 |
 |
Re the religious response to Niagara Falls, in Spain in the 1930's anarcho-syndicalists thought electricity was the work of the devil. This kind of mindset is enjoying a resurgence today, it never goes away Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dolores Gross" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:37 AM Subject: Pro-Lifer's argument against ESCR > In a perfect world, individuals and > societies would be able to bring all embryos to term. One-third of all > pregnancies would not end in miscarriages. In vitro fertilization would > not be necessary. Families would be able to have as many children (or > none) as they want, and there would be no need for family planning as > everybody would be very healthy and very wealthy and everybody would have > everything they wanted and needed. Decisions about whether to go to war > or not would never need to be made by leaders who consider life to be > sacred because it would be obvious that war is evil and involved the > taking of lives. Also, our judicial system would be very simple - there > would be no tough decisions about balancing rights, including rights that > often are presented to us in absolute terms > . > However, we don't live in a perfect world and so judges must decide > between competing rights, governments must decide whether to go to war or > not, and societies have to make difficult decisions about which social > policies to endorse. > > The issue is not whether Scott's views are right or wrong "scientifically > and philosophically" The issue is that his position is an abstraction and > is fit only for a world other than our own - a perfect world. In the > actual world, the one we occupy, there are people who suffer from diseases > like juvenile diabetes, spinal injuries, macular degeneration, > Alzheimer's, and of course, Parkinson's. Embryonic stem cell research is > among the technologies that hold the possibility of curing these diseases. > When hydro-electric power was brought to Niagara Falls a century or so ago > constructon was sabotaged because there were those who said it was the > devil's work; when Dr. Christian Barnard undertook the first heart > transplant there were many who thought it was terrible. the Wright > Brothers' first flight was a far cry from outer space. The turning point > for ESCR research is now. > > People like Scott need to look at the issue in terms of a tough choice to > be made between saving the life of someone who is sick, and prolonging the > existence of embryos which will never be born. The solution is not always > absolute although he would like to think it is. Difficult decisions have > to be made all the time in the real world. A mother who has lost a > 15-year old son in an auto accident, or a 5--year old daughter to cancer > and who has also experienced a miscarriage is most likely to tell you that > she grieves more for the son or daughter with whom she has shared love, > memories, experiences.The common sense experience of grief is worth more > than 100 embryology textbooks. Considering this common sense experience > of real life parents we can explain why people endorse ESCR. Arguing > "scientifically and philosophically" in the way that Scott does, produces > attitudes and conclusions that are divorced from the reality and > experience of people. Scott argues primarily! > from > abstract examples and uses the phraseology of those on the President's > Bio-ethics Committee who oppose ESCR; and of Senators Frist and > Brownback. We all know how the choice of words convey images and his use > of phrases such as "abortion advocates," "pro-lifers," "athiests and > secular libertarians" cause me to question whether he is swift-boating the > intent of ESCR. If he were to consider the issue from the perspective of > parents who have raised a child, or from the perspective of those who are > hopeful that ESCR holds answers, not just from the view of abstract > embryological science, he might gain some empathy and see that the > argument is about human beings after all, and as for his not having "seen > a principled argument defending" ESCR all he has to do is open his eyes > and read chapter 11 of Senator Orin Hatch's autobiography, or Dr. Arthur > Caplan's writings on the subject, or the comments of Dr. Harold Varmus and > so many other Nobel Prize recipients. And if he is truly > interested in "the whole human beings that have yet to grow and mature" > how many of the 400,000 in in vitro clinics will he and his peers adopt > before there is a further melt-down? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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