to make his or her own choices
> in the matters that most relevant to him or her. One may choose to
> follow the precepts of an established faith or code of ethics or be
> totally amoral, or immoral but it has to be their call. I have
> sympathy for those who believe abortion is murder but please don't
> make the same mistake as the inquisitors did and force others to
> conform to your ideas of morality.
Charlie, I don't know why you fall into this trap again and again. My
objections are NOT "religious", they are scientific. The human
reproductive cycle is, like in most other creatures, "wasteful" of life,
this because of the need for the "redundancy" in assuring that the
species is procreated. This is a *natural* process. Instituting a
pregnancy for purposes of "growing tissue" is not natural.
What is the definition of a living human being? A functioning brain?
If so, then an 8-week fetus/embryo currently holds that status. It may
get earlier as our science gets better.
A conscience? Does a newborn have a conscience? If not, then why
not wait until the baby reaches full term and then harvest its cells,
organs, etc.?
"Rationality"? Psychotic people and people with retardation are not
always "rational". Should we use them for scientific research?
I could go on, but I hope you get the drift.
>
> > Bob ., as has been writen by others the NIH guidelines are in
> > place and
> > I think your objections are taken into account.
I wish that I could be as confident of this as you (and some others) are.
Best,
Bob
**********************************************
Robert A. Fink, M. D., F.A.C.S., P. C.
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, California 94704-2636
Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557
WWW: http://www.dovecom.com/rafink/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
*********************************************
