I think of it this way: there is life and the potential for life.

So yes, I'd save the guy in the wheelchair.

Jean,

I think that is a good differentiation. So then the question becomes "what value should we place on potential for life" vs people who are alive and already suffering? That sounds to me like a better, but still accurate argument.

paula

Life does not begin without a womb and there lies the major stumbling block in this conversation.

Those cells you are refering to will never see life without a womb. Fact

Clones will never be without a womb. Fact

The one thing that always befuddles my mind is the emphasis on the female egg and nothing about the sperm.

Without eggs there is no fertilization
Without sperm there is no fetilization.

Gosh maybe the abortion issue coud be solved if we got into a conversation on morals instead of church and religion.

I think we had morals of some sort before we developed religion else there is no reason for it to exist.

humh


I bought a wheelchair last week and as far as I am concened carry the guy out and he can have it.

Sick of going in circles and only seeing the faces jof kida and the crotches of adults lol lol lol Maybe that is where this post come from lol lol lol

I just have to loosen up a bit

All true Thelma and remember that we are just trying to understand each other here, I'm playing devil's advocate about some of what i am saying but really struggle with other aspects.

Embryos are fertilized - you can add that to your mental picture...lol

Therapeutic cloning (SCNT) is actually more ethical but it will never be accepted with the name cloning in it.

Paula

Thank you.

I agree: those cells require implantation in a womb for life.

Would I expect a firefighter to enter a burning building to save a woman in a wheelchair? YES.

Would I expect a firefighter to enter a burning building to save a container of cells? NO.

i feel that i must insert here that I posted in this thread about the embryos before listening to Radio Guy. ..and felt kinda....you know....DUMB.....when i listened to his second episode.

Just want you to know....and we will all never agree anyway...but there is my disclaimer. ... the report in the order of their appearance to me.

Paula

I have skimmed all the responses, and have just sent the url of this thread to the author, who is a friend of mine, and has attended a support group that I have led in Chevy Chase, MD. She very well may become active on this forum, and she will probably want to comment on this "very hot" thread, but in case she doesn't I want to say a few things and in case she does I want to introduce her.

First, she is quite famous in DC, mostly as restaurant critic at the Wash. Post for 25 years, but also as food editor. The current food editor (whose husband has PD and is also is a journalist with the LA Times) is an excellent journalist but not nearly as well known. To illustrate, in our support group everyone introduces themselves at the beginning since we have new people all the time, and after one meeting a new member came up to me saying "Is that THE Phyllis Richman?" and not mentioning that also in the room was the former editorial page editor of the Post. She hasn't really been in the closet these 7 years. She has attended PAN (this year) and I have seen her at other local PD events. She has participated in at least one clinical trial (I recruited her knowing they were looking for more women) and she has helped with the Pipeline project in the past and we hope she can do more. This coming out was to the wider public, especially Wash Post readers.


She told me today she has been getting emails from all over the world with many PD stories, and, she may decide to do something with this outpouring. It was an excellent story and made some important points.

Holy wars

The most obvious is the hot political issue debated vigorously here as it has been in the recent election. My observation is that Michael J. Fox single handedly with a big boost from Rush Limbaugh swung the balance of power in the Senate based entirely on the stem cell issue-- a major prize in US politics (i.e. committee chairs). Democrats won close votes in Virginia and Missouri, enough to make a real difference. To me the issue of stem cell research is important from the perspective 1) moral/ethical choices in a democracy where a fundamental premise is separation of church and state, and 2) the necessity of scientific freedom to advance knowledge. Both of these issues are important for the society to come to grips with and reach a consensus so that civilization can advance. Conflicts derived from moral/ethical beliefs for which there is no compromise such as illustrated in this thread, when taken to the extremes of Jihad, Crusades and the domination of one set of beliefs on everyone can lead to the downfall of civilization. The "dark ages" were a time when religious doctrine dominated science and knowledge development. This is why the founders of our country have kept church and state separate. The moral/ethical question of whether to save the person in a wheel chair or to save unused embryos from IVF is only a dilemma if you believe life begins at conception (joining of sperm and egg, regardless of the presence of a womb). Science and religious tradition inform beliefs about when human life begins, but as much as you know about viability and the process of becoming a life precisely where you place those benchmarks is and ethical choice of individuals/groups (e.g. religions) and in the absence of a consensus (law) is a free choice, protected by standards about freedom of religion. Almost all religions in this country place the beginning of life after the time of disposal of unused embryos so the majority have no ethical concerns about making medicine from waste products and in fact many cultures celebrate scientific advancement. To me the issue of stem cell research is important not only for the possible knowledge to be gained but primarily to protect essential freedoms.

Long Term vs Short Term

When it comes to cures I see the potential of stem cells as great but remote. So I want to raise a different issue also suggested in the article. My contention is that stem cells are not the most immediate and maybe not even the most important 'political' issue for PD. Shouldn't we devote as much or more effort to the more immediate political-economic issues concerning the vast divide between scientific discovery and therapies available to Today's PWP. Take for example, GDNF, which may not cure PD, but early clinical trials gave some hope for restoring functioning to near normal for at least some patients. Would any of you turn this down?

When I was diagnosed with PD in 1996 I went to a scientific presentation showing this benefit in primates. Now 11 years later, this treatment is not much closer to reality for patients than it was 1996. The politics of business and science have a lot to do with the travesty. (Details of this are presented on the Pipeline web site www.pdpipeline.org). PWP must get involved with advocacy at every stage in the 15+ year development pipeline for new therapies, to keep the patient perspective foremost. The Pipeline Project has identified roles that people can take, to harness the power if the internet and to incorporate the human element into the scientific model for evaluation of cures. So help us take charge of our fate and join.

Perry D Cohen

First of all, I want to thank everyone who has posted to this controversial thread and managed to be respectful even to those with whom they disagree. We have come a long way from BrainTalk and moderators who would have padlocked this thread. Long live freedom of speech!

And now, to the topic at hand...
Arguing when human life begins is a no-win situation. There are two diametrically opposing viewpoints and never the twain shall meet. For me, the heart of the issue is how can it be ethical/moral to discard the excess embryos leftover from IVF rather than use them for research to save millions of lives? Paula's answer (and she is not alone) is that "two wrongs do not make a right."

In my mind, the "wrong" is inconsistency. How can people support IVF knowing it creates excess embryos that will be discarded and then claim the moral high ground when they seek to preserve these in cryogenic limbo rather than use them for research that could save millions of lives.

I suggest that this issue would go away if Congress outlaws IVF but we all know that this is not going to happen. Why not? Because those who opt for IVF generally are wealthier people, and legislators do not want to upset them. Second, too many people make too much money from this procedure to outlaw it. Everything is about $$$$.

In 1967, Dr. Christian Barnard was widely criticized for tampering with the “human spirit” when he performed the world’s first human heart transplant. The birth of the world's first “test-tube” baby in 1978 was met by opposition to scientists doing G-d's work and fears that success would create “a slippery slope.” Today, organ transplants and in vitro fertilization are routine.

Science and technology are neither inherently good nor bad. What they make possible and what people do with them are two different things. Genius is ahead of it’s time, so most advances don’t gain acceptance until future generations understand it.

Public policy decisions should be based on the best evidence available and the advice of experts, not on ideological beliefs and fear. We must enact legislation that promotes patient welfare and social good, scientific freedom and responsibililty, and public accountability of scientists and research institutions. The key is to put appropriate safeguards in place to support and realize the promise of ESCR, uphold the highest ethical standards, and avoid potential misuses.

Ok, enough of my POV for one night.

Sheryl

For the sake of argument, and for me to try to explain my personal conflict with this argument, let's take IVF out of the picture. Would you create an embryo, knowing it would not go into a womb, and use it for research and if so, is that creating life solely for destroying it? I am not talking about the life it might save. No superficial justifications. I'm not even talking about religion, I'm talking about honesty and full disclosure.

You can say, "'this law forbids that"' - but it doesn't answer the question. If you have no problem with doing that then you are ok but have to understand what is being asked of everyone.

I didn't insult or blame anyone in this post. As it should be.

paula

I think I would draw the line there. I would also not want scientists to line up outside abortion clinics to collect the fetuses. Nor would there be any need for that!

The stem cells that are available from leftover IVF can be duplicated in the lab. And since these are cells that are going to be destroyed anyway, to me it's the same thing as tissue donation after death... and by gawrsh, I've made sure my advance directives include instructions that when I shuffle off this mortal coil, they are to harvest everything that can be of possible use to anyone -- then cremate the rest.