posted on August 10, 2001 09:17:55 AM new
W's decision was purely political. The moral and ethical stands of certain voter blocks were taken into consideration, of course, but that's very different from making a decision based on morals or ethics. His Solomonlike decision was to consult with both claimant mothers, then present each with half the baby.
All the accusations that people are "playing god" by characterizing the use of undifferentiated cells as the taking of human life are based on the concept that human life begins at the "moment of conception", which is a fictitious construct. Meaning there ain't no such thing. One might as well say human life begins when the Easter Bunny says it does.
-gaffan- [email protected]
posted on August 10, 2001 09:25:55 AM new
I agree, REAMOND. The genie is out of the bottle. We in the US might as well ask for some miracles(cures). Someone certainly will pursue this research.
posted on August 10, 2001 09:41:58 AM newFor all those that are against stem cell research, think about this -- birth control pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting to the uterine wall.
I'm not sure this is an accurate representation of how birth control pills work.
posted on August 10, 2001 10:29:36 AM new
I am not a scientist and I dont pretend to be expert in any of this stuff. What I said is how I feel. It just smacks of wrongness to me, and thats my opinion, right or wrong or inbetween.
posted on August 10, 2001 11:22:17 AM new
As I understand it, birth control pills, via hormones, change body chemistry so that ovulation doesn't occur. Thus the previous claim that birth control pills prevent fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall is just plain wrong.
I think whoever said that may be confusing the Pill with an IUD, which irritates the uterine wall so that nothing attaches to it.
posted on August 10, 2001 11:27:53 AM new
All I know, hepburn, is that when you started talking about eating embryos that had dropped on the floor I got really grossed out.
posted on August 10, 2001 12:47:43 PM newWe were not meant to play God.
It's odd, I'm not overly religious but my thoughts keep returning to the fact that I believe God wouldn't have provided human's with the ability to research and find these potential disease fighters if He didn't want us to be utilizing them.
And yes, I realize that this analogy could be used to argue all human-based actions, and I don't readily believe they are all God's will - It's just a gut reaction that I'm having on this particular subject.
Rosie
Edited to capitalize pronoun
[ edited by RoseBids25cents on Aug 10, 2001 12:50 PM ]
posted on August 10, 2001 01:04:20 PM newI believe God wouldn't have provided human's with the ability to research and find these potential disease fighters if He didn't want us to be utilizing them.
Aren't you forgetting that this is the same God who gave the first two humans paradise yet placed a treeful of forbidden fruit within their midst?
posted on August 10, 2001 01:31:46 PM new
Birth Control pills indeed prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. They do not stop ovulation. The eggs are still produced, still released, but if fertilized, they won't implant. Birth Control pills are considered "abortioefficient" sp? by pro life groups, which means that a fertilized egg is denied implantation when using PC pills.
I had this same converstaion, with of all people a Catholic pro life pharmicist. He didn't believe birth control pills prevented implantation of fertilized eggs. He did a little research and found out different. He also won't fill prescriptions for abotion inducing drugs. He kinda had egg on his face when I told him what the birth control he and his wfie were using is equivalent to abortion, by his standards. I have no idea what they use now- sorta spoiled it for them eh ?
posted on August 10, 2001 01:32:34 PM new
Spaz, those oopsies were CHOCOLATE. Not embryos, lol. And they didnt drop on the floor per sey. They sortakinda landed on the hem of our pants (planned droppings...now THAT sounds gross, lol).
posted on August 10, 2001 01:38:10 PM new
Reamond,
Since you're so insistent that you're right about this, can you provide some concrete information, maybe a link to an objective scientific site that provides similar information to that which you've espoused?
posted on August 10, 2001 01:40:22 PM new
Regarding the Garden of Eden mythology- The "tree of knowledge" described in the bible was "knowledge" of right and wrong, not scientific knowledge. See your bible.
Adam and Eve had paradise as long as they had no concept of right and wrong, and thereby knowledge of guilt.
When they ate the fruit of "knowledge" they didn't come up with the theory of relativity, they developed guilt and shame because they were naked. The "knowledge" was the knowledge of moral right and wrong, not how the physical universe functions.
The moral of Adam and Eve is thus - remain ignorant of right and wrong and ye shall have paradise.
Many people read the bible.
Few actually understand it.
Fewer still study it in context.
And these few know why "literalists" are scoffed at.
posted on August 10, 2001 01:42:11 PM new
MSN is reporting this
Last month, a team of scientists at the Jones Institute used private funds to create human embryos for the sole purpose of obtaining their stem cells, apparently the first time this had been done. The Jones Institute used in vitro fertilization to create the embryos.
posted on August 10, 2001 01:52:21 PM new
Reamond,
I found this on the first site I looked at:
--------------------------------------------
The Chemistry of Contraception
Martin O'Malley, Owen Wood & Amy Foulkes
CBC News Online
There are two types of oral contraceptives: combination pills (containing estrogen and progestin) and progestin-only pills. Estrogen and progestin are hormones made in the ovaries.
Both pills are intended to prevent pregnancy, but they work in different ways:
Combination pills prevent a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs. (ovulation)
Progestin pills can also prevent ovulation, but they usually work by thickening cervical mucus. This prevents sperm from joining with an egg.
Combination pills also thicken cervical mucus, and both types of pill may also prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus (womb).
Sounds to me that birth control pills may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching if the user is not using The Pill properly and accidentally ovulates, or perhaps starts taking the Pill in mid-cycle, after an egg has already been released.
But if used properly, the Pill prevents ovulation altogether. Hence the question of whether a fertilized egg can attach to the uterine wall becomes moot.
In light of information like that posted above, it seems that your statement:
Birth Control pills indeed prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. They do not stop ovulation. The eggs are still produced, still released, but if fertilized, they won't implant.
posted on August 10, 2001 01:58:03 PM new
Actually, birth control pills work in a 3-fold manner:
1. They change the hormone levels in such a way that the the ovaries do not release an egg each month--the body "thinks" it's pregnant.
2. They change the level/consistency of the mucus in the woman's cervix, making it almost impossible for sperm to enter the uterus.
3. They make the lining of the uterus much thinner than normal, making it unlikely that any fertilized egg could attach itself to the lining.
Any number of sites will give you this info if you do a search on birth control pills. In fact, the last function of birth control pills I noted is the reason that some Fundamentalists are trying to get the Pill banned altogether: they view it as abortion.
posted on August 10, 2001 02:00:16 PM new
See link below. You'll note that one type of BC pill inhibits ovulation, but imperfectly, so this pill also prevents implantation. The second type doesn't inhibit ovulation, but also uses an implantation inhibitor. It is not impossible to become pregnant when using either type of BC pill. Implantation is prevented when using BC pills, should an egg become fertilized. These "fail safe" measures are due to unique body chemistry of users. Not having the anti-implantation effect of BC pills would result in more pregnancies of women while on BC pills. One study suggests that a 3% failure rate for BC pills (30 per 1000 users). So 3% of fertilized eggs implant even when the user is not even supposed to be ovulating. So how many fertilized eggs are denied implantation by the millions of women using BC pills ?? This non-implantation can oocur every month, and probably does for a woman whose body chemistry is not responding to the hormones as expected, but is responding to the anti-implantation, for the type of pill that is supposed to prevent ovulation.
The cost of BC pills would be enormous if each prescription had to filled to exacting standards of each individual female. The anti-implantation effect is the back-up for this uncertainty.
posted on August 10, 2001 02:02:58 PM newRegarding the Garden of Eden mythology- The "tree of knowledge" described in the bible was "knowledge" of right and wrong, not scientific knowledge. See your bible.
I guess the apple's effects have long since worn off, since many people no longer seem able to distinguish between right and wrong. Thier judgment has been eclipsed by self-interest.
posted on August 10, 2001 02:15:10 PM new
Reamond,
Your claim:
See link below. You'll note that one type of BC pill inhibits ovulation, but imperfectly, so this pill also prevents implantation.
is not supported by the article you linked to, which states:
The combination pill prevents ovulation by suppressing the natural hormones in the body that would stimulate the ovary to release an egg. By taking this estrogen throughout the month, you insure that no egg will be developed or released for that cycle.
It says nothing about it working imperfectly. In fact, it says that by taking this estrogen you insure that no egg is released.
posted on August 10, 2001 02:24:42 PM new
I guess the 3% failure rate for BC pills is some sort of miracle ? The bottom line is that the type of BC pill that is supposed to prevent ovulation doesn't do it 100%.
However, how the pills work is now irrelevant.
It has been demonstrated first, that BC pills can and do prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, second, even BC pills that are supposed to prevent ovulation don't do it 100% of the time.
Therefore, the point raised relating to the stem cell issue that using BC pills results in fertilized eggs being denied implantation in the case.
posted on August 10, 2001 03:37:24 PM new
At the risk of sounding absurdly obvious, is this not the same "when does life actually begin?" debate?...Which then means a very long argument from both the pro-life/pro-choice camps, with no winners just a bunch of folks with sore throats & fingers (from yelling).
I think Reamond is correct in the statements:
Stem cell research will continue regardless of Federal funding.The only difference will be whether people come to the U.S. for replacement parts or go to Great Britain or South Africa. And if the time comes in my life or the lives of my family, where medical treatment discovered thru stem cell (or animal) research becomes necessary, I would hope that I would not have to leave my country (not to mention the benefits of my medical insurance provider) to obtain these treatments.
In addition, if stem cell donors were needed, I would volunteer my eggs & DH's sperm. If our donation could in some when help to end the pain & suffering of another that would be all worth it.
For the record: Obviously I have a position in this battle, it is mine, based on my morals, ethics and bottom line of what I feel is right. Although I do not agree with the opinions on the other side, I respect everyone's right to their own opinion.
posted on August 10, 2001 03:44:47 PM new
Reamond,
I guess the 3% failure rate for BC pills is some sort of miracle ?
Sorry, but your point hasn't been "demonstrated." You seem to be pulling this 3% failure rate out of thin air, although you loosely attribute it to "one study." It is not mentioned at all in the link you provided.
It's like you're trying to throw "facts" at us, hope we won't question them, and then claim the last word by saying "Next issue?"
posted on August 10, 2001 04:33:08 PM new
"Failure rate of birth control pills
When using the pill, everyone knows that there is a slight failure possibility even if used correctly, but I have heard conflicting info on the stats. (assume perfect use)
I have heard:
1) 1 in 100 women failure rate
2) 1 in 1,000 women failure rate
Which is correct? There's a pretty big difference between those numbers!
From scientific studies where individuals have been highly motivated to comply, the pregnancy rate for the pills is 0.1% or 1 per 1000. Overall, however, the pregnancy rate in actual use is 3% or 30 per 1000. You are correct that this is a large difference.
Source for these numbers is Speroff et al, Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility, 5th edition, 1994, p. 689."
However, the point is not how or why BC pills fail, the is point that they do. One type of BC pill does not prevent ovulation, the other is supposed to but it doesn't always. In either case, implantation of a fertilized egg is prevented or pregnancy occurs.
The fact that BC pills cause abortions caused a stir in the pro life movement. Obviously the catholic faction is against any type of BC except "natural" methods. Their protestant allies are not against birth control. So what is the nature of BC pills ? Many pro life people would like to think that the abortion element to BC pills doesn't exist, when in fact it does. It is the pro life protestan't dirty little secret.
In any event, BC pills deny fertilized eggs implantation.
posted on August 10, 2001 04:36:51 PM new
spazmodeus, just so i understand your position, do you believe that an unfertilized egg is the beginning of life, or when it's fertilized? (or none of the above?)
posted on August 10, 2001 04:55:24 PM new
reamond,
I believe that the failure rates for birth control can probably be traced back to "operator error." I have known plenty of women (thankfully none I slept with) who figured it was okay to miss a day or two of their Pill, then just take three on the third day to make up for it.
kraftdinner,
I believe that life begins with the fertilization of the egg.
posted on August 10, 2001 06:21:27 PM new
Even though we might not agree spazmodeus, I still value your opinion and really wonder if a time will ever come when we will be able to reach some kind of middle ground.
Although I am pro-choice, I'm still not at all comfortable with abortions, but have a more flexable opinion about embryonic cells being used to help save some people from lives of misery.....I guess because I don't view these cells as human life yet, but that's just my opinion spaz, and not an attempt to play God by any means.
posted on August 11, 2001 05:23:13 AM new
"Operator error" may cause some failures. The individualized chemistry and endocrine function of the female causes failures. But even if "operator error" does not occur, pregnancies occur and fertilized eggs are denied implantation while on BC pills, as well as other birth control measures.
However, as I stated earlier, how many, why and how this occurs is not relevant to the issue, other than that it does occur.
So in effect, it is morally sound to deny and dispose of fertilized eggs through birth control measures, but it is not morally sound to use fertilized eggs for scientific research. It is not morally sound to fertilize eggs for scientific research but it is morally sound to fertilize while using birth control measures just to satisfy sexual urges. A severe tangent between these conclusions and a consistent moral basis.
Applying moral and quasi legal personage to molecules is unsound and morally unworkable.
An interesting aside regarding "when human begins" is found in the bible and guides at least some religious about abortion.
In the bible man is distinguished from other living things because he has a soul.
The bible claims that the soul is breathed into the individual by god through his/her nose.
A fetus' nose, while inutero, is actually plugged with mucous, even though the fetus respirates amiontic fluid via the mouth inutero. So until the plugs are removed and air can be passed through the nose, a fetus is not human.
Strange. However I didn't write it and don't believe any of it.
Another interesting note regarding human embryology is the phases of the embryo. Did you now at one point the fetus has gills like a fish and a tail similar to a primate? At certail points in development, mammal fetus' can hardly be distinguished in structure. We also have vestigial muscles at the base of our backbone which were for moving a tail in our distant past. These muscles obviously get little use ( even by women - LOL). However, most people love to have these muscles massaged, and due to the antrophy of these unused muscles, it gives a very pleasant feeling.
If you want to learn the truth about humans read Darwin et al. If you want to learn how to deceive and stir public emotions, read the bible.
posted on August 11, 2001 05:32:10 AM newAt the risk of sounding absurdly obvious, is this not the same "when does life actually begin?" debate?...Which then means a very long argument from both the pro-life/pro-choice camps, with no winners just a bunch of folks with sore throats & fingers
I think so. From where I sit, there is less of a moral issue with this research than with late term abortions. If we allow the latter, how can we ban the research?
posted on August 11, 2001 07:23:29 AM new
I think the question "when life begins" is misplaced. Life is an unbroken chain that goes back at least millions of years.
I should think the question becomes, 'what legal status, other than as property, do organic molecules have'?
While late term abortion are a rarity, children are euthanised after a live birth. There are cases of children born with no brain other than a stem which regulates somatic systems, and are starved to death in the hospital.
Which leads us to the question- 'when is a member of our species so different from us that he/she should not receive the same legal and moral considerations as the rest of us ?
I find that what makes us human is the cognitive abilities of the brain.
