 |
 |
This is such a great essay because it brings us to confront, if we will, the realities, priorities and choices we face. The futility of a "no embryo left behind" crusade is quite clear if you really think about this issue. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina P. Brown" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Pro-Lifer's argument against ESCR > Delores, > Would you please send me your email address...to [log in to unmask] > Thanks, > > Nina > "Circumstances determine our lives, but we shape our lives by what we make > of our circumstances." > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dolores Gross > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:37 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > 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