Thanks so much for this, Jim, both for what you said and how you said it. I
agree on every point you made (and I'm an independent Baptist :-))except that I
haven't studied what you mentioned in the last paragraph, so i'm not sure what
my opinion is on that yet. I was never so proud of Bush as when he had
those children from frozen embryos around him and said, "These are not spare
body parts."
I do wish those who disagree on this issue wouldn't resort to name calling
and questioning the motives of those who do believe life begins at conception.
From what I have read the research on adult stem cells is much more
promising than the media conveys.
Barbara H.
In a message dated 7/20/2006 8:00:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I'm copying this from my replies on another list, so forgive me if it
sounds like I'm rambling on)
I've never thought of myself as part of
the "Moral Majority" as you say (I am
a Roman Catholic) but agree with president Bush on this and I will explain
way.
I do believe that a human egg and human sperm make a human being
from the time they are joined, from that point the zygote contains all the 46
chromosomes need to be human. It's called an embryo after about 10 days. Being
a human, it is entitled to protection to life from the Government. Therefore,
the Government should not be funding the destruction of life for the purpose
of research.
Now your opinion of when a human is a human and entitled
to protection obviously differs from mine and president Bush. You can decide
for yourself when a human becomes a human that is entitled to protection. Some
people thing after birth and not before.
I'm against IVF treatments as
well because it creates extra embryos in the process, but since they exist
then keep them on life support (i.e. frozen) indefinitely. They are not
something that should be killed (i.e. by removing stem cells) to possibly make
another persons life better. I have a moral problem with taking one life to
improve another persons life.
As for using those extra embryos in
research for the possible benefit of others, just because they are going to be
destroyed anyway, following that reasoning, here's my problem with that. A
person with a traumatic brain injury or in a coma being kept alive on
ventilator will never be completely healed and will die without the
life-support, so why not harvest their body parts to improve someone else's
life? I see both equally wrong. The Nazi's conducted medical research on
the people they were going to kill anyway. I see it as the
same.
Embryos left over from IVF are not the only source for stem
cells. (2006.06.27: Research on Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells,
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t060627.html )
So I
feel those sources should pursued since there would be no moral or ethical
concerns. I'm all for scientific advancement that does not conflict with my
morals and ethics.
Now, if scientist want to use stem cells derived
from a human egg and another cell, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), I
don't consider that a human and have no problem with research on those stem
cells.
At 12:34 PM 7/20/2006, Alan Junghans wrote:
I was a little vague
in the "Kill stem cell research", but he sure is holding back
progress. If he had TM or Parkinsons OR ANYTHING that could benefit,
he might tell all of the "Moral Majority" to piss off and do the right
thing.
I didn't want to admit it before, but he is truly a friggin
idiot who is clueless.....
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Krissy Z
- To: Alan
Junghans ; TM List ; TMA-New-England
- Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:42 AM
- Subject: Re: [TMIC] Study shows spinal cord regeneration
- i never voted for him...he repulses me...and to veto this stem cell
reseach. something so important to folks like all of us,his brain is not
just wired to what priorities should be.
- what goes around........
----
Jim
Lubin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://makoa.org/jim
disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Please Help: Inkjet
& Toner Cartridge Recycling
|
