|
Post by skyloom on Oct 25, 2006 11:55:52 GMT -5
And why shouldn't she help all those women who cannot become pregnant? Helping women who cannot become pregnant is one lousy reason to carry and then relinquish a child. Adoption is not some cure for infertility. No woman has some god-given right to be a mother, and no woman has any obligation to make sure that someone else gets to be a mother just because she wants to be one.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Oct 25, 2006 12:07:46 GMT -5
Where is the appreciation for those who devote there lives to adopting these children, giving them a good home, nourishing them, providing for them, raising them and loving them like there own? Shouldn't they appreciate being adopted by good people rather than being left in an orphanage with no family ever? Where is the realization that these adoptive parents are getting far more than they give? They are getting a child that will bring them joy for the rest of their lives. They will watch that child grow and learn, have holidays and holy days with that child, feel proud when the child graduates from college, begins a career, and eventually marries and gives them grandchildren. Adoptive parents should be so thankful to the birthmother who gave up all those possibilities and let them raise her child instead, and so grateful to the child for bringing them the joy that otherwise they could never have had. I wish you would stop trying to make saints out of adoptive parents. They certainly aren't any nobler than non-adoptive parents, and they get plenty for themselves in the process.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 26, 2006 9:30:54 GMT -5
And why shouldn't she help all those women who cannot become pregnant? Helping women who cannot become pregnant is one lousy reason to carry and then relinquish a child. Adoption is not some cure for infertility. No woman has some god-given right to be a mother, and no woman has any obligation to make sure that someone else gets to be a mother just because she wants to be one. It being a lousy reason is your opinion, because I believe it is a good reason. It's not just a child, it happens to be a child that was conceived by the pregnant woman herself. I could never do any harm to a child that was conceived by me, even if I didn't want it. I would feel an obligation to keep the pregnancy and keep the child healthy, because I wouldn't be able to live with myself otherwise. And I am not making saints out of adoptive parents, just because I said the good ones deserve appreciation, which they do. I know there are some horrible ones out there also, look at the couple that locked there kids up in cages!
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 26, 2006 9:40:21 GMT -5
As much as I am against abortion for reasons I have already given, if it is going to be legal, then more should be done with stem cell research. Stem cell research which can help find cures for certain diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, multiple scerosis, and Parkinsons Disease. Actor Michael J. Fox is one of the many who suffers with Parkinsons Disease. He's only 45 years old and has had this disease for about 10 years now. As the disease progresses, the result is a gradual loss of muscle control. www.michaeljfox.org Cute picture of him on there to!
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Oct 26, 2006 13:42:14 GMT -5
As much as I am against abortion for reasons I have already given, if it is going to be legal, then more should be done with stem cell research. Stem cell research which can help find cures for certain diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, multiple scerosis, and Parkinsons Disease. Actor Michael J. Fox is one of the many who suffers with Parkinsons Disease. He's only 45 years old and has had this disease for about 10 years now. As the disease progresses, the result is a gradual loss of muscle control. www.michaeljfox.org Cute picture of him on there to! Well, we can agree on Michael J. Fox for sure. FYI, though, stem cell research is not related even slightly to abortions. The embryonic stem cells that are (or could be) used are developed as part of the in vitro fertilization procedure. They do not come from aborted fetuses. The IVF procedure involves extracting twenty or so eggs from a woman's ovaries and then fertilizing the extracted eggs with sperm in a lab. Once fertilized, each egg begins to split and divide into two, then four, then eight cells, then so on. Each of these separate groups of cells can then be placed into a woman's uterus or each can be frozen. Usually several eggs are returned to the woman's body, but not all of them. If the woman becomes pregnant after the first implantation procedure, the remaining groups of cells can be saved for her to use some time in the future, or they can be used in research, or they eventually will deteriorate and be discarded. Of late, the scientists are telling us that it's even possible for them to use one cell from a group of eight fertile cells, leaving the other seven to develop and be implanted with no damage done to the eventual fetus. So, even if one believes that a human person exists at the moment of conception, there is no inevitable destruction of any human life involved in the stem cell research process. Researchers in Israel are already getting some information from embryonic stem cell research about a potential cure for Parkinson's that is encouraging, although not as good as it could be. Still, good to know some body is doing the work. In time, more and better will surely come out of this. "In what is considered a major medical breakthrough, researchers in Jerusalem have succeeded in showing that human embryonic stem cells can improve the functioning of a laboratory rat with Parkinson's Disease. Findings of the research were published in the recent edition of the prestigious magazine Stem Cells. (stemcells@alphamedpress.org) "The research team created cultures of primitive nerve cells from human embryonic stem cells and transplanted them into an area in the brain of a rat, where there were no dopaminergic nerve cells. A gradual, significant improvement in the functioning of the rats was noted. After three months it was clear that some of the transplanted human cells turned into dopaminergic nerve cells. The researchers emphasize that the percentage of transplanted cells that matured into dopaminergic nerve cells was not high and that the rats did not make a complete recovery."
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Oct 26, 2006 13:53:16 GMT -5
It being a lousy reason is your opinion, because I believe it is a good reason. Sorry, but if it's a good reason for some then it's a good reason for all. Would you carry a pregnancy to term so you could help another woman by relinquishing the infant that was born to you even though you are married and have no other reason for not raising your infant yourself? See, you are probably just as capable of helping out those couples who can't have babies of their own. If you wouldn't dream of doing that, why on earth should anyone else? No one should feel that she ought to carry a pregnancy to term just to help infertile couples. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for anybody. There's no reason why some women have to be altruistic but others aren't expected to be so.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 26, 2006 15:39:38 GMT -5
As much as I am against abortion for reasons I have already given, if it is going to be legal, then more should be done with stem cell research. Stem cell research which can help find cures for certain diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, multiple scerosis, and Parkinsons Disease. Actor Michael J. Fox is one of the many who suffers with Parkinsons Disease. He's only 45 years old and has had this disease for about 10 years now. As the disease progresses, the result is a gradual loss of muscle control. www.michaeljfox.org Cute picture of him on there to! Well, we can agree on Michael J. Fox for sure. FYI, though, stem cell research is not related even slightly to abortions. The embryonic stem cells that are (or could be) used are developed as part of the in vitro fertilization procedure. They do not come from aborted fetuses. The IVF procedure involves extracting twenty or so eggs from a woman's ovaries and then fertilizing the extracted eggs with sperm in a lab. Once fertilized, each egg begins to split and divide into two, then four, then eight cells, then so on. Each of these separate groups of cells can then be placed into a woman's uterus or each can be frozen. Usually several eggs are returned to the woman's body, but not all of them. If the woman becomes pregnant after the first implantation procedure, the remaining groups of cells can be saved for her to use some time in the future, or they can be used in research, or they eventually will deteriorate and be discarded. Of late, the scientists are telling us that it's even possible for them to use one cell from a group of eight fertile cells, leaving the other seven to develop and be implanted with no damage done to the eventual fetus. So, even if one believes that a human person exists at the moment of conception, there is no inevitable destruction of any human life involved in the stem cell research process. Researchers in Israel are already getting some information from embryonic stem cell research about a potential cure for Parkinson's that is encouraging, although not as good as it could be. Still, good to know some body is doing the work. In time, more and better will surely come out of this. "In what is considered a major medical breakthrough, researchers in Jerusalem have succeeded in showing that human embryonic stem cells can improve the functioning of a laboratory rat with Parkinson's Disease. Findings of the research were published in the recent edition of the prestigious magazine Stem Cells. (stemcells@alphamedpress.org) "The research team created cultures of primitive nerve cells from human embryonic stem cells and transplanted them into an area in the brain of a rat, where there were no dopaminergic nerve cells. A gradual, significant improvement in the functioning of the rats was noted. After three months it was clear that some of the transplanted human cells turned into dopaminergic nerve cells. The researchers emphasize that the percentage of transplanted cells that matured into dopaminergic nerve cells was not high and that the rats did not make a complete recovery." Stem cells carry an ethical burden due to their origins and possibility. ONE SOURCE FOR STEM CELLS IS ABORTED EMBRYOS. This investigating of reasons to support stem cells examines the implications of the abortion debate on stem cell research. President Bush was intent on vetoing a House passed bill that would loosen restrictions on funding of research using STEM CELLS FROM DAYS OLD EMBRYOS in a search for cures to Parkinsons and other diseases. President Bush is in favor of using stem cells, but not using aborted or cloned embryos. He has supported funding for research but the funding was limited to embryos who are already dead from fertility treatments. He isn't in favor of funding research from cloned or aborted embryos.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 26, 2006 17:26:35 GMT -5
It being a lousy reason is your opinion, because I believe it is a good reason. Sorry, but if it's a good reason for some then it's a good reason for all. Would you carry a pregnancy to term so you could help another woman by relinquishing the infant that was born to you even though you are married and have no other reason for not raising your infant yourself? See, you are probably just as capable of helping out those couples who can't have babies of their own. If you wouldn't dream of doing that, why on earth should anyone else? No one should feel that she ought to carry a pregnancy to term just to help infertile couples. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for anybody. There's no reason why some women have to be altruistic but others aren't expected to be so. I was gonna answer these questions, and I started to. But these questions are blunt and rude, and I don't appreciate being bluntly asked personal questions like this. I've already given my opinions on abortion.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 29, 2006 21:08:42 GMT -5
Speaking of Michael J. Fox, he was just shown on an interview on tv urging voters to vote democratic, because he would like more to be done with stem cell research. Poor Michael J. Fox is screwed, his disease has progressed, and he is in terrible shape now! Did anyone else see his interview on tv? That Rush Limbaugh jerk had the nerve to make statements that Michael J. Fox purposly didn't take his medication, or was acting during his interview, just because he was shaking so bad! A person with a serious problem being ridiculed this way, unbelievable! That Limbaugh guy is the lowest of the low! I really hope a cure for Parkinsons is found before it's too late for Michael J. Fox! I always liked him.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 31, 2006 8:18:58 GMT -5
I think it is ok if the woman's life is in danger. Before becoming a mother I would say that abortion was ok if the pregnancy was the result of rape. ...now I am a mother I say that abortion is wrong whatever the circumstance...there are other options for women out there, why should we have the right to kill a future great inventor or president or even an ordinary human?? Guess being a mother lets you see how precious life really is and a baby is a person that needs love and nuturing to become the best person we can help make it. I dont believe that evil is born I believe that it is bred.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Nov 8, 2006 14:30:42 GMT -5
Stem cells carry an ethical burden due to their origins and possibility. ONE SOURCE FOR STEM CELLS IS ABORTED EMBRYOS. Nope. And if you think about it, you will understand. An aborted embryo is destroyed in the abortion process. IOW, an aborted embryo is dead. He did veto a bill that would permit research on day old embryos, but these are not embryos that have ever been implanted or ever lived in a woman's body. He could not possibly favor using embryos that are already dead because if the embryo is already dead its cells cannot divide and develop into new tissue, which is what living stem cells can do.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Nov 8, 2006 14:41:48 GMT -5
I was gonna answer these questions, and I started to. But these questions are blunt and rude, and I don't appreciate being bluntly asked personal questions like this. I've already given my opinions on abortion. My questions were not intended to be rude. There are many women who DO become pregnant and carry their pregnancy to term and then give their baby to a couple that is infertile. They are called surrogate mothers. This is their choice. I simply ask whether you would consider becoming pregnant, as these surrogate mothers do, in order to give a child to an infertile couple. If you wouldn't even consider doing something like that, rest assured. Most women would not. I see absolutely no reason why any woman should feel a responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term in order to supply an infertile couple with a baby. If it's not something you would do (and I know it's something I would NOT do), then why on earth would you insist that another woman do it?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Nov 8, 2006 23:10:22 GMT -5
Skyloom, anyone that has listened to any news on stem-cell research is aware of the ongoing debate involving abortion and stem-cell research.. Since President Bush vetoed a house passed bill which would loosen restrictions on funding of research using days old aborted embryos, we are unable to use this scientific knowledge at this time. That is the reason President Bush vetoed the bill, because he is a pro-life person and it is against his pro-life morals. I heard that statement come from his own mouth on tv. All the American soldiers that have died over in Iraq is ok, but we can't allow more stem-cell research! I am against abortion and the death penalty, but if abortion is legal anyway let's do what we can to help others that are living with these diseases like Parkinsons, and let's allow more stem-cell research! Your comments before were turning the tables around to me, asking me what I would do if I became pregnant now, if I would keep it or not, and those are kind of personal questions. If I was a seventeen year old girl (hypothetically speaking) and I got pregnant, I would give it up for adoption since I think abortion for know other reason but the fact that you don't want to be bothered with it all, is murder. Who am I to decide this person does not have the right to live? If I created a human life, I would protect that human's life, from day one of conception, whether it was a convenience for me or not.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Nov 9, 2006 16:07:34 GMT -5
Skyloom, anyone that has listened to any news on stem-cell research is aware of the ongoing debate involving abortion and stem-cell research.. Since President Bush vetoed a house passed bill which would loosen restrictions on funding of research using days old aborted embryos, we are unable to use this scientific knowledge at this time. That is the reason President Bush vetoed the bill, because he is a pro-life person and it is against his pro-life morals. I heard that statement come from his own mouth on tv. All the American soldiers that have died over in Iraq is ok, but we can't allow more stem-cell research! Pumpkin Pie, there are no aborted embryos used in stem cell research. There are embryos used in stem cell research that were created in fertility clinics but were not used to begin a pregnancy for whatever reasons. Eventually, these embryos will deteriorate and will be discarded. Bush claims to be pro-life and claims to believe that a human person exists from the first instant of conception... whether conception happens in utero or in a lab dish. So, he opposes any use of an embryo for research, even if the embryo is conceived in a lab. An aborted embryo, one that is taken out of a woman's body, is dead as a result of the abortion. It is either vacuumed out or a currette is used to scrape out the contents of the uterus. These processes both destroy the embryo. I understand your opposition to abortion although I don't agree with you. I do suggest you do a little reading on the internet about stem cell research and about where the embryos come from that are used for this research. We may still disagree about it, but at least we both will have the facts at hand to talk intelligently about it.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Nov 9, 2006 16:25:58 GMT -5
Your comments before were turning the tables around to me, asking me what I would do if I became pregnant now, if I would keep it or not, and those are kind of personal questions. If I was a seventeen year old girl (hypothetically speaking) and I got pregnant, I would give it up for adoption since I think abortion for know other reason but the fact that you don't want to be bothered with it all, is murder. Who am I to decide this person does not have the right to live? If I created a human life, I would protect that human's life, from day one of conception, whether it was a convenience for me or not. If you were seventeen and pregnant, I hope you would choose either abortion, adoption, or to raise your child yourself because you make your choice freely. My objection was to your comment that someone like seventeen year old you SHOULD continue her pregnancy and eventually place her baby for adoption... because there are so many couples who would dearly love to raise that child. Whether there are couples who would dearly love to raise a child or not, there is no reason why these couples MUST get their wish. There is no reason why any woman SHOULD feel pressured to give these couples what they wish for. A young woman may be like yourself and may WANT to give some couple her baby to raise as their own. I would very much hope that young woman has given a great deal of thought to the fact that she has no legal right to know whether her child lives or dies, she has no legal right to communicate any sort of medical information that could affect the child's quality of life to either the child or to the parents, and that she has no legal right to ever even see her child again. I would hope that she realizes how much she will grieve for the child she relinquishes, and that she will feel that grief for the rest of her life, particularly on her child's birthday and at the holidays when families gather and she knows her child is not there. Still, if she has considered all these things and she still WANTS to relinquish her child, she obviously has every right to do that. If, though, she has considered all these things and she feels that she wants to spare herself the terrible grief of adoption and to end her pregnancy quickly, NO ONE SHOULD DARE remind her of any "obligation" to continue her pregnancy, to accept that grief and lifelong pain for herself, and to selflessly make a nice couple happy. You think, I believe, that it is selfish for a woman to choose her own happiness over her embryo's life. How, then, can an infertile couple selfishly ask a woman to choose their happiness over her own?
|
|