Contrary to researchers' views, Hume touted stem-cell breakthrough as "virtually eliminat[ing]" debate
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume and Bill Kristol asserted that the recent announcement that scientists have reprogrammed adult stem cells to apparently behave like embryonic stem cells would end the debate over embryonic stem cell research. But none of the panelists mentioned that several scientists, including one of the lead researchers, have said that the reprogramming does not end the need for embryonic stem-cell research.
On the November 25 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, during a panel discussion on the recent announcement by U.S. and Japanese scientists that they had successfully reprogrammed adult cells to apparently behave like embryonic stem cells, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol asserted that this scientific technique, if it performed as claimed, would end the debate over embryonic stem-cell research. But none of the panelists mentioned that several scientists, reportedly including one of the lead American researchers, have said that the reprogramming does not end the need for embryonic stem-cell research.
In the discussion, host Chris Wallace asked Hume, "[H]ow big is this announcement of a breakthrough on stem cells, both as a scientific development and also as it filters into the political debate?" Hume responded, "If no flaw is found in the claims for this, this is huge, because it will virtually eliminate the whole moral dilemma that was created by the use of embryos to generate stem cells." Wallace later asked Kristol if he thought "this [discovery] will take that issue [embryonic stem-cell research] off the table?" to which Kristol replied, "Yes, I think, in the short term. But I think the broader issue of balancing the claims of morality and the progress of medical science remains."
While none of the
panelists noted
Thomson's reported caveat that
it would be premature to abandon embryonic stem-cell research, National Public
Radio special correspondent Juan Williams did argue against the notion that the
breakthrough automatically "removes the need for continued research on
embryos." During the
panel discussion, Williams stated that "[t]his may not work. You know, we don't
know yet." Hume
responded: "Well, everything in this -- this entire discussion is premised on
the fact that what is said about this is true. Now, if you want to dispute that,
your scientific knowledge may be so great that I can't argue with you." Hume
continued: "But all I'm saying is if this is true, this is a tremendous
breakthrough fostered by -- fostered in part, as Bill has just pointed out, by
the resistance to doing it with embryos. And it provides an unlimited series of
-- set of stem cells to work with. And getting them is infinitely simpler and
less complex than doing it the other way." After "salut[ing]" Bush's "moral stand," Williams said, "But if that's
his stand, he took it. And it's had some good outcome. But don't think that this
then removes the need for continued research on embryos and the kind of stem
cells that come from those lines."
But no one on the panel noted that scientists, including one of those responsible for this research, have reportedly said that the findings do not eliminate the need for further embryonic stem-cell research. As Media Matters for America has noted, a November 21 New York Times article on the new technique reported that both Dr. James A. Thomson, who led the research at the University of Wisconsin, and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, who led the research in Japan, "caution, though, that they still must confirm that the reprogrammed human skin cells really are the same as stem cells they get from embryos." The article further reported that "while those studies are under way, Dr. Thomson and others say, it would be premature to abandon research with stem cells taken from human embryos."
Furthermore, as the blog The Scientific Activist noted, Yamanaka's team stated in the report of its findings, published in the November 30 issue of the journal Cell, that the stem cells produced by its technique -- called human "induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells" -- "are not identical to hES [human embryonic stem] cells: DNA microarray analyses detected differences between the two pluripotent stem cell lines." The report then stated that "[f]urther studies are essential to determine whether human iPS cells can replace hES in medical applications."
Moreover, Cell's "preview" of the Yamanaka team's report, written by Holm Zaehres and Hans R. Schöler of the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, explained why further research with embryonic stem cells is still required:
Direct reprogramming of somatic cells to a pluripotent state, thus reversing the developmental arrow of time, is considered by some to be the "holy grail" of stem cell research. Once the results in human cells are confirmed, these advances will enable the creation of patient-specific stem cell lines to study different disease mechanisms in the laboratory. Such cellular models also have the potential to dramatically increase the efficiency of drug discovery and to provide valuable tools for toxicology testing. Furthermore, this reprogramming system could make the idea of customized patient-specific screening and therapy both possible and economically feasible. Finally, the work will have a powerful impact on the intense debate regarding the moral, religious, and political aspects of ES cell research. However, a big mistake now would be to consider human ES cells obsolete. There are still many hurdles to overcome before we fully understand pluripotency and before we have human iPS cells in hand that are suitable for therapeutic application. For example, a significant proportion of mice derived from mouse iPS cells develop tumors due to reactivation of the c-Myc retrovirus (Okita et al., 2007) compared to mice derived from ES cells, which are normal. The search is now on to find a way to reprogram somatic cells without retroviruses and maybe even using a cocktail of small molecules. Given this, it should be emphasized that human ES cell research is more important than ever for it will shed light on how iPS cells can best be maintained in their pluripotent state and how they can be induced to differentiate into the cell lineage of interest. The field of nuclear reprogramming has come a long way from the initial nuclear transplantation studies in frogs 50 years ago, to the birth of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from adult somatic cells (Wilmut et al., 1997), to the fallout from the fabricated human nuclear transfer experiments of several years ago, to the landmark studies of Takahashi, Yamanaka, and their colleagues, first in mice and now in humans.
From the November 25 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
MITT ROMNEY (Republican presidential candidate) [video clip]: The good news from the news this morning is we're going to have an ample supply of stem cells for research and for treatment without encountering these moral dilemmas.
WALLACE: That was presidential candidate Mitt Romney talking about the announcement this week that researchers have turned human skin cells into stem cells without using embryos.
And it's time now for our Sunday group -- Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News, and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.
So, Brit, how big is this announcement of a breakthrough on stem cells, both as a scientific development and also as it filters into the political debate?
HUME: If no flaw is found in the claims for this, this is huge, because it will virtually eliminate the whole moral dilemma that was created by the use of embryos to generate stem cells.
Now we have, as you heard Governor Romney say, this large supply of them and it should mean that funding is now available not only from private sources, but from the federal government to advance this research.
This is a tremendously positive thing that everyone should be rejoicing over.
LIASSON: Yes, I think politically it helps all the Republicans who until now have been against stem-cell research, which is quite popular among the broad population.
HUME: Embryonic stem cells.
LIASSON: Embryonic stem-cell research, which is popular among the general election electorate, if not the Republican primary electorate.
WALLACE: So explain why it would help the Republicans.
LIASSON: It helps those Republicans who have been up until now against research on embryonic stem cells because that is a position that in the general election could hurt them.
Now, I would say Romney's first and foremost in that group, because he's someone who switched his position. He's someone who's been kind of under fire for his march to the right on social issues.
And I think if this, in fact, pans out -- and I bet in a year or two we'll know that -- or maybe that would be too late.
WALLACE: Well, we only have one year to the election.
LIASSON: That's too late. I'm trying to do the math in my head. But the point is we'll know pretty soon.
A lot of times when we've had these discoveries of a bunch of stem cells that are researchable, they turn out not to be so great. But this one I think we should know pretty soon, and it could help him.
WALLACE: Bill, I think it's fair to say that in the 2006 congressional races, embryonic stem-cell research was an issue in a number of states. Missouri was one, certainly, in the Senate race there.
Do you think this will take that issue off the table?
KRISTOL: Yes, I think, in the short term. But I think the broader issue of balancing the claims of morality and the progress of medical science remains.
And I think we need to give President Bush credit here before we get into all the 2008 politics. He made a serious effort to foster non-ethically problematic stem-cell research.
Some of the stem-cell research that we're celebrating today was, in fact, spurred on by NIH [National Institutes of Health] funding, which the president increased for stem-cell research that did not involve the destruction of embryos, but he drew a moral line.
There are going to be many, many instances in this century where we're going to have to balance morality and science. And I think he deserves a lot of credit for making a serious effort to balance both, and it looks like it's going to have a happy ending.
WILLIAMS: Yes, hats off to President Bush on that, because he did put some money into the idea of looking for an area where you could get stem cells that wouldn't come from embryos and wouldn't engage this whole argument about abortion, which -- I think this is a -- what we're seeing here is the president, the Republican Party, especially as it's wed to the forces that oppose abortion in American life, have sidestepped a difficult issue.
And the way that they have done it, I think, though, has delayed, potentially, innovation. And it has not obviated the need --
HUME: Oh, please.
WILLIAMS: Why do you say please?
HUME: Well, because look at what we've gotten out of this. This new process is infinitely less complex and difficult than the one involving embryonic stem cells.
WILLIAMS: Yes, but, Brit, wait a second.
HUME: Excuse me.
WILLIAMS: This does not match -- if you don't have a genetic match, which is what you require, which is why people were looking for research on discarded embryos -- discarded; not from any live person, you know, taking a fetus or something -- the idea was that the genetic material would have to match in order to perform stem-cell therapy.
This may not work. You know, we don't know yet.
HUME: Well, everything in this -- this entire discussion is premised on the fact that what is said about this is true. Now, if you want to dispute that, your scientific knowledge may be so great that I can't argue with you.
But all I'm saying is if this is true, this is a tremendous breakthrough fostered by -- fostered in part, as Bill has just pointed out, by the resistance to doing it with embryos.
And it provides an unlimited series of -- set of stem cells to work with. And getting them is infinitely simpler and less complex than doing it the other way.
WILLIAMS: No one's arguing that, and I, with Bill and you, salute President Bush. He took a moral stand. I actually think that it was interfering, as Mrs. [Nancy] Reagan, as Governor [Arnold] Schwarzenegger [CA], and others have said, with scientific innovation.
But if that's his stand, he took it. And it's had some good outcome. But don't think that this then removes the need for continued research on embryos and the kind of stem cells that come from those lines.
WALLACE: All right. Let's move on to the campaign trail instead of the scientific campaign trail.
Here's a question for you - how will know if this new procedure creates stem cells that act the same way as embrionic stem cells IF WE DON'T DO ANY RESEARCH ON EMBRIONIC STEMS CELLS?! The crux of the right wing aregument is that these cells are the same as other cells that we as yet know very little about!
Why are there always so many people willing to stand in the way of scientific progress?
Why are there always so many people willing to stand in the way of scientific progress?
Because they're stupid?
Nuclear warfare is scientific progress.
Not sure if that's a smear at conservatives, scientists or both.
But I'm also not sure I agree with your apparent point. Nuclear fusion/fision are very important (critical,a ctually) scientific principals for us to understand. THAT'S science. Nuclear weapons is just one application of the science. That's ENGINEERING.
And being an engineer myself, I can vouch for the evil inherent in that profession! :)
I like to be very socratic about the pro-life/pro-choice/stem cell, etc debates. I think it's almost always a question of societal morals, and that "logical" arguments supporting either side often fall through to minimal critique.
For example, implying that "scientific progress" (i.e., embryonic stem cell research) is always a good thing includes the implication that nuclear missles, a scientific advancement from, say, cannonballs, is also a good thing.
You are still mixing up SCIENCE and ENGINEERING. Chemistry is SCIENCE. Understanding how chemicals work IS inherently good. CANNONBALLS (gnpowder, nuclear weapons) are the APPLICATIONS of this knowldege and that's ENGINEERING. The two are different. Knowldege is always good. What we DO with it can be good or bad. (But I'd say, back on topic, that life-saving medicine is a GOOD application of this? Wouldn't you?)
Couldn't you argue that stem-cell therapy is, in fact, bio-engineering?
You don't have to argue it. Therapy is an application. So yeah - it's engineering. (It's an application of the general research, more of which still needs to be done to get to those thrapies, or any other application.) But I maintain that this is by and large a GOOD application of said knowledge. (That's not to say that it can't be abused, but so far I haven't heard any examples of that.)
No surprise here. A significant majority of scientists say global warming is real, republicans say it's still up for debate. A majority of scientists say we still need to research stem cells, republicans say debate closed. Today's republican does not believe in science because it conflicts with that book written by man that they hold in so high regard.
Well, you know, those Bronze Age goatherds were so much smarter than modern scientists...
This thread from last Wednesday was archived before I could reply to a poster that advocated giving the surplus blastocysts a "proper burial" instead of throwing them in the trash.
I will give him/her credit for at least trying to address the surplus issue and put a pro-lifer spin on it, since the typical reaction is to turn a blind eye.
But in practical terms, I found the concept of providing funeral services and burial plots to hundreds of thousands of nameless, 100-cell organisms to be a little perplexing.
Doh! I meant for this to be in reply to your "good news" post.
"Well, you know, those Bronze Age goatherds were so much smarter than modern scientists..."
Give it a rest. In the times during which Jesus lived the illiterate population was somewhere approaching 95% of the total populace. Goatherds in those days couldn't even read, let alone write.
ALL of the books of the New Testament were written by a few of the educated classes, virtually ALL of whom were city dwellers, not goatherds.
Sorry, Dog, but I think we're talking about the stories dealing with the nature of God and the Universe, i.e. the Old Testament. You think some elite, educated scribes came up with the stories in Genesis? Most likely, they were based on folk tales told around nomadic campfires thousands of years ago. Goatherds were not necessarily stupid, but they didn't know a whole lot about science.
"Today's republican does not believe in science because it conflicts with that book written by man that they hold in so high regard."
Let's not add MORE misinformation to the discourse. The New Testament was NOT "written by the man they hold in so high regard."
Jesus was DEAD before ANY of the books and letters of the New Testament were written. The New Testament is ABOUT Jesus...but it is not BY him.
Doggone, "by man", not "by the man".
Exactly. I think Snoopy's point was that the Bible (Both Old and New Testaments) was written by humans. There is no evidence of divine authorship.
This is good news. Now they can just flush those unused frozen embryos down the toilet instead of using them for research. The "pro-lifers" should be thrilled.
I expect to see every single pro lifer adapting an embryo and either raising it as their own or paying for it's funeral.
I once heard that if you take a sentence in which the word "virtually" appears, and substitute the phrase "in fact not" for the word virtually, the meaning of the sentence remains the same.
"Virtually" is one of the most imprecise words in the English language and whenever I see it used, I doubt the validity of the point the user is trying to make.
Especially when someone uses the words "virtually" and "whole" in the same phrase.
I think I understand what Hume meant when he said that this "virtually eliminates" the need for research into embryonic stem cells.
What he was saying was that this new finding ends the debate--in the fact-free virtual reality he and his colleagues live in.
Sort of like how Brit Hume virtually thinks. It looks like he's thinking, but he isn't.....
Actually, Hume may be saying he is virtually eliminating every time he debates(using definition #4)
e·lim·i·nate (-lm-nt)
tr.v. e·lim·i·nat·ed, e·lim·i·nat·ing, e·lim·i·nates 1. To get rid of; remove: an effort to eliminate homelessness; eliminated his enemies.2. a. To leave out or omit from consideration; reject.b. To remove from consideration by defeating, as in a contest.3. Mathematics To remove (an unknown quantity) by combining equations.4. Physiology To excrete (bodily wastes)."I once heard that if you take a sentence in which the word "virtually" appears, and substitute the phrase "in fact not" for the word virtually, the meaning of the sentence remains the same."
I don't know who originally said that...but I would disagree. I think the word "almost" fits better.
Horseshoes and hand grenades
(Just something I've been carrying around for years now. It's relavent to the issue.)
There is no dilemma regarding embryonic stem-cell research, and I offer the following logical proof, to demonstrate:
Terms:
1) Universally accepted life (UAL) This is what anyone and everyone would agree is life – basically a living, breathing child.
2) Potential Life: Any ‘gray area’ that falls short of being “universally accepted’ but which will receive all of the same legal protections as “universally accepted life.”
Ergo – demonstrate potential and it will be legally protected just as a fully living child would be.
So: What is potential? I propose a very broad definition: A situation or circumstance that [in this case] if left on it’s own, with no further tinkering on our part, has a greater than 0.0% chance of, at some point in the future, producing UAL.
Just to be clear: This does not require certainty – I realize that not ALL pregnancies end in live childbirth. But that’s not required here – it merely has to have a chance. Unless it is impossible to produce UAL, we’ll call it “potential life” and give the same legal protections as UAL.
Applying this test to sperm and egg cells, show that there is not (yet) potential for life. Neither can, by itself, produce UAL. In each case something else is needed.
Apply the test to an embryo. Do you think you have potential? Well – not yet. The indisputable fact is: until that embryo is implanted in the uterine wall its chance of developing into UAL is: ZERO. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. No human can be born in a test tube or a Petri-dish or in a vat of liquid hydrogen. Your success rate will not creep above IMPOSSIBLE until that embryo is implanted into a uterine wall.
You cannot say that you have the “potential” for anything, if it is demonstrably IMPOSSIBLE. Life therefore does not begin at conception, as its potential doesn’t even begin there. An embryo, pre-implantation, has no more potential to become a human being than a sperm cell or egg cell do on their own. All three have a 0.0% chance.
One more thing – while absolving embryonic stem cell research of any ethical (unless you’re taking the embryo’s from a women’s uterus) it does deem ALL forms of abortion to be immoral/illegal. There’s not a pregnancy test in the world that will read “+” prior to uterine implantation. So an abortion, which disrupts an implanted embryo/fetus, does destroy [potential] life - which we’re treating the same as UAL. On the other hand, all forms of contraception that prevent implantation are OK. This would hold true even when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. After all: if you’re not willing to destroy a few HUNDERED embryos to save MILLIONS of lives over time, why would you destroy ONE to save only a SINGLE life? A much less favorable ratio, wouldn’t you say?
Niceguy,
I like your logic, and that you acknowledged the fact that your argument does recognize a fetus as a UAL (I didn't like it because I'm "pro-life", but because you did what you were supposed to by acknowledging all implications of your work.)
Eddie,
Interesting. How would you define a naturally fertilized embryo that has not yet made it to the uterus? Does it fall in the 0 percent category?
In all, I think by using your argument, one could say that all life in the womb is still only potential life. After all, the embryo/fetus/baby still needs actions by outside forces in order to live and grow. Without those actions, there is a 0 percent chance of survival. Those actions, obviously require the mother to provide a womb and nourishment.
AA, I think you missed what he was saying. Eddie WAS acknowledging that potential life is important because it's necessary in order to insure UAL, and he was differentiating between a fertilized egg unnatached as "non-potential" life and that attached to the womb, which is "potential" life.
Dex,
If I remember correctly, (correct me if I am wrong,) it may take two or three days or two for a fertilized egg to make it to the uterus from the fallopian tubes. It seems to me that according to Eddie's definition this fertilized egg falls into the 0% category. (Obviously it doesn't.)
Therefore a fertilized egg, even though not attached to a uterus, is still life. (I disagree with Eddie that it is potential life but that is a different argument.)
It seems to me that according to Eddie's definition this fertilized egg falls into the 0% category. (Obviously it doesn't.)
What??? Uh... YES IT DOES! It can't become a human (UAL, in my argumetn) until it implants. To say that it has any potential to becoeme life without implanting is... wrong. It's IMPOSSIBLE, actually.
YES! THAT'S the difference. Unitl the embryo implants - the potential for life is 0%. After that, it's something more than 0% - so there's potential. (And come on - the mother needs to provide nourisment? Pul-lease. The alternative is that she dies herself! And if a pregnant woman dies? Then, YES, I would say that TWO lives were lost.) Just as I would not ridicule a woman for mourning a miscarriage.
In the abortion argument you can say therefore that we'll protect the fetus - but my broader point was that you can be anti-abortion and still be pro-embrionic stem cell resaerch because the two are totally different things. So holding that position is NOT inconsistant.
It also takes the wind out of any argument that would paint something like the "morning after pill" (which PREVENTS implantation) or any other form of contraception from being caught up in an anti-abortion aregument.
And to answer the earlier question - no, a naturally fertalized egg has no potential for life (and thus is not life) until it implants. Many (I think I've reead as many as 2/3) never do. That does not qualify as a miscarriage, because you were never pregnant. And the potential for life doesn't (can't) go higher that 0% until it implants.
(BTW - to support the "health of the mother" argument: As I understand it (and I'm not a doctor) an ectopic pregnancy or fallopian implantation does not have potential for life - since the mother (and thus the fetus) will almost always die before reaching term. Only a uterine implantation gives potential.)
Eddie,
You have simply picked a point after conception, (arguably very soon,) as your defining point. It is strictly arbitrary. You have said that unless the egg is implanted, it has zero percent of survival. However, attaching to an uterine wall is in effect, being affected by an outside force, (in this case the mother's womb.) In the long run that is true, the egg needs nourishment from the mother to live. No matter how you cut it, that mother is an outside force.
Even before that, your argument is not logically correct. Your definition said the egg had zero percent chance of survival. However the egg survived the two or three days without yet being implanted. That is not zero percent. Obviously the egg was already living or it would not implant in the uterus.
You may think it makes sense but there seems to me, (and many other bio-ethicists that I have read,) to be too many caveats and arbitrary points for your view to overrule many of the moral considerations regarding what constitutes a human life.sorry for the small print or is it my browser? Don't know what happend.
AA, you've substituted "chance for survival" for "potential life".They're different, and that's where your logical gap lies.
All points are "arbitrary." But mine is defensible.
It concedes to the pro-choice crowd that life does not begin at concption, by making the category of "potential life."
It then take care of the "pro-life" crowd by saying that we'll extend legal protection anyway.
But how can you say something with 0% (ZERO! NIL! ZILCH! IMPOSSIBLE!) chance of developing into LIFE (as anyone & everone might define) as having the POITENTIAL to do so?! If it CAN'T... then it DOESN'T!
I'm sorry. Arbotion - that's a legitimate debate (for both sides) and one that will likely never end. But Stem cells? Even embrionic stem cells? Opoosition to this kind of research is based only on religious dogma. And dogma that defies logic at that.
In the broader term, human's throw away our childrens' potential more often than we nurture it. But the human struggle always come down to the individual even though we prefer to discuss it in generalities so we can set policy and law. But, expedience and intimacy are our real motivators in setting policies on any matter, be it unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children. The greater our ability to empathize and properly rectify a person's situation, the more likely we will help them. To me, we fail mostly because our leadership, on every level, is too disconnected to feel either empathy and too selfish to overcome the slightest obstacle. So, no healthcare solution, no Iraq solution, no terror solution, no poverty solution, etc.
As for pro-life v. pro-choice - it's a political sham and a religious red herring. Countries that have outlawed it have not seen abortion levels fall, just get more lethal. You can't unlearn any technology, just do it badly. If you have a moral problem with it, don't do it. I think that until it can live without medical intervention it is part of the mother, not a child, or even a child to be. Once you start down that path, you might as well investigate every miscarriage and birth defect for criminal negligence just in case mom failed to avoid the wrong behaviors. If not, you're no different than the rest of us splitting hairs.
Very good points. Personally I could be in the pro-life crowd... Except that the same people that want to outlaw abortion also want to elimitate contraceptive education in schools (where it should be both mandatory and agressive), not to mention availability of contaceptives to teenagers. They also seek ot eliminate all Social Safaety nets (welfare, Helathcare, eductaion, etc...) for poor, single parents AND keep wages low so that any job you can get as a single parent won't pay enough to get you out of poverty. Couple that with our society's inexcusable ingorance when it comes to adoption (I myself am adopted and I'm appalled how bad a job our society does supporting that institution) and wanting to outlaw abortion (while holding these other views) becomes indefensible.
I agree with you and find myself in the same place on abortion. My son is adopted. I wish every woman could go to term and give wanting parents a chance with that child. I also wish our foster care services got enough money and attention to facilitate placement in much greater numbers. But, as I said, it is about intimacy and expedience. Aparently, an occasional abortion or foster care nightmare story is not enough to get politicians to quit protecting their encumbancy and do something positive. I think term, lobbying and campaign finance limits is the only answer. Get rid of career political offices and start electing on merit.
Eddie,
You painted a picture of pro-lifers with too many broad stroke and generalities. I'd like to see examples of pro-lifers who want to eliminate all safety nets. If you can, please provide examples of your claim.
Your views on mandatory sex education and birth control take away the prerogative of some parents to teach their children according to their beliefs. Isn't that facist?
While teenage pregnancy and abortions is indeed a problem, so is over reliance on contraceptives. There is a failure rate even when contraceptives are used properly. So it seems to me that providing contraceptions is not the answer from a biological point of view, not to mention all sorts of problems with self esteem and stds.
AA,
I'll try to adress each point:
You painted a picture of pro-lifers with too many broad stroke and generalities.
Yes. I did. This is fair.
I'd like to see examples of pro-lifers who want to eliminate all safety nets. If you can, please provide examples of your claim.
Umm... I think they're called REPUBLICANS.
Your views on mandatory sex education and birth control take away the prerogative of some parents to teach their children according to their beliefs. Isn't that facist?
Perhaps my position was stated too strongly, but remember: I'm contrasting it with the viewpoint that abortion should be taken away from all people - regardless of their beliefs. I'm just saying - if you want to take away abortion, then there are some things that you MUST do (educate about contraception) if you want me to buy into your argument. Otherwise - leave abortion legal and if YOU think it's immorral then DON'T HAVE ONE.
While teenage pregnancy and abortions is indeed a problem, so is over reliance on contraceptives. There is a failure rate even when contraceptives are used properly. So it seems to me that providing contraceptions is not the answer from a biological point of view, not to mention all sorts of problems with self esteem and stds.
This is right-wing propaganda. STD transmition would go down w/ contacvpetive usage. Come on - that's common sense. (Pregnancy - same thing) Self esteem issues? What are you even talking about?
Contraceptives don't make people have sex. This is another religious / conservative lie.
The decision to have sex is made prior to the decsion to use contracpetives. If you're going to abstain (good for you!) then the issue is mute. If you (or your son/daughter) chose(s) to have sex then the question becomes: with or without contraceptives? Well? Obviously at that point pregnancies and STD's can only be reduced with contraceptive use.
(And (some) religion(s) only prohibit the USE of contraceptives, not the KNOWLEDGE thereof. So No, it's not facsist. The suppression of KNOWLEDGE and INFORMATION - THAT'S FASCIST.)
Eddie,
Nice rant but you slipped out of a reasonable discussion to more generalities and silly statements.
It is fairly obvious that you don't know much about std's and how they can be transmitted. I suggest you brush up on your sex ed.
You'll have to be much more specific than that. You say I'm not knowledgable - but I took the college course in human sexuality, and managed a B+ with very little effort. Would you care to defend the point that contaceptive use INCREASES std transmition? Now I wasn't the "A" student, but it seems to me you're the one who needs some education on the matter.
*sigh*
STDs are spread through contact with infected body fluids, such as blood, vaginal fluids, or semen. They can also be spread through contact with infected skin or mucous membranes, like sores in the mouth. You may be exposed to infected body fluids and skin through vaginal, anal or oral sex if you don't correctly use a latex condom. Anal sex is very risky because it usually causes bleeding.
So many types of contraceptives, even when used appropriately are useless in preventing the transmission of stds. Even using condoms is not foolproof. Virii are so much smaller than bacteria and (correct me if I am wrong,) can not be blocked by use of condoms.
The rise in std's nationwide recently have some professionals saying that the message is not getting through anymore even with education. Young people seem not to be worried about stds. Obviously there is some missing dynamic in existing education.
So, it seems to me your assertion that std's and pregnancies would go down is unsupported by actual evidence, at least in the case of stds.
It stands to reason that fear of unwanted pregnancy is a major motivator in not having premarital sex. Taking away that fear by over reliance on birth control will lead to more teenagers experimenting and undoubtedly catching stds and still resulting in pregnancies.
And yes, we haven't talked about the long term psychological problems that occur to many people's self esteem when engaging casual sex. Nor have we talked about sex addiction. But that is for a different time and place.
Barney, you sometimes pat yourself on the back for not resorting to name-calling here. I think it would be preferable to the long-winded piles of speculation and confusion that you seem to think are as good as facts or logic.
Your post insults the intelligence of every other poster and reader here, and wastes more of their time than a swift name-calling would.
BTW, did you have a nice Thanksgiving?
HBL,
Yes, I had a wonderful Thanksgiving with 27 people at my house for dinner. Thanks for asking.
As for the rest of your note, it would help me if you'd expound on what exactly it is that you think I am doing to insult people. Simply stating your opinion regarding my postings without any example does not further the conversation.
Also, I do not get what you are talking about with regards to insults. But that is not important.
I trust you had a pleasant Thanksgiving yourself?
I don't know about anyone else, but I've been using condoms for years and have had no STD's or unplanned pregnancies.
In regards to the "fear" of pregnancy - give me a break. That fear is out the window once the make-out session starts.
Please come back to the real world, AA.
Foghorn,
I congratulate you on your good fortune. :-)
I agree that in many instances, caution flies out the rear window when in the back seat, but I do not think that negates my point. Fear of pregnancy can happen before and after the act. A misguided and false sense of security can lead to unwanted pregnancy and possible stds.
If you are interested check out the failure rates for various birth control devices.
Here is one link.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html*double sigh*
You are creating a strawman. I never said that contraceptive education consisted merely of saying "use a condom and you'll be safe." All of the points you brought up would be addressed in a comprehensive eduction program:
1) Abstinenece is the only 100% protecton.
2) Which methods don't offer any STD protection
3) Proper use of the various methods
4) Risks & side effects
5) etc... etc... etc...
But your answer seems to be that - since every method isnot 100% effective aginst every disease - we have to tech abstinence only with no objective discussion of "safe sex" practices. (IMO - this is insanity.)
Even if absitinece only sex ed reduces sexual encounters by 90% (a much larger number than is supported by research, BTW) I will guarentee you that 10 couples having unprotected sex will produce more pregnancies and spread more STD's that 100 couples consistantly, and properly using contraceptives.
Now, OK - Point conceded on oral sex - although it's irrelevant, since that would be part of the education I'm talking about. Plus there are contaceptive measues that can be used, and are effective, although most couples typically don't bother. Again - that can only be changed thourgh education.
2 Points lost however on viruses - 1 for saying "virii" (or whatever) ;-) and 1 becuase latex condoms DO protect aginst viruses transmited though genital-genital / bodily fluid contact. (HIV, for example.) And even though HPV can still be transmitted - because this is done skin-to-skin, not via fluids - it's still not a "gotcha" for the anti-contraceptive conservatives becuase (again) they are they very ones fighting the national vaccination effort. (We have a vaccine for HPV - the leading cause of CERVICAL CANCER mind you) and the same crowd I've been assailing all along are against this as well!) This is insanity.
Thanks for giving me at least some points. I appreciate you pointing out my use of -ii for the plural for virus. I'm glad you understood my meaning even if I lost points for it. :-)
You wrote:Even if absitinece only sex ed reduces sexual encounters by 90% (a much larger number than is supported by research, BTW) I will guarentee you that 10 couples having unprotected sex will produce more pregnancies and spread more STD's that 100 couples consistantly, and properly using contraceptives.
Your statement, although earnest, is again one of ignorance. Take a look at these failure rates. (They look like they line up in my preview.) If not, check out this website:
http://www.contracept.info/teenrates.phpBIRTH CONTROL FAILURE RATES FOR TEENS
Percentage Becoming Pregnant Percent Teens method of birth control after one year after two years using this method No Method * 86.0 96.0 8.1 Spermicides 36.8 49.8 0.0 Calendar-Rhythm Method * 33.8 44.0 0.0 Withdrawal 31.3 43.1 0.8 Diaphragm * 21.2 21.8 0.0 Male Condoms 17.7 27.5 8.5 Oral Contraceptives 8.6 14.0 16.7 Contraceptive Patch (Ortho Evra) ** 8.6 14.0 0.6 Vaginal Ring (Nuva) ** 8.6 14.0 0.0 Shot (Depo-Provera) 4.3 8.5 4.4 Intrauterine Device (IUD) 4.3 8.5 0.1 Implant (Norplant) 4.3 8.5 0.0 Abstinence *** 0 0 56.2Not to be snarky, but these figures do not seem to match your guarantee.
I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could tell me why cutting and pasting urls come out so small.
The link I gave above is:
http://www.contracept.info/teenrates.phpBIRTH CONTROL FAILURE RATES FOR TEENS
http://www.contracept.info/teenrates.phpBIRTH CONTROL FAILURE RATES FOR TEENSLOL. I'm an angineer, so don't think I'm going to be mesmerized by a few numbers. Personally I'd say the 27% failure you're quoting is hogwash. But, since I don't know what assumption go into it, I'll take my two best shots at it using reason.
1) If you're say that when I use a condom my changc of concievinbg is 27% - that's just a blatant lie. I'd have 200 kids by now if that was the case, excepting of course that I haen't had that many partners.
But I don't think that's what you're (or the study) is saying.
2) I think it means that is say 1000 people used condoms for a year, that 270 of them concieved. Appears impressiv but you're missing two key pieces of info to call that a "failure rate." 1st - how many time did each couple have sex using a condom in that time period. And (much more importantly) hw many tim did they have sex WITHOUT using one?
Plus - unless these people only have sex in science labs (kinky!) there's no way to control the experiment! You can't guarentee "proper use" or even "consistant use."
This study doesn't persudae me in the least, not because it doesn't support my argument, but because it it mathematically incongruent with my own experience and (literally) the experience of everybody I know. Now that might not be scientific - but the failure rate you're quoting is a near mathematic impossibility, given the assumptions you wish me to accept.
I'm calling shenanigans here.
"I think that until it can live without medical intervention it is part of the mother, not a child, or even a child to be."
What a fine argument for my tax dollars to not go toward providing you healthcare, especially in your old age.
Snarky, nice touch! You certainly didn't miss that I was speaking to birth viability, so you must simply be bad at logic. But, to your point, I also believe that we spend way too much of our tax dollars on very expensive end of life medicine to give a senior a few mor elousy months when that same money would likely ensure a child a much longer life due to better preventive care.
Cannonball, I just don't think your logic holds water, it wasn't that I missed it. Premies can be birthed very, very early and go on to live happy, healthy lives. Babies can be born perfectly healthy at full term and will still need a lot of love and care to develop properly. Can full-term birth really be the "life" litmus test?
CB, you raise some good points. I tend to be "pro choice", but I also think we should do whatever we can to encourage women to carry their children to term and offer them up for adoption if they don't want them. To facilitate this, we would need to offer whatever support is needed, financially and socially. I know that, when I was young, an unwed pregnancy was a matter of shame, and young girls were spirited away and hidden until the child was born. The very people who are rabidly anti-abortion are probably most responsible for this public "shame" which has been traditionally heaped upon unwed mothers.
I like how you think, Nerz. A candidate, on either side of the aisle, should have the gumption to say "I hate abortion (or, I think abortion is necessary in some circumstances), but here's what we need to do to lessen abortion as much as possible."
Nerzog,
I disagree, (What's new?) The stigma of unwed motherhood may have been around when we were young, but it has all but disappeared in schools and even most churches.
One of the problems with this acceptance of unwed motherhood is teenage mothers keeping their babies. If I remember correctly, that single parenthood is the single greatest reason for poverty in the United States.
I too hope that unwed mothers give their babies, (and themselves,) a greater chance to escape a life of poverty by entrusting these babies to others through adoption.
That is an elitist notion. Are you really saying that the poor should give up their babies to wealthier people? So in your world, a 15 year-old has sex with another kid just for fun, fails to use contraception because it isn't taught in her school (her parents want to teach her themselves) and the she wants to keep her baby, and you would tell her that her natural love for her unborn child is not enough. She is to poor to be so selfish and she should give it up.
Cannonball, elitist or not, I'm sure you could psychologically justify the child being reared in a middle-class household vs to a poor, unwed, 15-year old mother.
Cannonball,
Giving up one's child for adoption has to be one of the hardest things a mother can do. It goes against one of the most basic human instincts.
It is an act of selfless love, in the situation you described, to give up one's child to not only to a couple who can financially afford the cost of raising a child, but also to a two parent home. Doing so benefits the child emotionally, and the mother financially.
I am not saying that it has to be done. I am of the opinion that it is generally in the best interest of the child.
That is the most idiotic, class-discriminatory statement ever made on this website - to imply that its better for the children of poor homes to GIVE UP THEIR CHILDREN so they can be adopted into richer ones.
That's low even for you, AA.
Foghorn,
It doesn't have to be low income children. My argument goes for middle class unmarried women and their babies. You seem to have missed that I said it is better emotionally for the child to have a two parent home.
I have adopted two babies from two unwed teenage mothers. We keep in contact with those families and they are extremely grateful. One was able to finish college, the other eventually married. This is only my experience, so sorry if it offends.
I do agree with you that money is not the sole reason an unwed mother should give up her child. However statistics show unwed mothers are far more likely to live a life at or near poverty levels. Especially if the mother is a teenager. It is a cold, hard reality.
If I remember correctly, that single parenthood is the single greatest reason for poverty in the United States.
And yet you tried to tell me that contraceptive use would not alleviate this problem? You can't make [the above] statement and not want more contraceptive education (YES - including their respective *failure rates!) Not if you possess any repsect for logic and pragmatism at all.
(* I mean the REAL failure rate though, not the BS that chruch groups and conservative propagandists put out.)
Eddie,
You are devolving into what I would describe as 'ranting' again.
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint even though we disagree.
Eddie, you're pretty generous and patient, but don't invest too much time with AnotherAmerican, AKA Barney Fife.If it's not clear from his loose grasp of cause and effect above, on his worst days he'll declare victory based on embarrassingly ridiculous arguments, then accuse others of being insane.
On his good days, he can carry on a reasonable chat, but this doesn't look like one of them.
HBL,
You are free to insult me. However do you not see that you have not added to the conversation?
ps. I'd be more interested if you could back up your claim that contraceptives would decrease stds and pregnancies over all.
I know that is a tough one because it is hard to quantify something that has not occurred. Maybe we'll just have to disagree.
I keep forgetting that this site is about media matters. I never watch tv news, it is all crap. Every segement falls into one of a few types:
be afraid for your health, safety, children, pets, job, house, whatever;
buy something else that you don't need to be trendy, pretty, witty, etc.
celebrate yet another distraction, athlete, movie, tv show, singer, actor, etc.
and the weather (if you believe in God, ask him/her to please stop all the stupid weather coverage, especially whenever a storm approaches)
i've noticed that there are more and more "stories" where a picture of some alleged or convicted criminal is put up behind the anchor and then we are informed as to the alleged crime or conviction. Like I need the news show to tell me that like every other day since laws were invented some idiot hot head blew away someone. They do not even bother to send out a crew to do any taping much less investigate wether there is any news that needs to be uncovered, just straight from some court document to the teleprompter. Pretty cheap and gut less way to fill up the "news" program.
There is no debate on the legality or even medical benefit of human embryos, the debate is about who will pay for it. The work continues to be funded privately.
http://www.stemcell.umn.edu/stemcell/stemcell101/qanda/home.html
The ballot initiative in Missouri was about the government funding something that could be done through the private sector.
But this most recent significant breakthrough has come from use of non-embryonic stem cells, but from the adult population. If you read this article, http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/11/21/breakthrough_on_stem_cells/ you will see that all speak hopefully of the fundamental change this research has provided. They also do recognize the possible value of embryonic stem cell studies,
"It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold," Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer for the Massachusetts-based research firm Advanced Cell Technology, said of the technique. "If perfected, there will no longer be any need for human eggs [in stem cell research], or any of the controversy associated with destroying embryos."
He stressed, however, that "this is early stage research, and we should not abandon other areas of stem cell research."
Lanza is not identified as a member of the team, but he his hardly jumping ugly to keep embryonic research alive. I think that is what the Fox panelists were stating. Dr. Thomson, he was one of the researchers, doesn't seem to hold back his enthusiasm,
"The Wisconsin results, which strongly buttressed Yamanka's findings because they were produced independently, will be published tomorrow by the journal Science.
"The world has changed," said James Thomson, head of the University of Wisconsin lab where scientist Junying Yu led the effort to form the new cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells.
"It is the beginning of the end of the controversy that has surrounded this field," Thomson told a news conference. "Over time, these [induced] cells will be used in more and more labs. And human embryo stem cell research will be abandoned by more and more labs."
Again, I am glad that MM(very little) is helping the American public define who is for life. I was intrigued by a story this weekend on 60 Minutes that talked about how people in semi-comatose states have responded to medication, like ambien, to show a high level of altertness both in the waking and remembering of their unconscious state. They spoke a great deal of Teri Schiavo. I remember at that time, thinking why the rush to death for some of the left? I see that this is one of those issues of separation between the democrat party and conservatism.
Sigh. Schiavo was brain-screwed, no amount of sleeping meds would let her walk again.
And a lovely sentiment by the way.....
But, family members were willing to care for her. The husband could have accepted the divorce and gone on with his life. Instead, choosing death was paramount.
Did you see the 60 minutes story? It was interesting in seeing how people awoke from these vegetative states.
I saw the 60 minutes story, and the doctor made a point that Terri Schiavo's case was not the same as the ones who had recovered. Her condition was different, and much worse.
The whole point was not that there was someone willing to care for her, but that the husband claimed to be honoring her expressed wishes. Maybe he was lying, maybe not... but that's what we have courts for, since Terri could no longer speak.
But wasn't the statement also made that an examination, like the one shown on the 60 min segment, was not done on Teri?
That's what courts are for. That's called DUE PROCESS - you know, something that's inherently CONSTITUTIONAL.
Give it up.
Terri Schiavo's brain had been destroyed more than fifteen years before she stopped breathing.
No amount of Ambien would have helped her.
She was not semi-comatose, but brain dead, with absolutely, no chance of ever regaining consciousness.
But a physician demonstrated that other activity, beyond purely electrical, was noted in patients that he had examined. Metabolic activity was found through PET scans in patients he would have previously diagnosed as "brain dead."
I didn't see the 60 Minutes piece, so I can't comment.
Metabolic processes might have been going on in Ms. Schiavo, but electrical processes were not.
In the words of Dr. Jon Thogmartin, who performed the autopsy "the damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."
" I remember at that time, thinking why the rush to death for some of the left?" (Proudcon)
PC, in the article you linked to, the point is also made that this new breakthrough is at an earlier stage than the research on embryonic cells.It's difficult to tell in your post whick parts are yours and which are excerpts, but you noticably ignored those who are stressing not abandoning other methods.
As far as your nutty "rush to death" comment, does it occur to you that many people may suffer or die due to lack of funding for research because of the pressure from religious nuts who think they're saving lives by not using embryonic cells?
Nutbag.
Huntingforarationalthought,
If you red the article, you would have seen clearly that my cut and paste's were balanced. I didn't edit out any comments that dismissed what work had been done.
As far as the rush to death, who is more than just willing to justify the death of embryos, fetuses or the the sick and infirmed?
windbag
You're an idiot. Teri Schiavo was brain dead for years. Ambien wasn't going to change a thing. but just who (left or otherwise) was in a "rush" to see her dead? Her ex-husband just wanted her own wishes respected.
How this thing is a "left" or "right" issue is beyond me. I believe in the right to privacy and its protection in the Bill of Rights. This right includes a person's right to control their own bodies, be it during pregnancy, during health services, taking medication (including birth control), having sex (with whomever age appropriate person they want - and whether to keep their baby.
bowlingball,
Here is an interesting response to the idea that Teri's life was over. Consider the time line of the former hubby's activities. My opinion, this awakening is what he feared, not that he supposedly heard her say that she would want to die if found in these circumstances.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/11/26/justify_killing/
So she might have been in a minimally conscious state instead of a permanent vegetative state, but they can't possibly say. That's called conjecture, hardly something to hang your argument on.
As for the timeline, I have no idea what you or the author is talking about. Michael Schiavo denied her treatment in 1992? I think maybe you're basing that on the Schindler's unsuccessful argument to take over guardianship. They said that, but
Was he in a rush to end her life? He attended nursing classes to care for his wife, he demanded better care at her nursing home, it took four years for doctors to convince him that she wouldn't recover, it was her parents who told him to date again, and it wasn't until eight years after the accident that he filed the motion to stop life support.
For someone who was so afraid of her recovering, it seems like he acted very oddly. Perhaps you should base your opinion of the matter on some semblance of reality.
Hmm, not sure how I deleted that part. "They said that, but Michael claimed that they wanted some of the malpractice money. 450K of that money was set aside for her medical care."
Did you not see the results of her autopsy? Her brain was LIQUIFIED!
Now, if science can take a liquid brain and turn it back into a solid brain, then I'd believe your arguement. Until then, you have no credibility.
And your opinion isn't worth the current it takes to post your message from your keyboard to this site.
I pray that you're never in a position where a loved one is being kept alive, with no hope of recovery.
You have no idea what Michael Schiavo, the legal spokesperson for his wife, went through.
Bush and company have opposed spending federal funds on embryo research for their own reasons. But does that mean the rest of us should simply embrace everything the biotech people want to do?
Yes, scientists should continue some work with embryonic stem cells, both because they’re useful as “benchmarks” for the new kind of reprogrammed cells, and because those new ones may not turn out to do all the necessary tricks.
But for now we don’t need to pursue cloning research. For all the effort expended over the past decade, there’s little to show. Those cloned monkey embryos in Oregon still took hundreds of eggs. Getting eggs out of women means putting them through invasive and risky procedures – in women who have undergone egg extraction for their own or other people’s IVF, there have been numerous severe reactions and even some deaths.
And cloning human embryos opens doors that everyone wants to keep closed. We still have no federal law against reproductive cloning, but the whackos who want to grab headlines by cloning a child are still with us. Genetically redesigned children, which some misguided techno-enthusiasts are busy promoting, could all too easily create “genetic castes” – just what we need.
If “direct reprogramming” doesn’t work, we can think about how to minimize the risks of cloning research. For now, let’s put it on hold.
For lots more on how to get the best from human biotechnologies while avoiding their misuses, see www.geneticsandsociety.org and www.BiopoliticalTimes.org
-Marcy Darnovsky, Center for Genetics and Society
Marcy,
I read both of your articles. Both were thoughtfully provocative. My question though is how do you separate the continum of embrionic stem cell research from the inclusion of human cloning? It seems to me that this goes back to the core debate of what substantiates life and the belief system that accompanies that belief.
The passions are strong on both sides. I say that I am for life, but was pointed out to me in a previous response, "what about those dying because of the lack of research?" Is it moral to take a potential life for the potentiality of a cure? They are tough questions and if anyone reads what you have written, they will be challenged too, to make certain scientific activity reflects the values we choose.
Thank you for your posting.
"Is it moral to take a potential life for the potentiality of a cure?"
The value of potential life varies depending on societal circumstances. If we had an apocalypse, with only a handful of people surviving, then it would be at an extreme high. With well over six billion people, the value is much lower. We could cut down on the birthrate and still manage just fine overall. More life is not necessarily better, in and of itself.
More importantly, the value of the individual embryo is dependent on whether any person or couple wants to develop it. Otherwise, it's getting discarded as it is. So I think it's fair to say that genetic material that gets thrown away has a value of absolutely nothing, and so there's no reason at all not to use it for a good cause.
So what's the moral issue? Murder is a moral issue because society can't allow such a thing to happen without consequence. Not only is a person's ultimate right being taken away, but it affects others who have emotional bonds to that person. If nobody has any personal connection to a frozen embryo somewhere, who does it affect? There simply is no secular moral issue at hand.
The only question that leaves is whether the embryo itself has some divine right on its own. This is obviously a religious matter. As I've asked before, what kind of God does one believe in? What kind of God would put a soul in a frozen embryo he knew would be destroyed, being all-knowing, and then send that soul to hell for all eternity?
If that isn't what people believe, then there's simply no moral issue whatsoever. Then it's just genetic material, without any divine aspect to it at all. If it is, then it's hard to justify holding up even the possibility of scientific progress because of the possibility that there's such an absurdly hateful deity at work.
Matters of faith simply have no standing for holding up scientific progress. You can personally believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth because the Bible is God's absolute truth, and it's immoral to say otherwise. You can believe that if God wanted man to fly, he would have given us wings, so it's immoral to build or use aircraft. And you can believe that a frozen embryo that's going to be tossed out if unused is somehow sacred. You have those rights. But it's absurd to think even for a moment that such beliefs constitute a valid reason to prevent progress in any scientific endeavor, much less one that has such tremendous potential.
And the real bottom line is that a potential life may have no meaning to anyone else, but an existing life does. If they had a way of using these embryos to cure Parkinson's and Alzheimer's ten years ago, and didn't do it because of such questionable moral concerns, then my mother has been suffering from those diseases because of moral absolutists. That is immoral. That is something that affects her and me and others who love her. That, as far as I'm concerned, is as immoral as murder, because you're essentially taking what makes a person what they are away, leaving only a quivering body behind. And if people hold up progress that could have prevented others from developing those horrible diseases, then they're guilty of that immorality as well.
I hope that answers your question.
Thanks, Brabantio. You made some of the points I was trying to make (in my primitive and pressed for time little way), and did it with style.
Glad you liked it! I wish I could have been back on this thread sooner.
We disagree on the concept of the intrinsic value of life. My response is to say that life should have value beyond the scope of your description, “The value of potential life varies depending on societal circumstances”. Societal circumstances should not be the benchmark for deploying the boundaries of what moral conduct is or when life has value. I know you would not support this in any fashion but for argument’s sake, consider the purge of non-arian races in the 1930’s & 40’s or the fight between the Hutu or Tutsi peoples of Africa in more recent days, by taking your argument literally, those examples fit into your paradigm.
I believe that all life has value, in and of itself and I think you would agree. If it doesn’t then we are vulnerable at any stage of life because it would be based on the ‘circumstances’ of our situation or of society around us. The question between us is the point of the beginning of life, and that will be an argument certainly not settled here today.
To further explain myself, I obviously believe that it is easiest to see life beginning at conception. Other definitions have been too fluid as we have seen the strides medically to intervene surgically while an infant is in the womb or that survivability of prematurely birthed children has dramatically risen. I cannot see that something that could live be considered to be tissue, especially when you consider that babies have survived a birth at 23 weeks gestation, far sooner than the third trimester of a pregnancy.
The pain to which you described regarding your mother was one I shared with mine. It would have been wonderful to consider bettering her life because of a new medical intervention. However, I know she would have rejected the idea of extending her life at the expense of another or more factually, many others. That is what makes this story so wonderful, that no lives may need to be taken for such marvelous potential, or that the use of umbilical cord materials can also be harvested for research.
I wish also that you could see that a God who is present in our universe is a blessing to us. It is for me the underpinnings of what makes life, including potential life so precious. No one has to believe in a being beyond ourselves to think that life has meaning outside of our minute spheres, but to understand that if God does exist then it must be true that at the very least, our lives matter to God.
"We disagree on the concept of the intrinsic value of life. My response is to say that life should have value beyond the scope of your description, “The value of potential life varies depending on societal circumstances”. Societal circumstances should not be the benchmark for deploying the boundaries of what moral conduct is or when life has value."
Of course they should be. Are you seriously going to argue that if we had 100 billion people on the planet that we shouldn't cut back on procreation because of the intrinsic value of life?
You probably won't see this in time, since I've been gone for two days, but let me give you one of my favorite scenarios. Imagine that a virus is released where it doesn't affect anyone directly, but it creates a 90% chance that a child will be born almost completely brain-dead. So 9 out of 10 children would need constant care up until they died naturally around age 60, to pick a number at random. The question is now, do those children have the same value as a healthy child? Do you really think society and the economy could handle such a drain? Could you really look at that situation and say more of those children would be a good thing? If the answer to any of those questions is anything but a resounding "yes!", then you concede my point that societal factors make a difference.
"I know you would not support this in any fashion but for argument’s sake, consider the purge of non-arian races in the 1930’s & 40’s or the fight between the Hutu or Tutsi peoples of Africa in more recent days, by taking your argument literally, those examples fit into your paradigm."
Nonsense. There is no way to interpret what I'm saying as an acceptance of genocide or violence of any sort. Unless such a thing is necessary for survival, any widely-accepted standard of morality declares that to be clearly wrong. We're talking about adjusting the rate of birth, not killing healthy adults. That conflation is moral absolutism. It's like saying that using a condom is equal to stabbing someone in the head. Loss of potential life = murder. Completely absurd.
"I believe that all life has value, in and of itself and I think you would agree. If it doesn’t then we are vulnerable at any stage of life because it would be based on the ‘circumstances’ of our situation or of society around us. The question between us is the point of the beginning of life, and that will be an argument certainly not settled here today."
Slippery slope. Only in extreme (almost unimaginable, even) circumstances could one be vulnerable at "any stage of life". Once someone is born, the parents and society have given them a promise of safety. That is the point where they become a person as far as society is concerned, and so they have their own entity. Your question had to do with a potential life. Now you're talking about the beginning of life. These are not the same things, so you're not addressing what I said.
"To further explain myself, I obviously believe that it is easiest to see life beginning at conception. Other definitions have been too fluid as we have seen the strides medically to intervene surgically while an infant is in the womb or that survivability of prematurely birthed children has dramatically risen. I cannot see that something that could live be considered to be tissue, especially when you consider that babies have survived a birth at 23 weeks gestation, far sooner than the third trimester of a pregnancy."
But a frozen embryo that's going to be discarded anyway is not going to produce a child at 23 weeks or 2300 weeks. That was your question, so again you're shifting the argument. As far as the abortion issue, where you define the "beginning of life" can't have a bearing on the policy. Whether you personally consider it alive or not, it does not and should not have equal rights with sentient adults. Consider pregnancies from rape and incest. You would have to force those women to have those babies, because otherwise you would be discriminating against those fetuses based on how they were conceived, and that would be wrong. A normal fetus would have the same rights as an adult, but one stemming from rape or incest wouldn't? That would be impossible, because they have the same intrinsic value.
"The pain to which you described regarding your mother was one I shared with mine. It would have been wonderful to consider bettering her life because of a new medical intervention. However, I know she would have rejected the idea of extending her life at the expense of another or more factually, many others. That is what makes this story so wonderful, that no lives may need to be taken for such marvelous potential, or that the use of umbilical cord materials can also be harvested for research."
What expense? What lives? We're not talking about harvesting women's fetuses here, we're talking about embryos that are going to be thrown out anyway. What lives is it costing that weren't "spent" already? My mother was a Mormon, a highly moral person but there is no way she would want to be the way she is for the sake of a bunch of frozen eggs. You can believe in God without being a moral absolutist.
To believe what you do requires a triple-assumption;1)there is a higher power, 2)he/she/it cares about what we do and judges us, 3)he/she/it doesn't differentiate between grown adults and genetic material, because all life has the same intrinsic value. I'm supposed to accept my mother's suffering and the suffering of countless others now and in the future based on that reasoning? Utterly laughable.
"I wish also that you could see that a God who is present in our universe is a blessing to us. It is for me the underpinnings of what makes life, including potential life so precious. No one has to believe in a being beyond ourselves to think that life has meaning outside of our minute spheres, but to understand that if God does exist then it must be true that at the very least, our lives matter to God."
A God who would sent an embryonic soul to hell for all eternity is not a blessing, sorry. And if that's not what you believe in, then you haven't provided a valid reason that frozen embryos shouldn't be used for some good. If your belief in God leads you to believe that all potential life is equal to existing life, or that more life is always better, then that is an excellent demonstration of how faith can pervert the most basic sense of priority. To accept (much less encourage) overpopulation is to create a lower quality of life for many people for the sake of your personal faith. That is atrocious. To believe that embryos without any personal attachment to anyone in the world are equal to living people who are suffering is equally reprehensible. We are talking about real people here. You can postulate and pontificate about the value of potential life and when life begins all you want, but the value of actual people is not up for such debate. Real people have priority in our society, period!
Moral absolutism is indefensible. It is, in fact, immoral. Your willingness to accept the suffering of people's loved ones for the sake of frozen eggs demonstrates both.
Should read "send" instead of "sent". There may be other typos, since I drove all night.