just gave this some thought....

To those of us who believe that life begins at conception destroying an embryo for any reason is morally wrong, whether it is conceived in a petri dish (or wherever) or inside a womb. Those who have been able to conceive through invitro fertilization will tell you that what was implanted in them was the beginning of their son or daughter.

Embryo - In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

God is the giver of all life. When the angel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife because *that which is conceived in her* is of the Holy Spirit I don't believe we were talking many months' gestation. Mary was obviously very early on in her pregnancy and God had a special plan for this Child as he does for every child.

What bothers me is the criticism of the president because of his religious faith. How is it that some can't see that he has a right to his beliefs as much as anyone else and there are many that support his beliefs as well. I thought America was a land of religious freedom. How can those of you without religious faith fault a man because he is following his, as are millions of others.

But what I don't understand is why you can be against something when they use a fetus that would be otherwise thrown away IN THE TRASH? Wouldn't it be better to use it to find out ways to cure diseases?

I'm not bringing religious beliefs into it at all. If an abortion already happened, why can't we put the fetus to use instead of throw it away?

Aly, my own personal answer to this would be that it further gives an impetus for abortion. After all, many would say, when we kill an embryo/fetus we are saving others. I just don't think God sees it that way. I can't speak for the President but I do have enormous respect for him to be able to stand against the tide for his convictions. Forgive me for this, as I am really not an argumentative person, but Kerry doesn't seem to stand for anything at all. He vacillates with the tides.....errr, polls/public opinion. I should stop now before everyone hates me, especially you for whom I have the utmost respect. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pam
Aly, my own personal answer to this would be that it further gives an impetus for abortion. After all, many would say, when we kill an embryo/fetus we are saving others. I just don't think God sees it that way. I can't speak for the President but I do have enormous respect for him to be able to stand against the tide for his convictions. Forgive me for this, as I am really not an argumentative person, but Kerry doesn't seem to stand for anything at all. He vacillates with the tides.....errr, polls/public opinion. I should stop now before everyone hates me, especially you for whom I have the utmost respect. :)

---

I agree that people would see it as, "Well since we are using the aborted babies we can save others so there really isn't anything wrong with it." I agree that it might encourage abortion. JMHO. Oh, and Pam, I don't hate you. ;)

Thanks Pam. I wasn't trying to argue with you and I have complete respect for you as well. (That is why I haven't replied to anything you wrote in the other political threads! :D :D ) I can agree to disagree on this one. I was just curious about the reasoning.

As I said before, I personally think abortion is wrong unless the mother is at risk. But I do support stem cell research because the fetus has already been aborted and would be in the trash otherwise. It affects me very personally. I just wonder if Bush would have the same stance on it if (heaven forbid) he had one of the diseases that could possibly be cured from it. Things are so much different when you are experiencing them yourself :(

Pam I certainly would not condemn Bush because he has religious beliefs and I don't, but then again I would not want his beliefs rammed down my throat, but even though I am not an american and eligible to vote, the president voted in could well have an affect on my life and indeed does worldwide really.

Am I so wrong in wanting continuing life for myself and my children, we have all made a contribution to this world ,and to me it is not at the expense of another, because that if NOT my belief,because this is so personal , and close to my heart, I just have to say what I am thinking.

No-one hates you here, I respect your opinion and beliefs, mine are just different.

So far this thread has remained calm and no-one has become nasty, and that is the way I would prefer it to stay, we can all share points of views , even one as contoversial as this and not result to mean-ness.

Aly you and I are on the same wave length here, I guess until you walk in our shoes, you never really know what its like.:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aly
I just wonder if Bush would have the same stance on it if (heaven forbid) he had one of the diseases that could possibly be cured from it. Things are so much different when you are experiencing them yourself :(

---

Aly I obviously can't answer this for the president, but I think I might have told you quite some time ago that my daughter, while pregnant, developed gestational diabetes. Having first hand knowledge of this disease now, if only for the nine month period, I can totally understand your feelings. I wish there was some other way and some other research that we could turn to for this as well as other diseases. Maybe we can agree to pray for a cure in the meantime. :) Thanks for being so kind in your response. :)

Now wouldn't that be a wonderful thing.!!!:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by carole

---

Carol, thank you also for keeping this civil. My only reply is that President Bush is not ramming anything down anyone's throat. He is acting on what he believes is morally correct and many agree with his stance. You can't expect him to betray himself can you? If the majority of the citizens find his beliefs not in alignment with theirs he will be voted out of office. Unfortunately I feel this would be a grave mistake. JMHO.

You raised good points there Pam, of course you are right, he cannot betray himself, everyone should stick up for what they believe, which is exactly what you and I have done here right?

I really don't know too much about either candidate, but I do take an interest, the president of America is a mighty powerful man, and what he does and says affects many countries.

My only point in the beginning was really that the fact Kerry supports something very important to me and Bush does not, would sway my voting if I were an american, and indeed it may well do for many.

Here's to whoever the American public vote in and may the best man win.;)
Cheers everyone.:)

Again, the president has not banned funding on stem cell research. He has banned Federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research that is done outside the 76 lines of viable stem cells.

Senator Kerry, with all his preaching about funding for medical research has in fact tacitly blocked funding for a disease by not co sponsoring a bill for it after one of his constituents brought the bill to his attention and requested that he co sponsor it so it could go to committee for a vote. He refused, and in doing so blocked funding for ALS (Lou Gerhig's Disease). The reply I got from his office after I wrote to him asking him to co sponsor the bil was "ALS is not of National importance at this time". This is the person that we want in charge of the country? A Senator who's staff refuses to acknowledge the importance of a disease which Kills 30,000 people every year?

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of this, you only get half the picture here, media reports only what it wants.

Hmm well certainly gives food for thought, guess I probably would have to re-consider if I were an american voter, and really toss up who is the better man for the job.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lady's Human
Again, the president has not banned funding on stem cell research. He has banned Federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research that is done outside the 76 lines of viable stem cells.

---

That is what I was referring to .. sorry, I just didn't clarify well enough.

I remember that from the debates. Kerry did mention that Bush had also cut WAY back on the stem cell research budget to where they could do almost nothing anyway. I wish I could explain it more clearly, but my brain is mush today.

Let me start off by stating that I am not here to promote my stance on this issue, in this forum. But I do have a question(s) for you all and I hope that the responses will be measured, thoughtful and most especially, without flaming or invective. My hope is that an intelligent discussion, an exploration of our perhaps differing thoughts and ideas on this issue might ensue.

Bringing the subject of abortion into any converstion naturally inflames passions. But in regards to embryonic stem cell research, aborted fetus' and embryos are not the sole source of embryonic cells for research, though the debate here currently seems to be primarily focused around the abortion issue.

But leaving the subject of embryonic stem cell research out of the equation for a moment, I'm curious to hear how you all feel about the efficacy of in vitro fertilization in and of itself; a decades old procedure that unlike abortion, has helped hundereds of thousands of otherwise infertile couples conceive and create life. Eggs are harvested from the woman during each cycle then fertilized with the husband's sperm in a laboratory, in a petrie dish, and kept frozen for future implantation. Once a successful implantation is acheived, the remaining frozen, fertilized embryos are discarded; thrown away.

For those perhaps unfamiliar with the procedure, here's a brief overview

Taken from the website http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm which presents all sides of the issues in a balanced forum.

Overview:
A stem cell is a primitive type of cell that can be coaxed into developing into most of the 220 types of cells found in the human body (e.g. blood cells, heart cells, brain cells, etc). Some researchers regard them as offering the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the development of antibiotics. Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that may eventually be treated more effectively with stem cells or even cured. These include heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

Stem cells can be extracted from very young human embryos -- typically from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures at fertility clinics. There are currently about 100,000 surplus embryos in storage. However, a minority of pro-lifers and a majority of pro-life organizations object to the use of embryos. They feel that a few-days-old embryo is a human person. Extracting its stem cells kills the embryo -- an act that they consider murder. Stem cells can now be grown in the laboratory, so (in a pinch) some research can be done using existing stem cells. No further harvesting needs to be made from embryos. However, existing stem cell lines are gradually degrading and will soon be useless for research.


So, my question(s) for you all are these:

Do you believe there is an ethical difference between abortion and in vitro fertilization and if so, what is it and how do you suporrt your conclusion?

Can you be against abortion but support in vitro fertilization? Both result in the "death" of potentially viable embryos.

If you do find a distinction between the two, and support in vitro fertilization, would you rather see these potentially viable, unused, fertilized, embryonic cells simply discarded after successful implantion or donated by the couple for medical research.

Thanks. I look forward to reading your responses.

Wow Sandra, thank you so much for that post. It is full of interesting points and information. I am going to read that site some more before I comment, but I really hope that people are still reading this thread and will see your post. I am very interested to hear peoples' opinions.

Sandra, I hadn't thought about that topic before. Now that I think about it I do see a similarity between abortion and the disposal of excess in vitro fertilized embryos. Thank you for raising this point in such a eloquent way--it is good food for thought and discussion.

Thanks ladies. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Having worked in the medical profession the majority of my adult life and having been witness to more than my share of heartwrenching suffering and as well, having strong religious beliefs, it is an issue that has been in the forefront of my thinking for some time now and conflicted me too.

Sandra as I said I personally am not in favor of “disposing” of life no matter how it is done. In our lifetime new technology breaks on the scene everyday and with it comes the dilemma of ethics. I can tell you that a couple that I knew a few years ago tried to adopt a baby and there were none available (white, healthy, etc.) They were told they would be on the waiting list for years because, due to the legalization of abortion, there were just not that many available. What a web we weave. *sigh* They then attempted invitro fertilization. Of course its purpose is to bring forth life. The embryos that are discarded after the procedure has been successful are a tragedy and I feel that it is morally wrong to do so. We will be faced with many more challenges in the years ahead. In the past God decided when people were to be born and when they were to die. As we live longer and technology explodes there will be more dilemmas and man will have to continue to play God. When faced with such issues I grieve for where we have been and where we are going. I cannot support killing the unborn or 'mercy killings' for the elderly.

Thank you, Sandra, for posting such a thought provoking message. Once again, I am confused. :o I am totally against abortion, but then again, I have friends who have only been able to have children because of invitro fertilization. :confused: And what wonderful parents they are, and how blessed those children are!

I guess it is ok to be "on the fence" about this whole issue, which I am. More thoughts later, if I get some enlightenment!

Logan

Again, Cah lee fuh nee ah leading the way.


http://calvoter.org/voter/elections/...ps/prop71.html

I saw on the news today how Mel Gibson is being very vocal about how he doesn't support stem cell research. He and Arnold are a little bit at each other's throats right now.

Mel was saying that even if he had a disease and embryotic stem cell research offered a cure for it, he would rather die than use it.

For those who are against the embryotic stem cell research, do you agree with Mel? Would you die before you used it to cure your disease?

NO aly I would not rather die than find a cure this way, I have a husband and two children and two furbabies who need me in their life very much, and besides I want my life to continue for as long as possible.

Some would agree and say yes, but the proof would be in the pudding as the saying goes, when and if they were actually faced with this situation, talk is cheap., I have to wonder if it were Mel's children faced with this, if he would still feel the same way?

Because I believe in this research, does not mean I would go to any lengths to save my life, but for me there is no conscience, I have no problem with it, and my beliefs don't interfere with that in any way.

Jumping back in again... :)

Pam, regarding Bush acting on what HE believes to be morally right, etc the whole thing is what HE thinks to be morally right may not be what everyone else believes to be right. Hence my point on Presidential decisions should not be coloured by personal biases.

I do think that most stem cell research comes from the already aborted fetus, and/or discarded umbilical cords, which is why I said it is tied very closely to the right to choose. If a woman chooses, either for health reasons or whatever else, to abort the fetus why shouldn't that fetus then be used for research that may one day save millions of lives? THe way I see it, women will ALWAYS have abortions, whether safely and legally, or with drugs in their bathroom. It's going to happen. So why not embrace the right to choose, make sure the women have a safe, clean environment, then use the fetus for good?

Saying definitely what you would do if ever faced with the possibility of an abortion is very hard to do unless you've actually been there. I had often told myself I would NEVER do it. I have a friend who was SO against abortion, until something happened to her and she had to make the choice. It is one of the hardest decisions to make.

I was just scrolling around and happened upon this thread. I hate to start this going again since the last post was a few days ago, but after reading the posts, I did a bit of research on fetuses in general. Just FYI, I am pro-life, and am against stem cell research and in vitro fertilization, but that is totally in my own opinion and do not want to try and change anyones. Also, I am quite impressed about the nature of the discussion on this thread! :D So civil, and everyone is bringing up great points. I hope the information I am about to post is enlightening....

After researching a few different websites, I was able to decipher that the heartbeat of "fetus" (for argument's sake) begins at about 18-21 days. At this point, the fetus is in a worm-like shape, not resembling a human in most forms.

12 or so days after conception, the cells that are forming into the fetus begin to produce hormones that can be detected in the urine. Shortly after this time, women may tend to notice that their menstural cycle is late, brining them to use a home-pregnancy test.

So, if someone noticed they were "late" on the 12th day and there were enough hormones to detect a positive pregnancy...there is a slim (but possible) chance that they would be in to have an abortion before the 18-21st day of pregnancy, when the heartbeat begins.

I don't want to impose my views on this subject to anyone, but thought that the timing in conception, development, and abortion was interesting. URL=http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm]http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm[/URL] is one of the websites I used, but this one was the most comprehensive.

Thank you for allowing me to post this information. Like I said, I am very impressed with the make-up of this "debate" and find everyone's opinions very interesting and worth-while! This issue is very deep and there will never be an "agreement" on the topic, but to be able to discuss all the sides in such a civil manner will really help to clear up a lot of confusion from both sides. :D

Thank you so much for your valuable input, I started the thread and I too am happy to see it going so well, with everyone keeping their cool and debating this in an adult matter.,especially as it is a very controversial one.

I find what you say very interesting indeed and not something I was aware of.

Yes a lot of us will just have to respectfully agree to disagree on this subject, as we all have our views and although I am not prepared to change mine, I do accept others and respect them.

This has been and I hope it will remain a civil discusstion. Ladys Human had Pam have pretty much stated my feelings.
I just have a couple of thoughts to add. As a diabetic also I would love to be able to wake up every morning feeling like I was a live ,not stiff and confused . They are othe cell researches going on that could help me . But .... the embronic researchers are getting all the funding ( squeeky wheel thing) They are so close and now it has been slowed to a crawl. How do you decide which diseases are more imoprtant that others.
I heard a report (can't remeber from source) that they can only use embronic lines 3 generations then they seem to degrade. But using adult cells they don't . It seems to me that if you need a liver you would use liver cells , pancreas you use those cells. I am a little fuzzy on what is so great about and why embronic cells are being used for all research.
As side note I saw my grandson at 14 weeks he not only had a heartbeat but hands and feet he was evern trying to suck his thumb. I can't imangine any one cuttting him up as a research project . Just becouse he was a spontanious abortion ( daughter had a huge blood infection) He still was a baby. We even got his creamated remains back.
as to invitro, Have lots of freinds whom can't conceive all have opted for not perfect adopted children ,just becouse of the destroying of unused embroys. There are lots of children avalible but if you want PERFECT kids the wait can be long. Most of my freinds lovingly have deaf, blind, downs and kids that have cancers . These kids would have been in stste foster care for ever if not for big open hearts.
My last point , kind of a pet(sorry) peeve . Overseas adoptions when there are lots of not perfect kids here. (Boy I should have stayed away from the dog house on this Thread)

I, too, am glad this has managed to remain civil. Everyone has put forth some very good points.

I only have one last comment, regarding shutterbug (i think it was you! hehe) being against invitro. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, I would just like to say in defense of invitro, for someone such as myself it may be that the only way I would be able to have a child with my genes. It's a modern, scientific miracle that allows couples who would normally be unable to conceive to have children. :) Personally, I can't wait!

Heinz...that makes total sense to me!! :D I definitely respect that. The only part about invitro I'm not sure about (and I am still debating this point myself) is the fact that science is attempting to "play God" in a sense. Maybe there is a reason why someone is unable to have children...it is God's plan for them. But that is bringing in my religious beliefs...I totally respect your plans though, and good luck!! :D I guess that is my issue with abortion as well. My Bible upbringing gives me great respect for the unborn...and even the "not yet concieved". Jeremiah 29:11 says: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD , "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."" Also, Jeremiah 1:5 says: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." So, these are the passages I go on...God has a purpose and plan for each of us. But like I said, I am bringing my religious beliefs into this...and don't want to try and force them on anyone at all. Just more food for thought :D

p.s. I have some other thoughts/questions on this topic (invitro) but I don't think I can post them on here...they may be a bit "graphic" in a sense....?!?!?! :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by shutterbug0303
p.s. I have some other thoughts/questions on this topic (invitro) but I don't think I can post them on here...they may be a bit "graphic" in a sense....?!?!?! :confused:

---

I say if you have ?'s, start a thread in the dog house and ask away! hehe I'm sure Karen will let us know if it gets too, uh, "too". lol

Given that adult stem cell research is showing great promise, and embryonic stem cell research is an issue that the jury is still very much out on, I would personaly like to see the research continue on adult stem cell treatments continue as the main effort. My main problem with the embryonic stem cell research issue is that it has been politicized to the point that it has been.
As someone on a military message board said, the reason that the embryonic stem cell research people need federal funding is that so far adult stem cell research has shown more promise, fewer side effects in testing, etc., so all the private money (or the bulk of it) is going toward adult stem cell research. If Glaxco Smith, etc thought they could make money off of it they would be funding the research themselves, much like biotech startups have done with other research projects.

That having been said, my sincere thanks to the people who have managed to engage in this debate without the vitriol and name calling that I have seen other PT threads devolve into.



:)

I also wish to thank everyone for their opinions and the manner in which this thread has continued, I knew it could be opening up a can of worms so to speak when I started the thread, but it was an issue that is very important to me, it just goes to show we can all have different views, but be adult and civil about it.

If indeed there is more chance of curing diseases using adult stem cells, then yes of course I would be all for that.,but to be honest if a cure is found and offered to my family I will be taking it.

I have valued each and every opinion from you all, and taken things into account I had not even thought about before, so it has been an interesting and informative debate.:)