 |
 |
Yes, Dolores, he is a follower of Dr. Robert George(member of Bush's bioethical panel) who was making the argument for funerals (almost) for embryos with Leslie Stahl on the 60 Minutes piece re IVF surplus embryos. Yes, it is pointless to argue with him, but he and his ilk hold the power in this country over our lives. They are all pro-potential life, not pro-actual life. I can't help it, I'm so furious I could explode, especially after the latest 60 Minutes piece with the child with Batten's disease and the paralyzed woman who would just like to get ou of bed on her own. GRRRRR Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dolores Gross" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Pro-Lifer's argument against ESCR > Ray, > Zealotry in the guise of religious belief is as dangerous here as it is > in the middle east, and when the zealot is flexible enough to pretend that > his thesis is based on science to persuade a particular audience, or > religion to persuade another audience -it means that we have to be more > attentive and more involved as we near November. . Scott sounds like a > student of Dr. Robert George who inculcates in followers the very same > vocabulary expressed by Scott. It's not by accident that Dr. George > serves on the president's bio-ethics committee, or that at least one major > scientist has resigned, or that he stated on 60 Minutes last week that the > "community" should take charge of the embryos in in-vitro clinics. The > scientific community across the board has continually complained that > results are skewed to reflect pre-conceived dogma and that people are > appointed who will go along with this. Thank you, but I'm not interested > in my post being forwarded to Scott. It would be p! > ointless. > > Dolores > > rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dolores, I also told him about real world choices. re potential vs. > actual > life. Also I couldn't find anything in the texts he provided that said > blastocysts were persons or human lives and Amanda has pointed out a > blastocyst is kind of a pre-embryo. I googled him and his real issue is > abortion and teaching people how to argue against it. He has appeared with > James Dobson and Billy Graham, but he shies away from the religious > argument. Nothing on IVF clinics. He gave up on me. Great rebuttal. If > you want to send it to him I'll give you his email. > Ray > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dolores Gross" > To: > > 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 > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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