There is some talk about whether Kansas should consider a constitutional amendment to protect stem-cell research, as Missouri voters approved last week. Don’t bother. Unlike in Missouri, a constitutional amendment in Kansas has to receive two-thirds approval in the Legislature — and that’s not going to happen.
Rather than passing yet another amendment to our constitution, voters should make clear to the Legislature that they don’t want undue restrictions on stem-cell research. A poll commissioned last year by the Kansas Coalition for Lifesaving Cures found that 79 percent of voters agreed the state policy should be that “any stem-cell research, therapies or cures that are permitted by federal law should be allowed in Kansas — provided that such activities are conducted ethically and safely and do not involve human cloning to create babies.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
96 Comments
While this would be a laudable objective, so would a const. amendment to dissolve the Kansas Board of Education. But you are correct that the votes aren’t there – just like the votes aren’t there to change the way we select Kansas Supreme Ct. justices. So lets end this stupid discussion, and start worrying about increasing support for our colleges, rebuilding our colleges, increasing accessibility to quality health care, and promoting a flourishing Kansas economy. These are objectives that are worth our time and effort, and for which the votes might be mustered.
Fred Steeper, the republican pollster who did the Kansas Coalition for Livesaving Cures stem cell research also did this poll for Ken Mehlmen on what issues would get out the base for Repubs:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060809/RNC_memo.pdf
In retrospect that strategy didn’t work too well. Makes ya almost wonder about how good this Kansas poll was.
If Karl Rove was reading polls like the above link, no wonder he messed up so badly.
As usual, because we are Kansans,we are doomed to sit out on new, innovative ANYTHING.The only thing we seem to be progressive in is bigotry.
Tracy,
Since you find Kansas so “bigoted”, why don’t you bug off to haiti or jew york shitty or somwhere more “comsmopolitan” and “enlightened”?
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Stephen,Streeper’s poll was accurate, it got the Republican base to the polls. It didn’t ask the question about what those issues would do to independent voters. The GOP lost on Tuesday because Independents flocked away from the party.
For a renowned GOP pollster to do a poll showing an issue (stem cells/cloning) cuts so badly against the GOP base just lends it credibility in my estimation.
Ian, you and yours are the ones that are damned unamerican.Go back to cuba you halfbreed whiner.
Why do we even need a constitutional amendment, can’t we just pass a normal law saying we can do it?
Why do we have to always be changing the constitution? The constitution should be basic about our civil rights and not about the politics of the day.
just so nobody misunderstands, I am talking about the kansas constitution
Yeah mom.Where in our state constitution does it say we can’t do this research?
Actually, whether we do stem cell research shouldn’t even be a question, given the possible benefits, as well as contributing to our knowledge base. We need this done, and with all possible speed!
First of all everyone remember we are talking about Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Adult stem cells have been used for decades with real success, and still showing the most promise for finding real cures. And what do you know, it’s all be funded by the private sector. The only way Embryonic Stem Cell research can continue down it’s pseudo path is by way of government funding because not many in the private sector see “promise” in this science. So it’s had come to this, another political debate brought on by the immoral left. But maybe just maybe the private sector and the good people of Kansas also realize the moral and ethical delima that science and theology recognize, that human life begins at conception. Only twisted philosophy can support the idea that trading one life for the betterment of another is in any way okay. They are our children people.
“jew york shitty”
Ian Santiago, you have some serious issues to address. I would recommend a long stay in an approriate sanitarium. Your racist, anti-semitic attitudes are disgusting to virtually any responsible person.
Yes, I realize that your next post will be a threat of some kind, addressing me as a #%$^ or a @#%&.
Bring it on.
I’m rather curious. Since the anti-stem cell research, pro-disease people think cells in a petri dish have a soul what happens when the cells, if they were allowed to continue to develop, break off into two separate embryos. Do they only have a half a soul each? Or if they happen to recombine back into one embryo, which occasionally happens, does the embryo have two souls?
I figured I could have looked this up in the Creation Science Library of Documented Scientific Research, but it doesn’t appear to exist.
Good points, pollster. On second thought, I would have to agree with you.
Ian’s language is way off the mark but his sentiment is on target. Why would someone stay in Kansas when they so obviously want to be elsewhere like Tracy. Life’s short – Why do educated people not look at both sides of an issue instead of only the one presented by their new pusher of choice. Stem cell research is alive and well in Kansas – adult stem cell research that is. Many researchers feel that more progress has been made in this area. Look it up yourself. Private dollars are paying for it. Those hated pharmacy companies are once again looking for a cure that will increase their bottom line AND bring either a cure or relief from diseases with no cure. This is private funding – not government dollars.
Keith.Define “point of conception”.And then we’ll talk.The actual point of conception is quite fuzzy and open to different scientific opinions.If you study science you know what I mean.If you don’t study science and only go by religious views, then let’s talk about the soul, like Doug mentions.BTW, the right have proven once again that the left IS the “moral party”.
I have these sites bookmarked and have used them often to counter the bogus adult vs. embryonic stem cell arguments that so many feel compelled to make:
http://www.stowers-institute.org/WhatsNew/pr2006/PR071406.asp
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/313/5786/439b.pdf?ijkey=R7itotoH.21cU&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
If you are interested in the nature of the poll which asked questions on behalf of the Kansas Coalition for Livesaving Cures, you can get that info here:
http://www.kansascures.com/documents/rel_010506.pdf
http://www.kansascures.com/documents/Topline_Jan_06.pdf
http://www.kansascures.com/documents/Survey_Memo_Jan_2006.pdf
For those of you interested in rational information on the subject. All others should scroll by so that your head might be safe from explosion.
ksgrm, I love Kansas.It’s bigots like Ian that spoil our great state for normal reasonable people.You mean you identify more with Ian’s views than mine?
Ian is aggressive stupidity.
Thank you Steven.Read from the experts.Not the “immoral left”.
To those who oppose stem cell research I ponder this. If your child was dying because of an illness that could possibly be cured by stem cell research would you think his or her life is less valuable than a bunch of cells in cold storage at a fertility clinic that will be dumped in the garbage the next day?
What would you say to your daughter that is sitting on her death bed? “Sorry dear, you’re going to have to die because a blastocyst in a petri dish is more valuable to me than you are.”
Doug,
At what point does the soul enter into the body in your opinion?
Well spoken, Doug. The time has long since passed for us to address the issues of the already living istead of fixating on the “pre-born.”
I liken the issue of stem cells to organ donation – when I die, should my entire body be buried (trashed) or should my organs be harvested for the good of others.
Without using them for research, the zygotes will be unceremonially consigned to the trash bin.
Trash v. research seems to be a no-brainer.
The issue of when the soul enters the body was one which caused early theologians concern. It was either Aquinas or Augustine (shoulda paid more attention in Western Civ) who determined the soul was present at the time of “quickening”, set at 30 days for males, 45 days for females, IIRC.
Sam, with Doug’s example does it matter when?Not to me, and yes they are going to trash this microscopic ball of cells.Ya’ wanna be the moral majority?Help us save millions of children worldwide who are starving as we type.
VT, how would one measure and report such an event?
In the days of Augustine, any baby not baptised who dies, also goes to hell.
Tracy, thus the issue for miscarriages that Augustine tried to tackle, IMHO.
Tracy…
Yes, it does matter.. because I think Doug is just baiting Christians. I think he probably doesn’t even believe in souls. So why, other than to start an argument, would he ask religious questions expecting scientific answers. He doesn’t believe in the Bible.. so why does he care about souls?
As for your starving children.. I have my adopted ones… not to mention there plenty of hungry people right here in Doo-Dah!!
Sam, it’s obvious what my choice would be, and in my opinion it is the moral thing to do.The frozen blastocysts are being discarded.They should be used and funded in govt research as quickly as possible.That is my valid mainstream christian view. No bait. No BS.
It’s the pro-disease, pro-paralysis, anti-science people who are holding up research because they believe cells have souls so it’s up to them to support their position, it isn’t up to me to argue on their behalf. So kansassam, if this is what you believe then you support your position.
Or will my asking for evidence produce the same silence as my asking for the evidence for creationism?
“Ya’ wanna be the moral majority?Help us save millions of children worldwide who are starving as we type.”
C’mon Tracy, do you mean like sending millions in aid like the Christian Children’s Fund or Larry Jone’s “Feed the Children”, or other Christian groups doing it all over the globe? Jeesh.
Some folks act like government sponsored fetal stem cell research is the magic bullet to cure all diseases. There is fetal stem cell research going on. There is also adult stem cell research ongoing that has produced real results. Let’s see the progress made with what is available. If it is promising, then wrestle with the very considerable moral implications of killing to save.
Killing what?The blastocysts that are discarded anyway?Sheesh.What’s wrong with charity?I believe Christ would smile upon those groups and their efforts.
Yes Doug.These cells are not thinking conscious beings.
How do you bait a christian?There’s gotta be a good joke in there somewhere.
“If it is promising, then wrestle with the very considerable moral implications of killing to save.”
The people that can best address the debate are those that actually DO the research. The scientific/medical community is universally in favor of stem cell research, feeling that it has the best chance of developing treatment and cures for diabetes, Parkinsons, paralysis and other conditions.
I’ll take their word for it. I do not believe that a reasoned agrument can be made that they have anything other than a professional desire to produce results.
The fact remains that used used cells will be thrown in the trash.
Let’s consider this notion. Modern technology has created more 16-celled blastocysts than naturally-infertile parents can use. They are stored at unnaturally low cryogenic temperatures. Eventually, they will be discarded. Is it morally acceptable to perform research to try to discover uses for them? If we believe, “No,” then we should destroy them when their parents say, “We don’t need them.” Give them a Christian burial if that seems to satisfy parents, but in any case, end their life.
Alternative two, stop in vitro fertilization entirely. Some humans are darwinian “fit” to procreate according to “natural selection”, others not. Maybe human intervention is “unnatural selection”. But if that is true, are conservatives going to stop eating turkies on Thanksgiving, because the ones mass-marketed can no longer mate, or will they stop eating beef that is the product of artificial insemination? Nobody in the Bible practiced artificial insemination.
But then too, nobody in the Bible performed Caesarian sections, without which both fetus-infants and mothers died.
Where do you want to draw the bright line?
IF they want to be consistent in their extreme views, they should be picketing and protesting at fertility clinics as well as abortion clinics.Anything less from these extremists is hypocritical.
Fertility clinics require multiple embryos because the chance of survival is pretty low. Therefore they are created with the intent of being destroyed. The anti-science crowd believes that fertility clinics are the same as orphanages where the blastocysts will eventually be adopted or go on their merry when they turn 18. Kinda like Terri Schiavo would be a Rockette provided she be given another 15 years to recover.
So if the anti-life people have a problem with stem cell research then why are they so silent about fertility clinics? I’m thinking they don’t give much thought to the matter at all but just equate cell with life. Scabs are cells and have DNA too, but we don’t hold funerals for a scab that falls off a person’s knee.
“The people that can best address the debate are those that actually DO the research.”
Ridiculous. Science marches on but it is up to society to place limits on it. Otherwise, we abandon our humanity and our souls.
Heartlander: That post is not your best work. Most of modern life isn’t “in the Bible”.
Your example of two options doesn’t make sense. Some may disagree, but as a Christian, I couldn’t care less about whether animals embryos are created “in vitro”. Or for that matter whether humans embryos are. But there is nothing that makes animal embryos sacred. I believe that human life is and deserves extreme consideration before we embark down the slippery slope.
ANOTHER good point Doug.We poop out more lives cells daily.
For a Christian scientific defense of embyronic research, check out this from leading (Christian) experts:
http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/stemcell3.pdf
outlander, read what christians who know the science say in the link above.
So, outlander, you’re okay with the “trash” option?
What other limits do you want to place on medical science?
Heart transplants?
Brain surgery?
In utero surgery?
Where do we draw the line – science feels that we can make enormous progress with stem cell research – that is a moral choice that I can support.
Sam,If you have to specify a time for the soul to enter the body, what’s wrong with the early christian view that the soul was “inspired” with the baby’s first breath? There’s exactly as much evidence for that view as any other!
Tracy: I think you for that link. An uncommon show of neutrality by you. Kudos.
Tracy’s link is to a lengthy PDF file setting out opinions from a number of PhD’s from several different religions. Most are very thoughtful. Some come down on the side of embryonic stem cell research, some against. The position papers are generally well thought out, but they should be since they are produced by academics.
The bottom line, I think, is that we must carefully consider the implications and alternatives.
Good point Doug! Makes me wonder what’s going to happen when it becomes possible to clone a person from any discarded cell. Are we going to be required to collect all such cells and turn them in for soul recycling? Considering the tens of thousands we each shed daily, that’s a lot of people to compete for our already overburdened resources!
Jed..I really don’t think a soul “enters” the body.. it is a part of the baby at the moment of conception… whenever that is.. I don’t know, God does!
I was just making a point that Doug was making an argument about one or two souls, so I asked him the question. He did not answer because he does not even believe in souls. His only purpose to the question was to make some believer doubt, he was not really looking for an answer because it was a baited question. I called him on it, that’s all.
“I really don’t think a soul “enters” the body.. it is a part of the baby at the moment of conception… whenever that is.. I don’t know, God does!”
That’s your belief and you’re welcome to it, but your belief regarding souls being part of “a baby” since conception should not form the basis of a legally defined restriction on embryonic research.
“I was just making a point that Doug was making an argument about one or two souls, so I asked him the question. He did not answer because he does not even believe in souls.”
How does not believing in souls make Doug’s question illegitimate? Your question in response was irrelevent to Doug’s question, and he does not have to be able to answer it to ask his question. Since the theological belief in the point of conception = ensoulment (however that would happen) does form the basis for at least a substantial portion of opposition to abortion or stem cell research, Doug asks a good question of those who hold to that belief. Indeed, cells and sets of cells divide naturally in the creation of identical twins. Is a new soul created when that happens? How is a soul created or how does it know how to enter one kind of cell and not another?
The ensoulment idea really is problematic even within the realm of those belief systems that assume it to be true. Doug’s question is therefore appropriate.
His only purpose to the question was to make some believer doubt, he was not really looking for an answer because it was a baited question. I called him on it, that’s all.”
So Sam, what is wrong with provoking a believer to critically examine his/her beliefs?
In the days of Augustine, any baby not baptised who dies, also goes to hell.
WRONG!
Augustine claimed that the souls of unbaptized babies go to “limbo” when they die. This has been the Church’s official teaching up until post-Vatican II where the Curia repealed the teaching of unbaptized babies going to “limbo” and more recently repealed the teaching of the very existence of “limbo” itself.
So God’s divine inspired is every changing, is that what you’re saying?
Peemom,I’m not going to let myself be baited by you tonight. Have a nice evening.
Late to this thread.
I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again.
This is a simple “if then”
IF you are against embryonic stem cell research THEN you MUST be against fertility clinics and invitro fertilization. To oppose one and not the other is intellectually dishonest.
I saw NO ONE post here against fertility clinics or invitro fertilization. That makes all arguements here against embryonic stem cell research irrellevant.
That’s right JR. Some of us are against creating multiple embryos for the purpose of invitro. Some of us are also against contraception that hardens the lining of the uterus preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the wall. When Christians are educated to these facts most will accept no compromises.
Not that you care, but God’s word on this is clear.
“For you formed my inward parts. You wove me in my mothers womb. I will give thanks to you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” Psalm 139:13-14
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5
There’s your answers to if an embryo has a soul.
As far as science is concerned, when all the DNA is present to continue a natural, biological process that forms human beings you have a human. Okay so here’s the breakdown: egg + sperm = human. Pretty simple huh?
Use whatever philosophy you’d like to justify it, but the child with the terminal disease referred to earlier that needed these lifesaving miracle embryonic stem cell cures is no more or less a human than this child. There are indeed different stages of human developement, and we choose to draw the line here, before you start asking us to sacrifice our 2 year olds to save an Alzheimers patient from their terrible affliction.
I guess I need a clarification here, Keith, are you REALLY against contraception also? Are you claiming that sex should be for procreation only?
I am not challenging your Christian beliefs, but I find it hard to accept procreation only.
How far are you willing to take this – sperm cells, also? Should masturbation be illegal also?
If so, about 99.99999999% of the male population is in deep trouble.
The other 0.00000000001% is lying.
You get honesty points Keith and no more. Hey take ‘em and run with them if you can. You bested any other anti stem cell research poster on this thread.
Of course, you did not actually ATTACK fertility clinics or invitro. You merely said:
“Some of us are against creating multiple embryos for the purpose of invitro. Some of us are also against contraception that hardens the lining of the uterus preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the wall. When Christians are educated to these facts most will accept no compromises”
This is a vague way of fighting fertility clinics, invitro, AND birth control.
You are honest to a point and so I hate to further bust you up.
BUT
What of tubal pregnancies? What of miscarriages? Are those lost souls? Your answer will be interesting since my ex and I lost a 4 month pregnancy. I am not religious. YOUR take on Gods disposition of MY unborn child?
I don’t mean to be cruel to you. You were more honest than any poster of your side here. But if you presume to have all the answers then you must answer difficult questions.
“That’s right JR. Some of us are against creating multiple embryos for the purpose of invitro. Some of us are also against contraception that hardens the lining of the uterus preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the wall. When Christians are educated to these facts most will accept no compromises.”
I truly doubt that.
“Not that you care, but God’s word on this is clear.
‘For you formed my inward parts. You wove me in my mothers womb. I will give thanks to you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.’ Psalm 139:13-14
‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.’ Jeremiah 1:5″
Really?
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.” — Exodus 21:22-23
“Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD.” — Numbers 3:15-16
According to the two above, God did not equate fetuses the same as born humans, and in the second quote, male infants under a month were not counted as males.
Jeremiah 1:5 could be counted as a claim of divine knowledge of predestination, rather than personhood, but if we are going to use Old Testament passages, frankly they are a piss poor method to determine personhood anyway.
“As far as science is concerned, when all the DNA is present to continue a natural, biological process that forms human beings you have a human. Okay so here’s the breakdown: egg + sperm = human. Pretty simple huh?”
I would say simplistic. By your thinking, the greatest single killer of human beings if the failure of eggs to implant in the uterus. Therefore, WHO and the National Institutes of Health should be providing massive funds for research to save all babies who fail to implant. Funny how I haven’t heard cries from even the most rabid “pro-life” advocates to address this issue.
“Use whatever philosophy you’d like to justify it, but the child with the terminal disease referred to earlier that needed these lifesaving miracle embryonic stem cell cures is no more or less a human than this child. There are indeed different stages of human developement, and we choose to draw the line here, before you start asking us to sacrifice our 2 year olds to save an Alzheimers patient from their terrible affliction.”
Both extremes on the “pro-choice” verses “pro-life” debate suffer from extreme paranoia about the slippery slope. The idea that if cells from a blastocyst are used to perform research into the genetic and cellular bases for development and eventually for treatment for people with neurological diseases, that two year olds might be next is nothing less than absurd. At this point, any cell off of a blastocyst could concievably become a human being if it were allowed to continue to develop and it were implanted. Thus, an early embryo with eight cells could be one child or eight, according to your definition of human. The idea that someone would confuse an embryonic stem cell with a two year old, an infant, or even later term fetus is nt worthy of respect.
JR,
Without going into personal detail myself, I can appreciate your loss. There’s a concept called “Grace” that God extends to those who have not heard his truth. It’s spoken of often in his word. That would, theologically speaking of course, extend to those who are unborn. So you need not worry about the salvation of your little one’s soul.
You’re right to say I did not actually Attack invitro clinics because I believe that their motives are honorable. Any embryos that are given the opportunity to further develope as humans are given the greatest gift of God’s miracle of life. Otherwise any that are not, are not being given the opportunity to fulfill God’s plan for them. It is indeed a dangerous game, playing God, and I pray these doctors reconsider their practice of overshooting the numbers before judgement day.
Let me make it more basic, when all the DNA is present treat the human in it’s earliest stage of development as you would like to be treated in your particular stage of development.
I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I have picked up enough along my journey so far to make a conclusion regarding pre-born life. If you want answers, I would suggest someone much more qualified than myself to answer the difficult ones. This one however is not so difficult.
WSClark,
When you rid the sexual relationship of its intended purpose you develope a serious problem in society that results in the devaluation of all mankind especially in our youngest. When Roe was decided there were many who claimed that Child Abuse numbers would go shooting downward due to unwanted children never having been born, however, we have seen exactly the opposite. Child abuse is out of control. Society must accept that engaging in intercourse results in pregnancy if you want society to value humans born or unborn.
Pleasure is of course a byproduct of the sexual experience, but should never be first and foremost one’s goal or you will continue to see society spiral into disgrace.
I don’t see in my post anywhere that I said I was against all contraception, but there you have it.
And just so that I rack up enough honesty points to get my wife a giant stuffed octopus at the fair:
It’s been the biggest disappointment of the Bush Presidency to the pro-life community that the morning after pill was made available over the counter on his watch. Thanks Mr. Veto the stem cell bill – Make chemical abortion accessible.
“For you formed my inward parts. You wove me in my mothers womb. I will give thanks to you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” Psalm 139:13-14
So humans are woven like a rug? That doesn’t make much sense.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5
Does this apply to blastocysts formed in a petri dish? Keep in mind that the people who wrote the Bible were clueless about human reproduction. They thought women served solely as incubators and the whole human resides in the male sperm. Sperm was referred to as seed which is quite noticable for its metaphor since seeds are planted into a pot in which they grow.
I really suggest that you don’t take the Bible’s position on being factual in matters of reproduction. It can also be noted that 70% of all conceptions are miscarried. If you insist that God knew all these miscarriages then it doesn’t mean that he actually expected them to be carried to term, it’s just your assumption that your god wants every blastocyst to be born.
The point is Doug that you are interfering with God’s will.
God does the forming, weaving, creation, and miracles. Your job is to obey.
ksagnostic,
I think you are misreading Exodus 21. 24-”Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.” Punishment for not causing a miscarriage sounds severe enough. The intent is that if one does cause a miscarriage he be punished as the text continues, “eye for an eye,” as the judges determine.
Secondly, perhaps it was God’s choosing to number them as such because children under a month old were considered still too dependent to be considered anything other than still a part of the mother herself just as the unborn are dependent upon the mother for survival. I’ll get back to you on that.
What we do know however is that God has an intention for those even under a month old, and interfering with his plan is contary to his will. God save those who interfere with his divine plan.
No Keith, you think science is interfering in your will. There are plenty of Christians who have no problem with stem cell research, it only conflicts with your god complex.
Doug,I didn’t see any point to your comment about souls. Now I understand what you were getting at. Your questions were valid, I just misunderstood.. I apologize.
I have not yet developed a strong opinion one way or the other on this issue, so carry on… I’m just listening and learning…
Keith, your judgements and opinions are just that.No need to qoute the bible.Most of us here know the bible quite well.
Outlander, thanks for the compliment. I don’t believe Keith has his Phd in brainiac, maybe we can get him to read from the big boys instead of just bible bloviating.Sheesh, ain’t we had enough of that here over the years?
Keith, check out this link.It couldn’t be any more impartial, and it’s a report to the fed govt.You know, the folks with the money.
http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/stemcell3.pdf
“I think you are misreading Exodus 21. 24-’Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.’ Punishment for not causing a miscarriage sounds severe enough. The intent is that if one does cause a miscarriage he be punished as the text continues, ‘eye for an eye,’ as the judges determine.”
The passage says:”If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, SO THAT HER FRUIT DEPART FROM HER, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”
“So that her fruit depart from her” refers to causing a miscarriage. “Mischief” does not refer to miscarriage, it refers to what might follow the miscarriage.
“Secondly, perhaps it was God’s choosing to number them as such because children under a month old were considered still too dependent to be considered anything other than still a part of the mother herself just as the unborn are dependent upon the mother for survival. I’ll get back to you on that.”
A two month old infant, not to mention a 6 month old infant, etc., is still quite dependent upon his/her mother.
“What we do know however is that God has an intention for those even under a month old, and interfering with his plan is contary to his will. God save those who interfere with his divine plan.”
Just to be clear, “we” know no such thing. Your theology may claim that, but that’s nothing more than your theology. If God is omnipotent and everything goes according to “His” plan, then truly interfering with “God’s” divine plan is impossible. Maybe “God” intends for some people to die of cancer, and yet they are saved by modern medicine. Are they interfering with “God’s” will as well?
ksag, yup.God plans on us murdering these frozen excess blastocysts for the good of all mankind,(instead of murdering these poor innocent blastocysts for the good of the biowaste disposal business),AND we shall gnash our teeth in hell for doing so.For ALL eternity.All according to his pre-ordained plan.Just as it should be.Forever and ever Amen.
So what’s the problem guys?Let’s get on with the research so we can save some lives and then go to hell for it!!No problem.
Tracy,I’d much rather end up in hell for saving people from the horrors of crippling and debilitating illnesses than for throwing away the blastocysts that could have saved them!
Yes Jed.Me too.Hasn’t anybody got common sense when it comes to religion?
JR,”I saw NO ONE post here against fertility clinics or invitro fertilization.”
OK JR, I will! These clinics prey on the vanity of infertile couples.If a child is what you want, why does it matter if it shares part of your DNA or not? There are thousands of children already born in our foster care system that will age out of the system, never knowing what it’s like to have a decent set of parents. Why not open your heart to one of those? Why is it so necessary to bring a new child into the world when there are so many already here that need your love so much?
Uh, Jed, I think maybe that was directed at the extremists from the far right.
Tracy,Yes, it was, but I chose to answer it. My questions were directed toward prospective parents contemplating in vitro, not JR.I too find the RR’s concern for the unborn and their utter disdain for children already here to be the height of hypocracy.
The “slippery slope” is real.
The Sunday Times – BritainThe Sunday Times November 05, 2006
Doctors: let us kill disabled babies
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health CorrespondentONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.
‚”A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it says. “If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”
Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child — but a prominent children’s doctor described it as “social engineering”.
The college called for “active euthanasia” of newborns to be considered as part of an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborn babies. The inquiry is being carried out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
The college’s submission to the inquiry states: “We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns.”
Initially, the inquiry did not address euthanasia of newborns as this is illegal in Britain. The college has succeeded in having it considered. Although it says it is not formally calling for active euthanasia to be introduced, it wants the mercy killing of newborn babies to be debated by society.
The report does not spell out which conditions might justify euthanasia, but in the Netherlands mercy killing is permitted for a range of incurable conditions, including severe spina bifida and the painful skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa.
Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the Dutch national guidelines on euthanasia of newborns, claims British paediatricians perform mercy killings, and says the practice should be open.
Sauer, head of the department of paediatrics at the University Medical Centre Groningen, said: “In England they have exactly the same type of patients as we have here. English neonatologists gave me the indication that this is happening.”
Although euthanasia for severely handicapped newborn babies would prove contentious, some British doctors and ethicists are now in favour. Joy Delhanty, professor of human genetics at University College London, said: “I would support these views. I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are then going to suffer many months or years of very ill health.”
Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, who has admitted hastening the death of two severely handicapped newborn babies when he was a junior doctor in the 1970s, said: “I wouldn’t argue against this.” He spoke of the “pain, distress and discomfort” of severely handicapped babies.
The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said.
Edna Kennedy of Newcastle upon Tyne, whose son suffered epidermolysis bullosa, said: “In extremely controlled circumstances, where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the mother.”
However, John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College London hospital, said: “Intentional killing is not part of medical care.” He added: “The majority of doctors and health professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to whose life is worthwhile.”
If a doctor can decide whether a life is worth living, “it changes medicine into a form of social engineering where the aim is to maximise the benefit for society and minimise those who are perceived as worthless”.
Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said: “If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions it would tell adults with those conditions that they were worth less than other members of society.”
“I too find the RR’s concern for the unborn and their utter disdain for children already here to be the height of hypocracy.”
Now Jed, that’s really not very helpful. It appears easy to reverse that. Let’s try.
“I find the left’s concern for the born and utter disdain for the unborn the height of hypocrisy.”
Well, I don’t think I would ever say that. Of course your proposition that the RR has utter disdain for children is simply BS. But the proposition regarding the left and the unborn has some meat to it.
Outlander, I agree.That’s just not true about disdain for kids.They do care, they are just terribly misguided on the embryonic cell issue.
Outlander, thanks for the compliment. I don’t believe Keith has his Phd in brainiac, maybe we can get him to read from the big boys instead of just bible bloviating.Sheesh, ain’t we had enough of that here over the years?
Personal attacks? Is that what you have to resort to? Your condescending attitude gets you nowhere, and I understand neither does my quoting the bible get me anywhere since you don’t believe it is the inspired word of God. Obviously you haven’t had enough “bloviating.”
I’d much rather end up in hell for saving people from the horrors of crippling and debilitating illnesses than for throwing away the blastocysts that could have saved them!
So be it. God is a God of love and life, not death and destruction of the innocent.
A two month old infant, not to mention a 6 month old infant, etc., is still quite dependent upon his/her mother.
So by your logic we could use two week old infants for nazi experimentation as well.
No Keith, you think science is interfering in your will. There are plenty of Christians who have no problem with stem cell research, it only conflicts with your god complex.
Really? So disregard the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and Evangelical/Born Again church’s. That’s a pretty undeniable block of God fearing Christians.
I was debating the issues. Let’s try and stick to those people. By the way, I think I am the only one on here defending earliest stage humans. So with your 5 to 1 ratio there’s no need to get personal.
Keith,I’ve seen a number of families with disabled children. The results can go either way.If a family isn’t strong, or circumstances and finances aren’t just right, a child that requires 80% of the available attention and resources can destroy the family, and the child.I also know a couple that adopted six special-needs children who are now thriving. Conditions were right, the couple was right, money isn’t a problem, and those kids are loved and cared for!What to do about a severely disabled child is a terrible decision to have to make. Doctors should not be the ones making it. The parents, with the help of counselling, taking into account the medical prognosis, the financial situation, the needs and health of the other family members, should be the ones with the final word.
Out,I’ve seen some of their kids, when they brought them to the clinic to run in the street in front of cars to stop them so their parents could yell at the occupants and stuff tracts in the car windows.Those kids looked half starved, and dressed like they shopped in the dumpster behind the Salvation Army, while their dads wore expensive suits and Rolexes. I’d call that disdain, if not outright neglect!
Are you really defending euthanasia of infants? I must be crazy wasting my time debating stem cell research with those who takes that position.
Yeah well Keith. Sorry there buddy.I’m all debated out.
And you’re right, five to one is probably an accurate assesment of support for the research.
I don’t need you to judge my spiritual beliefs.
Bloviate away!!
Oh Jed, are ya’ talking about the infamous “chick tracts”?
Jed: I see that you haven’t lost your knack for making up a story to fit the situation.
And you’re right, five to one is probably an accurate assesment of support for the research.
Doubtful. You saw the Missouri results. It’s more like 50/50. Same for the S. Dakota initiative. How much does Michael J. Fox charge for appearances, cause Mike Sweeny just isn’t working out for us?
5 to 1 or 70%, whatever.
Study shows strong support for stem cell research – report findings and statistics – Brief Article
A new national survey commissioned by a group supporting stem cell research shows 70% of those questioned supporting the controversial research that scientists believe may lead to the discovery of cures for many deadly diseases. Larry Soler, chairman of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, said the group took a number of steps to keep bias out of the study, including use of an independent surveying firm. He said the sample of 1,010 adults was selected at random. He explained that respondents were asked first if they supported or opposed the research, then were asked their opinion after they were given five arguments in support of the research and five in opposition to it. He noted that the opposition arguments were taken directly from the public pronouncements of groups opposing stem cell research. He said the percentage of those supporting dropped about eight points after the arguments were given.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Nelson PublishingCOPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group
50/50 is not even close to acurate.
I want to get outlander and Keith on record.
The two of you ARE in favor of repealing welfare reform right? I mean if you are not then you are hypocrites.
Tracy,”Oh Jed, are ya’ talking about the infamous “chick tracts”?”Don’t know- I never read them. I was too busy keeping fundys and fundy children out of the driveway.
Out,”Jed: I see that you haven’t lost your knack for making up a story to fit the situation.”Hey man, I was there, and there were plenty of witnesses there too! Sending kids out into the street was a tactic the fundies used often.
A new national survey commissioned by a group supporting stem cell research!
He noted that the opposition arguments were taken directly from the public pronouncements of groups opposing stem cell research. He said the percentage of those supporting dropped about eight points after the arguments were given.
When people are educated to the facts they will change their positions.
1010 people, that’s accurate?
What was the initial question asked before the arguments were made? Do you support finding cures for debilitating diseases using stem cells from non-persons?
An unbiased scientific study, that’s funny.
Look at the initiative results in a swing state like Missouri, well known for an accurate reflection of the nations viewpoint.
Among Keith’s responses to multiple threads was this one: “A two month old infant, not to mention a 6 month old infant, etc., is still quite dependent upon his/her mother.”
Keith’s response: “So by your logic we could use two week old infants for nazi experimentation as well.”
Keith, you’re losing it buddy. You seem to have completely forgotten the context of that statement. It was a reply to your “theory” to explain the passage I quoted from Numbers 3:15-16, which was: “Secondly, perhaps it was God’s choosing to number them as such because children under a month old were considered still too dependent to be considered anything other than still a part of the mother herself just as the unborn are dependent upon the mother for survival.” I was pointing out that that was not a meaningful distinction. Recall that you’re the one who introduced Old Testament Bible verses that purported to show “God’s word” on the matter. I was demonstrating that there were other passages that would lead to very different conclusions as to “God’s word”. But then, “God’s word”, particularly the Old Testament, attributes some pretty loathsome thinking to “God”.
At any rate, your reply about “nazi experimentation”, in addition to being needlessly imflammatory, is also a complete non-sequitur with regards to the context in which the comment was made.
Regarding this comment:
“The ’slippery slope’ is real.”
Recall what I said:
“BOTH extremes on the ‘pro-choice’ verses ‘pro-life’ debate suffer from extreme paranoia about the slippery slope.”
The extremes regarding the slippery slope are responses to concerns regarding the effect that any possible concession might have on the strength of their position.
Pro-choice slippery slope: “Any attempt to restrict access to abortion at any level of development for any reason creates a danger of a wedge that will bring those who are anti-choice that much closer towards their aim to make all abortion and a lot of contraception illegal.”
Therefore: “Women should be able to pursue an abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.
Pro-life slippery slope: “Allowing any abortion for any reason is to allow murder, and if you allow murder of human beings at any time, then those compromises will eventually be used to justify practices like infant euthanasia.”
Therefore: “All abortion is murder.”
I don’t think that allowing embryonic stem cell research results in the kind of thinking that was contained in the article you posted, Keith. The biology of undifferentiated embryos is very, very different from that of the later differentiated embryo, not to mention a full term infant or even a late term fetus. Therefore it is an enormous stretch to claim that stem cell embryonic research or for that matter allowing day after contraception leads to the possibility of infant euthanasia. That being said, I actually do agree with you that allowing late term abortions for reasons of fetal deformity or illness does pose the danger of a slippery slope regarding infant euthanasia, and indeed, even the withholding of treatment for people with developmental disabilities (e.g., the very disturbing Phillip Becker case). I don’t support infant euthanasia and for that matter I do not agree with people having late term abortions because a fetus has a deformity or disability. That being said, having children with severe or profound disabilities often has devastating impacts on families. And there are conditions which are invariably fatal and will result in the very early and painful death of a child. And yes, the amount of resources to care for such persons can be enormous. But, and this is an important but, the fact of the matter is that it is hard to draw a line. One person’s view of a disability as to onerous to live with will be viewed as relatively minor by another person. Furthermore, many of the medical ethicists who have argued for that position forget the very important fact that a person born with a disability or condition is born only knowing life with that condition. For example, my late wife lived with severe arthritis for all of her life. This means that her good days, days where she felt good and strong, were days that most other people would have found excrutiatingly painful. I have and do work with lots of people with severe and even profound developmental disabilities, including those with often severe medical conditions, and yet they have a happy affect and demeanor most of the time. It’s all they know. Therefore, it is very dangerous and in my view wrong for people who are not subject to their experiences to sit in judgement on the quality of their lives.
And yes, the slippery slope can go the other way as well, when anti-abortion fanatics try to put multiple little restrictions on legal abortion relating to consents, “counseling” requirements, etc. with the eventual aim of making the requirements so difficult as to make obtaining a legal abortion or certain forms of contraception a practical impossibility.
The thing about slippery slopes is, however, that the danger of a slippery slope is not necessarily a reason not to do something as it is a reason to procede with caution, and a full awareness and intention to set limits on how far something can go. To me, both the positions that abortions should be completely legal for any reason at any time of development and that all women who discover that they are or might be pregnant should be forced to carry their pregnancies to term are repellant. It is a horrible irony that those who take those sorts of positions do so because of their fear of the slippery slope, and therefore embody the very thinking that leads to a slippery slope.
—–
Agnostic,
You believe embryonic stem cell research is a viable option.
Correct or no?
To justify this position you conclude that the embryo has not reached the status of personhood.
Am I still on point?
When I responded with God’s word on the subject you replied that God considers those under 1 month of age non-persons as well so God would have nothing to say on the subject of protection of the pre-born since he does not consider them persons.
Correct?
So you believe, if there is a God(but probably not), he would not prohibit your position, but also not prohibit the position that any experimentation on non-persons applies to those under one month of age. Unless God prohibits experimentation on non-persons under one month of age, but not pre-born non-persons.
Do you see what I’m getting at?___________________________Even if you do not know God, you have an idea as to the nature of God.
We know that God would not permit experimentation on those who have not reached the age of one month.
If we can agree on that, we can agree that God does not permit experimentation on those who have not reached personhood.
When there is question, it is best to err on the side of life.
Beware of people who profess to know what God “thinks”.
Keith,I find the diversity of christian thinking quite amazing. “When there is question, it is best to err on the side of life.”I also remember the quote from the papal emissary during the seige of a town thought to be protecting Cathars, when the general asked him how they would know the heretics from the innocent townspeople. “Kill them all. God will know his own.”
Now you guys are just being silly. Can anyone stay on the issue?
You go personal again Tracy. All out of issue related objections?
Jed, you silly monster, exactly how long ago was that? Why are you contributing a quote from an individual as Christian theology?
Come on, Keith.I like silly.Be joyful, for joy lets in the light!
Aim at demonstrating happiness.Be joyous in your work and service.Be not so intense, but go happily along the lighted Way.Such is my prayer for you.
“Agnostic,
You believe embryonic stem cell research is a viable option.
Correct or no?”
I wouldn’t use the words “viable option” but yes, I think embryonic stem cell research should be pursued to better understand the mechanisms that turn stem cells into specialized cells.
“To justify this position you conclude that the embryo has not reached the status of personhood.
Am I still on point?”
Yes. As I pointed out previously, an embryo with undifferentiated cells is a potential human being, or under the right cicumstances portential more than one human beings. The stem cells are also potential neurons, glial cells, or other specialized cells. The key word is potential, not actual. And frankly, the vast majority of people in the world, if they think about it at all, are not really of the belief that a fertilized egg or for that matter pre-implanted embryo = a person, because if they did, there would be a huge push for WHO and NIH to be researching the greatest single killer of pre-born (or any kind if you were to look at it that way) human beings, failure to implant into the uterus.
“When I responded with God’s word on the subject you replied that God considers those under 1 month of age non-persons as well so God would have nothing to say on the subject of protection of the pre-born since he does not consider them persons.
Correct?”
Nope. You just veered off point. You used two biblical quotations that you believed constituted “God’s word” on the subject. I responded with two other quotes from the Bible that contradict the claim that God counts embryos as persons. My point was simply that the Bible is an unreliable, often “self” contradicting source when it comes to the subject that believers purport it to be about, “God’s word”. The Bible is almost certainly nothing more or less than a collection of originally oral histories and myths from a Middle Eastern people who developed a distinctive religious tradition. Since the Bible is actually a collection of works relayed by people living in different times and trying to explain different events or stories, coherent theologies built around it tend to be imposed from without rather than from within. I know you don’t believe that Keith, and I am not asking you to believe that, but I see absolutely no evidence to indicate anything different. My intent was not to make claims about what “God” thinks even as a hypothetical.
“So you believe, if there is a God(but probably not), he would not prohibit your position, but also not prohibit the position that any experimentation on non-persons applies to those under one month of age. Unless God prohibits experimentation on non-persons under one month of age, but not pre-born non-persons.
Do you see what I’m getting at?”
I do not worry about the existence of anthropormorphic gods like the god in the Bible, so I don’t worry about what such gods think anymore than I would worry about what Superman or Charlie Brown think about the issue. If a god as an intelligent architect of the universe were to exist, that existence indicates nothing about such a being’s positions on moral issues as percieved by social primates. At any rate, I think that such a hypothetical being is no more likely to be the God of the Bible than “He” is to be Zeus or Isthar. All I have, and frankly regardless of the existence of a god or gods all anyone really has is their own conscience, informed by life experience, beliefs, cultural backgrounds (including theological beliefs and assumptions), the perspectives of others, and hopefully objective as possible information about reality. Some will attribute their beliefs and positions to an agreement with “God’s”, but in the end it is still an internal construct.
To me it is much worse to increase the liklihood of suffering by feeling human beings in the name of protecting undifferentiated embryos as full persons.
“All I have, and frankly regardless of the existence of a god or gods all anyone really has is their own conscience, informed by life experience, beliefs, cultural backgrounds (including theological beliefs and assumptions), the perspectives of others, and hopefully objective as possible information about reality.”
I forgot empathy and expectations regarding fair treatment, which most human beings appear to be predisposed to develop in a nurturing environment.
Iranians at the forefront of stem cell research:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/16/raman.iranstemcell/
In a theocracy, its clerics have determined that human life begins at 3 months gestation, thus clearing the way for embryonic stem cell research, unlike so many countries in the Western world. Need I remind you that Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions, along with Judaism and Chritianity? It is always interesting to me to see how moral issues that seem to paralyze certain religious groups, the roots of their religion being common to another, can be adjudged differently by the other religion sharing the same root.
This should also give us pause, as it appears the Iranians are forging ahead in various scientific venues, including, but not limited to, uranium enrichment, despite outside opposition. I still feel the Iranians are a threat to political stability in that area of the world; reading the article adds to my concerns.
You very site very nice. Thanks owneros. Best.
Hi, there!..ea3b7e10c0b46a22e18fc4690c65ff9f