Missed the debate tonight (ah gee golly off seeing LOTR concert after eating lovely lavish dinner!), but no surprise here. I'm living in Texas. Lots of people down here are completely 100% "anti-abortion" while being completely 100% behind the death penalty (the current governor is refusing to put a moratorium on death row cases out in Houston even though the crime lab down there was found to be having all sorta of major problems, won't even go into the low standards regarding legal counsel...). And Texas has one of the highest rates of all the states with death penalties. (And no evidence I can see it's deterring crime... given the crime rate down here.)
I think from what a few people have tried to tell me that they see a distinction between "innocent life" (whataboutoriginalsin I mumble, not that I believe in that concept as a pagan but they're Christians so in theory....) and "criminals" who deserve to die because they've done horrible things. (And two recent cases in which different mothers killed multiple children resulted in one being declared insane, the other being given the death penalty.)
I was kicked out of jury pool on a capital case because I am opposed to the death penalty (and unlike some friends in Washington state who managed to be anti-death penalty and "pro-choice," I fall into the uneasy camp in between. I would never be able to have an abortion, I do believe it's killing, but I'm not comfortable trying to legislate that for all other women knowing that it wouldn't stop abortions...sigh).
I don't see who gets to judge the quality of a soul, but overlooking that, the innocent life argument still doesn't pass muster when we are bombing children.
(not directed at you, thanks for answering the question. I suspect that is indeed the answer they would try to give me. I'm just not accepting it.)
I understand--and agree with you that I do not accept that answer (but I can push students only so far in a professional context) because (and this goes right back to Tolkien as does so much else), not even the Wise can see all ends and "judge" a life as a life. In some murder cases, I would be completely for life without any possibility of parole. But in many of these arguments, I have more questions than not.
Even the war issue--one thread of rhetoric used to justify the current war was the evil nature of the dictatorship.
But my response to that is to ask what about the horrendous oppression and genocide going on in (to name two places) North Korea and the Sudan? What is going on there is, arguably, killing more people than Sudan ever did. But "we" the U.S. feel no need to interfere.
North Korea has no oil. Sudan does apparently.
So much of life is complex--and I distrust anyone of any political affiliation who claims that the answers are simple.
And the recent reports on what intelligence we had concerning WMD seems pretty damning.
I distrust anyone of any political affiliation who claims that the answers are simple.
that's exactly what set me off. I don't expect to ever find a candidate (or even another person) who shares my views 100%. but I want to think the person in charge believes in something (other than his own pocket and power)
when they were asked about abortion and Kerry spoke about how complicated an issue it is, he didn't convince me entirely of his stand, but I do agree with him saying - a president has to represent all the people in these issues.
When it was Bush's turn, he very smugly said - it's simple. He said it three times, like thats a magic spell to make it true.
It's not simple - andd not just this issue. Mr Bush seems to think everything is simple. And I don't trust my life to anyone who thinks it is.
I fall into the uneasy camp in between. I would never be able to have an abortion, I do believe it's killing, but I'm not comfortable trying to legislate that for all other women knowing that it wouldn't stop abortions...sigh).
That's where I am, and it is indeed a somewhat uneasy place to be. I think it makes sense to get over all the hoo-haa about what is and is not a 'person' and just admit that a fetus is (1) living and (2) human (genetically). I also think, ethically, that it should be considered in a larger ethical context: all philosophies and religions and legal systems have to address the question of when (if ever) killing a human is justified. Most of them would say that sometimes it is. Then you have to argue about what standards you use.
I would argue that using stem cells from frozen in-vitro fertilization embryos (which have been 'donated' for the purpose by infertile couples) is comparable to the family 'pulling the plug' on a person who is hospitalized and has been declared brain-dead and donating their organs to help others. I don't think either shows a disrespect for life -- rather it is letting a life that will not continue otherwise serve a good purpose.
What makes me uneasy, however, is the *creation* of embryos in a lab specifically for the purpose of creating and harvesting stem cells. I'm struggling with this one. I understand all the utilitarian arguments for this, but for me it crosses a line I'm not ready to cross and don't think we as a society yet have the wisdom to cross.
Exactly why I used the word "killing" instead of "murder"--that there are times when people are willing to kill. And I imagine there are circumstances in which I would be willing to kill.
The stem cell question. Yes. As is often the case, technology is well ahead of our ethical and legal systems.
And I'd love to talk more--but I have all those papers--did want to acknowledge your response and how wonderful it is and I do hope to be back.
And I'd love to talk more--but I have all those papers--did want to acknowledge your response and how wonderful it is and I do hope to be back.
{Hug of Solidarity In Re Pesky Papers} And thank you. I agree with fileg that it is all very far from simple. The whole question is much on my mind because I am co-teaching a course this semester called "Comtemporary Issues in Biology" (me and three biologists - eep). So we've been talking all semester about genetic testing, 'frankenfoods,' stem cells, cloning, etc.
On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being.
In addition, the President established the following criteria that must be met:
o The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes; o The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes; o Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo; o No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo.
So, at least in the US, there are no creations of embryos in the labs for harvesting purposes; I don't even think they're allowed to clone the cells after they've been removed, which would allow them to stop relying *on* embryos quite so much, but one step at a time.
So, at least in the US, there are no creations of embryos in the labs for harvesting purposes; I don't even think they're allowed to clone the cells after they've been removed, which would allow them to stop relying *on* embryos quite so much, but one step at a time.
You're absolutely right -- that's the compromise, at least for the present. My understanding is that the first human cloning (with subsequent stem cell removal) was done in North Korea early this year. There are a bunch of different bills in different stages in Congress right now -- some would ban cloning for both reproductive and therapeutic purposes, some do this and would also ban any therapies derived from cloning in other countries to come into the U.S., some would allow cloning of embryos for thereaputic stem cell research.
I'm not sure yet where I stand myself about the stem cell research. But I know I don't stand with anyone who thinks it's simple (If he said those two words again, I would have thrown something at the tv) or who thinks the unborn have more rights than the living people he is killing.
As is usual for me, I can manage not to debate issues in my journal, because my friends pretty much know where I stand. But I lose it over language.
war good - war good - war good - war good followed by all that righteous talk about abortion and stem cells being murder. These things do not go together. And in spite of how many times he said it - it is *not* simple.
I think I need an icon of Bush with the word *simple* across it...
I'm not sure yet where I stand myself about the stem cell research. But I know I don't stand with anyone who thinks it's simple (If he said those two words again, I would have thrown something at the tv) or who thinks the unborn have more rights than the living people he is killing.
Hope you don't mind me continuing to talk about this in your journal, but I am trying to work through my thoughts on this. I certainly agree that it's not simple, and I get uneasy with talking about 'rights' for embryos (for the same reason I don't think animals have 'rights' -- rights is a legal concept that doesn't quite apply to non-rational beings IMO). My feelings about it is that *all* life should be respected and treated with compassion -- human, non-human, mountain and tree. I know we have to balance some use of 'life' against each other, but it is a balance. When we are cavalier about it, it coursens us and our (human) life. Don't know if that makes sense -- I agree with your point that it is hypocritical to pretend to be concerned with 'life,' but then acting as if we didn't try for logic, consistency and some discrimination
I *absolutely* don't mind. I don't start up much, but only because I expect my friends and myself to speak freely in here, whether we agree or not, (and I know we won't always) and I know some people take it as hurtfull. That's not my intention. I'm with Ben Franklin when he says in 1776 I've never seen an issue so dangerous it couldn't be talked about.
And you point about the Catholics - exactly what I mean. I am a lapsed Catholic (or, as we say a "practising Fallen-Away Catholic" since you never lose the culture of it) I am, to all intents, on the opposite sie of the issue, but I *can* respect their stand because of its consistancy.
I nearly tore out my hair when people talked about how courageous Nancy Reagan was to buck her party on stem cell when Ron was ill. Thats not courage to me - that's typical selfish behavior. Standing up for something you personally want!
And I personally believe that if the Koreans made a breakthrough and one of the Bush's neededd it - they would go get it, or they would suddenly approve it. I personally believe that if one of the heddonistic Bush twins needed an abortion, they would have one procured for them, no matter what the current law or public policy was.
My problems with this administration nearly all stem from the idea that he wants to legislate what *other people* can or cannot do -- I don't think he believes for a moment the *inner sanctum* of have needs to care what the laws are, since they can afford not to care.
(and the fallen catholic in me was *appaled* that he could not admit to three mistakes. We would never go to confession and say we had no sins!)
Missed saying this: What makes me uneasy, however, is the *creation* of embryos in a lab specifically for the purpose of creating and harvesting stem cells
what makes me uneasy is the creating of all those embryos for implantation.
I am not at all convinced that our overpopulated planet need us to spend millions of dollars helping people breed. That flies in the face of fate/nature/god to me.
And I am completely appalled that in this country no one ever speaks up against making all these *disposable* embryos. Just against using the ones that were going to be destroyed.
So, while I may not know for sure which side I'm on, I'm not on the fence. If one of these things is wrong, then they both are.
I am not at all convinced that our overpopulated planet need us to spend millions of dollars helping people breed. That flies in the face of fate/nature/god to me.
And I am completely appalled that in this country no one ever speaks up against making all these *disposable* embryos. Just against using the ones that were going to be destroyed.
That's one reason I really respect the position of the Catholic church in this area -- on grounds of natural law and respect for life, they opposed in vitro from the beginning, they oppose capital punishment, they oppose euthanasia, etc. It is, at least, a coherent position.
I would never be able to have an abortion, I do believe it's killing, but I'm not comfortable trying to legislate that for all other women knowing that it wouldn't stop abortions
I doubt that I could either - quite aside from my morals about life, I am (as I think is obvious to anyone who reads my journal) married to my absolute soulmate - who was adopted in the 50's. Puts a different spin on it for me, neh?
But I have *never* believed the abortion laws are actually about life - I firmly believe they are about male power.
And I do believe that every person first and foremost should have the right to say what happens to their own bodies. Certainly, there are some places where no one has a choice - but I'll be damned if I'll give my choice to someone else.
And although I know they are out there, I personally don't know anyone who found that choice simple.
Tay, I normally steer clear of political commentary here because whether we agree or not, you're my friend and I love you. But this one I have to comment on. My Mom always told me that two wrongs don't make a right. No matter where you stand on the war, it doesn't excuse the taking of a life (potential or otherwise) to do research that can be done - and is being done - with adult stem cells and stem cells extracted from umbilical cords (too many of which are simply discarded with the trash). I've done a lot of research on this issue. Science shows that embryonic stem cells are problematic, and not just because of the ethical or moral questions their use raise. For one thing, the lab mice that they've done research on using embryonic stem cells develop cancerous tumors more often than not. I can provide links to dozens upon dozens of articles on the subject. Meanwhile there have been treatments developed using adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cords that are producing results, without the problems that have been encountered using embryonic stem cells.
If you'll go to that link, and read the guidelines, especially this:
NIH funds will be used for pluripotent stem cell research only if those cells have been derived from excess early human embryos created for fertility treatment.
Let me point out that if you're so against destroying life, then why are these frozen embryos being destroyed anyway? Because isn't *that* destroying life also? The fact is, the fertilized embryo isn't life, IMO, because it hasn't begun to gestate, form, or develop. It's basically like a plant seed that you haven't planted yet. It's ready to grow into life, but it isn't life *yet.*
Also consider this:
All human embryos must be frozen embryos so as to insure time between the decisions to create embryos for fertility treatment and donate for research.
Which means they're not creating them in labs to harvest cells. (I don't think it was you that voiced that concern, but I remember it *being* voiced, so I had to bring that up)
Next, http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/StemCellBasics.pdf is the basic NIH primer on stem cell research, and explains things in a way that's fairly easy to understand, provided you're interested in doing the reasearch (and by that I mean medical terms and effects, not that anyone is lazy, cause I'm a nurse's daughter and I had to use some of my mom's old textbooks to look up a couple things I wasn't sure of knowing)
I'd finally be interested in seeing some of your links (obviously, mine come from the CRPF and NIH, which are working together in support of stem cell research) in the interests of finding out more.
And for god's sake, I want him to stop saying "It's simple."
Fair enough, because it's anything but simple.
And as fair turn about, I want John Kerry to stop lecturing the President on the *real science of stem cell research* - you at least know me well enough to know that I wouldn't say anything about it if I hadn't done my homework on the subject. I wasn't really sure from your post exactly where you stood on the subject, but your point about hypocrisy is understood.
And since my nephew is headed for Iraq, and I have friends who are still in Afganistan, helping to rebuild that country's medical infrastructure after all the devastation it has suffered over the past twenty years of warfare and oppression under the Soviets and the Taliban, I'm not keen on any war. But as you point out yourself, it isn't always that simple. I wish to God it was.
Ness, I don't want to repeat myself endlessly in comments, so you might want to check out some of the other responses.
I would never think you would take a side without doing your research. And I would never let sides of an issue come between us or how I feel about you.
My original point was not meant to be stem cells good - but why are some lives worth more than others?
I don't trust *anyone* who goes into politics by choice. I don't think anyone can keep all their promises, I think they *all* discover it's harder than they thought, and I think they *all* say what they think people want to hear.
Propaganda is, and always will be a big issue for me. I have never gotten over viet-nam.
I agree with you about propaganda. One of the countless things that upsets me about war is the dehumanization of the "enemy" and the longterm effects that has on people. It goes hand-in-hand with war, to convince yourself that the other side is less than human, since most people have a hard-wired taboo against killing others. Part of the romanticization of war focuses only on the situations in which people are fighting for self-defense or their buddies or their country, but that's not all there is to it, is there? I had an uncle who was vilely prejudiced against Asians all the rest of his life because he was conditioned to feel that way in Vietnam. He hadn't been before. On some level he knew it was wrong but he couldn't shake it.
Many Iraqis now see their fight as defending their homeland against invaders (as many Vietnamese did). Who's to call them "wrong," considering what they've experienced?
No politician is going to go on record saying that they think American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives because it would be such a horrible sound bite, but isn't the mentality underlying all the bombing, the "collateral damage," the refusal to count Iraqi civilian casualties or even mention them in the news? Isn't that always the unspoken dirty truth of war?
I disagree that it's true. Profoundly. Deeply. Absolutely. And while it's possible to argue over whether frozen embryos or three-week-old fetuses are "human life" (personality, I do not believe they are, but certainly reasonable people can disagree), there is NO arguing whether the Iraqi men, women, and children killed by US bombing are. That to me is as unquestionably, simply murder as killing a store clerk during a robbery. The only difference is that some people believe for some reason that the "robbery" is somehow "justified."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 10:17 pm (UTC)The preceding message was not directed toward
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 10:19 pm (UTC)*snort*
That's Bush Logic, which is just barely a step up from Chimp Logic, and there are days I think the Chimps have got him beat. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 10:42 pm (UTC)I think from what a few people have tried to tell me that they see a distinction between "innocent life" (whataboutoriginalsin I mumble, not that I believe in that concept as a pagan but they're Christians so in theory....) and "criminals" who deserve to die because they've done horrible things. (And two recent cases in which different mothers killed multiple children resulted in one being declared insane, the other being given the death penalty.)
I was kicked out of jury pool on a capital case because I am opposed to the death penalty (and unlike some friends in Washington state who managed to be anti-death penalty and "pro-choice," I fall into the uneasy camp in between. I would never be able to have an abortion, I do believe it's killing, but I'm not comfortable trying to legislate that for all other women knowing that it wouldn't stop abortions...sigh).
And yeah, support for the war is big down here.
"But that's different."
*sigh*
But yeah.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 11:04 pm (UTC)(not directed at you, thanks for answering the question. I suspect that is indeed the answer they would try to give me. I'm just not accepting it.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 09:40 am (UTC)Even the war issue--one thread of rhetoric used to justify the current war was the evil nature of the dictatorship.
But my response to that is to ask what about the horrendous oppression and genocide going on in (to name two places) North Korea and the Sudan? What is going on there is, arguably, killing more people than Sudan ever did. But "we" the U.S. feel no need to interfere.
North Korea has no oil. Sudan does apparently.
So much of life is complex--and I distrust anyone of any political affiliation who claims that the answers are simple.
And the recent reports on what intelligence we had concerning WMD seems pretty damning.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 01:12 pm (UTC)that's exactly what set me off. I don't expect to ever find a candidate (or even another person) who shares my views 100%. but I want to think the person in charge believes in something (other than his own pocket and power)
when they were asked about abortion and Kerry spoke about how complicated an issue it is, he didn't convince me entirely of his stand, but I do agree with him saying - a president has to represent all the people in these issues.
When it was Bush's turn, he very smugly said - it's simple. He said it three times, like thats a magic spell to make it true.
It's not simple - andd not just this issue. Mr Bush seems to think everything is simple. And I don't trust my life to anyone who thinks it is.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 08:49 am (UTC)That's where I am, and it is indeed a somewhat uneasy place to be. I think it makes sense to get over all the hoo-haa about what is and is not a 'person' and just admit that a fetus is (1) living and (2) human (genetically). I also think, ethically, that it should be considered in a larger ethical context: all philosophies and religions and legal systems have to address the question of when (if ever) killing a human is justified. Most of them would say that sometimes it is. Then you have to argue about what standards you use.
I would argue that using stem cells from frozen in-vitro fertilization embryos (which have been 'donated' for the purpose by infertile couples) is comparable to the family 'pulling the plug' on a person who is hospitalized and has been declared brain-dead and donating their organs to help others. I don't think either shows a disrespect for life -- rather it is letting a life that will not continue otherwise serve a good purpose.
What makes me uneasy, however, is the *creation* of embryos in a lab specifically for the purpose of creating and harvesting stem cells. I'm struggling with this one. I understand all the utilitarian arguments for this, but for me it crosses a line I'm not ready to cross and don't think we as a society yet have the wisdom to cross.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 09:42 am (UTC)The stem cell question. Yes. As is often the case, technology is well ahead of our ethical and legal systems.
And I'd love to talk more--but I have all those papers--did want to acknowledge your response and how wonderful it is and I do hope to be back.
*smooches* hope things are a little better!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:36 pm (UTC){Hug of Solidarity In Re Pesky Papers} And thank you. I agree with fileg that it is all very far from simple. The whole question is much on my mind because I am co-teaching a course this semester called "Comtemporary Issues in Biology" (me and three biologists - eep). So we've been talking all semester about genetic testing, 'frankenfoods,' stem cells, cloning, etc.
*smooches* hope things are a little better!
They are -- thanks! :hug:
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 12:01 pm (UTC)From the National Institute of Health's (and yikes, sorry, the caps are theirs, not mine, on the document that I copied from...)
"NOTICE OF CRITERIA FOR FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESEARCH ON EXISTING HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NIH HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL REGISTRY" found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-005.html
On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being.
In addition, the President established the following criteria that must be met:
o The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes;
o The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes;
o Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo;
o No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo.
So, at least in the US, there are no creations of embryos in the labs for harvesting purposes; I don't even think they're allowed to clone the cells after they've been removed, which would allow them to stop relying *on* embryos quite so much, but one step at a time.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:42 pm (UTC)You're absolutely right -- that's the compromise, at least for the present. My understanding is that the first human cloning (with subsequent stem cell removal) was done in North Korea early this year. There are a bunch of different bills in different stages in Congress right now -- some would ban cloning for both reproductive and therapeutic purposes, some do this and would also ban any therapies derived from cloning in other countries to come into the U.S., some would allow cloning of embryos for thereaputic stem cell research.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 01:22 pm (UTC)As is usual for me, I can manage not to debate issues in my journal, because my friends pretty much know where I stand. But I lose it over language.
war good - war good - war good - war good followed by all that righteous talk about abortion and stem cells being murder. These things do not go together. And in spite of how many times he said it - it is *not* simple.
I think I need an icon of Bush with the word *simple* across it...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:52 pm (UTC)Hope you don't mind me continuing to talk about this in your journal, but I am trying to work through my thoughts on this. I certainly agree that it's not simple, and I get uneasy with talking about 'rights' for embryos (for the same reason I don't think animals have 'rights' -- rights is a legal concept that doesn't quite apply to non-rational beings IMO). My feelings about it is that *all* life should be respected and treated with compassion -- human, non-human, mountain and tree. I know we have to balance some use of 'life' against each other, but it is a balance. When we are cavalier about it, it coursens us and our (human) life. Don't know if that makes sense -- I agree with your point that it is hypocritical to pretend to be concerned with 'life,' but then acting as if we didn't try for logic, consistency and some discrimination
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 06:33 pm (UTC)And you point about the Catholics - exactly what I mean. I am a lapsed Catholic (or, as we say a "practising Fallen-Away Catholic" since you never lose the culture of it) I am, to all intents, on the opposite sie of the issue, but I *can* respect their stand because of its consistancy.
I nearly tore out my hair when people talked about how courageous Nancy Reagan was to buck her party on stem cell when Ron was ill. Thats not courage to me - that's typical selfish behavior. Standing up for something you personally want!
And I personally believe that if the Koreans made a breakthrough and one of the Bush's neededd it - they would go get it, or they would suddenly approve it. I personally believe that if one of the heddonistic Bush twins needed an abortion, they would have one procured for them, no matter what the current law or public policy was.
My problems with this administration nearly all stem from the idea that he wants to legislate what *other people* can or cannot do -- I don't think he believes for a moment the *inner sanctum* of have needs to care what the laws are, since they can afford not to care.
(and the fallen catholic in me was *appaled* that he could not admit to three mistakes. We would never go to confession and say we had no sins!)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 01:38 pm (UTC)What makes me uneasy, however, is the *creation* of embryos in a lab specifically for the purpose of creating and harvesting stem cells
what makes me uneasy is the creating of all those embryos for implantation.
I am not at all convinced that our overpopulated planet need us to spend millions of dollars helping people breed. That flies in the face of fate/nature/god to me.
And I am completely appalled that in this country no one ever speaks up against making all these *disposable* embryos. Just against using the ones that were going to be destroyed.
So, while I may not know for sure which side I'm on, I'm not on the fence. If one of these things is wrong, then they both are.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:55 pm (UTC)And I am completely appalled that in this country no one ever speaks up against making all these *disposable* embryos. Just against using the ones that were going to be destroyed.
That's one reason I really respect the position of the Catholic church in this area -- on grounds of natural law and respect for life, they opposed in vitro from the beginning, they oppose capital punishment, they oppose euthanasia, etc. It is, at least, a coherent position.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 10:39 pm (UTC)I doubt that I could either - quite aside from my morals about life, I am (as I think is obvious to anyone who reads my journal) married to my absolute soulmate - who was adopted in the 50's. Puts a different spin on it for me, neh?
But I have *never* believed the abortion laws are actually about life - I firmly believe they are about male power.
And I do believe that every person first and foremost should have the right to say what happens to their own bodies. Certainly, there are some places where no one has a choice - but I'll be damned if I'll give my choice to someone else.
And although I know they are out there, I personally don't know anyone who found that choice simple.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 09:28 am (UTC)*climbing off my soap box now*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 11:56 am (UTC)If you'll go to that link, and read the guidelines, especially this:
NIH funds will be used for pluripotent stem cell research only if those cells have been derived from excess early human embryos created for fertility treatment.
Let me point out that if you're so against destroying life, then why are these frozen embryos being destroyed anyway? Because isn't *that* destroying life also? The fact is, the fertilized embryo isn't life, IMO, because it hasn't begun to gestate, form, or develop. It's basically like a plant seed that you haven't planted yet. It's ready to grow into life, but it isn't life *yet.*
Also consider this:
All human embryos must be frozen embryos so as to insure time between the decisions to create embryos for fertility treatment and donate for research.
Which means they're not creating them in labs to harvest cells. (I don't think it was you that voiced that concern, but I remember it *being* voiced, so I had to bring that up)
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/stemcells/ is the link to the National Institute of Health's guidelines and policies regarding stem cell research.
Next, http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/StemCellBasics.pdf is the basic NIH primer on stem cell research, and explains things in a way that's fairly easy to understand, provided you're interested in doing the reasearch (and by that I mean medical terms and effects, not that anyone is lazy, cause I'm a nurse's daughter and I had to use some of my mom's old textbooks to look up a couple things I wasn't sure of knowing)
I'd finally be interested in seeing some of your links (obviously, mine come from the CRPF and NIH, which are working together in support of stem cell research) in the interests of finding out more.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 01:25 pm (UTC)What got to me is the hipocracy of a man who is bombing civilians wanting to be know as a champion of right to life.
And for god's sake, I want him to stop saying "It's simple."
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:25 pm (UTC)And as fair turn about, I want John Kerry to stop lecturing the President on the *real science of stem cell research* - you at least know me well enough to know that I wouldn't say anything about it if I hadn't done my homework on the subject. I wasn't really sure from your post exactly where you stood on the subject, but your point about hypocrisy is understood.
And since my nephew is headed for Iraq, and I have friends who are still in Afganistan, helping to rebuild that country's medical infrastructure after all the devastation it has suffered over the past twenty years of warfare and oppression under the Soviets and the Taliban, I'm not keen on any war. But as you point out yourself, it isn't always that simple. I wish to God it was.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 06:48 pm (UTC)I would never think you would take a side without doing your research. And I would never let sides of an issue come between us or how I feel about you.
My original point was not meant to be stem cells good - but why are some lives worth more than others?
I don't trust *anyone* who goes into politics by choice. I don't think anyone can keep all their promises, I think they *all* discover it's harder than they thought, and I think they *all* say what they think people want to hear.
Propaganda is, and always will be a big issue for me. I have never gotten over viet-nam.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-10 03:46 pm (UTC)Many Iraqis now see their fight as defending their homeland against invaders (as many Vietnamese did). Who's to call them "wrong," considering what they've experienced?
No politician is going to go on record saying that they think American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives because it would be such a horrible sound bite, but isn't the mentality underlying all the bombing, the "collateral damage," the refusal to count Iraqi civilian casualties or even mention them in the news? Isn't that always the unspoken dirty truth of war?
I disagree that it's true. Profoundly. Deeply. Absolutely. And while it's possible to argue over whether frozen embryos or three-week-old fetuses are "human life" (personality, I do not believe they are, but certainly reasonable people can disagree), there is NO arguing whether the Iraqi men, women, and children killed by US bombing are. That to me is as unquestionably, simply murder as killing a store clerk during a robbery. The only difference is that some people believe for some reason that the "robbery" is somehow "justified."