 |
 |
Rick Several years ago "Snowflakes" had around 100 "adoptions" of IVF embryos, hardly a dent in the around 400,000 extra embryos. Do you suppose opponents of ESCR even know why there are so many extras? Ray -----Original Message----- From: Rick McGirr Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:16 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: "left alone" = 0 This is also the point at which separation of church and state comes to the fore (or "rears its ugly head", depending on your viewpoint). I'm all for faith-based or sanity-based programs that help live children in dire straits find loving homes, as long as the effort is done at no taxpayer expense. This is not such a conundrum. Generous funding can be found in faith circles as well as secular charities. I'm also in favor of government-created programs, as long as they are fully secular. Again, church and state must at least remain at arm's length. But again, this is a misdirection of the discussion. It is incorrect to label embryos in Petri dishes as "individual human citizens", deserving of the full rights thereof. The IVF-lab created embryos will not develop if "left alone". Nothing will happen, because it is impossible for them to become humans without being implanted. Sure they have potential of becoming human beings, just as separate sperm and egg do, and just as science is showing us new ways in which cells of other types have potential. Hence the ridiculous "every sperm is sacred" idea. I wouldn't be surprised to read that Mr. Santorum has come out in favor. I don't know what the numbers are, but I would guess that there are hardly the numbers of people waiting to "adopt", enough to handle all the embryos that are destroyed yearly. And so the cells are discarded with other bio-waste, and we sit here wondering what value our lives have. Call me callous or an idiot, it just seems to me that all the concern for embryos is just not supported by evidence, and therefore callous and, well, you know. Just so you know a bit more about me, I think abortion should be avoided if possible, especially when the fetus has a good chance of surviving. I do not think promiscuity is to blame as much as not using, and not funding, proper levels of contraception. Given the choice between an unwanted pregnancy and using contraceptives, most lucid people would choose the latter. One plank in my platform has not changed: I still think it is the woman who must choose how to use her body. A woman's right to direct her own life should be as sacrosanct as any of our other rights. Government and our legal system should stand behind women before it stands behind the dictates of male-dominated political and religious power mongers. I say these things to counter accusations that being "pro-choice", and by extension "pro-stem cell research, is dastardly, inhumane, murderous, un-American, etc. I've probably said too much. Sorry. Rick McGirr -----Original Message----- From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 2:39 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: "left alone" = 0 In IVF it takes adult intervention for these cells to become a child. If left alone and not implanted in a human uterus they must either be frozen, discarded, or used for medical research. They wouldn't become anything. No human being is formed if "left alone". this is why it is poor policy to let people who don't understand the science to decide what kind of science will be pursued. -----Original Message----- From: David McMurray Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:16 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM Here's a unique thought, a simple consideration; why try to be God and arbitrarily declare when those cells become a child? Why not agree that, left alone without adult intervention, a human is being formed with his or her special, unchangeable identity.....then, change our expensive, slothful government adoption bureaucracy. This would allow a streamlined, efficient way for those who would adopt a US baby except for the red tape. Faith based programs would be a great expediter if the bureaucracy would help or get out of the way. If this could happen, everybody should be happy. The mother doesn't have to raise the child, the adoption family gets the child they couldn't otherwise have, and the baby, at least has a shot at a loving family relationship. One of the problems with that scenario is that there are those that are using abortion as a birth control procedure and they are unwilling to carry the child to full term. This is sad, but true. Dave -----Original Message----- From: jcu Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 5:11 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM All of this is so intriguing. 'Personhood, and when it begins' sounds like such a noble debate. But once a child is born, exactly when does their 'personhood' actually get respected? Exactly when are children ever truly treated like 'citizens' in any real sense of that word? The hypocrisy of these thinkers is astounding! A baffled canadian, joan On 2012-03-16, at 11:36 PM, Rayilyn Brown wrote: > Rick > > I like your observation that life is a continuum. We were all star dust > once. > > IVF sure changed the abortion argument didn't it? I mean who knew about > zygotes among the non-scientific population? > > People who oppose science and base their opinions on faith should not be > making research decisions in a secular society IMO. > > What I am most concerned about is this hostility to science. Faith > didn't give us knowledge of DNA or IVF. > > -----Original Message----- From: Rick McGirr > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:45 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: MJFOX ON SANTORUM > > After listening to MJ Fox's diplomatic approach, I clicked on the short > with Ron Paul and heard his pandering. I have also heard Santorum's > absolute statements, and Gingrich's hypocritical traditionalism, Romney's > posturing, and President Obama's strong support for a woman's right to > choose. I can characterize much of what I hear as political "peacock-ing", > if you'll allow me. > > The discussion about when a person's life begins is an interesting one. I > expect that the more convinced one is about when personhood begins, the > more resolute one will be about the issue of when abortion is allowable. > The view that the fetus' life need not be considered at all seems to have > taken a back seat to the idea that, at some stage along the way, a viable > human person emerges during the nine month process, and "person" means > "citizen" and "citizen" means "rights". > > For me, the terms need further clarification. "Life" to me is a continuum. > If I fully represent my views here, it will be something different than > what others would state. The questions crop up like new plant growth after > a forest fire. Trying to be a bit dainty here, there is a lot of "life" > that ends up in places other than where God intended for our propagation. > If a couple copulate unsuccessfully, are eggs and sperm cells "life", even > when they don't combine? Is this an example of when "life" ends? How is > this life/death to be classified? Is there evidence of a moment at which > the breath of life is blown into a group of cells? Does this "breath" > cause a group of cells to be an individual? When is it appropriate to > bestow full citizen's rights to this group of cells? Is there a moment > which passes, after which we can draw the distinction between persons and > biological material? Further, do frozen, non-implanted embryos meet any > such definitions? These 'groups of cells' are not in a survivable > condition, once they are thawed. They still have to successfully be > implanted by the doctor, and attach to the uterine wall of the candidate > mother and develop the umbilical cord, etc, through the months during > gestation. Is there a mother/child relationship between the un-implanted > embryo while it survives in the womb? Is the woman actually a "mother", > before, during, and/or after such attempts are made, either in the bedroom > or the laboratory? In the case of unsuccessful attempts, should the > doctor, or the copulating couple, be charged with negligence or worse? > This is not a ridiculous question, within the framework of current > discussions, that is, if "life begins at conception". > > Are these and a host of other questions not legally, socially, > religiously, personally, politically pertinent? Is this not as thorny a > range of subjects as you could encounter in any creekside raspberry patch? > > My view is that even though males participate in the process of > procreation, women ought to be the majority of any body deciding on a > woman's right to ask for and receive abortion. If I were a woman, I > wouldn't want any gaggle of rich, white men to sit in judgment of my > sexuality and the sanctity of my actions. I also view the discussion of a > woman's right to abortion services as a distracting parallel discussion on > the rights of the cells of embryos. My view is that there is no evidence > of personhood at the stage of combined sperm and egg, before implantation > in the uterus, including those embryos in the freezers of IVF clinics. The > use of such embryos for medical research should be allowed and fully > supported. > > So many questions, and so many answers... > > Rick McGirr > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rayilyn Brown > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:51 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: MJFOX ON SANTORUM > > Fox has interesting take on Santorum's ESCR beliefs: > > http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/14/michael-j-fox-on-rick-santorums- anti-stem-cell-research-beliefs-i-dont-want-to-suppress-ideas-i-dont-agree-w ith/?hpt=pm_mid > > Ray > Rayilyn Brown > Past Director AZNPF > Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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