 |
 |
Please see ******** for my response to your response Robert A. Fink, M. D. wrote: >On 12 Sep 2004 at 16:44, Charles T. Meyer wrote: > > > >>I believe that human life is sacred and must be protected. But I >>define human life as beginning at birth. Quality of life is also >>critical. I guess this is consistent with my religious tradition but it >>is I recognize as largely arbitrary. While some might disagree, it is >>a greater evil to allow suffering to continue in the world and to throw >>out the embryos than to experiment and therefore possibly relieve the >>suffering of those of us who have illnesses like PD. Would you choose >>the life of your one or two week embryo in a petri dish over the >>life of your living breathing child or your spouse or yourself?. I >>would. make the choice without thinking twice . >> >> > >Charlie, > >Here is where we disagree, and it is basic. I DO believe that human life >begins with conception. There are, as when dealing with "already-born" >human beings, some instances where killing of such human beings is justified >(self-defense, a so-called "just war"; and for some, capital punishment); but I >believe (along with many) that human life is present in a conceptus. > > Bob >*******On what basis do you believe this, scientific? (I don't think there is a scientifc way to determine when the soul enters the body or the existance of a soul.) or is it a matter of religious doctrine?.Or is there another reason that I haven't thought of? > > >>>If you regard flushing the product of conception as murder then >>> >>> >remember that most people do not hold that view and the definition of the >beginning of life is arbitrary and comes from religious beliefs and varies >even within religions. If we are to survive as a democracy we cannot >inflict our religious beliefs on one another as much as we may disagree >with what they may be saying or doing.<< > > > >To those people who truly believe that flushing the conceptus is murder, >opposition to this is as important as those who, for example, oppose capital >punishment. Did the "majority" of Germans approve of the Nuremberg >Laws? I suspect that they did, but also that there was a significant minority >who opposed such. Who was right? > >**********While as I said before I admire the consistancy of these people and the passion that they feel- what about those of us who could possibly benefit from stem cell research? Are we to be ignored because of a religious doctrine? Also the Nuremberg Laws discriminated against a group of living breathing people who by any definition were alive and most were healthy but all were clearly human beings- not single cells in a petri dish. We with PD are human beings too and deserve a chance at a healthy complete life or at least research that has the possibility of leading to a cure. The are embryos that have no chance of survival without being implanted in the uterus of a woman. > > >>>The "slippery slope" argument is bogus. One could potentially use it to >>> >>> > <>stop any kind of research- such as genetic research because it may lead > to people wanting to abort pregnancies because of the possibility of > genetic anomalies. Should we stop that type of research because it has > the "potential" for use in a way that you disagree. Or perhaps not > teach evolution because it may undermine ''creationist " biblical doctrine > and disrupt peoples faith in the literal interpretation of the Bible. > We can prevent sliding down the "slippery. slope " by remaining alert. > And with people on our side like Oren Hatch and Nancy Reagan and George > Schultz I don't think you have to worry that Stem Cell Research will lead > to an increased acceptance of infanticide or even abortion or other fears > that the " Right to life" people have.<< > Perhaps we should not totally "stop" the research, but it needs to be carefully controlled and overseen by those who would not "profit" by such. In most universities and medical centers, all human experimentation is covered by very specific rules and regulations, and even then, there have been instances of serious damage to patients due to a failure in the oversight procedures (a genetic cancer treatment at several major universities recently was found to be deadly and was finally stopped). > <>*******Here we agree but your example could have happened with a > drug trial just as easy as a gene therapy trial > All experimentation on humans and fetuses and embryos ( in deference > to Right to LIfe groups) should be monitored by a human subjects > committee. With all due respect (and I respect Mrs. Reagan), Nancy Reagan is "way off > <>base" with her attitudes about stem cells and Alzheimer's disease. > There is > not one iota of evidence that Alzheimer's disease is one in which > stems cells > will prove to be a fertile approach to cure of. > **********Yes I agree that her faith in using stem Cells to find an alzheimer's cure may well be misplaced but the area is rich in basic science which could potentially lead to a cure.. <><>Would you choose the life of your one or two week embryo in a petri dish over the life of your living breathing child <>or your spouse or yourself?. I would. make the choice without thinking twice .<< I would not be quite so glib about the above "choice". It is, for me, not an easy choice.I would think long and hard and I cannot predict which choice I would make. It is unlikely, however, that I would be responsible for having embryos derived from me "in a Petri dish" lying around. **********If you needed IVF to conceive a child wouldn't you try it? Then you might have embryos lying around in a petri dish. ********** On the larger issue What gives anyone the right to have control of what a couple does with their own products of conception.whether or not they use it for IVF or conception of a child. I agree that once fetus is viable it should have some rights but prior to viability I do not see it as a person. Others may have their own definitions and the Courts have decided (at least for now) that my definition is more or less the LAW. It is a shame that such an important issue has become so politicized. that it may decide which way our democracy goes toward Good or Evil. The problem is that which side is which depends on religious doctrine rather than critical thinking for a large portion of our population. Charlie Charles T. Meyer MD Middleton, WI ********************************************** 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.rafink.com/ mailto:[log in to unmask] "Ex Tristitia Virtus" ********************************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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