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 ...
Fox is Canadian, why doesn't he go back there and cry to his government?
That's exactly what it is.
My sympathies are with him and his family. There are other sufferers of this dreaded disease too. Fox just happens to be a high profile case like Janet Reno.
'Parting' people out makes as much sense as killing them out of convenience. Once human life gets devalued to a certain point, all sorts of rationale can be ginned up for committing homicide.
Gov. Ahnold just came out in favor of cannibalism too!!
His parents from the show are out campaigning for Kerry.
What about all the peopl donating eggs and sperm and doing IVF?
Cannibalism? Is he actually eating the embryos?
After seeing my Dad suffer horribly with PD, growing worse and worse over the last 15 years, to the point now that I almost don't recognize him anymore, I support stem cell research too. Call me a cannibal, I don't give a rat's ass. My Dad has tried every remedy out there, even surgery, to little avail. I don't think he's going to last much longer--this disease will kill him, and is practically killing my Mom, too, with the stress it causes her.
If Canada's socialized medicine health care system is so great, and ours is so bad, why isn't Michael J. Fox getting his medical care in Canada?
Where's an image from that South Park show where Chris Reeves was sucking stem cells out of babies?
* Note. The link has an image from the show South Park depicting "Christopher Reeves" sucking on a dead fetus so he can get "well". Looks like Michael J. Fox and others want to do the same thing in real life. Monsters.
You are kidding, right? It is not the same.
He hasn't lived in Canada since he was a child.
"A person's moral fiber is revealed in tragedy."
One of life's truisms.
> 'Parting' people out makes as much sense as killing them out of convenience.
Indeed so. Clearly, organ donation is a Commie conspiracy.
> Once human life gets devalued to a certain point, all sorts of rationale can be ginned up for committing homicide.
Yup. Just *look* at all those people being kidnapped off our streets and chopped up for their hearts and kidneys.
No, only the stem cells, with a side of onion rings.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!
I think that he means to use it in the context of: To Cannibalize.
You know, funny you should ask this question, because I was just thinking about it today. I'm quite pro life, and have believed for a while now that if one takes even a fertilized egg (much less an embryo) and "experiments" on it, it's murder. Just today however, I began to examine this issue in detail and the only possible "grey area" I could think of would be IVF, or in vitro fertilization.
I realized one could argue the following: Ok, you say it's murder to kill a fertilized egg or embryo in the womb, but what about something done simply in a petri dish? Why would that be murder, since it was something completely done outside the body? In other words, what makes something like THAT a "human being"?
After pondering that question for a while, I came to the following conclusion: Sexual intercourse is something humans "do", and sometimes results in fertilization, therefore, if one believes that a developing fertilized egg (and later an embryo) inside a woman's womb is a baby, then why not the same "thing" made outside a womb? Both are done by humans to fertilize an egg, the only difference is that one of the processes is more fun than the other. ;) Also, simply because it's "outside a womb" doesn't mean it's any less a human being than the fertilized egg inside the womb, just like a premature baby isn't any less a baby simply because it's not in the womb anymore.
This "argument" is, of course, only going to be valid for someone who believes that life begins at conception already, so that has to be taken into consideration, but I think for someone who is adamantly pro life (like me) it's helpful.
Also, this does not necessarily preclude using IVF as a tool to help a couple get pregnant. If there is a couple that is adamantly pro life, and yet wants to use IVF then it's still perfectly acceptable to do so, as long as they ensure that only one of the woman's eggs are used at a time, thus ensuring that there aren't any "left behind" embryos. I must admit, I'm not entirely familiar with the IVF process, thus I'm not sure if any fertility doctors practice such a technique, but from a medical/scientific standpoint, it wouldn't be very difficult to separate the eggs, I wouldn't think.
Briefly, as for the "donating eggs and sperm" question, eggs and sperm aren't human beings by any stretch of the imagination, so anything done with them is perfectly morally acceptable, imo. Just as long as they aren't allowed to "join" to produce massive quantities of embryos with no wombs to house them, that is.
The embryos used in research are not suffering in the slightest, but that doesn't seem to make any difference to the anti-stem cell research extremists.
Sorry about your Dad, but...
Oh, yes, I am going to add the Kerryesque but...
How much he or you or anybody else suffered is simply not relevant to the question.
To come to a rational decision on the question of Embryonic Stem Cell research, you only need to answer the question of whether or not the embryos are to be valued as human life.
If the answer is no, if human embryos are too primitive or too unlike born human beings to merit protection, then the rational position is that they should be used for everything or anything. For lifesaving therapy, cutting edge research or as a salad garnish, it matters not. Motive doen't matter because it is being set against something that has no value.
If, on the other hand, the answer is yes, that human embryos are human life and merit protection, then to say they should be utilized for very important research or to alleve great suffering is no more valid than proposing to use toddlers for the same purpose. It is a utilitarian argument about human life that says some lives are worth more than others, or that it is worth it to sacrifice some human life for great gain. This type of argument should, even must, be an anathma to any civilized human being.
"Indeed so. Clearly, organ donation is a Commie conspiracy."
As a matter of fact it is in China, where they shoot people exactly for that purpose. That's a subtle yet meaningful distinction you might have missed.
Whoa! This is way over the line. Shame.
Fertilizing just one egg from an IVF cycle is certainly technically possible, but would be preposterously expensive due to the low success rate per embryo. Even in natural conception in perfectly healthy women with no fertility problems, most fertilized eggs will never develop into a baby. Per-embryo success rates are actually higher with IVF, due to control over what day the embryo lands in the uterus, as well as quite a lot of control over the woman's hormone levels at the time of the transfer; but much of the success lies in fertilizing a large number of eggs, and then waiting to see which ones survive long enough to be transferred back into the woman. Even those that make it to that stage have less than a 50% chance of turning into a baby; and the ones that didn't last that long had no chance at all if they had been transferred earlier.
The cost of a cycle would be the same if only one egg were fertilized after whatever number were retrieved (since the same amount of drugs would be used, and the same procedures). Telling a couple they can only fertilize one would result in the need for around 10 times as many cycles, putting the cost of actually having a baby this way out of the reach of all but the wealthiest couples (since obviously no insurance company going to finance this approach).
Embryos at this stage cannot rationally be considered "babies", for the simple reasons that 1) very few would ever have become real babies under any circumstances, and 2) they are still at a stage where they can be split into two or more developing embryos, or can merge into one developing embryo (these processes can happen naturally or artificially, though artificial splitting is not currently legal).
China does it...need a kindey a heart a liver a lung you name it they got it...
Parts is Parts
Cannibalize an engine for parts...cannibalize a human bean...just gotta dehumanize them a little
first..for the public relations part...its too bad you gotta smooze the rubes...but hey
Its just business..
I understand where you're coming from. Adult stem cell research I don't have a problem with. It's the embryonic I've got a problem with. BTW, my father is suffering from lung cancer. He was diagnosed with it on July 26, a day after I took both parents on vacation. There really isn't any cure for lung cancer yet. My oldest sibling died from lung cancer in 1999 and it's not easy watching my dad suffer from it either.
Here let me fix that for you: The
embryos infants used in research are not suffering in the slightest, but that doesn't seem to make any difference to the anti-stem cell research extremists. To change the name to make something more palatable is very common, to desensitize people to what is actually taking place.
They also shoot people for complaining about their government. So I take it you'll councel against people who dislike Supreme Court rulings?
Just because the Commies go overboard with something doesn't mean we will. Harvesting medically useful bits and pieces - be they cells or organs - from the dead, be they embryos or adults, is not inheirently bad, nor is there necessarily a "slippery slope." The dead are dead, and not using their bodies won;t make them any less dead.
> someone who believes that life begins at conception
That's pretty much everyone in the modern world. The individual sperm and eggs are *also* alive. The question is not whether the fertilized egg is "alive," but whether it is legally and ethically "human."
"The dead are dead, and not using their bodies won;t make them any less dead."
It's the idea of making them dead that bothers me. By your logic, we're also wasting alot of protein by not eating or making fertilizer out of them. And I suppose we'd be splitting hairs to neglect the necrophiliacs.
And I'm not sure I know how to 'councel'.
> human embryos are human life and merit protection, then to say they should be utilized for very important research or to alleve great suffering is no more valid than proposing to use toddlers for the same purpose.
How about adults? Should we stop organ transplants using dead adults? What makes dead embryos or dead toddlers more important than dead adults?
Whether you like it or not, the embryos under discussion here are ALREADY DEAD. Not using them for research will not bring them back.
The real question is: what is it you are opposed to... medical research... or abortion? If the latter, focus on that, do not focus on what is essentially a ridiculous arguement.
Charles Krauthammer wrote "George W. bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem-cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Dr. Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.
"Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry constantly talk of a Bush "ban" on stem-cell research. This is false. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding."
> It's the idea of making them dead that bothers me.
They are not being made dead for the purposes of research. It is my understanding that making them dead for the purposes of research is illegal. Making this research illegal will not stop them from being made dead.
So... if your problem is with them being made dead... focus on changing society and the law so that making them dead stops.
> And I'm not sure I know how to 'councel'.
Ah. A spelling lamer.
Usage of embryonic stem cells is not the answer. Although this research gets all the publicity, the work done using adult stem cells (ie. "mature" stem cells) has been much more successful, both in tests and in actually helping people in need.
See www.stemcellresearch.org for information and examples of people who have been helped.
It may be too late to help your dad (I'm truly sorry), but adult stem cell research does hold promise for many people and illnesses.
A lot of us are sensitive to suffering, and see the difference bewteen suffering and not suffering as significant.
Interesting. In my thoughts today, I had considered the point that one needs to (in IVF) usually "try" multiple fertilized eggs in order to achieve pregnancy, which is why I arrived at the suggestion to only try one egg at a time. I wasn't aware however, that in IVF, multiple eggs are inserted at one time. Is this true? Is this what you were saying? (I'm not entirely sure).
If that's the case, then I still don't see any problem with that, since they're being given a chance to develop in the uterus. My only concern would be that there would be "left over embryos". In other words, I would seek out a protocol where each egg is given a chance to fertilize (no matter how many there are) and the whole mixture of sperm and egg be simply dropped into the uterus, hoping some of the eggs were fertilized.
So, I would also ask: In common protocols, are more eggs fertilized than are implanted? Do you know?
As for whether or not a fertilized egg can reasonably be called a "baby", I've decided long ago it's not my place to decide that, as that starts the slippery slope down to abortion. I've reasoned that a nice cut off is a fertilized egg. Before that, there is clearly a difference between a non fertilized egg/sperm, and a fertilized egg, as the latter can, under optimum conditions, develop into an infant, but an egg or sperm never can. We can disagree on that I guess; I'm just clarifying why I believe what I believe.
"Ah. A spelling lamer."
Actually the whole sentence was unintelligible.
Well, it's certainly "human" as opposed to feline, avian, etc. But I don't see that as the important distinction. Whether it legally a "person" matters (a human kidney is "human", but it is not a "person"). However, I think capacity to suffer and capacity to survive independently of another human host, are both relevant considerations, and these embryos have neither. I'd a lot rather see a human embryo used for research which it will be unable to sense in any way, than to have a fully sentient dog or monkey tormented for research. But even with the latter, we must not be extremists like the PETA nuts, and must weigh the possibility of the research alleviating a lot of other suffering against the suffering it causes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.