 |
 |
Dear Charlie and others, I agree, Charlie, first with your ascertion that stem-cell research should not be confused with the issue of abortion, and second that pro-life advocates, make this clear to their to ones legislators. Thanks--Charlotte Mancuso --------------- The mother had a new baby boy, whom she named Adam. So > you can see, embryos do not have to be "killed", to achieve stem cells. > Jo Ann from Houston ------------------ Hi, ... To put the horse before the cart, we must please remember, that with in vitro fertilization, embryos are not being created to gather stem cells for research or a specific use, as was the case here. These fertilized eggs, embryos, were created to bring a new life, a child, into the world to an otherwise childless couple. The remaining embryos are not killed, they are salvaged to conduct research to save lives. This is a life to life situation. It is a necessary consequence of in vitro fertilization methods that an excess of embryos be created, so that there is a vital source of embryos to choose from to give a childless couple a ... child. The excess was not created for research--it is just a consequence, the remaining embryos that are being salvaged to try and save lives, often children's. Surely we can all embrace this particular source of stem cells for research, given that the couple must give permission to donate the remaining embryos that are not viable for further pregnancies, and would be otherwise incinerated. Ironically, I don't think that incinerating them or having to get permission from the "parents" to destroy them has ever been an issue. I also don't hear anyone suggesting that these couples give up the chance of having a child. But maybe I've missed much of the debate. Charlotte -------- "Charles T. Meyer, M.D." wrote: > BOB and group, > > With all due respect IMHO your thinking is more "scary" than the procedure > being discussed here. Anything that could have helped that child short > of taking the life of a fully formed human being should have been tried. > > I presume from our off-list interchanges in the past that you are > against stem cell research. Are you also against IVF. )(in vitro > fertilization)? This results of IVF is desperately wanted children as > well as the byproduct- embryos which are not used but by no stretch of the > imagination can be called human. These are the sources as you well know > of stem cells used for most research.. As we have exchanged before off > list, I believe that Stem cells have such potential that wasting them for > the sake of an embryo- not a person and with no chance of survival > independently- is as criminal as some would say discarding the products of > in vitro fertilization. is. > > Every day in spontaneous abortions- or failure of embryo's to implant > nature discards unfit fetuses. This is part of nature and- if you will-, > God's Plan. Therefore might it also be part of His plan to give us this > source of stem cells to use for research. While personally I support the > right of a woman to choose- stem cells are not an issue related to > abortion and need to be separated in all our minds and those of the > politicians from that issue. Otherwise we may delay the inevitable > progress that stem cells promise beyond when any of us can benefit from > this new and inevitable technology. > > We need to get Bush and Gore on the record of what they will do with stem > cell research before "the Right to LIfer's "provide them erroneous > information. I ask all of you who can say that you support stem cell > research and consider yourselves "pro-life" to write and point out why stem > cell research is also pro life. > > Charlie > >