Skip to comments.Michael J. Fox is a Cannibal
Posted on 10/20/2004 10:42:20 AM PDT by MisterRepublican
Michael J. Fox is a famous TV and movie star. He is witty. He is charming. A few years ago, we learned he has Parkinson's disease.
PD is a slowly progressive neurological disorder, characterized by tremors, shuffling gait, a masklike facial expression, "pill rolling" of the fingers, drooling, intolerance to heat, oily skin, emotional instability and defective judgment (although intelligence is rarely impaired).
PD is currently incurable, although there are several methods to slow its advancement, including drug therapy and surgery.
PD is tragic, particularly in Fox's case, because it rarely afflicts persons under 60 years old.
Yet everyone faces tragedy at one time or another, in one form or another. A person's moral fiber is revealed in tragedy.
So we learned through Fox's affliction that he has either extremely poor judgment or a diabolical character flaw. He supports human embryonic stem-cell experimentation, thus contending that some humans are subhuman and expendable for others' personal gain.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
JMF was a nice kid from Canada who got too much too soon. He snorted enough coke to kill half the westside.
What they don't tell you is there seems to be some connection between coke and Parkinsons.
It would be more altruistic of Fox to come clean and warn kids of this generation to stay away from the stuff, rather than push legislation that destroys the next generation.
I believe he has had it much longer than Michael J. Fox, but I don't hear him (the pope) calling for embryonic stem cell research.
TOUGH STOUGH said: The above argument has always been my number one argument for decryig the foulness of disposing of life in it very beginning stages, and for establishing when human life begins. Well said. I couldn't agree with you more fervently!
cpforlife.org says, FALSE.
The Catholic Church condemns IVF absolutely.
As I said in my post #53, Eggs are inseminated and embryos are cultured. The eggs are inseminated in a laboratory ("in vitro"). The eggs are incubated overnight examined the next day to see if any have been fertilized. Any fertilized eggs are allowed to develop for at least 2 additional days in the lab before being placed in the uterus. Some embryos may be frozen and stored for later use, if the couple prefers.source
This clearly indicates that it's optional whether or not to freeze any remaining, viable, embryos. IMO, this also implies that one may choose to implant all viable embryos if one so chooses. In other words, it should be law to implant all viable fertilized eggs at once. Thus, that removes that impediment to this procedure. As to the question as to whether or not the technician is "playing God" by deciding which fertilized eggs are viable for implantation, this is simply, imo, an over dramatization of the actual case. A simple microscopic examination of the eggs will determine if they are undergoing cellular division, and thus, will determine if they are alive or not. It's not a question left to the individual person, it's simple biology. Therefore, with all due respect to the Church, I believe they are wrong on this here. I don't see anything wrong with determining that some eggs are simply dead, and therefore, no point in implanting them into the uterus. Note, I would say that any non viable fertilized eggs should be destroyed, so as to prevent any possibility of "harvesting" them for research.
"Dead is dead", as another poster on this thread pointed out. Again, there is no gray area here; there's no "playing God". And indeed, as GovernmentShrinker pointed out, the entire process of IVF actually produces more life, as it optimizes the time when the uterus is most ready to accept implantation, and therefore, gives a couple the greatest chance to produce a baby (even more so than sexual intercourse). Additionally, it's shown that at least as many, if not more, fertilized eggs are naturally aborted, then die in this procedure. Therefore there is no reasonable argument that can be forwarded which would say, "This procedure kills more fertilized eggs then nature would".
I suppose one could argue (as the Church seems to be doing) that since the entire procedure is "unnatural", that it's heretical. While there may be some certain logic to that, if one were to adhere to that dogma, then one couldn't endorse the use of artificial limbs for amputees, one couldn't endorse the use of hearing aids for nearly deaf people, one couldn't endorse the use of propecia for balding men, one couldn't endorse any "medical procedure" that circumvents the "natural order of things" to give a patient the ability to do something that they wouldn't "naturally" have otherwise.
I would rather be consistent in my belief that amputees should be given a chance to have limbs again, that the deaf could hear again, and even that the bald could have hair again (I may have a certain personal stake in that last one, but I'm crossing my fingers that that will not be the case! hehe) therefore, I don't see anything wrong with IVF for the same reason, i.e, giving someone the ability to do something, even if they can't do it "naturally".
One additional note, in a post to me, GovernmentShrinker noted that sometimes many more fertilized eggs that are viable may be produced, than can be implanted. I believe 26 viable eggs was the example he gave. I maintain, without being an expert in the procedure, given the average number of viable/non viable fertilized eggs produced with the procedure, there must be some "optimal range" of eggs that can be extracted from the ovaries to give a reasonable amount of viable fertilized eggs for later implantation, that will still not be cost prohibitive for most couples. That is, there must be a number of eggs that can be extracted, which, after it's determined which have survived, will produce a number that can be all implanted at once. I mean, 26 fertilized eggs that were viable? I would question how many were extracted from the ovaries to begin with in that case! I suppose one could argue that that would still increase the cost prohibitive value of the procedure for some couples. I would simply say, I can't imagine reducing the amount of eggs to an optimal number for 100% implantation of viable fertilized eggs would increase it by THAT much (although I could see how it could increase it by SOME). It would still be a fair compromise though, in my opinion.
I'm guessing though, that what I've said here will not be acceptable to either cpforlife.org, or GovernmentShrinker, for different reasons though of course. ;) They (and you TOUGH STOUGH, if you want) can have any last words that they (you) desire. I'm satisfied that I've explained my position as clearly as possible. Any further disagreements will simply have to be academic at this point.
> If you are for this, then you pay for it.
What, you mean kidney transplants?
What they don't tell you is there seems to be some connection between coke and Parkinsons.
Gosh, who woulda thunk it (Lol)
All those brain transmitters, so little time
REALLY good point!
The question of stem cell research is complicated, no pun intended. Some say there have been cases of cancer where stem cells were used. Obviously not good. It's like Solomon suggesting he cut the baby in half to satisfy both women who claimed to be the mother. Everyone suffers. We need to do some long, hard praying about this. There should be some other way.
However, I would also say that a fertilized egg is a person, and you would not, am I correct?
I agree with the church's position on IVT. It is my understanding, that eggs are not fertilized one at a time, but rather that several are fertilized and the best is implanted. Some are discarded. However, even if eggs were fertilized one at a time the church would still have moral objections, because the egg is fertilized outside the womb in an unnatural environment.
I think it is obvious tinkering with life at it's beginning or ending stages, sets up potential for great abuse.
Oh yes. I've been around here since early 1998. No way will I get chased away because of a difference of opinion. But I agree with Tuckrdout...that I don't want government to fund the research. Government was not created to be a tax collector. Just the opposite. It was created to keep the government out of our lives.
Not just in favor of, Ahnold is setting up to spend California taxpayers' money to fund the cannibalizing of ALIVE EMBRYOS for their stem cell body parts.
At what age in their lifetimes would new human beings no longer be fair tissue sources for cannibalizing to treat older humans?
You understand that there are several types of "stem cell" research going on: fetal, adult, umbilical cord, and so on. President Bush is the first president ever to allocate federal money and resources for doing fetal stem cell research. Also, note that all researchers have been able to do with fetal stem cells is make tumors. Adult stem cell research has resulted in many treatments.
This "fetal stem cell" discussion is only made a big deal in order to further legitimize abortion.
"... I think capacity to suffer and capacity to survive independently of another human host, are both relevant considerations ..." Ah, then you won't mind if I zap you with Pavulon and intubate you, then anesthetize you to the point of no feeling or suffering, then extract any useful body parts and unplug the remains. You're one piece of liberal work, you are!
Ripping the stem cells from the Embryos kills the alive embryos ... a caustic fluid is used to take away the protective perimeter of the embryo. The stem cells are 'taken' once the embryo has been KILLED, chemically.
How do you know they don't suffer? Besides, embryonic stem cells show less promise than umbilical cord and adult stem cells. Evidently embryonic can't be as easily controlled. China is also doing research and a man that was given embryonic stem cells grew a femur in his head. Kinda gives new meaning to the term "bonehead". Anyway, there ARE PD sufferers who are being helped by their own cultured stem cells. Fox has refused to try it.
Also, Charles Krauthammer, who also has medical training besides being a Fox news panelist, said that researchers are stumped at the moment. It's not a lack of funding for embryonic but lack of ideas that has halted research. And I know all this because it fascinates me and embryonic cannibalism horrifies me. Oh and the prevailing belief is that IF there's any benrefit to be had from embryonic research it's at least 50 years away.
What does the term, "human life" mean to you?
I do say that human life begins at conception, yes. I do say that the fertilized egg is a person, yes.
The fertilized egg is given just as much a chance to survive in the petri dish as it is in the womb. Again, as GovernmentShrinker said (and he is right), more fertilized eggs survive from IVF than in nature. So it's even more of a "life producing environment", not less. And as I said before, dead is dead; it's not a value judgement, it's not a personal decision. The only fertilzed eggs thrown away are ones that are dead: the ones that anyone with vision can see that are not undergoing cellular division. It's a black or white issue. It's not killing the babies, it's letting nature take its course with them, just as nature would if they were in the womb. (because it's a medical fact that not all fertilized eggs survive, this happens in nature; the only difference is it's not happening in the womb, it's happening in a petri dish) That's hardly a significant difference, imo. If you, or anyone else, want to disagree, fine. I'll just never understand why.
As for the "unnatural enviornment" argument, I dealt with that in my previous post. Basically, the entire science of medicine is "unnatural", so if we're to throw away something as "heretical" simply because it's "unnatural", then you can't even take an aspirin for a headache. (i.e, Christian Scientists).
The basic reason I posted this to you was to answer your two questions. I merely re-iterated what I posted before also, in a more basic form. The last word is yours though.