The Bush v Kerry thread was irrevocably into stem cell research by Amlord's post here, so I figured it called for a new thread. (I suggest you check the old one out to see what progress the debate has made so far.) The questions for this thread are:
Is it ethical to harvest embryonic stem cells for medical research?
Is it legal for the federal government to fund this research? Is it necessary?
Was Bush's announcement (here) personally or politically motivated?

Is it ethical to harvest embryonic stem cells for medical research?
Is it legal for the federal government to fund this research? Is it necessary?
Was Bush's announcement (here) personally or politically motivated?

I have no problem with it. Don't see what the fuss is all about. Some Religions have problems with it, but they have no real sway on my opinions.
It is as legal for our tax dollars to be used for medical research as it is to use our tax dollars for waging war.
Don't know about Bush's motivations.

Oh boy! Now, someone has raised a question that has my hypocritical compass spinning faster than a press secretary covering up a sex scandal or a WMD scandal !!!

Is it ethical to harvest embryonic stem cells for medical research?

How can it NOT be ethical when some of the very critics are actual patients at in-vitro fertilization clinics that kill scores of thousands of embryos every single year in the U.S.? This is one of the biggest NON-Issues I have EVER seen pushed upon this country by certain of the more zealous purveyors of a narrow fundamentalist Christian doctrine. These same affluent and often self-righteous couples think nothing of "killing" scores of their own unused in-vitro fertilized embryos yet oppose using those very embryos (already fertilized) before they are allowed to thaw and die. Nothing could be more hypocritical!

Is it legal for the federal government to fund this research?

Of course, especially since the government helped fund research on in-vitro fertilization (a deadly consequence for the 'unchosen', discarded embryos!). Embryos, to hear fundamentalist Christians talk, are living human beings. If they are, then why do fundamentalist Christians kill thousands each year at in-vitro fertilization clinics? Sperm cells are also alive but without uniting with an egg successfully, they aren't embryos.

Here is a quote and link from a middle of the road religious web site dealing with the ethics of such a question:

"Stem cells can be extracted from very young human embryos -- typically from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures at fertility clinics. There are currently about 100,000 surplus embryos in storage. However, a minority of pro-lifers object to the use of embryos. They feel that a few-days-old embryo is a human person. Extracting its stem cells kills the embryo -- an act that they consider murder. Stem cells can now be grown in the laboratory, so (in a pinch) some research can be done using existing stem cells. No further harvesting needs to be made from embryos. However, existing stem cell lines are degrading and will soon be useless for research."

source - http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm

Is it necessary?

Research on stem cells is as necessary as any new research on medical breakthroughs. How do you think in-vitro fertilization was researched?

Was Bush's announcement personally or politically motivated?

It is hard to envision any statement made by either candidate on ANY subject these days NOT being politically motivated but I'm not a mind reader. Mr. Bush would have to speak to his intentions. The statement in question was made in 2001 from Crawford. Judging by his political support from certain fundamentalist Christians and his own 'testimony', I would say there is a good chance his beliefs align him with that sector of the political landscape but his stance on easing pollution requirements on utility companies in return for sizeable campaign contributions (source - http://www.tpj.org/do/pioneers04List ) especially their practice of major mercury contamination that is harmful to unborn fetuses) would implicate the belief might be one of convenience as opposed to conscience.

Once the "In-Vitro murders" are exposed, the fundamentalist Christian argument fails miserably.

Great topic for debate! It is quite amusing that this is such an "issue" because the great majority of people seem to favor stem cell reserach. I'll address the questions for debate:

1. It is ethical. The argument that embryonic cells are somehow "human" is absurd. They are cells. Just like cells in your arm, leg, etc. While the "cell" may be alive, it is certainly not "human." Animals have cells that are far more "human" than an embryo, yet I don't see President banning hunting. I also don't see a ban on in-vitro fertilization, which kills MANY embyos in the process of development. Those that make the argument that this is somehow unethical are saying that the life of a living person is not as important as that of a POTENTIAL life. They state that it is not up to people to judge the importance of a life, but they are doing the same thing!

2. Of course it is legal to fund this research. There is absolutely nothing about this that is illegal. Many of the things that they federal government currently funds are less "legal" than stem cell research.

3. Stem cell research is the most promising prospect for curing cancer, diabetes, parkinson's, etc. Think we would save a lot of money in this country if those disorders didn't need to be treated?

4. I think Bush's announcement was personally motivated. This is what he truly believes, IMO. Just another example of how those that use "Christianity" to support their decisions often do so only on these types of issues. Maybe a speech of how "God would have supported assualt weapons" wouldn't be such a good idea, now would it?!?

Regarding embryonic stem cells (not stem cells from an adult donor), it seems to me that objective scientific evidence is the best source for investigating this issue. In googling I found the following bits that helped me to a conclusion.



and further...



and finally...



In general, the scientific evidence for life's beginning at conception is pretty much unamiously accepted since the 1850s by the world wide medical community, human embryologists in particular. There simply has been no credible scientific dispute to the contrary on this. There is very heavy burden of proof that needs to be overcome to claim otherwise. Semantics or flat out denial would be the only way to circumvent the evidence medical science has offered.

rjp2004,

In all of the quoting of medical opinion you've done in your post, you have asserted that life begins at fertilization/conception. Since fertilization/conception takes place even during "In-Vitro Fertilization" your answer fails to address why it is alright to kill an 'In-Vitro Fertilized Embryo" and why discarding them (killing them) seems to be okay with fundamentalist Christians.

Please explain why fundamntalist Christians such as Mr. Bush and many of his supporters believe it is okay for "In-Vitro Embryos" to be murdered and discarded.

Fertility clinics discard, and in so doing, KILL scores of thousands of conceived embryos each year.

Morally, judging from your standpoint, this would be murder. Should fertility clinics be closed and deny couples wanted children or should the "death row" embryos be used to harvest stem cells?

PACPanzer
The difference, and I'm sure you'll agree that it's ethically significant, between in vitro fertilization and the harvesting of embryonic stem cells for medical research, is this: embryos harvested for stem cells are deliberately killed. In case you wanted a description of the IVF procedure,


http://www.ivf.com/ivffaq.html

So all the embryos are placed in the womb of the prospective mother, where they are intended to thrive. That's rather different from "murder[ing] and discard[ing]" them, and though I'm no philosopher, probably distinct from "kill[ing]" them too. If you're going to call these doctors killers for failing in the creation of life, you might as well lock up any obstetrician who's delivered a stillborn child.

Pittslp




I've read the thing through at least twice...and funding medical research is definitely not in there.

PACPanzer,

How's it going? Thanks for the reply. Cool nickname, by the way.

You asked

I didn't bring up any religious concerns in my post because I wanted to keep it strictly scientific. The evidence of life's beginnings from a consensus of embryologists and geneticists is not an opinion, its an accepted medical fact within the scientific community. One is free to disagree with it of course, but as I said there is large burden of proof to overcome to disprove it.

Regarding your last question on fertility clinics, I would hope that all decisions (by couples, citizens, lawmakers, etc.) would base it upon that fact instead of a personal preference or something else. I think both couples wanting a child and families wanting more stem cell research need to be aware that scientifically, IVF type procedures and that research involve destroying some life as well as creating it.

PacBell,

Are you saying then, that ALL medical research is "illegal" because there is no specific provision in the constitution for it? There is also no specific provision for invading a foreign nation without provocation, no provision for "assualt" weapons, no specific provision for tax loopholes for the wealthiest 2% of Americans....clearly then all of these things are illegal!

Back to the stem cell research, your comparison between stem cell research and IVF makes absolutely no sense at all--sorry but that is about the nicest way to put it...With IVF, you DO KNOW going in that embryos will die. You may not 'pick" specific ones that will die, but you know there will be embyonic death...that's part of the procedure. Your argument is like saying that if you throw 10 people on a deserted island knowing that only one (or maybe 2 in the case of twins) can survive, you are not really killing them because you "hoped" to make them thrive.

It is somewhat ironic that most people who do not support stem cell research in the science community are "ethicisits." When was the last time you had a health issue and wanted to see the next available ethicist?

Thanks for the kudos on my board name. Many times, I wish I WERE a swiftly moving Panzer entrusted with destroying PAC's before they destroy the fabric of Democracy. Sadly, however, I am not that fast and it may already be too late.

First, let me say that your definition of life must mean, in that scenario, "a SEPERATE life" since the condition of life as opposed to the absence of life is necessary in ALL living cells. Christianity and other theologies usually associate "human life" with a "soul" unlike the "life" associated with a live tree or for that matter, a snail. When a lizard grows a new tail after losing one, that regeneration adds separate "living" cells to that organism in the growth process.

Your thoughtful quote above is the exact reason I get a kick out of of the hyprocrisy heard when certain religious zealots condemn embryonic destruction on one hand and particpate in it on the other. To some, the issues remain black and white. I agree that religion should be left out of such a debate. Ethics and religion are not synonyms.

Of course we can carry the theory to Jeff Foxworthy levels by saying if God had wanted the couple to have a baby he would have let the woman get pregnant in the first place. Then, we could have elevated our debate to loftier standards by arguing that if God had intended for us to fly, he would have given us wings and so on.

I once knew a lady who was never convinced that Neil Armstrong had really taken that step on the moon. She died thinking it was filmed on a Hollywood set. A few years later, a movie was released with a similar plot. Go figure.

Research is a wonderful thing. I have a friend who had testicular cancer but had sperm frozen prior to his surgery in case the cancer had spread to the other testicle.

PACPanzer,

That was funny about being a tank - would make for a good political cartoon. Maybe Foxworthy would driving it saying "you might be a tank driver if..."

Excellent point on ethics and religion not being synonyms. I like the sphere of ethics in discussions because any and every person can participate equally in it, from any religious belief/faith or other view. There's so much common ground to be gained from ethical discussions it fascinates me. You're a good dialoguer btw - enjoyed reading your reply.

May your tank treads never fail!

As far as Stem Cell research goes, we should allow DOCTORS to decide NOT Politicians and/or Religious leaders. PERIOD.

That certainly is quite a statement. Very self-assured and absolute.


It is however, entirely unsupported by fact or evidence whatsoever, the VAST assertion that life beginning at conception has been UNIVERSALLY accepted by the medical community is utterly baffling. In particular when 10 seconds of checking will tell you that literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of that statement is true.

Shall we start with the American Medical Association? Certainly a massive and respected representative of the modern medical community:

Oddly, the AMA disagrees with your baffling comment, making no reference at all to the beginnings of life, but repeating several times that "The Principles of Medical Ethics do not in any way prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice."

What about the most respected medical journal on the Planet, the New England Journal of Medicine? Do they agree with your tremendous assertion?
"There is no universal measure of life which can be determined without entering the realm of philosophy and theology, however medically the basic characteristics used by science to determine life are not present in early term foetuses."

Well, maybe you meant every medical institution EXCEPT in America, right?

No wait, the British Medical Association apparently did not get your memo either:
"the BMA approved policy statements supporting the 1967 Abortion Act as "a practical and humane piece of legislation"and calling for its expansion to Northern Ireland represent ongoing medical opinion. The BMA does not consider that abortion is unethical based on medical definitions of human life."

Well perhaps its just the English speaking world then:

Nope, the French law on Abortion, the Veil act is quite clear: when defining protections under the laws, it states: "La loi garantit le respect de tout être humain dès le commencement de la vie (...) ce qui n'interdit pas l'interruption volontaire de la grossesse avant la fin de la dixième semaine."

How about basic medicine? What do they teach in medical school in the West? Apparently medical schools also were unaware of your assertion, as standard course on medical ethics, similar in Canada, the US and Britain, all refer to life commencing with Viability, a stage of foetal development that occurs at about the 22 week period.


I could easily go on, citing the medical associations of other western countries for example, or the national policies of these countries, or medical research on the nature of life... all of which is in COMPLETE opposition of the rediculous statement made above.



The point of my post is this: Abortion is clearly a contentious issue, with valid and powerful arguments on BOTH sides.

Blatantly false and demonstrably absurd absolutist statements like the one I have dealt with above do not help either side at all.

Great post Vermillion,

Is it ethical to harvest embryonic stem cells for medical research?

Abortion is a sidebar to the issue, but in my opinion a necessary and even inevitable wandering.

Depending on when someone "believes" life begins, the answer will be "yes" or "no." It seems to me that opinions on this question cover a wide continuum. I'll begin with the earliest possibility.

1. Consider the number of trips to the woodshed and/or the confessional for adolesent males caught or feeeling guilty about, as Bruce Springsteen put, [he] "the adolescent pumps his way into his hand." Some actually believe that life is present in sperm deposited into one's hand as compromising life or potential life. I find this notion patiently absurd.

2. Life begins at conception. I see this as potential life, but not life in a form many would recognize.

3. Life begins when the fetus can live outside the mother's womb.

4. Life begins when the child is actually born.

My position is that life begins somewhere within possibilities 3 and 4.

Therefore, I find nothing unethical about using embryonic stem-cells for research.

Is it legal for the federal government to fund this research? Is it necessary?

I look at the constitution as a dynamic document--defined and interpreted by both courts and/or laws made under it's provisions. Perhaps the constitutional provision that has given the federal government it's broadest powers, is found in the interstate commerce clause, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 ["Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

As soon as anything dealing with stem-cell or any other researched drug crosses state lines, it falls under the interstate commerce clause and becomes subject to federal law. It's hard for me to imagine medical research not impacting interstate commerce.

I think you get the picture that I'm not the "strict constructionist" Nixon, Bush and others talked about and attempted to use as a basis for judicial appointments.

Was Bush's announcement (here) personally or politically motivated?

I don't know whether Bush really believes what he says about his "religious" beliefs or, if as I suspect, he's an "Elmer Gantry" of sorts, but I don't see how anyone can claim his decision wasn't driven by the desire to please the religiously conservative portion of his base.

Vermillion

Thanks for the reply. You've got alot of stuff, especially on the acceptance of abortion by various orgs. I think in general just because an organization supports abortion, doesn't mean that they have offered hard scientific evidence, according to human embryology, which refutes the uniqueness of fertilization as human life's beginning. The AMA does not refute the fact that a human life is created at fertilization and they ignore that evidence in their policies. Their original positions from 1871 to 1967 supported that it was true! (which begs the question - what groundbreaking scientific evidence overturned their near 100 year understanding?)




Can you provide a link for that NEJM quote? I'd like to read the context as well.
It seems more semantical than hard science, but I'd like to see more of it.

In the scientific field of human embyrology, who are THE experts in studying human embryos, there is no scientific evidence that an individual human being IS NOT created at fertilization. None of the organizations you mentioned have proven anything contrary using scientific standards.

If you're up for a hearty read, this scientific article from Canadian physicians is an excellent read.

Firstly, let me be clear, my post was not to argue that life does NOT begin at fertilisation, I did not offer my opinion on that matter. My post was meant to respond to your statement that UNQUESTIONABLY, without debate it has ben universally scientifically PROVEN that life begins at conception and ALL medical and scientific institutions in the world have accepted that as an 'accepted scientific fact', and there has been 'No scientific debate to the opposite' on this.

That was of course utter hogwash, as I demonstrated by showing that the world medical community seems not to be aware of this universal truth you prostheletise in their statements, policies and documents.

It is a VERY debated, and VERY debatable issue, upon which there is little consensus, but at the moment, what consensus there is is that life does NOT begin at fertilisation, as national medical councils across the western world seem to have no problem allowing, both legally and morally, early term abortions.




Well, you have a choice here. Either we beleive you, and every national medical institution in the western world is part of some grand conspiracy to ignore the undenyable facts you seem to believe in, or perhaps the debate is not over, prhaps the facts are not as universally undenyable as you would present them, and perhaps each of these medical councils made up their own opinion based on the evidence at hand.

As for the opinion of the AMA in 1871, exactly what does that mean? Shall we discuss the position of the AMA on masterbation in 1871, or on the causes of infection, or treatments for tuberculosis?

Yes, a lot of medical practice and opinion has changed since 1871, heck, women have given been given the vote since then. It's called progress.



Oh, except for the niggling little fact that for decades scientists have been using a series of criteria to define life in all forms, and a post-conception zygote meets none of them. It bears not a single commonality with a 'human being' at that stage, it is a lump of animate matter which has the POTENTIAL to develop into a human being, if it can beat the odds (a majority of fertilised eggs are lost through natural miscarriage before vitality), but that is all.

Regardless, I said before and I say again, I am not here to argue that life does NOT begin at fertilisation, I am simply trying to point out that obviously inaccurate and blatantly hyperbolic statements about the 'universally known and proven truth' about the beginnings of life do not forward the debate at all, on either side, and serve only to diminish the credibility of the arguer.

Pittslp:
Okay, that is a really good example on the ethics of IVF. I'll cede the point. But I challenge you to find me a quote by Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or some suitable surrogate that comes out in favor of in-vitro fertilization.
But on this:


There's no specific provision for invading a foreign nation with provocation, or for declaring war and not invading. Once the Congress has declared war, à la H.J.RES. 114 ("The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq") it's up to the President, with his (again strictly Constitutional) authority as Commander in Chief to command the forces as he deems fit (or merely use them as a threat, depending on whether you're running for President.)

There's no specific provision for little .22 pistols either, but nobody (okay, probably somebody) would dream of banning those. It seems to me that in the strict sense of the word, any ban counts as an "infringement." Even on assault weapons.

Again, no specific provision for a "progressive" tax. Seems that it's again up to the discretion of Congress, with few restrictions. Almost no public laws are mentioned specifically in the Constitution. The real problem with funding stem cell research is that there's no power listed that justifies such an expense.
And

Of course most people who do not support stem cell research are "ethicists." There doesn't seem to be any strictly medical reason to abandon stem cell research. But I think your implication that ethics has no place in medicine is absurd. No doubt Mengele and the Tuskegee experimenters learned some valuable stuff; we obviously don't judge them solely on medical criteria. So "ethicists" have to come in at some point and decide whether the harvesting of stem cells (or the in vitro fertilization of a woman's ovum) is equivalent to the taking of human life. For this reason it would be wrong, Government Mule, to "allow DOCTORS to decide NOT Politicians and/or Religious leaders." Period.

Vermillion:

I'd have to see the whole article so I can make some sense of this. Because every biology class I've been to defines life as having a metabolism, being homeostatic, growing, and responding to stimuli.

BoF:
Hey again.

I think the majority of stem-cell research, being at so early a stage, is teams of doctors working within their universities with funds coming from Washington. I suppose money going from Washington counts as interstate commerce and thereby justifies itself - it's not much more absurd than the interstate commerce justification for the Food and Drug Act - but that doesn't mean I have to stand for it.

PacoBell,

I think the point you are trying to make here is beside the point. Once the federal government establishes a precedent for for funding medical research, it doesn't have to qualify each and every research project that gets funding.

Likewise, the FDA still has control, even if I developed something earth shanking in my garage in Texas.

American constitutional law works on precedent, which we can trace back to English common law.

BoF

I've never heard of an act of Congress setting a legal precedent. If it could, there would be no need for a Constitution or a Supreme Court; take that part of the Patriot Act that amended Clinton's AEDPA to something too vague for the courts' taste. If I understand you, it would - by the mere fact that it passed both houses of Congress - create a precedent and make itself legal. I've never heard of a challenge in the Supreme Court to federal funding of medical research.

PB,

I wasn't saying that an act of Congress set a legal precedent.

My guess is that the federal government's power to fund medical research comes from the "interstate commerce" clause. Once the court, if it has indeed addressed the issue of funding medical research, the decision sets a president for other research projects.

If there have been no specific cases, then the practice goes on until and/if someone files a suit to prevent it. Then the question is whether the courts will set a new precedent or find existing ones that apply.

EDIT

I had a routine dental appointment at 2:00 today, so I didn’t get to expound on this as much as I wished.

The National Institute for Health has roots going back to the late 1800s.

http://www.history.nih.gov/

Here’s more information on NIH.

http://www.nih.gov/

There have been some court decisions on the abortion issue itself, but none I can find concerning the legality of medical research specifically applied to stem-cell question . The 5-4 decision in the case listed below that upheld the ban on funding “medically necessary abortions” is an example.



http://www.bioethics.gov/background/berkowitz.html

In the absence of court rulings and the fact that Bush made his decision on ethical grounds, rather than legal, then I would say the first part of your second question:Is it legal for the federal government to fund this research? is a moot point

That is, unless Bush gets another four years to appoint federal judges at all levels. If that happens, all bets are off.

While federal funding for stem-cell research is not backed or deniedu by a specific “legal” case, it is supported of a long history of practice in health research.

Vermillion,

We're getting ready for the hurricane here so I'll have to keep it short.

Actually I see what you're referring to now. I incorrectly paraphrased Dr. Kischer's comments, including "the entire world wide medical community" in my paraphrase. As you said many orgs like the AMA, BMA, NEJM differ on that right now.

Dr. Kischer (and Dr. Irving and other's) point is that among human embryologists, there is consensus on human life's beginning and there has been for a very long time. He further says that medical students studying embryology learn this as fact.

Your welcome to scrutinize these two doctors/scientists credentials and statements. I would find it hard to believe that a typical embryologist would make such a claim (that all embryologists agree on fertilization as human life beginning)
if it were not true. But again, feel free to find collegues of theirs that disprove what they said.

Regarding the AMA, the reason I brought up their original findings/position is this: What caused them to throw that finding out in 1967? They never said "You know, we've found some new evidence which disproves conception as life's beginning." or "our scientific evidence was wrong - here are findings that are more accurate"
In the science world, a fact is only thrown out if a new one can disprove it.

I'll have some more stuff after the hurricane. Thanks for the dialogue.

While fertility assistance may be legal, I consider it to be highly selfish and immoral in and of itself. Not for spiritual reasons but for scientific ones. Artificial fertilization between ill-gotten eggs and abnormal sperm, or just genetic material obtained from a mans body in the absence of sperm, to circumvent barriers that exist as a result of genetic defects, to induce a pregnancy for the sheer satisfaction of one or both of the parents involved is nothing short of pure horror.

The technology to do this has only been available for two or three generations now but, if it continues unrestricted for too long, we will eventually have whole family lines who require fertility assistance in order to reproduce as a result of inherited genetic defects. Why anyone would want to knowingly curse the future of mankind this way is beyond me. I only support artificial fertilization for embryonic stem cell research as a means to cure diseases, NOT to help pass them on.

I hope you and all the Florida debaters are hanging in there, rjp.



OOT, IRK, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed their use of the term conception from fertilization to implantation in the late 60's to render the IUD and to a lesser extent, the pill, into contraception rather than abortifacient methods. The IUD works by acting as a foreign object in the uterus that makes it a hostile environment for sperm, ovum, and zygote (fertilized egg) to survive.

The birth control pill and depo-provera shot can act as an abortifacients too by changing the lining of the uterus and blocking implantation. Although the primary objective of hormone contraceptive is to prevent ovulation if taken as directed, the woman uses a back up birth control method while taking antibiotics, she changes her prescription to a higher dose brand if she's already on a relatively weak brand and gains a lot of weight (estrogen sticks to fat cells), etc. etc.

Is it ethical to harvest embryonic stem cells for medical research?

IVF clinics were brought up. Here's a perspective.





Most of the donors consent to the embryo's destruction or donation. Of the implanted embryos "fewer than one in three develops into a newborn." SF Gate speculates there are tens of thousands of cryogenically frozen embryos.

I speculate the pro-life movement has been very sluggish about targeting fertility clinics, but taking exception stem cell research, for two reasons. One is its pro-Christian values. Pro-life organizations make it their business to know policies and laws that undermine their goal from national to local levels. I think it's safe to say they've known what goes on in fertility clinics for a while. They haven't reacted with the expected condemnation because the clients paying for these services are trying to fulfill God's will as opposed to thwarting it by preventing conception.

The other is there are plenty of "soft targets" already available. Cheap, non-surgical birth control for working women and families is here to stay. Opposition to birth control doesn't resonate outside a very strict interpretation of what constitutes murdering fetal life. Picketing abortion clinics, keeping emergency contraceptive off the counter and simultaneously drafting legislation that leaves the decision to provide Plan B in the hands of pharmacists forces the abortion debate to stay on the national conscience.

Harvesting embryos for research is ethical in my own Christian interpretation. Zygotes can take as many as 13 days to finish twinning. 14 days or more and you're looking at conjoined twins. Every zygote has a chance of twinning. 11% of births in North America result in twins. Also, 15-20% of known pregnancies result in miscarriages within the first trimester. It's estimated half of those miscarriages are the result of genetic defects.

According to the Bible humans possess souls. Two souls can't occupy the same body. From a religious and moral standpoint I have no objections to destroying zygotes and days-old embryos for research. I understand how arguing there isn't a soul until post-conception may sound crazy. But it's even harder to rationalize God wasting souls on microscopic human bodies destined to die as the result of the wrong sperm or the wrong ovum being present because it provides the foundation necessary for the Christian pro-life movement to continue pressing a zero tolerance abortion agenda.

I have just got into the point of my education where I really am starting to understand the ramifications of stem cell research- it is where all "big discoveries" are going to happen. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells in the blastula- and, for reasons not completely pinned down yet, will differentiate into various tissues of the body. One SUPER big deal is noticing that when stem cells are injected into cardiac muscle that has died, it regenerates, but exactly how it comes to life, we don't know- whether is simply repairs the cardiac fiber and other cardiomyocytes cause it to contract or there are new cardiomyocytes being regenerated- if it is the latter- we have a cure for heart disease, within our reach!

so yes, with ethical guidelines, I would like to see massive increase in this research.

there is a great link to anyone that wishes to research what stem cell research has found so far

www.pubmed.com

if you have no basics of biology or anatomy or chemistry, it may be over your head, just check out the abstracts, this is a clearing house for research papers.

Wow - its been three hurricanes and almost 6 months since I've visited this topic. I appreciated the concern, Lesly - thanks.

I asserted earlier that for prior to the 1960's, that the scientific medical community accepted as fact that a human life began at conception/fertilization. I asked the question what groundbreaking scientific evidence was introduced then to disputed this established fact?



Still no new scientific evidence introduced and accepted as proven. As you said, they merely changed a term. Just a cover-up basically.

But you are simply ignoring the ethical concerns with stem cell research. If we thought that child molestation might lead to cure for heart disease, would you support federal funding for that?

I fail to see what supporters of legalized abortion think they have to gain from this sophistry. While classifying oral contraceptives as non-abortifacient may increase their popularity, doing so also has the effect of reducing the support for other abortions. By not including the most popular forms of abortion under the term "abortion," they are redefining the word "abortion" to mean only relatively unpopular forms of abortion.

In other words, if we tell the 80-90 percent of American women who have used oral contraceptives that they may have aborted their child, those women will tend to be less likely to identify with the pro-life movement.

(By the way, I got the 80 percent figure from the website of a company that sells oral contraceptives. The 90 percent figure was also obtained on the internet somewhere. Neither source seemed indisputable.)

No. While I do not believe that human life begins at conception, I do believe that the embryo is a human being that will have a life in the future. Thus, conducting research on such an entity would be similar to conducting research on the dead body of a human being who- while still living- did not consent to donating his or her body to medical research. I think people should be granted a right to bodily autonomy, even before or after life.

At a time when the US federal government has 7.6 trillion dollars of debt and is adding half a trillion dollars every year to that debt, we should not be increasing the size of the deficit by spending money on unethical research. If private individuals feel so strongly about it, they can spend their own money on the research.

The supporters of federal funding of stem cell research often destroy their credibility by making manifestly unreasonable claims about its value- like "we have a cure for heart disease, within our reach!"