Aaaaaaaall over the place today.
Aug. 24th, 2006 10:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stoney321I just realized this morning who Emily's kindergarten teacher looks like: Kristen Chenoweth. She's beensy, too. (Ru! Hee! It's your Broadway crush!)
So, I was going to whip out this RPS PWP, right? Right. Friday. It's turning into a pornish- YA novel, for god's sake. Which... okay, I suppose. I have such a love of "coming of age" young adultsex romps that take place in boarding schools. SO. MUCH. LOVE. (There was a cheesy For Girls series I read in junior high about a spoiled brat horsey girl who was the cause of someone's death/injury, and she covered up her Glorious Sooty Eyelashes and wore Frumpy Clothes so she could volunteer as a candy striper, thereby redeeming herself. Also, there was coal strip-mining, and that's how she got rich. Anyone? What the hell were those called?)
I am very excited about the new findings coming out on stem cell research, although I feel it's ridiculous we have to have this debate AT ALL. hahaha. I like alienating people right off the bat like that. Back to science! Let me state my positions clearly, so we can move on (either by you defriending me, or nodding your head.)
Okay. My background is biology, especially genetics. Those of us that have been directly affected (do NOT use the word "impacted" here. That word... I do not think it means, what you think it means.) by genetic disorders in our family/friends can appreciate how wonderful it would be to find a simple solution to something like Alzheimer's. Parkinson's. Autism. And we can.
A blastocyst is eight cells. Eight cells that determine EVERYTHING a human will or will not be. That's pretty awe inspiring, if you think about it. Everything is genetic, people. It's all genes. It's all chemicals. Your personality is chemicals. Your food likes. Your hair. How often you have to clip your nails. Whether you are more susceptible for cancer, for bone breaks, for drug addiction, for success, for a healthy weight. I don't get hung up on the "moral" issues of whether we should tamper with genes. We've tampered with genes from the beginning.
What? Yeah. Animal husbandry. Plant selection. Natural selection. A physical "type" you're attracted to. It's all an attempt to control genetic material. Now, do I think people should go in and change the sex of their baby? No. Hair color? No. Eliminate Sickle-Cell Anemia in utero? Hell yes. I have a sister that is a non-verbal autistic. Now, I don't talk about her a lot, because it's a very private thing, my relationship. It's been difficult, it's been heartbreaking, and it's been incredible rewarding. What if there was a way that we could have "fixed" her? Given her a better chance at life? I had a cousin that was born with Nuerofibromatosis Type 1 (NF-1), lived a horribly painful existence until the age of four, and died a painful death. Now, the Christian sees this as a lesson from god, a way to have a better understanding of his mysteries, etc. I cannot even GO down that road, because it drives me nuts. That's a shitty god that uses a child to teach an adult a lesson.
MOVING ON. NF-1 is caused by one protein. ONE. One amino acid caused my cousin to live and die painfully. Down Syndrome is typically caused by ONE EXTRA chromosome. (usually on the 17th, 18th, or 21rst chromosome) To me, it's asinine to have a debate about the "morality" of using inert matter in petri dishes to give living beings (and future generations) a better quality of life. If you want to go the Christian route (like our President), then look at it this way: god gave man intelligence so he could do for himself. So... do for yourself.
How it works: donated eggs and sperm are joined in laboratory conditions to get to the blastocyst stage. (Quick recap of bio 101: sperm + egg, two gametes make a zygote. Zygote splits into two cells, those two split, become four, the four split and become eight. Blastocyst. This takes roughly 72 hours.) Those eight cells now contain all the information needed to make an entire human. Technically, you aren't medically considered pregnant until this mass of cells attaches itself to the endometrium in the womb. The father's genetic information doesn't even BECOME a player in the development of a fetus until several cell-divisions AFTER this point. (Something they fail to mention often in these types of debates.)
The fact that the debate about this material that is being manipulated in laboratories to create a better, healthier life for generations to come and the ethics of it boggles me. I just really don't understand it, not from a "boo, religion!" mindset, but from true bafflement. I'm pro-betterment of humanity. I'm pro-genetic manipulation of foods to increase health and longevity. I'm basically FOR ways to improve quality of life. The cells being used for stem-cell research WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE PEOPLE. They are not being robbed from good women's bodies. Men aren't being milked for sperm in their sleep. (Although I bet they wouldn't object.) These are cells (They are GAMETES, half of the genetic material required for human production!) that were frozen/stored for purposes of learning.
Basically, I just really hate George Bush. Hahahaha.
So the NEW technique goes to the eight cell stage, takes ONE of the cells, and leaves the other seven for implantation, should a woman choose in vitro fertilization. So. Nothing is "killed" or destroyed. It's also incredibly chancy, as it's not as effective as the original plan (take eight cells and manipulate the gene code with eight chances). BUT. They can't get ANY research properly done because of the "ethics" of involving potential humans. Which were never going to be humans. *sigh* So, now the scientific community is bending over backwards trying to find a way to NOT upset anyone, and Bush is back peddling now, saying "we just shouldn't involve ANY humans" instead of his original stance that it was the destruction of the embryos after testing that was the problem. *SIGH* There's more to this debate, but I'm just ranting now, and it's getting obnoxious to ME. *feels for you all at this point. All one of you who stuck this out*
I wish Americans didn't have such a Hollywood induced mindset with scientists. (IE: evil, out to control the world, no morals, no regard for life... BAH, I say.)
You know what's going to make me feel better? Some YA porn. I mean... YA stories. :)
So, I was going to whip out this RPS PWP, right? Right. Friday. It's turning into a pornish- YA novel, for god's sake. Which... okay, I suppose. I have such a love of "coming of age" young adult
I am very excited about the new findings coming out on stem cell research, although I feel it's ridiculous we have to have this debate AT ALL. hahaha. I like alienating people right off the bat like that. Back to science! Let me state my positions clearly, so we can move on (either by you defriending me, or nodding your head.)
- It's not alive unless the mother has bonded with the fetus (IMO.) I am pro-choice, obviously
- Stem cells from gamete fusion are the best way to study and protect people already alive
- I'm a proponent of fixing what's here already (living people)
- This includes animal research for science. (Not makeup testing, which disgusts me.) This has nothing to do with the current topic, I'm just putting that out there.
Okay. My background is biology, especially genetics. Those of us that have been directly affected (do NOT use the word "impacted" here. That word... I do not think it means, what you think it means.) by genetic disorders in our family/friends can appreciate how wonderful it would be to find a simple solution to something like Alzheimer's. Parkinson's. Autism. And we can.
A blastocyst is eight cells. Eight cells that determine EVERYTHING a human will or will not be. That's pretty awe inspiring, if you think about it. Everything is genetic, people. It's all genes. It's all chemicals. Your personality is chemicals. Your food likes. Your hair. How often you have to clip your nails. Whether you are more susceptible for cancer, for bone breaks, for drug addiction, for success, for a healthy weight. I don't get hung up on the "moral" issues of whether we should tamper with genes. We've tampered with genes from the beginning.
What? Yeah. Animal husbandry. Plant selection. Natural selection. A physical "type" you're attracted to. It's all an attempt to control genetic material. Now, do I think people should go in and change the sex of their baby? No. Hair color? No. Eliminate Sickle-Cell Anemia in utero? Hell yes. I have a sister that is a non-verbal autistic. Now, I don't talk about her a lot, because it's a very private thing, my relationship. It's been difficult, it's been heartbreaking, and it's been incredible rewarding. What if there was a way that we could have "fixed" her? Given her a better chance at life? I had a cousin that was born with Nuerofibromatosis Type 1 (NF-1), lived a horribly painful existence until the age of four, and died a painful death. Now, the Christian sees this as a lesson from god, a way to have a better understanding of his mysteries, etc. I cannot even GO down that road, because it drives me nuts. That's a shitty god that uses a child to teach an adult a lesson.
MOVING ON. NF-1 is caused by one protein. ONE. One amino acid caused my cousin to live and die painfully. Down Syndrome is typically caused by ONE EXTRA chromosome. (usually on the 17th, 18th, or 21rst chromosome) To me, it's asinine to have a debate about the "morality" of using inert matter in petri dishes to give living beings (and future generations) a better quality of life. If you want to go the Christian route (like our President), then look at it this way: god gave man intelligence so he could do for himself. So... do for yourself.
How it works: donated eggs and sperm are joined in laboratory conditions to get to the blastocyst stage. (Quick recap of bio 101: sperm + egg, two gametes make a zygote. Zygote splits into two cells, those two split, become four, the four split and become eight. Blastocyst. This takes roughly 72 hours.) Those eight cells now contain all the information needed to make an entire human. Technically, you aren't medically considered pregnant until this mass of cells attaches itself to the endometrium in the womb. The father's genetic information doesn't even BECOME a player in the development of a fetus until several cell-divisions AFTER this point. (Something they fail to mention often in these types of debates.)
The fact that the debate about this material that is being manipulated in laboratories to create a better, healthier life for generations to come and the ethics of it boggles me. I just really don't understand it, not from a "boo, religion!" mindset, but from true bafflement. I'm pro-betterment of humanity. I'm pro-genetic manipulation of foods to increase health and longevity. I'm basically FOR ways to improve quality of life. The cells being used for stem-cell research WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE PEOPLE. They are not being robbed from good women's bodies. Men aren't being milked for sperm in their sleep. (Although I bet they wouldn't object.) These are cells (They are GAMETES, half of the genetic material required for human production!) that were frozen/stored for purposes of learning.
Basically, I just really hate George Bush. Hahahaha.
So the NEW technique goes to the eight cell stage, takes ONE of the cells, and leaves the other seven for implantation, should a woman choose in vitro fertilization. So. Nothing is "killed" or destroyed. It's also incredibly chancy, as it's not as effective as the original plan (take eight cells and manipulate the gene code with eight chances). BUT. They can't get ANY research properly done because of the "ethics" of involving potential humans. Which were never going to be humans. *sigh* So, now the scientific community is bending over backwards trying to find a way to NOT upset anyone, and Bush is back peddling now, saying "we just shouldn't involve ANY humans" instead of his original stance that it was the destruction of the embryos after testing that was the problem. *SIGH* There's more to this debate, but I'm just ranting now, and it's getting obnoxious to ME. *feels for you all at this point. All one of you who stuck this out*
I wish Americans didn't have such a Hollywood induced mindset with scientists. (IE: evil, out to control the world, no morals, no regard for life... BAH, I say.)
You know what's going to make me feel better? Some YA porn. I mean... YA stories. :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 04:47 pm (UTC)Now, the Christian sees this as a lesson from god, a way to have a better understanding of his mysteries, etc.
I hate that the moral majority of this country has allowed their religious beliefs to dictate scientific progress. Yes, as a Christian I do believe that some things (more like events or people you meet, rather than illness/death/war, etc.) happen for a reason, a reason that we may not yet know. However, I do not believe that this means all the suffering, needless or not, is for some higher reason, that it is God's will. *My* God does not desire our suffering, he does not desire for a four year old child to suffer an agonizing illness and an even more painful death. Tragic circumstances happen, yes, and sometimes good can come from the bad, but my God does not will this pain and misery on us.
Uhm, sorry. Got on my own soapbox for a moment. What I meant to say was that a person's religious beliefs can exist independently of scientific beliefs/knowledge, and one does not have to sway the other. Do I believe in the Big Bang theory? No. My belief resides in the faith that God created everything. Do I accept the scientific proof of the Big Bang theory? Yes, how can one not? So yes, I do believe in the Big Bang theory in that it is a proven, viable explanation but my personal faith and belief in the creation of the universe goes deeper than science. I don't think that those who believe in the Big Bang are wrong or misguided, not at all. I think it's possible to be both scientific *and* faithful, without one influencing the other.
In regards to stem cell research (again, sorry for the soapbox above), I think the scientific knowledge and the possible benefit for humanity should be the far heavier consideration rather than religious beliefs. Some people cannot separate their religious beliefs from scientific beliefs/knowledge and that's not always a bad thing. However, when that inability dictates what *everyone* should do/say/believe and affects the opportunities to better humanity, it's wrong and it's not something I can support.
So, all my confusing ramblings aside, although my personal opinions are somewhat conflicted about stem cell research, there is also no doubt in my mind that it is something that needs to be done.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 05:18 pm (UTC)And please PLEASE know that I'm not attacking people of the Christian faith in general. Seriously. (I mean, my aunt and uncle - parents of Tia who died so painfully - saw that as a test of faith from god. I just CAN NOT stand behind that entire mindset, personally.)
Re: scientific vs. faithful. I think it's very plausible to believe in god, to believe in a higherpower of love and so forth, and accept that the bible was written by man, man who did not explore the world much beyond their own nose. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Jesus had some lovely things to say.
For me, the whole "immoral" debate over stem cell research falls along the same lines of Christian Scientists (like Jim Henson) who believe that ANY meddling is against god's will. So no vaccines, no medicine, etc. What is to be will be, that sort of thing. I say, if you DO believe in god (general you here), then you'll accept that god gave you a brain and the capacity to learn and grow.
And the Amish shouldn't have buttons on their clothes or zippers. Because that isn't from god. :)
And I'd ask you (if you feel like it) to expand your thoughts on what PRECISELY it is about the research that troubles you? There is no attack here. NONE. I honestly don't understand what the mindset is - what is (in your eyes) happening that is offensive to god, etc. They aren't making babies and killing them. I mean... is that the public's mindset? I don't understand! Help me Obi-Wan!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 05:22 pm (UTC)which is to say MANKIND. der.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 05:42 pm (UTC)Oh not, didn't think that at all. Because if you were, I'd just condemn you to hell. SINNER.
And I'd ask you (if you feel like it) to expand your thoughts on what PRECISELY it is about the research that troubles you?
Like I said, I definitely do think stem cell research is needed and is something that needs to be done because the possibilities of the good it can do is mindblowing. There needs to be active progress made in the search for cures of diseases and illnesses. What concerns me, and it's hard for me to put into words because it's not so much vigorous attacks on the research itself, or even the ideas behind it (it's why I have conflicting thoughts on abortion, but that's another issue. Just for the record, I am pro-choice.) as it is reconciling my faith with scientific views. What I said earlier about faith/science existing independently? I'm not always one of the ones that can do that. :P
I believe every human life is sacred, and while scientifically/medically a blastocyst is not considered a human life, this is one of the times where it is hard for me to separate my faith from scientific knowledge. I know a blastocyst is not a human life, I know it will not become a human life, but a part of me can't help but feel that we're playing God. (Which I know we are not, I know that, but knowledge =/= belief, not always. It's a continual struggle for me, reconciling my faith and what my faith calls on me to believe with what I know is right.)
Re: scientific vs. faithful. I think it's very plausible to believe in god, to believe in a higherpower of love and so forth, and accept that the bible was written by man,
Very true, just like I think that believing the Bible was written by man but divinely inspired is plausible as well. (Which I know isn't what you were saying, that beliving that isn't plausible. I just.... suck. *sigh*)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 06:15 pm (UTC)And as to the bible being written by man yet inspired, no, that's pretty much what I meant. (ALthough I'm not a believe in a higher power. I can accept that the "inspiration" part if the innate goodness and potential growth in Man.)
And the idea that science is playing god. Okay. That's fair. I disagree, but I see your point, which... I really didn't get. (Are you opposed to vaccinations? Some Christians I know are, is why I ask.)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 06:37 pm (UTC)Hahaha, yes because I suck at explaining myself coherently.
Are you opposed to vaccinations?
No, I'm not. And it's not even that I'm opposed to stem cell research or medical research because I'm not. It's more of.... instead of 100% supporting stem cell research, YAY STEM CELL RESEARCH, I'm more 97% supportive. It's something that should be done, it's needed, and my concerns don't justify stopping the research. They shouldn't--the fact that the Christian Coalition is using their religious beliefs to justify opposition to stem cell research is wrong, in my opinion.
Ugh, I suck at explaining myself. I swear, I'm not as dumb or narrow-minded as I sound. :P
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 07:29 pm (UTC)I ignored a lot of the "God doesn't want us to..." stuff, though, because even when I was a child I was odd. :)
I get that you have concerns to not abuse the power of the lab, right? The idea that maybe we'll change the hair color, skin color, sex, etc. of a person, that sort of thing? Yeah, I'm not for that, either.
*SMOOOOOOOCH* You're great at explaining yourself. Really!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 07:49 pm (UTC);)
Hee. No, all the affirmations were really for my own benefit and to remind myself not to become one of those people that use their beliefs to justify restrictions for everyone. Like, "Self, remember. YOU'RE FOR IT. It's a GOOD THING. Don't let faith sway you." (Which is not to say that letting faith guide, but not dictate, your decisions is necessarily a bad thing. Hi, my name is Waffling Wanda.)
I get that you have concerns to not abuse the power of the lab, right? The idea that maybe we'll change the hair color, skin color, sex, etc. of a person, that sort of thing? Yeah, I'm not for that, either.
That is some of it, yes. I know that's not the purpose of stem cell research, and people aren't advocating a "make your own perfect baby!" stance. But I do have concerns that the line could become blurry--I don't think it definitely will, but I think that caution needs to be there. OMG WE'RE GOING TO BECOME GATTACA!! Ha, okay, no, I don't think that's *really* going to happen.
Although if I could make a DB baby I would. But I'd like to actually have sex with him to make the baby.
*smooches you back* I didn't feel attacked at all, I hope I didn't come across that way either.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-25 01:05 am (UTC)Unless 'perfect person' announces to play D-Line for Alabama, in which case - genetic engineering not so bad.