OT: Interesting article on stem-cell breakthrough

[ohsherrie]

That's not a comparable situation. Alzheimer's patients are people who have established a history in this life and have had an influence on the lives of their families and society.

Are you telling me a three week old fetus that you've never seen would mean as much to you as your grandfather who must have had an impact on your life? If you had to choose one over the other which would you choose?

Ask a mother who has carried a child within her and had a stillborn child or a miscarriage.

You're the one who made the comparison so I'm asking you.

[conversationpc]

That's not a comparable situation. Alzheimer's patients are people who have established a history in this life and have had an influence on the lives of their families and society.

Are you telling me a three week old fetus that you've never seen would mean as much to you as your grandfather who must have had an impact on your life? If you had to choose one over the other which would you choose?

Ask a mother who has carried a child within her and had a stillborn child or a miscarriage.

You're the one who made the comparison so I'm asking you.

It's an invalid comparison. An unborn child has nothing to do with my Grandfather unless you're saying he somehow became pregnant.

[ohsherrie]

So, you're saying people shouldn't even have kids because some of them don't respect them. How would you decide who should and shouldn't have kids?

I didn't say science is always right, but it beats the hell out of religious opinion. At least there is some basis in fact with science.

No doctors I've ever know of tell patients to abort. They give that option when it's appropriate to do so.

OK, so if we're all doomed why do you care about stem cell research, or anything else for that matter?

I said a country based on extremes is doomed to failure.

OK, so where would you draw the line on religious influence? And also what about the rest of my post?

[conversationpc]

OK, so where would you draw the line on religious influence? And also what about the rest of my post?

Speaking for myself, I'd draw the line where the Constitution does, which is Government is not allowed to establish an official religion.

[ohsherrie]

That's not a comparable situation. Alzheimer's patients are people who have established a history in this life and have had an influence on the lives of their families and society.

Are you telling me a three week old fetus that you've never seen would mean as much to you as your grandfather who must have had an impact on your life? If you had to choose one over the other which would you choose?

Ask a mother who has carried a child within her and had a stillborn child or a miscarriage.

You're the one who made the comparison so I'm asking you.

It's an invalid comparison. An unborn child has nothing to do with my Grandfather unless you're saying he somehow became pregnant.

Oh no, no no no, you were asking me to compare a fetus to your grandfather with Alzheimers. Now I'm asking you to.

[scarygirl]

I understand abortions in case of where there is truly something that has gone wrong, and the woman's life is completely and utterly in jeapordy, but again, that is rare.

What troubles me is this.

"Until that time whether a mother considers it a life that she will risk hers for is he decision to make. "

Where does this sentiment stop. Is it okay to decide to get rid of it after it is out of the womb? THere is a movement afoot that allows for exactly that. The above logic could very well allow for the scenario I just supposed.

If one doesn't want children, there are much easier way to avoid this decision, birth control, condoms, sometimes a combination of the two, getting your tubes tied, and abstinence.

[ohsherrie]

OK, so where would you draw the line on religious influence? And also what about the rest of my post?

Speaking for myself, I'd draw the line where the Constitution does, which is Government is not allowed to establish an official religion.

So why should government take a the views of a particular religion into consideration when enacting laws?

[conversationpc]

Oh no, no no no, you were asking me to compare a fetus to your grandfather with Alzheimers. Now I'm asking you to.

The comparison wasn't between the fetus and an elderly person, it was meant to show that sentience should not determine what life is valuable or invaluable. Obviously an elderly person has had an opportunity to interact with people and form relationships. A fetus hasn't had an opportunity to personally interact with people, though many women will tell you that a bond was formed with their child long before birth, a bond that is just as real as any other human bond.

[scarygirl]

Lots of times with late term abortions, and the early ones, they have already have a heartbeat and brain waves. I consider that to be the same as the alzheimered grandfather. He's still there, just highly impaired. You could say that he's back to square one in that he's like a baby or a fetus. The only difference is one was allowed to fully blossom and the other was not.

[conversationpc]

OK, so where would you draw the line on religious influence? And also what about the rest of my post?

Speaking for myself, I'd draw the line where the Constitution does, which is Government is not allowed to establish an official religion.

So why should government take a the views of a particular religion into consideration when enacting laws?

{removing ohsherrie's words from my mouth}...OK. Proceed.

[ohsherrie]

I understand abortions in case of where there is truly something that has gone wrong, and the woman's life is completely and utterly in jeapordy, but again, that is rare.

What troubles me is this.

"Until that time whether a mother considers it a life that she will risk hers for is he decision to make. "

Where does this sentiment stop. Is it okay to decide to get rid of it after it is out of the womb? THere is a movement afoot that allows for exactly that. The above logic could very well allow for the scenario I just supposed.

If one doesn't want children, there are much easier way to avoid this decision, birth control, condoms, sometimes a combination of the two, getting your tubes tied, and abstinence.

Ok, you're losing me here scarygirl. Are you saying abortions shouldn't be illegal in certain situations? That's exactly what I'm saying and always have.

I don't know anything about such a movement as you're talking about and that's even more extreme than having the church dictate the law.

Well yeah, there have always been options, but sometimes things happen that can't be reasonably prevented or foreseen.

All I want is for women to have a right to choose. That doesn't mean I want abortions to become an elective surgery.

[ohsherrie]

Oh no, no no no, you were asking me to compare a fetus to your grandfather with Alzheimers. Now I'm asking you to.

The comparison wasn't between the fetus and an elderly person, it was meant to show that sentience should not determine what life is valuable or invaluable. Obviously an elderly person has had an opportunity to interact with people and form relationships. A fetus hasn't had an opportunity to personally interact with people, though many women will tell you that a bond was formed with their child long before birth, a bond that is just as real as any other human bond.

And many will tell you that they don't want that rapist's seed in them, or that they want to live to raise the children they have. It's not black and white or all right or all wrong. Women have the right to their choice in the grey areas.

[ohsherrie]

Lots of times with late term abortions, and the early ones, they have already have a heartbeat and brain waves. I consider that to be the same as the alzheimered grandfather. He's still there, just highly impaired. You could say that he's back to square one in that he's like a baby or a fetus. The only difference is one was allowed to fully blossom and the other was not.

OK, so you think women who become pregnant because they've been brutally raped should have to give birth? Or what about a 24 yr old woman who is pregnant with her first child and is told that she has a diabetic or vascular condition that means the pregnancy will most likely kill her and/or her baby? What about the 52 yr old woman who thought she was beyond it but comes up pregnant and her doctor says her high blood pressure will certainly kill her if she carries the child?

What should these women do?

[scarygirl]

I understand abortions in case of where there is truly something that has gone wrong, and the woman's life is completely and utterly in jeapordy, but again, that is rare.

What troubles me is this.

"Until that time whether a mother considers it a life that she will risk hers for is he decision to make. "

Where does this sentiment stop. Is it okay to decide to get rid of it after it is out of the womb? THere is a movement afoot that allows for exactly that. The above logic could very well allow for the scenario I just supposed.

If one doesn't want children, there are much easier way to avoid this decision, birth control, condoms, sometimes a combination of the two, getting your tubes tied, and abstinence.

Ok, you're losing me here scarygirl. Are you saying abortions shouldn't be illegal in certain situations? That's exactly what I'm saying and always have.

I don't know anything about such a movement as you're talking about and that's even more extreme than having the church dictate the law.

Well yeah, there have always been options, but sometimes things happen that can't be reasonably prevented or foreseen.


All I want is for women to have a right to choose. That doesn't mean I want abortions to become an elective surgery.

I think in very limited circumstances they should be legal, but not to the late date they're allowed and not just for any circumstance. As of right now, there are no restrictions. I thinks lots of women do treat them like elective surgery, and yes, we do need laws to tighten up the restrictions. Roe vs. Wade was not a good thing in that allowed a free for all. And no, I don't believe in procreating just to save someone else's ass. I have no problem with saving core blood. I have no problem with stem cells, if it can be done in that new way shown by the OP. I have no problem with bone marrow transplants, etc, but bringing children into this world who have no say in the things that are going to be done to their little bodies for the sake of their brother? Absolutely not. Adults who decide to do this with their own bodies is another matter.

[scarygirl]

Lots of times with late term abortions, and the early ones, they have already have a heartbeat and brain waves. I consider that to be the same as the alzheimered grandfather. He's still there, just highly impaired. You could say that he's back to square one in that he's like a baby or a fetus. The only difference is one was allowed to fully blossom and the other was not.

OK, so you think women who become pregnant because they've been brutally raped should have to give birth? Or what about a 24 yr old woman who is pregnant with her first child and is told that she has a diabetic or vascular condition that means the pregnancy will most likely kill her and/or her baby? What about the 52 yr old woman who thought she was beyond it but comes up pregnant and her doctor says her high blood pressure will certainly kill her if she carries the child?

What should these women do?

The pregnancy by rape scenario is one that is often brought up and is VERY RARE. Before you berate me on this, I was told this through my training with a secular rape crisis center that was rare, and through my own research I have found this is so. I don't know why this is so, but it is. Even so, those who came to us through the ER were offered the morning after pill. The morning after pill in case people don't people don't know is a double dose of birth control pills. What it does is prevent thd egg from implanting into the uterus thus preventing pregnancy.

To answer your question, in the off chance the woman became pregnant, yes, I believe abortion should be allowed. Not because of their being anything wrong with the life created, but dependant on the state of the woman, she may or may not be able to handle it. The only thing is though, I'm afraid, in case of family abuse that it is often used as a way of covering for the perpetrator. Abortion clinics are supposed to report to police (in the case of minors) when they feel abuse has occured, but I have heard they often circumvent the law.

Vascular and diabetic conditions can be largely controlled by medication. In the case of diabetics they are often warned before hand of the risks of pregnancy, so no, that in itself is not good enough cause.

[ohsherrie]

I think in very limited circumstances they should be legal, but not to the late date they're allowed and not just for any circumstance. As of right now, there are no restrictions. I thinks lots of women do treat them like elective surgery, and yes, we do need laws to tighten up the restrictions. Roe vs. Wade was not a good thing in that allowed a free for all. And no, I don't believe in procreating just to save someone else's ass. I have no problem with saving core blood. I have no problem with stem cells, if it can be done in that new way shown by the OP. I have no problem with bone marrow transplants, etc, but bringing children into this world who have no say in the things that are going to be done to their little bodies for the sake of their brother? Absolutely not. Adults who decide to do this with their own bodies is another matter.

Well then we're really not that far apart on this issue. I just don't want legislation based on any particular religious belief dictating what should be done regarding in vitro inseminated embryos and/or aborted fetuses in the question of stem cell research, or what a woman has a right to do with her own body.

[scarygirl]

I think in very limited circumstances they should be legal, but not to the late date they're allowed and not just for any circumstance. As of right now, there are no restrictions. I thinks lots of women do treat them like elective surgery, and yes, we do need laws to tighten up the restrictions. Roe vs. Wade was not a good thing in that allowed a free for all. And no, I don't believe in procreating just to save someone else's ass. I have no problem with saving core blood. I have no problem with stem cells, if it can be done in that new way shown by the OP. I have no problem with bone marrow transplants, etc, but bringing children into this world who have no say in the things that are going to be done to their little bodies for the sake of their brother? Absolutely not. Adults who decide to do this with their own bodies is another matter.

Well then we're really not that far apart on this issue. I just don't want legislation based on any particular religious belief dictating what should be done regarding in vitro inseminated embryos and/or aborted fetuses in the question of stem cell research, or what a woman has a right to do with her own body.

We really are. Because you don't believe they are life and I do. By saying that it's okay for parents to have additional children just for the sake of saving another giving no say so to the other child and what there rights are, you're pretty much making them some thing to be owned and tarried with at your beck and call. So yeah,, we need laws to protect in those circumstances.

[ohsherrie]

Vascular and diabetic conditions can be largely controlled by medication. In the case of diabetics they are often warned before hand of the risks of pregnancy, so no, that in itself is not good enough cause.

So those women for whom that control of their conditions that largely works fails should just die? Those diabetic women who get pregnant because their birth control failed them should just die? Those women who develop an aneurysm in their abdominal or pelvic region that will surely burst during labor if not before should just die?

[scarygirl]

Vascular and diabetic conditions can be largely controlled by medication. In the case of diabetics they are often warned before hand of the risks of pregnancy, so no, that in itself is not good enough cause.

So those women for whom that control of their conditions that largely works fails should just die? Those diabetic women who get pregnant because their birth control failed them should just die? Those women who develop an aneurysm in their abdominal or pelvic region that will surely burst during labor if not before should just die?

Again that is not why the majority of abortions occur. I already answered your question, in limited circumstances. If a woman is that afraid of getting pregnant due to illness, I'm sure she could get her tubes tied if the issue were pressed.

[ohsherrie]

We really are. Because you don't believe they are life and I do. By saying that it's okay for parents to have additional children just for the sake of saving another giving no say so to the other child and what there rights are, you're pretty much making them some thing to be owned and tarried with at your beck and call. So yeah,, we need laws to protect in those circumstances.

Where did I say I would give them no say?

I said it happens and it's legal.

You brought up the scenario where fetuses would just be produced for the stem cells. I compared that to parents having a second child to save a first because it's the same thing in principal. The difference is that one is allowed to develop into a child and be born and another isn't.

I was trying to make you, since you think life begins at conception, to decide where you would draw the line. If you're going to say it shouldn't be legal to have fetuses used for stem cell development are you going to also say it shouldn't be legal to have children to provide implants for existing children? If so, how would you enforce that law? Would you make it illegal for parents of a terminally ill child to have another child? Or would you make it illegal for cells or organs from one sibling to be used for another?

Where do you draw the line?

[ohsherrie]

Vascular and diabetic conditions can be largely controlled by medication. In the case of diabetics they are often warned before hand of the risks of pregnancy, so no, that in itself is not good enough cause.

So those women for whom that control of their conditions that largely works fails should just die? Those diabetic women who get pregnant because their birth control failed them should just die? Those women who develop an aneurysm in their abdominal or pelvic region that will surely burst during labor if not before should just die?

Again that is not why the majority of abortions occur. I already answered your question, in limited circumstances. If a woman is that afraid of getting pregnant due to illness, I'm sure she could get her tubes tied if the issue were pressed.

I'm sure it occurs that a woman doesn't know about her condition until she gets pregnant and I'm even more certain that aneurysms occur after pregnancy, but whatever.

OK, so you say they should be allowed under limited circumstances. How are you going to define and enforce those conditions?

[scarygirl]

We really are. Because you don't believe they are life and I do. By saying that it's okay for parents to have additional children just for the sake of saving another giving no say so to the other child and what there rights are, you're pretty much making them some thing to be owned and tarried with at your beck and call. So yeah,, we need laws to protect in those circumstances.

Where did I say I would give them not say?

I said it happens and it's legal.

You brought up the scenario where fetuses would just be produced for the stem cells. I compared that to parents having a second child to save a first because it's the same thing in principal. The difference is that one is allowed to develop into a child and be born and another isn't.

I was trying to make you, since you think life begins at conception, to decide where you would draw the line. If you're going to say it shouldn't be legal to have fetuses used for stem cell development are you going to also say it shouldn't be legal to have children to provide implants for existing children? If so, how would you enforce that law? Would you make it illegal for parents of a terminally ill child to have another child? Or would you make it illegal for cells or organs from one sibling to be used for another?

Where do you draw the line?

If you're going to say it shouldn't be legal to have fetuses used for stem cell development are you going to also say it shouldn't be legal to have children to provide implants for existing children?

No to the first. Should not be legal. No to the second also. Particularly if that's their sole purpose and it's going to be some ongoing thing that doesn't take into acount the needs of the donor child, and the absolute right without any pressure to say "no." You and I both know in families this is not how works. Since children are in essense owned by their parents, they will always subcomb to their influence.

Would you make it illegal for parents of a terminally ill child to have another child?

No, but if they are carriers of some horrific thing they don't want to pass on they could always adopt.

Or would you make it illegal for cells or organs from one sibling to be used for another?

Not without express consent of the donor. An adult child yes. A minor child no. The consent given in the latter could never be wholly free willed because as a minor you rely upon your parents to care and provide for you.

There are laws that prevent minors from drinking and driving before a certain age. Why not the same for something that is being taken from their body and is in fact elective.

[ohsherrie]

There are laws that prevent minors from drinking and driving before a certain age. Why not the same for something that is being taken from their body and is in fact elective.

OK, so let's say you're the mother of a six year old child who has just been diagnosed to be dying from leukemia and her/his four year old sybling is the only bone marrow match. Whatcha gonna do?

[scarygirl]

There are laws that prevent minors from drinking and driving before a certain age. Why not the same for something that is being taken from their body and is in fact elective.

OK, so let's say you're the mother of a six year old child who has just been diagnosed to be dying from leukemia and her/his four year old sybling is the only bone marrow match. Whatcha gonna do?

If the child is already there, and not created for that sole purpose then yes. If it were a one time thing, I guess maybe they could give bone marrow, but not over and over again. If it put the four year's old life in jeapordy absolutely not.

[ohsherrie]

There are laws that prevent minors from drinking and driving before a certain age. Why not the same for something that is being taken from their body and is in fact elective.

OK, so let's say you're the mother of a six year old child who has just been diagnosed to be dying from leukemia and her/his four year old sybling is the only bone marrow match. Whatcha gonna do?

If the child is already there, and not created for that sole purpose then yes. If it were a one time thing, I guess maybe they could give bone marrow, but not over and over again. If it put the four year's old life in jeapordy absolutely not.

OK, so how are you going to write this legislation and how are you going to enforce it?

One of the MANY things that bug me about the evangelicals (not that I'm saying you're one) and the republicans is that evangelicals traditionally support the republican party which is traditionally the party that says they want the government to have less interference in the individual lives of the people. Yet the evangelicals want the govenment to enforce their moral code on everyone. That's about as interfering as you can get.

[ohsherrie]

There are laws that prevent minors from drinking and driving before a certain age. Why not the same for something that is being taken from their body and is in fact elective.

OK, so let's say you're the mother of a six year old child who has just been diagnosed to be dying from leukemia and her/his four year old sybling is the only bone marrow match. Whatcha gonna do?

If the child is already there, and not created for that sole purpose then yes. If it were a one time thing, I guess maybe they could give bone marrow, but not over and over again. If it put the four year's old life in jeapordy absolutely not.

So, OK, like I asked before, how are you going to legislate that?

[scarygirl]

There are laws that prevent minors from drinking and driving before a certain age. Why not the same for something that is being taken from their body and is in fact elective.

OK, so let's say you're the mother of a six year old child who has just been diagnosed to be dying from leukemia and her/his four year old sybling is the only bone marrow match. Whatcha gonna do?

If the child is already there, and not created for that sole purpose then yes. If it were a one time thing, I guess maybe they could give bone marrow, but not over and over again. If it put the four year's old life in jeapordy absolutely not.

So, OK, like I asked before, how are you going to legislate that?

How else do we legislate things? We vote for the candidates that best represent our views and have them present bills that act in our interests. Through child welfare legislation. Look, it's obvious we don't agree, so...

[Perrydise]

There are laws that prevent minors from drinking and driving before a certain age. Why not the same for something that is being taken from their body and is in fact elective.

OK, so let's say you're the mother of a six year old child who has just been diagnosed to be dying from leukemia and her/his four year old sybling is the only bone marrow match. Whatcha gonna do?

If the child is already there, and not created for that sole purpose then yes. If it were a one time thing, I guess maybe they could give bone marrow, but not over and over again. If it put the four year's old life in jeapordy absolutely not.

Unfortunately this kind of thing has happened in the past and continues to go on today, especially with children who have leukemia. Parents try to have another child in hopes of a bone marrow match. Are these people wrong? Who knows it is a moral issue. I know I would do just abouyt anthing to save a child of mine if she were sick.

The abortion issue will never be solved. I am afraid the the Pro Lifers will get their wish and women will resort to the old "back alley" abortions and many will die. Do I think abortion should be used as birth control? NO. Never. But I do think that as an adult woman I should have the choice based on MY LIFE, MY CIRCUMSTANCES and not by what radical christian fundamentalists believe or ill informed representatives think is right. Is it a moral issue - YES. Should it be a choice - Yes.

Stem cell research will help millions and has helped millions. The research that goes on brings up steps closer to finding the cure for many things.

[ohsherrie]

So, OK, like I asked before, how are you going to legislate that?

How else do we legislate things? We vote for the candidates that best represent our views and have them present bills that act in our interests. Through child welfare legislation. Look, it's obvious we don't agree, so...

I'm not asking how we elect people. I want to know how you would word the legislation and how you would enforce a law that would define when parents could and could not use one child to save the life of another? Also, how would you word the legislation and enforce the law that would define when a woman could have an abortion?

Best of all how would you word the legislation and enforce the law governing the use of embryos that weren't implanted for an in vitro fertilization process. Are you going to say that childless couples shouldn't have that option?

[bluejeangirl76]

One of the MANY things that bug me about the evangelicals (not that I'm saying you're one) and the republicans is that evangelicals traditionally support the republican party which is traditionally the party that says they want the government to have less interference in the individual lives of the people. Yet the evangelicals want the govenment to enforce their moral code on everyone. That's about as interfering as you can get.

Yes exactly sherrie. Keep the preaching about what is or isn't "moral" in the churches and out of the government. If something is going to save my child's life I'm going to do it. The problem is that while everyone is arguing morality, people are taking their sick children/family members to other countries to be treated for things. So what about those who can't afford to do that. They're forced to sit here and listen to the leaders of their country tell them that while there maybe medical evidence to support the possibility that there's a cure/treatment for what's going to kill their child, it's not a legal option because everyone is sitting around arguing about whether god thinks it's okay. And yes, that is about as interfering as you can get.