Embryonic Stem Cell Research
(Top Posts - Science - 040308 to 040508)

- - -

A college student, a young lady, addressed
the following question to Presidential can-
didate Barack Obama at West Chester Uni-
versity, in Pennsylvania, on Chris Mathews'
Hardball show on MSNBC yesterday:

"As a type 1 diabetic I was just wondering
what you're going to do to gain further sup-
port for stem cell research?"

Barack Obama: "The thing is, actually, we
have enough support in the Senate and the
House to pass this bill. George Bush has
vetoed it. Here's what we'll do. We just
need one more vote, and that's the vote of
the President. Since I'll be the President,
we will sign the stem cell research bill."

- - -


As a type 1 diabetic, I was deeply disap-
pointed that George Bush blocked federal
funds going towards further embryonic
stem cell research at an arbitrary point
almost -7- years ago.

I am encouraged that the likely Democratic
candidate for President made the above
comments regarding stem cell research

Here are some links to some posts I made
on the matter back before and after Bush
blocked federal participation in further
embryonic stem cell research past an arbi-
trary point:

Stem Cell Bill to Wait a Year
October 24, 2000

Stem Cell Research -- Comprehensive Report
July 31, 2001

Israeli Teams Grows Heart Cells and
Insulin Producing Cells From Human
Embryonic Stem Cells
August 1, 2001

Typical Political Machinations ...
August 9, 2001

Type 1 Diabetic Pro-Humanist Responds to
Bush Stem Cell Decision
August 10, 2001

Type 1 Diabetic Pro-Humanist Responds to
Bush Stem Cell Decision, Part 2
August 12, 2001

The end (promoting god/faith/religion) does
not justify the means (lip service to embryos)
August 14, 2001

A search for the meaning of life
August 18, 2001

Dog Days for God (religious violence,
stem cell decision)
August 22, 2001

Enlightenment - Stem Cell
Research - Wide Range of Views ...
August 24, 2001

Protest of Federal Research Blocks on Stem Cell Research
and other news
September 1, 2001

- - -

Further posts on the matter:

Stem Cells: New Horizons, New Challenges
and other news
September 18, 2001

US Government $$$ Needed for Stem Cell Research
and other news
September 26, 2001

Stem Cell Showstopper,
Without Cloning They Aren't Likely to Work
and other news
November 18, 2001

First Human Cloned Embryo
and other news
November 24, 2001

Advance in Curing Human Diseases
and Prolonging Human Life
and other news
November 25, 2001

Cloning Ban?
Scientists Use 'Virgin Birth' Technique
and other news
November 26, 2001

Therapeutic Cloning Ethics
and other news
November 28, 2001

Bush Anti-Cloning Klutziness
and other news
November 29, 2001

Breakthrough for Stem Cell Research
and other news
November 30, 2001

Bush's Stacked Deck Bioethics Council
and other news
January 16-18, 2002

Some news on stem cell research and
other issues
January 24-31, 2002

Reeve Hopes for Stem Cell Cure
and other news
February 19-24, 2002

God versus the Pope (embryos and
stem cell research)
January 10, 2005

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Support from
Europe, China, South Korea, California, JDRF
February 25, 2005

Poll -- Stem Cell Use Gains Support
May 24, 2005

The Pro-Cure Movement
June 1, 2005

Progress on Potential Stem Cell Treatments / Cures
February 12, 2008
- - -

Someone wrote:

> Yes, I'm sure it's all just a matter of health...

Many support embryonic stem cell research,
even though opposition by the religious right
and the head of the catholic church is present.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research
include many Republicans, many christians,
and many others. Recent polling indicates a
majority of Americans support embryonic
stem cell research.

In my view, the blocking of federal support
for embryonic stem cell research, in 2001,
was/is an immoral stance, and did absolutely
nothing to spare embryoes from either termin-
ation in an effort to impregnate a woman, or
from termination due to the decision of the
owner(s) of the embryoes at issue.

So, while you and those like you dictate to
the majority how federal money and embryoes
cannot be used to further research into cures
for diseases, and millions upon millions suf-
fer due to the handicap inflicted on the entire
country by the religious right (and the head of
the catholic church), and billions of sperm
and eggs (both fertilized and unfertilized) fail
to become humans due to the manner in which
nature (or a supposed God in the case of be-
lievers) operates, and countless numbers are
born with birth defects and die prematurely
due to diseases ...

... I trust that when you look at yourself in
the mirror, and pat yourself on the back for
furthering an anti-human stance that saves
NO embryoes, you'll realize that the conse-
quences of your stance is ...

... well, in your case, you'll pretend that you
have the upper hand on issues of morality,
and you'll dismiss the consequences as
irrelevant -or- of lower moral standing
than is your opinion regarding embryo

- - -

Someone wrote:

> Links are not support, make an *argument*. Creating human
> life in order to consume it to benefit the living is reprehensible.
> Debate that. If you can.

Your statement is directed at intent. In
fertilization clinics, the intent is to birth
life, but in that intent, many embryoes
are terminated in an effort to yield a
successful pregancy, and many embryoes
are in the deep-freeze, never to be im-
planted, and many embryoes, once a
successful pregancy occurrs, are ter-
minated due to the decision by the
parties who contributed to the crea-
tion of the embryoes.

As to the decision of some to allow
their unused embryoes to, rather than
being discarded -or- left in permanent
deep-freeze, to be used for embryonic
stem cell research (across the world
-and- by some non-federal entities, like
the state of California, in America) to
contribute to understanding, knowledge,
and potentially to solving some of the
most horrific maladies which adversely
impact birthed human life?

Obviously, the most pro-human stance
to adopt is *not* permanent deep-freeze,
is *not* discarding, but instead, is the
path iterated for research above, in my
opinion, within ethical boundaries (and
we can discuss those ethical boundaries
if you wish, though those exceed the 'no
research at all' parameter which you
are presently bound by).

But, opinions differ, on this matter and
on many others, among the religious,
and among those apart from religion.

- - -

Human life. Over 6.6 billion of us on
the planet, presently. About 700,000
newly birthed humans every couple of
days. To put that into perspective, the
number of non-human great apes on the
planet, total? About 700,000.

End Aside
- - -

Human life, beginning. Here's a view
from a religious perspective:

- - -
The beginning of human life in the Bible
Human Quest,  May/Jun 2000  by Baughman, Charles W
- - -


... I believe this look at when human life
begins in the Bible demonstrates that, in
the early life of Israel and even later
Judaism, they believed that life entered
the child when it was born and became
a living, breathing being. While many
Roman Catholics have claimed for a
long time that human life begins at con-
ception, only recently has this position
been adopted by some Protestants,
clearly it conflicts with the Biblical

- - - end excerpt - - -


Upon this understanding, religious indi-
viduals are clearly faced with a paradox.

-If- the Bible is inspired by -or- the words
of God, then why is the position in the
Bible so far removed from a definition
of life even remotely close to conception,
what with so many in the religious com-
munity being told, by assorted religious
leaders, that that's the position of God

Put another way, who in the religious
community wishes to act in the manner
that the original Bible writers did, and
speak for God today? If someone does,
by what method would the Bible get
updated and by what method would
the religious ascertain the legitimacy
of the Bible update?

You, for example, might want the Bible
to include writings specifying conception
as the beginning of life, but many in the
religious community would want the
original writings of the ancients to pre-
vail. Who would win, and who would
dare (today) to try to update ancient liter-

Once that decision was made, where would
one stop? Would one want to remove a lot
of the ancient anti-humanism from the Bible,
putting a more modern pro-loving God focus
into it? After all, if one adopts the position
of anti-abortionists, if one sanctifies the
embryo, what would the Biblical passages
be updated to say about all the embryoes
that fail to implant, all the miscarriages,
all the birth defects and early death? Would
the new writings blame that on humans, or
would they say it's the will of God, a pun-
ishment for human sin, or would they assert
God plays no role in that?

Difficult questions for the religious to address,
whether they decide to update the Bible, or
simply continue to try to spin it in a manner
that fits into their political and social and
religious leanings, as has been the case since
all the interpolations and changes were made
to the long-lost original versions long ago.

- - -