 |
 |
Hi Ray -- I guess everyone has their hot button issues. I wish someone would hit on something that could bring the sides closer together -- or at least be a strong talking point. As you point out, there needs to be some forceful and respected voices to help clarify some of the issues. Like with that statement about Social Security, things get way off a lot of times and before you know it, the arguments are just plain ridiculous. Everyone has to follow their own conscience but I hope there will be more enlightenment --on both sides-- about some of the polarizing issues. Carole ----- Original Message ----- From: "rayilynlee" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: Re: 60 Minutes Surplus Embryo Report page 1/Carole > Carole, I think this is definitely one of the objections. They suffer > from > what I call the "fear of Frankenstein syndrome" . The slippery slope > objection which is fed by the Hwang fiasco., movies and books. Also, I > think that mixing it with the abortion issue will make it easier to > overturn > Roe v. Wade. > > Last night I had discussion with my tax guy, a "moderate Republican" who > favors ESCR and a woman's right to choose. I couldn't get a word in, but > he > kept talking about a fetus not being able to benefit from a SS number. I > got the impression he thought we were talking about fetal cells. I don't > think he knew anything about SCNT. He kept saying "life from conception" > was the same as an actual life to opponents of ESCR which I think is their > belief. His younger, cute wife has MS but only had one episode, is doing > well and not on meds. He informed me all people with MS were different, I > told him it was the same with us PWP. maybe if his wife gets worse, he > will > listen more carefully and maybe I am wrong, but lots of people really > don't > know we are talking about cellular "life". > > I still wish some of our List members who favor Bush's policy would speak > up. Otherwise we can only guess. I have argued with 'pro-life" folks who > empathize that a blastocyst is human life even though they shy away from > the term "a' human life or person. They do equate it with adult persons > I'm > thinking because it is the stuff of life and people shouldn't be monkeying > with it, but IVF is OK - it is a miracle from God.. Like the theory of > evolution, I do think the RR in some way think it threatens their > religious > beliefs which I totally do not understand. > Ray > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Menser" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:47 AM > Subject: Re: 60 Minutes Surplus Embryo Report page 1 > > >> This is not my opinion so please don't start an argument with me. >> Sometimes >> the expression "Don't shoot the messenger" seems to apply here. So at >> the >> risk of getting "shot," for clarification's sake, I think the objection >> of >> a >> lot of a lot of the Religious Right (among other things that they have >> been >> called) is not what ultimately happens to the embryos but what may >> ultimately happen as a result of embryonic experimentation. In order >> words, >> once it begins, where will it lead? At least this is what I have been >> told. >> It applies to both ends of the age spectrum. Don't "euthanize" the >> elderly >> and don't experiment on embryos (two vulnerable and often helpless >> populations) because it will open the door to other things that may have >> more sinister motives and uses. >> >> Disclaimer: Again, I'm just stating what I have gleaned. This is NOT >> necessarily my personal opinion. >> >> Carole M. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Amanda Phillips" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:05 PM >> Subject: Re: 60 Minutes Surplus Embryo Report page 1 >> >> >>>I still don't get it , why is using the surplus for research worse than >>> letting them rot ? >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn