 |
 |
I think here we are talking of the principal of LIFE that would involve human manipulation.Some lives (Parkinson, etc) would be amended with transplants on account of sperm, woman's eggs that in itself has potential of LIFE. I hope I am understanding Janice's message. Emily ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janice Morgan" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 7:00 PM Subject: Re: Debra/no sperm in SCNT > Dear Joao, > Yes I agree that all of a woman's eggs will not be made into humans. I agree > that all sperm will not be made into humans. That is not what I was trying > to say. Janice > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joao Carvalho <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:32 PM > Subject: Re: Debra/no sperm in SCNT > > > > Dear Janice, > > > > Would you agree that not all woman's eggs may have are to be fertilized > > in the natural processes of mother nature ? > > > > Would you agree also that even from those each 4 that may be fertilized > > only one happens to be fixed in the uterus and so allow the continuity > > of the pregnancy ? > > > > So one may conclude that by the law of mother nature that shall follow > > God's wishes , NOT ALL eggs of a woman are created to be transformed in > > human beings .....but only very few indeed and as a matter of fact in > > some women none of them . > > > > Looking to mother nature again if one consider the fruits of any tree , > > there may be thousands of them spread around in the land then only of > > a very few of them may reproduce the tree but the great majority of them > > will rotten in the ground or be eaten by all sort of animals ... > > > > So still following the law of mother nature (that I suppose follows > > God's wishes) I would like to ask you why could be wrong to use some > > eggs of women that are not desired , or cannot be transformed in human > > being as it happens with the great majority of them ? > > > > If all a woman's eggs were supposed to became human beings one would > > conclude that all married,or single, woman without sons should she be > > considered guilty by not allowing their eggs to be fertilized , let them > > to be expelled and destroyed ?. > > > > Best wishes , > > Joao Carvalho > > Salvador, Brazil > > > > Janice Morgan wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > >The egg alone is no problem, I just was wanting to know if you put some > of > > >your DNA with and egg from a woman to make cells in a petra dish and you > let > > >it grow would it at sometime have the ability of becoming a little > person? > > >That is how they got Dolly the sheep and the little kitten. I was not > trying > > >to tell people how to believe or put my God into it for I do understand > many > > >on the list have different beliefs and I respect that. I just saw on TV > > >where they took DNA from a man whom had a back injury and wanted to be > able > > >to walk again so a lab not supported by the government did the > experiment. > > >When asked if they took the cells that had formed with the egg and the > man's > > >DNA where implanted into an uterus would it have the potential of > becoming a > > >baby? The answer was yes. If that is the same way they do thing to get > the > > >stem cells from us to help us then I just I have a hard time with it that > is > > >all. Janice > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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