Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 77
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    I know so many people that have had babies through IVF where they would not be able to because of fertility problems. What right does any politician have telling these people they cant have families?
    Wow, Tom, you and I agree!!!!
  2. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Wow, Tom, you and I agree!!!!
    Miracles do happen.....
  3. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #23  
    I do ALS research using stem cells obtained from 23-25 year old embryos which died from pulmonary development failure/complications. These cells were taken from the brain and are INCREDIBLY useful
    ALS is such a terrible, terrible disease. You would think if there was any way we could help people with this death sentence we would. Isnt it morally right to try to help the sick?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Wow, Tom, you and I agree!!!!
    And me.

    But then if any of us thought life began at conception I suppose that would make us murderers.

    Which brings us back to the question of what George W thinks happens to the little spirits of all those frozen babies, and why he has not either opposed in vitro, changed his view about conception, or accepted the only other alternative.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Im not sure I understand, are you suggesting IVF be made illegal? I know so many people that have had babies through IVF where they would not be able to because of fertility problems. What right does any politician have telling these people they cant have families?
    In the matter of IVF (and for dibilitating diseases, etc.), I am saying that the value gained from eliminating (curing or preventing) abnormality ought be weighed against the cost of achieving such.

    As a crass example, I am pretty sure there is someone somewhere whose life could be preserved if they received a transplant of my heart. I would be more inclined to agree to such transplant under the circumstances that my life came to a sudden end in a manner in which my heart could be salvaged, than to voluntarily undergo a procedure today, when I'm in reasonable health and strength.

    I think (hope) most of us would say that is "no-brainer."

    However, it does not seem to be so obvious to all when we are talking about embryos (sometimes referred to as "clumps of potential") forfeiting life for the good of others.

    I understand the benefit of IVF. I don't know that the temporal relief brought to those who experience pregnancy and live childbirth is worth the long-lasting impact of creating and destroying so much life in the process.

    There are times when the ends justify the means. I have not reached the conclusion that such is the case herein. I suspect, that there are others who have experienced that temporal relief, who would say that no matter the price, it was worth it. I wonder how many of them would sign up as an immediate organ donor, versus agreeing to such only in case of sudden demise.
  6. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    But then if any of us thought life began at conception I suppose that would make us murderers.

    Which brings us back to the question of what George W thinks happens to the little spirits of all those frozen babies, and why he has not either opposed in vitro, changed his view about conception, or accepted the only other alternative.
    I see your point about the president. Its a strange thing, since I became a parent, my feelings about abortion have changed. But, I realize just because I dont agree with something, what right does that give me to tell other people how to live their lives.

    I also guess that now people would think Im conflicted about embryo research. Im not at all. Im sure no one wants to kill an embryo, but that has to be weighed against all the medical advances that can be made to help people that are suffering.


    I understand the benefit of IVF. I don't know that the temporal relief brought to those who experience pregnancy and live childbirth is worth the long-lasting impact of creating and destroying somuch life in the process.
    Do you know anybody that was able to have a child with IVF, after years suffering infertilty problems? I know lots. I also know lots of women who were destroyed when the were told they couldnt have children, but through IVF have children today (my wife had multiple miscarriages and we had to go to a fertilty doctor in NYC for years before our child was born).
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    ...Do you know anybody that was able to have a child with IVF, after years suffering infertilty problems? I know lots. I also know lots of women who were destroyed when the were told they couldnt have children, but through IVF have children today (my wife had multiple miscarriages and we had to go to a fertilty doctor in NYC for years before our child was born).
    Dear friends that I know are pursuing (or did pursue) IVF have not experienced success to date. Observing their continued pursuit, it is not difficult to imagine the joy that comes with success. Hence I wrote the following:
    I suspect, that there are others who have experienced that temporal relief, who would say that no matter the price, it was worth it
    From my observation, it appears that the couple finds the success is worth every physical, emotional, and financial resource invested.

    My wife has carried three children to term and delivery. I profoundly understand that joy. Our first known pregnancy, though, resulted in a miscarriage. I have never felt such grief before or after that event (though we did experience another miscarriage). While our child was literally passing, I was curled up on a pile of dirty laundry bawling. My guts were in greater turmoil than my wife's, and she was experienceing the actual cramping as her body released the child that had been developing only days before.

    As imaginative as I am, it is difficult for me to consider experiencing such anguish over and over. I am amazed by the resolve people have maintained in the face of numerous fruitless attempts.

    But I understand why the pursuit continues, because I have experienced the joy that is experienced when birth does result. The joy is incredible.

    I dont wish to withhold that joy from anyone. I do wish to point out that the thing that makes that joy so profound--the value of realizing new life--is the very thing that is devalued in the process.

    I don't fault you or others. I don't doubt that IVF was developed with the best of intentions--to allow some to share in a joy that they might not otherwise experienced.

    I just get the nagging feeling that if upon experiencing childbirth, the parents were informed that the long awaited child was going to be used for experimentation, there would not be the same acceptance--no matter how much good could come.
  8. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #28  
    I just get the nagging feeling that if upon experiencing childbirth, the parents were informed that the long awaited child was going to be used for experimentation, there would not be the same acceptance--no matter how much good could come.
    Excellent point. However, shouldnt the decision be the parents, and not some politician sitting in his office in Washington?
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Well, there have been no successful results from fetal research. There has been successful results from adult stem cells. Next, why should the government fund this? The federal government is not saying no to research, just that it is not going to fund it.

    With all the hype about fetal stem cell research, one over looks that the research indicates that fetal stem cells grow rapidly and are not easily controllable, giving results that are far from satisfactory for practical use. Not the safe with adult stem cells.

    So, does anyone have any sites we can visit that show actual results? or from what I have seen, the sites say .... this will... and that is a big difference there.

    Ben
    Hey Ben, when you are not cruising around Hawaii on your chopper, check out Nature podcast on the link in my signature. They had a one hour special on stem cell research about two weeks ago that you might find informative. Cheers.
  10. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
    The problem lies not with stem cell research, but in forcing those who are morally opposed to it to fund it. If *embryonic* stem cell research has the great potential that the popular news outlets would have us believe, the free market economy and patent rights to those developing successful treatments would encourage the private sector to fund such research in hopes of great financial gain.

    The difference with IVF is that the purpose in one case is to help families create life, in the other case it is to help prolong existing life - at the expense of potential life.
    Forensic Scientist

  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    The problem lies not with stem cell research, but in forcing those who are morally opposed to it to fund it. If *embryonic* stem cell research has the great potential that the popular news outlets would have us believe, the free market economy and patent rights to those developing successful treatments would encourage the private sector to fund such research in hopes of great financial gain.

    The difference with IVF is that the purpose in one case is to help families create life, in the other case it is to help prolong existing life - at the expense of potential life.
    Source: Gallup

    July 20, 2006
    Stem Cell Veto Contrary to Public Opinion
    Most support the research, but don't follow the issue very closely


    by Lydia Saad

    A majority of Americans favor embryonic stem cell research, and would likely support any legislative initiative that funds it in any way, shape, or form. At the same time, Americans are not highly informed about the nuances of stem cell research nor are they paying close attention to it.

    -snip-

    Just wondering, could we apply this logic to, say, the Iraq war? For I feel the Iraq war was immoral? Should, I be forced to pay for it? Maybe the private sector would like to try and fund the war. I am sorry, but I do not think your argument, nor your quote from one of our great leaders, holds any water in this case.
  12. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Just wondering, could we apply this logic to, say, the Iraq war? For I feel the Iraq war was immoral? Should, I be forced to pay for it? Maybe the private sector would like to try and fund the war. I am sorry, but I do not think your argument, nor your quote from one of our great leaders, holds any water in this case.
    I think we could apply the same logic to the Iraq war. If you find the Iraq war immoral, then it is sinful and tyrannical for the government to force you to fund it. And the quote from Thomas Jefferson is very much appropriate for this situtation, and holds water to be sure.


    --I do not however agree with your signature line. I feel most people are not tired of liberty, and I encourage everyone to speak their mind, and help others around the world seek out liberty. Even if that means by force of arms in foreign countries.
    Forensic Scientist

  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    I think we could apply the same logic to the Iraq war. If you find the Iraq war immoral, then it is sinful and tyrannical for the government to force you to fund it. And the quote from Thomas Jefferson is very much appropriate for this situtation, and holds water to be sure.
    So by this standard Bush and congress should immediately withdraw all funding for the iraq war? It is a slippery slope for us to play on?


    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    --I do not however agree with your signature line. I feel most people are not tired of liberty, and I encourage everyone to speak their mind, and help others around the world seek out liberty. Even if that means by force of arms in foreign countries.
    I would hope you would not agree w/ my sig line, as I do not either. It is more of a feacious use of the quote in reference to the NSA spying program of Americans.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So by this standard Bush and congress should immediately withdraw all funding for the iraq war? It is a slippery slope for us to play on?
    In the case of destroying embryos for research, I don't think the slippery slope argument is on your side.
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    In the case of destroying embryos for research, I don't think the slippery slope argument is on your side.
    not catching your drift Hoovs. Could you explain to me a little more. Thanks.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    In the case of destroying embryos for research, I don't think the slippery slope argument is on your side.
    So, destroying them for research is worse than flushing them down the drain? (Assuming that's how fertility clinics clean out their freezers ...).

    Why don't the Bushes and the Brownback's close down the IVF clinics? Because they are hypocrites ...
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    not catching your drift Hoovs. Could you explain to me a little more. Thanks.
    I'm talking about the slow devaluation of human life in deference to the quality of life. I'm talking about abortion, then embryo farming, then euthanasia, then??? We can already see this playing out in Europe. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been tolerated for over thirty years, not just for the terminally ill but also for the merely depressed, the debate over the last few years has centered around infanticide--the practice of killing disabled infants. In fact, this has been the practice for over fifteen years. What to do with all these dead babies? May as well use the tissue for transplant or research.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    So, destroying them for research is worse than flushing them down the drain? (Assuming that's how fertility clinics clean out their freezers ...).

    Why don't the Bushes and the Brownback's close down the IVF clinics? Because they are hypocrites ...
    Brownbacks?
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Brownbacks?
    Sen. Brownback, Kansas.
  20. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So by this standard Bush and congress should immediately withdraw all funding for the iraq war? It is a slippery slope for us to play on?
    Not at all. I am just trying to point out that at times our government has to make decisions that not all of us agree with. In this case the president disagrees with your personal views on both *embryonic* stem cell research funding by the federal government, and on the Iraq war. If these issues had come up 8 years ago, then president Clinton would have chosen the opposite in both cases, and likely you would be in agreement with the government.

    The point to remember as this relates to the opening post about hypocracy is that if president Bush had NOT vetoed federal funding of *embryonic* stem cell research, he would have been a hyprocrit. This president was elected by a majority with the understanding that he would not decide by polling the American public on every issue. The majority wanted a president with higher moral values than the last, and even if the majority do not agree with his decision on *embryonic* stem cell research funding (and I'm not saying the majority does disagree - I don't trust polls as they are themselves biased in wording chosen often), he made a decision based on his morals and *that* is an excellent change for the better!
    Forensic Scientist

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions