Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 77 of 77
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I don't get the IVF argument. IVF is about helping people have babies. I do believe there's a moratorium on federal funding for IVF. At least, there was. Even if there isn't, the distinction is helping to start a life with IVF versus destroying a life for embryonic stem cells. How is that hypocracy?
    I am sorry Michal but you are making no sense at all.

    When you say "start a life" for IVF, in doing so you have to make many more embryos than you need, hence all of the leftovers are in storage and eventually need to be thrown out. IF there is any case for life being lost due to medical practices, its IVF where it is taking place.

    When you say "destroying a life" for embryonic stem cells, maybe you do not understand that this bill simply allows using some of the IVF cells before they are thrown out, and hence nothing is being destroyed that wouldn't have been destroyed anyway.

    So if IVF is the cause of the destruction of human life here, stem cell research tries to salvage some good out of this.

    Using stem cells from IVF embryos which are going to be killed anyway is analogous to the situation of the Pennsylvania 911 flight that was doomed by the hijackers. A few of the people on the plane knew they were all going to die, but they wanted to do something that would help others, so they stormed the cabin and crashed the flight before it crashed into Washington DC.

    In either the 911 flight or the stem cell bill, we are trying to obtain some good for mankind from something which is destined to die anyway.

    Many people are ignorant of, or simply close their minds to the potential benefits of stem cell research. If you find yourself saying it has no benefit, but realize you are just repeating something someone else told you, I suggest learning the science yourself. Nature podcast in my signature below is a good way to educate yourself about important issues like stem cell research, and while you are at it climate science and evolution.

    So, in light of all of this, I still maintain that those who are against this stem cell bill including our fine President Bush, are making a statement that they would rather see the leftover IVF embryos go down the toilet rather than being used to actually help someone.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I am sorry Michal but you are making no sense at all.

    When you say "start a life" for IVF, in doing so you have to make many more embryos than you need, hence all of the leftovers are in storage and eventually need to be thrown out. IF there is any case for life being lost due to medical practices, its IVF where it is taking place.

    When you say "destroying a life" for embryonic stem cells, maybe you do not understand that this bill simply allows using some of the IVF cells before they are thrown out, and hence nothing is being destroyed that wouldn't have been destroyed anyway.

    So if IVF is the cause of the destruction of human life here, stem cell research tries to salvage some good out of this.

    Using stem cells from IVF embryos which are going to be killed anyway is analogous to the situation of the Pennsylvania 911 flight that was doomed by the hijackers. A few of the people on the plane knew they were all going to die, but they wanted to do something that would help others, so they stormed the cabin and crashed the flight before it crashed into Washington DC.

    In either the 911 flight or the stem cell bill, we are trying to obtain some good for mankind from something which is destined to die anyway.

    Many people are ignorant of, or simply close their minds to the potential benefits of stem cell research. If you find yourself saying it has no benefit, but realize you are just repeating something someone else told you, I suggest learning the science yourself. Nature podcast in my signature below is a good way to educate yourself about important issues like stem cell research, and while you are at it climate science and evolution.

    So, in light of all of this, I still maintain that those who are against this stem cell bill including our fine President Bush, are making a statement that they would rather see the leftover IVF embryos go down the toilet rather than being used to actually help someone.
    Very well reasoned statement. But the conclusion is slightly askew. Federal funding is not required for stem cell research to continue. So, to oppose federal funding is not inherently oppoisition to the technology.

    Interestingly, IVF-->stem cell research is a patent example of "slippery slope." My suspicison is those who opposed IVF on the same principle were demonized as "hating" people ho had limited fertility. The very logical and rational (and emotional) argument is that IVF could help people. Now, IVF is established, and the next step is experimentation--after all they are going to be destroyed anyway.

    The next next step is....they were going to die any way. We only allowed them to live so that their organs could be harvested.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Very well reasoned statement. But the conclusion is slightly askew. Federal funding is not required for stem cell research to continue. So, to oppose federal funding is not inherently oppoisition to the technology.
    As basic research discovery is driven by federal funding, cutting off fed funding is essentially cutting off discovery. Venture capitalists and drug companies step in to fund at a later stage, when basic discoveries are translated into clinically marketable products.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Interestingly, IVF-->stem cell research is a patent example of "slippery slope." My suspicison is those who opposed IVF on the same principle were demonized as "hating" people ho had limited fertility. The very logical and rational (and emotional) argument is that IVF could help people. Now, IVF is established, and the next step is experimentation--after all they are going to be destroyed anyway.

    The next next step is....they were going to die any way. We only allowed them to live so that their organs could be harvested.
    I am afraid that I could never justify that explanation to a woman who just lost a son to diabetes or a father to Alzheimer's disease. It is a fundamental difference between you and me that we will never resolve, unfortunately.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I am sorry Michal but you are making no sense at all.

    When you say "start a life" for IVF, in doing so you have to make many more embryos than you need, hence all of the leftovers are in storage and eventually need to be thrown out. IF there is any case for life being lost due to medical practices, its IVF where it is taking place.

    When you say "destroying a life" for embryonic stem cells, maybe you do not understand that this bill simply allows using some of the IVF cells before they are thrown out, and hence nothing is being destroyed that wouldn't have been destroyed anyway.

    So if IVF is the cause of the destruction of human life here, stem cell research tries to salvage some good out of this.

    Using stem cells from IVF embryos which are going to be killed anyway is analogous to the situation of the Pennsylvania 911 flight that was doomed by the hijackers. A few of the people on the plane knew they were all going to die, but they wanted to do something that would help others, so they stormed the cabin and crashed the flight before it crashed into Washington DC.

    In either the 911 flight or the stem cell bill, we are trying to obtain some good for mankind from something which is destined to die anyway.

    Many people are ignorant of, or simply close their minds to the potential benefits of stem cell research. If you find yourself saying it has no benefit, but realize you are just repeating something someone else told you, I suggest learning the science yourself. Nature podcast in my signature below is a good way to educate yourself about important issues like stem cell research, and while you are at it climate science and evolution.

    So, in light of all of this, I still maintain that those who are against this stem cell bill including our fine President Bush, are making a statement that they would rather see the leftover IVF embryos go down the toilet rather than being used to actually help someone.
    spin spin spin... incredible that you twist IVF into a method designed to destroy life. Automakers are murderers, then. Look at how many people die because of cars.

    I haven't landed on any side of this conversation. I'm simply observing that the argument that Bush is hypocritical because of some past IVF funding is flawed.

    If Bush had been for abortion, but against embryonic stem cell research, now that would be hypocritical.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    incredible that you twist IVF into a method designed to destroy life.
    Maybe you did not understand my meaning when I said "if IVF destroys life", I was speaking hypothetically. I really do appreciate what IVF can do to help couples conceive, and for that reason I am for it. Maybe we are in agreement on this. But the point is that it is IVF which creates these embryos which are eventually destroyed, not stem cell research.
  6. #66  
    This bit about "they were going to be destroyed anyway" is nonsense... they were only going to be destroyed because someone chose to do so. They could have also chosen to implant them in other infertile women- a better option. They could also decide to only make the number of embryos that they want to implant, and no others.

    Speaking of "choice"...

    I am diabetic. Even if a cure for diabetes is discovered thru the killing of these human lives, i do not want it. I couldn't stand that they had to die. Now, of course, I would be in the minority. Most would take the cure, and it would be spun and marketed to minimize the objections of super-sensitive people like me. After a few years, it would be accepted by all but a few remaining nuts like me. Of course, it would be economically unfeasible for the drug companies to keep making insulin, metformin, or lipitor for a disease that is basically extinct. So, I would die early of my diabetes, or be forced to take a cure that was bought with blood-money.
    Thanks for taking my choice away! But I would just be a nut-job, and my silly moral sensitivites would be considered quaint, but ignored.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  7. #67  
    So you realistically think you can find women for all the unused IVF embryos in and pay the ten to twenty thousand dollars it would cost per implantation? And you think because you are willing to die from your diabetes you are justified to prevent finding a cure for everyone else?
  8. #68  
    There are thousands of women now who either pay thousands of dollars in IVF fees or adoption agency Fees. We should at least try.

    As for my being willing to die, I'd rather live- but if they stop making my meds- they kill me. And as for someone forcing me to accept a cure that came about only because of "murdering babys"...could you do it? I'm not that heartless, I hope. And I strongly object to being put in a position of being tempted to go against my beliefs by dangling a possible cure in front of me.

    Was it right to experiment on Blacks, Jews, and others who were powerless to object for the so-called "greater good"? We did so in the past.

    On a lighter note: Star Trek Voyager took on this issue, in an episode where cruel inhuman experimentation cured a disease. Their supposed solution was to cure their crewmember, then erase all the data they gained (just data, not killing living embryos).

    So, they benefited once... but made sure they were never going to benifit again from the inhumanity of the "experiments".
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    As basic research discovery is driven by federal funding, cutting off fed funding is essentially cutting off discovery. Venture capitalists and drug companies step in to fund at a later stage, when basic discoveries are translated into clinically marketable products.
    That that is the way things are does not mean that is the way they must be.
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I am afraid that I could never justify that explanation to a woman who just lost a son to diabetes or a father to Alzheimer's disease. It is a fundamental difference between you and me that we will never resolve, unfortunately.
    We can make what ever justifications we wish to make.

    But, in the case of the bereaved mother/daughter, no justification is required. She need only be reminded, "Life is precious from start to finish. Be grateful for the time you had together. Carry the lessons you learned from caring for them wherever you go. And, please, make the most of the time you still have with your other family and friends."
  10. #70  
    Why is it considered tragic that a mother to lose a child to disease, yet logic that a mother to abort a child that is likely to be diseased?
  11. #71  
    shopharim, sometimes I get a bit too blunt and if so I am sorry. Even though we are in total disagreement on stem cells I realize you have good intentions and respect that.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    shopharim, sometimes I get a bit too blunt and if so I am sorry. Even though we are in total disagreement on stem cells I realize you have good intentions and respect that.
    I appreciate that statement.

    In fact, I appreciate the bluntness as well. It is easier to see where you stand and why you are standing there.
  13. #73  
    don't take this as patronizing (it's not meant to be), but sometimes I wish I could give out gold stars or karma or whatnot. Thanks Cell and shoph for bringing it back.
  14. #74  
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  15. #75  
    Maybe you are just bringing this article up to stimulate further discussion or something, but this is one of the most one sided articles on stem cells that I have seen in a long time. The main scientist from the family research council they cite has no peer reviewed scientific articles at all to his CV, only a couple of books on how bad cloning and scientists are.

    If this is all you are reading on stem cells you might want to consider filtering out both the left wing as well as the right wing hype by trying to understand the actual science itself. Nature podcast is a good way to do that and had a one hour special on stem cells from a couple weeks ago. You would be hard pressed to find a more reputable and respected science journal than Nature.
  16. #76  
    That Nature podcast source is indeed great. Thanks for providing that link.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by septimus
    don't take this as patronizing (it's not meant to be), but sometimes I wish I could give out gold stars or karma or whatnot. Thanks Cell and shoph for bringing it back.
    I too found this whole thread brilliantly and eloquently and intelligently done. To the point where I feel I have come out of it examining my stance. Still the same but MUCH less so sure? Thank You All.

    quake
    "Cable Modem? DSL? click http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7346966394232063929 to understand quake "
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions