Having a teflon coronary stent put into your failed artery is unnatural. A pig valve to replace a heart valve is very unnatural. Chemo therapy, radioactive seed implant into your cancerous prostate, or prostate surgery is unnatural. Using synthetic antibiotics is unnatural. Removing your ruptured appendix is unnatural. Setting your shattered ankle with steel pins is unnatural. All of these things which would keep you alive so you can continue to entertain us here are done by third parties doing unnatural acts.
Or are they completely natural in your book? What is the book of unnatural acts that you turn to in cases like this and who writes it? Is it white heterosexual men with fertile wives that write it or is it just you?
And don't keep harping about this addition of 2% birth defects as fall back. All of those surgeries incur a much higher incidence of mortality while they are occurring. Much higher than this feeble, as the authors call it, "could be random it's so low" number in this article.
Well, I'm all in favour of unnatural procedures that ease pain and suffering but I'm against those that increase it like ART does. Proponents of ART are basically saying that birth defects are acceptable because the benefits to parents outweigh the disbenefits to mothers and to those children born with disabilities. I would put it the other way around. As far as mothers are concerned there are far more traumas and disappointments than success storiies and babies are not consulted about whether they would mind being born with a serious abnormality. In terms of competing priorities for public resources overpopulation of the planet can only continue to cause ever increasing levels of misery for many species including man so other under-funded medical claims on those resources should come first. What's being done for sufferers of colonic cancer? Nothing, that's what. If screening and treatment were funded it would have more than the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate of IVF.
What's being done for sufferers of colonic cancer? Nothing, that's what. If screening and treatment were funded it would have more than the pathetic 20 per cent hit rate of IVF.
You need some air holes in that bubble you're living in.
Individuals here have shot gaping holes in your premise and the tabloid bunk you base it on — at least one of those individuals being uniquely qualified on the personal and professional levels with IVF and bio-science in general — and yet anything but your own opinion is "rubbish" according to you.
It's one thing to argue the morality of an issue from a personal perspective. You and you alone can and should be be the expert on your own set of ideals. But it's quite another thing to blindly rebuff those who argue from an intimate knowledge of the realities of said issue. You, like anyone else must respect the documented expertise of those on the other side of the issue. But you don't/won't/can't. I may not always be right. But I'm never wrong."
Your links prove only that too many people are dying of colonic cancer - about 50,000 per year in the USA alone.
Overall US survival rate for colon cancer is 64.4%, not <20% ...
I didn't put a percentage on colonic cancer survival rates but if it's only 64.40 per cent that's not good enough. Sufficient screening could reduce the death toll by one half and since there are 50,000 colonic cancer deaths in the US every year 25,000 of 'em are avoidable. The same distortion of priorities applies in the UK where colorectal cancer deaths are running at 16,000 per year while essential life-saving drugs like Erbitux are being denied to sufferers for want of funds.
Individuals here have shot gaping holes in your premise...
No I filled all those in... with interest.
...and the tabloid bunk you base it on
What, you mean the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) and the National Birth Defects Prevention Study? Or did you mean the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)?
it's quite another thing to blindly rebuff those who argue from an intimate knowledge of the realities of said issue.
That's the whole point - everything I've said has been based on such opinions... I don't limit myself to what Mac users think but extend my inquiries to what patients and experts in the field have had to say as well.
Sorry, dude, you filled those holes in with nothing more than mental spackle. But, at least someone is buying your baloney. Even if that someone is thee. BTW, love the reference to Mac users. There's real relevance there. And I'd love to see the list of your "focus group" respondents. Carry on, Mr. Natural.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.