Home - List All Discussions

There is NO SUCH THING as NON LETHAL ESCR.

CP and Yuuki are BIG liars...

by: nancyu

Adult Stem Cell Research ASCR is NON LETHAL and Highly successful.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research ESCR KILLS and innocent human being.
There is NO SUCH THING as NON LETHAL ESCR.
Do NOT believe YUUKI's LIES.
Or those of concernedparent (he is even more skilled at lying than yuuki is)

reply from: nancyu

Your own post shows contradicts itself. You are a better liar than Yuuki is, but a liar never the less.

reply from: Yuuki

PGD exists. It involves removing a single cell from an 8-cell embryo. This procedure in and of itself is common and NON LETHAL. The only thing scientists have to do is turn that removed cell into stem cells.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22594571/

I'm not a liar, I simply have more information than you do.

reply from: Yuuki

The paragraph AFTER the one Yoda posted in another topic. I love how he takes things out of context! He posted past failures without mentioning present success.

reply from: Yuuki

Here, READ something. It's about PGD, detailing the MANY ways they remove one - and sometimes MORE THAN ONE - cell SAFELY from embryos at VARIOUS stages of preimplantation development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis

Educate yourself and stop looking like an idiot. Calling people liars just because you've never heard of something makes you look like a fool. You'd clearly never heard of PGD, knew nothing of how it was done, or how easy it is to simply culture that removed cell into stem cells.
God, you ignorance is staggering.

reply from: galen

ok yukki other than wiki... where else have you found research for the viability of embryos after the removal of 1 of thier cells.....??
it seems you are being as hard headed as the rest of them based on flimsy non scientific annecdotes.
Not to mention that there have NEVER been published findings anywhere in the world where ESC have cured anything at all... while the US certainly has not been experimenting with them... other countries have .. so far no dice.
They just don't work Yuuki.

reply from: Yuuki

MSNBC.com would be the main source I'm quoting here. In case you missed all of the quotes from the article.
Right here, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22594571/ for Nancyu, who can't be bothered to look backwards to find something.
Give the research chance to prove itself now that it's not being stifled.

reply from: galen

why don't you go read nature and the lancet online a bit.... ESC don't work for disease... they keep causing tumours. Or the create tissue that becomes necrotic... there are lots of ways they have failed... so far none have worked.

reply from: Yuuki

The Russian job was badly done and not properly researched. It is not a valid example of proper ESC research.

reply from: Faramir

nancyu,
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "lie."
A lie is a false statement that is made with an intent to deceive. In other words, the liar knows the truth, but makes a false statement anyway.
But a false statement made in good faith is not a lie. If I tell you the sun is shining and its warm, but it's really snowing and cold, I might be saying that because I was locked away in an office all day and got the wrong weather report, or maybe a couple hours previously, it had been warm and sunny, but the weather changed, and I had been indoors and did not know about the change.
Making a false statement in good faith, is not a lie.
Even if yuuki is stating something that is not factual, it is not necessarily a "lie" if she believes it to be true. There must be an INTENT TO DECEIVE for it to be a lie.
On the other hand, a person could be lying by telling only a part of the truth, and by withholding the entirety of the truth to create a false impression.
For the sake of argument, let's say there is a prolife demonstrator who sidewalk counsels and attempts to talk women out of having an abortion, and is successful at it sometimes. But some women abort anyway, and this same sidewalk counselor approaches the women who have aborted--the same women she begged to not abort--and gives them a bag of materials including scriptures and information about places they can go to get help if they want to be counseled, and also some tea and chocolate, as an expression of kindess towards someone who is hurting.
To focus on only one slice of the truth, and to call this person a "tea and chocolate" prolifer, is a LIE. It's a lie beacause it DELIBERATELY and with MALICE tells only enough of the truth to give the FALSE impression that the women are "rewarded" for aborting, and knowingly ignores the attempt to prevent the abortion in the first place, and knowingly fails to mention that materials and offers of help are extended to the woman to help her, and to and prevent her from aborting again, and it knowingly ignornes the success--that some women did not abort and kept their babies because of this sidewalk counselor's work.
A person so despicable as to call this hypothetical counselor a "tea and chocolate prolifer," is a liar, and very cruel one at that. Besides the injustice to the counselor, he or she would be shamefully fighting against a person who actually saves babies, and would be jeapordizing good prolife work, just because of spite.
I hope you now understand the meaning of "lie" and "liar," but if not, let me know and I'll explain further, but as I see it, you have unfairly called yuuki and concerned parent "liars."
I would join you if you could demonstrate that what they have said is false, and that they knowingly and with an attempt to deceive made false statements.
Otherwise, it's just your usual spiteful name-calling--taking the easy way out, instead of intelligently refuting their statements.

reply from: galen

uh huh... and enlighten us Yuuki... what would be a proper job??
China
Korea
Japan
Sweden
?? all these programmes are bad?

reply from: Yuuki

Nice Concerned!
It's as I said; decoding and using ESCs is a lot more complicated than using ASC, but the milage you get from them is much greater. This means the research is going to take longer, and in a world of "on demand", internet music, and liposuction, people expect results NOW, which is why the Russian tragedy with that boy happened. They rushed a technology that wasn't ready yet.

reply from: galen

note to CP
the group you quote is a advocacy group.. not a scientific one...
no one has been able to get the human cells to grow in humans without causing irreprable damage.
remember Vioxx... it too worked well in rats... why not use a great rescource .. i gave you two.. and do some up to date research on your own topic.
most of the places that signed the petition 2 years ago would not sign it now based on scientific evidence. the ones that do have plans to use research money on BOTH ASC and ESC.

reply from: Yuuki

Stating sucessful tests is just that; a statement. It's up to you whether or not these sucesses make you happy or sad. But a plain old list of ESC sucesses is about as unbiased as you can get.

reply from: yoda

Do you have a list of successful (long term) human treatment by ESCR?

reply from: galen

________________________
his list was a list of advocates.. not successes...there have been NO ESC success stories as yet... all the human experiments have failed...
Yuuki.. you really need to read the whole post.

reply from: Yuuki

________________________
his list was a list of advocates.. not successes...there have been NO ESC success stories as yet... all the human experiments have failed...
Yuuki.. you really need to read the whole post.
There wasn't anything else to read... if you mean the LINK, not the post?

reply from: Yuuki

http://www.stemcellgo.com/recent-advances-in-escr/
Weird, I don't see any list of advocates here. I see a list of successes.

reply from: galen

CP i've gone through the list you gave me and the sitings are incorrect w/ regards to wang
if you go to PNAS and look up wang he did not publish in 2007 only in 2006 and the research had nothing to do with the topics sited.... possibly YOU should go there?
here is the link
http://www.pnas.org/

reply from: galen

here also is the mouse/ rat article that is most prevalient... it shows that human cells migrate in rodent brains... and that might proove that they can migrate in the human brain... might... need more tests.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10211.full?sid=66132d51-d464-47a1-b452-e60f5de7fd85

reply from: Yuuki

So? Do more testing. It does seem promising though, so why on earth would you put a stop to promising research? Just because it's not getting results "fast" enough for you? We've already proven we can get stem cells without killing the embryo. They DID get stem cells from that method. And the extraction process is commonly and routinely used for genetic testing. So the only excuse you guys can come up with is that the research is slow. Well boo hoo, it took more than 3 million years to invent electricity; I think you can wait a decade or two for stem cell research.
The problem with some people is that they see how fast some technologies have progressed and expect everything to go that fast. Problem is, you're only seeing the product once it hits the shelves; and by then, the "critical point" has been reached with the technology allowing faster and faster advances with it. Embryonic stem cell research hasn't hit that "critical point" just yet. Once it does, rest be assured the research will boom.

reply from: nancyu

msnbc? You think they are unbiased? (deleted insulting words about yuuki's intelligence -- hey, I'm making an effort)

reply from: nancyu

msnbc? You think they are unbiased? (deleted insulting words about yuuki's intelligence -- hey, I'm making an effort)
I thought the issue of "bias" had already been settled? Didn't you start a thread about it? Didn't you guys conclude that there is no such thing as an unbiased source, and that we should accept factual information regardless of the source? Refute the claims, nancyu, don't attempt to attack the source....
Yuuki is the one all shot up about sources being "unbiased" so I will attack her sources as I see fit.
There is bias, and there is bias, and msnbc is BIASED AND THEY LIE.

reply from: nancyu

*Shrug* I could say the same of you.....
I'm sure you could as you are very good at lying.

reply from: Faramir

*Shrug* I could say the same of you.....
I'm sure you could as you are very good at lying.
Did you see my post about the what a "lie" is?
There must be an intent to deceive. It's not sufficient that it be a false statement.
Also, a "half" thruth or a partial truth with an intent to deceive by knowingly hiding the entire truth, would also be a form of a lie, as when you call someone a "tea and chocolate" prolifer.
That is an intentional distortion of the truth by using only one fact to distort what a person does by knowingly hiding the rest of the facts, and is a form of lying.
Apparently, you are likely to be the best liar on this board, because you have figured out a way to be a liar, by creatively editing the truth.
Congrats...

reply from: Faramir

I've always thought of a "lie" as something that is malicious and that there is an intent to deceive, and that's the sense in which I am using the word and that's the sense that I think nancyu was using it.
Perhaps Saint Nancy would let us know if she means "lie" to be an error, or if she means that there is an intent to deceive.
I think she means the latter in your case CP, since she said you were "better at it" (lying) than yuuki, implying that you are a skillful liar, which precludes the possibility of you making an innocent mistake, as I see it.

reply from: Faramir

Would you feel better if I pretended to give a rat's a$$ what Nancy thinks or says?
Hey, I'm just trying to have a good time too.
It's not fair that nancyu gets to have all the fun.

reply from: galen

sorry CP your link is not working for me... care to elaborate on what you wanted me to see?

reply from: galen

CP if any of the research had shown any real promise you should know that i would be for it.. and i am for ASC research...after this many years it has actually prooven to have some benefit...
However, it has not been shown that ESC can do anything yet and researchers all over the world have been working on it. throwing money at a bad idea does not change it into a good one... no matter what the fads say.
Yes most of those who had signed the proclamation back in 2007 have moved on to other things...and yes i've been in symposiums and such where it has been discussed.. when a friend who invests millions of dollars into research is asked ... what's up with this, or are you going to continue now Obama is in office, tells you 'no there is no future in it', its a telling sign.

reply from: Yuuki

Yep! When presented with facts she shrivels up and dies it seems. Kind of like a slug with salt, though I've never actually tried that. I like real slugs too much. They're fascinating. Hm, guess I'm doing a disservice to the slugs by comparing them to Nancyu. Sorry slugies!!!

reply from: Yuuki

When, where and why. Proof darling, otherwise you're just vomiting debris from your last meal all over the keyboard for no reason. Also, I love how now bias is both a good and a bad thing: only good when it applies to you, but bad when it applies to anything you disagree with.

reply from: Yuuki

msnbc? You think they are unbiased? (deleted insulting words about yuuki's intelligence -- hey, I'm making an effort)
From the general tilt of articles I have seen published by them, in regards to abortion, they do seem rather unbiased if not slightly pro-life. CNN on the other hand is decidedly pro-choice.

reply from: galen

yuuki... its always wise to go to a quoted article and read it yourself before forming an opinion... lately i see more and more quoted article... that do not actually contain the quotes used.. this seems rampant in ALL the media outlets..

reply from: Yuuki

If one newspaper read the same research as the other, MSNBC would give it a pro-life or neutral tilt and CNN would give it a decidedly pro-choice tilt. So I prefer to read MSNBC.

reply from: ProInformed

Their lies are based on the lie that a new unique individual human life is created at conception, when fertilization occurs.

reply from: Faramir

Why are you hopping on nancyu's hateful bandwagon?
What "lies" have they told?
Do you really believe they intend to deceive us?

reply from: Yuuki

Who are you referring to when you say "their?" I assume you mean Yuuki and myself, and if so, you are shown to be a liar, since I absolutely accept the scientific reality that life begins at fertilization/conception, and have stated as much literally hundreds of times on this forum alone. So, is mu assumption correct?
I accept that fact as well, so I don't know WHAT moronic lies they're spreading these days.

reply from: nancyu

The life of a human being AND pregnancy begin at the moment of conception.
The idea that these begin at implantation is a BIG LIE (as opposed to an ordinary lie)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/big%20lie
Main Entry:
big lie
Function:
noun
Usage:
sometimes capitalized B&L
Date:
1946
: a deliberate gross distortion of the truth used especially as a propaganda tactic
And no one has the right to intentionally kill an innocent human being. I don't care how long the list of (pro aborts) supporters is.

reply from: ProInformed

And it's also a very telling sign when some are adamently insisting that ESCR be continued in spite of the fact that it has not shown as much promise as non-violent, more humane forms of research, doesn't it?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhzSrRR0QSU&feature=PlayList&p=5A2770BBE8166D49&index=0&playnext=1

reply from: Faramir

It seems that you have not even read the posts and you are objecting to something that never was said or implied.
The argument was about using what we already have to work with, not about the violent destruction of more for the sake of research.
You can disagree with it without misrepresenting what was asserted.
And could you do me a favor and spare me the frustration of ingoring this post or putting up a link or a copy and paste, by actually acknowledging it and responding?
There have been too many hit-and-run posts.
What's wrong with having a discussion?

reply from: nancyu

Baptist Press Stories for Feb. 9, 2009
---------------------------------------
Obama guarantees reversal of Bush's pro-life stem cell policy
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29835


---------------------------------------
Obama guarantees reversal of Bush's pro-life stem cell policy
By Tom Strode
Feb. 9, 2009
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29835

WASHINGTON (BP)--President Obama has promised Democratic lawmakers he will issue an executive order reversing President Bush's ban on federal funds for stem cell research that destroys human embryos.
"I guarantee you that we will sign an executive order for stem cells," the president told Democrats in the House of Representatives attending a retreat Feb. 5 in Williamsburg, Va. The Washington Times reported Obama's comments, citing three sources in the closed-door meeting who asked to remain anonymous.
While Obama's support for government funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is well known, a question had developed since his Jan. 20 inauguration about whether he would actually use an executive order. There seemed to be some indication he might decline that method of rescinding the Bush policy and allow Congress to deal with the issue.
At the Democratic retreat, Obama endorsed congressional action as well, telling the representatives a legislative measure is needed to prevent a future president from reversing the policy again, according to The Times. Obama said he would coordinate the timing of his order's release with Congress.
"President Obama's promise is extremely disappointing but not surprising," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "Once again, as in the case of overturning the Mexico City Policy, President Obama's action forces Americans who find such research both barbaric and repugnant to subsidize it with their tax money.
"Reduced to its basics, killing the tiniest human beings in their embryonic stage of development for the possible medical benefits of older and more developed human beings is quite simply high-tech cannibalism in which we devour our own young for the sole purpose of treating other human beings who are merely fortunate enough to be older and able to defend themselves in a way the tiniest human beings are not," Land told Baptist Press.
Stem cells are the body's master cells that can develop into other cells and tissues, providing hope for the development of cures for a variety of diseases and other ailments.
Bush issued an executive order in August 2001 barring the use of federal funds in stem cell research that results in the destruction of human embryos. Extracting stem cells from an embryo destroys the donor.
Congress twice approved legislation to overturn Bush's policy, but the president vetoed both bills. Efforts to override the vetoes failed.
The ESCR funding ban is undergirded by a 1996 federal law that prohibits federal funds from being used for the creation of human embryos for research, as well as experimentation that destroys or threatens the health or life of embryos. That measure, known as the D i c key Amendment, has been subject to various interpretations, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. A legal challenge could ensue if Obama rescinds the ESCR funding ban, with supporters of the Bush policy arguing in court the Obama order violates the D i c key Amendment, Johnson said.
The D i c key Amendment is part of the annual spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, so Congress has to approve it each year for it to remain in effect. The measure is named after its sponsor, former Republican Rep. Jay D i c key of Arkansas.
Not only is ESCR lethal for the non-voluntary donor, but embryonic stem cells have yet to provide treatments for any diseases in human beings. They also have been plagued by the development of tumors in lab animals.
Unlike research using embryos, extracting stem cells from non-embryonic sources -- such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat and bone marrow -- does not harm donors and has nearly universal support. Such research has produced treatments for at least 73 human ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research.
In the last 15 months especially, scientists have discovered ways of converting non-embryonic stem cells into cells that have nearly the identical properties of embryonic ones.
On Jan. 23, Obama issued an executive order overturning the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits international family planning organizations from receiving federal funds unless they agree not to perform or counsel for abortion, or lobby in order to liberalize the pro-life policies of foreign governments.
President Reagan originally established the Mexico City Policy in 1984, when it was announced at a conference in Mexico City. The policy remained in force until 1993, when President Clinton rescinded it on his second full day in the White House. President Bush reinstated it exactly eight years later.
--30--
Tom Strode is Baptist Press Washington bureau chief.
-- End of story --
Copyright (c) 2009 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press
901 Commerce Street
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: 615.244.2355
Fax: 615.782.8736
email: bpress@sbc.net
http://bpnews.net

reply from: ProInformed

"The ESCR funding ban is undergirded by a 1996 federal law that prohibits federal funds from being used for the creation of human embryos for research, as well as experimentation that destroys or threatens the health or life of embryos."

reply from: nancyu

http://www.ncbcenter.org/10Myths.pdf

reply from: Faramir

Earth to Nancyu: He already said he opposes the killing.
How about picking something specific and then responding with something specific, possibly in your own words some time, instead of your "throw everything you can find at the wall and hope something sticks" routine, which is very boring, and not very enlightening.

reply from: Faramir

I oppose the creation of embryos in a lab for any purpose because most will have no chance of survival past the embryonic stage, but that is no reason to oppose ESCR itself....The killing and the research are two separate issues, and each can, and do, exist independently of the other. I oppose the killing, but not the research.
See item 9 in the "nancyu's" post. Do you agree and is that something different than what you are referring to in your post?

reply from: ProInformed

Apparently the pro-aborts trolls and their pretenda-pro-life toadies are under the naive and false impression that ESC researchers, after they are done with the humans they experiment with, then place those human embryos into warm wombs where they are allowed to continue to live and grow until they are born...

reply from: Faramir

Apparently the pro-aborts trolls and their pretenda-pro-life toadies are under the naive and false impression that ESC researchers, after they are done with the humans they experiment with, then place those human embryos into warm wombs where they are allowed to continue to live and grow until they are born...
Could you be specific as to who is a "pretnda toadie" and why?
At least give the benefit of the doubt to the prolifer you say is "naive and under a false impression." A person like that is not a "pretenda" but is ignornant.
I don't know anything much at all about ESC research, and I would not feel good aobut using embryos that have already been destroyed, but on the other hand, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that a case could be made to use those that are already dead. If someone is in favor of research that permists dead embryos to be used that were not destroyed for the sake of the research, and opposes the creation of more embryos for the sake of research, then it's not fair to put him or her on the pro-abortion side of things, is it?

reply from: Faramir

Is there any ESC research that does not destroy LIVE embryos?
Are we considering that embryos that have no chance of finding a home to be "dead," which many, including myself, would find to be rupulsive? Or is there research that is being done or proposed that just wants to make use of what is already available and which is already deceased?

reply from: Yuuki

There is a method that could be used, yes. I have thoroughlly discussed it.

reply from: Faramir

There is a method that could be used, yes. I have thoroughlly discussed it.
I don't know very much about this, and I am confused about what is being discussed here.
Is there any type of ESR that uses DEAD embryos? By dead, I mean totally dead, and not alive but frozen.

reply from: Yuuki

There is a method that could be used, yes. I have thoroughlly discussed it.
I don't know very much about this, and I am confused about what is being discussed here.
Is there any type of ESR that uses DEAD embryos? By dead, I mean totally dead, and not alive but frozen.
I do not know exactly, but I believe it is completely possible; ConcernedParent posted links about that and I don't remember the details. The method I posted about used a living embryo, removed one cell, and then let the embryo develop normally. This method is regularly used in IVF to test for genetic diseases. The only step needed to turn it into an ESCR method is to take the extracted cell and culture it for stem cells instead of testing it.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell/obstacles51004.shtml
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Practical Problems with Embryonic Stem Cells
While some researchers still claim that embryonic stem cells (ESCs) offer the best hope for treating many debilitating diseases, there is now a great deal of evidence contrary to that theory. Use of stem cells obtained by destroying human embryos is not only unethical but presents many practical obstacles as well.
"Major roadblocks remain before human embryonic stem cells could be transplanted into humans to cure diseases or replace injured body parts, a research pioneer said Thursday night. University of Wisconsin scientist James Thomson said obstacles include learning how to grow the cells into all types of organs and tissue and then making sure cancer and other defects are not introduced during the transplantation. 'I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it's going to be very hard,' Thomson told the Wisconsin Newspaper Association's annual convention at the Kalahari Resort in this Wisconsin Dells town. 'Ultimately, those transplation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time.'....Thomson cautioned such breakthroughs are likely decades away."
-Associated Press reporter Ryan J. Foley "Stem cell pioneer warns of roadblocks before cures," San Jose Mercury News Online, posted on Feb. 8, 2007, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16656570.htm

***
"Although embryonic stem cells have the broadest differentiation potential, their use for cellular therapeutics is excluded for several reasons: the uncontrollable development of teratomas in a syngeneic transplantation model, imprinting-related developmental abnormalities, and ethical issues."
-Gesine Kögler et al., "A New Human Somatic Stem Cell from Placental Cord Blood with Intrinsic Pluripotent Differentiation Potential," Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 200, No. 2 (July 19, 2004), p. 123.
***
From a major foundation promoting research in pancreatic islet cells and other avenues for curing juvenile diabetes:
"Is the use of embryonic stem cells close to being used to provide a supply of islet cells for transplantation into humans?
"No. The field of embryonic stem cells faces enormous hurtles to overcome before these cells can be used in humans. The two key challenges to overcome are making the stem cells differentiate into specific viable cells consistently, and controlling against unchecked cell division once transplanted. Solid data of stable, functioning islet cells from embryonic stems cells in animals has not been seen."
-"Q & A," Autoimmune Disease Research Foundation, www.cureautoimmunity.org/Q%20&%20A.htm, accessed July 2004.
***
"'I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small,' said stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, echoing many other experts. 'I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner.'...
"[G]iven the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions.
"It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.
"'To start with, people need a fairy tale,' said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 'Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand.'"
-Rick Weiss, "Stem Cells an Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer's," Washington Post, June 10, 2004, p. A3.
***
"ES [embryonic stem] cells and their derivatives carry the same likelihood of immune rejection as a transplanted organ because, like all cells, they carry the surface proteins, or antigens, by which the immune system recognizes invaders. Hundreds of combinations of different types of antigens are possible, meaning that hundreds of thousands of ES cell lines might be needed to establish a bank of cells with immune matches for most potential patients. Creating that many lines could require millions of discarded embryos from IVF clinics."
-R. Lanza and N. Rosenthal, "The Stem Cell Challenge," Scientific American, June 2004, pp. 92-99 at p. 94. [Editor's note: A recent study found that only 11,000 frozen embryos are available for research use from all the fertility clinics in the U.S., and that destroying all these embryos for their stem cells might produce a total of 275 cell lines. See Fertility and Sterility, May 2003, pp. 1063-9 at p. 1068.]
***
"Embryonic stem cells have too many limitations, including immune rejection and the potential to form tumors, to ever achieve acceptance in our lifetime. By that time, umbilical cord blood stem cells will have been shown to be a true 'gift from the gods.'"
-Dr. Roger Markwald, Professor and Chair of Cell Biology and Anatomy at the Medical University of South Carolina, quoted in "CureSource Issues Statement on Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells," BusinessWire, May 12, 2004, also at http://curesource.net/why.html.

***
"'We're not against stem-cell research of any kind,' said [Tulane University research professor Brian] Butcher. 'But we think there are advantages to using adult stem cells. For example, with embryonic stem cells, a significant number become cancer cells, so the cure could be worse than the disease. And they can be very difficult to grow, while adult stem cells are easy to grow.'"
-Heather Heilman, "Great Transformations," The Tulanian (Spring 2004 issue), at http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=5155.

***
"There are still many hurdles to clear before embryonic stem cells can be used therapeutically. For example, because undifferentiated embryonic stem cells can form tumors after transplantation in histocompatible animals, it is important to determine an appropriate state of differentiation before transplantation. Differentiation protocols for many cell types have yet to be established. Targeting the differentiated cells to the appropriate organ and the appropriate part of the organ is also a challenge."
-E. Phimister and J. Drazen, "Two Fillips for Human Embryonic Stem Cells," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 350 (March 25, 2004), pp. 1351-2 at 1351.
***
Harvard researchers, trying to create human embryonic stem cell lines that are more clinically useful than those now available, find that their new cell lines are already genetically abnormal:
"After prolonged culture, we observed karyotypic changes involving trisomy of chromosome 12..., as well as other changes... These karyotypic abnormalities are accompanied by a proliferative advantage and a noticeable shortening in the population doubling time. Chromosomal abnormalities are commonplace in human embryonal carcinoma cell lines and in mouse embryonic stem-cell lines and have recently been reported in human embryonic stem-cell lines."
-C. Cowan et al., "Derivation of Embryonic Stem-Cell Lines from Human Blastocysts," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 350 (March 25, 2004), pp. 1353-6 at 1355.
***
"[Johns Hopkins University] biologist Michael Shamblott said...major scientific hurdles await anybody wishing to offer a treatment, let alone a cure, based on cells culled from embryos.
"Among the major obstacles is the difficulty of getting embryonic stem cells - master cells that generate every tissue in the human body - to become exactly the type of cell one wants... Scientists...haven't been able to guarantee purity - cells, for instance, that are destined to become muscle cells and nothing else...
"Transplanting a mixed population of cells could cause the growth of unwanted tissues. The worst case could see stem cells morphing into teratomas, particularly gruesome tumors that can contain hair, teeth and other body parts.
"Another issue is timing... Stem cells pass through many intermediate stages before they become intermediate cells such as motor neurons or pancreatic or heart cells. Deciding when to transplant remains an open question, and the answer might differ from disease to disease.
"...In tackling Lou Gehrig's disease, [Johns Hopkins neurologist Dr. Jeffrey] Rothstein figured that cells that haven't committed themselves to becoming motor neurons would stand the best chance, once implanted, of reaching out and connecting with the cells that surround them. What he found, however, is that these immature cells didn't develop much once transplanted into lab animals."
-Jonathan Bor, "Stem Cells: A long road ahead," Baltimore Sun, March 8, 2004, p. 12A.
***
"Tony Blau, a stem-cell researcher at the University of Washington, said it is 'extremely laborious' to keep embryonic cells growing, well-nourished and stable in the lab so they don't die or turn into a cell type with less potential. Researchers need to know how to channel the stem cells to create a specific kind of cell, how to test whether they're pure, and how to develop drugs that could serve as a sort of antidote in case infused stem cells started creating something dangerous, such as cancer.
"Big companies, Blau said, want to know that their drugs will be almost completely stable, standard, pure and consistent, because they can behave differently if they aren't. Stem cells never will achieve that kind of standardization, Blau said, because living cells are more complex than chemically synthesized drugs."
-Luke Timmerman, "Stem-cell research still an embryonic business," Seattle Times, Business & Technology section, February 22, 2004, at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001862747_stemcells22.html.

***
"[W]ithin the ESC research community, realism has overtaken early euphoria as scientists realize the difficulty of harnessing ESCs safely and effectively for clinical applications. After earlier papers in 2000 and 2001 identified some possibilities, research continued to highlight the tasks that lie ahead in steering cell differentiation and avoiding side effects, such as immune rejection and tumorigenesis."
-Philip Hunter, "Differentiating Hope from Embryonic Stem Cells," The Scientist, Vol. 17, Issue 34 (December 15, 2003), at www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/dec/hot_031215.html.
***
"Long-term culture of mouse ES [embryonic stem] cells can lead to a decrease in pluripotency and the gain of distinct chromosomal abnormalities. Here we show that similar chromosomal changes, which resemble those observed in hEC [human embryonal carcinoma] cells from testicular cancer, can occur in hES [human embryonic stem] cells.... The occurrence and potential detrimental effects of such karyotopic changes will need to be considered in the development of hES cell-based transplantation therapies."
-J. Draper et al., "Recurrent gain of chromosomes 17q and 12 in cultured human embryonic stem cells," Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 22 (2003), pp. 53-4.
***
"James A. Thompson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and his colleagues managed to isolate and culture the first human embryonic stem cells in 1997. Five years later, big scientific questions remain. [Harvard embryonic stem cell researcher Doug] Melton and his colleagues, for instance, don't yet know how to instruct the totipotent stem cells to become the specific cells missing in a diabetic person, the pancreatic beta cell.
"'Normally, if you take an embryonic stem cell, it will make all kinds of things, sort of willy-nilly,' says Melton."
-J. Mitchell, "Stem Cells 101," PBS Scientific American Frontiers, May 28, 2002, www.pbs.org/saf/1209/features/stemcell.htm.
***
"Unlike stem cells isolated from the embryo, [adult stem cells] do not carry the same risks of cancer or uncontrollable growth after transplant, and they can be isolated from patients requiring treatment, thus avoiding all problems of immune rejection and the need for immune suppressive drugs that carry their own risks.
"...Embryonic stem cells are promoted on grounds that they are developmentally more flexible than adult stem cells. But too much flexibility may not be desirable. Transplant of embryonic cells into the brains of Parkinson's patients turned into an irredeemable nightmare because the cells grew uncontrollably. Embryonic stem cells also show genetic instability and carry considerable risks of cancer... When injected under the skin of certain mice, they grow into teratomas, tumors consisting of a jumble of tissue types, from gut to skin to teeth, and the same happens when injected into the brain."
-Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins on behalf of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), "Hushing Up Adult Stem Cells," ISIS report, February 11, 2002, at www.i-sis.org.uk/HUASC.php.
***
"'I even hear from patients whose fathers have lung cancer,' said Dr. Hogan, a professor at Vanderbilt School of Medicine. 'They have a whole slew of problems they think can be treated. They think stem cells are going to cure their loved ones of everything.'
"If it ever happens, it will not happen soon, scientists say. In fact, although they worked with mouse embryonic stem cells for 20 years and made some progress, researchers have not used these cells to cure a single mouse of a disease...
"Scientists say the theory behind stem cells is correct: the cells, in principle, can become any specialized cell of the body. But between theory and therapy lie a host of research obstacles...the obstacles are so serious that scientists say they foresee years, if not decades, of concerted work on basic science before they can even think of trying to treat a patient."
-Gina Kolata, "A Thick Line Between Theory and Therapy, as Shown with Mice," New York Times, December 18, 2001, p. F3.
***
"Mice cloned from embryonic stem cells may look identical, but many of them actually differ from one another by harboring unique genetic abnormalities, scientists have learned...
"The work also shows for the first time that embryonic stem cells...are surprisingly genetically unstable, at least in mice. If the same is true for human embryonic stem cells, researchers said, then scientists may face unexpected challenges as they try to turn the controversial cells into treatments for various degenerative conditions."
-Rick Weiss, "Clone Study Casts Doubt on Stem Cells," Washington Post, July 6, 2001, p. A1.
***
"ES cells have plenty of limitations... For one, murine ES cells have a disturbing ability to form tumors, and researchers aren't yet sure how to counteract that. And so far reports of pure cell populations derived from either human or mouse ES cells are few and far between - fewer than those from adult stem cells."
-Gretchen Vogel, "Can Adult Stem Cells Suffice?", Science, Vol. 292 (June 8, 2001), pp. 1820-1822 at 1822.
***
"Rarely have specific growth factors or culture conditions led to establishment of cultures containing a single cell type.... [T]he possibility arises that transplantation of differentiated human ES cell derivatives into human recipients may result in the formation of ES cell-derived tumors... Irrespective of the persistence of stem cells, the possibility for malignant transformation of the derivatives will also need to be addressed."
-J. S. Odorico et al, "Multilineage differentiation from human embryonic stem cell lines," Stem Cells Vol. 19 (2001), pp. 193-204 at 198 and 200, at http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/reprint/19/3/193.pdf.

Email us at prolife@usccb.org
Pro-Life Activities | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.
Email us at prolife@usccb.org
Pro-Life Activities | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.

reply from: spamcyu

This too:
in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
hoc erat in principio apud Deum
omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est
in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum
et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt
fuit homo missus a Deo cui nomen erat Iohannes
hic venit in testimonium ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine ut omnes crederent per illum
non erat ille lux sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine
erat lux vera quae inluminat omnem hominem venientem in mundum
in mundo erat et mundus per ipsum factus est et mundus eum non cognovit
in propria venit et sui eum non receperunt
quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
qui non ex sanguinibus neque ex voluntate carnis neque ex voluntate viri sed ex Deo nati sunt
et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam eius gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis
Iohannes testimonium perhibet de ipso et clamat dicens hic erat quem dixi vobis qui post me venturus est ante me factus est quia prior me erat
et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus et gratiam pro gratia
quia lex per Mosen data est gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est
Deum nemo vidit umquam unigenitus Filius qui est in sinu Patris ipse enarravit
et hoc est testimonium Iohannis quando miserunt Iudaei ab Hierosolymis sacerdotes et Levitas ad eum ut interrogarent eum tu quis es
et confessus est et non negavit et confessus est quia non sum ego Christus
et interrogaverunt eum quid ergo Helias es tu et dicit non sum propheta es tu et respondit non
dixerunt ergo ei quis es ut responsum demus his qui miserunt nos quid dicis de te ipso
ait ego vox clamantis in deserto dirigite viam Domini sicut dixit Esaias propheta
et qui missi fuerant erant ex Pharisaeis
et interrogaverunt eum et dixerunt ei quid ergo baptizas si tu non es Christus neque Helias neque propheta
respondit eis Iohannes dicens ego baptizo in aqua medius autem vestrum stetit quem vos non scitis
ipse est qui post me venturus est qui ante me factus est cuius ego non sum dignus ut solvam eius corrigiam calciamenti
haec in Bethania facta sunt trans Iordanen ubi erat Iohannes baptizans
altera die videt Iohannes Iesum venientem ad se et ait ecce agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi
hic est de quo dixi post me venit vir qui ante me factus est quia prior me erat
et ego nesciebam eum sed ut manifestaretur Israhel propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans
et testimonium perhibuit Iohannes dicens quia vidi Spiritum descendentem quasi columbam de caelo et mansit super eum
et ego nesciebam eum sed qui misit me baptizare in aqua ille mihi dixit super quem videris Spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum hic est qui baptizat in Spiritu Sancto
et ego vidi et testimonium perhibui quia hic est Filius Dei
altera die iterum stabat Iohannes et ex discipulis eius duo
et respiciens Iesum ambulantem dicit ecce agnus Dei
et audierunt eum duo discipuli loquentem et secuti sunt Iesum
conversus autem Iesus et videns eos sequentes dicit eis quid quaeritis qui dixerunt ei rabbi quod dicitur interpretatum magister ubi habitas
dicit eis venite et videte venerunt et viderunt ubi maneret et apud eum manserunt die illo hora autem erat quasi decima
erat autem Andreas frater Simonis Petri unus ex duobus qui audierant ab Iohanne et secuti fuerant eum
invenit hic primum fratrem suum Simonem et dicit ei invenimus Messiam quod est interpretatum Christus
et adduxit eum ad Iesum intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit tu es Simon filius Iohanna tu vocaberis Cephas quod interpretatur Petrus
in crastinum voluit exire in Galilaeam et invenit Philippum et dicit ei Iesus sequere me
erat autem Philippus a Bethsaida civitate Andreae et Petri
invenit Philippus Nathanahel et dicit ei quem scripsit Moses in lege et prophetae invenimus Iesum filium Ioseph a Nazareth
et dixit ei Nathanahel a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse dicit ei Philippus veni et vide
vidit Iesus Nathanahel venientem ad se et dicit de eo ecce vere Israhelita in quo dolus non est
dicit ei Nathanahel unde me nosti respondit Iesus et dixit ei priusquam te Philippus vocaret cum esses sub ficu vidi te
respondit ei Nathanahel et ait rabbi tu es Filius Dei tu es rex Israhel
respondit Iesus et dixit ei quia dixi tibi vidi te sub ficu credis maius his videbis
et dicit ei amen amen dico vobis videbitis caelum apertum et angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes supra Filium hominis

reply from: spamcyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3U79aw2JUI

reply from: galen

CP .. i've come to the realisation that you just don't want to listen to anyone but yourself... and that is really sad, because you used to be diffrent.
you put forth a 2 year old proclamation and insist that no one who signed it could have had a change of mind?...yeah, you are living in a fantasy world.

reply from: Faramir

Who changed their mind?
Even nancyu's most recent and lengthy copy and paste in this post said nothing against the research, and was only addressing the practicality of using stem cells.

reply from: galen

from what i've heard most of them want to go with the research that is giving actual results that might help in the short run.... that is not ESCR its many other things such as new drugs, therapies w/ genes and hormones and ASCR.

reply from: galen

spam? why are you quoting the Vulgate? do you even know what you have written....?

reply from: Faramir

That has nothing to do with whether ESCR can be ethical.
I think it's clear that it can be, and it would be foolish to rule it out because it COULD be done in an unethical way.
People who volunteer to be organ donors could be killed on purpose to get their organs, but that doesn't make organ donation wrong.

reply from: scopia19822

ESRC is unethical it is reducing human beings to mere parts not human beings. I dont care if it kills the embryo or not it is wrong. ASRC has shown so much promise and I have yet to hear that ESRC has accomplished anything meaningful.

reply from: Faramir

ESRC is unethical it is reducing human beings to mere parts not human beings. I dont care if it kills the embryo or not it is wrong. ASRC has shown so much promise and I have yet to hear that ESRC has accomplished anything meaningful.
What does ASRC have to do with whether ESRC can be done in an ethical way?
Nothing.
If it's better, it's better, but that doesn't make another means worthless or unethical.
We already "reduce" human beings to parts when we take out their hearts and bones and put them in other people. And it can be done ethically and it is a good thing.
Embryos should not be created and killed on purpose for research. Of course that would be wrong--just as wrong as killing a healthy man to take out his heart to give to someone else.
But if a man dies by accident, then there are cases when it is a good thing that his heart can help save the live of another, and there is good that can be done when medical research is done on the deceased.

reply from: galen

have YOU anything to proove they have all kept up thier enthusiasm?....

reply from: galen

Excuse me? I posted the list, and everybody on it signed. You "put forth" that most of them "changed their minds," and when I asked you to prove it, you came up with some lame assed story about "this guy you know" who said it was old news or something.... With all due respect, I think you're the one who has "changed." You didn't always pull stuff out of your ass and present it as facts....
________________________________________
Actually you posted a post from a scource that is just as biased as you claim me to be...so i speak to people in medical circles...just because they don't come her to debate you personally does not make me a liar.

reply from: Faramir

CP, do you have another link to that source? It's not working for me.

reply from: Faramir

Two years is not a long time and is no basis for discrediting a source.

reply from: galen

no one is discrediting them, i'm just saying that most have moved on, and do not have the intrest they once did in this course of study.
in the academic world 2 years can have a lot of change, especailly when you are trying to raise funding... BTW the federal government is only funding a select few of the already established ESCR projects.

reply from: Faramir

My interest is in determining if ESCR can be ETHICAL, not whether it is effective at the moment.
If it's unethical, then why are there so many arguments about adult stem cells being the way to go? That doesn't prove anything about ESCR.
A reasonable assertion was made about ESCR not being "lethal," and that there are ways it can be done ethically, and I have yet to see an honest and intelligent refutation.

reply from: Faramir

This really should be the primary focus of the discussion, but it has been sidetracked by all the talk of how it "has no promise," and now we have an argument that no researchers are really interested in ESCR, which I find hard to believe, and have certainly not seen evidence of.
"Pro-aborts" want it, so therefore it's evil.
That seems to be the thinking, and that's a very shallow way of looking at it.
I don't understand why no effort is being made to discern the difference between ethical and unethical means, and why the continual sidetracking about ASCR.

reply from: Faramir

The one Mary is objecting to, or the Catholic bioethics center article?
I must not have been following closely enough, because I didn't know there were two links.
I think it's the one about bioethics, though.

reply from: nancyu

It is insane to think there can ever be an "ethical" way to use ESCR. Embryonic Stem Cell Research. An Embryo is a human being who can not in any way give consent to being experimented upon -- before or after death.
It is unethical to create human embryos in a laboratory, it is unethical to destroy human embryos, it is unethical to experiment on human embryos.
All you will ever find, cp are ways to rationalize ESCR. There will never be a way to justify it.

reply from: Faramir

It is insane to think there can ever be an "ethical" way to use ESCR. Embryonic Stem Cell Research. An Embryo is a human being who can not in any way give consent to being experimented upon -- before or after death.
It is unethical to create human embryos in a laboratory, it is unethical to destroy human embryos, it is unethical to experiment on human embryos.
All you will ever find, cp are ways to rationalize ESCR. There will never be a way to justify it.
A born baby that dies cannot give consent to being used for medical research or the use of its organs, but the parents can give that consent. A Born baby is a "human being who can not in any way give consent to being expermnted upon -- before or after death" -- yet it can be done ethically.
What is different about the embryo that makes it impossible?

reply from: Faramir

Agreed--but nobody who as asserted that ESCR can be ethical has supported that idea.
Nobody has disputed the idea that it's unethical to destroy live embryos.
Then it would be unethical to experiment or do medical research on ANY deceased human of any age.

reply from: nancyu

Agreed--but nobody who as asserted that ESCR can be ethical has supported that idea.
Nobody has disputed the idea that it's unethical to destroy live embryos.
Then it would be unethical to experiment or do medical research on ANY deceased human of any age.
It IS without their express consent before their death!

reply from: Faramir

I don't understand your point.
A baby could be born, live one day, and die, and the parents could give permission for the body to be used for medical research.
Obviously the baby consented to nothing.
A miscarriage could result in an embryo, and the mother could allow it to be used for medical research.
I don't see how either would be unethical, regardless that the child did not consent.

reply from: galen

I only claim what I can back up, that those that signed did so because they were indeed "enthusiastic." Since they have obviously not had their names withdrawn, I think it is safer to assume they still mean what they said than to assume with no evidence whatsoever that they have "changed their minds."
To summarize:
I provided a list of enthusiastic supporters.
You then claimed that most had changed their minds, but provided absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
Now, you are asking me to disprove the claim you never proved? (to prove the negative?)
_______________________________________-
can you proove they still feel this way?... that is the point.. you have no more proof that they still feel this way after 2 years than i do that they don't...i just know what i have heard... and my reputation on this board. You have a 2 year old document on a rather shady website...
so proove your own negative...

reply from: galen

Excuse me? I posted the list, and everybody on it signed. You "put forth" that most of them "changed their minds," and when I asked you to prove it, you came up with some lame assed story about "this guy you know" who said it was old news or something.... With all due respect, I think you're the one who has "changed." You didn't always pull stuff out of your ass and present it as facts....
________________________________________
Actually you posted a post from a scource that is just as biased as you claim me to be...so i speak to people in medical circles...just because they don't come her to debate you personally does not make me a liar.
The fact remains that I provided evidence of broad support, then you claimed thet most of them were no longer supportive. When I asked you to back up your claim, you tell my you talked with some guy, who you apparently felt was authorized to speak for nearly every entity on the list I provided. You obviously pulled the claim out of your @ss, just like I said. I did not say you lied. I chalked it up to assumption based on bias.
_______________________________________
really sounded like an accusation to me... i never lied and i did tell you that i had heard the same thing several times... i also pointed out that most of the researchers in your shady site do NOT do ESCR anyway... and also your sited links do not contain the information on ESCR that they claim to.

reply from: galen

And I'm saying I do not believe you are qualified to make such a determination. If there were not a significant number of researchers anxious to engage in ESCR, I shouldn't think federal funding would be much of an issue. I also suspect that, if "most" had "moved on," the ban on federal funding might have had something to do with it. The research has obviously continued right along, despite the lack of federal funding....
_________________________________
and the research that did continue under the previous admn. came to nothing... wich is my point... they moved on.

reply from: galen

Excuse me? I posted the list, and everybody on it signed. You "put forth" that most of them "changed their minds," and when I asked you to prove it, you came up with some lame assed story about "this guy you know" who said it was old news or something.... With all due respect, I think you're the one who has "changed." You didn't always pull stuff out of your ass and present it as facts....
________________________________________
Actually you posted a post from a scource that is just as biased as you claim me to be...so i speak to people in medical circles...just because they don't come her to debate you personally does not make me a liar.
The fact remains that I provided evidence of broad support, then you claimed thet most of them were no longer supportive. When I asked you to back up your claim, you tell my you talked with some guy, who you apparently felt was authorized to speak for nearly every entity on the list I provided. You obviously pulled the claim out of your @ss, just like I said. I did not say you lied. I chalked it up to assumption based on bias.
_________________________________
Broad scource that had many articles sited that had nothing to do with ESCR... misquotes etc.
and it was one scource .. a website., and then an article written by a catholic , not great evidence of support. and NONE of them have come up with a useful ESCR application... not one.

reply from: galen

It is insane to think there can ever be an "ethical" way to use ESCR. Embryonic Stem Cell Research. An Embryo is a human being who can not in any way give consent to being experimented upon -- before or after death.
It is unethical to create human embryos in a laboratory, it is unethical to destroy human embryos, it is unethical to experiment on human embryos.
All you will ever find, cp are ways to rationalize ESCR. There will never be a way to justify it.
A born baby that dies cannot give consent to being used for medical research or the use of its organs, but the parents can give that consent. A Born baby is a "human being who can not in any way give consent to being expermnted upon -- before or after death" -- yet it can be done ethically.
What is different about the embryo that makes it impossible?
________________
because for the most part we are not researching on miscarriges... we are researching on embryos that have been created for the express purpose of research.

reply from: Faramir

So who is disputing that that's unethical?
Because there is UNethical research does not mean we can't have ETHICAL research.

reply from: galen

So who is disputing that that's unethical?
Because there is UNethical research does not mean we can't have ETHICAL research.
_______________________
I never said that... but my opinion is that we should do away with all of it that IS unethical... right now its 95% of all research being done, because it is being done not on embryos that have died and been harvested, but on embryos that have been harvested espressly for thier stem cells wich leads to thier death.
Right now they have no way of resurrecting dead stem cells... they take them from what they classify as Doomed embryos... and who makes that determination... the doctors and parents being paid for them... How does anyone KNOW that these children would really have died....
And if you are opposed to IVF then you can not ethically not be opposed to this research. When we have found a way to do it ethic ally then i will glady with draw that objection. And if it works on some diease too.. that would be a plus, but right now it does not.

reply from: Yuuki

You're brilliant CP ^^

reply from: nancyu

It is insane to think there can ever be an "ethical" way to use ESCR. Embryonic Stem Cell Research. An Embryo is a human being who can not in any way give consent to being experimented upon -- before or after death.
It is unethical to create human embryos in a laboratory, it is unethical to destroy human embryos, it is unethical to experiment on human embryos.
All you will ever find are ways to rationalize ESCR. There will never be a way to justify it.

reply from: sk1bianca

as far as i understood from this debate (correct me if i'm wrong), the only ethical ESCR can be done on embryos that died as a result of an unintended unfortunate event.
is that how it's done today? no. can we expect scientists to play by this rule and simply wait for an accident to obtain a dead embryo for research? no. can we expect them to at least treat the embryo with the same respect as they would treat a deceased adult human?... only when embryos will be seen as what they really are: human beings.

reply from: Yuuki

The original article I posted was not from wikipedia, so I have no idea why you're spouting such nonsense and LIES, Nancyu. But you're just a pathological liar...

reply from: Faramir

It is insane to think there can ever be an "ethical" way to use ESCR. Embryonic Stem Cell Research. An Embryo is a human being who can not in any way give consent to being experimented upon -- before or after death.
It is unethical to create human embryos in a laboratory, it is unethical to destroy human embryos, it is unethical to experiment on human embryos.
All you will ever find are ways to rationalize ESCR. There will never be a way to justify it.
Your copy and paste of your own previous post fails to address that those who have been asserting there is an ethical way to do ESCR agree that it's unethical to create embryos for the sake of destruction.
Further, you persist with an argument about "consent" of the embryo, and that is entirely irrelevant, since a born child which dies can also be subject to a form of ethical research, without giving his consent.
Please read the article writen by the Cathoic Bioethics organization. There is a way to ethically do ESCR that is not "lethal."
This is not a justification or rationalization of UNethical research, which should stop, and not a justification of IVF, which is an injustice.
.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.ncbcenter.org/10Myths.pdf
The Ten Great Myths in the Debate Over Stem Cell Research
Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.
1. Stem cells can only come from embryos. In fact stem cells can be taken from umbilical cords, the placenta, amniotic fluid, adult tissues and organs such as bone marrow, fat from liposuction, regions of the nose, and even from cadavers up to 20 hours after death.
2. The Catholic Church is against stem cell research. There are four categories of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and adult stem cells. Given that germ cells can come from miscarriages that involve no deliberate interruption of pregnancy, the church really opposes the use of only one of these four categories, i.e., embryonic stem cells. In other words, the Catholic Church approves three of the four possible types of stem cell research.
3. Embryonic stem cell research has the greatest promise. Up to now, no human being has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already cured thousands. There is the example of the use of bone marrow cells from the hipbone to repair scar tissue on the heart after heart attacks. Research using adult cells is 20-30 years ahead of embryonic stem cells and holds greater promise. This is in part because stem cells are part of the natural repair mechanisms of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells do not belong in an adult body (where they are likely to form tumors, and to be rejected as foreign tissue by the recipient). Rather, embryonic stem cells really belong only within in the specialized microenvironment of a rapidly growing embryo, which is a radically different setting from an adult body.
4. Therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning are fundamentally different from one another. The creation of cloned embryos either to make a baby or to harvest cells occurs by the same series of technical steps. The only difference is what will be done with the cloned human embryo that is produced: will it be given the protection of a woman's womb in order to be born, or will it be destroyed for its stem cells?
5. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is different from cloning. In fact, "somatic cell nuclear transfer" is simply cloning by a different name. The end result is still a cloned embryo.
6. By doing somatic cell nuclear transfer, we can directly produce tissues or organs without having to clone an embryo. At the present stage of research, scientists are unable to bypass the creation of an embryo in the production of tissues or organs. In the future it may be possible to use chemicals, hormones or even elements from the cytoplasm of a woman's egg to "reprogram" a somatic cell (like a skin cell) into a stem cell, without ever creating an embryo. This is called "de-differentiation," and if this becomes feasible, there would be no moral objections to such an approach to getting stem cells.
7. Every body cell, or somatic cell, is somehow an embryo and thus a human life. People sometimes argue: "Every cell in the body has the potential to become an embryo when we do cloning. Does that mean that every time we wash our hands and are shedding thousands of cells, we are killing life?" The problem is that this overlooks the basic biological difference between a regular body cell, and one whose nuclear material has been fused with an unfertilized egg cell, resulting in an embryo. A normal skin cell will only give rise to more skin cells when it divides, while an embryo will give rise to the entire adult organism. Skin cells are not potential adults. Skin cells are potentially only more skin cells. Only embryos are potential adults.
8. Because no sperm is used in cloning, the resultant embryo can't be a human being and it must be OK to destroy it for its stem cells. Normally when sperm and egg join, each provides half the DNA to make the full complement in the embryo. That embryo then grows to become an adult. When you do cloning, you avoid the first step of mixing parental DNA, obtaining the full complement instead from the nucleus of the regular body cell that is transferred inside the woman's egg. That cloned embryo then grows to become an adult. Because Dolly the Sheep was made without sperm, this does not imply that she was some kind of being other than a sheep. Similarly, a human embryo made without sperm is not some kind of being other than a human. Cloning simply provides a workaround for the first step of fertilization, producing a genuine human who should never be destroyed for his or her stem cells.
9. Because frozen embryos may one day end up being discarded by somebody, that makes it morally allowable, even laudable, to violate and destroy those embryos. The moral analysis of what we may permissibly do with an embryo doesn't depend on its otherwise "going to waste," nor on the incidental fact that those embryos are "trapped" in liquid nitrogen. If we imagine a coal mine with miners who are permanently trapped inside through no fault of their own, with the certainty that they are all going to die, that would not make it okay to send a remote control robotic device to harvest organs from those miners and cause their demise.
10. Because large numbers of embryos generated during intercourse are lost from the woman's body and die naturally, that makes it permissible for us to destroy embryos in research. What Mother Nature does and what man may do are two distinct realities that should never be confused. If Mother Nature sends a tsunami that claims thousands of human lives, that does not make it morally permissible for me to take a machine gun and shoot into a stadium filled with thousands of people.
Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk did his Ph.D. in Neuroscience at Yale University and post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, prior to doing advanced studies in Rome in Theology and in Bioethics. He currently serves as the Director of Education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts.

reply from: nancyu

National Catholic Bioethics Center


Guilt-Free Pluripotent Stem Cells?

"Much ado about nothing" could describe the recent hype and flurry of news reports about an "ethical" way to get stem cells out of a human embryo without harming that embryo. Scientists have proposed pulling off one of the eight cells of an early embryo in order to create stem cells, while allowing the seven remaining cells to continue developing into a baby. On first hearing, the proposal sounds attractive to many. Scientists from a small biotech company called Advanced Cell Technology published a paper in the journal Nature in August, 2006, describing the technique. They implied that they had done the procedure and that the embryos they used for biopsy had survived. Following public scrutiny of their claims, however, it came to light that none of the 16 embryos they operated on actually ended up surviving. Importantly, even if the experiment had worked, and even if all the embryos had survived, the approach would still sputter and stall in ethical terms because young humans would end up being directly subjugated and violated in laboratory settings, in order to mine their desirable cells and parts. The quest for "guilt-free stem cells" is certainly a good one, but the so-called "embryo biopsy" approach to generating embryonic stem cells fails to deliver. More importantly, other new techniques which rely either on de-differentiation or on the use of germ cells offer genuinely novel ways to get stem cells without any ethical objections at all.

The "embryo biopsy" approach fails to deliver because of at least four serious moral objections:

1. A non-therapeutic intervention is performed on a human embryo. At least 10 percent of its body mass is removed for research, not for purposes of treating that specific embryo-patient for a known medical condition. The embryo is instead employed as a starting source for harvestable raw materials, in a gesture that reduces young humans to commodities or manipulable products.

2. Embryonic humans should not be generated in laboratory glassware. They do not belong inside test tubes or Petri dishes. The only fitting home for human embryos is in the warmth and shelter of their mother's womb, not in the open lights of the laboratory where they can be prodded, invaded and violated.

3. In order to get the single cell that is removed out of the embryo to turn into a stem cell, scientists have to "coat" it with a layer of human embryonic stem cells (taken from another, previously destroyed, human embryo). Thus, the procedure still relies on the prior destruction of young humans.

4. The extracted single cell may itself be totipotent, that is to say, it may be a new human being, now able to grow into an adult on its own. Early embryos are so flexible that occasionally when a cell breaks off from them, an identical twin can form. While this can certainly occur at the two- and four-cell stage of the embryo, it may even be possible at the eight-cell stage, though there is ongoing debate about this question.

A fifth problem could also be mentioned, namely that the remaining seven cells of the embryo may not necessarily grow to produce a perfectly healthy baby as is commonly assumed. Many babies have been born after a procedure called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), where a single cell is removed from the embryo for genetic testing. When testing indicates that the embryo is not affected by a genetic disease, it can be implanted into its mother to grow. What remains unclear is whether babies born after PGD testing are really as healthy as those born without PGD testing. Long-term follow-up studies have not been carried out on these PGD children, so it certainly premature at this time to argue that removing one of the eight cells of an embryo has no future effects on that individual.

Can pluripotent stem cells (the most highly flexible variety), be obtained from sources other than human embryos, and without crossing any moral lines? Absolutely. There are an expanding number of ways to derive such cells. For example, in March of 2006, German scientists published a paper in the journal Nature describing a new way to derive pluripotent stem cells. They removed special cells called germ cells from the testicles of mice, and transmuted them into pluripotent stem cells. Shortly afterwards, a biotech company in California called PrimeCell Therapeutics reported the same results in humans. No embryos were required at any point in the process. Another example: In August of 2006, scientists from Japan published results in the journal Cell indicating that by adding a combination of four different protein factors to adult mouse cells, they could change them into pluripotent stem cells. This kind of direct conversion of adult cells into embryonic-type cells is called dedifferentiation or reprogramming, and is a very promising direction for future research. These kinds of novel approaches do not depend upon the destruction of young humans. Another important source for obtaining pluripotent stem cells would be from certain mature body tissues including the bone marrow and the umbilical cord. Normally, stem cells from bone marrow and umbilical cord are not pluripotent, but multipotent (somewhat restricted in their possibilities for differentiation). However a growing number of researchers are finding that there may be a rare subpopulation of genuinely pluripotent cells that are also present in these adult sources. That is to say, stem cells as flexible as the ones that come from embryos may be naturally present at very low levels in bone marrow and umbilical cord, or at least may be derivable from such sources.

All of us are embryos who have grown up. Such embryos should not be destroyed, exploited or otherwise strip-mined for scientific purposes. We can all support those forms of stem cell research, including pluripotent stem cell research, which do not depend on such degrading practices against the youngest members of our species. Remarkable scientific progress is being made every day in developing alternative, ethically acceptable approaches to pluripotent stem cell research. The argument that we must offer up young humans on the altar of scientific sacrifice, while always objectionable in moral terms, is becoming continually less tenable in medical terms as well.

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. See www.ncbcenter.org
http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_15.asp

reply from: Faramir

I don't think there is a prolifer on this site who would not oppose unethical means of acquiring embryonic stem cells.

reply from: Yuuki

And you'd be completely right. It's not the stem cells themselves that are the problem; it is purposely killing another human being to harvest those cells that is wrong. So if research can be done on embryos that are already dead and donated by the parents, or done in the already-discovered and non lethal way, then there is no problem.

reply from: nancyu

And you'd be completely right. It's not the stem cells themselves that are the problem; it is purposely killing another human being to harvest those cells that is wrong. So if research can be done on embryos that are already dead and donated by the parents, or done in the already-discovered and non lethal way, then there is no problem.
You poor dear...You really are just so dumb. It's okay, it's not your fault.

reply from: Yuuki

And you'd be completely right. It's not the stem cells themselves that are the problem; it is purposely killing another human being to harvest those cells that is wrong. So if research can be done on embryos that are already dead and donated by the parents, or done in the already-discovered and non lethal way, then there is no problem.
You poor dear...You really are just so dumb. It's okay, it's not your fault.
You old hag...You really are just a senile b*tch. It's not okay, it's all your fault.

reply from: Faramir

Please don't feed the troll, Yuuki.

reply from: nancyu

Yuuki is kinda like the woman blocking Walter Hoye's sign in that video.

reply from: nancyu

Yuuki is kinda like the woman blocking Walter Hoye's sign in that video.

reply from: nancyu

National Catholic Bioethics Center
Guilt-Free Pluripotent Stem Cells?
"Much ado about nothing" could describe the recent hype and flurry of news reports about an "ethical" way to get stem cells out of a human embryo without harming that embryo. Scientists have proposed pulling off one of the eight cells of an early embryo in order to create stem cells, while allowing the seven remaining cells to continue developing into a baby. On first hearing, the proposal sounds attractive to many. Scientists from a small biotech company called Advanced Cell Technology published a paper in the journal Nature in August, 2006, describing the technique. They implied that they had done the procedure and that the embryos they used for biopsy had survived. Following public scrutiny of their claims, however, it came to light that none of the 16 embryos they operated on actually ended up surviving. Importantly, even if the experiment had worked, and even if all the embryos had survived, the approach would still sputter and stall in ethical terms because young humans would end up being directly subjugated and violated in laboratory settings, in order to mine their desirable cells and parts. The quest for "guilt-free stem cells" is certainly a good one, but the so-called "embryo biopsy" approach to generating embryonic stem cells fails to deliver. More importantly, other new techniques which rely either on de-differentiation or on the use of germ cells offer genuinely novel ways to get stem cells without any ethical objections at all.
The "embryo biopsy" approach fails to deliver because of at least four serious moral objections:
1. A non-therapeutic intervention is performed on a human embryo. At least 10 percent of its body mass is removed for research, not for purposes of treating that specific embryo-patient for a known medical condition. The embryo is instead employed as a starting source for harvestable raw materials, in a gesture that reduces young humans to commodities or manipulable products.

2. Embryonic humans should not be generated in laboratory glassware. They do not belong inside test tubes or Petri dishes. The only fitting home for human embryos is in the warmth and shelter of their mother's womb, not in the open lights of the laboratory where they can be prodded, invaded and violated.
3. In order to get the single cell that is removed out of the embryo to turn into a stem cell, scientists have to "coat" it with a layer of human embryonic stem cells (taken from another, previously destroyed, human embryo). Thus, the procedure still relies on the prior destruction of young humans.
4. The extracted single cell may itself be totipotent, that is to say, it may be a new human being, now able to grow into an adult on its own. Early embryos are so flexible that occasionally when a cell breaks off from them, an identical twin can form. While this can certainly occur at the two- and four-cell stage of the embryo, it may even be possible at the eight-cell stage, though there is ongoing debate about this question.
A fifth problem could also be mentioned, namely that the remaining seven cells of the embryo may not necessarily grow to produce a perfectly healthy baby as is commonly assumed. Many babies have been born after a procedure called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), where a single cell is removed from the embryo for genetic testing. When testing indicates that the embryo is not affected by a genetic disease, it can be implanted into its mother to grow. What remains unclear is whether babies born after PGD testing are really as healthy as those born without PGD testing. Long-term follow-up studies have not been carried out on these PGD children, so it certainly premature at this time to argue that removing one of the eight cells of an embryo has no future effects on that individual.
Can pluripotent stem cells (the most highly flexible variety), be obtained from sources other than human embryos, and without crossing any moral lines? Absolutely. There are an expanding number of ways to derive such cells. For example, in March of 2006, German scientists published a paper in the journal Nature describing a new way to derive pluripotent stem cells. They removed special cells called germ cells from the testicles of mice, and transmuted them into pluripotent stem cells. Shortly afterwards, a biotech company in California called PrimeCell Therapeutics reported the same results in humans. No embryos were required at any point in the process. Another example: In August of 2006, scientists from Japan published results in the journal Cell indicating that by adding a combination of four different protein factors to adult mouse cells, they could change them into pluripotent stem cells. This kind of direct conversion of adult cells into embryonic-type cells is called dedifferentiation or reprogramming, and is a very promising direction for future research. These kinds of novel approaches do not depend upon the destruction of young humans. Another important source for obtaining pluripotent stem cells would be from certain mature body tissues including the bone marrow and the umbilical cord. Normally, stem cells from bone marrow and umbilical cord are not pluripotent, but multipotent (somewhat restricted in their possibilities for differentiation). However a growing number of researchers are finding that there may be a rare subpopulation of genuinely pluripotent cells that are also present in these adult sources. That is to say, stem cells as flexible as the ones that come from embryos may be naturally present at very low levels in bone marrow and umbilical cord, or at least may be derivable from such sources.
All of us are embryos who have grown up. Such embryos should not be destroyed, exploited or otherwise strip-mined for scientific purposes. We can all support those forms of stem cell research, including pluripotent stem cell research, which do not depend on such degrading practices against the youngest members of our species. Remarkable scientific progress is being made every day in developing alternative, ethically acceptable approaches to pluripotent stem cell research. The argument that we must offer up young humans on the altar of scientific sacrifice, while always objectionable in moral terms, is becoming continually less tenable in medical terms as well.

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. See www.ncbcenter.org
http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_15.asp

reply from: Yuuki

One of those rejections is complete nonsense, since after doing it even ONCE, you can use THOSE stem cells to "coat" any other cells you need. Secondly, that first set of "coating" stem cells could be taken from an embryo that died on its own and was donated by its parents, so NO KILLING NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
But you can't possibly imagine these solutions because you're so focused on saying I'm wrong in the face of the truth. Heck, you've basically admitted it right out anyway.
You KNOW that all current stem cell lines are CLONED. No human dies to make new cells.
You have also changed your tune in what you think is a subtle way and have gone from "there is no non-lethal ESCR" to "ESCR is still bad even if it is non-lethal".

reply from: nancyu

How do you live with yourself? Just pitiful...

reply from: Yuuki

How do you live with yourself? Just pitiful...
And you're just human.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.discovery.org/a/9661
Stem Cell Debate is Over Ethics, Not Science
By: Wesley J. Smith
The Sacramento Bee
March 19, 2009
Link to Original Article
From the moment President George W. Bush imposed federal funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, Big Biotech, patient advocacy groups, celebrities and the media have been obsessed with eviscerating the policy. Indeed, although the Bush administration funded about $175 million in grants for human embryonic stem cell research, and despite the literally billions poured into the field from public and private sources such as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM, and philanthropists, the public was continually warned that embryonic stem cell research in the United States was in danger of withering on the vine due to Bush.
With such abundant funding, that wasn't true. Nor was the charge that Bush's policy was "anti-science" because it funded only research on stem cell lines in existence as of Aug. 9, 2001. But the controversy was never a science debate. It was - and remains - an ethics debate that impacts directly on the importance and meaning of human life. Indeed, the question raised by embryonic stem cell research is whether it is morally right to treat and exploit human life - even at the nascent stage - as a mere natural resource.
That concern did not start with Bush. Since 1996 with the passage of the *****ey Amendment and continuing in a bill just signed by President Barack Obama, it has been illegal for the federal government to directly fund research that destroys human embryos.
Bush's policy went a step further, preventing funding to study stem cell lines derived from destroyed embryos in anticipation of receiving federal funding - the reason for the 2001 date.
Last week, the new president kept a campaign promise to free up federal funding for all embryonic stem cell lines whenever derived. But he also told the country that ethics still matter, stating: "We will support it (embryonic stem cell research) only if it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse."
How is that different in kind from what Bush did? Are ethical constraints "anti-science" only if one disagrees with where the lines are drawn? Beyond that, as he revoked the Bush restrictions, Obama also undermined a promising field of regenerative medical research that holds tremendous potential to bridge the bitter cultural divides rending the country - pro-life vs. pro-choice, liberal vs. conservative, pro- and anti-embryonic stem cell research - the very kind of policy the president has repeatedly promised to pursue. This field involves alternative methods for obtaining pluripotent stem cells, which theoretically can become any tissue type, without destroying embryos.
One such alternative, "cell reprogramming," transforms ordinary body cells in the lab into "induced pluripotent stem cells." Science hailed the development of IPSCs as the biggest scientific breakthrough of 2008 and for good reason: They have already been used to create patient-specific, tailor-made stem cell lines for use in drug testing and research - the very benefit researchers once claimed that only therapeutic cloning could provide.
In 2007, President Bush issued an executive order requiring the government to fund research into alternatives. Inexplicably - and without discussing it in his speech - Obama revoked this Bush order, too. He claimed he wants to fund such research, but what he did was take away the existing legal requirement that it be done. We have seen this same undermining of alternatives here in California. Last year, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) introduced a bill (SB 1565) that would have, among other provisions, made it easier for the CIRM to fund IPSC research. That proposed legal shift in emphasis was opposed adamantly by the CIRM, and despite overwhelming bipartisan support, fell to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto.
If pursuing the best and most ethical science were truly the goals, why deflect increased support for this promising research to which no one objects? Perhaps it is because this debate involves more than stem cells taken from embryos "left over" from in-vitro fertilization - as the argument is usually couched - which brings us back to ethics. In the wake of the Obama changes in federal policy, the New York Times editorially threw down a gauntlet, calling for both the rescission of the *****ey Amendment and federal funding of human therapeutic cloning research. Now that the Bush restrictions are history, look for these battles - which again are not science debates - to flare in the years to come. In this sense, embryonic stem cell research threatens to become a launching pad to an ever-deepening erosion of the unique moral status of human life.
Wesley J. Smith of Castro Valley is a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture.
The work of Discovery Institute is made possible by the generosity of its members. Click here to donate.
Bioethics
For More Information: Bioethics - Wesley J. Smith
208 Columbia St - Seattle, WA 98104
email: wjs@wesleyjsmith.com

reply from: CharlesD

3 words.
Adult stem cells
This shouldn't even be an issue.
You wonder why some people insist on using stem cells from embryos when adult stem cells have shown as much promise or even more and nobody has to die to provide those?
Hint: It's not about curing diseases.

reply from: Faramir

The point was made that there are ways to use embryonic stem cells ethically.
Do you assert there should be no use of embryonic stem cells, even if they were derived by perfecly ethical means?

reply from: CharlesD

If they could be used without killing an embryo, then I would have no problem with it. I just oppose the taking of innocent human life.

reply from: Faramir

If they could be used without killing an embryo, then I would have no problem with it. I just oppose the taking of innocent human life.
Agreed.
I was totally opposed to esr, but then learned there were some ways to do it using embryos that were not "manufactured" or were not the result of an abortion.

reply from: CharlesD

I would rather that they just use the adult cells. You would have to prove that each embryo used wasn't killed just for that purpose and that would offer way too many loopholes. If I give consent for my body to be used for science after I'm dead, that's one thing, but you would have a problem if I were to be killed for that purpose. It would be kind of hard to prove one way or the other with an embryo, so I'd just rather they not use them at all. My point has always been that there are plenty of sources for stem cells that no embryos need to be used. It's just a front for maintaining the status quo of abortion on demand. If you admit that an embryo should be protected, then you have admitted something that might damage the case for the embryo being disposable.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics