On the Protection of Embryonic Life

[Agnapostate]

I made a little inquiry to Cesspoolie earlier, and I thought it might make an interesting question to pose to the general posters here.

"I can't imagine what ethical ground Bush could have claimed for his fervent mentions of the protection of human embryos. Millions of embryos die in the United States each year as a result of natural processes. Since Bush claims that the protection of human embryos is such a critical priority, why did he never devote federal funds to research of this phenomenon, so that he might end this apparent genocide?"

Thoughts?

 

[Diuretic]

When I say I want to be free from the influence of religion, this is exactly on point.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Thoughts about Bush? I'd rather forget all about him.

Thoughts about using embryos for research, that's an interesting topic. Lots of ethical dilemmas in that.

Yet we allow a possibly mentall illy woman to have in vitro implantation of eight embryos and give birth to all eight even though she already has six other children.

The doctors were doing a research study, and she was a willing participant. No one considered the moral consequences of 14 children being cared for by a single mentally ill woman with very little support financially, socially or emotionally.

 

[Diuretic]

If you remove religion from the embryonic research issue I think the ethical dilemmas disappear. But I'd be happy to acknowledge any that actually do exist of course.

The woman having the babies - I haven't kept up I'm afraid. If she is mentally ill and allowed to participate in a programme then something's badly wrong there.

 

[Agnapostate]

The lack of responses is telling. If there were a mass plague or epidemic that wiped out large parts of the human adult population, disease prevention would be one of the most critical components of any policy plans. The fact that anti-abortionists have apparently never considered the issue of embryos that die spontaneously indicates that they apparently don't consider embryonic human life to be equivalent to self-aware human life.

 

[Care4all]

Thoughts about Bush? I'd rather forget all about him.

Thoughts about using embryos for research, that's an interesting topic. Lots of ethical dilemmas in that.

Yet we allow a possibly mentall illy woman to have in vitro implantation of eight embryos and give birth to all eight even though she already has six other children.

The doctors were doing a research study, and she was a willing participant. No one considered the moral consequences of 14 children being cared for by a single mentally ill woman with very little support financially, socially or emotionally.

1. YOU do not know that she is mentally ill, you have taken what her mom said about her and diagnosed her as mentally ill, ALL ON YOUR OWN.

2. JUST because it is not your choice to be a mother of 14 and not your destiny to be a mother of 14 does not mean that YOU have the right to make certain that no one else does.

you can argue that she just must be mentally ill and you can argue that you think she couldn't possibly be able to take care of all of these children as a single mother yah dee dah, when YOU have NO IDEA what so ever if that is true...

but in the end....you are not the "Decider" on someone else's personal affairs and I don't believe you want others to be the "Decider" on your own personal affairs.

What is the obsession with this woman that brings out the vile side of people? Do you know? Interesting, similar response on a lot of people....

Care

 

[Care4all]

on the frozen fertilized eggs, i have no problem with them being discarded by some, adopted by others or whatever...to me, the fertilized egg has not attached to the uterus...conception takes place when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus imo....ONLY THEN is a child to be, conceived.

the fertilized egg before being implanted in the uterus, is only potentially a human's life.,,,happens all the time naturally and many fertilized eggs never implant themselves in the uterus and just flush themselves out.....and a pregnancy never takes place, conception never takes place.

 

[Agnapostate]

I didn't say anything about frozen fertilized eggs. I'm referring to actively existing embryos that spontaneously die. Many pregnancies end in this manner.

 

[Care4all]

I didn't say anything about frozen fertilized eggs. I'm referring to actively existing embryos that spontaneously die. Many pregnancies end in this manner.

yes they do.... women spontaneously abort quite often, within the first 3 months of pregnancy but primarily within the first few weeks naturally for many various reasons all resulting in the woman's body not being ''ready'' to carry a child.

there is already research done on this...as example, high or low testosterone levels can cause this....thus they monitor such and shoot you with hormone accordingly...if you are trying to have a child.

 

[Eightball]

I made a little inquiry to Cesspoolie earlier, and I thought it might make an interesting question to pose to the general posters here.

"It can't imagine what ethical ground Bush could have claimed for his fervent mentions of the protection of human embryos. Millions of embryos die in the United States each year as a result of natural processes. Since Bush claims that the protection of human embryos is such a critical priority, why did he never devote federal funds to research of this phenomenon, so that he might end this apparent genocide?"

Thoughts?

That part of the quote is the "key" to the debate in my estimation.

Natural process versus "man helped" or "man inspired" or "manmade", is the question or the ethics dilemma. It's "man's hand/help", that does not result in a "natural process" of death, but precipitates it ahead of natural timing.

From my Christian/biblical perspective, it is "interference" in the natural timing or process of Creative intelligence or authorship.

Also keep in mind, that those who hold to a "Creative" God, aspect, ultimately see or perceive life as not a result of coming from primordial soup, and thus, just a more complex organic based molecule or molecular structure that is self-sustaining.

They(religious/Christians, ect.) perceive from their philosophical/religious foundation that "life" is unique from non-self sustaining(replicating) complex molecular structures.

At the base or bottom of this debate is the most abused word, "faith". Faith in a Creator or ultimate source of life, or the energy that sustains or maintains life, is at issue.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Thoughts about Bush? I'd rather forget all about him.

Thoughts about using embryos for research, that's an interesting topic. Lots of ethical dilemmas in that.

Yet we allow a possibly mentall illy woman to have in vitro implantation of eight embryos and give birth to all eight even though she already has six other children.

The doctors were doing a research study, and she was a willing participant. No one considered the moral consequences of 14 children being cared for by a single mentally ill woman with very little support financially, socially or emotionally.

1. YOU do not know that she is mentally ill, you have taken what her mom said about her and diagnosed her as mentally ill, ALL ON YOUR OWN.

2. JUST because it is not your choice to be a mother of 14 and not your destiny to be a mother of 14 does not mean that YOU have the right to make certain that no one else does.

you can argue that she just must be mentally ill and you can argue that you think she couldn't possibly be able to take care of all of these children as a single mother yah dee dah, when YOU have NO IDEA what so ever if that is true...

but in the end....you are not the "Decider" on someone else's personal affairs and I don't believe you want others to be the "Decider" on your own personal affairs.

What is the obsession with this woman that brings out the vile side of people? Do you know? Interesting, similar response on a lot of people....

Care

1. I don't know for certain this woman is mentally ill and you don't know that she isn't. If she is, she still gets to choose to have 14 children.

2. We're on the same side. This woman has decided to do this. As it happens, she took part in a research study. If these children came into the world to glorify science and mother's decision that she wanted more children, that's life. That doesn't mean the quality of life for this family isn't an issue worth discussing.

3. We don't consider the moral consequences of limiting this woman's family size through forced sterilization either. I wouldn't want to down that moral road.

4. Are you calling me vile?

5. This woman has become the Terry Schiavo of in-vitro fertilization. Another private matter that is now news entertainment.

 

[Valerie]

I made a little inquiry to Cesspoolie earlier, and I thought it might make an interesting question to pose to the general posters here.

"It can't imagine what ethical ground Bush could have claimed for his fervent mentions of the protection of human embryos. Millions of embryos die in the United States each year as a result of natural processes. Since Bush claims that the protection of human embryos is such a critical priority, why did he never devote federal funds to research of this phenomenon, so that he might end this apparent genocide?"

Thoughts?

That part of the quote is the "key" to the debate in my estimation.

Natural process versus "man helped" or "man inspired" or "manmade", is the question or the ethics dilemma. It's "man's hand/help", that does not result in a "natural process" of death, but precipitates it ahead of natural timing.

From my Christian/biblical perspective, it is "interference" in the natural timing or process of Creative intelligence or authorship.

Also keep in mind, that those who hold to a "Creative" God, aspect, ultimately see or perceive life as not a result of coming from primordial soup, and thus, just a more complex organic based molecule or molecular structure that is self-sustaining.

They(religious/Christians, ect.) perceive from their philosophical/religious foundation that "life" is unique from non-self sustaining(replicating) complex molecular structures.

At the base or bottom of this debate is the most abused word, "faith". Faith in a Creator or ultimate source of life, or the energy that sustains or maintains life, is at issue.

I think our human ability to analyze information in order to progress the battle against deadly disease by scientific method is also a part of the natural process. It would be inhumane not to try cure diseases, wouldn't it?

 

[Care4all]

Thoughts about Bush? I'd rather forget all about him.

Thoughts about using embryos for research, that's an interesting topic. Lots of ethical dilemmas in that.

Yet we allow a possibly mentall illy woman to have in vitro implantation of eight embryos and give birth to all eight even though she already has six other children.

The doctors were doing a research study, and she was a willing participant. No one considered the moral consequences of 14 children being cared for by a single mentally ill woman with very little support financially, socially or emotionally.

1. YOU do not know that she is mentally ill, you have taken what her mom said about her and diagnosed her as mentally ill, ALL ON YOUR OWN.

2. JUST because it is not your choice to be a mother of 14 and not your destiny to be a mother of 14 does not mean that YOU have the right to make certain that no one else does.

you can argue that she just must be mentally ill and you can argue that you think she couldn't possibly be able to take care of all of these children as a single mother yah dee dah, when YOU have NO IDEA what so ever if that is true...

but in the end....you are not the "Decider" on someone else's personal affairs and I don't believe you want others to be the "Decider" on your own personal affairs.

What is the obsession with this woman that brings out the vile side of people? Do you know? Interesting, similar response on a lot of people....

Care

1. I don't know for certain this woman is mentally ill and you don't know that she isn't. If she is, she still gets to choose to have 14 children.

2. We're on the same side. This woman has decided to do this. As it happens, she took part in a research study. If these children came into the world to glorify science and mother's decision that she wanted more children, that's life. That doesn't mean the quality of life for this family isn't an issue worth discussing.

3. We don't consider the moral consequences of limiting this woman's family size through forced sterilization either. I wouldn't want to down that moral road.

4. Are you calling me vile?

5. This woman has become the Terry Schiavo of in-vitro fertilization. Another private matter that is now news entertainment.

1. true, except you would think the fertility doc of the past 7 years would have noted it...?

2. yes we are

3. good!

4. no not you, and not even calling the people that are so upset about this vile, just some emotional responses they have had, as vile!

5. yes, and it is none of our business, a family matter...no matter how shocking.

mccaughey septuplets born in iowa, 11 years later, live in a 6500 ft home, out of the generosity of others....

 

[Agnapostate]

I made a little inquiry to Cesspoolie earlier, and I thought it might make an interesting question to pose to the general posters here.

"It can't imagine what ethical ground Bush could have claimed for his fervent mentions of the protection of human embryos. Millions of embryos die in the United States each year as a result of natural processes. Since Bush claims that the protection of human embryos is such a critical priority, why did he never devote federal funds to research of this phenomenon, so that he might end this apparent genocide?"

Thoughts?

That part of the quote is the "key" to the debate in my estimation.

Natural process versus "man helped" or "man inspired" or "manmade", is the question or the ethics dilemma. It's "man's hand/help", that does not result in a "natural process" of death, but precipitates it ahead of natural timing.

From my Christian/biblical perspective, it is "interference" in the natural timing or process of Creative intelligence or authorship.

Also keep in mind, that those who hold to a "Creative" God, aspect, ultimately see or perceive life as not a result of coming from primordial soup, and thus, just a more complex organic based molecule or molecular structure that is self-sustaining.

They(religious/Christians, ect.) perceive from their philosophical/religious foundation that "life" is unique from non-self sustaining(replicating) complex molecular structures.

At the base or bottom of this debate is the most abused word, "faith". Faith in a Creator or ultimate source of life, or the energy that sustains or maintains life, is at issue.

Then why bother trying to cure diseases in general?

 

[Eightball]

I made a little inquiry to Cesspoolie earlier, and I thought it might make an interesting question to pose to the general posters here.

"It can't imagine what ethical ground Bush could have claimed for his fervent mentions of the protection of human embryos. Millions of embryos die in the United States each year as a result of natural processes. Since Bush claims that the protection of human embryos is such a critical priority, why did he never devote federal funds to research of this phenomenon, so that he might end this apparent genocide?"

Thoughts?

That part of the quote is the "key" to the debate in my estimation.

Natural process versus "man helped" or "man inspired" or "manmade", is the question or the ethics dilemma. It's "man's hand/help", that does not result in a "natural process" of death, but precipitates it ahead of natural timing.

From my Christian/biblical perspective, it is "interference" in the natural timing or process of Creative intelligence or authorship.

Also keep in mind, that those who hold to a "Creative" God, aspect, ultimately see or perceive life as not a result of coming from primordial soup, and thus, just a more complex organic based molecule or molecular structure that is self-sustaining.

They(religious/Christians, ect.) perceive from their philosophical/religious foundation that "life" is unique from non-self sustaining(replicating) complex molecular structures.

At the base or bottom of this debate is the most abused word, "faith". Faith in a Creator or ultimate source of life, or the energy that sustains or maintains life, is at issue.

I think our human ability to analyze information in order to progress the battle against deadly disease by scientific method is also a part of the natural process. It would be inhumane not to try cure diseases, wouldn't it?

Valerie: Most definitely!...... is my answer to your question posed in your last paragraph. I whole heartedly believe that man has been endowed with intelligence, foresight, and the ability to use the before-mentioned qualities to invent, discover, create, life enhancing methods, medications, methodologies( surgery), and devices to bless mankind with less or no suffering from many maladies.

My middle son is in need of a third kidney transplant, but at this time is doing Peritoneal dialysis, which eliminates having to be hooked to a hemo-dialysis machine. With this new innovation, it give my son a quality of life never before considered. He does it at home, and can live out a pretty normal daily life otherwise. If interested, click the web address below, and you will be able to understand how this type of dialysis works.
Peritoneal dialysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*******
I guess my previous explanation would be centered around the area of "determination of life", and also thought or presumption about who, what, why, and how man determines dominion in the case of Embryionic life.

 

[Eightball]

I made a little inquiry to Cesspoolie earlier, and I thought it might make an interesting question to pose to the general posters here.

"It can't imagine what ethical ground Bush could have claimed for his fervent mentions of the protection of human embryos. Millions of embryos die in the United States each year as a result of natural processes. Since Bush claims that the protection of human embryos is such a critical priority, why did he never devote federal funds to research of this phenomenon, so that he might end this apparent genocide?"

Thoughts?

That part of the quote is the "key" to the debate in my estimation.

Natural process versus "man helped" or "man inspired" or "manmade", is the question or the ethics dilemma. It's "man's hand/help", that does not result in a "natural process" of death, but precipitates it ahead of natural timing.

From my Christian/biblical perspective, it is "interference" in the natural timing or process of Creative intelligence or authorship.

Also keep in mind, that those who hold to a "Creative" God, aspect, ultimately see or perceive life as not a result of coming from primordial soup, and thus, just a more complex organic based molecule or molecular structure that is self-sustaining.

They(religious/Christians, ect.) perceive from their philosophical/religious foundation that "life" is unique from non-self sustaining(replicating) complex molecular structures.

At the base or bottom of this debate is the most abused word, "faith". Faith in a Creator or ultimate source of life, or the energy that sustains or maintains life, is at issue.

Then why bother trying to cure diseases in general?

Valarie asked a similar question, and I addressed it to the best of my ability. Please read my reply to Valerie.

Note: I am 100% for all that mankind can do ethically to help the suffering, aged, new born, unborn, from disease, injury, etc.. via medicine, surgical proceedures, therapys.....etc...

 

[Agnapostate]

But if embryonic life is morally equivalent to older human life, then why not expend equivalent amounts of aid on researching preventing the spontaneous death that I referred to?

 

[frazzledgear]

I made a little inquiry to Cesspoolie earlier, and I thought it might make an interesting question to pose to the general posters here.

"I can't imagine what ethical ground Bush could have claimed for his fervent mentions of the protection of human embryos. Millions of embryos die in the United States each year as a result of natural processes. Since Bush claims that the protection of human embryos is such a critical priority, why did he never devote federal funds to research of this phenomenon, so that he might end this apparent genocide?"

Thoughts?

You really can't see the difference? You mean because millions of embryos die NATURALLY, that means we would be justified in creating a human embryo for the specific purpose of then killing it in order to harvest its cells? Most bioethicists do not agree with you. That's like saying that because a lot of 50 year olds die naturally every day, I'm justified in killing a 50 year old so I can steal his possessions.

Apparently bioethicists, Bush and a whole lot of other people recognize this for what it is -even though you can't. Creating a human life in order to kill it and harvest it for its parts so that another, but older human life may benefit -IS A FORM OF CANNIBALISM.

 

[Agnapostate]

And if millions of 50 year olds died "naturally," it seems that there would be a mass expenditure of funds to research and prevent this death. I'm merely asking why Bush, or why his supporters, have not devoted the same attention to the death of embryos.

 

[Ravi]

And if millions of 50 year olds died "naturally," it seems that there would be a mass expenditure of funds to research and prevent this death. I'm merely asking why Bush, or why his supporters, have not devoted the same attention to the death of embryos.

They only use the unborn as a tool to control people.