 |
 |
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