« Higher education | Main | Fred Phelps lawsuit »

July 26, 2006

Choosing life

How can a person claim to be pro-life but deliberately prevent life-giving cures? How can a person claim to be pro-life but place more value on an egg than on a living person?

I value my father and my 8-year-old niece, who both have diabetes, my Papa Tom, who has Parkinson’s, and Grandma T, who is in beginning stages of Alzheimer’s, more than any egg in some Petri dish. I choose life for the living.

This is an issue that crosses party lines. I choose Bob Johnson for Missouri’s 8th Senate District seat in the Republican primary and Claire McCaskill for U.S. senator in the Democratic primary. I choose life for the millions who have debilitating diseases.

Valorie Carmer
Blue Springs

Comments

Kansasdog

mechascott - humans have been creating life in order to destroy it for thousands of years. That's what armies are for.

mechascott_42

jack:
ok, maybe I exaggerated a bit about scientists giving up on ivf, but the real issue with most of those against the proposed amendment is that of cloning or creating 'life' in order to destroy it. As far as birth control and all, you just sound silly.

well paid...:
as for the veto, I do disagree. The idea that unused ivf embryos could be used is fine with me. Like what has been said, it's better than the trash can. Also Mrs. Schiavo's case from my understanding is that she was brain dead long before the debate started. My opinion is that her 'husband' should have let her parents take care of her if that is what they wished with the understanding that they could foot the bill. I don't know all the details, but the intervention at the federal level was ridiculous. As to not using medicine: I would rather let my life expire than to take an innocent life to pay for mine. That was already done for me once, about 2000 years ago. The end, in my opinion would not justify the means.

Kate: I'm sorry if I seem insensitive. I do sympathize with people who are suffering. As I stated above, the cost is just too high in my opinion.

Jim Satterfield

The question is whether Mechascott is simply poorly informed or willfully misrepresenting the facts because no scientists have given up on using blastocytes from IVF facilities. They want to research, after all, which means they don't know exactly what approaches will work the best or what might be possible with the truly pluripotent cells that would come from IVF labs.

Kate

“As for the people with diseases, sorry, maybe in the great big picture, your time is up.”

Just when I was beginning to think that one side of this debate was more compassionate than the other. Thanks, MechaScott for balancing out the “insensitivity scales”.

jack

If the issue is really about the "unborn" why aren't these people pushing for a Constitutional Amendment making all invitro fertilization "murder" of the unused embryos? Then we need to outlaw all the forms of birth control that block implantation. Then we need to get enough women together to "snowflake" every frozen embryo. Then we need to get enough people together to adopt all those "embryos". The list goes on and on.

Of course, I figure outlawing "the pill" etc is on the to-do list but just not being talked about yet.

Watch out folks. The "culture of life" folks are hoping to be in your Dr's office, your pharmacy, your medicine chest and your beddroom real soon.

wellpaidscientist

I meant to put "amendment" after "constitutional" in my previous post, but I guess it was that word's time to go.

wellpaidscientist


The bill Bush vetoed only involved unused ivf embryo's. The MO constitutional will allow SCNT, or therapeutic cloing.

Since you believe cloning is the "problem", do you disagree with the Bush veto since the bill did not approve any kind of cloning? I can also assume you were against all efforts to keep Terri Schiavo alive because she had lived and loved, and it was her time to go.

Maybe you should just become a Christian Scientist because any efforts to live longer through medicine is obviously an affront to God's will.

jack

"scientists have given up on this..."

Since when has science "given up on" embryonic stem cell research? I geuss all that stuff about what they are hoping to accomplish is just being written by a bunch of plumbers.

I also like the argument that stem cell research hasn't created any cures yet. I thought that is why they call it "research". If all research is ended because it fails to show immediate results, virtually all progress will stop.

mechascott_42

It's quite simple, really. Those who have diseases have had some time on this earth. They have lived, loved, and had many experiences while here. The lives that are being created (clones, by the way, is the issue that is a problem) only to be destroyed are cut short before they can experience anything. Most people have no problem with using ivf embros that would otherwise "end up in a trashcan". But scientists have already given up on this as unacceptable for the reason of potential rejection of new cells. They want clones of the person who will recieve the cells so that rejection will be nearly unheard of. So, as you can clearly see, the real issue is creating clones. That's right. Creating life only to be destroyed. It has nothing to do with unwanted embryos. As for the people with diseases, sorry, maybe in the great big picture, your time is up. We don't get to choose when we go. Scientists are wanting to choose when these unmature lives are being destroyed. Sorry, they are not gods. In my opinion they should not be allowed to have that decision.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright