The Moral Imperative to Relieve Suffering: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

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

jackryan3303

I am in favor of embryonic stem cell research, and I have a conscience, too much of a conscience, I think.

You are the one whose conscience is blank.

It is easy to love embryos and regard them as real people, and to show off to God and to Jesus what a good person you are for the empathy that you have.

It is harder to empathize for the suffering of fully formed human beings.

You have said it yourself, which category you fall into.

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
www.solutionsphc.com

Bottom line: Potential parents of petri dish human embryos should consider the consequences of creating life they cannot sustain i.e. making adoption the better option. Considering that we all descend from one mother who lived ~60,000 years ago in Africa, even adopted children have some genes in them common to the adopting parents.

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 wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung."
-- Sir Walter Scott
_________________

Debate on the topic is fruitless. There will always be in our society (and in apparently increasing numbers) those who will be able to justify any amoral or immoral act so long as it benefits or could potentially benefit them.

The discussion isn't so much one of religion vs. science but of conscience vs. a lack of conscience. You don't have to be a person of faith to have a conscience, and those without a discernible conscience do not appear to us as monsters. As always, we know people for what they are by what they do and the views they espouse.

The simple fact is that embryonic stem cell research means the destruction of a potential human being. There is no sophistry or logic that gets around that simple fact. The sacrificing of a potential human being of unknowable and perhaps unlimited potential for the possible and short-lived improvement of a dying human being is clearly wrong. Or would be, to any person of conscience. It's merely an extension of our modern culture, which worships the self, which is turned inward, which expresses itself in advertisements and clothes and cars and music all centered in our own individual and instant gratification. Abortion is another facet of the same phenomena, merely another form of birth control for those too selfish or stupid to take steps to prevent conception.

The proliferation of such public policy goes hand-in-hand with the continuing slide of our culture toward its inevitable end -- a country mired in self-indulgence, eagerly awaiting the next carnal pleasure, the newest vehicle, the trendiest clothes, until finally (and mercifully) the modern equivalent of the Visigoths appear on our horizon and end our suffering.

why dont they have also an option for donoating cord blood for research purposes as well and embyionic cells so as to have widest amount cells available. thanks for posting my comment immediately instead of censoring like some of the other panelist. free speech is a wonderful thing. censorship just because you make good points in oposition to peoples articles is really pretty juvinile. maybe they should get better panelist if they can't debate like adults lol...

Here's my suggestion. For all the people who are so adamant against embryonic cell research, take a very public and legally-binding lifetime pledge to forego any treatment, drug or protocol that may have been developed because of this basic research; further, pledge to actively investigate whether such treatment, etc. is derived from this research; and finally, in consideration of the legal limitations of binding ensuing generations, publicly and vocally assert your intention to actively discredit any of your grown children from making such treatment decisions for themselves and their minor children. Think long about this - you could be publicly disavowing the best course of treatment for a life-threatening disease such as juvenile diabetes that inflicts a 2-year old grandchild. But morals are morals and you must do what is right. Step up and take the pledge!

Once again: 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.

Paganplace,

Pure research generally gets a bad rap from conservative folks. They should read a bit of tech history - the transistor was discovered in 1947 at Bell Labs by someone simply investigating, with no goal, how an electric current affected various substances. He tried germanium, and had - oh, no, not a 'eurika' moment, but an Asimov "that's funny..." moment - and the transistor was born. Take away pure research, and scientific and technological progress is effectively castrated.

To take it further, everything Newton and also Einstein did was pure research.

Actually, Joed, pure research, which profits even the big pharma corporations, is something they have traditionally left to the government and the public universities to make the advances in, while they put their resources toward using it to make the next 'ED' pill or whatever's most profitable.

If the government doesn't start being used to get us caught up on the pure science, instead of just protecting big pharma and insurance profits, and limiting people's ability to petition for a redress of grievances ...on the basis of preserving American standards of quality control while cutting the regulators out of the budget... then that well's gonna run dry even for the big R&D outfits, ...never mind if they find themselves running out of actual scientists to hire in the next generation.

They'll be quoting 'intelligent design' and demanding their opinion is as good as repeatable results, and then where'll we be?

"Gee you people who think that your stance on embryos as being no more than a lump of flesh as being a modern view, guess you are wrong.
The ancient Romans held this view too."
__________________________________________

Met any citizens of the Roman Empire lately dear? I am old fashioned. I thought we were suppose to learn from the mistakes of the past.

"While Ancient Romans may not have openly approved of the practice of abortion, it was not considered a serious offence. Indeed, Seneca disapprovingly states that it was common practice for a woman to induce abortion in order to maintain the beauty of her figure (Tribe 1990). The Stoics held that the fetus was no more than a part of the woman's body during the entire duration of pregnancy and was ensouled only at birth by a species of cooling by the air, which transformed a lump of flesh into a living and sentient being (Tribe 1990). "

Gee you people who think that your stance on embryos as being no more than a lump of flesh as being a modern view, guess you are wrong.
The ancient Romans held this view too.

"Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors."
further i think obama lifts the ban solely because george bush had banned that research which has nothing to do with ethics or undifferentiated cells but politics with human life in the form of an embryo. ahh the question of where does it begin and how does it begin. on the surface ..an egg is simply fertilized and and the big bang well it just happened ... meteors crashed into earth creating an ooze that grew eyes and crawled onto land and turned into dinosaurs mice and monkeys and magically those things thru selection became the human DNA sequence.. it is morally and ethically wrong but stubbornness has led proponents to get what they want but at what cost and what benefit? i agree w/joetbrown "Embryonic stem cell research is just another raid on the Treasury"

Embryonic stem cell research is just another raid on the Treasury. For twenty-five years we have heard of the great promise of embryonic stem cell research but what has it produced after the billions that have been spent on it? Nothing, zero, nada.

That's not correct. It has produced a research industry that is running out of time and money. Thousands have invested their careers in this dead end and the speculators have invested billions. The researchers are looking at careers that have no place to go and the speculators want their billions back. Who else but the Treasury can bail them both out?

Just another scam and a handout for friends of the Dems.

Hopium Dopium

Atlas shrugged 1/20/09

CCNL : wrote
"fastest growing voting demographic and possibly the largest voting bloc in the USA is ? "
people who have abortions?
Sorry you have that wrong. The ones aborting their unborn children, are the ones who are killing themselves off.
Anyway what does that have to do with stem cell research?
Stay on topic please.
Where is Obama going to get federal money for stem cell research anyway? I don't think there is any money going for that. He is just saying he is lifting a ban. After he gets done bailing out banks, GM, AIG, funding a national healthcare plan, blah blah blah, there isn't going to be a dime left to spend on this Hitler era experiments.
And don't forget global warming, lot of money going into the boon doggle too. That ought to kill thousands of more businesses. So all us implanted and born people will be waiting for our unemployment check.
The point is mute.
And would you people (nincompoops) please stop with the religious people put downs. IT ISN'T JUST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO THIS ILLOGICAL, CREEPY USE OF THE UNBORN FOR EXPERIMENTS.

So do you really believe there will be embryonic stem cells donated by couples using IVF? California passed a bill to create a private sector/state research grant mill to fool around with embryonic cells. Whatever happened to that?
Who knows? Was it because the money never appeared? Or maybe no one was donating their "babies" to be used as guinea pigs?
It isn't about religion. Do you think it is only religious people who have moral values? Maybe religious people are more vocal and organize better, but regular people who don't have a religion also feel this is wrong.
And what happens if it is shown that embryonic stem cells, along with adult stem cells just don't work or even cause cancer? Is it ethically okay to use unborn children, unimplanted children (yes they are children), as guinea pigs? I am sure there are people out there, just like Hitler and his thugs, who feel that some classes of humans can be used as guinea pigs for the sake of research.
Obviously, by reading these posts these people are thriving. Now they have a leader in Obama and apparently this author. Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves, advocating indefensible children be used for research?

Hmmm, the old "old house on fire dilemma and who to save first" problem 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.

KHOTE14
I hear you but I like Alyosha1's argument.

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

The author's argument rests on incomplete information and faulty logic.

Incomplete Information:
The author claims that adult stem cells are more limited than emryonic ones. This is true for naturally occurring stem cells. However it is not true for induced pluripotent stem cells. In November 2007 researchers discovered a method to "de-program" adult skin cells, causing them to revert to a form of stem cell that are as pluripotent as embryonic stem cells. It was just reported on March 3, 2009 in the Washington Post that researchers have come up with an even safer way to induce such stem cells. (The original method had involved using potentially dangerous viruses to de-program the cells.) These induced pluripotent stem cells can turn into any other type of cell, and have the advantage of providing an exact genetic match to the patient (since they can be created from the patient's own cells)that reduces the possibility that the patient's immune system will attack them when they are injected in teh patient's body. To accomplish an exact genetic match with embryonic stem cells would require using human cloning to create over a dozen embryos per patient who needs to be treated. (Even aside from the ethical problems of creating new human lives with the intent to destroy them and the thorny issue of human cloning, there is also the problem of how to aquire the hundreds of millions of human eggs that would be needed to make such treatments widely available.)

Faulty Logic:
In a brain dead patient there is no way to induce brain activity. In an emrbyo, all one needs to do to induce brain activity is implant it. This analogy simply does not work. It is akin to declaring that every cancer patient is a terminal case without acknowledging that chemotherapy can eradicate many cancers.

There is also a problem with the argument that it is okay to kill "leftover" embryos from in-vitro fertilization because they are going to die anyway. There is no reason these embryos have to die. They can be adopted and implanted. They only die because people choose to let them die.

Finally:
The argument against embryonic stem cell research is not inherently religious. Secular science affirms that these embryos are living members of the species homo sapiens. The judgment that every living member of the human species deserves protection is one that does not need religion to prop it up.

It's all well and good to worry about the ethics, but those issues are resolvable. What isn't resolvable w/o this research is Parkinson's, Alzheimers, nerve damage, etc. Let's not let the hyper-theoretical concern for a non-being that will never be get in the way of cures for the dreadful diseases of living and suffering lives in being. The suffering of those stem cell research could alleviate is ALSO a matter of ethics and it isn't hypothetical; it's bone-crushingly real.

KKeith007,

I can indeed say that a clump of cells is not a human being. Because I do share with other humans the ability to make reasoned distinctions.

To take usapdx's example further, if there were 10,000 embryos in a burning clinic, and one helpless baby, or adult for that matter, I would ignore the embryos and rescue the person, rather than see them burn alive. The opposite action would be inhuman. The same rationale applies to the possibility of ending the mass of human suffering caused by illnesses such as type 1 diabetes. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any oversight - but we can use our capacity for rational thought to create reasonable guidelines as Rev. Thistletwaite describes. So lets leave this up to ethics boards to come up with policies that the majority can agree on, rather than take a radical position that is logically inconsistent with other activities that nobody is protesting, such as IVF treatments.

My point wasn't about the flexibility of adult stem cells, it's about the viability of their future mitosis.
I see no reason we shouldn't investigate both paths. If we can get all we need from adult stem cells then we can avoid the religious problems so many have with this idea. But how will we know which is the better path if we refuse to follow one of them?

And why should we pander to religious fears from one group of religions, when there are other such religious groups which do not have these fears?

I mention Orrin Hatch and Nancy Reagan in particular as christian supporters of stem cell research. Christians can't even agree among themselves on this issue.

We already know that embryonic stem cells are able to become any other kind of cell the body requires during its life. How does this happen? What part of it's chemistry makes this possible? We don't really know that yet.

If we only pursue adult stem cells, how are we going to "refresh" the telomerase if we don't understand how embryonic stem cells start out with a "full bank" ?

How many people are going to suffer and die while we wait to find out ... if we can find out?

khote14
"A cell has a limited number of divisions possible during its life. The more such divisions - the more "adult" the cell line is, the more likely it is to become cancerous or simply to fail altogether.

This is one argument for preferring original cells over adult cells."

"Until recently, there was little evidence that multipotent adult stem cells could change course and provide the flexibility that researchers need in order to address all the medical diseases and disorders they would like to. New findings in animals, however, suggest that even after a stem cell has begun to specialize, it may be more flexible than previously thought."
http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/Templates

Can't we fund and exhaust this research first before discounting it? We have but scratch the surface with adult stem cells.

usapdx:

IF THERE WAS A FIRE IN A HOUSE AND YOU COULD ONLY SAVE ONE, A YOUNG CHILD OR A MEDICAL DISH WITH A SPERM & EGG UNITED IN IT, WHICH WHOULD YOU SAVE? ALL RELEGIONS BELIEFS MUST NEVER BE FORCE ON ANOTHER IN THE U.S.A. PERIOD."

Welcome to the world...
Beliefs, religious or other wise, set law.
As for your fire... Before I chose, I need more info about the child and who is in the medical dish. (Isn't that the next step in all of this.)

orrg1
"Once people admit that an embryo, which is a small clump of cells (I for one am not dancing around any more), is not a human being, then it requires them to draw a line at some point, up to which point they cannot argue against abortion."

If it were all so easy....

I actually am truly looking for answering and I struggle with these issues. But to declare what is human and what is not....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere

"In most multicellular eukaryotes, telomerase is only active in germ cells. There are theories that the steady shortening of telomeres with each replication in somatic (body) cells may have a role in senescence and in the prevention of cancer. This is because the telomeres act as a sort of time-delay "fuse", eventually running out after a certain number of cell divisions and resulting in the eventual loss of vital genetic information from the cell's chromosome with future divisions."

A cell has a limited number of divisions possible during its life. The more such divisions - the more "adult" the cell line is, the more likely it is to become cancerous or simply to fail altogether.

This is one argument for preferring original cells over adult cells.

khote14:

"kkeith007 do you ever ask yourself how effective are your arguments against stem cell research?
Your premise from which you make these arguments are your gods, and what you say that they say.

The people doing the work are scientists. A diminishing small number of them even accept your premise, many find it ridiculous. How are you going to make them pay any attention to your arguments based on that premise?

You're going to have to find another path. Simply reasserting what you say your gods want is ineffective, in fact I would argue it makes you irrelevant. Find another way to be relevant to these moral and ethical questions, perhaps they'll listen to you.

Until then ... you are only scoring points with each other."

Given I am but an " empty vessel" and depending on my "education", (according to your first post) I might be irrelevant any way. Which, in the grand scheme of things...is ok with me.
Makes me wonder though... if you (as a human being)are nor more sacred than an animal...Would you, by your own argument, also be irrelevant?

But heck, let's go back to my post. "So I have questions.
Why embryonic stem cells? Why not adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells?"

IF THERE WAS A FIRE IN A HOUSE AND YOU COULD ONLY SAVE ONE, A YOUNG CHILD OR A MEDICAL DISH WITH A SPERM & EGG UNITED IN IT, WHICH WHOULD YOU SAVE? ALL RELEGIONS BELIEFS MUST NEVER BE FORCE ON ANOTHER IN THE U.S.A. PERIOD. IF YOU WANT A LAW OR CHANGE A LAW, DO IT LEGALLY. IF YOU FILE TAX EXAMPT, COMPLY WITH THE I.R.S. TAX EXAMPT RULES OR PAY YOUR TAX FOR SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST A POLITAL ISSUE OR POLITAL PERSON. IF IN DOUBT OF THE RULES OF TAX EXAMPT, CALL THE I.R.S..BEAR IN MIND THE COMMANDMENTS 7,8,& 10 as well as 4th FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL LAWS.

You know, as Americans we have developed the highly destructive habit of dancing around issues. I don't know whether it is some kind of false politeness or what, but it is a big contributor to the mess we're in now.

Opposition to research that can possibly reduce the suffering of millions, without causing any suffering itself in turn, should be inexplicable. But the reason that embryonic stem cell research is opposed is as clear as glass. Once people admit that an embryo, which is a small clump of cells (I for one am not dancing around any more), is not a human being, then it requires them to draw a line at some point, up to which point they cannot argue against abortion. By surrendering the extreme position, they cannot avoid this.

But the ability to make reasoned distinctions rather than seeing everything as black or white is one of the gifts of being human - it's one of the things that has allowed us to leave living in caves behind and flourish. This is exactly what the Roe v. Wade decision was - an attempt to calibrate the government's right to interfere with the private decisions of a citizen, based on the stage of her pregnancy.

We are now in the middle of a financial meltdown, and two wars. In any remotely normal time, the Iraq war would be a huge issue, but with all the crises we face now, it is barely on most people's radar screen. One of the biggest reasons for this is that a man was made president for 8 years who was completely incapable of doing the job. His own party will not so much as mention his name in public. And he was put in office mainly by people who are hugely hung up on ABORTION!

Let's say Roe v. Wade is overturned tomorrow. The country will suddenly be submerged in abortion battles state by state, while the economy collapses, and the spectacle of Americans begging for food starts to appear across the country. Some states will ban abortion. There will be a huge backlash, both from people mad at this distraction in a time of crisis, and women who now have to carry babies to term, even if they're fathered by a rapist. The Republican party will be completely destroyed. It would almost be worth it, but I wouldn't wish this on the country I love.

kkeith007 do you ever ask yourself how effective are your arguments against stem cell research?
Your premise from which you make these arguments are your gods, and what you say that they say.

The people doing the work are scientists. A diminishing small number of them even accept your premise, many find it ridiculous. How are you going to make them pay any attention to your arguments based on that premise?

You're going to have to find another path. Simply reasserting what you say your gods want is ineffective, in fact I would argue it makes you irrelevant. Find another way to be relevant to these moral and ethical questions, perhaps they'll listen to you.

Until then ... you are only scoring points with each other.

That's what Dr. Frankenstein never understood, at least when he made his first monster. Bride of Frankenstein was to give his Frankenstein monster a wife, but there was no human benefit to creating the first Frankenstein monster. Dr. Frankenstein didn't understand that he should have listed all illnesses that could be cured by creating a monster from body parts of the deceased.

If he had done that, then there would have been many supporters to his research and he would not have had to rely upon thunderstorm lightning strikes to power his laboratory or galvanize his monster. Today, we're going to take the stem cells from deceased embryos and cure all of mankind's ills. There's plenty of money to pay for that type of research.

Why clone stem cells only? Why not go for the gold and clone Abraham Lincoln?

Mikel4 distinguishes between "natural" destruction of embryos, which happens routinely without any grieving or rending of garments, and destruction resulting from "human action", which is "evil". Well, the production of all these embryos eligible for stem cell research is not "natural" either. They all result from "human action", namely in vitro fertilization, as a part of fertility treatments. So mikel4 should please admit, as the Catholic church does, that he is totally against IVF. Because the death of embryos is inherent in the procedure. There is no way all of those frozen embryos could ever be implanted -except in some type of Bushian alternate reality. Then he can try to sell banning IVF to Americans all over the country who have become happy parents as a result of the procedure, and lots of luck to him, he'll need it. I've yet to see one politician take that stand ... they'd have their head handed to them on a platter.

>>>
1st Human Embryonic Stem Cell Study Set
10 Paralyzed Patients to Get Stem Cells in Spine
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Jan. 23, 2009 -- Geron Corp. will test its OPC1 cells in 10 patients completely paralyzed by recent spinal cord injuries. It's the first FDA-approved study of an embryonic stem cell product in human patients.

I hope they will announce the condition of the 10 patients now. There's a possibilty that these patients will die of cancer unless they tricked us and manipulated those stem cells to avoid rejection.

Ok, I need a better proof reader. "...slightly more scared than animals." I meant sacred. lol. Although, scared might work. =)

As for khote14: "spidermean2.... Christians, is this spastic retard really one of you? Do you really think he's helping your cause?
I never read anything here from any of you. His intense hatred and insane ravings regarding anyone who doesn't swallow the crap he's swallowed marks all of you with the same ugly stick."

Spidermean2 is a child of God, as we all are. (Spidey just seems to be a very angry child of God.)
I promise not to view you as being represented by someone else's ugly stick, if you will do the same for me.

What this professor is lacking in her moral reasoning is an understanding of the difference between natural action and deliberate action. The natural passing of fertilized egg through the body without implantation is a death, but it is natural. The unnatural destruction of a fertilized egg is a death, but it is caused by human action. Therein lies the immorality.

The deliberate destruction of human life is immoral, developing or existing. You claim that it is to relieve human suffering. Would you kill then a patient who is on the verge of death to harvest his organs for others because he is going to die anyway to relieve anothers suffering?

The evil of embryonic stem cell research has been going on in this and other countries for many years now and where is the alleged promise of these type of cells? The government restrictions has held nothing back from private research. Other countries have been going forward with government funding. Where are these alleged breakthroughs?

This research is unnecessary and destructive of human life. The ethics of destroying embryos for their cells should give us all pause.

khote14, I suggest that you volunteer yourself to be the first embryonic stem cell implant candidate. Support it 100%.

TRYREASON writes:
"How can anyone claim that a blastocyst or fetus is the same as a civilized contributing member of society when the childs education will determine what they become within humanities framework and not genetics." "To portray a blastocyst as a good little Christian does a huge disservice to the culture that will shape and educate a child. A blastocyst by my way of thinking is no more sacred then any animal on this planet. It could become anything depending on its education."

Wow. How Machiavellian.
I believe your hyperbole to be flawed.
Aside from that, whether "good little Christian" or not, the "fight" is about human life. Human life being slightly more scared than animals.... (Although, after reading all the name calling from these posts....)

So I have questions.
Why embryonic stem cells? Why not adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells?

Going against God never works, and the adult skin cell research is already to the point were respect for life is obviously something we all want to support. Even most complete atheists don't feel good about murdering their family members who are under 30 years of age with "their brain activity isn't completely adult yet" as an excuse.
Going one-on-one against The Creator's love of everyone didn't work in the past: When the U.S.S.R. was going into other countries, murdering the men and raping the women so that the next generation would physically look like the U.S.S.R. enemies and the other countries would feel discouraged, at the same time God gave the U.S.S.R. very bad agricultural crops, so that they were seriously having to think of hauling their troops back home to carefully work the land more effectively; and at the same time the U.S.A., one nation under God, had bumper crops -- well, congress listened to the ag-business creeps instead of to God, and congress decided that we American's should sell at a deep discount to the U.S.S.R. the extra food, instead of sending it to impoverished and starving people in countries which at that time were still peaceful. God is the one who made sure that the next crops in the U.S.A. were so lousy that congress backed off of supporting the disgustingly violent U.S.S.R.
God is the Creator. We are not creator, we are created. And we had best get ourselves back in line with social and societal morality. Do we want to look back and say "The worst was yet to come", or do we wish God's blessings? It is written that God does not help those who help themselves, but that God does help those who obey Him. "Walk with Me and I shall walk with you" is a command. I prefer to look back and say of these days, "The best was yet to come."
Coronella Keiper, Rhode Island, United States of America.

The government should also set aside funds for legal defense and payment for damages. Stupidity should be punished.

spidermean2 always helps to relieve any questioning mind of doubt when it comes to considering the truth of christian belief. One wonders if this is his goal.

Christians, is this spastic retard really one of you? Do you really think he's helping your cause?
I never read anything here from any of you. His intense hatred and insane ravings regarding anyone who doesn't swallow the crap he's swallowed marks all of you with the same ugly stick.

My advice to the relatives of the patients : prepare to sue the doctors, hospital and the government (Obama government).

I would suggest that the researchers who want to pursue embryonic stem cell research use themselves as guinea pigs and not those clueless sick people who Im sure would suffer because of DNA mismatches.

These greedy idiot researchers are just aiming for the FUNDS.

Adult stem cell is the way to go.

Atheism is stupidity and that is scientific. I hope they will have a record of the patients they plan to experiment with.

I pity the patients. I guess majority will be Democrats. Tsk, tsk.

Thank you for your thoughtful exposition of this issue. As a Catholic Christian, I am astounded by the loud cries of life made toward discarded embryos, and the deafening silence about in vitro fertilization. Because IVF is a tool used by the affluent, it is OK, despite the consequences. It's much easier to shriek about the results of manipulating cells rather than the ethics of doing so in the first place.

Spidey:

Are you a member of the Phelps family? Because that is the only "Christian" group I know that is as rude, obnoxious, ignorant, and hate-filled as what you constantly spew out on these discussion boards.

"Go and learn the meaning of 'it is mercy I desire, not sacrifice.'"

The all-or-nothing simpletons among the rabid christians are motivated by religious belief. In effect they are trying to legislate the existence of a soul ... something the government has no business doing.

It may be moral for you to promote the ideas you have against stem cell research, it may be moral to oppose abortion ... but in our secular government it is immoral for you to legislate and enforce your religious beliefs on those who do not share them.

If you want to have influence over other people in regards to these questions you are going to have to stop the all-or-nothing attitude. Personally, I find you completely ignorable, in fact I often find you are insane when it comes to these questions.

And the slippery slope argument ... you've already lost the basic argument no matter how loudly you scream. The anti-science and anti-reason basis of your arguments marks you as primitive ... why don't you just shake some rattles and sprinkle some magic dust, it is likely to have as much effect on the ethical questions we must ask as anything else you're doing now.

Refreshing to have an intelligent person in the White House for a change. The use of medical waste to improve human suffering is a no brainer but then we had no brains leading us into the religious dark ages for eight years. The fact is that if you do not adapt you become irrelevant and then extinct. Zealots, regardless of the motivation tend to shun the advances of intelligence because the learning often disproves the traditions. sadly, that is why the species is turning away from organized religions to more adaptable support systems. I do understand the moral dilemma of this issue but I also understand the paradox of creationism by a superior being but the disbelief in other life in the universe let alone other forms of living organisms. Would any God deny the use of our intelligence for good purposes?

The moral imperative to relieve suffering does not over-rule the greater moral imperative to never deliberately take innocent human life. Ms. Thistlethwaite was an embryonic human being before she was an adult human being. It's amazing how such supposedly-deep thinkers can't see the plain truth of this matter. They can't see the forest as a whole because they're too busy looking at the individual trees. And our human society is being killed one embryonic human, one fetal human, one disabled human, one ill human at a time. And if universal health "care" by the federal government is imposed on the USA, this rate of killing innocent human beings will increase.

A new born baby will grow up to believe what they are taught. Atheism, Christianity, Islam and paganism are taught to our offspring after they are born. Some faiths, particularly those that claim contraception and abortion are murder, believe that those who do not follow their faith are doomed. Obviously the unborn child ,religiously speaking, is an empty vessel if they can be taught to practice any belief. How can anyone claim that a blastocyst or fetus is the same as a civilized contributing member of society when the childs education will determine what they become within humanities framework and not genetics. None of what I have stated here is guesswork.
A newborn is essentially an empty vessel with a genetic predisposition for bipedalism and a social nature. We humans have an extraordinary ability for tool use, to understand our worldly situation and and to communicate among ourselves. We have no gene that predisposes us to particular religious beliefs or cultural mores, other than the universal ones such as not killing each other, as evidenced by the cultural and religious diversity on this planet. To portray a blastocyst as a good little Christian does a huge disservice to the culture that will shape and educate a child. A blastocyst by my way of thinking is no more sacred then any animal on this planet. It could become anything depending on its education.
Most of us cherish our young because we are genetically and culturally predisposed to do so. That makes our child innocent and special to each of us but the reality to our home planet is something else. Our child is just another member of a race that is nearly seven billion strong on a planet that can only support around three billion of us without endangering all of the other lifeforms. We need to put our homocentrism in perspective when formulating cultural mores and laws. We depend on this planet and all of the other life forms on it. We are a part of Earths ecosystem. We need to learn to use our gifts for the benfit of this planet rather then exploitation if we wish to continue living here.

Let those who prefer embryonic stem cells use that process for themselves. Let's see how it will come out. Im almost sure that no person will survive having two sets of DNA blueprints.

Since only IVF formed blastulas, frozen, no longer needed for implantation and scheduled to be discarded as medical waste are to be used, to satisfy those with religious objection, researchers could take a few of the resultant stem cells, form a new blastula and then throw it away.

The "life" would not have been destroyed in deriving the stem cells and the deists satisfied.

St Peter will ask why did WE let other's grind the bones an sinue of the unborn so YOU could live in THIS world with less physical suffering and YOUR answer will be ........???????

As a neurologist I find the application of brain death criteria to embryos frightening. If an embryo’s worth depended on brain activity then no embryos would meet the criteria. But the potential of every embryo, even an embryo that is being killed for the extraction of stem cells, is to develop a totally unique brain that could rival even Einstein’s.

Great thoughts:) The conclusion is "Children are the new Bio Fuel"!! Energizing the future of our elderly. I am so proud.

Hmmm, well if it is a fertilized egg, eating it is killing a chicken.

The Republican Party likes to label the Democrats as promoting Socialism. Yet they are the Socialist Party when it comes to meddling into the personal and sexual lives of everyone else, whether or not they share the same religious beliefs.

It is very encouraging to see the government removing religion from its 8 year stranglehold on scientific health research. Claiming that stem cell research is equivalent to abortion makes as much sense as claiming eating eggs is killing chickens. Maybe there is a pill to cure people from religious hypocrisy.

Democrats and their buddies in the media have lied about this issue for years.

There is quite a bit of research in the private sector when it comes to stem cells. Only certain restrictions were placed on government funding.

Folks can scream that oh-my-god government funding is like so important! BUT, if there is real progress to be made (which there is) that will be done by private efforts (which has been happening).

Liberals just want to give their usual magic wand blessing of the government. Government is their god and they want his blessing on stem cell research.

This reminds me of what Jesus said of the Rev. Thistlethwaites of the world:

"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."

spidermean2 wrote:
"This is one main reason why many evangelicals are wary of voting for a Democrat. Their stupidity always exceeds the stupidity of some Republicans."

Nice to see spidermean2 finally admit that the stupidity of many evangelicals always exceeds the stupidity some Republicans.

Would the stem cells from embryos made from gay guy sperm and gay gal eggs be more ethical since in theory they never meet in nature thereby are souless?? And would such stem cells from these embryos be used to cure their gayness??

The writer makes the nonsensical assertion that "Failure of natural implantation is not considered by anyone to be a loss of human life."

Obviously it is a loss of human life. What it is not is the intentional taking of a human life. It is, as the writer goes on to say, a "natural process", as all natural death is.

If this passes for moral reasoning on the part of a putative professor of theology, Lord help us.

Thank God that we are finally leaving another Dark Age of Religious Ignorance.

The delicious irony is that religious fundamentalists refuse to use the brains that God gave us.

Let us remember that it was the religious authorities of the day that crucified Jesus of Nazareth.

No,no,no! I will have none of this! We must preserve every single, last, precious zygote for human reproduction! As spiderman2 would agree, the name of the game here, folks, is to be fruitful and multiply! How on earth can we do this by sacrificing little children for scientific research and . . . Oh, my God! . . . saving the lives of full grown adults!
Besides, as spiderman2 would attest to, even a zygote who's life has been cut short by a pipette in a lab, he or she still ends up with a soul. And, when I get to spiderman2 heaven, I want to have the opportunity to communicate with these little souls . . . maybe discuss the efficacy of the latest brain operation techniques or rocket science with the little buggers.

Language is an art and NOT a science. Im not an artist. Im an engineer.

Spidermean
"Idiots think adult stem cells is NOT normal"

I don't know how many times I have to say this but if u r gonna call someone an idiot then CONSTRUCT A GRAMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCE u massive toolbag. It makes u look like, well an idiot.

Blah blah blah evoloution, doomsday, stupid blah blah I'm an engineer, scientists are idiots blah blah blah.

chops2 wrote "instead of making wacko's like u happy by not using normal stem cells "

Idiots think adult stem cells is NOT normal.

What is abnormal is when embryonic stem cells may cause rejection with the host recipient. It's not HIS stem cell therefore there is a possiblity of rejection, idiot.

I object to my tax dollars being spent on science and technology which is light years away from society and individual ethical capacity to properly use it. I expect, at a minimum, that practitioners and researchers maintain treatment protocols not based upon embryonic stem cells for those who cannot morally use the newer treatments.

This is wonderful! I'm so glad you wrote this, I wish more people out there could express the truth that you can be religious, moral and also rational.

Frankly, I don't think organ transplantation has enough safeguards for the donor, but it seems that embroynic stems cells might as well be put to good use in research as thrown away.

(Who can say "Susan Thistlethwaite" quickly five times without messing up?) :-)

"There is actually no need to revive this controversial topic"

True enough, but if they had spent half the amount of time actually working on diseases instead of making wacko's like u happy by not using normal stem cells we may have rewarding applications for stem cell research by now. At least we can leave this ludicrous debate behind us and start reaping the benefits.

"Obama just showed his STUPIDTY in this regard"
You idiot

There is now a technology on how to let adult stem cells behave exactly the same as embryonic stem cells.

There is actually no need to revive this controversial topic.

Obama just showed his STUPIDTY in this regard.

He listens too much to idiotic hyper-liberal groups.

This is one main reason why many evangelicals are wary of voting for a Democrat. Their stupidity always exceeds the stupidity of some Republicans.

I suggest, Obama stay at the center if he wants another term. Avoid the hyper-liberal disease.