Sticking points for stem cells

Troy — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:32:19 GMT

<<On the last point, Lanza told me that he's not aware of any case where a single cell from an eight-cell-stage embryo could develop into a viable embryo itself:

"No one I’ve ever spoken with knows of any pregnancy or any child who was born from a single cell that was removed from an embryo. That argument is very weak, and not only is it weak, but with all the new technologies, with reprogramming, even a skin cell could in theory have the potential to become a human being. The real issue here is that no embryo is destroyed, and we’re only talking about a single cell that’s being turned directly into an embryonic stem cell."

Lanza suggested that the cells removed for preimplantation genetic diagnosis could be routinely allowed to divide a couple of times to yield a stem cell line that would be a perfect match for the person>>

Of course no one he has spoken to has any evidence of it. It was already stated that the cells that are done this way today to screen for genetic issues are destroyed in the process. what he doesn't know is whether or not it would 'twin' if reimplanted in the uterus, although he seems to think it would 'divide ' and form a perfect match for the person whom it was removed from.

Hmmm, well, does it act like an embryo or not Mr. Lanza. In one statement you day no, then immediately after you say yes. Which is it?

This sounds like nothing more than the natural process that creates twins in-utero, only instead of allowing the 'twin' to develop, we force the process in the lab and then use them (the harvested twin) for testing, and as a future stem cell or organ bank.

Yes, I can see why people against stem cell experimentation and harvesting would be against this way too.

Sticking points for stem cells

gary — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:56:55 GMT

the think that really annoys me is that we know that stem cells can generate new body parts and muscles ect. the problem is that everyone in the world is always too touchy fealy about everything. In my mind zygote, that being the eight cluster of cells as they called it in article that they took the cells from is in to way a child. ok, a cluster of cells smaller than the sizer of a pinhead is not a person, its like a booger. I can see though how people argue against using a fully developed fetus 7-8 months old. Its really a shame the government is being so bling to the potential that stem cells have.

Sticking points for stem cells

Kyle, Ames, IA — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:03:16 GMT

This is crazy. Crazy people who want to prevent human evolution (that's right evolution). I had no problem with stem cell research when it was destroying the embryo. The life of infinite potential persons has no weight against the lives of existing people. So what about the soul? Shouldn't you want to send the soul to its creator before it can experience the horrors of the world? So what about the fact that it can be a person? If I handed you a computer chip and said now pay me the full price of a computer would you pay me? I don't think you would because just because something has the potential to be something doesn't make it that. If you think otherwise, give me your number because I have some "computers" to sell. So why don't we use adult stem cells? Because we're not even sure we can use them to do what we want. Well don't you think research is overstated? No, if given the choice between hope and despair (if I was in a wheel chair) then I would always choose hope. I think anyone can agree with that, that people (like humans in wheel chairs) deserve hope. Well the lord must have some reason to put them in the chair right? No, there is no God, but even so the reasoning applies both ways. If God had a plan to put a person in a wheel chair, god must have a plan for stem cells. It has to work both ways otherwise you are saying either god is with us sometimes but not others. Please contact me about putting together a stem cell lobby. This is something America, hell humans need to take the next step. I have put my arguments into a sort of question answer format, but I understand that it is hard to read. Contribute to stem cell lobby's because they offer hope and redemption, not damnation like the religious fanatics in this country. As a last note, by arguing against me, you denounce all people with disabilities that could be healed through stem cells. "god can make a man dumb, only science can make that same man a God."

Sticking points for stem cells

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:14:08 GMT

The idea that the previously established set of stem cell lines are enough is just plain silly. This possible technique of creating cells from an eight cell blastomere should be tried in other places to confirm that it can be done with minimal harm to the blastocyst. If it can be replicated, then it can be a great source of new stem cells. When possible parents inquire about the PGD, they should be well aware of the risks and the possible genetic diseases that each of the parents are carriers for.

As for those that don't think that we should be doing this, I have the question as to why not do the research? Do you protest because it is a human life? If that is the reason, I would ask you to distinguish a blastocyst of one primate from a blastocyst of a human from that of a horse. We can't sense the soul of a person even when alive; how would one be able to tell when it is that small? Just remember that I am not advocating for abortion on demand or harvesting eggs and sperm for the sole reason to create the stem cells either. It is something to think about.

Sticking points for stem cells

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:19:17 GMT

In a year I think the "stem cell debate" will be over. George the Simpleton will be gone. But by then the US will be far behind other countries like Britain, Korea and California in this field....

Sticking points for stem cells

Chief Petty Officer Scott Bowser (US Navy), Misawa Air Base, Japan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:20:48 GMT

This proof of concept is being massively underreported. New cell lines can be derived by solely using the 'piggyback' method as described by Dr. Lanza. If a family or mother-to-be is already having the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis done at an IVF clinic, then with full consent, a new line could be created using the extracted cell at absolutely no greater risk to the embryo than was already acknowleged. The benefit is 3-fold: A new, pure line of cells for research, a future line of genetically matched cells for the child, and no question as to whether the embryo suffered harm for the purpose of research. If done in this method, the procedure meets every criteria for federal funding right now, including the language contained in the 1995 Dickey amendment. In order to find this unacceptable, you would logically also not find IVF or PGD acceptable (after all, even during IVF without PGD, only about 80% of the embryos that were created turn out to be viable, and those that are viable but not used are discarded or frozen). But consider this: President Bush had babies and childeren created by IVF on stage with him at his press conference for the latest Stem Cell Bill veto; it's reasonable to assume that he fully endorses IVF procedures. Logical thought says that if the administration cannot endorse this method, then they have a duty to speak out strongly against IVF and PGD as well. Doing anything else would make their argument against this new technique hollow.
Dr. Lanza's method is an ethical way forward, I can only hope that the Bush administration will recognize it as such.

Sticking points for stem cells

Steve McWilliams, Norfolk, Virginia — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:17:33 GMT

Are viable 8-cell human embryos really the moral equivalent of a human being? Do they deserve equal protection under the law as a 10 year old child, and a 70 year old grandfather?
If you believe this to be the case, please answer the following question honestly:
A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?
If you can unequivicaly answer that you would save the petri dish and leave the young child behind, then you should be lauded for your moral convictions. If, however, you would save the living breathing child, perhaps it's time to rethink your position. Because the embryo is either equal, or it is not.
And what of the millions upon millions of viable 5 to 7 day old embryos that are lost in a womans normal menstrual flow, simply because they did not implant. Do you mourn their loss as you would a child's?
If human embryos consisting of one hundred cells or less are the moral equivalents of a normal adult, then religious believers must accept that such embryos share all of the attributes of a human being, including the possession of an immortal soul. Logically then, you must believe that 40% or more of the residents of Heaven were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires.
If you believe this, then again I commend you for your unflinching convictions. If, however, you do not, then it is time to reconsider your position on embryonic stem cell research.

Sticking points for stem cells

Canadian Quinn — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:18:07 GMT

It's frustrating that ACT and Lanza's technique was available LAST YEAR but red tape has prevented these cells from moving into labs.

Sticking points for stem cells

Owen Foizen Telford PA — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:55:54 GMT

Leon Kass and the Bush's bioethics council are a bunch of idiots and NUTS. This group like minded nuts have yet to come up with a SANE solution. The embryo at the stage of 8 cells is not a person. It seems it is okay at this stage to test the embryo by removing a cell and than discard it. The babies born from this embryo are here and the resullts of removing a cell can be seen in the thousands of living human beings. So the Penn prof is as nutty as they come on his arguments. It does not hold water.
Let us cut the crap about life. all those who worry about the unborn are willing to let the born die. As a NATION the BUSH admin. vetoed 2 the Children's Insurance. While spending Quadtrillion's of TAX PAYER money on worthless WAR and weapons of mass destruction. Where are the ethics of that?????

Sticking points for stem cells

Raymond Gray, Easton, PA — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:03:39 GMT

Who cares what bush thinks anymore?

Stem cell research is moving ahead in NJ and California, funded by the citizens of those states who want to see the enormous potential brought to fruition.

In fifty years, the Bush setback on stem cell research will be but a blip in th ongoing pursuit of knowledge and the use of that knowledge to improve our lives will continue. Bush will be gone in 11 months and soon forgotten, except for the deficit he has left us.

R C Gray

Sticking points for stem cells

Kristi, Colorado Springs, CO — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:55:57 GMT

I think the biggest issue is why bother? There are significant strides being made with adult stem cells, to the point where there are already over 70 treatments and therapies being used without ever risking an embryo. They can now turn adult stem cells into an "embryonic state". So, why bother with a stem cell theory (using embryonic) that has proven time and time again that it ONLY produces tumors in the host it is implanted in. Why bother with the possibility of destroying a viable human embryo?

When they can show that there are RESULTS with embryonic stem cells, then perhaps the American people will be more accepting of the idea. Until then, invest money in research that produces results. Adult stem cells are the way to go in this case.

Sticking points for stem cells

Troy — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:37:35 GMT

Kyle says: If I handed you a computer chip and said now pay me the full price of a computer would you pay me? I don't think you would because just because something has the potential to be something doesn't make it that. If you think otherwise, give me your number because I have some "computers" to sell.

Kyle, a computer chip will not now or likely ever in the future replicate from one computer chip into 2, then 4 then 8 computer chips, then change the function of some of those chips to take on another responsibility, such as become a monitor, so your argument is comparing apples to oranges. Human life upon conception indeed does replicate and divide of it's own violition. Those tiny 8 cells that make up the human child become hands, and fingers, toes and ears, eyes, and a brain capable of arguing about it's own existence. Computer chips sit there and do nothing unless external forces duplicate them, then use them in a certain way. Duplicate, not divide what was one into what is now two. And suddenly two that are different but came from the same cell!

Kyle also says: As a last note, by arguing against me, you denounce all people with disabilities that could be healed through stem cells.

No, I do not denounce them. Instead I uplift the lives of the future children that you would kill to make someone elses life easier. It is sad that people are in wheelchairs (and in many other pitiful, handicapped states) but that does not justify killing someone else to fix it. Look for another way.

Kyle also says: "god can make a man dumb, only science can make that same man a God."

People make themselves dumb (in most cases), and you'll have to prove that science can make a god. I don't think your version of what a god is meets my version of what God is. Yours must be weak indeed. Mine created the universe you, me, and your scientists live in and created them too, so it is impossible that they could create God. They can't even create dirt. Man has not even created one atom that was not the result of other atoms being part of the process.

S.B. Stein says: As for those that don't think that we should be doing this, I have the question as to why not do the research? Do you protest because it is a human life?

Yes. Exactly. Thank you. You are correct. Not horse, not cow (yummy), not primate, not shrimp, not, not, not, ad infinitum... Precisely because it is a HUMAN.

JC says: In a year I think the "stem cell debate" will be over. George the Simpleton will be gone. But by then the US will be far behind other countries like Britain, Korea and California in this field....

LOL, just because President Bush is standing in this debaucheries way, doesn't mean the U.S. scientific community is standing around with it's hands in it's pockets!!! The only thing President Bush is doing is keeping ME from paying for these murders with MY tax money. YOU can send money to any number of medical think tanks and support these murders. I thank you President Bush for not making me participate in this abomination. BTW, I'd pick President Bush who is smarter than you think. (A simpleton doesn't get elected President), over a President who only thought about his Zipper/Cigar/Intern. Also, I am pretty sure you are being sarcastic about the California reference above. You do know it is in the U.S., right?

Chief Petty Officer Scott Bowser says: But consider this: President Bush had babies and childeren created by IVF on stage with him at his press conference for the latest Stem Cell Bill veto; it's reasonable to assume that he fully endorses IVF procedures.

No it is not 'reasonable' to assume that he fully supports that at all. He stood there with them to show simple minded people that these children are not embryos. Even the parents who go forward with the process that is described have fear that the child will be harmed by the testing that scientists say is required to fulfill the pregnancy. (It is even in the article, although played down for literal thinkers) From above: Parents accept the risk when trying to prevent the birth of a child with a serious condition. Note the word risk.

When my wife and I, after 5 years of trying, finally managed to get pregnant, the doctors had the nerve to ask us if we'd go through more tests that would only have a 1 in 50 chance of causing a miscarriage, what do you think we told them? Well, I can't type it in here, as the censors would definitely not post this message. Now 'that' thing you'd call an embryo, is a 9 1/2 year old beautiful girl who excels in almost everything she tries and is more loved by us than anything in the world. If she had been IVF the answer to the tests would still have been the same. NO.

Do you endorse Terror because you by gasoline that is processed from oil that came from Iran?

No, likely, you are just buying gas to drive your car to work, the grocery store, and the occasional vacation.

No, Chief, assuming does exactly what some of your instructors in Boot, 'A', 'C', other schools told you. It makes you into an a$$.

Former Bubblehead MT

Thanks

Sticking points for stem cells

Laura, Wichita, KS — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:24:15 GMT

Answer me this: how many cures have come from stem cells coming from embroys? Exactly none. How many from adult cells or umbilical cord cells? A lot. So why are we messing with embryos...apparently people like trying to kill people before they get a chance to live. For those of you who say it isn't a baby...talk to a mother who has miscarried a child, and they will tell you that the "fetus" was their baby. There is a God, He hates murder, and that is all embryonic stem cell research amounts to...murder.

Sticking points for stem cells

Alan Boyle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:16:55 GMT

This issue drew some additional comment from Tadeusz Pacholczyk, staff ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

http://news.google.com/news?btcid=9ca343aaba87c894

Of course, Father Pacholcyzk or anyone else in the bioethics biz is free to comment here as well.

Sticking points for stem cells

Chirs, Birmingham, AL — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:26:46 GMT

To reiterate the most important point made by Troy. Bush only disallowed FEDERAL FUNDING. Private research is still perfectly viable. We still live in a free market in a federalist system. It is not the government's place to fund everything that comes along and someone, I promise you, wants the trillions of dollars that will come from this research. They will find a way without stealing more of my paycheck I promise you.

Sticking points for stem cells

Chief Petty Officer Scott Bowser (US Navy), Misawa Air Base, Japan — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:44:15 GMT

Troy,
one of the most troubling aspects of your argument is that you say the destruction of an 8-cell embryo is murder. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human by another. If you truly believe this, then where is your righteous indignation at the willful destruction hundreds of thousands of of embryos by IVF clinics across America? Why are you, or this administration for that matter, not insisting on prosecution and incarceration of anyone involved in the destruction of embryos at these clinics, and closing them all down until they can prove that not one embryo will be harmed or destroyed?
I'm simply confused regarding which embryos you feel are expendable, and which ones are not? Is the 'murder' of embryos justified at clinics, but not in laboratories?
This is why your argument rings hollow, Troy. If a viable embryo is a human life and destroying it is murder, then whether it is paid for with private funding or tax dollars, or done with the knowledge of the parents should never matter. It's either murder or it is not. Murder is illegal, and murderers are punished. I'd just like to see some intellectual honesty about this for once.
Finally, regarding your statement about assumptions. You know what? I saw Felix Unger write it on the chalkboard too, during that episode of the Odd Couple (and I thought it was pretty funny).
But assumptions, prepositions, hypothesis and postulation are necessary components of critical thought. Some assumptions are made out of arrogance, ignorance, or a combination of the two. Mine is based on what I have seen with my own eyes. Your assumption (He stood there with them to show simple minded people that these children are not embryos) is stated as fact- do you presume to know the inner thoughts of the President? I simply made an assumption which can be logically argued about, either for or against.

Sticking points for stem cells

Joshua Cha, Holmdel, NJ — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:32:28 GMT

Finally, there is a way to get embryonic stem cells without hurting anyone, either the embryo itself or the people against it. Still, even if it works, what will we do with the overabundance of embryos? Still, I trust non-embryonic stem cells more because this procedure is new, a study suggests that embryonic stem cells can produce brain tumors and therapies and treatments already have been developed with non-embryonic stem cells.
Like,anemia, leukemia, breast cancer, Parkinson's disease, brain tumors, ovarian cancer, lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, and dozens of others

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert, Atlanta — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:13:56 GMT

Interesting that this has come up again. And yet again. I'm skeptical but will keep an open mind until all the chips are in the pot on this one.

Just like an old issue claiming that stem cell controversey itself was at an end http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/search/label/Stem%20Cells due to a method that sidestepped the whole thing. The claim was repeated in 2007.

Now if true, and we can now tease cells into a "virtual embryonic state" this leaves the question as to why we should still plunk down federal dollars for the calim that NOW we can also coax them into production without harming the source cells.

Honestly, I don't know.

But what is interesting is that the whole issue over funding is really a politicized sideshow. Yes, FEDERAL dollars are prohibited for NEW lines of ESC (the embroynic versions of stem cells) but not for the ADULT versions (ASC) that have gotten little press but nevertheless are doing great work and making monthly strides, it seems, in treating a variety of ailments (the above link has those sources too, nifty huh? How convenient of me) that the much heralded and pitched ESCs are not even comming close to doing. ESCs have this nasty habit in any case of being tetragenic (cancer causing) and are difficult to work with. Private funding is available and allowed, contrary to what you might hear and regardless of the ethical issues involved.

Don't hear much about THAT, but its true. There is no general "ban" on either kind of ASC or ESC research.
Though in the major media and from some researchers like Weisman who have investments in stem cell labs doing ESC research there is a powerful ideological and monetary push at stake to suppress the good news on ASC. (hhmm wonder why....). Seems getting Federal handouts is easier than convincing many investors to take ESCs seriously?

Anyhooooo...

On one post here in Cosmic Log recently someone asked sarcastically if there were a fire in a lab loaded with human embryos slated for testing and a worker's 3 years old child was also in the room, who shall we spend the most effort in rescuing. The zygotes? The Child? Of course the universal answer for most people is the child, regardless of one's feelings about issues of human embryo testing for stem cell research and whatnot. The problem here is that as with other issues, you can't make an absolute moral statement about something that is largely not present in people's lives. The child we know, the zygote, still being human to a degree, is not known personally to us and not readily identifiable as human though it contains all genetic complements of humanity. This is not the same as saying that it is moral to experiment on human zygotes. Just that the emotional reaction to a screaming child caught in a fire is more meaningful to the mind than creatures that have no voice yet. Let me also follow up and say where I am NOT going with this. Some, like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) take this to mean we should follow suit in the mind's eye and understand that animals have no voice either yet are souls that have pain, etc. But the comparison to human life at helpless levels is terribly shallow. Humans are of an entirely different order from all other species, not just in physical dimensions but in intellectual and spiritual matters as well.

I can also turn this kind of argument around on its very head. If an endangered species that was being closely watched was teetering on the verge of extinction and all that remained was this fertile but fragile egg clutch from, say, a rare eagle, with both parents dead, I doubt I'd have many takers on the suggestion that since the adults are no longer around, lets just crack these things open, use some tweezers to pick out the little embryos that are barely recognizable anyhow, and make a tasty omelet. I assure you that animal rights advocates would STERNLY claim that the species is still around, at least until further notice. And that these embryos represent that species in general symbolically and physically and are a point unto themselves, both collectively and individually.

The only consistent comeback when I say this is to say that "well, humans are well represented on earth already, and we have too many, so what's the big deal about embryonic experimentation, etc. And so it goes.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:34:19 GMT

"If you truly believe this, then where is your righteous indignation at the willful destruction hundreds of thousands of of embryos by IVF clinics across America? Why are you, or this administration for that matter, not insisting on prosecution and incarceration of anyone involved in the destruction of embryos at these clinics, and closing them all down until they can prove that not one embryo will be harmed or destroyed?
I'm simply confused regarding which embryos you feel are expendable, and which ones are not? Is the 'murder' of embryos justified at clinics, but not in laboratories? "

Because the law as currrently written in this regard to what constitutes a human is not on our side if you're in the womb or smaller. The President stood with the snowflake babies, if that is what is beingn referred to here, and it could be demonstrated that if they are the offspring of frozen embryos, then yes, said embryos are human potential if not outright human.

You're right about the issue of funding not mattering (regarding ESCs, though adult stem cells---the ones doing all the work, BTW, are taken from regular tissue like gone marrow and blood). Yes, either the issue is wrong or right. But for clarity it DOES need to be understood there is no heavy hammer or wall preventing funding in general to ESCs. The real issue in my mind is why FORCED taxpayer money should go to something many people find repugnant. I'm sure many insights can be gained from human vivisection also. Why should investors flock to ASCs over ESCs? They know better. That's why. Why should pundits for ESC's have their tin cups out begging like a puppy for federal funding (and as you know, there's no end to the money or offerings for help from the feds, is there?)?

This is an ideological and political issue, not one of scient. The science is on the side of ASC, not the embryonic version. But the ideology of discarding human life for PC reasons in order to (as Anna Quindlin said) soften the reality of abortion is VITAL for the lifestyle issues of the psychotic secular West and sumptious lifestyle options. And of course there's this "Galileo vs. the Church" (also mostly untrue historically) perception of some scientists and journalists who can't miss the opportunity to bash the Church, or just "plain Joe" religious people, etc.

Sticking points for stem cells

Stuart Dambrot, New York, NY — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:50:02 GMT

In any situation it's necessary to look at who benefits. It's no small consideration that (1) if stem cell research allows us to ameliorate, correct or cure diseases that now require medical and pharmaceutical treatment, (2) the health care and pharmaceutical industries would lose untold revenue if this happens, and (3) those industries have major lobbies in Washington, you can see a political motivation that hides behind and drives the attention-diverting moral argument. Think about it: politicians are willing to send an unending stream of Americans to Iraq in order to secure oil reserves and an in-country intelligence presence, do not adequately take care of their medical, financial and family needs resulting from their tour of duty, but claim to be so concerned over undifferentiated cells? Even the most naive should be able to see through this deflective - and, in my opinion, truly immoral - strategy.

Sticking points for stem cells

Rob B — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:12:43 GMT

Women do not lose "...millions upon millions of viable 5 to 7 day old embryos that are lost in a womans normal menstrual flow". Where on earth did you come up with this drivel?

Sticking points for stem cells

Chief Petty Officer Scott Bowser (US Navy), Misawa Air Base, Japan — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:55:06 GMT

Wakefield,
regarding your reply to my 2nd post, my point is that there is a double standard amongst SOME of those who describe the destruction of an embryo as murder.
In my view, the Catholic church's stance is the one that is evenly applied across the board. The church says that 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.
During IVF procedures, only 60-80% of all embryos created remain viable enough for implantation. That means that 20-40% die in the lab. Then there are the embryos that are discarded or frozen and abandoned. Out of one side of the mouth, some call hESC research murder, yet out of the other side, believe that IVF is a good thing because in the end, it results in new babies being born. This is the false dichotomy that I find troubling. While I personally support hESC research and IVF, I have respect for the Catholic church's principled stance across the board. At least they are consistent.

Sticking points for stem cells

Chief Petty Officer Scott Bowser (US Navy), Misawa Air Base, Japan — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:17:36 GMT

Wakefield, you said:
"The real issue in my mind is why FORCED taxpayer money should go to something many people find repugnant."
Now please keep in mind, I'm career military and have no problem with taxpayer money going towards the war in Iraq, as long as we have people on the ground there. But think for a minute about how many American taxpayers find war, and the taking of innocent human life inherent in war repugnant, yet FORCED taxpayer money flows, no- gushes, into that effort by the hundreds of billions.
Taxpayer money goes towards all kinds of things that many people of different religious, moral, ethnic, etc. stripes find repugnant. And sometimes the money doesn't flow until newly elected leaders are in place.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:04:48 GMT

CPO Scott Bowser:

First let me say I respect your position and service to the nation, in whatever form your public service takes. I am not in principle opposed to any kind of public service nor the necessary (and as you point out, rather expensive at that) money that has to go. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out donnybrook over funding of foreign policy initiatives. I see not only both sides of these issues, but the multiple facets of those sides. Suffice it to say for now that there are some differences here. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL provision for war and defense. Not so for research. You're correct that as people of different views and paying taxes we are NOT always entitled to force our views on others nor decide where the hard earned money goes. Having said that, if there ARE other choices, like umbilical cord cells and as science writer Michael Fumento points out, the adult version of stem cells, we can all agree to not cross certain lines that are contraversial. ASCs can be taken from you and me. It's like no more damage than even skinning your knee. Even less, in fact. And they have made great stides over the embroynic version.

That's the long story short. As to the Church and specicially that Cathoilic church, while I'm not Catholic I agree that they've had the most consistent and intellectual presence in their commentaries on recent ethical issues.

I DO HOPE, that with the new methods mentioned above and with ASC and umbilical cord blood we can sidestep the whole thing. An article from the WP not long ago trumpeted a simliar claim that detailed how some researchers are coxing skin cells into a "virtual embryonic state." This is good news, but this claim was made before and I have not had time to follow up on this. We'll see.

I myself remain, like Leon Kass, an agnostic on the issue of the implantation of souls on embryos. But I err on the side of caution here.

As to the issue of IVF and "all those embryos" that supposedly number in the hundreds of thousands (though I've seen various numbers, all vastly different), let me say this, speaking of contradiction. The claim is often made that we "might as well use them up in research for some higher goal" as they'll be "thrown out anyhow", etc. Wasted. Really? First, this misses the larger ethical point in my opinion. If they were not viable, the issue is moot. But if they can be implanted for couples (millions of us) who'd LOVE to have a child, then so be that also. Why not? The Supreme Court of the United States and local and state governments now have this broad consensus that says that the Universal Citizen (err, illegal immigrants in the old school speak) have the RIGHT (speaking again of MONEY) to all our health care facilities, free education, free housing, free food, and free job training. While some are cracking down on documentation issues, it seems that if we have room for 20 million illegals taking up space and money and our pols adamantly REFUSE to stanch this bleeding, we may as well spend a pittance more than the thens of billions and go ahead and create, say, 500,000 more citizens pulled from the genes of college and single career women (the primary donors of eggs) and middle class couples. the primary sperm donors, while I don't approve, are from young college men needing an extra 50 bucks. 500,000 new citizens who will grow up if implanted will contribute more than we can know to our society. The middle and upper classes are not reproducing themselves all that well anyhow in the Western World (fantastic article about the fatalism of the North America and Europe from demographer Phillip Longman). Human fecundity is not always a good thing, I know. But are neurotic obsession with childlessness here in the West for lifestyle issues might endanger our welfare system, our military, our careers, and the workers needed to fund all these handouts and goodies anyhow. There's the answer to the issue of what to do with all those embryos primarily taken from prime genetic human stock. Might as well make some enroads here. In Germany and Italy, (and coming soon to us) where they have relatively busy old folks homes and relatively empty maternity wards, governments are now BRIBING couples to have kids. Seems that the Third World will outnumber us by 20-1 in 2050 if current trends remain, which foretells of dire consequences for Western values. Sometimes problems give their own answer.

Sticking points for stem cells

Chief Petty Officer Scott Bowser (US Navy), Misawa Air Base, Japan — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:20:18 GMT

Wakefield,
there are indeed constitutional provisions for war and defense. While I don't want to get too far off on a tangent regarding the constitution, I need to point out that it also grants congress many other powers, including collecting taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
Yes, adult stem cell therapies and research are far more advanced than hESC. It's also true that there are no hESC therapies on the market, or even in clinical trials. But lets be fair here: Adult stem cells were first isolated in 1949, and not used to experimentally treat a patient until 1956. It took another 10 years until the use of adult stem cells derived from bone marrow were used on a wider scale. And let's remember that regulatory approval of new therapies in the 50's and 60's was not nearly as complex and lengthy as it currently is.
Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998. Now, just looking at the science (without injecting political or religious views), isn't it fair to say that hESC research is at about the same mark on a timeline as ASC research was in 1958? I'm only pointing out that it is much too early to make a final call on the value of hESC research from a scientific standpoint.
You know, many of the arguments against hESC research are very similar to those made against gene splicing, recombinant DNA technology, and in vitro fertilization back in the 1970's and 1980's. It is a rational fear of going into uncharted teritory, combined with strongly held convictions about the morality and ethics of the science, and topped with religious dogma.
To allow politics or religion to drive science instead of letting science flourish unencumbered goes against longstanding practice. Basic science has traditionally been funded by the government, and when the science is ready for trials, venture capital steps in. This is the case right now with ASC developement, the human Genome project, and many other promising medical technologies. Just in the last six years alone, ASC research in the U.S. has received nearly 15 times the federal funding that hESC research has. So because of poltical considerations, this new technology has been forced to compete on the open market, where it hangs in funding limbo. Most investors would be wary of putting money into a medical technology that has not been as thoroughly researched as is possible. But to dismiss it out of hand as being less valuable or less promising than ASC research is disingenuous. ASC research has had a 50 year head start! And the reality is, these are not competing technologies, they are complimentary to one another. The breakthrough of reverting skin cells to an embryonic-like state would not have happened without hESC research, as both Yamanaka and Thomson have said. Also, aborted fetal cell lines were used to coax these skin cells into an embryonic state, so despite all of the hooplah, is this really a better scenario than hESC research? Fetal cell line 293FT was one of the lines used.
I am sympathetic to the views held by many regarding hESC research, abortion and IVF. But the arguments against hESC research in the U.S.are driven by religion and politics, and thinly cloaked by a veil of alternative scientific approaches. Science will move onward regardless of what happens in the United States. Many countries are making this research a top priority, such as the UK, Israel, and Singapore. They have made it a top priority because of the promise that the science holds. The U.S. has always been the leader in scientific and medical research. It would be a shame to let this slip away.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:28:50 GMT

Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998?

This claim is often repeated but false.

(see also http://www.fumento.com/biotech/cbsstemcells.html )

Both were discovered about the same time in mice tissue. Its just that the isolation of ESCs was difficult due to the inherent complexity of dealing with ESC lines.

"many of the arguments against hESC research are very similar to those made against gene splicing, recombinant DNA technology, and in vitro fertilization back in the 1970's and 1980's. It is a rational fear of going into uncharted teritory, combined with strongly held convictions about the morality and ethics of the science, and topped with religious dogma."

Not exactly. Not gene splicing per se, but rather some questions as to where this could lead. while surely there are both fantastic claims and some real world help from improved corn feed all the way to better treatment of human ailments, there are more than just the pollyannish worrywarts concerns about terriroty not just religious, but rather biological in that when you used the old style gene combinations, you were STILL working within the natural framework and upper natural limits of develoment, breeding, etc. This is why poodles still have marked genetic compatibility with German Shepards thought they look different. We had not used mice genes in humans and vice versa before nor used human growth additudes to cows milk. Often we don't have the full picutre of things for decades. While not being a luddite, I also remember that old saw about breast milk in the 1940s among "medical professionals" who told many a mom that "modern science" is better for the baby than the breast and that breastfeeding was "primitive" and "outdated" a way to provide nutrition. The opposite is the case, we now find. And it seems that we only barely began to scratch the surface on that issue. Just as one example. Also vastly different here is that in those days no one was offering cloning (which brings up its own ethical issues, with the possibility of companies OWNING your genetic material as a patented product) as well as the fact that embryos are diploid organisms. They are akin to being beings. Not just haploid (half genetic material) or shaved cells.
I find these kinds of charges against people of faith very unimpressive. Time and space does not allow here to be a forum for this, but Christianity and the ethical banking its had on civilization is the very foundation of morals and also the foundation of what is called Modern Science. That people have forgotten this and that nothing can operate in a moral vacuum is beside the point. You might take a look at the Soul of Science (Nancy Pearcy) on the history of this and the develoment of science and the dozens of baloney allegations made against people of faith.(for example that Christians once thought the world was false, now flatly denied by real historians and traced to some nasty stories by hateful agnostics like Washington Irving). And of course there's the other side of the rather complicated story now reduced to Cliff's Notes regarding Galileo and Copernicus and the Church (also only half-truth, as now told in the public schools these days.)

But as to the issue at hand, if the funding for ASCs is gained so much ground, we have to ask why on that front also.

http://www.fumento.com/biotech/stem-cells.html

http://www.fumento.com/biotech/stem-cell-story.html
Let the Koreans and others do their piddlig. We keep hearing of the promise of ESCs. But since these nations have pumped out scams before, might as well enjoy seeing this happen yet again for kicks.

You also said, in part:

'The breakthrough of reverting skin cells to an embryonic-like state would not have happened without hESC research, as both Yamanaka and Thomson have said. Also, aborted fetal cell lines were used to coax these skin cells into an embryonic state, so despite all of the hooplah, is this really a better scenario than hESC research? Fetal cell line 293FT was one of the lines used.
I am sympathetic to the views held by many regarding hESC research, abortion and IVF."

Perhaps, but while I found those advances (or so they claim) intersting if workable, the whole issue of "sidestepping" the embryonic ethical dilemma was ALREADY performed. The lie often given here that still begs for federal funding is that number one, investors are not all that impressed with ESCs. Second and more important,

But the arguments against hESC research in the U.S.are driven by religion and politics, and thinly cloaked by a veil of alternative scientific approaches. Science will move onward regardless of what happens in the United States."

Not exactly, as even if so, the MEDIA made this happen by the concentration and dogged insistence on reporting PROMISES but having LIGHTS OUT on the many advances of ADULT stem cells. Why? Well, some journalists would certainly like to make us think all that. Like Anna Quindlin. Some hope this DOES ameliorate the whole "A-word" (abortion) issue in people's minds. And speaking of politics, I can't put a price on THAT in some people's line of thinking. Then there is this lie that this is Galileo returned, and this time the pols and journalists will not miss Round 2 in the ring.

Does the phrase "ideological agenda" mean anything anymore? Do people not believe this happens among secular types in the media as much as if not more than among the religious types?

Of course it does, but they too get to crouch down in safety behind the veil of "science." Secular types in the media have always used this word to pitch something. Our public schools are LOUSY and the general knowledge of science among the average person is abysmal. Yet we don't see ACLU lawsuits against the bad teaching of math or Boyles' Law or the misapplication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is always a donnybrook over some more exotics and exhobitant kind of issue than what actually might work for general knowledge.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:40:00 GMT

What I meant to add in the above post over this one was that while it might be true that ESC discoveries and research led to skin cells being coaxed into a "virtual embryonic state" or later harvested with harming the embryo, this is and was always a moot point. Intersting? Yes. Necessary? No. Only if ASCs could not do the heavy lifting would this be necessary. It seems that the last excuse for ESC research and apologetics is that unlike ASCs (the adult version) you supposedly had something better than "multipotency" or being able to create several cell type lines, but also "pluripotency", or the ability to be teased into just about any cell the body can offer. It seems that for at least some kinds of ASCs, taken from amniotic fluid, for example, ASCs can do just this. And in any case this is a matter of "distinction without a difference."

In fact, you can customize tissue needs from ASCs rather than using a line of ESCs to make heart tissue or something else by a somewhat more complicated process. (the same processes that delayed isolation until 1998, as you mentioned earlier). If ASCs can do this work, and there is every indication they will, then the other discoveries become superfluous. The real issue is what to do with all those embryos. But I touched on that earlier.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:42:15 GMT

Wow--I missed that one:

You said:

"I need to point out that it also grants congress many other powers, including collecting taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States."

the problem is that pols can take that baby to the cleaners. Such phrases are unfortunately very vague, probably refer to social provisions to help cloth and feed the poor but not style them in the latest fasions, mind you. But really we have to be careful that beyond this anything can be justified on that kind of basis.

Sticking points for stem cells

Chief Petty Officer Scott Bowser (US Navy), Misawa Air Base, Japan — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:34:25 GMT

Wakefield,
I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Our chain of posts has slipped from the topic of the original blog (Dr. Lanza's method) into an ethical debate about the entire field of stem cell research, which can be never-ending. In the end, the funding and legality issues will ultimately be influenced by the Executive, and decided by the Congress or perhaps by the Supreme Court.
The scientific issues regarding viability and potency of stem cells will be discovered by scientists.
And the ethics will be forever debated by bioethicists, clergy, and of course concerned citizens like you and me.
Just so that you know, I do not disagree with you regarding the promise of ASC research and therapies. As I said before, however, I don't see the two fields of stem cell research as conflicting or competing, but rather as complimentary to one another. If or when the day comes that the scientific community developes a truly pluripotent cell without an egg or any media derived from an embryo or fetus, one that holds all of the promise of hESCs, then the debate will be over. My disagreement is with what we do until then, and with the moral status of a donated 5-day old embryo. I cannot change your views, and you cannot change mine.
This will be my last post on this blog, as I've stated my opinions as clearly and concisely as I know how to. Thanks for taking the time to post your counterpoints.

Sticking points for stem cells

Steve McWilliams, Norfolk, Virginia — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:45:02 GMT

Rob B, in response to your astonishment at the medical fact that I pointed out (embryo loss during menses), I'll hazard a guess and say that you're not an embryologist. It's a little publicized yet well known fact within the medical community. Perhaps you're familiar with the term 'spontaneous abortion'?. An ethics major named Toby Ord penned an essay regarding these embryos last year, and I've inserted a link to the essay. Medical references are listed on the last page. http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/scourge.pdf
Mr. Tolbert, you said (in regards to my hypothetical question of the fire in the fertility lab) that "The problem here is that as with other issues, you can't make an absolute moral statement about something that is largely not present in people's lives." I will feign confusion-isn't an absolute moral statement the foundation of the equivalency argument?

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:20:28 GMT

Steve wrote, in part, quoting me, in part:

"Mr. Tolbert, you said (in regards to my hypothetical question of the fire in the fertility lab) that 'The problem here is that as with other issues, you can't make an absolute moral statement about something that is largely not present in people's lives.' I will feign confusion-isn't an absolute moral statement the foundation of the equivalency argument? "

I should have clarified that you COULD make an argument here, but that the problem is that many people won't recognize this as being on the SAME moral plane as a child we know and love. Even absolute moral statements cannot work in vacuum and have social, personal, and other contexts.

If something is not part of our everyday life it has less meaning personally and is more distant from concerns. I don't live among certain species of animal. But turning this around saying this is not automatic license to be negligent in their long term care.

Like the handy fire drill, we are all familiar with the so-called "lifeboat" scenarios where some college prof joker asks, even against what both you and I will most likely Acknowledge as the moral statement against killing or lying, "If the Gestapo were on your door asking if you had Jews in the house, and you lied--is that OK"?
Or in the same scenario--would you suffocate a crying child to keep things quiet if you knew you could save other lives in the house from the prying Nazis?"

Or, would you throw a secretary or waitress overboad a lifeboat meant to hold only a few when rations got low, survival was questionable, and a famous AIDS researher who was closing in on the cure had to be saved??"

These kinds of scenarios are interesting but serve as POOR guides to larger moral questions of the variety most likely encountered by most of us in daily life.
This does not diminish or reduce the lives lost, you see.

Fortunately we don't generally live life in some kind of metaphysical nightmare like the ones above. We can act with patience and discernment.

Sticking points for stem cells

Steve McWilliams, Norfolk, Virginia — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:17:49 GMT

Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.
There are pluralities of heterogeneous sets of "moral absolutes" claimed to exist by various people or groups. Since there is more than one possible set of moral absolutes proposed to exist, and much disagreement on what is the correct set of moral absolutes, there is no one set of "moral absolutes" that can be said to be absolute.
Let's look at a suicide bomber on a bus in Tel Aviv. To blow him/herself up and kill people, he/she must believe that that action is their duty. Killing non-believers, offenders of the faith, etc., is that group's moral absolute. Another kind of group, Christian evangelicals for instance, believe that they must "spread the word." Proselytizing is their moral absolute. However, they do not get into the suicide bombings. One group's moral absolutes are not that of the other group.
Because the groups each have their own different moral absolutes, there then can be no universal moral absolute.
Even the prohibitions of lying, rape and murder although immoral in our current society, there are places in history were they are perfectly acceptable with some minor restrictions (see Bible for rape and murder, see Phil. 101 for lying). Therefore even statements like "It is always bad to rape and murder" is not an absolute moral truth because it isn't true in all circumstances for all time. These are well trod areas of ethics, hence my dismissal of the very concept of "Absolute Moral Statements".
Absolutists are black and white thinkers - they can't adapt to change in thought or reality.
That's a groundless ad hominem. It's also an example of black and white thinking.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:59:59 GMT

On the contrary: even pragmatism needs absolutism for reference points. Else all is social convention and social inputs and morality becomes a game of what happens to be fashionable at the moment.

Judging God by the standards of man in the Bible is not a good argument in the first place. In the second, while philosophy certainly has some insights for Western society, lately it is infected with Germanic notions of the same type that destroyed Europe and gave rise to dictators due to "changing situations", etc.

The Amalekites were killed but no where in the Scripture within the context of GOD's judgement do we find rape revered. They were horrific child killers and bucked and worked for their own demise. They earned it. The Scriptures never advocate rape or murder. Not once. Nor murder per se, which is to be distinguished that unlike what the loonies say about killing, there is a vast difference between human or God's administrative justice and outright murder, which is premeditated and without defense or war justification. Rape and murder perhaps are described and recorded, but that is not advocacy. The Bible also says Judas hung himself and the Romans whipped the hell out of peopl---this is not advocacy either.

Context clarifies sitations. This is different from saying they delete or void absolutes. They don't.

I would love to take this argument to some squiggling and sour and dour women's colleges and naturally they too will tell me there are no absolutes, by which in context of course they mean the evils of patriarchy and other blabber.

If I suggest to them that rape and wife beating are just fine for some cultures and you can't make moral absolutes out of that either (they just told me about other situations!), I'm willing to bet they'd get mad as hell.

Of course. At some point we all have universals we trust. Many cultures apply these rules DIFFERENTLY, but generally (as anthropologists note) have most of the same rules. All societies admonoish courage. Except maybe Spain and France. But that's a political change and not of the heart.

NO society honors cowardice, even if they mumble about descretion nis the better part of valor, etc.

NO society admonishes child killing or rape or murder even in their own contradictions (like Holland via pedaphilia). NO society says you many have any mate you want--some limit to one, others to several. But you may not just snatch gals off the street.

There is a consistent social cohesion required by all societies.

I find it is the modern purveyors of selective morals who are actually the most unyielding on morals.

But naturally this depends on whose ox gets gored.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:28:21 GMT

And what of the millions upon millions of viable 5 to 7 day old embryos that are lost in a womans normal menstrual flow, simply because they did not implant.
________________________________________

Well the design and ideal is simply to have un unfertilzed egg slough off. But still...

This happens, as do miscarriages of human looking fetuses far more along than this.

So?

Part of life, but in this case certainly not deliberate.

People lose thousands of children a year to Huntington's disease, SIDS, suffocation, drowning, animal attacks, burns, smoke inhalation, Rotovirus, strep, measles, asthma, flu, and in the Third World diaerreah and parasites, predators like lions and crocs, here in the West again diabetes, accidents, murderous thugs, drunks, abusive parents, and all other manner of disease and mayhem.

IN this case (one assumes), we DO morn them as we KNOW them.

Even if not, this is not permission to do live experimentation in this case either.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:39:41 GMT

Last post from me, as it is high time for me to move on.

But the MOST curious ting about all this, including the article,was the fearsome LACK of mention of what I mentioned a little bit before.

Is there no such thing as adult stem cells and their multiple lines of progress?

Not to hear the major media talk. It is as if they are regarded as leprechauns and unicorns. Sheer mythical beasts and incantations of the Religious Right and other bugaboos du jour. And yet they show great promise and in many cases have all the pluripotency (ability to branch off into multiple types of cells) as ESCs--the latter however, get all the attention. My only guess here is the abortion debate issue, its amelioration in the minds of some people and even researchers of ESCs, and the media's obsession with some kind of Galileo vs. the Church spectacle that is entertaining enough to make sure only ESCs are the types of stem cells that get to have a home in the news.

Its lights out on ASCs for now. And yet so far they've treated more than 70 ailments and diseases with more coming out each month, it seems, with over 1300 clinical trials behind the research. And amniotic fluid stem cells (which are a category unto themselves) and umbilical cord blood stem cells even match what ESCs are heralded and pitched as being SOMEDAY able to do. Hmmm.

Sticking points for stem cells

Steve McWilliams, Norfolk, Virginia — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:50:57 GMT

Judging God by the standards of man in the Bible?
I never did. I only pointed out the shifting of 'moral absolutes'. The fact that they have shifted renders them non-absolute by the shift itself.
See Judges 21: 10-24, Numbers 31: 7-18, 2 Samuel 12: 11-14, and Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 for but a few examples from many.

"Even absolute moral statements cannot work in vacuum and have social, personal, and other contexts." : A moral statement affected by social, personal, and other contexts is the very definition of moral relativism.

I have read your posts, and have read the linked articles by journalist M. Fumento. Please show me the same courtesy and read the paper in the following link: http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/scourge.pdf
The argument that natural embryo loss is 'part of life', and that nothing can or should be done about it, is put to rest. Cancer is also natural and part of life, I doubt that many would argue against cancer research for that reason. Please read the essay, in order to better understand my position.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:21:28 GMT

I would be far more interested in WHY the major media ignore adult stem cells. Slate mag is now on the same pitch for the last 8 years about how only ESCs show promise. Only those. Only. Period.

Unicorns then.

Do ASCs exist----or not. If an answer to the media's blackout on this issue can be found in that article, I'll read it.

The issue of "doing something" about the natural part of embroynic loss is puzzling. If there is something wrong with the embryo then nature usually intervenes. If not the results can be horrific. You're asking for some rather intensive methodology to get around this.Its possible, but perhaps not always desirable, to intervene in some cases of this. Many medical ethicists are troubled by the personilzed and selfish penchant for "perfecting" the genome when in reality to the faster and more human route to nipping and tucking is to let nature do her work unless the issue is infertility or broken legs and other debilitation from life. At a time when HillaryCare and other forms of socialized "health care" and other alleged freebies will no doubt have to RATION our care, we can't do it all.

That is beyond any of us. NO matter all the money in our pockets. The day will soon be here for some difficult rationing choices that don't include tailormade looks and genes but address more common issues.

"A moral statement affected by social, personal, and other contexts is the very definition of moral relativism."

Not really. Moral relativism means that you have no anchor or standard by which to even make contextual differences in the first place. It means that not only do we find child sex repugnent, we ALSO reject the NAMBLA standard of "intergenerational" desires of man-boy love just because someone feels passion for little boys.

No context justifies this in any case, and certainly not personal feelings. Relativism in morals generally means subjective standards. The application of context is another matter and in any case while it may justify some killing for administrative issues is still is not on par with murder. Not all killing is murder any more than all sex is rape.

But rape is always rape and is not justified in any circumstance. Period. Neither is beating the hell out of children or killing puppies and children to make hood ornaments.

You have to be careful with the terms.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:07:37 GMT

"I never did. I only pointed out the shifting of 'moral absolutes'. The fact that they have shifted renders them non-absolute by the shift itself.
See Judges 21: 10-24, Numbers 31: 7-18, 2 Samuel 12: 11-14, and Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 for but a few examples from many."

IN point of fact I had already seen the article you mention. Though it was not relevent to my point about ASCs, but a side issue. But that's OK.
My point is that in many cases of miscarriage or expulsion you are talking about something that if formed would be horrific if developed or difficult to get around. This would be difficult to solve in most cases. Something is WRONG when embryos die. The cheaper route is to try again and THEN if there is no luck in getting pregnant and staying that way, seek medical help. Perhaps embryonic research can have answers for this, but that requires in my opinion an unethical approach and contradiction. ON the ONE hand we fret over lost embryos and try and save them and on the OTHER hand we use live ones in good shape that we will possibly destroy in the process.

The exception to this being if what is reported has promise and that some cells can be COAXED into a "virtual" embryonic state of being. Or extraction could be done without such destruction. Maybe.

Numbers 31, 7-18: The Midianites had to be destroyed completely to avoid the issue of vengeance against Israel. The context of war can be horrific but secular societies have historically done far worse to the innocent in both war and social duress. But not all killing is murder. Just because an act looks similar does not have the same label. Rape looks like lovemaking. I assure you they are not. There seems to be a definitional problem of some acts that confuses those who mock the idea of absolutes. As Peter Kreeft points out, moral absolutes DO exist---its just that we change the terms to suit us.

Proper definitions are not subjective but deal with results and intentions. This is the same issue with the Amalekites, who were so horrific that God had to eliminate them completely and like the Midianites were a horrific and gruesome nuisance to the Jews.

Deuter. 22 28-29 discussed not rape but a sexual encounter wherein a man must pay restitution for the loss of virginity as this was vital for land and ancestraage identification in those cultures. Sex before marriage is always wrong. Its just that the standards about what to do were different for different kinds of encounters. Sleep with a close relative and you would have been executed. They didn't have DNA testing, and the spoiling of a daughter might lead to a pregnancy wherein she was not able to take care of herself in such a society and so restitution had to be made. We have this today. We call it childcare payments and etc. Luckily Mosaic Law does not apply to Christians, and not the dietary laws either. Those had the context of health issues and while you still should not have sex before marriage and other items like kill in cold blood, the Law originally was enacted as God said by the "Hardness of your Hearts"--in other words this was similar to the laws of today that in some cases are actually lax on personal liberties but have standards. The effect is "OK--you may do rotten things but we will give you this liberty and in return you have to obey certain limitations. Like smoking and drinking. You can do this but you have to put your cigarettes out property, not smoke around kids, and not drive plastered drunk, etc. If you impregnate someone you have to help pay for care. And so forth.....

Samuel passage:

Apparently God did this or threatened it due to some kind of disobedience. This demonstrates God's providence and warnings in such matters and merely records the events. It does not indicate advocacy. Remember what I said about Judas also? The recording of this is not evidence we should do likewise and hang ourselves on trees when feeling guilty.

But I'll check on this with a theologian of my acquaintance to get the context.

Judges 21: See above for Numbers. Similar context.

However, having said that, I'll find out more info just to be sure. As I am not a scholar but do have some passing familiarity with these passages.

Thanks for your generous time and attention to this issue. I appreciate your input.

Sticking points for stem cells

Steve McWilliams, Norfolk, Virginia — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:27:02 GMT

Mr. Tolbert,

While I don't agree with most of your positions on the issues discussed, I do appreciate the time that you have taken to engage in the debate. As an American secularist, I tend to prefer that politicians make decisions for secular rather than religious reasons. The moral views originating in the Christian religious tradition remain politically important here, that cannot be denied. But my opinion is that religious references are out-of-place in mainstream politics. To me, religion and supernatural beliefs are not the key to understanding the world, and in a secular society such as ours, should be segregated from matters of governance and reasoning. To parrot Chief Petty Officer Scott bowser, 'I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree'. So this too will be my last post. But again, thank you for your time and reasoned argument.

Sticking points for stem cells

Wakefield Tolbert — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:03:02 GMT

Well all our key understandings of what we call morals are pulled from religion at some point even if we're not believers ourselves. The evololutionary take on emergent properties of morals never held much sway with me exactly because it sounds like something contrived out of genes and thus puts us on some kind of autopilot. No more moral than cockatiels and cockroaches as they too have learned or genetic behaviorus that "tell" them what to do for survival reasons, etc..

That's another issue, however.

But I appreciate the insights.

Sticking points for stem cells

Chief Petty Officer Scott Bowser (US Navy), Misawa Air Base, Japan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:38:32 GMT

Here's a short video that in a very simple way sums up the absurdity of Bush's position on hESC research. I'm not talking about NIH funding. I'm talking about his 'pro-life' position. It shows what is now done with most abandoned IVF clinic embryos.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=-213763847541204759&q=stem+cell&total=3392&
start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0