The (Im)Morality of Stem Cell Research

The Fourm asked for comments, I believe,the subject is the Immoral or Morality of Stem Cell Research (ESCR). However if it is said that ESCR is immoral, namely Murder, the post is censured. Murder is an immoral act; IT IS THE INTENTIONAL TAKING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.

The post below violated no rules for this Forum. It was no more than the quotes on abortion by Mother Theresa who spoke on" February 1997 - National Prayer Breakfast in Washington attended by the President and the First Lady.

If Mother Theresa can say killing the unborn is murder before a Washington Prayer Breakfast in front of the President and First Lady but is censored on this Forum, than the Forum is bias not only against Mother Theresa but Truth its self.

"What is taking place in America," she said, "is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another." But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion?—Mother Theresa

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JOHN SHELBY SPONG
STEM CELL RESEARCH:

IRT:
“When he lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, President Obama
said, "As a person of faith .... I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research .... and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly." Do you agree?

Yes! In the clash between the expansion of knowledge and the affirmation of faith, knowledge always wins. A religious system that has to resist new truth is a dying religious system. Scientific truth and religious truth can never be contradictory. Bad science can contradict religious truth and bad religion can contradict scientific truth. But truth itself cannot be compromised. Any God who has to be protected from the insights of Galileo or Darwin, Freud or Pasteur is a false deity.

Thank God, we now have a president who will remove both political ideology and religious bias from the pursuit of truth in the scientific arena.”

ANS:
No credible Microbiologist, Embryologist, Eugenicist, Doctor,, or any Medical Scientist will deny that human life begins at conception. Therefore, the embryo is a human being. To intentionally destroy an innocent human being is to murder it.

“One of the greatest diseases is to be nobody to anybody. The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between. Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.

It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters"

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity

The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion?

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world.” More so, the Court has dissolved man’s paternal rights to his child, an abomination.

As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts.”—M other Teresa.

MURDER IS IMMORAL IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT. IS EVEN mOTHER tHERESA BANNED FROM COMMENTING ON ABORTION BEING THE MURDER OF THE UNBORN?

Bruno55:
...the Bible condemns abortion.
**************************************************************************************
Actually, it doesn't. According to Mosaic law, if a pregnant woman was assaulted, and her injuries caused her to miscarry, the penalty was not death (as it would have been if the loss had been considered a murder), but that the assailant had to pay the woman's husband for the loss of his property.
And in the various seiges of every established city that the children of Israel encountered in their trek across the desert, many times they were instructed by God to not only kill all the men in the city but to kill every living thing, human and animal, even to "rip up the women with child."

A blastocyst in no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree.

This is a ridiculous argument everyone is having.

There is no proof God exists
There is no proof God doesn't exist
You can say there is evidence for both

Just because we aren't able to understand or control something doesn't mean it is not able to be understood or controlled

Just because we accept something as truth, doesn't mean it is the truth, whether it has to do with science or religion. And just because it may not be the truth, does not mean the process by which we obtained that truth is invalid, or that any other results obtained by that process are invalid.

This is all basic logic. Some of you need to take a course in it.

The issue here is how you define an embryo, how that definition relates to your morals and ethics, and what you think the consequences of the destruction of that embryo are. Those things are going to vary from person to person.

So you can try to convince people of your beliefs, you can critique the process by which people obtain their beliefs, but to proclaim one absolute truth in this matter, or any other, regardless of the existence of one, is naive and ignorant.

Ben wrote: "We believe in a spiritual realm as well; simply because it can't be 'quantified' in you 'scientific' sense does not mean that it does not exist."

------------------------------

Ben,

That doesn't mean it does exist either. At this point the existence of supernatural beings is still an open question, highly improbable but open nonetheless. That's why it's called a "belief" and not a fact.

The reason why man continue to study stem cell is because they don't undertand how it works. And you know what? For infinity, they still won't understand it.

All the atheists are idiots. THey don't understand what Intelligent Design means.

If they claim that man evolved, they should at least show us how stem cells evolved.

As usual the idiots can show us nothing. I wonder if they even understand the word "evolve".

And when petri-dish "intercourse" becomes an exact "science" and there are no extra lives formed for experimentation then what??

Think2:
You are no different from us. Science is your god. As I mentioned before in a previous post, "scientific fact" boils down to a whole lot of observations by lots of people, concluding the same thing. It should be noted that accepted "scientific fact" and sometimes even "natural laws" have been contradicted and eventually overturned to give us the science we have today (e.g., geocentric theory, helio-geocentric theory, atomic models, etc).
"Modern" man has the single-minded tendency to proclaim false all that which he cannot see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. It HAS been proven that the realms of the theoretical and non-physical exist and are incalculably useful to us (mathematics, sciences, etc, which shape our world AND allow for this medium over which we communicate here). We believe in a spiritual realm as well; simply because it can't be 'quantified' in you 'scientific' sense does not mean that it does not exist.

A true philosopher and/or scientist would ask the questions, "What is existence?" and "What is reality?"

Ben

"What definition of God is useful?"

-------------------------------------

One that has a specific meaning not already covered by another word in the English language.

If my definition of a god is the same as the definition of a spatula, then why call it a god when term "spatula" will suffice?

FREESTINKER: "If God is just your name for the universe, then it is a redundant term and not very useful ...."

What definition of God is useful?

"God defined (by THINK2): the sum total of all the laws, and all the energies governed by these laws which make up the whole of the manifested and unmanifested universe."

-------------------------------------

If God is just your name for the universe, then it is a redundant term and not very useful but the universe does exist, I will grant you that.

What evidence are you referring to that verifies the existence of gods?

All reports from men and women down the ages.

Why have the results never been published in scientific journals?

Who knows, maybe soon scientists will advance beyond the
materialistic, corporate barriers to investigate consciousness itself.

God defined: the sum total of all the laws, and all the energies governed by these laws which make up the whole of the manifested and unmanifested universe.

And the old "burning house and who to save delimma" is trotted out yet one more time!!!

The basics once again:

You will not find a human embryo in a burning house because they are kept in cryonic facilities with all kinds of safeguards against fire and theft.

"Verifiable, repeatable empirical evidence has been around for millennia. You are dismissing that evidence because it doesn't fit your belief. A good scientific theory must account for ALL the data."

----------------------------------

What evidence are you referring to that verifies the existence of gods?

Why have the results never been published in scientific journals?

FREESTINKER writes: "Thus far, gods have been proven to exist only in people's minds and expressions. There is no need for empirical scientific evidence to prove gods exist (in people's minds). If you want to go any further, you will need verifiable, repeatable empirical evidence."

Verifiable, repeatable empirical evidence has been around for millennia. You are dismissing that evidence because it doesn't fit your belief. A good scientific theory must account for ALL the data.

"The human embryo is the most pristine state of life, the genesis of us all thereby he or she should be protected and respected like any newly born."

---------------------------------

CCNL,

If there were an embryo and a new born baby in a burning house and you could only save one before the house collapsed, which one would you save? And why?

Think2,

Gods are beliefs, nothing more. Gods are always true for the believers of those gods (like you), and false for non-believers (like me).

Thus far, gods have been proven to exist only in people's minds and expressions. There is no need for empirical scientific evidence to prove gods exist (in people's minds). If you want to go any further, you will need verifiable, repeatable empirical evidence. Good luck with that!

LUFRANK1 wrote :"Science is, literally "knowledge" and derives from observations and careful testing. "God"? "God's secrets"? Indeed, NOTHING about God is actually known by ANY human being, and THAT IS THE TRUTH, so help me "God".

With respect, IMV LUFRANK1 writes as an adherent to the
untenable position that religion and science are separate, and that science operates in a materialistic vacuum, and that religion belongs to some crazy mystical vacuum. Do scientists think about God? If we say that God made the world, we must acknowledge that the physical world is an expression of God's consciousness. If we say that as scientists, we must hold that God did not make the world because as LUFRANKI wrote, "nothing about God can be known by any human being", we are obliged to answer the question of how the world came to be in some pretty non-scientific ways.

Once again:

The human embryo is the most pristine state of human life, the genesis of us all thereby he or she should be protected and respected like any new born.

"embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development." answers.com

"The Visible Embryo is a visual guide through fetal development from fertilization through pregnancy to birth. As the most profound physiologic changes occur in the "first trimester" of pregnancy, these Carnegie stages are given prominence on the birth spiral.

The shape and location of embryonic interal structures and how they relate and are connected to each other is essential to understanding human development.

Medical professionals create a mental picture of this process in order to determine how well the fetus is progressing. It is also the basis of knowing how and when errors in development occur and if a possibility exists for a corrective intervention."

It is equally important for expectant parents to understand the relationship of these internal structures and how their infant develops through pregnancy."

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/185610/2919/Development-of-the-human-embryo

"The term embryo applies to the earliest form of life, produced when an egg (female reproductive cell) is fertilized by a sperm (male reproductive cell; semen).

The fertilized egg is called a zygote. Shortly after fertilization, the zygote begins to grow and develop. It divides to form two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. As the zygote and its daughter cells divide, they start to become specialized, meaning they begin to take on characteristic structures and functions that will be needed in the adult plant or animal.

An embryo is a living organism, like a full-grown rose bush, frog, or human. It has the same needs—food, oxygen, warmth, and protection—that the adult organism has. These needs are provided for in a variety of ways by different kinds of organisms."

Embryonic development
434 x 254 - 14k - jpg
www.scienceclarified.com

Day 6: Embryo implants in the uterus ...
409 x 306 - 26k - jpg

Essentially, Judaism triages the competing moral principles judiciously, sensitively and well. Pikuah Nefesh--the saving of life--trumps all save for murder. Even with the latest in technology, an embryo cannot be understood as a life on par with a fully formed human being. While significant and worthy of respect, if this "lesser" life form can cure illness for a living being, it can and should be done.

Daniel Weiner
goodgodforus.com

From Charles Krauthammer who writes for the Washington Post:

"President George W. Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility-clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned - and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived - human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn.

I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research - a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of "science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom."

To CCNL, Our Representative from the Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi:

At this critical moment in StemCell history, it is best to ask oneself this question: WWLD? (What Would Luigi Do?) This need only be asked of oneself if one cannot inquire directly of His Pastemence, Luigi, which, we assume, is the case with you.

Indeed, we have heard that the Sainted Luigi is away on business with the Holy Sauce. But do not despair. Hmmmm....Remember, the sacred Lugian chant. Hmmmm...

And the "many-faced/laced with dishonesty lady of many aliases" i.e. Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka ivri aka Billy8 continues to be a disgrace to her Jewish heritage!!

To CCNL, Our Representative from the Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi:

At this critical moment in StemCell history, it is best to ask oneself this question: WWLD? (What Would Luigi Do?) This need only be asked of oneself if one cannot inquire directly of His Pastemence, Luigi, which, we assume, is the case with you.

Indeed, we have heard that the Sainted Luigi is away on business with the Holy Sauce. But do not despair. Hmmmm....Remember, the sacred Lugian chant. "Hmmmm..."

A silent prayer for the entire Stem Cell congregation at the Church of Clancy, Nusbaum, and Luigi (CCNL):

Requiescat in pace, carus Stem Cells.

I see we have our representative from the Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi (CCNL). I see he is not yet taking a stoic approach to the impending doom of his fellow Stem Cells.

I note that he has stopped intoning the classic Lugian chant (Hmmmm), so I recommend that he go at once to see the sainted Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna.

May he reach peace, in the name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli

And the "many-faced/laced with dishonesty lady of many aliases" i.e. Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka ivri aka Billy8 continues to be a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Farnaz is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Farnaz2 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Observer12 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Observer31 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Yael1 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

ivri5678 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

ivri is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Billy8 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Farnaz is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Farnaz2 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Observer12 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Observer31 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Yael1 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

ivri5678 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

ivri is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Billy8 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

All of the above are a disgrace to the human race!!!

testing

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

Testing

Testing

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

Farnaz is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Farnaz2 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Observer12 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Observer31 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Yael1 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

ivri5678 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

ivri is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Billy8 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Testing

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

Farnaz is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Farnaz2 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Observer12 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Observer31 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Yael1 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

ivri5678 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

ivri is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Billy8 is a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

And the "many-faced/laced with dishonesty lady of many aliases" i.e. Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka ivri aka Billy8 continues to be a disgrace to her Jewish heritage.

You have a terrible ailment that can be cured with tissue replacement. You accept an organ transplant because the donor is going to die (brain dead) or has just died. How is this different from accepting stem cells cultivated from a blastocyst, a mass of less than 100 cells, left over from an in vitro fertilization that are scheduled to be incinerated?

The primary argument is life begins at fertilization, yet such thinking ignores the human life present in sperm and egg. The paradox: which came first, the human or the fertilized egg? I think life begins with the first autonomous breath. All other means to preserve breath are artificial – a respirator, an inhaler, the lungs of a mother. Access to artificial means of life depends mostly on good luck, the good will of others, and preexisting capabilities. Such luck, good will, and capabilities cannot be mandated.

Point of fact, a healthy woman has 4,000 viable eggs from the 2 million she is born with. A healthy male produces 160 million sperm per day, a quadrillion in a lifetime. Seven billion people will inhabit the earth in 2012. So why has the Catholic discussion, for example, not focused on making better use of these God-given cells to support life?

You have a terrible ailment that can be cured with tissue replacement. You accept an organ transplant because the donor is going to die (brain dead) or has just died. How is this different from accepting stem cells cultivated from a blastocyst, a mass of less than 100 cells, left over from an in vitro fertilization that are scheduled to be incinerated?

Point of fact, a healthy woman has 4,000 viable eggs from the 2 million she is born with. A healthy male produces 160 million sperm per day, a quadrillion in a lifetime. Seven billion people will inhabit the earth in 2012. So why has the Catholic discussion, for example, not focused on making better use of these God-given cells to support life?

The primary argument is life begins at fertilization, yet such thinking ignores the human life present in sperm and egg. The paradox: which came first, the human or the fertilized human egg? I say life begins with the first autonomous breath. All other means to preserve breath are artificial – a respirator, an inhaler, the lungs of a mother. Access to artificial means of life depends mostly on good luck, the good will of others, and preexisting capabilities. Such luck, good will, and capabilities cannot be mandated.

You have a terrible ailment that can be cured with tissue replacement. You accept an organ transplant because the donor is going to die (brain dead) or has just died. How is this different from accepting stem cells cultivated from a blastocyst, a mass of less than 100 cells, left over from an in vitro fertilization that are scheduled to be incinerated?

Point of fact, a healthy woman has 4,000 viable eggs from the 2 million she is born with. A healthy male produces 160 million sperm per day, a quadrillion in a lifetime. Seven billion people will inhabit the earth in 2012. So why has the Catholic discussion, for example, not focused on making better use of these God-given cells to support life?

The primary argument is life begins at fertilization, yet such thinking ignores the human life present in sperm and egg. The paradox: which came first, the human or the fertilized human egg? I say life begins with the first autonomous breath. All other means to preserve breath are artificial – a respirator, an inhaler, the lungs of a mother. Access to artificial means of life depends mostly on good luck, the good will of others, and preexisting capabilities. Such luck, good will, and capabilities cannot be mandated.

Here are two more links that discuss embryonic stem cell research benefits at length, as well as the similar benefits that might be derived from the stem cells extracted from amniotic fluid.

And of course, one can find links to support virtually any point of view.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/72918/embryonic_stem_cells_benefits_outweigh.html

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=21368

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

Ah, CCNL still grieving over StemCells imminent leaving

CCNL,

Please accept my sincere condolences on the expected loss of your fellow Stem Cells.
Surely, you can find comfort at your Temple (Church of Clancy, Nussbaum, and Luigi).

It occurrs to me that you should go directly to Archbishop Luigi of the Lasagna. His Pastemence can help you if anyone can.

In the Name of the Lasagna, the Meatballs, and the Holy Ravioli.

The human embryo is the most pristine state of human life, the genesis of us all thereby he or she should be protected and respected like any new born.

"embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development." answers.com

"The Visible Embryo is a visual guide through fetal development from fertilization through pregnancy to birth. As the most profound physiologic changes occur in the "first trimester" of pregnancy, these Carnegie stages are given prominence on the birth spiral.
The shape and location of embryonic interal structures and how they relate and are connected to each other is essential to understanding human development.

Medical professionals create a mental picture of this process in order to determine how well the fetus is progressing. It is also the basis of knowing how and when errors in development occur and if a possibility exists for a corrective intervention."

It is equally important for expectant parents to understand the relationship of these internal structures and how their infant develops through pregnancy."

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/185610/2919/Development-of-the-human-embryo

"The term embryo applies to the earliest form of life, produced when an egg (female reproductive cell) is fertilized by a sperm (male reproductive cell; semen).

The fertilized egg is called a zygote. Shortly after fertilization, the zygote begins to grow and develop. It divides to form two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. As the zygote and its daughter cells divide, they start to become specialized, meaning they begin to take on characteristic structures and functions that will be needed in the adult plant or animal.

An embryo is a living organism, like a full-grown rose bush, frog, or human. It has the same needs—food, oxygen, warmth, and protection—that the adult organism has. These needs are provided for in a variety of ways by different kinds of organisms."

Embryonic development
434 x 254 - 14k - jpg
www.scienceclarified.com

Day 6: Embryo implants in the uterus ...
409 x 306 - 26k - jpg

March 13, 2009 3:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments

According to the arguments stated here by opponents of stem cell research, an early blastula embryo, a ball of undifferentiated cells, is the moral equivalent of a born human. That is because the DNA is unique in the blastula. I hate to break it to you, but cancer cells have unique DNA sequences. Does that mean a lung cancer, which has a different DNA sequence from the host human, has a soul and deserves protection from destruction by chemotherapy?

As someone who is not affiliated with any formal religious institution, I deny the authority of any theologian to dictate morality to those not members of his or her own sect. If the catholic hierarchy wants to say "do not participate in OR receive the benefits of this work, or you will be excommunicated" that's fine. Beyond that, I'll listen to scientists discuss the issues without recourse to any god. The arrogance of these theocratic moralists is hypocrisy of the first water.

Larry

The issue of "stem cell" research goes beyond partisian finger pointing.
ADULT stem cell research has been shown to be very successful in curing and or easing almost 100 medical conditions. This is done using healthy adult stem cells, in a cost effective way, that does not destroy a human life.
Embryonic stem cells are a different story. This has not been successful and so far the medical research companies have spent a lot of money with little advancement. They want government money because they don't want to spend anymore of their money on research that is years and years away from showing any benefit.
Putting money into Adult stem cell research is beneficial, cost effective and provides, proven immediate results.
Putting money in to Embryonic stem cell research is throwing money down an unproven hole and killing a human being.

BMORRIS sez:

'You mean Bush policies like wasteful spending? -- oops. Guess some more of Obama's 'change' we'll have to wait for. I don't support GOP opposition. I don't support Obama's massive government policies which contradict themselves even as they leave his mouth.

It was not Obama, but McCain who said that this would be a long, hard road which had yet to bottom out. It was Obama who was the proponent of swift, decisive action that would solve this crisis quickly and efficiently.'

_______________

Well now BMorris - Which is it? Do you or do you not support GOP opposition to Obama policies? Or does this diatribe sound more like GOP doublespeak? It's pretty clear McCain was your man from the getgo.

Here's Obama - coming into office as the unmanned, war-afflicted Bush freight train hits the economy full tilt. Blindsided by an economic juggernaut that's been building for 8 years right under everyone's nose, and Obama has not fixed it in two months - only made it worse, according to 'after the fact' pundits like John McCain. Now the soul of fiscal responsibility and clear-thinking....

Brilliant, astute republican slanted observations worthy of Fox News, Mr. McCain - but we thank the Almighty that you're not in charge. I imagine Sarah Palin one heart beat away from the Oval Office and still get a bit queasy.

Micro mis-management under the Bush regime seeped into every level of government and the economy at large, and left a slimy trail of policy detritis behind that will take years to clean up. '

The GOP is always at their best standing back and objectively observing the damage that they themselves have brought about, all the while attributing it to their opposition. McCain is a past master of this tactic.

I don't always like the democrats, but then we don't have any other reasonable option, now do we?

PS. Employing the idea of sacrifice in conjunction with the donation of embryonic stem cells for research purposes, was mainly a palliative suggestion for religionists that oppose the whole idea - because Christians are so very fond of the concept of 'sacrifice'.

'Pride and arrogance' are two other favorites leveled at folks that oppose conservative religious views on a variety of issues.

Hmmm, unfortunately the new format except the general commentary puts the sender's name at the bottom of the commentary. Must remember to check the name first before reading any more comments as the "many-faced/laced with dishonesty lady of many aliases" and a disgrace to her Jewish heritage i.e. Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 aka ivri aka Billy8 has returned.

Persiflage,

"this realistic perspective"

Dream on, my friend. What do the millions suffering from MS, Cancer,etc., mean in the face of possible Stem Cellicide.

I find the argument against stem cell research strange in light of a book I happen to be reading now. The book is called "a preface to morals" by Walter Lippmann--a famous book, one of the chosen hundred non-fiction for Library of America.

In this book he discusses the transition of man from a religious being to a secular humanist being. He says that as the authority of God is no longer taken seriously--and modern life in virtually every way usurps the authority of God--man is left having to decide his morals for himself.

Morals without God are unanchored morals, no matter how much some people think that morals without God will still be relatively fixed (people make the argument that morality existed before religion and religion was just superimposed, and now we remove the religion and have the always fixed morals in sight).

So much about the Bible, from the assertion that it is the word of God to the morals within, was first attacked seriously by Protestantism, which allowed a person to make his own interpretation of the Bible (and not take Catholic authority as sacred).

Nowadays it seems something of the height of hypocrisy and delusion to take the Bible seriously, for anyone can see we all now are virtually urban beings with a completely different sensibility from religious man of centuries past.

Nowadays the morals that the church promulgates are as arbitrary as the morals of a nonbeliever can be. Evidence exists left and right of man altering old norms and happening on new behaviors.

In short, and to quickly give an analogy from my reading of Lippmann so far, religious man can be considered a slow, glacial creature--which is to say life changed relatively slowly throughout the heyday of religious man. Most men centuries ago had a clearly circumscribed life, with God the creator and a path of goodness laid out relatively clearly.

But moving toward modern man is the equivelant of putting ice in a pot and putting it on the stove. Modern man boils, which is to say he finds it impossible to settle down. This means divine authority collapses and morals become flexible as well. Well, we show no signs of slowing down--in fact the pace of change is increasing.

We can speculate that the pace of change will become so fast that the boiling water man now is will turn to gas--steam--and then we will really be in a world in which man clearly makes his own moral decisions, and they will change according to the circumstance.

Religious man today is obviously fighting a losing battle. Barring Christ coming back or something, there really is nothing left to religion if a person is honest. Any honest person should be able to observe that we modern men, religious or not, are vastly different from religious men of the past.--They truly believed. The true believers today--the ones analogous to religious man of the past--are precisely people we call given to cults (the fundamentalist cults in the U.S. including the Amish), or to terroristic activities (Taliban, Al Queda).

The average modern religious man is a phony. He does not subscribe to the often whimsical God found in the Bible. He subscribes to a modern God, one really not around for much of anything. So we should stop fooling ourselves and calling such things as stem cell research as being against religion.

Physics, biology, astronomy rejects the Bible and it really is only a matter of time until we all realize that only we make our morals and that we had better take responsibility. To attribute morals to a divine authority is quaint.

As Lippmann put it, modern man in the modern office is utterly remote from religious man of the past. If a religious man of the past would enter the modern office he would be taken for a yokel.

So we should, whatever we decide about stem cells, not be bringing religion up. If we have objections to stem cells, let these objections be sensibly raised. Talking about God about such things while wearing our modern watches and driving our modern cars is just hypocrisy.

Read "A preface to morals". An honest book.

IN REFERANCE TO STEM CELLS AS HUMANS,ON MARCH 9,2009 IN BRAZIL, A NINE YEAR OLD GIRL OF EIGHTY POUNDS WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL BY HER MOTHER WHERE AS THE DOCTORS DID A EMERGENCY ABORTION ON THE GIRL THAT WAS PREGNET WITH TWINS BY HER STEP FATHER AGE 23. ARCHBISHOP JOSE CARDOSO SOBRINHO EXCOMMUNICATED THE MOTHER OF THE NINE YEAR OLD AS WELL AS THE DOCTORS. THE VATICAN CARDINAL GIOVANNI BATTISA RE BACK UP THE ARCHBISHOP.BRIZILIAN PRESIDENT BLASTED THE ARCHBISHOP OVER THE ABORTION EXCOMMUNICATIONS. NOW WHO WAS CORRECT AND WHY? NOW BACK TO STEM CELLS. IF THEY ARE A BEING, DO THEY HAVE A SOUL? WHEN THEY DIE, WHAT THEN? ON EARTH,WHEN IS LIFE A PERSON? JUST ACCOUNT OF CELLS GROWING IN LIFE,DOES THAT MAKE THEM A PERSON WITH A SOUL? P.S. THE NEWS STORY WAS IN THE BELFASTTELEGRAPH.CO.UK,THE NEW YORK TIMES,CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS, CNN,& CWN.

Persiflage:
"Obama reversed the Bush moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research, and can be expected to reverse much more in the way of Bush-inspired legislation in the future."

You mean Bush policies like wasteful spending? -- oops. Guess some more of Obama's 'change' we'll have to wait for.
I don't support GOP opposition. I don't support Obama's massive government policies which contradict themselves even as they leave his mouth.

And you can't say Obama isn't to blame for this. Don't forget -- it was his rhetoric, his words, and his campaign promises that led people to believe that he had an instant salve for the burns afflicting them. It was he who had his supporters believing that he would pay their taxes, their mortgage, and their medical support. He said he had a solution to the problem, and he was elected on the pretense of solving that problem, quickly and efficiently.
It was not Obama, but McCain who said that this would be a long, hard road which had yet to bottom out. It was Obama who was the proponent of swift, decisive action that would solve this crisis quickly and efficiently.

And allow me to clarify: Obama merely overturned Bush's ban on already-aborted embryonic stem cell research, proclaiming a new age of science over morality. In the same breath, he said that cloning was out of the question. And in the very recent past, Obama removed the conscientious objector possibility for doctors. So, is this really the age he claims?

USAPDX:
"... and the protection of life from conception until natural death."
That is why.
You have a knack for loaded questions-- like our friends Quinn and Meacham.

Some points of my own:
Proponents of this research still have yet to answer my question: why not just allow these children to grow, develop, live, learn, and possibly do countless good? Maybe one of those children you let be killed was the one to find natural cures for these diseases? What if one was the next president? What if your beloved Obama had been aborted, or used for research?

"Sacrifice for the greater good?" Again, who do you think you are? Now we take it upon ourselves to decide who must be sacrificed? And on top of that, we have decided what is best for the common good! Arrogance, thy name is human! "...but of all these, the first was PRIDE."
You utilitarians.

Vires quod pacis.
Ben

Persiflage:
"Obama reversed the Bush moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research, and can be expected to reverse much more in the way of Bush-inspired legislation in the future."

You mean Bush policies like wasteful spending? -- oops. Guess some more of Obama's 'change' we'll have to wait for.
I don't support GOP opposition. I don't support Obama's massive government policies which contradict themselves even as they leave his mouth.

And you can't say Obama isn't to blame for this. Don't forget -- it was his rhetoric, his words, and his campaign promises that led people to believe that he had an instant salve for the burns afflicting them. It was he who had his supporters believing that he would pay their taxes, their mortgage, and their medical support. He said he had a solution to the problem, and he was elected on the pretense of solving that problem, quickly and efficiently.
It was not Obama, but McCain who said that this would be a long, hard road which had yet to bottom out. It was Obama who was the proponent of swift, decisive action that would solve this crisis quickly and efficiently.

And allow me to clarify: Obama merely overturned Bush's ban on already-aborted embryonic stem cell research, proclaiming a new age of science over morality. In the same breath, he said that cloning was out of the question. And in the very recent past, Obama removed the conscientious objector possibility for doctors. So, is this really the age he claims?

USAPDX:
"... and the protection of life from conception until natural death."
That is why.
You have a knack for loaded questions-- like our friends Quinn and Meacham.

Some points of my own:
Proponents of this research still have yet to answer my question: why not just allow these children to grow, develop, live, learn, and possibly do countless good? Maybe one of those children you let be killed was the one to find natural cures for these diseases? What if one was the next president? What if your beloved Obama had been aborted, or used for research?

"Sacrifice for the greater good?" Again, who do you think you are? Now we take it upon ourselves to decide who must be sacrificed? And on top of that, we have decided what is best for the common good! Arrogance, thy name is human! "...but of all these, the first was PRIDE."
You utilitarians.

Vires quod Pacis
Ben

The link below explains the advantages of embryonic stem cells in conjunction with research on devastating and fatal genetic diseases such as the Huntington's disease referred to in this article. This neurological disease killed the famous folk songster Woody Guthrie.

I remember the anguish that son Arlo and his sister went through years ago, as they contemplated genetic testing for a disease with a 50/50 rate of inheritability. They tested negative, as I recall - but imagine having to flip that coin yourself...

It seems clear that for proto-human embryos whose destiny is other than birth as a fully independent human, a great contribution to humanity can still be made in the research venue.

Those that are experiencing a moral dilemma as regards embryonic stem cell research might view this as a sacrifice for the greater good, and this realistic perspective could provide some resolution to the internal conflict engendered by religious beliefs that tend to cloud the issue.

http://hopes.stanford.edu/rltdsci/stemcell/z0.html

An interesting website dedicated to research on Huntington's Disease, otherwise known as Huntington's chorea - an inherited and inevitably fatal neurological disorder with a 50/50 chance of inheritance, and the cause of folk songster Woody Guthrie's death.

I remember years back when Woody's son Arlo Guthrie and his sister understandibly endured great anguish before being tested - in the end, both came back negative as I recall. Imagine flipping that coin yourself.....

This is one of many diseases that the human race might one day rid itself of, thanks to stem cell research - see more on the benefits of embryonic stem cells vs adult stem cells here.

Proto-human embryos that are not destined to become living, breathing humans for whatever reason, may yet offer great benefit to the human race.

Those that are religiously inclined, or otherwise contend emotionally in the form of a personal moral dilemma with the issue of embyronic stem cell research, may eventually come to see this as a sacrifice for the greater good, and that view might offer a reasonable resolution of sorts.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/rltdsci/stemcell/z4.html

The human embryo is the most pristine state of life, the genesis of us all thereby he or she should be protected and respected like any new born.

"embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development." answers.com

"The Visible Embryo is a visual guide through fetal development from fertilization through pregnancy to birth. As the most profound physiologic changes occur in the "first trimester" of pregnancy, these Carnegie stages are given prominence on the birth spiral.
The shape and location of embryonic interal structures and how they relate and are connected to each other is essential to understanding human development.

Medical professionals create a mental picture of this process in order to determine how well the fetus is progressing. It is also the basis of knowing how and when errors in development occur and if a possibility exists for a corrective intervention."

It is equally important for expectant parents to understand the relationship of these internal structures and how their infant develops through pregnancy."

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/185610/2919/Development-of-the-human-embryo

"The term embryo applies to the earliest form of life, produced when an egg (female reproductive cell) is fertilized by a sperm (male reproductive cell; semen).

The fertilized egg is called a zygote. Shortly after fertilization, the zygote begins to grow and develop. It divides to form two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. As the zygote and its daughter cells divide, they start to become specialized, meaning they begin to take on characteristic structures and functions that will be needed in the adult plant or animal.

An embryo is a living organism, like a full-grown rose bush, frog, or human. It has the same needs—food, oxygen, warmth, and protection—that the adult organism has. These needs are provided for in a variety of ways by different kinds of organisms."

Embryonic development
434 x 254 - 14k - jpg
www.scienceclarified.com

Day 6: Embryo implants in the uterus ...
409 x 306 - 26k - jpg

The human embryo is the most pristine state of life, the genesis of us all thereby he or she should be protected and respected like any new born.

"embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development." answers.com

"The Visible Embryo is a visual guide through fetal development from fertilization through pregnancy to birth. As the most profound physiologic changes occur in the "first trimester" of pregnancy, these Carnegie stages are given prominence on the birth spiral.
The shape and location of embryonic interal structures and how they relate and are connected to each other is essential to understanding human development.

Medical professionals create a mental picture of this process in order to determine how well the fetus is progressing. It is also the basis of knowing how and when errors in development occur and if a possibility exists for a corrective intervention."

It is equally important for expectant parents to understand the relationship of these internal structures and how their infant develops through pregnancy."

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/185610/2919/Development-of-the-human-embryo

"The term embryo applies to the earliest form of life, produced when an egg (female reproductive cell) is fertilized by a sperm (male reproductive cell; semen). The fertilized egg is called a zygote. Shortly after fertilization, the zygote begins to grow and develop. It divides to form two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. As the zygote and its daughter cells divide, they start to become specialized, meaning they begin to take on characteristic structures and functions that will be needed in the adult plant or animal.

An embryo is a living organism, like a full-grown rose bush, frog, or human. It has the same needs—food, oxygen, warmth, and protection—that the adult organism has. These needs are provided for in a variety of ways by different kinds of organisms."

Embryonic development
434 x 254 - 14k - jpg
www.scienceclarified.com

Day 6: Embryo implants in the uterus ...
409 x 306 - 26k - jpg

CNNL

Your arguments are not particularly convincing. Where do you get your ideas on these matters?

Hmmm, the old "house on fire dilemma and who to save first" with a new twist.

Some facts:
human embryos are not found in houses but are stored in cryogenic chambers cooled with liquid, non-flammable nitrogen. The facilities are very secure with significant safeguards to protect against fire and cryogenic failure.

One assumes these human embryos cannot last forever. As with all life, they should be given proper burial and allowed to decompose (or be cremated) with dignity as all human life is. Creating/breeding these embryos for research or use as life-saving drugs is akin to cloning humans simply to harvest their parts for life-saving transplants.

YES! YOU THAT THINK STEM CELLS ARE HUMANS, PLEASE TELL WHY. IF THERE WAS A FIRE AND YOU COULD SAVE ONLY ONE, A YOUNG CHILD OR THE STEM CELL , WHICH WHOULD YOU SAVE AND WHY?

BMORRIS - you say my quote below has no bearing on the matter of embryonic stem cell research but I beg to differ. Obama reversed the Bush moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research, and can be expected to reverse much more in the way of Bush-inspired legislation in the future.

Folks that rigidly oppose embryonic stem cell research on a religious basis will very likely oppose other Obama initiatives in the future - in other words, they will support GOP opposition to virtually anything Obama tries to accomplish, whether they be Protestant evangelicals or Catholics of the fundamentalist Vatican persuasion.

The 50% of Catholics and growing number of evangelicals that support embryonic stem cell research, as well as pro-choice and pro-birth control positions, will be far more likely to support future Obama intiatives.

There are plenty of one issue voters that oppose present and future Obama policies. Fox News, Limbaugh, the Pontiff, et al, seem to speak for these one issue voters, so I thought my comment below was more or less on target.

People typically avoid suffering and pursue happiness, and medical research can help with this goal in many ways, although developing 'superior' people through DNA manipulation, cloning, etc. will probably never enter into the research equation in the foreseeable future, for many reasons.

Imagine the ability to completely heal the damage from devastating burns, reverse spinal cord injuries and genetically based disease (diabetes is a big one), grow new limbs, and other previously unimaginable medical accomplishments.

Embryonic stem cell research represents a new medical science frontier may well lead the way.
____________

'Oddly enough, these are the very beliefs that hold considerable sway in the public debate on Obama's decision to lift all bans on stem cell research.

This is probably the same crowd that now holds Obama accountable for not reversing a devastating economic trend that has been nearly 10 years in the making (or much longer) - in a mere 50 days. The folks that now believe life 'will never be the same' in the good old 'socialist' USA.

Why make your own decisions when Fox News is doing all the heavy lifting? If only more education were the answer......'

BMORRIS - another quote for you: 'Nothing is Sacred' other than what a certain collective of individuals deem to be sacred by consensus. This applies in particular to theologically based points of view.

Actually your pain/pleasure dichotomy is false in this case - ethically speaking, humans should have as much freedom from pain as medical technology allows. I suppose you could make the case for the remediation and/or removal of chronic disease, pain, and disability as being pleasureful - on a case by case basis. But why resort to philosophy in such matters?

As you say, life is painful enough - without preserving pain for religious reasons. Mortification of the flesh is no longer seen as necessary for our personal salvation.

Just as acorns are not oaks, and seeds are not fruit, so embryos are not human - only potentially so. We are not talking about mining the universe of pregnant women for their embryos -only that which would be lost naturally or through a process of personal choice.

Embryonic stem cells are superior in their generic potential for becoming more specialized cells. 'All gain and no loss' is the true axiom that must be applied to the enterprise of embryonic stem cell research......

regards -

BMORRIS - another quote for you: 'Nothing is Sacred' other than what a certain collective of individuals deem to be sacred by consensus. This applies in particular to theologically based points of view.

Actually your pain/pleasure dichotomy is false in this case - ethically speaking, humans should have as much freedom from pain as medical technology allows. I suppose you could make the case for the remediation and/or removal of chronic disease, pain, and disability as being pleasureful - on a case by case basis. But why resort to philosophy in such matters?

As you say, life is painful enough - without preserving pain for religious reasons. Mortification of the flesh is no longer seen as necessary for our personal salvation.

Just as acorns are not oaks, and seeds are not fruit, so embryos are not human - only potentially so. We are not talking about mining the universe of pregnant women for their embryos -only that which would be lost naturally or through a process of personal choice.

Embryonic stem cells are superior in their generic potential for becoming more specialized cells. 'All gain and no loss' is the true axiom that must be applied to the enterprise of embryonic stem cell research......

regards -

Thanks to all who criticized my post. Obviously a corrective of my views must always be made. I just let my imagination get carried away. I really have no defense for it other than that I enjoy imagining. But of course people who ground people are equally if not more valuable...

Hi Lions Den. I post only here now. Jacoby banned me from her site--no posts go through. So here I am. Good to converse with someone.

There is alot of confusion about cloning. Seeking to clone a human being would not be a good idea, because it would involve trials in which some of the cloned people, which are always born as babies, just like natural babies, would probably be born with weaknesses or even deformitites, possibly severe, as a result of mistakes in the unperfected cloining process.

Then also, there is no point to cloning so-called geniuses; there are always more. And even if we could get a-hold of some of Albert Einsteins's DNA, who is to say a clone of his would be a great mathematician or physicist? It is just as likely that an Einstein clone could turn out to be a very chatty, very knowledgeable bus driver. The ultimate unfolding of a person's life is unpredictable and unknowable, even for clones. A clone of Albert Einstein would not BE Albert Einstein.

The only up side that I can see for a cloning-like process would be to induce a cell in the sick person's body to behave as if it is a newly formed embryo with stem cells that could be used to generate restorative tissues to heal the sick person.

Persiflage:
"Pain sucks!"
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who tells you different is selling something."
Quote it!

"If we have suffered mightily, or know someone who is afflicted with great physical suffering and disability, then the medical research that would eliminate or reverse the suffering should rank very high as an ethical protocal....and generally does among thinking people."
So in essence what you are saying is that pleasure reigns supreme, and we should do anything we can to alleviate pain and anything non-pleasure in life. Pain, suffering, and death are natural parts of life, as any "thinking people" know. To make the avoidance of pain the superior motivation in science -- especially when it interferes with a person's basic right to life in the first place -- is an abomination to humankind. I'm not saying that painkillers and any attempt to lessen pain is unethical or immoral. I am saying that it should not take precedent over the most basic of human rights, and the most basic tenet of any moral or ethical system known to man: the right of a human being to live.

"The resistence to stem cell research defies thoughtful common sense based on any reasonable ethical standard, unless those standards have been skewed by superstitious beliefs for which there is no reasonable basis."
Again, our opponents misquote us. We are not against all stem cell research! Just embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is an ethically clear alternative that is producing definite results. Not only does it avoid the question, this alternative dodges the entire subject so that advocates of embryonic stem-cell research do not even have to admit anything.

Finally, this "same crowd" you speak of has no bearing on the debate.

Daniel in the Den:
I think CCNL was being sarcastic...

Daniel12:
I have to disagree. It cannot be denied that humanity has removed itself from natural selection -- with our use of medicines and tools, we have completely turned the tables on Darwin's theory and used these tools to protect and nurture the weakest and most helpless. Our race is not allowing the weak to die and the strong to take all. Neither Party works for a different kind of human being -- such motives are beyond the narrow, selfish perception of modern humankind. No, what the Parties search for is power, and more pride. They believe their way is best, and as such seek to make this great country of ours better with their policies.

Also, you have a few incorrect points about the Republican Party. The monster that was laissez-faire capitalism died long ago, and I doubt very much that any Republicans seek to resurrect it. The Republicans' stance against stem-cell research and against big government are not in order to create a socially Darwinistic society.

Darwinism is not the solution to our problems. Remember, Darwin studied, analyzed, and published his findings on animal behavior, not human. The dog-eat-dog-ness of the world he proposed in his works is not the human way. But Darwin wasn't the first to say this. The ancient philosophers knew that man's Reason and Logic set him apart from animals.
Your ideas that (and again here I must make the distinction) EMBRYONIC stem-cell research make no sense. What is so difficult about simply using another type of cell that achieves the same result?
And why must you insist that we use cloning in order to create a better human? Who says we need a better human? Hitler said the same thing, and we all know how he did it. In your case, you would prefer the extinguishing of hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of potential lives, any one of which could have created countless medicines, ruled justly, righted social wrongs -- countless good that could have been done by these people -- all gone. You would jeopardize all those great possibilities -- and for what? In order to create a "supreme human?"

Frank:
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
It has been proven that people with faith are as a group more driven, happier, and a stronger movement for the common good and social justice than atheist or secular groups. Those "Dark Age-" level "religious superstitions" are BRONZE AGE religious superstitions, thank you very much.

Your statement about science being ("literally") knowledge derives itself solely from observation. In fact (scientific term that, haha), science is merely the result of our physical faculties, measured arbitrarily again and again until it is named "science." It is not so much careful testing as much as repeated testing. The "truth" in the natural laws and theories of science are not so much facts as the same observations made over and over again so many times they are accepted as such. It is when these observations are challenged that we find new "science--" new observations, new tests, more repetition, and in the end our original "laws" and "facts" are changed.
For example, Copernicus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Brahe all supported uniform circular motion and the geocentric universe. Their logic and observations were supported (Brahe's model even accounted for the retrograde movement of superior planets) and became law. It took many, many years for these accepted "facts" to be challenged and changed.

Who are you to say you know truth? (Or any of us, for that matter.) Also, even to infer that you have absolute knowledge of what any human being(s) knows and doesn't know is an arrogant assumption, to say the least.

Again (and I will continue to repeat it until it sinks in for all of you):
We do not oppose all stem cell research!
Adult stem cell research is perfectly fine and will produce the same results without extinguishing the flames of life of human beings and potential human beings!

Ben

A sad fact: There is absolutely no scientific basis for the belief that a human blastocyst has a "soul". It is so sad to recognize that there are significant numbers of humans whose knowledge of biology is so limited that they continuously fall for health supplement con-artists, alternative medicine crackpots, horoscopes, and, yes... Dark Age levels of MAN-MADE religious superstitions.

Meanwhile, real suffering humans of all ages could receive real "salvation" from debilitating, physical torture through STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Scrooge's Ghost of Christmas to Come pulled his robe back and showed Scrooge two miserable urchins of his doomsday future, "Ignorance" and "Poverty". That ghost is still trying to teach us, without much luck.

Science is, literally "knowledge" and derives from observations and careful testing. "God"? "God's secrets"? Indeed, NOTHING about God is actually known by ANY human being, and THAT IS THE TRUTH, so help me "God".

What to make of stem cell research--specifically with regard to the morality of such, the medical benefits, the dangers of human cloning,--and last but not least how such relates to the Republican and Democratic parties in America and Mr. Charles Darwin?

A tall order, but not impossible to synthesize and make a certain sense of in a few paragraphs. Let us begin with the Republican party in relationship to Mr. Charles Darwin and the morality of stem cell research. The Republican party is in a certain sense contradictory, being for both religion and laissez faire capitalism which is a bastard approximation of Darwin's natural selection (natural selection of course the process by which a species is "driven" by changes in the environment, the members of the species "fitting" into the new environment "pulling ahead" and representing the species in its new state, the members of the species not fitting in "falling away" and being the representatives of the species in its past).

The Republican party on one hand takes a religious and moral stand against stem cell research, and on the other hand takes us backward in the Darwinistic sense by having the members of our species compete inordinately with one another (social Darwinism). To the Republicans the human advance over the animals in the Darwinistic sense--which is to say the animals are "driven" by the environment while man has got into a position to master the environment and drive himself forward into what he wants to be--is collapsed and man in society is supposed to roughly approximate the animals in a state of nature (which is to say man competes with himself to the point that perhaps even his advance over the animals vanishes and he is driven this way and that by both the environment and the violence he does to himself).

Needless to say, when we have this potent and contradictory mixture between religion and social Darwinism we ironically arrive at no contradiction at all: Religion and social Darwinism agree for differing reasons that stem cell research might be immoral (religion of course taking the high moral stance against it while social Darwinism takes the low stance of not wanting the potential benefits of stem cell research to take effect and have weaker members of the species helped in competing with the stronger majority). Religion and social Darwinism also agree in a more insidious way: Social Darwinism increases the pain of living and this drives people into religion as much as it makes them tougher. In fact we have no real statistics to determine whether people are getting tougher or just turning to religion for solace. In fact in such an environment perhaps statistics cannot flourish at all!

But now for the Democratic party in America. The Democratic party of course lowers the barrier between stem cell research and morality. Religious strictures are relaxed and the medical benefits of stem cell research are brought to the fore. In fact we can make a joke and say the Democratic party is even for cloning provided of course the clones are of liberals. And this leaps directly into the problem the Democratic party has with respect to stem cell research. The Democratic party is the party more for Darwin than the Republican party is (no matter the Republicans social Darwinism). This is to say that Democrats take the evidence for natural selection as correct. But the Democrats, like the Republicans, stumble on the biological fact that man differs from the animals in potentially charting his own course rather than being buffeted by the environment this way and that. While the Republicans undermine man choosing his course by social Darwinism and even negate Darwin with religion, the Democrats try to block Darwin's natural selection by Marx derived beliefs--which is to say have all people considered biologically equal whether they differ by race, sex, criminal proclivities, medical problems, etc.--In other words, Democrats would have our species "flattened", have a horizontal movement toward radical equality take precedence over possible movements to the verticality of man choosing what he wants to be beyond current human biological state.

The correct course, I believe--and here we arrive at the crux of the matter--is to embrace Darwin totally, which is to say with an emphasis on man differing from the animals in potentially directing his own evolution. Scientific research must be pointed beyond trying to fix people medically by stem cell research as the Democrats want to do in their constant attempts to make people equal whether by nurture or biology. Scientific research must be directed to where we all willingly consider ourselves as potentially obsolete, capable of being replaced by a human better capable of mastering the environment (thus constantly separating more and more from the animals in the Darwinistic sense). Not only must stem cell research be employed in this higher goal over medical benefits, we must enter an era of human cloning--just not cloning as Republicans and Democrats would have it. Leave it to the Republicans (if cloning) to try to produce a more loyal and warlike and business type of animal to lord it over others, while the Democrats would try to produce a "neutral" animal, one with the same characteristics whether of this race or sex or that,--or whether with this medical condition or proclivity for criminality or that. In other words, leave it to the Democrats to clone precisely what we all too often mean by a clone.

I have a different idea about cloning. Of course we should try to produce a more successful human biologically---but we might have to pass by route of cloning in the sense that we try to clone as many past and present geniuses as possible, resulting in a cumulative effect of the future possessing more of past geniuses to the point where a critical barrier is crossed and these geniuses figure out how to create a better human, thus leaving perhaps the necessity for human cloning behind...

Just a few thoughts on stem cell research. Sorry if it took more than a few paragraphs.

What to make of stem cell research--specifically with regard to the morality of such, the medical benefits, the dangers of human cloning,--and last but not least how such relates to the Republican and Democratic parties in America and Mr. Charles Darwin?

A tall order, but not impossible to synthesize and make a certain sense of in a few paragraphs. Let us begin with the Republican party in relationship to Mr. Charles Darwin and the morality of stem cell research. The Republican party is in a certain sense contradictory, being for both religion and laissez faire capitalism which is a bastard approximation of Darwin's natural selection (natural selection of course the process by which a species is "driven" by changes in the environment, the members of the species "fitting" into the new environment "pulling ahead" and representing the species in its new state, the members of the species not fitting in "falling away" and being the representatives of the species in its past).

The Republican party on one hand takes a religious and moral stand against stem cell research, and on the other hand takes us backward in the Darwinistic sense by having the members of our species compete inordinately with one another (social Darwinism). To the Republicans the human advance over the animals in the Darwinistic sense--which is to say the animals are "driven" by the environment while man has got into a position to master the environment and drive himself forward into what he wants to be--is collapsed and man in society is supposed to roughly approximate the animals in a state of nature (which is to say man competes with himself to the point that perhaps even his advance over the animals vanishes and he is driven this way and that by both the environment and the violence he does to himself).

Needless to say, when we have this potent and contradictory mixture between religion and social Darwinism we ironically arrive at no contradiction at all: Religion and social Darwinism agree for differing reasons that stem cell research might be immoral (religion of course taking the high moral stance against it while social Darwinism takes the low stance of not wanting the potential benefits of stem cell research to take effect and have weaker members of the species helped in competing with the stronger majority). Religion and social Darwinism also agree in a more insidious way: Social Darwinism increases the pain of living and this drives people into religion as much as it makes them tougher. In fact we have no real statistics to determine whether people are getting tougher or just turning to religion for solace. In fact in such an environment perhaps statistics cannot flourish at all!

But now for the Democratic party in America. The Democratic party of course lowers the barrier between stem cell research and morality. Religious strictures are relaxed and the medical benefits of stem cell research are brought to the fore. In fact we can make a joke and say the Democratic party is even for cloning provided of course the clones are of liberals. And this leaps directly into the problem the Democratic party has with respect to stem cell research. The Democratic party is the party more for Darwin than the Republican party is (no matter the Republicans social Darwinism). This is to say that Democrats take the evidence for natural selection as correct. But the Democrats, like the Republicans, stumble on the biological fact that man differs from the animals in potentially charting his own course rather than being buffeted by the environment this way and that. While the Republicans undermine man choosing his course by social Darwinism and even negate Darwin with religion, the Democrats try to block Darwin's natural selection by Marx derived beliefs--which is to say have all people considered biologically equal whether they differ by race, sex, criminal proclivities, medical problems, etc.--In other words, Democrats would have our species "flattened", have a horizontal movement toward radical equality take precedence over possible movements to the verticality of man choosing what he wants to be beyond current human biological state.

The correct course, I believe--and here we arrive at the crux of the matter--is to embrace Darwin totally, which is to say with an emphasis on man differing from the animals in potentially directing his own evolution. Scientific research must be pointed beyond trying to fix people medically by stem cell research as the Democrats want to do in their constant attempts to make people equal whether by nurture or biology. Scientific research must be directed to where we all willingly consider ourselves as potentially obsolete, capable of being replaced by a human better capable of mastering the environment (thus constantly separating more and more from the animals in the Darwinistic sense). Not only must stem cell research be employed in this higher goal over medical benefits, we must enter an era of human cloning--just not cloning as Republicans and Democrats would have it. Leave it to the Republicans (if cloning) to try to produce a more loyal and warlike and business type of animal to lord it over others, while the Democrats would try to produce a "neutral" animal, one with the same characteristics whether of this race or sex or that,--or whether with this medical condition or proclivity for criminality or that. In other words, leave it to the Democrats to clone precisely what we all too often mean by a clone.

I have a different idea about cloning. Of course we should try to produce a more successful human biologically---but we might have to pass by route of cloning in the sense that we try to clone as many past and present geniuses as possible, resulting in a cumulative effect of the future possessing more of past geniuses to the point where a critical barrier is crossed and these geniuses figure out how to create a better human, thus leaving perhaps the necessity for human cloning behind...

Just a few thoughts on stem cell research. Sorry if it took more than a few paragraphs.

CCNL, you said:

"Hmmm, and why don't we just harvest the organs/cells/blood from Alzheimers patients??? Why waste all these valuable resources??"

What is your point? If we were going to think of old people in this way, then shouldn't we just go ahead and "harvest the organs/cells/blood" of young healthy people, or even of children? Wouldn't their body parts be healthier and better?

But no one, except you, has thought of this or brought this up. This line of thinking has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research.

This line of reasoning is based on nothing at all but paranoid imaginings.

CCNL, you said:

"Hmmm, and why don't we just harvest the organs/cells/blood from Alzheimers patients??? Why waste all these valuable resources??"

What is your point? If we were going to think of old people in this way, then shouldn't we just go ahead and "harvest the organs/cells/blood" of young healthy people, or even of children? Wouldn't their body parts be healthier and better?

But no one, except you, has thought of this or brought this up. This line of thinking has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research.

This line of reasoning is based on nothing at all but paranoid imaginings.

CCNL, you said:

"Hmmm, and why don't we just harvest the organs/cells/blood from Alzheimers patients??? Why waste all these valuable resources??"

What is your point? If we were going to think of old people in this way, then shouldn't we just go ahead and "harvest the organs/cells/blood" of young healthy people, or even of children? Wouldn't their body parts be healthier and better?

But no one, except you, has thought of this or brought this up. This line of thinking has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research.

This line of reasoning is based on nothing at all but paranoid imaginings.

Here's the whole quote: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."

He goes on to say, "I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

Both of these thoughts are humanist as much, if not more so, as they are Christian.

Perhaps the faith Obama was referring to was faith in people to do the right thing. It sure sounds like it.

Here's the whole quote: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."

He goes on to say, "I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

Both of these thoughts are humanist as much, if not more so, as they are Christian.

Perhaps the faith Obama was referring to was faith in people to do the right thing. It sure sounds like it.

Luke 17:21 is one of the few passages that is, as per most historic Jesus exegetes, authentic.

5)1Q?: Luke 17:20-21

/20/ Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; /21/ nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

But did he copy it from someone else ??? John the Baptist, his mentor?? Wandering Greek cynics??

THINK2

When I asked, " "What, by the way, are the "laws of life"?"

You answered, "The Law of Love, the Laws of Cause and Effect (Karma), the Law of Reincarnation."

The Law is Love since God is the Law and God is Love.

As far as " the Laws of Cause and Effect (Karma)" and "the Law of Reincarnation", I don't believe in either one.

For one thing some use the "Karma thing" as a cop out, as in not taking responsibility for things they have done in this life and blamed them on things from their "previous life".

As I have said before, people would be better off throwing away the bible than to slice and dice it.

You also wrote, "One day, Thomas, you will realize that you are god. Luke 17:21".

NAB: "21 and no one will announce, 'Look, here it is,' or, 'There it is.' For behold, the kingdom of God is among you."

KJV: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

NRSV: 21nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There it is!” For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among* you.’"

It doesn't say we are God, it says the Kingdom is within you, the Kingdom is among you, it is talking about the Kingdom not that we are God.

Actually, I have met God and I know that I am not God. Don't worry, God is a lot nicer, actually He Is Love and He Became Love-Incarnate, than some people that know His Name think that He Is and that some who know His Name want Him To Be.

God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

A good many people hate the fact that human decision making is theoretically relatively unfettered and unlimited. We have great built-in freedom, like it or not. How we handle it is obviously another matter.

Nothing is more relative than ethical/moral standards, but the alleviation of pain and suffering in the lives of our fellow humans does make alot of sense from a standpoint of empathy and compassion. It should probably rank very high on any sliding scale of ethics. Pain sucks!

If we have suffered mightily, or know someone who is afflicted with great physical suffering and disability, then the medical research that would eliminate or reverse the suffering should rank very high as an ethical protocal....and generally does among thinking people.

The resistence to stem cell research defies thoughtful common sense based on any reasonable ethical standard, unless those standards have been skewed by superstitious beliefs for which there is no reasonable basis.

Oddly enough, these are the very beliefs that hold considerable sway in the public debate on Obama's decision to lift all bans on stem cell research.

This is probably the same crowd that now holds Obama accountable for not reversing a devastating economic trend that has been nearly 10 years in the making (or much longer) - in a mere 50 days. The folks that now believe life 'will never be the same' in the good old 'socialist' USA.

Why make your own decisions when Fox News is doing all the heavy lifting? If only more education were the answer......

Hmmm, and why don't we just harvest the organs/cells/blood from Alzheimers patients??? Why waste all these valuable resources??

"Capacity and will to do this research..."
"Conscience and will to do so responsibly..."

Is this a defense of embryonic stem-cell research or nuclear weapons? Or perhaps some other scientific "capacity" we have? As has been said in other posts, just because we can do something does not mean should do it.

Cliché of the day: "With great power comes great responsibility."

The conscience is useless unless well-developed. This is an extreme example (Obama is not and never will be anything akin to Hitler and the American people and the body of US doctors are not running concentration camps), but those who committed crimes against humanity in essence had the same thing going for them; they were able to stifle, ignore, or otherwise convince their consciences, and they certainly had the ability to exterminate Jews by the millions. Which they did.

This is (again, as someone else already said) ignoring the fact that adult stem cells are at least as useful, and are much more desirable for everyone; in the eyes of those of faith, no more embryos are being destroyed. In the eyes of supporters, the entire topic is avoided without having to admit they are wrong or changing their beliefs or anything. If you can open the door to your house, why break the window?

yes

In saying he believes “we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research”, who does the President understand to be the giver of this "capacity and will"?

This question reflects the importance of determining who or what the standard or the authority is, for all who offer comments.
Is there an absolute standard for determining whether this is right or wrong?

The issue here involves the use of embryos in this study. Therefore, the taking of a human life for such study “ought not so to be”.

That there is life in the embryo is a no-brainer, for if not, nothing would have to be ‘aborted’.

What does President Obama have as the object of his faith? His faith is obviously not in the Bible, nor does he view it as God’s revelation to man, for the Bible condemns abortion.

Is his faith in the Koran? Does the Koran sanction abortion? If not, then upon what authority does the President cite as the "giver" to us for such research?

As far as his mentioning of having the ‘conscience’ to do so responsibly...the conscience cannot be not the guide, for the conscience can be deceived. A lie has the same effect upon a person as the truth if it is believed. We see this from Jacob in Genesis 37: 34-35, who mourned, believing as truth, the lie that his son Joseph was dead, and from the apostle Paul’s statement in Acts 23:1 that he had lived “in all good conscience before God, even though he murdered Christians, believing it at the time to be God’s will.

What the President’s object of faith is, needs to be known, before an informed answer can be given. Likewise the object of faith from those who respond needs to be considered before stones are cast at him.

The Bible provides for the sanctity of human life, and as such does not teach a double standard.

THOMASBAUM writes :"THINK2 God is real and God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love and we are not God."

One day, Thomas, you will realize that you are god. Luke 17:21

T writes: "What, by the way, are the "laws of life"?"

The Law of Love, the Laws of Cause and Effect (Karma), the Law of Reincarnation. Like the Law of Gravity, we may choose to adhere or not, but things go better when we follow the Laws.

THINK2

God is real and God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love and we are not God.

What, by the way, are the "laws of life"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

One assumes human embryos cannot last forever in the cryogenic state. As with all life, they should be given proper burial and allowed to decompose (or be cremated) with dignity as all human life is. Creating/breeding these embryos for research or use in life-saving drugs is akin to cloning humans simply to harvest their parts for life-saving transplants.

And the fastest growing voting demographic and possibly the largest voting bloc in the USA is ? ::

The Immoral Majority i.e The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year. They easily put BO in the White/Blood Red House!!!! The math: ~one million abortions/yr since 1973(Roe vs Wade) X 35 yrs x 2 parents/aborted child = ~ 70 million.

The popular vote: 69,456,897 votes for BO, 59,934,814 votes for JM.

And as BO promised the members of the Immoral Majority, he is now the leading advocate of abortion-on-demand to include the destruction of human embryos.

Science is not a god, nor is it an end unto itself. Science has great capacity to create or destroy. The real question is what will this science bring us, destruction or healing.

I'm hear to tell you that embryonic stem cell research will bring destruction of life with very little chance of any real benefit. This is a life in its earliest state. We know because science (yes science) tells us all DNA is present as an embryo. Everything is there that will be in that fully formed human and nothing will be added. It just needs time to form. There is one guarentee in embyonic stem cell research, a life will be destroyed. There haven't been any cures discovered yet and I doubt there ever will be.

Obama avoid this argument completely. He is preaching science for the sake of science (and obvious other political agendas). Just because we have the capacity, doesn't mean we shoud do it. It makes as much sense as nuking all our enemies. We have the science but is it right? He needs to ask the question but he avoids it. In my opionion its because there is no moral argument for it.

Why don't we just focus on adult stem cells. There is no moral argument and it never takes a life. They are currently helping millions of people with cures and they possibilities seem endless. They are what embryonic stem cells promise to be but will never be. It just makes too much sense in this crazy political world.

We are rapidly discovering the secrets of God in many fields. We have the means to create life, but cannot seem to sustain life which is not deemed "profitable" or "useful". We have the means to destroy all life on this planet. We must realize that we are, in potential, God. It is time to grow up. We have to choose whether to learn to share, to love, to create a just culture based on the laws of life, or to perish. That is the choice.