 |
 |
Ray, my use of the word "fetus" was in the context of the question of "viability", since viability is the term used to explain when a fetus becomes a baby. Since the issue is (by your own admission) "when", depending on who has the authority to declare the "when", a five year old could theoretically be declared "unviable". I know this is unthinkable to most, but I recall a comment that has some historical validity. Societies have responded to ethical and social ills as first being"unthinkable", then depending on the resistance to accept the unthinkable, they become "thinkable", and finally "acceptable". You have my address, there are many who want this to end; any response should be directly to me. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rayilyn Brown Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 5:32 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: ESCR "EMBRYOS" what is your point? lets deal with reality, nobody is saying a fertilized egg is not a human zygote, but that it is not a person. A baby is called a baby not a fetus when it is born alive. The meanings of these words are pretty clear and making the language mean what you want does not advance the ethical arguments re what should be done to these various conditions. -----Original Message----- From: David McMurray Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:38 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: ESCR "EMBRYOS" O.K., Rick, on the one hand we have your proposed conclusions, on the counter-point to that comparable extreme, we have past reports of China, in their mandate for one child per couple, bashing the brains out of their new-born (mostly female), a very effective method of social engineering. But our practice of partial birth abortion wasn't far behind. If it's illogical and ridiculous to think that a fertilized egg is human, aren't we somewhat arbitrary drawing a line and either you are or you aren't, based on which side you fall on? Isn't it plausible that that line could move, depending on who was drawing it? To promote what is best for the masses, we could say that all born fetuses are on probation, and if they don't measure up, i.e., physical, mental, and social viability within an arbitrary time-line drawn at, say 5 years, they would have to be terminated. This would solve many of our social issues including medical, educational, special needs requirements, et.al. After all, pro-abortionists all ready use that argument in justifying their actions.... The people that were responsible for the horrific acts against Meg and her family would agree with most of your premises (particularly the murder charge) below, they also call people like me "Hypocrites" because we don't subscribe to those extremes. One note, since you mentioned "last rites". This is a formal Catholic/Episcopal ritual, (I have nothing against it), but for the most part, Protestants believe that those that die young immediately enjoy all the benefits of heaven. The way I look at it, if a fertilized egg has the DNA stamp on it, and God is the creator of the Universe, He can handle it.... :) This issue has it's roots in a much broader arena; it's obvious that an individual's world view of what is real and true influences their conclusions. It has mine. Dave McMurray Sr. -----Original Message----- From: Rick McGirr Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:52 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: ESCR "EMBRYOS" I'm also wondering about eggs and sperm that are united in the course of intercourse, only to meet their demise on a bedsheet, or a bathtub or commode. If life begins at the moment the egg and sperm unite, and if we're going to extend citizenship rights to these as separate human lives, shouldn't a lot more people be arrested for negligent homicide, if not murder 1, and shouldn't the obituary columns be longer, and shouldn't these persons, whose lives were tragically snuffed out in the earliest moments, be given last rites and proper burial in the family plot? Ridiculous? It's as ridiculous as citizenship and sanctity for every embryo. Rick McGirr -----Original Message----- From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Phillips Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: ESCR "EMBRYOS" Try this argument on for size : doesn't "microscopic undifferentiated cells" cover menstrual products ? If serious, these guys would have to make menstruation illegal (an egg gets shed) and declare every bin in every female toilet/restroom a crime sceen... If they don't support that then they're not taking their own argument seriously & if they do they're ridiculous. > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:58:18 -0700 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: ESCR "EMBRYOS" > To: [log in to unmask] > > The embryos used for ESCR are not created for the purpose of medical > experimentation. The whole process of IVF results in more than needed so > owners must either freeze them forever, trash them, or donate them to > science. Many anti-abortionists also oppose IVF and contraceptives, as well > as ESCR and even SCNT which involves as unfertilized egg and a somatic cell > like a skin cell. I imagine they also oppose iPSCR as ESCs are necessary > for the research. They are also behind 14th amendment personhood rights > for zygotes which if legal would ban contraceptives, IVF, ESCR, as well as > abortion. A human cell is not a human person any more than a corporation > is a person or an acorn is an oak tree. > > I do know that Prentice falsely promoted Dennis Turner and several others > as ASC Parkinson "cures" on his ASC cure list of varying numbers for > several years. Also, Susan Fajit, a paraplegic. I talked to Dennis twice > on the phone when I could still talk. > > I do not fear clones, science, or the government. Without Medicare I could > not have afforded my 2 DBSs. I do not believe that "just let them die" as > was recently applauded by a Republican debate audience is a good solution. > With a few exceptions, scientists have done a pretty good job of > contributing to the public good. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David McMurray > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:14 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Lets talk about ESC Mania! > > Hi Rick; > > You make a good point, one that I have embraced for at least half a century, > but to debate on which side has more idiots would not be appropriate here, > and I am commenting on the subject of ESCR at the invitation of Ray. > > She has already discounted my response, i.e., Dr. Prentice and his testimony > before the Maryland House Committees, but I'd like to get specific and ask a > few questions, based on his testimony. Keep in mind that I don't claim to > be an expert nor do I have any education or training in this science. And > Ray, you obviously know more about him than I do. But these questions will > be taken from his testimony before Congress. > > 1. Does the science behind "somatic cell nuclear transfer" promote the use > of cloning technology to create human embryos for experiments? > 2. Is it true that almost all higher animals start their lives from a > single cell: the fertilized ovum. (zygote)? > 3. Do you agree that the National Academy of Sciences' definition of > "embryo" includes, "In medical terms, embryo usually refers to the > developing human from fertilization (the zygote stage)?.... > 4. Is it true, as stated by Dr. Prentice, that "Both Reproductive and > Therapeutic cloning use exactly the same techniques to create the clone, and > the cloned embryos are indistinguishable? > 5. Is it true that "therapeutic cloning requires the creation of and > disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos"? > 6. Is it true that "Unlike much stem cell research, which can use spare > embryos remaining from infertility procedures, CRNT (cell replacement > through nuclear transfer AKA "therapeutic cloning") requires the deliberate > creation and disaggregation of a human embryo. (and this is, > evidently, where the Ethics question begins). > > So, the way I see it, and the reason abortion has been thrown into the mix, > Ray; those who have no problem with aborting "fetuses" will have no problem > with ESCR. > > And Rick, I'd be careful of promoting an issue that has to rely on what is > done "for the greater public". History cries out to us to learn from the > past, and not repeat the events that have been done under that guise. The > problem was in who determined what was good. > > In that regard, if Obama Care is fully implemented, seniors may very well be > individually scrutinized as to their viability. Those decisions will also > be made considering "the public good". If you don't believe it, there's > plenty on the web on both sides of the issue. But for me, Obama Care is > going to adversely impact all seniors, particularly those in need of major > medical care. (Such as ESC treatments)? > > Regards, > > Dave > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick McGirr > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:33 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Lets talk about ESC Mania! > > Hello, folks, > > Ray, thanks for the invitation. > > "....come on, his constituents don't take him seriously, why should you?" > > My answer: because idiots vote. > > Misinformation is one of the chief tools in any political contest. If enough > people are ill-informed, they will cause wrong-headed bills to bubble up to > the top of public discourse, like this poor, misguided buffoon in Oklahoma > has done. It's curious that this legislator has, himself, bubbled to the top > of Okla politics. > > It's unfortunate that medical research has to sit on its hands while these > 'chicken-licken's' slowly grasp what is actually happening. I think the best > prophylactic for misguided ideas is a good dousing with correct information > and up-to-date discussion focusing on reality, the scientific method, and > the good of the greater public, tenets of public discourse back when I was > attending public schools. > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:37 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Lets talk about ESC Mania! > > Dave > > thank you for bringing this up. I assume you are someone who has concerns > > about the ESC issue and I would like to know what they are. I think it is > past time we had an open discussion re this issue., especially since it > looks like ESCS are responsible for restoring sight to two women. And now, > more than ever, the forces of opposition on the state level are mixing > abortion with IVF, contraception and embryonic stem cell research. > > Millions of lives depend upon the outcome of this struggle and I don't mean > aborted fetuses. > > -----Original Message----- > From: David McMurray > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:20 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: ESC Mania! > > Using this nut to throw a blanket over anyone who has concerns about the > stem cell issue is disingenuous, to say the least....come on, his > constituents don't take him seriously, why should you? > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Meg Duggan > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:07 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: ESC Mania! > > OMG OMG OMG. These people make me want to tear my hair out and set myself > on fire. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nic Marais <[log in to unmask]> > To: PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Fri, Jan 27, 2012 3:27 am > Subject: ESC Mania! > > > Ray, this is what you're up against!!! > http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2105-aborted-fetuses-food-oklahoma.html > And I thought we had problems with politicians here in SA... > Nic 59/17 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > o sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] > n 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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