SENSITIZE ©

I frequently visit and interact on the Mark Thomas Info forum. Today one of their other regulars and someone I have a lot of time for, Deacon, posted the following three links. I have posted my response to them below in this message but I would really like to hear other member's opinions on this topic.

Originally posted by deacon on the Mark Thomas Info Forum wrote: Micheal J Fox stem cell ad

Rush Limbaugh "acting" like Michael J. Fox

Micheal J Fox interview

The advert and interview with Micheal J. Fox are heartbreaking to watch. He is alive, so any notions of pro-lifers being opposed to keeping someone alive is completely insane in my opinion and against their own agendas, political or spiritual.

Fox states that the stem cells he's campaigning to have used to treat his condition are going to be destroyed anyway, so where is the problem?

Rush Limbaugh should be smacked across the back of his neck with a heavy blunt instrument and left up a dark, unused road, preferably on a rainy night. If 'it' manages to crawl to a clear space, maybe 'it' can get assistance from paramedics and the police. It would be something quite wonderful if 'it' needed controversial treatment to mend 'its' injuries. 'It's' a stain on humanity...

Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting human being.

Michael J Fox talks sense, and has dignity.

There is a difficulty, in my mind, however. Fox states that these embryos that scientists want to be used for research would be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for something useful? Seems reasonable, until you ask why there are embryos available in the first place. The answer is to help infertile couples, of course, but that begs the question... is it ethical to help them in this way if it means producing all these 'surplus' embryos which will then be killed? A huge number of these infertile couples only need this treatment because they've been so busy with their careers that they've left it too late to conceive naturally. That sort of selfishness is then rewared with this treatment, with 'surplus' embryos being the unfortunate victims.

I find the concept of deliberately killing an embryo deeply upsetting.

It's true that most embryos, when conceived naturally, do die anyway. Only a few go on to implant and then go to a full term pregnancy. So does it matter?

I'm going to have to sit on the fence for a while over this one.

In the meantime, I think it imperative that the scientists get cracking on adult stem cell research. The huge advantage this has, is that the patient's own stem cells can be used in any treatment, thus getting rid of the danger of rejection. The disadvantage is that embryo stem cells are much easier to multiply, and you would need large numbers for any sort of treatment.

It's a difficult one. Adult stem cells yes; embryo ones? Very, very hard question. If science has created these embryos, it has an ethical duty towards them, in my view, that doesn't include either throwing them away or 'using' them in any way other than to implant them in a woman's womb to give them the chance of life.

I think all the heretics involved in stem cell research should be burnt at the stake as Alzeimers is a punishment from God. I also drink my own ****.

Sorry, this really isn't my point of view but due to a sticky mouse I voted for the wrong thing and thought I should try to defend my "corner".

The reality is that once again Lugh has failed to put a "Yes and No" button on poll. In future could you please put three buttons on these things. One called "YES", one called "NO" and another one in the middle called "DAVE". I'm afraid that's normally how I want to vote. On the one hand anyone who messes with the jigsaw puzzle that God created should burn in eternal hell, on the other hand anyone who stops such research should be beaten to death (with cricket bats) by the parents of the children who die because the cures to their genetic ills are to be reached through this research.

So this poll is a no brainer for me. I vote "DAVE".

Should mention that despite being a proddy I'm a very strong Pro-Lifer and all that entails. I only have to look into the eyes of my children to see God.

delph_ambi wrote: Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting human being.

Human being?

delph_ambi wrote: Michael J Fox talks sense, and has dignity.

Funny, I never liked him as an actor, but fair play to him for fighting his corner. He's a brilliant and honest activist.

delph_ambi wrote: There is a difficulty, in my mind, however. Fox states that these embryos that scientists want to be used for research would be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for something useful? Seems reasonable, until you ask why there are embryos available in the first place. The answer is to help infertile couples, of course, but that begs the question... is it ethical to help them in this way if it means producing all these 'surplus' embryos which will then be killed? A huge number of these infertile couples only need this treatment because they've been so busy with their careers that they've left it too late to conceive naturally. That sort of selfishness is then rewared with this treatment, with 'surplus' embryos being the unfortunate victims.

Thanks for that Delph. It needed saying but if there is an excess of embryos because of this practice, and they can be used to assist the healing of others, isn't it fair and humane that they are? The ethics of not treating someone with Parkinson's Disease with every means available is primative in a supposedly progressive and 'evolving /caring world'.

delph_ambi wrote: I find the concept of deliberately killing an embryo deeply upsetting.

Yes, that is fully understandable Delph.

However, isn't it also upsetting to know that potential treatments exist that can save lives, but are being stopped because some bible-bashing morons think it's anti-god? These same people, who spout an extreme pro-life agenda will and have planted bombs and killed to defend their opinions. That seems a tad convoluted in imho.

delph_ambi wrote: It's true that most embryos, when conceived naturally, do die anyway. Only a few go on to implant and then go to a full term pregnancy. So does it matter?

I'm going to have to sit on the fence for a while over this one.

It's a tough one...

delph_ambi wrote: In the meantime, I think it imperative that the scientists get cracking on adult stem cell research. The huge advantage this has, is that the patient's own stem cells can be used in any treatment, thus getting rid of the danger of rejection. The disadvantage is that embryo stem cells are much easier to multiply, and you would need large numbers for any sort of treatment.

To be honest, I'm going to have to read more on this topic. I really don't know enough.

delph_ambi wrote: It's a difficult one. Adult stem cells yes; embryo ones? Very, very hard question. If science has created these embryos, it has an ethical duty towards them, in my view, that doesn't include either throwing them away or 'using' them in any way other than to implant them in a woman's womb to give them the chance of life.

Isn't there a danger that any stem cells gathered from an adult with an illness like Altzhiemers or Parkinson's Disease will be pre-disposed to generating more infected or unusable cells?

Like I said, I really do need to read more on this topic.

Thank you for your feedback and input here Delph...

Dave. I will take your point about third options on votes into consideration in the future.

For now, I would like to focus on one point you have made:

spacecadet wrote:Should mention that despite being a proddy I'm a very strong Pro-Lifer and all that entails. I only have to look into the eyes of my children to see God.

Is it possible 'God' is simply a feeling? Some deep-rooted awareness that as a species we are aiming to improve upon ourselves?

Perhaps this should be on the Religion - Who Needs It?' thread though...

Lugh wrote:Is it possible 'God' is simply a feeling?

He's the most wonderful feeling that there is, dude. You've just taken a step into a larger universe. How do you feel?

spacecadet wrote:

Lugh wrote:Is it possible 'God' is simply a feeling?

He's the most wonderful feeling that there is, dude. You've just taken a step into a larger universe. How do you feel?

Dave, with the fullest respect in the world mate, and without coming across as an egotistical mouthpiece: I've taken several steps in the multiverse.

My argument has always been with idiotic human beings who have highjacked and used 'God aka Love' to justify division or stamp authority over their fellow human beings or the planet. I'm a deeply spiritual person. I've just never found a faith that preaches real; 'God aka Love'...

Oh, and I would urge you to reconsider your genderisation of 'God aka Love'. We (life) are all the culmination / offspring of both gender identities / procreation. Therefore 'God aka Love' is both female and male. We are all 'God aka Love'.

One of the songs I wrote; Cool, is also seated in this thinking:-

Lugh wrote:COOL.
Lyrics to a song by Louis P. Burns aka Lugh © 1990.
Upstate Renegade Productions © 2000 ~ 2006. All Rights Reserved.

1)

• Daybreak
  finds me lying
  In the arms of my love.
  She is ev'rything.
  She is how
  my day begins.
  
  Some people don't understand me.
  Some people say I'm a fool.
  But as long as she loves me,
  that's cool...

2)

• We walk through the fields
  and feel the love
  of Mother Earth.
  She is ev'rything.
  She is how
  all life begins.
  
  Some people don't understand us.
  Many people say that we're fools.
  But if a few recognise us,
  that's cool...

• (Instrumental break)

3)

• In the evening we lie down
  and sew the seeds of our dreams.
  Our hopes,
  are for the frightened,
  whose day
  still must begin.
  
  I know you don't understand me.
  I know you think I'm a fool.
  If I've caught your attention,
  that's cool...