Treading Where Nazis Stood Condemned

By Bob Ellis on February 20th, 2009

j0182792As I pointed out recently, embryonic stem cell research is really a bad way to pursue medical cures.

In addition to destroying innocent human life in the process, it has problems with tissue rejection and tumor growth.  It also hasn’t produced a single successful therapy.

Adult stem cell research, meanwhile, has produced about 80 successful therapies and has none of the ethical or practical issues of embryonic stem cell research.

Yet some people insist on the medical right to destroy some human life in order to maybe, possibly, hopefully save some human suffering someday.

The latest tactic employed by those who want to repeal South Dakota’s ban on embryonic stem cell research involves an amendment to SB 195 to limit research to the embryonic stem cell lines for which President George W. Bush authorized taxpayer funding in 2001.

The amendment says: 

Section 6. That chapter 34-14 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No human embryonic stem cell research may be conducted unless the stem cell lines used in the research were derived prior to 9:00 p.m. EDT on August 9, 2001, and are listed on the human embryonic stem cell registry established by the National Institutes of Health.”

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Ben Nesselhuf, Dr. Stephen Hall and others who want to open up embryonic stem cell research in South Dakota have decided this bill will be more likely to pass if they limit (for the moment) research to the lines approved for federal funding.

But does limiting embryonic stem cell research to these lines put us in the clear, morally and ethically?

Of the embryonic stem cell lines approved for federal funding by President Bush, five of those were called into ethical question (even more so than the killing of the human embryos themselves) in an article from The Scientist cited in Discover Magazine:

The latest stem cell controversy was stirred up in May when University of Wisconsin bioethicist Robert Streiffer called the five lines into question in an article [The Scientist]. Streiffer reviewed the original consent forms and found that in several cases the patients were not informed that removing stem cells destroys the embryo, and that their genetic material could be transplanted into lab mice.

There almost seems to be no end to the ethical cloud surrounding embryonic stem cell research.

So why did President Bush authorize taxpayer funding for research on a few specific lines of embryonic stem cells?  Let’s take a look. 

From NewsOK:

Bush’s [sic] made the [sic] after talking with scientists, clergy, Congress members and friends. He said there were more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already in existence “created from embryos already destroyed.”

He said he would limit federal support to these cell lines because “the life-and-death decision has already been made.”

The research would be limited to stem cells that had been removed from embryos that were surplus or abandoned by couples at fertility clinics. Such embryos are usually destroyed. Federal rules would require that the donors give consent and not benefit from the donation.

Bush said he considered the origin and fate of the embryos when thinking of his decision.

“As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions,” he said in the speech.

“First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they’re going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn’t they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?”

One could fairly easily agree with President Bush’s logic here…were it not for some other very important considerations.

From Christianity Today:

Ken Connor of the Family Research Council commended Bush for “drawing a clear line against future federal funding of stem cell research that involves the killing of human embryos,” but was distressed at the decision to fund research on the existing 60 lines. “It is a basic moral principle that one cannot benefit by the wrongdoing of others. In law, this doctrine is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree,” Connor said.

He said the compromise is a slippery slope because now the question is not “whether such research ought to be permitted, but rather how many cell lines are enough. Having introduced the camel’s nose under the tent, soon we will have the whole beast.”

The Christianity Today article also quotes the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity cheers Bush’s restrictions but is disappointed he did not completely ban federal funding.

The President’s compromise is disappointing but not entirely disheartening. We should not use tax dollars to fund research which is complicit with embryo destruction. Since human embryos were killed to obtain the stem cell lines, those cells are morally tainted. All the more, this research is likely unnecessary given the tremendous progress in using stem cells from morally unproblematic sources such as umbilical cords, placentas, and adult tissue.

Fortunately, the President drew a clear line in the sand stating that federal funds would not be used to destroy human embryos. It is unfortunate though that federal money will be used to promote research that, if treatments ever come from it, many conscientious citizens will refuse because it comes from destroyed human embryos. It is better to promote research that all Americans can unequivocally support.

As Christianity Today quotes Concerned Women for America, we come to a pertinent moral principle which has already been codified:

Concerned Women for America feels the logic behind the decision is unacceptable:

The President’s position contradicts the Nuremberg Code, ethical guidelines set down after World War II, which prohibits experimentation that knowingly causes injury or death to humans.

These codes were formulated to deal legally and ethically with the horrific human experiments carried out by the Nazis during World War II.

The National Institutes of Health also lays out the Nuremberg Code as a directive for human experimentation:

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
     
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
     
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
     
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
     
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
     
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
     
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
     
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
     
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
     
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

I have highlighted in red many points at which embryonic stem cell research violates the principles of the Nuremberg Code.

The embryonic human cannot give consent to his/her own destruction, and we know without a doubt that the harvesting of these stem cells from a human embryo will result in the death of that embryonic human being.  

Experimenting on human life and destroying human life–especially without consent–is morally repugnant to most civilized people.  The use of knowledge and information gained through unwilling human suffering and destruction of human life perpetrated by the Nazis has been banned in many cases.  It is recognized by most humane people as fruit of a poisonous tree.

Are we really okay with going where we once condemned the Nazis for going?

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , ,

  • Haggs
    Y'know, comparing the other side to Nazis is the sign of a very weak argument.
  • It can be...unless the comparison is very direct and very relevant. And there are few cases more direct and relevant than this comparison.

    And when that's the case, one of the few defenses advocates of barbaric practices like this have is, because people know how extreme the Nazis were, to whine that it's a weak comparison.

    If the shoe fits...
  • Brian Rutledge
    Be careful Bob. You are going to strangle on your moral halo one of these days. Full government funded stem cell research of all types will be signed into law soon anyway, so this conversation is mute.Then we will truly see which line of stem cells hold the most promise in medicine.Seems the only fair way to do it. Let science study ALL stem cell lines and let the facts fall where they may. Should be fascinating to see science work unimpeded by religious ideology
    Brian
  • Apparently you are totally oblivious to the fact that embryonic stem cell research DESTROYS innocent human life. Or if you do get that, you are apparently so morally bankrupt that you don't even understand the implications of what that means.

    If you've bothered to study history at all, then you should have some idea from Nazi Germany how "fascinating" science work unimpeded by "religious ideology" can be. It should terrify.

    The importance of protecting innocent human life will never be moot, nor will it those of us who recognize that importance be "mute."
  • Brian Rutledge
    The difference between the Nazis and stem cells is that no one doubts the Nazis were experimenting on humans. A lot of doubt exists whether a blastocyst is a life. It can't be proved one way or the other. What will change the debate,which we have seen before, is if and when ESC research shows a significant benefit to medicine, then the life issue will fade away. Human nature will choose self-preservation. Remember, at one time, many christians were against blood transfusions because of some archaic biblical reference. No more(except a few religious groups of course). Human self-preservation triumphs Brian
  • You're so blinded by liberal ideology and your subservience to the culture of death that you're totally oblivious to even the basic facts of this issue.

    When I explained to you above why the human embryo constitutes human life, did I quote a single Bible verse? Did I make a reference to the Bible or religion at all? No I did not.

    I walked you through the science of it, and you still refuse to comprehend.

    Liberals normally claim to worship at the altar of science. But then, that only goes as long as the "science" can be twisted and interpreted to support some immoral or inhuman practice like this. How hypocritical.
  • Brian Rutledge
    You did not quote the Bible and I totally comprehended your explanation,but disagree. It's simply your opinion that a blastocyst is a life. An opinion based on a set of tenets which is fine. Opinions are not facts and so by definition could be wrong. Humans will choose self preservation. Look at IVF. Christians who abhor abortion get IVF all the time, even if it mens many fertilized eggs will die in the process.I assure you if ESC research brings forth cures, people will flock to it. Human nature.Would you refuse treatment for a child just because that treatment came about from ESC therapy. Again, if you are not basing your objection to ESC research on something other than an opinion,you stand in shallow water I'm afraid.
  • It is not simply my opinion that the human embryo is alive; it is a demonstrable fact.

    You are so blinded by ideology that you can't see an obvious scientific fact. If this issue had nothing to do with abortion or a useful purpose for the human embryo, you would most likely see the scientific reality of this as plain as day. But because in your mind it is tainted by an ideological war of worldviews, you are blind to the obvious.

    There may also be another factor at play in your inability to grasp the apparent. It is pretty clear that you have a deep-seated hostility toward transcendent values and religious belief.

    I have noticed after many, many encounters with this attitude that if someone perceives that an opinion or value is rooted in a religious belief, a knee-jerk reaction ensues that automatically rejects any and all arguments made by a person who holds to transcendent truth.

    It doesn't matter what other facts and logic may be on the side of the person who holds to religious values; that knee-jerk hostility instantly blinds the faith-hostile to anything proffered by the person of values, as if holding to any transcendent value at all automatically taints every argument and fact proffered by that person, rendering it totally unworthy even of consideration.

    With the exception of my recognition of the sacred nature of human life, that it is created in the image of God, I have approached this issue almost completely from a medical, scientific and practical perspective. Yet you reject all of what should be as plain to you as the nose on your face, simply because you perceive that I'm one of those "Bible thumpers" or some such nonsense.

    I could see long ago that there is no reasonable likelihood in the near term that you will be able to overcome your blindness, and the point of carrying on any semblance of dialog with you is meaningless. For your own benefit, though, if you have any interest whatsoever in taking hold of genuine truth, I strongly recommend some serious introspection and self-examination to ascertain the root cause(s) of your hostility to the transcendent, and even to the secular value of human life itself.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I admit that a knee-jerk reaction does all too frequently flare up when issues like these come up and its not helpful. I am overly sensitive when I perceive any religion trying to creep into science, as demonstrated in our past. Ethics and morals must have a place at the scientific table, just not the beliefs of one particular religion. In medical school, we had several courses in Ethics and the general ethical concepts or morals will and must have a place in science. So, agreed, lets leave religion out of this topic .
    Your first sentence above states that the minute a fertilized egg comes into being, it is a demonstrable fact that it is alive and many prople adhere to this belief. Many people feel that it isnt alive until birth-an idea I dont go along with. I really dont know when life happens, but I know there are many views on this. In an earlier statement to me, you stated that you felt a fertilized egg was alive because it had all the genetic material to becaome a living human and I understand and respect why you believe that. But the fact is that many dont believe that.Many varying views and many dont know.
    When life begins is sort of like asking when death occurs.Is it when the heart stops? Is it when electrical brain impulses cease? Or is it not until every individual cell in the body quits producing ATP ? I dont know and people vary on this as well.So, the only point I have been trying to make(pardon the histrionics in earlier blogs)) is that various views are out there as to exactly when life "happens ". By defintion that makes these views opinions. Space travel is a fact and so is bouyancy. When life ends or begins are still opinions yet to be solved.
  • Stephen Hall
    Bob,

    You do not need to post or reply to this comment.

    I am going to stop attempting to communicate on your blog because it does not seem worthwhile. I consider myself a conservative in many ways, but your ultra-conservative approach to bashing the opposition is too much. It is not that we differ in opinions that I mind. It is that you personally attack the another who is not in agreement with you. And in the end, I think it is counter productive to what you want to accomplish.

    Best regards,

    Stephen
  • That's perfectly fine with me, Dr. Hall, because you've made it very apparent that you are interested only in deceiving and misleading people.

    You can't even debate this issue on its merits. You continually try to distract people from the heart of the matter, and even resort to saying things that flat aren't true like you did in your committee testimony a couple of weeks ago. And if you aren't willing to argue the issue truthfully and stay on point...well, I don't publish this blog as a place to foster propaganda (there's enough of that from the "mainstream" media), so there's no place for your deception here. I won't be accepting any more comments that don't deal directly with the merits of the issue.

    You--and many others, unfortunately--don't seem to understand that you cannot divorce yourself from the things you advocate. You don't get to support and advocate something immoral and destructive and then when someone points out your moral deficiencey for doing so, whine "Oh, he's attacking me personally." You need to own responsibility for what you promote.

    I'm sorry if you can't handle facing the moral conseqences of the things you embrace, but one day you will be called to account before God. I hope that before that day comes, you are able to grapple with your own moral culpability and repent for eagerly advocating the destruction of innocent human life.
  • Stephen Hall
    Bob,

    The Senate Committee took a phone call from an opponent at the meeting, so you could have called in and talked directly to the senators and had them ask you questions in order for you to get your point across.

    Spare me the "some of us have a job stuff". I run a small company in Sioux Falls and raise 3 school age kids on my own. I got my sister to watch my kids and take them to school and pick them up and left at 4 AM the day of the meeting and drove 3 hours to Pierre. Between work and home, I work 18-20 hour days. Others drove there too.

    With regard to the researchers you named, all but 2 were non-genetic disorders using adult stem cells. Armestar got good results in the Parkinson's study for the first year. Burt's trial for MS had doubtful results since alemtuzumab was used as well, which alleviates MS symptoms on its own. It is very doubtful that adult stem cells will work in the long run for genetic disorders (neurodegeneration, diabetes, etc.). But there will be some positive outcomes just as with embryonic stem cells.

    The list of researchers you named:

    Einhorn
    Orthopedic stem cell surgery-not a genetic disorder

    Nabil Dib
    Traumatic brain injury-not a genetic disorder

    Roger Gammon
    Heart attack-not a genetic disorder

    Richard Burt
    Multiple sclerosis-trial flawed because patients were treated with alemtuzumab, which is known to halt the progression of MS

    John Wagner
    Tissue Repair-not a genetic disorder

    Augusto Brazzini Armestar
    Parkinson's-used autologous bone-marrow-derived stem cells (promising data)

    George Muschler
    Orthopedic stem cell surgery-not a genetic disorder

    Everyone in the stem cell community knows the value of both adult and embryonic stem cells. Obviously adult stem cells are preferred, but will not always be the best therapeutic choice.

    You are also incorrect about adult stem cells not having problems. One issue that is coming up is that cell fusion, rather than differentiation, occurs when adult bone marrow-derived stem cells are transplanted, which suggests that adults stem cells are not as capable of differentiating into specific cell types as thought previously.

    Stephen Hall, Ph.D.
  • You're a piece of work, too, Dr. Hall.

    You and Brian know you don't have a leg to stand on ethically or practically here, so you attempt at every turn to mislead and misdirect people down rabbit trails and with cheap shots (that don't hold a drop of water) to get away from the cold hard truth.

    It doesn't matter whether those examples I listed (which were only a handful) were genetic disorders. The fact remains they were SUCCESSFUL. Dozens of them were successful. Something that can't be said for embryonic stem cell research.

    I know, cry me a river because President Bush wouldn't fork over taxpayer dollars to fund unlimited destruction of innocent human life. Research continued, simply without taxpayer funding. As it has continued across the world. You're like a socialist: no matter how many times your bad ideas are tried and fail, you keep on hoping like that ant and the rubber tree plant. The important difference here is that human life is being destroyed in the process.

    How pathetic that a grown, educated man has to resort to deception and misdirection in order to justify destructive human experiments.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob,
    You might have given yourself away bringing up the Nazi's. You see this as some great cause, some great purpose, some great meaning in your life, but you claim you're too busy at work to attend hearings. Which is more important to you ? Why not take one or two days off( give up a little vacation time) and actively plea your case that you claim to be a moral obligation. Well do something about it other than complaining on some blog. If you really feel murder is happening, i would think you would do everything possible to protect the santity of life-but your not. Sit at home and blog. Sounds a tad disingenuous and some might say hypocritical
  • You're a real piece of work, Brian.

    Are you really too dense to grasp the similarities between the human experiments of the Nazis that casually disregarded the value of human life, and the same human experimentation with embryonic stem cells that considers human life a commodity to be used or discarded at a whim? Or is your sense of right and wrong simply to seared?

    You defend--out of pure ignorance, I might add--the destruction of innocent human life, and have the audacity to imply I don't take this issue seriously? What a gem you are!

    I took the time to gather the facts on this issue and publish them to educate the public. I contacted the legislators on the committee with this information and asked them to reject this ill-advised bill. I take the time to correct ignorant people like yourself and prevent the further spread of ignorance and misinformation. What have you ever done to protect and defend innocent human life? Have you ever lifted a finger to defend the sanctity of innocent human life? Apparently you're willing to peddle ignorance that demeans and devalues it, but have you ever considered doing anything positive with your life?

    I have spent considerable time researching this issue and still more time writing it up to educate ignorant people like you, and you have the gall to insinuate I'm a slacker? After you waltz in here with (what should be to you) an embarrassing dearth of understanding of the issue, and what seems to be a complete lack of a moral compass.

    Your ilk likes to take potshots at people who try to do something good with childish assertions that because they haven't done X or Y, they don't care. Meanwhile, you attempt to undermine the public good and the moral fiber of society--based on ignorance and misinformation. You must really think people are stupid to fall for your deceptions and misdirections.

    You should be ashamed of yourself, for your arrogance, for your ignorance, and for your lack of a moral center. Unfortunately your very arrogance and lack of the other two items almost certainly renders you incapable of appropriate shame.

    May God have mercy on your soul, and give the time and opportunity to discover what seems so far from you right now.
  • Stephen Hall
    One more thing. Bob, I do not think you were at the Senate Committee meeting on this bill last week or if you were, you did not give any testimony. I would think for such an important issue and one that you felt so strongly against, you would have been there to give your testimony. Just an observation.
  • Some of us have to work for a living...without taking out the living. And unlike some, aren't able to go to Pierre and advocate the sacrifice of innocent human life on the altar of the almighty research dollar.
  • Stephen Hall
    I have been going back and forth with Bob Ellis and other opponents of human embryonic stem cell research without much success. However there was some success yesterday when the amended bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    As I gave testimony last week, I realized that using the existing human embryonic stem cell lines would be an appropriate approach and so the bill was amended that way and now goes to the Senate floor.

    The voting on the bill was:
    Voting Yes: Heidepriem (Democrat), Tieszen (Republican), Turbak Berry (Democrat), Vehle (Republican)
    Voting No: Gillespie (Democrat), Schmidt (Republican), Abdallah (Republican)

    Here is a link to a podcast from the initial Senate Judiciary Committee meeting last week about SB195.
    http://legis.state.sd.us/podcasts/2009/mp3/sju2...

    Listen to my testimony before the committee and pay attention to the fact that the majority of the religious and popular opinion feels human embryonic stem cell research is worthwhile.

    In addition, I point out that virtually every medical achievement in the last 50 years has involved fetal cell lines as part of the development process. The polio vaccine was developed largely due to fetal cells that were used to isolate the polio virus. The MRC-5 human fetal lung fibroblast cell line has been used in vaccine development for Hepatitis A, influenza, smallpox, and many others. That cell line was developed in 1966 from lung tissue taken from a normal 14 week fetus aborted for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old physically healthy woman. And the list goes on and on.

    I believe that the overwhelming majority of medical scientists engage in ethical research because of the social benefits that may result. I believe that society and governments have an obligation to create and maintain an environment that encourages this research.

    It is too early to know whether embryonic or adult stem cells will be the most useful for research and medicine. As Tom points out in his post, the restrictions to date have prevented us from effectively studying embryonic stem cells. However, they show great promise and are certain to contribute to medical treatments and cures.

    Finally Brian points out in his post something that I have always said. That is a person will stand and shout that we should not use humans or animals for medical experimentation in any way to develop even the most needed treatment as long as that disease or condition does not affect someone close to them. But let them or a loved one suffer and they will be at the head of the line for that treatment they condemned previously.

    My guess is that all of the opponents to this bill will continue to get vaccines for their family despite this knowledge and be certain to get treatment for diseases and disorders with drugs and methods derived from human embryonic stem cell research once they are available.

    Stephen Hall, Ph.D.
  • Dr. Hall, it doesn't matter how much of the "the religious and popular opinion" has been duped into supporting this immoral and unnecessary human experimentation. It remains just that: immoral and unnecessary. And clearly so to anyone without an agenda.

    Right and wrong aren't determined by poll numbers and popular support. I don't know where that idea ever came from, or why ostensibly intelligent adults fall for it.

    And the facts surrounding this issue remain unchanged. Embryonic stem cell research still has problems with tissue rejection. Embryonic stem cell research still has problems with tumor generation. And embryonic stem cell research still destroys an innocent human being when the stem cells are harvested from the human embryo.

    And adult stem cell therapy has NONE of these problems. And contrary to your testimony to the legislature, it IS producing dozens of successful therapies. I met a woman a few months ago who was on death's doorstep before she was treated with adult stem cells. Did I imagine her? Was she a figment of my imagination? Did she lie to me? Have all the reports I have read about therapies to regenerate knee tissue, nerve regeneration, reversal of Parkinsons symptoms and many more all been lies? Are the UCLA researchers published in the Bentham Open Stem Cell Journal lying? Is Dr Richard Burt from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine lying? Is Dr John Wagner of the University of Minnesota Medical School lying? Is Dr Roger Gammon of Austin Heart lying? Is Dr Warren Sherman of Columbia University lying? Is Dr Nabil Dib of the University of California lying? Is Dr Augusto Brazzini Armestar of the Instituto Brazzini Radiologos Asociados in Lima , Peru lying? Is Dr. George Muschler from the Cleveland Clinic lying? Is Dr. Thomas Einhorn of the Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center lying? These are just a few of the doctors/researchers who must be lying if there have been no successful treatments from adult stem cell research.

    And I haven't even mentioned umbilical cord blood stem cells--yet another promising line of stem cell research that doesn't involve the destruction of innocent human life.

    I am not opposed to animal research. Animals are not human beings. Hopefully you understand the difference between the two.

    And as I told you before, I will refuse treatment that comes at the cost of another human being's life.

    I'm curious? Does it not phase you in the slightest to have such casual disregard for human life? Does it not cause you the slightest pause to put yourself in the company of a bunch of Nazi monsters who saw human beings they regarded as less valuable than others as research materials?

    If you bothered to read this article before proceeding to disregard the practical and moral considerations of this issue, then I must assume it doesn't bother you at all.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob,

    One more quick thought then i'll be quiet. Your comment that when the male DNA forges together with female DNA, that all the genetic information for life is there, so therefore it must be considered life, is again a perspective. If you take the DNA from a skin cell of an animal and nuture that DNA in a medium without combining it with anothers DNA, it will form that particular animal.So the genetic material in one skin cell has the capability of becoming a life. Your argument would then say that the DNA of an animals skin cell is equivalent to life. Of course this is cloning, but none the less DNA from a nonfertilized egg also has all the genetic material to become life. i think thats where that argument fails. Pluripotent stem cells can become an entire organism without addition of DNA from a member of the opposite sex. Brian
  • Brian, my statement that all the genetic information is present at conception was fact, not perspective. If you don't believe me, look it up. The only thing remaining is development, and as I've asked before, would you consider a 6-month-old less human or less entitled to life and protection because it is less developed than an 18-year old?

    Again, can you get a new organism by combining skin, stomach, ear or hair DNA? No. Can you get a new organism by combining the DNA from a male sperm and a female egg? Yes.

    That is how these human embryos were created. Did you think we whipped them up in a Pyrex bowl with a cake mixer out of some Duncan Hines stem cell mix?

    Human DNA from a male sperm and human DNA from a female egg, when combined, creates a new human being.

    You are getting information from a very bad place. Totipotent stem cells have "total" potential and can specialize into pluripotent stem cells, but pluripotent stem cells cannot become a unique living organism. For that to happen in a human being, you need a male sperm and a female egg.

    Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

    Scientific facts and principles do not magically change based on our intent, purpose, motivation or emotional response. Yet obviously something as simple as human reproduction somehow becomes different because we want to use that human life for medical experiments?

    Under normal circumstances--say a classroom environment or a documentary on the Discovery Channel--this would be elementary for you. But because this human life stands in the way of your objective, suddenly everything changes, and what was once as plain as day is somehow totally different for you.

    You might want to ask yourself why that is? Is it a cognitive disconnect? (I don't think it is) Is it an ideological disconnect? Is a moral disconnect? Is it a spiritual disconnect?

    I'm not trying to be insulting here, but the disconnect is absolutely stunning. You really owe it to yourself to investigate that disconnect and identify its cause.
  • Brian Rutledge
    What an odd cause to take up-enbryonic stem cell research. Agree that if someone is against it, why dont they go after the fertility clinics where unwanted embryos are destroyd or rail against in vitro fertilization, where embryos are destoyed by the hundreds of thousnads when they dont attach to the uterine wall. No, instead take issue with using these embryos







    (That will be destroyed), being used in research that may ultimately save millions-but we wont know until research is done. Talk about restricting science because of religious beliefs because thats what this is all about. The law of our land already(
    supreme Court) has stated embryos are not lives. Shoudn't we follow the law, rather than someones personal ideology-like Bush -when it comes to research.If






























    God gave us the brains to accomplish such things that will only benefit mankind,why not use them ESPECIALLY if these embryos will be destroyed anyway. I think some people feel it MIGHT offend their God. How do they know what this Deity is thinking? Brian
  • Brian, did you know that people are already working to preserve the lives of those human embryos? Perhaps that wasn't important to you.

    Did you bother to read anything at all in the article, or do you just have an uncontrollable knee-jerk reaction against preserving human life?

    Do you see anything at all wrong with experimenting with human life--human life that has had no opportunity to even consent to the experimentation and its own destruction?
  • Brian Rutledge
    " kneejerk reaction to preserving human life" Let me ask you something ' How do you KNOW embryos are human life' What is your source and be specific? Where does it stste that? Brian
  • You really should do a little reading. It's amazing what you can learn when you just give it a little effort.

    I'll go through it with you step by step.

    At the moment of conception, the human embryo has human DNA. Not plant DNA, not rabbit DNA, but HUMAN DNA.

    This human DNA that the human embryo has is unique DNA. It is not the same DNA as the mother, the father, an aunt, Bill Clinton, Paris Hilton or any other human being. It is unique HUMAN DNA. This means it doesn't belong to another person's body to do with as they please; they are their own unique person.

    The human embryo which has unique human DNA has all the genetic information it will ever need for the rest of it's life. The human embryo isn't just stomach DNA or liver DNA or spleen DNA or leg DNA or hand DNA; it is genetically a complete human being. It doesn't get more DNA at 1 month of development, 2 months development, 9 months development, at birth or at 10 years of age. The human embryo is genetically complete at conception. This embryonic human lacks only development. Surely you wouldn't argue that a 2-year-old is less human and less deserving of life and protection than an 18 year old, simply because the 2-year-old lacks development?

    Destroying innocent human life is barbaric and immoral. Please go back and re-read this article again; I think you missed 98% of the information it contained. There is no need to become monsters that experiment on human life...especially when there is an alternative--and an alternative that is ALREADY producing results.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Didnt think you would print my last reply, which was an honest statement by me. Also your comment that people will refuse life-saving treatment if they find out it came from embryonic cells is conjectural and probably not true. I have treated many, many patients who morally outwardly reject medical treatments of all kinds, but have yet to see one person refuse it when it comes to there own life. Brian
  • I can tell you for a fact that people will refuse treatment derived from the destruction of other human beings. I would, and I know many other people who would.

    Have you really gone down a path away from morality so far that value for human life is that alien to you? That if human life doesn't fit your narrow definition and standard of value, it can be discarded at will?

    Some people value their humanity more than their lives, and I'm one of them. And I'm far from alone.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I understand genetics quite well, but it is a BELIEF by you and many others that a blastocyst is a human life. It's not encoded anywhere that it is an absolute. If a building site has all the materials and workers needed to bulid a house, it isnt a house until it comes to fruition. The truth is that your stance is a BELIEF and I respect that, but disagree. We are still a land of the law and our highest court has stated that early embryos are not human life. We go by law and not individual ideology in science.
  • Tom
    So just because something contains human DNA, it is automatically human? So a skin cell, for example, containing my unique DNA is by itself human, and therefore experimenting on my skin cell would be murder and unethical? No, that does not make sense. There is more to humanity than DNA, surely you understand that. If you think an embryo is a human, fine, but you won't convince me otherwise. I happen to think humanity is more complex than a cluster of cells. (I find it curious you use science to support your views one minute, and the next dismiss it on its face).

    You amaze me. I am curious about your background. You continue to defend indefensible positions, and then ask rhetorical questions that don't prove anything other than you don't understand the other persons position. And you are a jerk about it, too.

    I don't see how you can keep pointing to the lack of success of embryonic stemcells when research in that field has been significantly hampered. No wonder there has been few success when researchers hands are tied. Experts see more promise in embryonic stem cells than adult ones. I willl defer to their judgment on that.

    Keep it up Bob. You remind me why I am liberal, and why the Democrats keep winning.
  • Of course not, Tom. Stop and think for a second.

    Does the human embryo contain only DNA for skin, or an elbow, or a foot...or is it genetically complete? The answer is pretty obvious with just a little knowledge: it is genetically complete and prepared--like any human body--to develop and maintain the skin, elbows, feet, etc.

    You're pretty brazen to claim I defend the indefensible (the protection of innocent human life is indefensible?), while you defend the destruction of innocent human life? Are you from Germany, by chance (I'm sorry if I offend any good German people, but with the discussion in this article of what the Nazi's, I have to wonder).

    Embryonic stem cell research has not been "significantly hampered." Why not try to learn some facts about this issue instead of parroting liberal talking points? Only taxpayer funding of the destruction of innocent human life has been "hampered." Private funding and research has continued. And it has continued not only in the United States but overseas as well. And guess what: still no results! If Obama reimplements taxpayer funding of the destruction of innocent human life, what will you blame for the continued lack of results after that? The rain? Mondays? A bad hair day?

    I might be a little less of a jerk about it if certain people would do a little research (and no, talking points from Daily Kos and other liberal propaganda outlets don't count) before coming here and wasting my time with ignorant comments that have usually already been refuted in the body of the article. God gave us incredibly complex, capable and useful brains with which to learn, read, think analytically, and develop logical conclusions. Seeing people waste that on knee-jerk emotional reactions is very frustrating to someone who's taken the time to study the issue extensively and weigh the implications.

    I'm sure I do remind you of why you're a liberal. You've made it abundantly obvious that, beyond some liberal talking points, you don't have a clue what you're talking about and have no problems with immoral positions. Those characteristics define liberalism pretty well.
  • Anne
    Only cells that are going to be destroyed are to be used!! If you have a problem with destroying cells left over from fertility treatment; Fertility Treatment should be your target! Once the life giving cells are fertilized, even one left over cell can provide hope for thousands! Or it can be thrown away!
    I was at the Vatican (as a tourist) when Pope John Paul II admitted, took resonsibilty for & APOLOGIZED for the Church's part in not only standing by, but actually taking actions that resulted in suffering & death for millions in war torn Europe & during the Crusades.
    YOU are taking action to prolong suffering & are preventing life saving treatment! My darling husband & children still need me! My son read your piece, he doesn't understand why you think his mom should die, so a cell can be destroyed. My world famous brain Doctor calls Embryonic Stem Cells "the most promising treatment for millions!"
    When you take actions that hurt, you should get your facts straight! PS: we were there for Little League & had the best time!
  • Ann, I'm no fan of fertility treatments for the same reasons cited here: they result in the needless destruction of innocent human life.

    However, did you stop to take notice of the hurdles I mentioned that embryonic stem cell research faces? That adult stem cell research (which is ALREADY producing successful therapies) does NOT face?

    The issue is not about CELLS but about human beings, created in the image of God. Human beings have to die in order to harvest embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells don't just fall out of the sky; they have to come from human embryos.

    Doesn't it bother you that another human being has to die? And die not even to save another human being, but in the HOPES that another human being MIGHT be saved SOMEDAY if the problems with this line of research can be overcome? And die without its consent? Does any of that bother you at all?

    My facts are very straight. Yours seem to be hindered by emotional response. If you have a malady that stem cell therapy might be able to help, you should look into adult stem cell therapy. I met a woman a few months ago who was given a new lease on life after adult stem cell therapy. There is a link to her website in the story. I urge you to go back and read about her.

    No action hurts more than killing an innocent human being. Which is why we should avoid this trouble-ridden, inhuman line of research and concentrate on the line of research which is ALREADY producing successful results: adult stem cell research.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob,
    if this woman you met got stem cells a couple of months ago, how can you possibly say she has a new lease on life. Its way to early to know that unless you have personally seen tests or xrays that reveal regression of disease. This is the problem with a lot of your arguments-jumping to conclusions before all research is done- and adult stem cells have huge hurdles yet to overcome. Look at the animal studies of embryonic vs. adult stem cells and you'll find a different view. Brian
  • Did I say she got adult stem cell therapy a couple of months ago? No I didn't. Perhaps you should slow down and read and consume information; not doing that might explain your ignorance.

    I said that I met her a few months ago. Her last round of therapy was in 2006. And she's doing great! I met her in Washington D.C. and she was very healthy, vibrant and energetic.

    You'll find the link to Carol's website near the top of this article. I strongly urge you to quit relying on death-culture propaganda and learn about this topic.

    Adult stem cell research has produced about 80 successful therapies treating maladies like meningitis-related limb damage, brain injury, stroke, retina regeneration, heart tissue regeneration, angina, diabetes, bone cancer, nerve regeneration, cerebral palsy, cartilage regeneration, Parkinsons, kidney damage, liver cancer, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and leukemia--and more.

    Meanwhile, embryonic stem cell research faces hurdles not faced by adult stem cell research (tissue rejection, tumor generation, and the destruction of innocent human life), and has not produced any successful treatments.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »