Good News!!

bry623 · 11-20-2007, 12:35 PM

You liberals have an alternative!!
Clicky

**Chode** · 11-20-2007, 07:10 PM

If this lives up to expectations, it will be terrific news. Now, all we need is a similar breakthrough to replace the right-wing sanctioned "fertility" clinics that routinely produce hundreds of embryos that will never be brought to term and will ultimately be destroyed.

This procedure had caused some churches, among them the Roman Catholic Church, to oppose most forms of in vitro fertilization. In the meantime, here are some figures that proponents of in vitro fertilization procedures might look at. I think the discrepancy between children "waiting for adoption" and "adopted" deserves special notice; for every child adopted, 3 are waiting.

So, help me out here. How is the process of using human embryonic tissue to save lives morally different than using human embryos to help infertile couples give birth, when most embryos produced in fertility clinics are essentially waste products? Certainly, there are no guarantees that every line of stem cell research can save lives any more than there are any guarantees that every in vitro fertilization will be viable and produce a healthy child.

bry623 · 11-21-2007, 08:15 AM

You totally blocked my point.

My point is that if the libs decide that this is a viable option to embryonics, then they admit that they respect life and it shoots down abortions.

yustr · 11-21-2007, 09:58 AM

I don't follow??? We used to rub sticks together to make fire, then we discovered flint, then matches, then Bic lighters.

Yes its a great thing if this works out. But back a few years when the discussion was started, there was no option but to use embryonic cells - from discarded embryos.

Chode's just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing when they don't protect loudly over the methods of fertility clinics: kick start multiple zygotes, then discard all but one. When I say discard I mean throw then into the bio-waste trash with the bloody rags and needles. But no! heaven forbid we use them for any positive purpose.

**Chode** · 11-21-2007, 11:57 AM

It isn't just that I think many attitudes toward fertility clinics are hypocritical; I think couples who can't conceive by the usual means who resort to these clinics and ignore the living, breathing children that need parents make a mockery of the concept of "respect for life".

I know a childless family in my town that has adopted 4 children, and is fostering 2 more. Some of these kids come from backgrounds that many prospective parents would find "risky". Some have been abused in just about every meaning of the word, a couple are the children of mothers who were heavy drug users during pregnancy. In 2005, of 115,000 children waiting for adoption, 52,000 were actually adopted.

bry623 · 11-21-2007, 12:22 PM

I totally agree that people shouldn't play God, this just has the potential to to cause people to change their stance on more than one issue.

cstr20cstr · 11-22-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bry623

You liberals have an alternative!!
Clicky

I think most people have known there could be alternatives to embryonic stem cells. And sure enough the liberal news media barely talks about it (if at all) once it's found. Of course it's "controversial" to them, but using human embryos is not.....
It won't surprise me if liberals in congress will overlook this as well; since human embryos are expendible for their typical pro-feminazi stance....

cstr20cstr · 11-22-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

Chode's just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing when they don't protect loudly over the methods of fertility clinics: kick start multiple zygotes, then discard all but one. When I say discard I mean throw then into the bio-waste trash with the bloody rags and needles. But no! heaven forbid we use them for any positive purpose.

How's that "hypocritical" ?
"Right-wingers" against fertility clinics to begin with, probably aren't "loud" in their opposition because they lost the fight long ago.
And just because someone's a radical religious fanatic against wasting any life doesn't make them a "right-winger". Nor does someone being a "right-winger" make them a hell bent pro-lifer......

**EnglishPaul** · 11-22-2007, 10:19 AM

I think the bigger minefield is what you do with stem cell research/ cloning, not the use of stem cells themselves.

According to Darwin, one of life's main motivations is to procreate. That doesn't mean to foster, specifically it means to pass on ones genepool. IVF offers a means of a child with that genetic transference. There is nothing viable about an embryo, it is just potential. It needs a womb, and a little luck. IVF never connects embryo to womb, there is thus no potential. In Vitro an embryo is no more viable than egg or sperm, and few would consider them sacred. If they were a woman would have to have one baby per menstrual cycle! Not even Africa does that!
Personally I think its right not to be flippant with embryos, but I don't see them as having rights. We respect them, but that's because they are none the less special.
I would like to see a lot more adoption and fostering, but to force or coerce a couple to adopt instead of propergate their genes also doesn't show respect.

**Chode** · 11-22-2007, 02:40 PM

I think most people have known there could be alternatives to embryonic stem cells. And sure enough the liberal news media barely talks about it (if at all) once it's found. Of course it's "controversial" to them, but using human embryos is not.....
It won't surprise me if liberals in congress will overlook this as well; since human embryos are expendible for their typical pro-feminazi stance....

"Right-wingers" against fertility clinics to begin with, probably aren't "loud" in their opposition because they lost the fight long ago.
And just because someone's a radical religious fanatic against wasting any life doesn't make them a "right-winger". Nor does someone being a "right-winger" make them a hell bent pro-lifer......

Maybe I've eaten too much turkey today and need a nap, but the two quotes above from cstr would seem contradictory to me. I think everyone is aware of how positions on issues such as abortion, stem cell research. and in vitro fertilization breaks down along political lines. Certainly the groups on either side of the the debate aren't totally homogeneous, but the general division is clear.

Bush has expressed support for fertility clinics, but is adamantly opposed to embryonic stem cell research. The National Right to Life Committee is very vocal on abortion, but says absolutely nothing about the ultimate fate of most embryos produced in fertility clinics.

One of the ways couples who choose in vitro fertilization justify the procedure is to freeze the unused embryos. This is just rationalization. Not all of the frozen embryos remain viable, so the act of "preservation" kills some of these embryos outright. There doesn't seem to be any way to determine viability short of implantation. What happens to the rest? How long can they remain viable? What happens if the clinic runs short of storage space?

And here's a final sobering thought or two on stem cell research; to date no viable treatment for any disease has emerged from this line of inquiry, and the new procedure for creating stem cells may even induce cancer.

11-20-2007, 12:35 PM	#1 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,367 OS: winxp pro sp2	Good News!! You liberals have an alternative!! Clicky __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

11-20-2007, 07:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 670 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: Good News!! If this lives up to expectations, it will be terrific news. Now, all we need is a similar breakthrough to replace the right-wing sanctioned "fertility" clinics that routinely produce hundreds of embryos that will never be brought to term and will ultimately be destroyed. This procedure had caused some churches, among them the Roman Catholic Church, to oppose most forms of in vitro fertilization. In the meantime, here are some figures that proponents of in vitro fertilization procedures might look at. I think the discrepancy between children "waiting for adoption" and "adopted" deserves special notice; for every child adopted, 3 are waiting. So, help me out here. How is the process of using human embryonic tissue to save lives morally different than using human embryos to help infertile couples give birth, when most embryos produced in fertility clinics are essentially waste products? Certainly, there are no guarantees that every line of stem cell research can save lives any more than there are any guarantees that every in vitro fertilization will be viable and produce a healthy child. __________________ Sweet! Last edited by Chode : 11-20-2007 at 07:11 PM.

11-21-2007, 08:15 AM	#3 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,367 OS: winxp pro sp2	Re: Good News!! You totally blocked my point. My point is that if the libs decide that this is a viable option to embryonics, then they admit that they respect life and it shoots down abortions. __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

11-21-2007, 09:58 AM	#4 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore/California Desert Posts: 4,561 OS: PCLinuxOS, XP Pro My System	Re: Good News!! I don't follow??? We used to rub sticks together to make fire, then we discovered flint, then matches, then Bic lighters. Yes its a great thing if this works out. But back a few years when the discussion was started, there was no option but to use embryonic cells - from discarded embryos. Chode's just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing when they don't protect loudly over the methods of fertility clinics: kick start multiple zygotes, then discard all but one. When I say discard I mean throw then into the bio-waste trash with the bloody rags and needles. But no! heaven forbid we use them for any positive purpose. __________________ I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

11-21-2007, 11:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 670 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: Good News!! It isn't just that I think many attitudes toward fertility clinics are hypocritical; I think couples who can't conceive by the usual means who resort to these clinics and ignore the living, breathing children that need parents make a mockery of the concept of "respect for life". I know a childless family in my town that has adopted 4 children, and is fostering 2 more. Some of these kids come from backgrounds that many prospective parents would find "risky". Some have been abused in just about every meaning of the word, a couple are the children of mothers who were heavy drug users during pregnancy. In 2005, of 115,000 children waiting for adoption, 52,000 were actually adopted. __________________ Sweet!

11-21-2007, 12:22 PM	#6 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,367 OS: winxp pro sp2	Re: Good News!! I totally agree that people shouldn't play God, this just has the potential to to cause people to change their stance on more than one issue. __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

11-22-2007, 10:19 AM	#9 (permalink)
EnglishPaul Still no avatar Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sheffield Posts: 880 OS: XP SP2	Re: Good News!! I think the bigger minefield is what you do with stem cell research/ cloning, not the use of stem cells themselves. According to Darwin, one of life's main motivations is to procreate. That doesn't mean to foster, specifically it means to pass on ones genepool. IVF offers a means of a child with that genetic transference. There is nothing viable about an embryo, it is just potential. It needs a womb, and a little luck. IVF never connects embryo to womb, there is thus no potential. In Vitro an embryo is no more viable than egg or sperm, and few would consider them sacred. If they were a woman would have to have one baby per menstrual cycle! Not even Africa does that! Personally I think its right not to be flippant with embryos, but I don't see them as having rights. We respect them, but that's because they are none the less special. I would like to see a lot more adoption and fostering, but to force or coerce a couple to adopt instead of propergate their genes also doesn't show respect.

11-22-2007, 02:40 PM	#10 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 670 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: Good News!! I think most people have known there could be alternatives to embryonic stem cells. And sure enough the liberal news media barely talks about it (if at all) once it's found. Of course it's "controversial" to them, but using human embryos is not..... It won't surprise me if liberals in congress will overlook this as well; since human embryos are expendible for their typical pro-feminazi stance.... "Right-wingers" against fertility clinics to begin with, probably aren't "loud" in their opposition because they lost the fight long ago. And just because someone's a radical religious fanatic against wasting any life doesn't make them a "right-winger". Nor does someone being a "right-winger" make them a hell bent pro-lifer...... Maybe I've eaten too much turkey today and need a nap, but the two quotes above from cstr would seem contradictory to me. I think everyone is aware of how positions on issues such as abortion, stem cell research. and in vitro fertilization breaks down along political lines. Certainly the groups on either side of the the debate aren't totally homogeneous, but the general division is clear. Bush has expressed support for fertility clinics, but is adamantly opposed to embryonic stem cell research. The National Right to Life Committee is very vocal on abortion, but says absolutely nothing about the ultimate fate of most embryos produced in fertility clinics. One of the ways couples who choose in vitro fertilization justify the procedure is to freeze the unused embryos. This is just rationalization. Not all of the frozen embryos remain viable, so the act of "preservation" kills some of these embryos outright. There doesn't seem to be any way to determine viability short of implantation. What happens to the rest? How long can they remain viable? What happens if the clinic runs short of storage space? And here's a final sobering thought or two on stem cell research; to date no viable treatment for any disease has emerged from this line of inquiry, and the new procedure for creating stem cells may even induce cancer. __________________ Sweet!