Freethought & Rationalism Archive

galiel · 10-30-2002, 07:37 PM

First paragraph of AP news report:

"The Bush administration has revised the charter of a federal advisory committee concerned with the safety of research volunteers to specify that embryos and fetuses in experiments are "human subjects" whose welfare deserves special attention."

Last paragraph:

"In September, the administration enacted a new policy that allows states to include "unborn children" from the moment of conception in the Children's Health Insurance Program."

Read it and weep:
<a href="http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_package.html?FRONTID=SCIENCE&PACKAGEID=stem cells&STORYID=APIS7N049NO0&SLUG=EMBRYOS%2dRESEARCH " target="_blank">http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_package.html?FRONTID=SCIENCE&PACKAGEID=stem ce lls&STORYID=APIS7N049NO0&SLUG=EMBRYOS%2dRESEARCH</a>

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Sushi X · 10-30-2002, 08:40 PM

Ugh. I can't believe these morons have their finger on the button. Please, someone replace the Republicans with competent leaders!

galiel · 10-30-2002, 09:19 PM

VOTE, PEOPLE, VOTE!!!

Do NOT let them have control of both houses of Congress and the White House all at the same time. If you have to hold your nose to vote for the Democratic candidate because you support a marginalized minority candidate or are too disgusted to deal with either party, hold your nose and vote for the Democrat anyway. Think of your vote as being *against* one party gaining absolute control. Especially a party so opposed to civil rightsm including ours as non theists.

This is an important election. We can't afford to sit at home and bite our fingernails.

Toto · 10-30-2002, 10:26 PM

If you have trouble with that link, close the window and click on the link again.

Sabine Grant · 11-01-2002, 01:32 PM

Galiel, Salaam Alikum

It is easy to be confused with the actual status of a fetus. Medecine and science will aknowledge life in a human as both vital signs and brain activity are detectable. However, Constitutional Identity is what rules the humanity of the unborn. Maybe the Supreme Court should review medical and scientific findings to determine if a fetus is indeed to be considered as a human subject or not.
I can see why the Supreme Court would not want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
If for any reason a fetus with vital signs and brain activity were to be declared alive, ouch ouch ouch.....
Arguments would have to be considered such as " yes it is alive but it is on life support as it benefits of oxygen, hydration and nutrition only thru the mother". At what stages of the fetal growth would they declare it as human life?
The statement that Bush made only reflects his belief that a human fetus is indeed alive prior to the head being expelled from the birth canal.
Science and medecine need to redefine the humanity of a fetus according to scientific data before any statement can be made pro or against the terms used by Bush.

NFLP · 11-01-2002, 03:42 PM

That's interesting thinking. However, there is no argument that a fetus is human---it doesn't have PERSONHOOD. That inferrence can be drawn even from "scripture" in Exodus21:22 It shows that a fetus may have value but not the equal worth of a person.

To disallow fetal cell research is along the lines of the Christian clergyman who decried the implementing of a small pox vaccine because it interfered with "God's plan".

I talked to a Christian radio host who declared he would not allow his daughter to receive a lifesaving treatment if came as a result of fetal cell research.

I can picture him telling her "Honey, If I let you have that treatment, I'll go to Hell. We can't question God's plan. You'll get to be with Jesus and greet me when it's my time."

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: NFLP ]</p>

Bible Humper · 11-01-2002, 03:55 PM

Quote:

I talked to a Christian radio host who declared he would not allow his daughter to receive a lifesaving treatment if came as a result of fetal cell research.

If it came to that, he would no doubt "receive a sign from God" that he should save her.

Mecha_Dude · 11-01-2002, 04:36 PM

These people sicken me.
I remember in a public speaking class when a girl did a whole speech on "killing our babies" with stem cell research. My friend (Who somehow manages to be Jewish AND Agnostic at the same time

) gets up and scrapes his arm with his hand and says;
"Look! I just killed an equal amount of human cells as those found in embryo! LOOK! I did it again! Send me to jail for life! I killed a person!"

Sabine Grant · 11-02-2002, 04:48 AM

NFLP : Constitutional Identity is what defines personhood. Sorry I should have been clear over what I meant by identity.
To Galiel's rant, I meant to point that the terms we use to refer to a human fetus vary with our perception and understanding of what personhood should be.
I checked Exodus 21:22 and found that in the context of the entire chapter (I used both the KJV and Living Bible which represent the most conservative and most liberal translations), it underlines the type of legal measures taken if a pregnant woman loses her unborn child as a result of harm done to her.
The Living Bible uses the term " causes premature birth". The KJV, " causes her to loose her fruit". Both describe the act of expelling a fetus prior to 9 monts which is considered the gestation time for a human fetus.
Whether the mother suffers thru a spontaneous miscarriage or the dead fetus has to be taken out by inducing labor or a C section, in both cases the fetus's normal gestation time and health have been affected by the harm done to her. That is what I believe those verses refer to.
The personhood of a human fetus suddenly becomes relevant in today's criminal law if a pregnant woman is assaulted and it results in the death of the fetus. Charges such as man slaughter can be brought up. The fetus then benefits of the protection of the Constitution. However that protection is never based on scientific data but soly on the mother's choice to want or not want that fetus.
That was my point here. That subjective interpretation is what defines the status of a human fetus not scientific data which would define once for all the status of a fetus according to its various stages of growth.
There is a vast difference between miscarrying a 6 weeks old embryo and a 6 months old fetus.
Mainly that with today's medical progress, a 6 months old fetus can survive premature birth and resume normal lungs' function with appropriate care and life support measures.
Back in Exodus' days, there was no chance of survival for a fetus born prematuraly.
As far as stem cell research is concerned, the dilemna occurs when it is practised on non frozen embryos. I believe that the term Bush refered to as "human subjects" refers to aborted fetuses. I think it is common knowledge that Bush is pro life therefor we need to not be shocked that he would use such a term. Someone else could have refered to as "material of conception".
I maintain that the status of a human fetus is not based on scientifc and medical data when it comes to offer some degree of protection to the fetus but to pure subjective interpretation.
It all comes down to whether or not the fetus is "wanted".
On one hand, intra uterine surgery will be performed on a fetus to improve its health, on the other ,the same fetus if not wanted, surgery will be performed to terminate its vital signs and brain activity. In either cases, it is always a matter of a subjective choice from the parents.
From the pro life people I have talked with, stem cell research on non frozen embryos, becomes a dilemna with the concern that aborted fetuses may become the main harvesting field. Mostly because the abortion procedures existing today would have to insure that the cells are harvested as they are still viable.
If anyone knows of a web site which gives scientific data as to the best conditions of harvesting such cells, please let me know.
The existing abortion procedures have to insure that the fetus or embryo is indeed dead prior to being expelled.How can we guarantee that a surviving fetus from let us say a saline/dilation abortion procedure will not become a harvesting field as it is indeed expelled from the vaginal canal still exhibiting vital signs and brain activity? Or should it still be a harvesting field despite of the fact that it was born with vital signs and brain activity?
Should the line being drawn and who would draw it?

NFLP, that dilemna is not presented by a fundy extremist christian who would let her own child die without a necessary blood transfusion or the benefit of medical research claiming that "it is not God's Plan". It is presented by a person who ponders over the hypocrisy of the whole system where legislature will protect a fetus if wanted or sentence it to death if it were to become a harvesting field. In either cases, legislature does not take in account the scientific data of the status of a fetus.

Should the terms we use to describe the status of a human fetus be based on subjective interpretation such as "material of conception" or "unborn baby" or should we allow science and medecine to determine the validity of such terms?

10-30-2002, 07:37 PM	#1
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Embryos called "Human Subjects"; Bush revises research policy First paragraph of AP news report: "The Bush administration has revised the charter of a federal advisory committee concerned with the safety of research volunteers to specify that embryos and fetuses in experiments are "human subjects" whose welfare deserves special attention." Last paragraph: "In September, the administration enacted a new policy that allows states to include "unborn children" from the moment of conception in the Children's Health Insurance Program." Read it and weep: <a href="http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_package.html?FRONTID=SCIENCE&PACKAGEID=stem cells&STORYID=APIS7N049NO0&SLUG=EMBRYOS%2dRESEARCH " target="_blank">http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_package.html?FRONTID=SCIENCE&PACKAGEID=stem ce lls&STORYID=APIS7N049NO0&SLUG=EMBRYOS%2dRESEARCH</a> [ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-30-2002, 08:40 PM	#2
Sushi X Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Washington DC Posts: 86	Ugh. I can't believe these morons have their finger on the button. Please, someone replace the Republicans with competent leaders!

10-30-2002, 09:19 PM	#3
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	VOTE, PEOPLE, VOTE!!! Do NOT let them have control of both houses of Congress and the White House all at the same time. If you have to hold your nose to vote for the Democratic candidate because you support a marginalized minority candidate or are too disgusted to deal with either party, hold your nose and vote for the Democrat anyway. Think of your vote as being against one party gaining absolute control. Especially a party so opposed to civil rightsm including ours as non theists. This is an important election. We can't afford to sit at home and bite our fingernails.

10-30-2002, 10:26 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you have trouble with that link, close the window and click on the link again.

11-01-2002, 01:32 PM	#5
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Galiel, Salaam Alikum It is easy to be confused with the actual status of a fetus. Medecine and science will aknowledge life in a human as both vital signs and brain activity are detectable. However, Constitutional Identity is what rules the humanity of the unborn. Maybe the Supreme Court should review medical and scientific findings to determine if a fetus is indeed to be considered as a human subject or not. I can see why the Supreme Court would not want to touch it with a ten foot pole. If for any reason a fetus with vital signs and brain activity were to be declared alive, ouch ouch ouch..... Arguments would have to be considered such as " yes it is alive but it is on life support as it benefits of oxygen, hydration and nutrition only thru the mother". At what stages of the fetal growth would they declare it as human life? The statement that Bush made only reflects his belief that a human fetus is indeed alive prior to the head being expelled from the birth canal. Science and medecine need to redefine the humanity of a fetus according to scientific data before any statement can be made pro or against the terms used by Bush.

11-01-2002, 03:42 PM	#6
NFLP Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Southeast Posts: 150	That's interesting thinking. However, there is no argument that a fetus is human---it doesn't have PERSONHOOD. That inferrence can be drawn even from "scripture" in Exodus21:22 It shows that a fetus may have value but not the equal worth of a person. To disallow fetal cell research is along the lines of the Christian clergyman who decried the implementing of a small pox vaccine because it interfered with "God's plan". I talked to a Christian radio host who declared he would not allow his daughter to receive a lifesaving treatment if came as a result of fetal cell research. I can picture him telling her "Honey, If I let you have that treatment, I'll go to Hell. We can't question God's plan. You'll get to be with Jesus and greet me when it's my time." [ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: NFLP ]</p>

11-01-2002, 04:36 PM	#8
Mecha_Dude Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Everywhere... I'm Watching you... Posts: 1,019	These people sicken me. I remember in a public speaking class when a girl did a whole speech on "killing our babies" with stem cell research. My friend (Who somehow manages to be Jewish AND Agnostic at the same time ) gets up and scrapes his arm with his hand and says; "Look! I just killed an equal amount of human cells as those found in embryo! LOOK! I did it again! Send me to jail for life! I killed a person!"

11-02-2002, 04:48 AM	#9
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	NFLP : Constitutional Identity is what defines personhood. Sorry I should have been clear over what I meant by identity. To Galiel's rant, I meant to point that the terms we use to refer to a human fetus vary with our perception and understanding of what personhood should be. I checked Exodus 21:22 and found that in the context of the entire chapter (I used both the KJV and Living Bible which represent the most conservative and most liberal translations), it underlines the type of legal measures taken if a pregnant woman loses her unborn child as a result of harm done to her. The Living Bible uses the term " causes premature birth". The KJV, " causes her to loose her fruit". Both describe the act of expelling a fetus prior to 9 monts which is considered the gestation time for a human fetus. Whether the mother suffers thru a spontaneous miscarriage or the dead fetus has to be taken out by inducing labor or a C section, in both cases the fetus's normal gestation time and health have been affected by the harm done to her. That is what I believe those verses refer to. The personhood of a human fetus suddenly becomes relevant in today's criminal law if a pregnant woman is assaulted and it results in the death of the fetus. Charges such as man slaughter can be brought up. The fetus then benefits of the protection of the Constitution. However that protection is never based on scientific data but soly on the mother's choice to want or not want that fetus. That was my point here. That subjective interpretation is what defines the status of a human fetus not scientific data which would define once for all the status of a fetus according to its various stages of growth. There is a vast difference between miscarrying a 6 weeks old embryo and a 6 months old fetus. Mainly that with today's medical progress, a 6 months old fetus can survive premature birth and resume normal lungs' function with appropriate care and life support measures. Back in Exodus' days, there was no chance of survival for a fetus born prematuraly. As far as stem cell research is concerned, the dilemna occurs when it is practised on non frozen embryos. I believe that the term Bush refered to as "human subjects" refers to aborted fetuses. I think it is common knowledge that Bush is pro life therefor we need to not be shocked that he would use such a term. Someone else could have refered to as "material of conception". I maintain that the status of a human fetus is not based on scientifc and medical data when it comes to offer some degree of protection to the fetus but to pure subjective interpretation. It all comes down to whether or not the fetus is "wanted". On one hand, intra uterine surgery will be performed on a fetus to improve its health, on the other ,the same fetus if not wanted, surgery will be performed to terminate its vital signs and brain activity. In either cases, it is always a matter of a subjective choice from the parents. From the pro life people I have talked with, stem cell research on non frozen embryos, becomes a dilemna with the concern that aborted fetuses may become the main harvesting field. Mostly because the abortion procedures existing today would have to insure that the cells are harvested as they are still viable. If anyone knows of a web site which gives scientific data as to the best conditions of harvesting such cells, please let me know. The existing abortion procedures have to insure that the fetus or embryo is indeed dead prior to being expelled.How can we guarantee that a surviving fetus from let us say a saline/dilation abortion procedure will not become a harvesting field as it is indeed expelled from the vaginal canal still exhibiting vital signs and brain activity? Or should it still be a harvesting field despite of the fact that it was born with vital signs and brain activity? Should the line being drawn and who would draw it? NFLP, that dilemna is not presented by a fundy extremist christian who would let her own child die without a necessary blood transfusion or the benefit of medical research claiming that "it is not God's Plan". It is presented by a person who ponders over the hypocrisy of the whole system where legislature will protect a fetus if wanted or sentence it to death if it were to become a harvesting field. In either cases, legislature does not take in account the scientific data of the status of a fetus. Should the terms we use to describe the status of a human fetus be based on subjective interpretation such as "material of conception" or "unborn baby" or should we allow science and medecine to determine the validity of such terms?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.