Heck, I don't want MY tax dollars paying to have our troops act as referees in a civil war. But nobody asked me... they just take my taxes every paycheck! The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 61 percent of us support embryonic stem cell research, and 55 percent support loosening the restrictions. Every major poll shows support for this research. So, as far as I can tell, it's the religious right's hold on the Administration that is keeping it from happening.

One of the first things I learned in school was "majority rules." When did that stop applying -- other than the 2000 presidential election, I mean...

thanks for this. it is heart warming to read postings of so many articulate, compassionate people on this forum---madelyn

Sheryl, I guess you and most everyone else will have to be disappointed that you didn't learn anything - not sure how to respond to that burst of positive feedback..lol

paula

Radioguy,

So far exactly one person has disagreed with that...no...maybe none with the statistics.

paula

over and out hitting the road for a few days...thanks all

Have a good rest.I for one feel you have done some good here,not least giving us all the opportunity to conduct ourselves on here with decorum and respect for each other. But no...you have done more than that ...you have achieved a great deal in tackling a sensitive issue.
Thank you
x

Suggest you read the edit line, Paula. Chemar edited it.

Once again a waste of precious time and effort.

How on earth do you get that from this:

I've read all the posts on this thread and find myself exactly where I started, as is true for most everyone else. It's important to understand where each of us is coming from on this topic, but equally important to accept the fact that we're not likely to change any minds. It always comes back to the question of when human life begins, and this is very tied into people's religious beliefs. That is sensitive ground for any of us to be treading on.


Words do matter. Saying I and others haven't changed our opinion is NOT the same as saying we haven't learned anything. You may see this as negative feedback, but I see it as pragmatic. I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall... I'd rather circle around and look for a door.

Sheryl

presented with the disclaimer that i didn't quite make it through all the posts, so my apologies if they are duplicative.

My first thought pertains to the focus on finding a cure.

I think that Paula’s concern that research runs the risk of becoming overly stem cell heavy at the expense of the exploring other avenues is valid – the priorities of the research community may come closer to the priorities of sick people than those of pharma do, but there are still key differences. I see evidence of those differences in the new excitement over the much-touted significance of non-motor symptoms as well as the growing emphasis on the search for disease modifying therapies – if the thought behind them pre-supposes that current symptomatic therapies are even remotely adequate as long-term solutions, and that therefore it is not necessary to fund research along those lines, then we have a problem.

Because, unlike tuberculosis and polio, researchers do not have a clue what causes PD. I don’t know whether it is even possible to cure something without knowing what causes it. We can also look around and see that – to my knowledge – no non-pathogen-related neurological disease has yet been cured.

So while it is possible that a cure will be discovered tomorrow, and I am all for engaging in its pursuit, it is entirely possible, dare I even say likely, that a cure will not be discovered tomorrow, or next year, in the next couple of decades - or even longer.

How much longer do you think you can last on current PD therapies?

Such a singular focus on a cure leapfrogs right over the woeful inadequacies of the therapies we have to carry us on, indefinitely.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is shortsighted of us to direct all of our hope, energy and money to the pursuit of a cure (or even a disease-modifying therapy) with such single-mindedness that the development of symptomatic therapies falls by the wayside.

We need to focus on both.

My second though was touched on by jeanb, I believe.

Those who argue against permitting the use of excess in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos in research would have zero effect on the quantity of IVF embryos destroyed in this country even if they were to outlaw ESCR completely – unless they also abolish IVF as it is currently undertaken.

In the course of the IVF process, usually more embryos are created than are used in the pursuit of implantation - and the right to determine the destinies of those embryos currently rests with couples who produced them. Ultimately, there are three destinies from which to choose: donate the embryos to another couple, donate them to research, or have them discarded by clinic personnel.

If one believes that it is wrong to destroy an embryo in the course of research, then one must believe that it is wrong to destroy an embryo, period - whether it is in the course of research, or in the course of a day at the IVF clinic. From that it follows that if IVF were to be allowed to continue in an acceptable form, of the current three destiny options available to couples - donate to another couple, donate to research, or simply destroy - the latter two would have to be eliminated, leaving only one option: donating to another couple.

However, that model, even if it were legally defensible, which it is not (forced parenthood has not been upheld in any court, according to what I have read) would only be acceptable if no other embryos were harmed in the IVF process - but other embryos are harmed. There is a baseline attrition rate of anywhere from 10-25% when embryos are frozen and thawed.

So putting a stop to ESCR in and of itself will have zero impact of the number of IVF embryos destroyed– as long as IVF continues, couples will continue to choose not to donate to other couples (read: choose to have their embryos destroyed) and embryos will continue to die in the course of IVF itself.

Hi...just wanted to say that from my own experience,when a thread belts along at the pace that this one has,often a post is read "on the wing"as it were,and replied to in much the same way. When we go back and re-read ,DOH ! we realise that the words that we have responded to suddenly come across in a different light to when first viewed. The times that I have done that in my early days of posting,and I guess will do so again. What a complete PLONKER you feel I can tell you.The important thing is that if and when that happens,it can be sorted out amicably. You said nothing out of place.

Your post was a good one....you hit the target when you said that the beginnings of life were very much tied up in peoples religious beliefs. And in my opinion,there lies the danger.For even within the realms of religion...we are presented with varying degrees of morals and ethics.I guess there are those who would argue ...but the fact is you have the extremists,the fanatics,who take things to the limits,sometimes beyond all sense of rhyme and reason.Those who are hellbent in wiping out folk from another sector to themselves,and who hide behind the mask of "religion." You have those who for example,won`t allow a loved one to have a blood transfusion,all in the face of "religion.." How cool is THAT? Letting a loved one die because of their "belief." I have rubbed shoulders with people who call themselves Christian because they go to church every Sunday and can quote the bible word for word.At any given situation,they`ve got an "impressive" spiel which rolls off the tongue,delivered and spat out with conviction,yet for the rest of the week do sod all to help their fellow man.Believe me,some of my worst "let downs" and disappointments in people,have been from fellow so called "Christians."
And then you have some non believers,who would risk their own lives to help someone else...folk who on a regular basis,not just Sunday...live a good life,and who are a delight and a joy to be with.Who is living the right way here? Yes...as a Christian the bible is my blue print for life.But we have to be sensble and realistic and bring it into todays century.Not to make it fit and dance to our tune,but to keep a reality check.

This is what I was trying to get over in my last post...but probably wasn`t clear enough...the haziness of where stuff begins and ends.
Moral ethics should be inherent in all of us,regardless of individual beliefs.And the bottom line is,we should all follow the path of what "feels" right to us...and do what our own consciences tell us.
Keep posting your stuff Sheryl. Thank you for your valuable input.
x