Every sperm is sacred...

jamscal wrote: The Nazis (yes, I just lost the argument ) advanced medicine by their horrible experiments.

The corollary to Godwin's law to which you refer only applies to unwarranted references to Nazis. You're still in this one.

I'mma just gonna leave this here...

I like how the new bossman works. Big ceremony to overturn something Dubya did, quietly bring a similar version back.

Masterful.

Osterizer wrote: I'mma just gonna leave this here... I like how the new bossman works. Big ceremony to overturn something Dubya did, quietly bring a similar version back. Masterful.

NO! Surely HE wouldn't do something like this.

carguy123 wrote:

Osterizer wrote: I'mma just gonna leave this here... I like how the new bossman works. Big ceremony to overturn something Dubya did, quietly bring a similar version back. Masterful.

NO! Surely HE wouldn't do something like this.

Of course not. He's 'The O', lifter of government secrecy veils and creator of transparent government, remember?

Osterizer wrote: I'mma just gonna leave this here... I like how the new bossman works. Big ceremony to overturn something Dubya did, quietly bring a similar version back. Masterful.

Somebody please explain this to me. I'm flabbergasted.

Jensenman wrote: Pro lifers, what would your response be to a woman who's just had a spontaneous miscarriage? Should she be investigated to make damn sure she didn't do it on purpose? One of my co workers had that happen to her about 2 1/2 years ago, BTW.

My response would be that there is a difference between a spontaneous miscarriage and a decision to end a life.

I find it pretty hard to suggest that a fetus has no constitutional rights, yet have the ability to prosecute murderers for 2 separate murders if the woman was pregnant, based solely on whether the child was "wanted" or not.

There's probably some pretty rough morning sickness mornings when every mother questions whether this child is really "wanted".

I realize this position could lead to witchhunts, which I would also be opposed to. However, a society that values children probably has a need to investigate situations like this, just as we do in cases where a child dies from SIDS.

The sad truth is that some children who die from "SIDS" were actually murdered. Those parents should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Same could possibly hold true in your example. For the protection of the children, I would still be OK with the right for an investigation, even though it is an obvious sensitive issue.

I've had friends investigated for murder when their child died of SIDS. Nothing could be more horrible. Except, of course, NOT investigating these cases.

Jensenman wrote: Having said that, I am happy to hear of the advances in adult stem cell (iPS cell) research. That has the potential to defuse this explosive question. If you've never known anyone with Parkinson's disease, watching them go downhill can help you understand how important stem cell research can be. I suppose it does come down to the question Hess posed in a sorta roundabout way: what's more important, an embryonic cell mass or a desperately sick adult?

If there was ANY proof that an "embryonic cell mass" would heal a "desperately sick adult" I would probably side with the adult.

Unfortunately, there is NO SUCH PROOF. Only wild theories and speculation.

And, so far, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to see any advantage to embryonic stem cells over adult or umbilcal cord stem cells.

I am REALLY in favor of stem cell research using these methods. When scientists reach a blockade that reasonably indicates there is a significant advantage to considering embryonic cells, I'll consider it. Until then, I will not support the advancement of embryonic stem cell research. There is no reason to, and there are a lot of reasons not to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there or couldn't there be a readily available source of stem cells from every birth? I mean you have the cord and the placenta.

why hasn't anyone finished the song yet?

Every sperm is great

If a sperm gets wasted

God gets quite irate...

carguy123 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there or couldn't there be a readily available source of stem cells from every birth? I mean you have the cord and the placenta.

Yep.

SVreX wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Having said that, I am happy to hear of the advances in adult stem cell (iPS cell) research. That has the potential to defuse this explosive question. If you've never known anyone with Parkinson's disease, watching them go downhill can help you understand how important stem cell research can be. I suppose it does come down to the question Hess posed in a sorta roundabout way: what's more important, an embryonic cell mass or a desperately sick adult?

If there was ANY proof that an "embryonic cell mass" would heal a "desperately sick adult" I would probably side with the adult. Unfortunately, there is NO SUCH PROOF. Only wild theories and speculation. And, so far, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to see any advantage to embryonic stem cells over adult or umbilcal cord stem cells. I am REALLY in favor of stem cell research using these methods. When scientists reach a blockade that reasonably indicates there is a significant advantage to considering embryonic cells, I'll consider it. Until then, I will not support the advancement of embryonic stem cell research. There is no reason to, and there are a lot of reasons not to.

http://www.cordblood.com/azfamily.asp watch that..

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGpQI2yvBcM

not adult. but DAMN

At one point, the embryonic and placenta cells seemed like the only way to go. Then the iPS breakthrough happened. Who knows just where that will lead, though? From what little I've read it seems the adult stem cells have a very good chance of becoming cancerous rather than healing anything but the embryonic don't. There is research ongoing but it seems the answer is still a ways off.

And I still have a major problem with investigating spontaneous miscarriages to be certain they weren't abortions. There are lots of things in this world we don't want to have happen; an old friend had a saying 'some times babies are born dead and missiles don't fly'. Bad things happen for no reason.

I agree, J-man.

How do you feel about investigating parents in SIDS cases?

The stem cells that are used in stem cell research are the result IVF and are the ones left over that would just sit in freezers for years. How can it possiblily wrong to use these cellls for research if all they are going to do is sit in freezers? Either way there is going to be no life why not put them to good use to save others?

Ah, the trap is sprung.

Now we are back to 'when does life really begin?'. It's sort of like the exact moment of dawn: the Koran's description is when you can tell a white thread from a black one. It many other cultures, it's the moment the sun begins to clear the horizon which is after you can discern thread colors.

That it happens is not in question, it's the exact moment that has some ambiguity. So it is with the definition of the beginning of life. There seems to be a growing consensus that it's the point at which a baby can live independent of the mother's body. Of course, there are those on all sides of the question trying to shout over the others.

In the case of a SIDS death, there is absolutely no question that the child was born and capable of life outside the mother's body and as such there is the possibility of foul play.

In the case of a spontaneous miscarriage, it's quite possible that the mother's body, through mechanisms we don't fully understand, determined that the zygote? fetus? (use your favorite term) was NOT viable and was expelled. Maybe she wasn't even aware she was pregnant, slipped and fell on the stairs and the physical stress caused an involuntary miscarriage. Should this lead to an investigation? Every woman has thousands of eggs which are expelled a few at a time during ovulation; should they all be counted and she have to account for each one? Should we have the 'pregnancy police' follow every pregnant woman around? That's not a joke; I honestly don't see any other way to monitor and control a woman's reproductive system.

That doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.

I thought life begins at 40.

Jensenman wrote: In the case of a spontaneous miscarriage, it's quite possible that the mother's body, through mechanisms we don't fully understand, determined that the zygote? fetus? (use your favorite term) was NOT viable and was expelled. Maybe she wasn't even aware she was pregnant, slipped and fell on the stairs and the physical stress caused an involuntary miscarriage. Should this lead to an investigation? Every woman has thousands of eggs which are expelled a few at a time during ovulation; should they all be counted and she have to account for each one? Should we have the 'pregnancy police' follow every pregnant woman around? That's not a joke; I honestly don't see any other way to monitor and control a woman's reproductive system. That doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.

Let me re-word your original question to clarify my response.

Should every spontaneous miscarriage be investigated routinely? No, that would create witchhunts.

Should the authorities have the right to investigate? Yes, it's a protection for children.

Should every investigation be an in-depth detailed criminal investigation? Absolutely not.

That would be a similar approach to the SIDS investigations. Authorities have the right to investigate, do not do it in all cases, and should attempt to approach most cases with sensitivity, as the majority of them are loving parents who are grieving the inexplicable loss of their child, not murderers.

Jensenman wrote: Ah, the trap is sprung. Now we are back to 'when does life really begin?'. It's sort of like the exact moment of dawn: the Koran's description is when you can tell a white thread from a black one. It many other cultures, it's the moment the sun begins to clear the horizon which is after you can discern thread colors. That it happens is not in question, it's the exact moment that has some ambiguity. So it is with the definition of the beginning of life. There seems to be a growing consensus that it's the point at which a baby can live independent of the mother's body. Of course, there are those on all sides of the question trying to shout over the others.

No, it is about how do we legislate right from wrong in a civil society and create laws and guidelines that protect vulnerable and value life.

The question of "When life begins" is really not the issue, IMHO. It is a bit of a smokescreen.

I understand when life begins. A single human cell can be identified as human in very scientific terms.

The more important question is, how do we establish legislation granting reproductive freedom and responsibility while protecting the lives of the most vulnerable? When do they get the Constitutional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I understand that the best legislative answer in the interest of the nation will likely be a compromise to my principles, and I'm OK with that.

Translation: My opinion is that there should be a viability gestational age (random though it may be) of perhaps 24 or 26 weeks. Before that date it would be legal, after that date it would not, except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

That's my compromise to my principles and beliefs. It's not the conservatives who are not compromising, it's the liberals. And unfortunately, we currently have a national policy that permits abortion without limitation until the full term of a healthy baby. That's not OK. It's murder.