Jivin J’s Life Links 10-15-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- At the Live Action blog, Jennifer Rego has a post with pictures of what she describes as a “10 week old embryo” removed from a woman who had uterine cancer.
- Feministe’s Jessica Valenti was recently able to bring home her daughter Layla, who was born at just 29 weeks and spent 56 days in the NICU.
- The Center for Genetics and Society blog has posted an updated translation of a paper originally published in German on how American bio-tech companies are attempting to skirt laws which prohibit the purchasing of human eggs for research cloning purposes:My investigation revealed that researchers in CA are taking innovative approaches to introducing the dimension of payment into egg procurement strategies, thereby undermining the spirit if not the letter of state law. One approach already being implemented is the “seamless integration” of a fertility clinic and biotech company and the use of oocytes for which payments have been made for reproductive purposes. Another approach, still apparently in the planning phase, involves the commercial outsourcing of egg brokerage and “egg sharing.”
- Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial on Geron’s clinical trial using cells made from embryonic stem cells to treat patients with spinal cord injuries:Geron’s announcement puts the lie to the claim ESCR was stopped dead in its tracks by President George W. Bush’s announcement that federal funding of ESCR would continue only for stem cell lines then in existence, not from new stem cell lines derived from human embryos destroyed specifically for that purpose.
I’d also point out Geron is a U.S. company which used private money for its research and it was approved for the first clinical trial in the world as far as I know. This kind of puts to bed 2 pro-ESCR talking points: 1. – Tax dollars are needed to move this research forward as quickly as possible and 2. – The U.S. was failing behind other nations.
Oct.15, 2010 5:00 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m glad that Jessica’s daughter is home and that they’re both ok. The NICU is a scary place, especially for a micropreemie.
“This kind of puts to bed 2 pro-ESCR talking points: 1. – Tax dollars are needed to move this research forward as quickly as possible and 2. – The U.S. was failing behind other nations.”
And it really puts to bed one of the primary anti-ESCR talking points: that it hasn’t resulted in any medical advancements and so further study is a scientific dead end. Of course, “talking point” truly is all this claim ever was: it was just an objective-sounding cover for opposing valid, potentially groundbreaking research because of some whacked out belief that embryos, of all things, are “human beings” that have some kind of moral value.
“…whacked out belief that embryos, of all things, are “human beings” ”
They exist (i.e. are a “being.”)
They are human.
Therefore, they are “human beings.”
This is scientific fact, not a belief.
Try again.
You devalue all of us if you claim that simply having DNA is the only requirement for being a “human being”.
I don’t know very many Christians that don’t know that a human being is human before AND after birth. Joan, please go read a biology textbook and an embryology book as well. You need to study the development of human beings before birth. We don’t magically become babies as we are born!
And if you say a human embryo isn’t human, you are denying that Jesus was human before birth as well.
That picture on Live Action was beautiful.
I’m glad that Jessica Valenti’s baby is going home. Premature birth can be terrifying- I’m happy that she’s okay. :)
Joan, you are confusing human being, which is a scientific designation of the species homo sapien and can be scientifically and factually proven with the term personhood, which is a legal & philosphical term, and is subjectively defined .
This article reminds me of something I’ve been thinking about: if Ms. Stanek DID find a living baby wrapped in a blanket and tossed in a utility closet, why didn’t she rush it straight to the NICU, rather than hold it in her arms until it died? If this story is true, wouldn’t her actions constitute further criminal negligence?
Also, why didn’t she invoke existing laws that would have protected any infant “born alive,” like the Baby Doe laws and mandates that hospitals treat all patients for acute conditions, regardless of ability to pay? The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is pretty much a duplicate of existing law.
“This article reminds me of something I’ve been thinking about: if Ms. Stanek DID find a living baby wrapped in a blanket and tossed in a utility closet, why didn’t she rush it straight to the NICU, rather than hold it in her arms until it died?”
Probably because this incident is completely fictional.
LOL you two.
You are too funny for words. Megan meet Joan. Joan, Megan.
Night night
PS why don’t you ask Jill??
It would be nice if the ESCR people would get out of the way and let the real stem cell advances move forwards. They’ve muddied the waters so completely that I’ve run into folks elsewhere who think that pro-lifers oppose all stem cell research, rather than only that which destroys human life. Honestly, these people are preventing the real breakthroughs from getting the press that they ought to, just so they can grandstand.
You devalue all of us if you claim that simply having DNA is the only requirement for being a “human being”.
I think you meant to say “simply having human DNA is the only requirement for being a ‘human being.'”
Actually, in doing so, we elevate and seek to protect all human life, born and unborn, disabled and non-disabled, young and old. This way, no one can simply create his/her own definition of what it means to be “human” thereby arbitrarily removing rights from (or refusing to grant rights to) members of the human race.
joan said: – You devalue all of us if you claim that simply having DNA is the only requirement for being a “human being”.
Can I quote you on that? Better yet – can you come with me on a college tour? I’d love to ask you in front of a very large audience to explain what DNA is…
joan said: – it was just an objective-sounding cover for opposing valid, potentially groundbreaking research because of some whacked out belief that embryos, of all things, are “human beings” that have some kind of moral value.
joan – if human embryos are not human beings in every sense of the word – then please explain what they are – using sound biological evidence, and then explain when they become “human beings” – and why that makes them so.
You never answered my question before – “at what point in development do you believe morally valued human life begins?”
Also – what makes you a human being?
“It would be nice if the ESCR people would get out of the way and let the real stem cell advances move forwards. ”
Really? Yeah, okay, Geron should just cancel its clinical trials on this new treatment so that they don’t “muddy the waters” with all that stupid life-saving medical and scientific stuff. “Real breakthroughs” indeed. I can’t wait to see what your tune will be when embryonic stem cell research leads to the first paralyzed person walking again.
“joan – if human embryos are not human beings in every sense of the word – then please explain what they are – using sound biological evidence, and then explain when they become “human beings” – and why that makes them so.”
You’ve already answered your own question. They are human embryos. I don’t care whether they have unique human DNA or not. It is not an operative concern in the least to me. The term “human being” does not necessarily follow from having “human DNA”; that is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a “human being”.
“You never answered my question before – “at what point in development do you believe morally valued human life begins?””
By whose moral standard? Bringing in imprecise variables like “morally valued” just “muddies the waters”, to borrow a phrase. Life as a legal citizen and equally recognized member of society begins at the point in which an infant is no longer dependent on the mother’s body and can live on its own. Only after that point can “moral value” even enter in the equation as far as I’m concerned. An embryo is disposable.
joan, so you are saying that a baby is disposable because it needs a mother to care for him/her after they are born? I haven’t met many babies that can “live” on their own without the assistance of mothers (and fathers) to feed them, clothe them, provide shelter, etc.
How about elderly people? Will it be ok to dispose of them when they are dependent of someone else?
The basic biological functions of an infant are not dependent on another person. The basic biological functions of a fetus are categorically dependent on the body of the mother. That is the key difference. As for elderly people (or the infirm, or whatever other example have you), note that I said “life as a legal citizen and equally recognized member of society begins [emphasis added]” at [birth]; I’m not prescribing the criteria under which that status ends. The elderly or the infirm have already met the sole requirement for becoming recognized as a member of society, which in practical terms means being born.
ah, I see how it is Joan. Just as slavers had certain specific criteria (mostly based on their ignorance of these people) that dehumanized the African man and woman, likewise you too have certain criteria that dehumanize an unborn person.
Your criteria also based on ignorance and most of it wilful (as was the slaver) includes discrimination based on location and stage of development.
The decision to have a baby is made before sex. If people don’t want a baby Joan, they shouldn’t have sex. People should have sex when THEY are personally able to accept the responsibility for a child. Sex, even contraceptive sex leads to babies. That’s a reality.
To kill the child based on the mother/father’s immaturity and inability to accept the consequences of their actions and to face reality, is barbaric.
“I can’t wait to see what your tune will be when embryonic stem cell research leads to the first paralyzed person walking again.”
Embroyonic stem cell research has lead nowhere positive. It can never lead anywhere positive and our ‘tune’ doesn’t just change on every little whim. The end does not justify the means. This was true yesterday, is true today and will be true every day after today.
I know you may find this hard to believe joan, but many people do not share in your bloodlust of the unborn.
Many of us, paralyzed or not, would never kill or support the intentional killing of humans even if these killings would make our own lives easier or cure us from every ailment.
In my opionion, it is your hedonistic mindset that keeps you from being fully human. However, even if everyone else on earth supported my opinion about you, it wouldn’t make it ok to kill you.
Angel, well said!
joan, a ‘human embryo’ depends on the mother to get nutrients/food while he/she grows from his/her conception. The dependence of the mother is for nutrition and protection. Just as newborns are placed in cribs and are fed non-solid food for the first couple of months. The reality is that we are ALL dependent of each other to survive in this life. To kill a ‘human embryo’ is to deny our humanity and to be selfish in giving the same chance in life that we ALL have had.
“Embroyonic stem cell research has lead nowhere positive. It can never lead anywhere positive and our ‘tune’ doesn’t just change on every little whim. The end does not justify the means. This was true yesterday, is true today and will be true every day after today.”
I certainly hope you are not under the impression that every medical treatment we enjoy today came about from perfectly ethical means. I can’t think of a better situation than medical research where ends justify means. In fact, one could reasonably argue that there is a moral imperative to do what is needed in order to make medical advancements that will benefit humanity long after the “means” have been discarded and forgotten. Of course, destroying frozen, microscopic embryos rates about a 0 on a 1-10 scale of unethical medical research anyway, so that is all beside the point.
Wow joan. You are actually defending unethical medical research. Why should this surprise me?
“I certainly hope you are not under the impression that every medical treatment we enjoy today came about from perfectly ethical means.”
I certainly hope you are not under the impression that because a beautiful child is sometimes the result of an abusive relationship, that abuse is ethical. I certainly hope you are not under the impression that because some of us are here because an ancestor was raped that rape is ethical. I certainly hope that you are not under the impression that if an alcohol counselor was a former drunk driver that drunk driving is ethical.
Even a Creaster such as yourself should be able to realize that sometimes terribly evil situations lead to super holy beautiful ones but this can never make evil acts ethical.
(Hint: meditate on the word ‘crucifixion’)
joan October 16th, 2010 at 8:28 am The basic biological functions of an infant are not dependent on another person. The basic biological functions of a fetus are categorically dependent on the body of the mother. That is the key difference. As for elderly people (or the infirm, or whatever other example have you), note that I said “life as a legal citizen and equally recognized member of society begins [emphasis added]” at [birth]; I’m not prescribing the criteria under which that status ends. The elderly or the infirm have already met the sole requirement for becoming recognized as a member of society, which in practical terms means being born.
As Carlos stated, the unborn child’s biological functions happen all on their own, essentially needing only nourishment and protection from the mother. The child’s own cells cause it to grow, and even trigger the start of birth. How else could a child survive when delivered early by c-section? If you wanted to draw the line on humanity at viability, medicine is advancing so quickly that infants are surviving being born at younger and younger ages. Even agreeing on the ridiculous criteria of birth itself, would you advocate inducing pregnancy in later term patients instead of actually killing them before they get the chance to live?
In fact, one could reasonably argue that there is a moral imperative to do what is needed in order to make medical advancements that will benefit humanity long after the “means” have been discarded and forgotten.
Okay. Go offer your living body for experimental testing. It could be what’s needed, Joan! It’s your moral imperative! You can be the means science discards and forgets!
Never mind. I stand by my original post. Please ignore this one.
Right – however you are not making any point. A skin cell has human DNA, but I would not call a skin cell a human being. A human embryo on the other hand is a completely self-organized organism which grows provided it has nutrition and a secure environment. You require these as well.
Your response amounted to nothing more than restating your opinion: I don’t care whether they have unique human DNA or not.
How are you different from an human embryo?
Should others not care whether you have human DNA for the purposes of determining your usefulness?
Do you grow all your own food?
What about your home – did any part of it come from another’s labor?
Do you rely upon others for your security – locally? Nationally?
Do you depend upon others to be merciful and follow the rule of law?
Autonomy is not the basis of our humanity – in that case, according to your definition those who are in a comatose state cease to be legally recognized citizens(?) (humans – right?) – because they are completely dependent upon other’s bodies to meet their needs.
You are dependent upon others – but selectively ignore that for the sake of your opinion on abortion/HESCR. When it comes to morality, you are electing to promote the principle of absolute power in the destruction of other human beings, but would not want to be subjected to that same principle.
I believe that’s called hypocrisy.
A minor correction: Jessica Valenti blogs for Feministing, not Feministe.
10 points, Chris!
Also, try as I might, I still didn’t find a single drop of scientific evidence in joan’s posts, only a pro-abort ramble…. Will just ignore it from now.
Also, there has been amazing break-throughs in using umbilical cord stem cells in curing some diseases, and as someone already mentioned – the embrionic stem cell research is not even close to curing anything, they’re still testing if it’s safe to inject those cells….
joan – given your definitions and principles about biological dependency and autonomy of the mother – you’re essentially defending not only partial birth abortion, but also induced labor abortion at any stage up to and including natural birth. Am I correct in my observations?
It also appears you believe that basic humaneness and obligations of mothers to their children is completely voluntary, but only when the mother-child bond is present in pregnancy.
Human presence and innocence is not to be considered?
If you were threatened – would you look to, and depend upon the law and others for relief?
You elevate motherhood for special privileges in terms of autonomous power (killing) over another human being – the mother’s very child. So the one thing that makes a woman a mother is your basis for justifying legalized murder – that is the killing of an innocent human being?
Do you really want the rest of the world to operate with your functional/utilitarian mindset?
Who is to say what may be permitted? The population? History has shown us great cruelty when man arbitrarily justifies killing other humans outside of self or national defense.
Hey guys, last night I saw the House MD episode which dealt with theraputic abortion in which the woman had Mirror Syndrome with her liver & kidneys shutting down. After a couple of failed attempts to treat her, the team including House resigned to preforming a theraputic abortion on the “fetus”, but the mother refused & Cuddy supported her decision & was insistant on trying to save both mother and “baby” During an open fetus surgery to try to save both, the baby’s hand grabbed House’s finger & he had a change of heart & the surgery was sucessful. It’s a great episode and got my husband and I discussing theraputic abortions.
Rachael C I will have to watch that! Based on a true story where a “fetus” grabbed a doctor’s finger during surgery.
Joan, many fetuses who were aborted could have lived on their own and were not distinguishable in that way from 3 month old infants. Yet even at 7 and 8 months they were torn apart and aborted and killed. So whats your point?
You come up with meaningless arbitrary reasons why unborn people are not people. Suppose someday someone comes to power who declares that people named Joan are not human beings. Yes, you may have human DNA and human parents BUT you are named Joan, and thus, you are NOT a human being.
I would defend your right to be alive and not be killed even if you are named Joan and even if you are a mean, angry lady because human beings are always human beings from the moment of conception. You dont have to jump through ever-changing hoops set up by the mighty in power to be bestowed the title of “human being”. Human being isn’t a title we bestow on others like “bff’ or something.
Great episode. Did you see the one where the woman who refused a therapeutic abortion died, along with her baby? They titled that episode “Bad Luck.”
I love this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2243218/
“Pam’s story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it’s misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn’t end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.”
Human being isn’t a title we bestow on others like “bff’ or something.
HAHA! Love it. :D
Yes, Joan, Geron should just cancel its clinical trials on this new “treatment, ” considering the fact that ESCR has not produced any “treatments” at all. For information on real treatments (73 and counting!) coming from alternatives to ESCR, go to the Stem Cell Research Facts website: http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.org/stem-cell-successes/
Joan: “And it really puts to bed one of the primary anti-ESCR talking points: that it hasn’t resulted in any medical advancements and so further study is a scientific dead end. Of course, ‘talking point’ truly is all this claim ever was: it was just an objective-sounding cover for opposing valid, potentially groundbreaking research because of some whacked out belief that embryos, of all things, are ‘human beings’ that have some kind of moral value.”
Get thee to a biology textbook, Joan, because you’re making a fool out of yourself here. Science textbooks regularly denote fertilization as the beginning of a new human being’s life. What’s “whacked out” is ignoring scientific fact to make silly, unscientific arguments such as “embryos are smaller than the period at the end of this sentence,” or “embryos can’t have hopes and dreams!”.
And, yeah, “great,” ESCs are being used in human safety trials. If they go as planned, then they’ll start with an efficacy trial. And if THAT one is successful, then ESCs will merely begin to approach where ASCs have been for years. Not that you’d notice, Joan.
Joan: “I can’t wait to see what your tune will be when embryonic stem cell research leads to the first paralyzed person walking again.”
Paralyzed people are already being treated with the use of adult stem cells. How appropriate that the ESCR “new discovery” that really isn’t was announced on Columbus Day.
Megan: Do you even really care that they ended up dead? Or would you just use them to advance the pro-choice cause, regardless about what they would have thought about it?
Megan,
There are proabort doctors and prolife doctors. Proaborts immediately advise “terminating the pregnancy.”
Women adamantly refuse to abort even though they are pressured by the medical community. They “terminate their pregnancies” by giving birth.
No need to reply. Your rants are getting tiresome.
I’m against maternal mortality for the same reasons I’m pro-choice. And yes, there are those rare and unfortunate pregnancies that can end up killing women. Even the most sensible pro-life doctor will realize when a chance isn’t a chance worth taking, because the outcome could very well be a dead mom and a dead baby.
I’m glad my rants are tiresome. You have nothing to say in reply except “Why didn’t somebody physically drag me away from the abortion clinic all those years ago waaaaaah,” criticizing “pro-aborts” for not doing enough to help women continue their pregnancies while in the same breath decrying liberal social services that seek to help women do just that. Just the same irrational conservative logic.
Please seek help, Megan.
I am not sure how many years ago you aborted but your behavior is not surprising to me or anyone else here. You are struggling to defend and justify your abortion. It comes out in your rants and your hatred and venom that you continually come here to spew. I don’t believe that I have carried on a rational conversation with you yet.
I am sorry you are hurting. I am sorry that you feel the need to justify the killing.
There is help and healing after abortion.
“Why didn’t somebody physically drag me away from the abortion clinic all those years ago waaaaaah,”
Yeah. Cause that is how I communicate here.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have never been at the abortion clinic that day. I would have never paid someone to kill my first child.
Oh Carla, I was mean-spirited before my abortion. No amount of healing is going to change that. :)
Megan,
If you EVER need me please email me. I am here for you.
carla@jillstanek.com
Healing changes everything. I have been there too you know. I have been angry. I have tried to talk friends into abortions.(Thank God they didn’t listen)I have raged at prolifers who judged me.
I am sincere, Megan. So please tuck that away in your brain somewhere ok?
Carry on.