 |
 |
hi mary ann, thanks for the response re: caregivers list. question regarding the Time magazine quote - when you say you are no longer on the fence, do you mean that you have finally come down on the side of opposing federal funding for ESCR or opposing ESCR full stop? considering that you consider the destruction of embryos to be wrong, i am guessing that you have come down on the side of opposing ESCR full stop. if i am wrong, no need to read further. if i am right, however, and embryo desctruction is wrong, in your opinion, what would you suggest be done about IVF? because as long as IVF is undertaken, embryos will continue to be destroyed, whether they are donated to research first or not - not only will they continue to be destroyed, but the destruction will occur, much of the time, because that is what the people who produced them want. if one's goal is to save embryos that would otherwise die, putting a stop to ESCR (which, at the moment, and probably for some time, uses only donated excess IVF embryos) without putting a stop to IVF would have zero impact on the number of embryos being destroyed - it would only mean that those couples who would have donated to research would be forced to choose straight destruction, instead - so, no embryos saved there. and then, regarding the Time quote - what if a great deal of progress could be made on existing embryos, and what if, between now and the time there was a need for new embryos, someone came up with a way to derive ESCs without destroying the embryo? and even if that did happen, embryos would still be being destroyed via IVF - what then? it is a multi layer question, really, and the question of whether ESCR should be allowed or not really can't be addressed without addressing the question of IVF, too. --- Mary Ann Ryan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Ray, the major premise that formulates the logic for > both of us on this > issue is different. > > You think that abortion is Ok. I don't. So.....the > syllogism goes something > like this: > > Ray: > Aborting a fetus is OK > Embryos are the first stage of fetal development > Therefore, destroying embryos is OK. > > Me: > Aborting a fetus is not OK > Embryos are the first stage of fetal development > Therefore, destroying embryos is not OK > > Pro-choice folks will *never* understand why > pro-life folks have taken a > stand on this issue and vice versa. We are oceans > apart. > > I stood on the fence on this issue until I read TIME > magazine's report on > stem cell research that stated, "Extracting > knowledge from embryos that > would otherwise be wasted is one thing, but > scientists admit that moving > forward would require a much larger supply of fresh, > healthy embryos than > fertility clinics could ever provide." (TIME, Aug. > 7, 2006) > > That single statement pulled me off the fence. > ------------ > Mary Ann (CG Jamie 66/26 with PD) > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.13/463 - > Release Date: 10/4/2006 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn