Thank you so much for taking the time to write this clearly and calmly. There's no way I could control my temper and do it as gracefully. You see, my husband would like to be able to hoist the ladder up to the girls room on their wedding day! Just kidding. I'd like to tell some of you guys to walk a mile in my husbands shoes...they're nice, just like new.
Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the drug is for.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
Still looking for the right project to test it out on... But it's supposed to be extemely workable, and it grows to harvest size in just
15-17 years. I imagine that if it takes hold, we'll see the price drop on it fairly rapidly. Looks like it's got a fairly tight grain, and a color similar to mahogany (when I've seen it- obviously, these things vary)Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
these are imposed restrictions to the potential.
Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another might walk?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:UF5kd.17617$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to being a toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.
Hmm. I think the question might be: "Is it right that a human being should die, in order that a degenerative condition or a debilitating condition might be removed from the lives of all other human beings?"
Pick one and call for volunteers - you might be surprised at the response.
Consider another question: Is it right that a human being should be placed (voluntarily or involuntarily) in harm's way, in order that others live free?
Emphasis on the word "might". There have already been significant advances derived from research on adult and umbilical cord stem cells, but none whatever from embryonic stem cells. That's *all* just pie in the sky.
Emphasis on the word "volunteers". There's nothing voluntary on the part of the embryos that are sacrificed in the extraction of their stem cells.
Voluntarily, sure. Involuntarily, I don't know. I think that might depend to some extent on the specific circumstances, including (but not limited to) the age of the human being involved, but in general I have problems with that.
However, placing an adult "in harm's way" (i.e. _at_risk_ of injury, possibly even fatal injury) is definitely not in the same category, ethically and morally, with deliberately causing the certain death of a child whether born or unborn.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
So when the power fails at a fertility clinic who do you charge with murder?
(a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the bucked for a company that size.
(b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government.
Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown away. I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell research if the only resources were from cells that were either aborted or would eventually be used invetro. We have the right to disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this research. I have a huge interest in it. My husband is in a wheelchair. The fact that he can't walk isn't so bad. The pain is, though. He describes it as having your toes in a vise as tight as it'll go, with his feet in near boiling water, and the tingling you get when your feet have been asleep...all at the same time. 24-7 for over 7 years. The only relief is constant rubbing. It has nothing to do with circulation, the nerves just misfire. Somehow, he's just learned to deal with it. I'm not telling you this so you can feel sorry for me or Jim. We doctor at Mayo and I've met so many people that make us feel so lucky that I would be ashamed to complain. So, I'm sorry, you will never ever change my mind. I've been working for the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more than you to make me give up.
You know, the distinction that is being missed here is that there is no _ban_ on stem cell research, just a ban on government funding of _new lines of embryonic stem cell research_. Nobody is saying "Don't do the research", nobody is shutting down labs, they're just saying "the federal government won't fund new lines".
With all the other sources of stem cells out there, and all of the lines which are still being researched with federal funds...imagine how much more productive this could all be if people weren't getting bent out of shape based on misinformation about a ban on research that doesn't exist?
Dave Hinz
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:SP7kd.18098$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com:
I would never make a gratuitous insult about the power behind the throne. If I were to insult the puppetmaster, it would be heartfelt and sincere.
You better hope so, as we're killing a lot of innocents elsewhere and they're a lot bigger than embryos.
I'm less certain about that than you seem to be. A human life is a human life (and regardless of age according to the anti-abortionists) and, somewhen along the way, I realized that eighteen year olds are still kids - kids with a /very/ strong potential to become mature adults - but still kids nonetheless.
If we put uniforms on them and send them into combat, it's a near certainty that some will not return alive. I invite you to accept your share of the responsibility for that happening (as we all share in that responsibility.)
I don't like it much; and yet I recognize that it is a part of a price that must be paid to avoid paying a still higher price - a price so high that even 18-year olds (still teenagers!) are willing to risk losing all that would otherwise lie ahead of them. Not just by ones or twos, but by the tens and hundreds of thousands.
When the going gets really heavy, we use conscription to force those who haven't volunteered into the same risk. Again, it is foreknown that some are certain to pay that "lesser" price.
I do /not/ feel that one life is more or less valuable than another; but neither do I go into denial and refuse to recognize sometimes lives must need be given up and sometimes lives must need be taken.
I think it /is/ in the same catagory - and I think the greatest tragedy might be the unnoticed end of a purposeless life; and that's not the end I envision for these embryos.
Still, I envy your certainty.
This does not trouble you?
What's the difference, morally, between harvesting stem cells from a baby aborted in the womb, versus from a human embryo in vitro? Either one kills a unique human person.
I'm sorry that your husband is in such pain. But I can't see that it in any way justifies killing in the _hope_ -- it's not even a certainty -- that a treatment for his condition may be developed. In any event, research into adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells has, so far, been much more promising -- so why the insistence on using *embryonic* stem cells?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
[snip thoughtful, but somewhat lengthy, commentary with which I largely agree]
I guess I'd put it this way: I see children, particularly infants and the unborn, as more deserving of protection than adults (though not intrinsically any more valuable) because they are more vulnerable. We adults have the ability to care for and defend ourselves, but they do not, at least not to the same extent, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to be more careful of their lives and safety than we are of our own.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
We /do/ seem to agree on much of the issue - so I'll push my luck a bit and engage in hairsplitting just were our views diverge...
I'm of the opinion that all are equally /deserving/ of protection; but that the /need/ for protection is greatest for the very young, diminishes with the onset of maturity, and then increases with old age.
I've found that we need to be as careful with the lives and safety of adults as we are with children. With children the need for care is obvious. It's less obviously so with adults; but a part of becoming adult in many cultures is learning to mask or even deny the needs that are so obvious in children.
We restrain ourselves from telling a child that (s)he is "stupid" because we recognize the damage that can bring about. As time passes and our children become adults, we remember their vulnerabilies and we still don't tell 'em that they're stupid - even when they make really poor decisions. Let me use that as evidence that we (sometimes) recognize that protection is appropriate regardless of age. "Stupid" is only for those we don't care about or don't respect as human beings.
At a rather elemental level, nearly everyone subscribes to the principle called "The Golden Rule": treat other people the way you'd like to be treated yourself. For most of us, it's the basis for how we relate to others when we're acting in a way we ourselves approve of (and I acknowlege that we don't always play by even our own rules.)
Out of that, if I put myself in my own embryonic "shoes" I find that I would rather be a short-lived but significant contribution to improvement of life (for even just one person) than be an unwanted, unloved, and resented ("Stupid!") child with an extremely high probability of becoming an emotionally broken and crippled adult who knows only how to /not/ love self or others. In fact, I'd even prefer an embryonic trip to the dumpster to that.
In the best of all possible worlds, every living being would be protected and cherished. Since that's not this world, I would settle for every life having its own unique purpose and value.
Having said all that, I'll edge back to where we seem to be in better agreement by saying that it'd be really good if all of the research objectives can be accomplished using /adult/ stem cells.
I certainly agree with you with respect to the need for protection. We part company, albeit slightly, on the extent to which protection is deserved. It seems to me that adults who are capable of protecting themselves not only need less protection, but deserve less as well -- in the sense that, to the extent that society feels that those adults deserve protection, society is tempted to foist that protection on those who may not want it. Example: I never, EVER, go anywhere in a car without wearing a seat belt. And if I'm driving, the car doesn't roll until everyone is wearing one. But I'm strongly opposed to legislation requiring adults to wear them -- while at the same time, I support laws requiring parents to buckle their kids.
We may have to agree to disagree here...
No -- they tell us that we're stupid. :-)
What you call protection in this context, I would call manners.
A paradox: you have to be born first, to be capable, eventually, of thinking such thoughts. And of course, as an adult, you're not really able to put yourself in the place of an embryo... which leads me to suspect that these hypothetical embryonic thoughts are really actual adult a priori beliefs.
I entirely agree -- which is exactly why I am opposed to the destruction of embryos, regardless of the reason -- and insist that there had better be a pretty darn good reason for the destruction of *any* human life. (Yes, that
*is* an invitation to discuss the morality of capital punishment, if anyone's interested.)We're definitely in complete agreement there.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.