Fertility Treatment equals Murder

[Kacey]

The biggest problem that I, personally, have with this issue is that Bush has allowed his personal morality to overshadow the preferences of the majority of the country. Seventy percent of those polled in the US have stated that they wanted that bill to pass, so that research into stem cells, including new stem cell lines, would be supported by the federal government.

The restrictions that this places on research are more stringent than most people realize: no research into new stem cell lines can be carried out in using any governmental money; that means that no facility that gets any money from the federal government can do research using any stem cell lines except those already established, lest they risk losing their federal funding. That means that if the law is interpreted in its strictest sense, if the scientist in the neighboring lab gets money from the federal government, which he uses to pay part of the utility bill, other scientists in the building risk that scientist's funding, even if they don't receive federal funding themselves, because the utility bill is a joint expense, and then governmental funds would be being used to fund research into new stem cell lines. Given the amount of research that goes on in public and private universities, and how much of that research is funded by multiple grants to each scientist, this could quickly become a serious drag on research into this area, just in terms of the time needed to ensure that there is no funding, anywhere in the building (or possibly even in the department, or larger organizational area) that comes from the government.

I find Bush's decision to be disturbingly out of sync with the opinions and preferences of the majority of the population he supposedly represents, and hope that his successor has better sense than to pander to the restrictive morality of a few rather than the preference of the many. As with many other issues touching on personal morality and conscience (such as abortion, religion, and sexual preference, to name a few), my opinion on this issue is that if you don't approve of it, don't do it - but don't restrict the rights of others to do what you don't approve of, for no other reason than that you don't approve.

 

[michaeledward]

Legally, people in the embrionic stage of life are destroyable when in their natural habitat, why should they be less destroyable when in a petri dish?

You may not be aware of the 'frame' around this argument, or perhaps you are.

The cells that make up an embryo, or blastocyst, are not 'people' ... and, as I understand it, embryos and blastocysts do not have any standing 'legally'.

An embryo is not a person.

 

[Kacey]

You may not be aware of the 'frame' around this argument, or perhaps you are.

The cells that make up an embryo, or blastocyst, are not 'people' ... and, as I understand it, embryos and blastocysts do not have any standing 'legally'.

An embryo is not a person.

I don't disagree... however, the same people who are against the creation of more embryonic cell lines are, in general, the same people who are against Plan B and similar so-called "morning after" pills because, by preventing implantation of a blastocyst, they are aborting a human being - and those people equate the use of this class of medications as murder. On this basis, many pharmacists refuse to dispense this type of medication - despite their legal status, and despite being presented with a valid prescription.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't disagree... however, the same people who are against the creation of more embryonic cell lines are, in general, the same people who are against Plan B and similar so-called "morning after" pills because, by preventing implantation of a blastocyst, they are aborting a human being - and those people equate the use of this class of medications as murder. On this basis, many pharmacists refuse to dispense this type of medication - despite their legal status, and despite being presented with a valid prescription.

If a woman has a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Even if unintentionallY?

If a man masturbates, and 'spills his seed on the ground', has he sinned against heaven? Isn't that the next logical step?

If the fertilized egg is not implanted, I think you would be pressed to find a obstetrician who would describe what happens as abortion. I'll wait.

Any lay person, therefore, who makes such a statement, and holds such a belief, is making that decision out of ignorance. They have the opportunity to learn better, but choose not to. I do not think public policy should be based on the beliefs of people so unlearned.

Pharmacists who will not fill such perscriptions, in my opinion, should be fired by their employers. If they are not fired, it is the duty of the employer to have on staff a licensed Pharmacist simultaneously who is not ethically against filling the perscription. The code of ethics for Pharmacists is very clear about how they handle legally prescribed medicines from licensed physicians.

 

[Kacey]

As I said, I don't disagree with you - I think that the federal government should be funding continuing research in to the potential uses of stem cells, and that that research should include new stem cell lines. My intent was to point out that the people Bush is attempting to placate - and, apparently, agrees with - hold the opinions used to support the veto of this bill.

 

[crushing]

You may not be aware of the 'frame' around this argument, or perhaps you are.

The cells that make up an embryo, or blastocyst, are not 'people' ... and, as I understand it, embryos and blastocysts do not have any standing 'legally'.

An embryo is not a person.

Obviously the lump of cells, whether it is a person or not, has no legal standing; otherwise it wouldn't be so easily destroyed without a court order. Also, it would seem to me that a simple DNA test would end the argument as to whether it was a person, or some other creature.

 

[crushing]

If a woman has a miscarriage, has she committed murder? Even if unintentionallY?

No.

If a man masturbates, and 'spills his seed on the ground', has he sinned against heaven? Isn't that the next logical step?

I don't know, probably depends on his religion. No.

If the fertilized egg is not implanted, I think you would be pressed to find a obstetrician who would describe what happens as abortion. I'll wait.

You're probably right.

It would be interesting to see someone sincerely defend 'Yes' answers to your questions above. Have you seen that happen?

 

[michaeledward]

I guess I didn't have to wait long ... here is a physician that won't prescribe the emergency Contraceptive. Although, this article states he is an emergency room physician, and not practicing obstetrics.

If the fertilized egg is not implanted, I think you would be pressed to find a obstetrician who would describe what happens as abortion. I'll wait.

It would be interesting to see someone sincerely defend 'Yes' answers to your questions above. Have you seen that happen?

See this article.

http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/115383211470590.xml&coll=1

LEBANON, (Pennsylvania) - A Good Samaritan Hospital emergency room doctor refused to give a rape victim a morning-after pill because he said it was against his Mennonite religion.

 

[crushing]

I guess I didn't have to wait long ... here is a physician that won't prescribe the emergency Contraceptive. Although, this article states he is an emergency room physician, and not practicing obstetrics.

See this article.

http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/115383211470590.xml&coll=1

Thank you for the link. I was hoping for a better defense than:
"I personally don't have this thing worked out. I'm not sure how my faith can line up with my practice at times of what I'm asked to do."

 

[qizmoduis]

I guess I didn't have to wait long ... here is a physician that won't prescribe the emergency Contraceptive. Although, this article states he is an emergency room physician, and not practicing obstetrics.




See this article.

http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/115383211470590.xml&coll=1

Then that physician should be disciplined for not performing his job. His job is to care for his patients. The hospital is not paying him to provide him a forum to proselytize. He can do that on his own time.

Same thing goes for pharmacists who refuse to prescibe contraceptives, including Plan 'B', which is NOT an abortifactant. I find people who behave this way to be exceedingly immoral.

 

[michaeledward]

Thank you for the link. I was hoping for a better defense than:
"I personally don't have this thing worked out. I'm not sure how my faith can line up with my practice at times of what I'm asked to do."

It is a disappointing argument, isn't it.

I would think that someone who has attended 4 years of pre-med, 4 years of medical school, and two years of internship would have a better understanding of reproductive biology.

I believe it is fairly widely understood in the medical profession that for a pregnancy to occur, the blastocyst needs to implant into uterus. Without this implantation, there is no pregnancy, there can be no abortion by medical or pharmacological means.

While I really don't want to know any more about this than I do --- I already know too much --- (It's all kinda icky to me) --- isn't it not uncommon for blastocyst to occasionally be expelled in the normal menstrual cycle? (that is rhetorical --- I don't know that I want to discuss that further ---- too icky).

 

[crushing]

It is a disappointing argument, isn't it.

Very.

I would think that someone who has attended 4 years of pre-med, 4 years of medical school, and two years of internship would have a better understanding of reproductive biology.

Perhaps, but maybe the 'exact moment of life' wasn't adequately covered in the studies and that is led to the difficulties in reconciling the aspects of faith and practice? I really don't know what the person was thinking, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

While I really don't want to know any more about this than I do --- I already know too much --- (It's all kinda icky to me) --- isn't it not uncommon for blastocyst to occasionally be expelled in the normal menstrual cycle?

I'm sure that happens and have heard of it happening. But I'm not sure how you apply the knowledge and/or frequency of that event to the purposeful expelling of a blastocyst.