KANSAS CITY STAR: Where the Bias Never Stops
The KC Star is, in my view, the most biased newspaper in the country in its reporting on the ESCR/human cloning controversy. For example, when the political decision was made by promoters of human cloning research in MO to rename embryonic stem cells "early" stem cells, the paper made the shift without missing a beat. And it continually pimps the Stowers Institute line that unless Missouri whole-heartedly supports its desire to engage in human cloning research, why scientists will refuse to work for Stowers and the biotechnology industry will leave the state--never mind that most biotech is not controversial and doesn't involve cloning or embryonic stem cells.
Well, the paper has done it again in this whining editorial about how the "uncertainty" caused by continued resistance in MO to human cloning research is making life tough for Stowers. From the tale of woe:
Poor Stowers Institute. Here, Mr. Stowers buys his own constitutional amendment to the tune of $35 million, which pays for a thoroughly deceptive and dishonest campaign that, among other wrongs, misled the people by claiming to outlaw human cloning when it explicitly legalized it--all abetted by the in-the-tank Star--while threatening to take his Institute somewhere else if he didn't get his way. Yet, despite a 10-1 financial advantage, the blackmail, the media pimping, and the lies, Amendment A barely passed and the Star is upset that opponents don't just roll over and play dead. And note the new tantrum: Either MO citizens bend their necks to our will or we won't build the new facility. ("Stowers Puts Expansion Plans on Hold.")Continued opposition in Missouri to a promising form of stem-cell research [BIAS ALERT: actually, human cloning] is causing medical researchers to view the state as unfriendly. Leading scientists who work with embryonic stem cells have declined offers to bring their work to a second Stowers facility, saying they can't risk the political uncertainty.
The news would be much worse if the institute had decided to establish a second campus in a state, such as California, that encourages cutting-edge medical research. Kansas City can ill afford to squander its best opportunity for scientific excellence. Jim and Virginia Stowers, fortunately, remain committed to Kansas City. The institute announced Thursday that it has acquired a large tract of land in Kansas City. Plans for the property will be firmed up when Missouri's political climate becomes more settled. The sooner that happens, the better. It's shameful that a facility with a humanitarian mission and superb scientific talent should continually be placed on the defensive.
Can you imagine if a tobacco or oil company executive acted with such hubris and sense of entitlement? The KC Star editors would be having conniptions. Well, that's democracy, Mr. Stowers and Star editorial board. There's plenty of non controversial work for the Institute to accomplish, a few of which are mentioned in the editorial. The price of insisting on one's own way through a deceptive campaign about morally contentious ethical issue is more contention. Live with it.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:27 AM
87 Comments
87 Comments:
You throw out the word human cloning a lot here. Set me correct if I'm wrong, but isn't it a fact that no human has ever been cloned?
I think if you actually asked the scientists they would say they are cloning stem cells, not humans. The fact is the amemdment bans any implantation, which bans all attempts at creaing a baby from cloning.
You consider a cell not made of sperm and egg to be a human- SCNT is not using fertizlized eggs yet you call them humans. You consider something regnererated in a petri dish to have more rights than those of us alive who wish that have a choice about our medicine. That in itself seems biased.
The Bible tells us life begins with blood. Read Levitcus 17:14. There is no blood in stem cells, they are not humans in my opinion. You have yours, let me have mine, without your restrictions. This is America.
Dark: Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the clonign technique in question here. It is the process known as human cloning. Since the American people oppose human cloning for any purpose, the propaganda campaign run by Big Biotech has redefined the term. That was a big issue in the recent MO campaign.
The Bible says what it says. But if human cloned embryos are ever created, they would be just as fully human from a biological standpoint as those made through fertilization. Dolly the sheep was just as much a sheep as other sheep.
You are right, this is America. We decide, not you and not me. It is called democracy.
Where do the stem cells come from?
Also, why, in all of this discussion about stem cell research, is adult stem cell research rarely, if ever, discussed? Personally, I think the answer is that ESCR is directly linked to abortion, but that's another discussion.
We're promised the world if we get money for ESCR, yet from what I read, there are actuall successes using the non-controversial adult stem cells.
Maybe if Stowers would gear his research toward that, he would have a little less controversy.
Steve: Embryonic stem cells come from destroying embryos and deriving stem cell lines. In "therapeutic cloning," which is the term sometimes used for the research Stowers wants to pursue, in theory--it hasn't been done successfully yet--biotechnologists manufacture an embryo through SCNT. The embryo is allowed to develop for about one week. Then, it is destroyed, as in conventional ESCR, and its stem cells derived for use in research or, again in theory, therapies.
For more, check out my CONSUMER'S GUIDE TO A BRAVE NEW WORLD, or do a site search about Amendment 2. Also, check out my articles archive.
SCNT is a process of fusing a skin cell and an enucleated egg to regenerate early stem cells. Scientists do not call this human cloning. Only fundamentalist lifers use the term human cloning to try and paint a picture of babies being murdered. This is not the view point of the top scientist doing the work to help relieve human suffering.
And if you choose to ignore what the Bible says about when life begins, then what do you base your moral authority on?
You call this a democracy process, yet you can't accept the will of the voters that passed Amendement 2 in the last election? and you call the Star biased?
Stowers is using ASCR in its research. It also wants to use ESCR. Moral crusaders like yourself think they can decide for scientist what science they should persue. Its a very arrrogant and ignorant position to assume you know more about the methods of discovery than the top experts in the field.
And note the new tantrum: Either MO citizens bend their necks to our will or we won't build the new facility.
Are you kidding me? Your kind is driving the top scientists in the world and the biosciences industry out of Missouri. The fact is that the premier scientist in ESCR is being funded by Stowers at Harvard because they refuse to come to Missouri because of people like you.
Im sure your happy about that, but what your also doing is driving away hope and innovation from the state. You call it a tantrum because scientist don't want to come to a state where the legistlature repeatidly tries to make criminals out of researchers?
This is not an issue of money as your side decieves people. Stowers has billions of dollars to operate.
The primary reason Amendment 2 was passed was because Senator Matt Barthole and the like spent the last 6 years tring to pass legistlation to jail scientist for doing ESCR research. You and his kind create a hostile environment in Missouri and then claim were throwing tantrums when they decide not to invest in out state? Grow up.
As defined in the Webster Dictionary
Embryo -b. an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception.
hmmm, this says especially from the time of implantation, so if you use the dictionary to define words, which I often do, it seems the term embryo is not accurate to describe what these early stem cells are.
Leviticus 17:14 For Blood is the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof:
No Implantation = No Blood
No Blood = No Human
Dark: Junk biology is not looked kindly upon here. The product of SCNT, if it works, is a human embryo. SCNT does not create ES cells. It creates an embryo. ES cells, in theory, could be obtained from that cloned embryo if it were able to be developed to the blastocyst stage, which has yet to be done successfully. Don't believe me? Do a search on this site or elsewhere. James Thomson agrees that SCNT creates an embryo. He first derived human ES cells. So did President Clinton's bioethics panel, President Bush's bioethics panel, early descriptions by the NAS, etc. Definitions have been changed in some quarters to accomplish a political goal, which is to corrupt science.
Leviticus is inaccurate biology. Sorry. Indeed, the mother's blood never touches the embryo/fetus. He or she develops their own. So would a cloned embryo or fetus allowed to gestate.
As to the moral value of early human organisms, that is not something science can determined. That is where philosophy, religion, ethics, morality, etc. come in.
Dark: The legislation that sought to ban human cloning, that is SCNT, would not have banned ESCR. The two are not synonyms.
Steve, all the work on human ESCR so far has used embryos left over from IVF.
I agree with Dark that a cloned embryo is not a human. It is "human" but it isn't "a human", and allowing it to grow into an independent living being would be inhumane.
Wesley, if someone created a human embryo through cloning, would you feel that it should be implanted? I think given how close they are to someone actually doing that, we need to make sure the ethical message doesn't accidentally morph into pro-human cloning.
So you don't rely on the dictionary to define words, and you define the Bible as inaccurate in terms of moral Biology.
From these premise I can already tell that you and I will not agree on how to frame the argument.
Junk Biology? You are unclear about what you are you referring to.
SCNT does not create a human blastocyst in the way that fertilizatin does, in that there are basic molecular differences in the cells being generated. Fertilized eggs and SCNT do not create the same organic charictaristiscs for development.
Do they both have potential? Yes, but so does every cell in the body! It doesn't mean every time I slough off skin cells I'm killing babies because my skin cell has the potential to be cloned.
DNA methylation and histone acetylation are key players in epigenetic modification and display marked variability during embryonic development. Scientist must coax the cells along to achieve an organism that is capable of producing ESC for research. This can also be tried for reproduction were it not outlawed by Amendment 2 which does ban Human Cloning.
Furthermore, no human has been cloned. Ever. Yet you feel that life is created even if it doesnt have the potential to been born.
Christians must be careful not to react indiscriminately against new genetic possibilities, but rather to consider
each innovation on its own merits. Christians have much to contribute to the meaningful dialogue about the
interface between faith and genetic science. For this dialogue to be meaningful, Christians must face several
challenges. The first challenge is to become informed. Proverb 19:2 warns against having zeal without knowledge."
Dark writes:
Leviticus 17:14 For Blood is the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof:
No Implantation = No Blood
No Blood = No Human
Shallow proof-texting like this does nothing to support your claim -- it merely demonstrates your lack of seriousness. If you want to make a religious argument, you will need to show how this has been the historic Jewish/Christian understanding of the subject rather than something that popped into your head on a casual reading.
There is no blood in stem cells, they are not humans in my opinion.
No one here is claiming that stem cells are human beings.
Dark writes:
Do they both have potential? Yes, but so does every cell in the body! It doesn't mean every time I slough off skin cells I'm killing babies because my skin cell has the potential to be cloned.
You are being extremely sloppy in your use of "potential". The potential of a skin cell is totally different from that of a fetilized egg. A fertilized egg is a physically and genetically distinct organism, designed to have an independent life and develop into a fully grown adult human. A skin cell is a constituent of your physical structure that, without removal and extreme artificial manipulation of certain of its parts, will never have the innate potential of the fertilized egg.
In your scheme of things, a doughnut would be a "potential" human being too because if I were to eat one, it would become part of cells in my body that could potentially be manipulated through extreme means into cloned humans.
Bernhardt,
I am not being sloppy, in fact I am not talking about fertilized eggs at all in this case. We are discussing SCNT. A process that uses skin cells to regenerate early stem cells. these cells can regenterate any types of cells in the body, and scientist hold promise that they provide the key to unlock cures for a variety of diseases.
There is no sperm involved, there is no fertilized egg involved. Yet many claim this process is killing babies.
I disagree. This is progress that some people feel the need to impeed because they feel their moral judement should trump the free will of others judgement.
You lost me with your donut logic, but I am hungry now..
And to anticipate a counter-argument, an SCNT blastocyst is functionally identical to a fertilized egg in the above argument.
Shallow proof-texting like this does nothing to support your claim -- it merely demonstrates your lack of seriousness.
Hey I'm providing scripture to provide basis for my moral descisions. You may not take that seriously, but I do. You want a historical analysis from the pope and a Rabbi on the effets of blood to validate my point?
Sorry, you cant put those resources into a text box, but suffice to say the Bible didn't just "pop in my head on a casual reading." Those are gods words, not mine. here are some more:
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
again in Genesis 9:4
"you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood"
And again in Deuteronomy 12:23, "the blood is the life."
blood is often reffered to as the connection between flesh and soul. It is the gift of life.
When those who take communion they drink of the "blood of Christ" in order to attain "everlasting life"
Blood and life are thouroughly interwined many time sin the Bible and fits in perfectly will with this discussion.
and when communion
Looks like our comments crossed in transit. You are wrong in your definition of SCNT. It creates the functional equivalent of a fertilized ovum, even though no sperm was involved. It is, after all, the technique that resulted in Dolly the Sheep.
My point about the doughnut is that something that can contribute a part to a human being is not therefore itself a "potential human". A skin cell would simply have its DNA removed and used separately in SCNT, so it contributes, but does not in itself have the potential to become a human being. It's like saying a doughnut that a father's body ate and converted in part to a sperm cell that in turn fertilized an egg is a "potential human".
That is to say that if blood is not present in an organism, it does not have life.
There is no blood in the early stem cells that scientist use for research.
I am comfortable as a Christian to say that the Bible confirms these are not human beings. They are a group of undifferentiated cells that individuals can regenerate to cure themselves.
Also the statement an SCNT blastocyst is functionally identical to a fertilized egg..
is false. they are not identical organisms. Have you ever heard of a human actually being cloned? No! why, because there are distince differences in the molecular structure of the organinsms. Attempts to reproductively clone humans hae occured in other countries and all have failed. If they were identical that would not be the case.
Dark, simply pointing out that the Bible intertwines blood and life is very different from showing that it claims life derives solely from blood. There are many creatures in the world that don't have blood -- does that mean they are not alive?
they are not identical organisms. Have you ever heard of a human actually being cloned? No! why, because there are distince differences in the molecular structure of the organinsms.
But Dolly was the result of SCNT cloning. Would you actually claim that the technique works with sheep, but is impossible with humans?
Dark: Your science is appalling, and you give away the store with the use of the unscientific term, "early stem cell."
Beyond that, ES cells have not yet been shown to become any cell in the body--except in living embryos. To date it is entirely theoretical, hence, it is incorrect to make such blanket assertive statements.
When dolly the sheep was cloned it took hundreds to thousands of attempts to coax the DNA sequences to progress with to a mutagentic agent applied by scientist during the process using external promoters and protiens.
In other words, this isn't a natural process for creating children and it never has created children.
Dolly existed because science helped develop her every step of the way, something that will not be allowed to happen thanks to the passage of Amendment 2 which prohibits reproductive cloning but allows for scientific research on early stem cells..
time for a donut..
This comment has been removed by the author.
There are many creatures in the world that don't have blood -- does that mean they are not alive?
The Bible makes a distinction between the animals and humans in terms of "Life".
Humans are ensouled. The human soul is also interwined with the references to blood many times.
So while bugs are "alive" they donot have "souls" or the life force that makes humanity precious in Gods eyes.
To mix Bible verses and biological science is to confuse categories. If I am talking science, and you are talking Bible verses, we are not going to have a common vocabulary. I won't argue with your religious beliefs, but if you insist on using them as your only point of reference, you are going to isolate yourself.
In any case, a human being in its earliest embryonic stage of development (implanted in a womb or no) has yet to differentiate to the point where it produces blood cells. (The production of blood comes a little after the formation of the mesoderm at 19 days.) Yet it remains an individual human being; if it was not an individual human being on day 19, how could it become one on day 20? It's a logical impossibility. Furthermore, SCNT creates an individual human being, yes, without sperm, but definitely with an egg; a human being who could be implanted into a womb or pulled to bits in a laboratory.
One more time, and then let's stop arguing about facts: SCNT is the same thing as cloning. It creates an individual human being. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research lie to you. They tell you it is not cloning. They tell you it makes "early stem cells," when in fact these stem cells are taken from the embryo when it is destroyed. If you are against abortion, it is logically inconsistent to be for any research that destroys embryos.
Now, the new process that, as you say, "uses skin cells" is still in its infancy. As Wesley noted in a post last month, it's been done only in mice so far, but yes, it does appear that it produces stem cells much like the embryonic ones. That process, which is NOT Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, does not destroy embryos -- in that, and pretty much only that, you have your facts straight.
See http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/new-way-to-make-embryonic-stem-cells-from-skin/2007/06/07/1181089202661.html for info on the skin cell process. It's interesting stuff.
Your science is appalling, and you give away the store with the use of the unscientific term, "early stem cell."
Looks like scientists being published in Nature are using the term too, but what do these guys know about science right?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1972777
I think your science is appaling when fundies state that creating SCNT cells is "killing babies", which is far more insideous and misleading.
Again refer to your dictionary for a description of the term embryo and you will see that it especially excludes ESC as part of the embyro.
It says "early stem cells and germ cells of the mammalian embryo." There's no attempt to hide the fact that these are embryonic cells -- which is what the term "early stem cells" is usually used to accomplish.
Gregory
Well we are talking two things at once here. I was talking science and they were talking morals, so to reach out and meet them we must explain the moral justification for science.
So I provided the moral authority of the Bible.
Funny thing is when the Bible doesn't support the "moral right to life" opinion they dismiss the Scripture as "proof-texting"
Call the cells what you want, but they are not little babies according to Scripture I've read.
I choose to call them Early Stem Cells because its more accurate of what they actually are.
Again read the definition in the dictionary.
Alas, Dark is an example of the pernicious effect of post modernism in today's society. Facts don't matter, in this case, the basic biology that any embryology text book can tell you, e.g. embryos are fully human organisms before they create blood for themselves during gestation. What matters is narratives, e.g., I want ESCR, and so I will pretend that it does not involve the destruction of human organisms.
The biology is clear. The moral meaning of early embryos is not a scientific issue. If Dark wants to believe, based apparently on his religious beliefs (although I suspect he is not who he claims to be) that an embryo has no moral value because it does not yet have blood and thus has no soul, he is free to do so. But it is not a scientific belief, it is a religious belief or moral belief.
It is junk biology to assert that scientifically, an early embryo is not a human organism, whether created through fertilization or SCNT.
Dark: Your use of the word "fundies" gives you away. Tsk. Tsk.
The thing is, Dark, you can't use the Bible to make a scientific claim. Try sending your comments to Nature; they'll chuck them in the trash. Use plain logic and reasoning as the basis for your arguments; if you can somehow prove that a human embryo is not a human being, then you will be entitled to your opinion that ESCR does not destroy a human being. Until then, you will be in a state of denial.
And using silly terms like "little babies" doesn't help your argument either. We're talking about embryos, which is what all little babies were at some point; as were any and all human beings ever to have existed. Using emotive terms is just a way to confuse the issue.
One more time, and then let's stop arguing about facts: SCNT is the same thing as cloning. It creates an individual human being.
Fact:
A human being has never been born from cloning.
Fact:
Yet even though a human has never been cloned you claim they are person.
Fact:
SCNT does not use sperm and egg, instead it uses skin and egg.
Fact:
Some people feel there moral authority should superceed another individuals moral judgement to the point of dictation and oppression in opposition of the majority of poeple in the state voted to pass the moral judgement in the form of a State Amendment to the constitution.
Fact:
Matt Bartle repeatidly tried to pass legistlation to criminalize scientist and jail them for conducting research that his constituancy voted to protect.
Fact:
The reason Amendment 2 was brought for vote in the first place was to help shield restrictions on scientific community brought forth by the hostile legistlation proposed by right wing fundies in the Senate.
Fact: Amendment 2 bans human cloning and protects theraputic cloning.
Dark: Your use of the word "fundies" gives you away. Tsk. Tsk.
Oh Wesley, you know I put that in there just for you, along with the phrase "Early".
I know what buttons to push to get your kind riled =)
but I do like this line
alas, Dark is an example of the pernicious effect of post modernism in today's society.
thats some bloviated pontification there!
Fact: I never used the subjectively applied word "person." Actually, I think you're the only one to do so in this thread, and are doing so only to confuse the issue.
Fact: SCNT creates an individual human embryo, which in the case of ESCR is destroyed. Whether it's the product of sperm and egg or egg and skin cell or sperm and blood cell -- or whatever -- is immaterial to what it, in itself, is.
Fact: some people abrogate to themselves the moral authority to determine that some individual human beings belong to a disposable class, created only to be destroyed. You might as well breed them to be slaves; at least they'd get a chance at life.
Fact: you appear to be about as Christian as a doorknob. If you're not a "fundie," why the attempt to bypass science and talk about the Bible? (Apparently it's because you have a similar hatred of reason.)
Fact (and you said it): "therapeutic" cloning remains cloning. If it doesn't clone, why the term?
Try sending your comments to Nature; they'll chuck them in the trash. Use plain logic and reasoning as the basis for your arguments; if you can somehow prove that a human embryo is not a human being, then you will be entitled to your opinion that ESCR does not destroy a human being. Until then, you will be in a state of denial.
There you go telling me what kind of state of mind I will be in unless I think like you. I think you have a bad habit of trying to decide what everyone else should be thinking and doing.
The point I'm giving to you is, have your points of view but quit trying to impose them on other people who don't believe the same as you do. Allow for free will and individual belief in society. Your blog was off target and pretty immature in regards to efforts being made by scientist who moved here to help create a biosciences community in our state.
If you want scientific basis for a moral question of when life begins and choose to ignore the Bible then go and read the mountain of overwhelming support for Embryonic Stem Cell research in the most respected scientific journals like Science and Nature, or better yet, go and read the letters of support for ESC from the AAAS written to Senators asking for their support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/
The bigger picture is not just
ESCr in Missouri, but the future of bioscience in our state. If the right wing moral minority controls the ability of scientists to persue research that is legal in the rest of the country but treats them as criminals in Missouri, then don't act all high and might when they decide not to invest their minds, hearts and money in the future of this state.
The majority of the country supports ESCr, the Congress has done the will of the people and passed legistalation to move ESCr forward. Its only the small minded Veto power of our honorable President George Bush and his fundie supporters that stand between Scientists and the cures that they one day will bring to our great nation.
God Bless
None of you have answered a rather important question: if a cloned embryo were created, or perhaps a genetically modified embryo, would you favor implanting it, or would you oppose implanting it?
I am happy to have been shown that Leviticus chapter, which does seem to imply that embryos are not alive until they have blood, until that point they are the raw materials, the schematics, being built into something to sustain life.
I feel that unimplanted embryos should be unceremoniously flushed down the drain, however they were created, and it should be super-illegal to implant a cloned or modified embryo. They are not living humans until they have blood, the life of all flesh.
if a cloned embryo were created, or perhaps a genetically modified embryo, would you favor implanting it, or would you oppose implanting it?
I would want it to never be made in the first place. However, if it were created regardless, then yes, it should be allowed to live. Human life is human life regardless of origin. The fact that people are foolish enough to do such things does not give us license to destroy the lives made in the process.
I am happy to have been shown that Leviticus chapter, which does seem to imply that embryos are not alive until they have blood...
John, I would sincerely hope that it takes more than a verse or two torn from their scriptural, theological, and historical contexts to convince you that this is a legitimate argument. If religion means anything more to you than rhetorical fodder for your arguments, you shouldn't engage in such shallow thinking.
Actually, my question about where stem cells come from was rhetorical in response to Dark's comment.
Sorry for the confusion.
I would want it never made in the first place also, but I think it is important that it does not deserve moral recognition as a living person. This scripture seems pretty solid, I don't know where in scripture you are getting the idea that life begins when an embryo is created, or where in law or science. Law doesn't say it's a living person until birth, and science says it is a living cell, with DNA in it, but so is an egg cell, so is a skin cell. It is not a LIFE until it has blood, unambiguously.
Oh, Dark: I am not riled by the term Fundie. But I don't appreciate people pretending to be of one type of belief system, when they are really of another. It's not nice to be so disingenuous. Nor is it honest to engage in two-dimensional stereotyping of those with whom you disagree. But what the hey: If you don't have the facts, blow smoke.
But what the hey: If you don't have the facts, blow smoke
Well then Secondhand Smoke is a fitting name for Your blog.
So enlighten me, how am I being disingenuous and pretending to be of one type of belief system? More baseless accusations from Wesley J. Smith?
"If you want scientific basis for a moral question of when life begins and choose to ignore the Bible then go and read the mountain of overwhelming support for Embryonic Stem Cell research...."
Those are two separate matters: most supporters of ESCR support it regardless of the acknowledged fact that it destroys individual human embryos. Furthermore, it is scientific fact that a life begins at the moment that it becomes a unique, self-organized entity -- not at some later, arbitrarily determined moment, such as when an embryo begins to produce its own blood. What was it before it produced blood? Dead? If it had started out as dead, how could it magically become a living human creature? Are we going back to the outdated notion of ensoulment at the quickening? (--Which was based on a flawed embryology and not any theological ambiguity as to the moral status of the fetus.)
Again: life begins when the entity begins. (How could it be otherwise? When does life magically arise from non-life?) Whether you choose to destroy it is a decision based on the moral weight you give that life. But let's not pussyfoot around the issue by playing fast and loose with our definitions. Face hard facts, and stop talking nonsense.
"...have your points of view but quit trying to impose them on other people who don't believe the same as you do."
Sorry, reality is not determined by vote or by opinion. Either I am right that life begins at conception, or I am wrong. And I am not wrong. Prove to me at what other life point begins, without making reference to pre-scientific religious texts. Theological and scientific truths do not inhabit the same realms, and it's useless to try and make one prove the other.
I think you are a materialist pretending to be a Christian, based on your use of language, and indeed, I suspect that you are making two-dimensional arguments based on caricatures of those with whom you disagree and disdain. I could be wrong. If so, I apologize. If not, be yourself.
What was it before it produced blood? Dead? If it had started out as dead, how could it magically become a living human creature?
Yes. It was as dead as a shed skin cell, or a chemical reaction. A pre-blood dividing embryo is a successive process of chemical reactions, as lifeless as pop rocks and coca cola, but the moment blood appears, it attains life. Let's call it Blood Exceptionalism. All blood-based animals can bond over this one, it is what we share with bats and dogs and mice, but not viruses and bacteria. All of us with blood are alive. We're not all human, but neither is the genetically modified creature you guys want to implant if someone creates the DNA of it.
What if someone just creates the DNA sequence? Do we have an obligation to then synthesize the DNA and put it into a denucleated egg and then a womb? What if the DNA is merely sequenced, but not yet synthesized, do we have an obligation to synthesize it? Do we have an obligation to sequence it in the first place?
A human genome fits on a DVD, and companies are out there that take computer sequences and actually make the real DNA. Currently they can only make short virus size stanrds, but soon they'll be able to make long human chromosomes, as in Gattaca.
I don't think we have an obligation to achieve flowing blood for every DNA sequence someone programs on their TRS-80. We can just hit delete on them, they are lifeless programs and chemical reactions, even if they have progressed to a multi-celled embryo.
Blood isn't magic. It isn't spiritual. It's just blood, made up of differing kinds of cells and plasma. That's the science of it. An embryo is a living human organism from the moment it comes into being, according to embryology text books.
That may mean nothing morally, but it is a fact scientifically.
Dark: "SCNT is a process of fusing a skin cell and an enucleated egg to regenerate early stem cells. Scientists do not call this human cloning."
The American Medical Association certainly does. SCNT, if perfected, would create an embryonic human being, who would then be destroyed for his or her stem cells. Most Americans oppose all forms of cloning, whether to implant a cloned embryo into a womb OR to destroy a cloned embryo for stem cell research.
Do you understand yet that your quoting of Webster's proves OUR point, not yours? The dictionary says, "...ESPECIALLY from implantation..." because that's what we usually typically think about when discussing an embryo. Those reading this were implanted in a womb earlier in life, but that's a far cry from saying, "EXCLUSIVELY from implantation."
While we're quoting reference books, did you know that the WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA holds that an embryo is "an animal or plant in an early stage of its development"? No mention of implantation at all, Dark.
Dark writes:
The Bible makes a distinction between the animals and humans in terms of "Life".
Nice try, but irrelevant. The verse in question deals with kosher dietary laws related to animals. Leviticus 17:10-14:
10: "If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.
12: Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
13: Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust.
14: "For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off."
And while we are at it, how about that verse in Genesis? Gen 9:3-4:
3: Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
4: Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Blood as life-force clearly does apply to animals. And not a word about "no blood = no human," or even the suggestion that a human being's moral worth derives in any way from having blood.
If you're going to try proof-texting, you might want to actually read the text. ;-)
Do you understand yet that your quoting of Webster's proves OUR point, not yours? The dictionary says, "...ESPECIALLY from implantation..." bmm..
bmm, your missing the point. If you reread why I posted the Definition of the word Embryo, you'll see that it is a response to Wesley bemoaning the use of the phrase "Early".
It was to point out that due to the fringe abuse of the word, Wesley has no reason to be whining about the use of the term Early.
I point out that scientists are changing terminology due to the fact that fundies are exploiting a less used and broader definition of the term embryo to portray images of dead children in a womb to the broader public. Don't blame science for trying to represent a more accurate picture of a cluster of cells in a petri dish by using the term early, instead of the abused term embryo which "especially" portrays an image of a fetus.
John Howard writes:
All blood-based animals can bond over this one, it is what we share with bats and dogs and mice, but not viruses and bacteria. All of us with blood are alive.
Bacteria are not alive? That will certainly be news to biologists!
Dark writes:
If you reread why I posted the Definition of the word Embryo, you'll see that it is a response to Wesley bemoaning the use of the phrase "Early".
His complaint wasn't over the use of "early," but rather "early stem cells" as an attempt to mislead.
"...a less used and broader definition of the term embryo..."
You mean that embryonic stem cells come from something other than embryos? They come maybe from some even earlier stage in human development?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard this week.
Stop looking for sanitized ways to discuss unpleasant realities. You're following the lead of the "scientists" because the reality is too unpleasant for most people to stomach, so you need to change the terminology to make the icky stuff go away.
Too bad reality doesn't work like that. Wishful thinking, magic, and rationalization are all just forms of denial.
Nice try, but irrelevant. The verse in question deals with kosher dietary laws related to animals. Leviticus 17:10-14:
Excuse me? My belief system is not "irrelevant", some of you have a real problem with attacking others personal faith if they don't coincide with yours. Hypocrites!
There are too many references to blood and life in the bible not to derive a corollary between the two. The alter that tells us blood makes atonement for the soul. Abraham was lead to sacrifice Isaac on the alter, instead god found his own lamb. Jesus was referred to as the lamb of life. The cross the place where Jesus bled to death, the cross a central focus of an alter for atonement of our souls, the blood we drink of Christ to attain everlasting life. Many times the Bible says blood is the life of all flesh. You may apply that only to Kosher food, but I think when God says ALL FLESH he means it!
Leviticus 17:14
Parallel Translations
NASB: "For [as for the] life of all flesh, its blood is [identified] with its life.
GWT: This is because the life of any creature is in its blood.
KJV: For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof:
ASV: For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof:
BBE: For the blood is the life of all flesh:
DBY: for as to the life of all flesh, its blood is the life in it;
Its a relationship repeated over and over in the Bible. Blood = Life.
You have your opinion that its just Kosher laws, I read it as a much deeper association between blood and life. As I have said all along, I respect others beliefs, but insist that mine be respected as well. When my beliefs prohibit you from living your life, then you have solid reason to complain. But when your beliefs impede on my belief structure you can bet that I will not accept your infringement on my God given rights to pursue my faith.
One more time: theology and science are different realms of thought. You can't use one to prove a point in the other.
In other words: calling an embryo less than human won't make it so, no matter what books you quote.
Actually, Dark, it appears that your beliefs will lead to the destruction of countless lives just because they don't meet your arbitrary, unscientific "blood" criterion.
I'd say that your beliefs are impinging on others in the worst possible way.
You mean that embryonic stem cells come from something other than embryos? They come maybe from some even earlier stage in human development?
I would say the term blastocyst is a more accurate term than embryo.
Stop looking for sanitized ways to discuss unpleasant realities. You're following the lead of the "scientists" because the reality is too unpleasant for most people to stomach, so you need to change the terminology to make the icky stuff go away.
When your side stops misleading people by showing pictures of fetuses in a womb and saying that scientists are killing babies, instead of what they actually are which is unformed cells in a petri dish.
An embryo is an embryo. Changing the word you use doesn't change what it is. It is a complete human entity at its earliest stage of development, through which every human being has passed. It looks like a clump of cells, to be sure: but by the same token it looks exactly like a human being at that stage of its development.
If you can't stomach the reality, and need to change the words, you may be having some problems with your conscience.
And by the way, those cells are not in any way "unformed." They are already at a complex level of development.
Dark writes:
Excuse me? My belief system is not "irrelevant", some of you have a real problem with attacking others personal faith if they don't coincide with yours. Hypocrites!
Spare us the childish histrionics. Your statement was irrelevant to the argument.
You have your opinion that its just Kosher laws, I read it as a much deeper association between blood and life.
You are not following my argument. Those verses are indeed setting out kosher dietary laws, as the context clearly shows. "Blood = life-force" is given as the reason why Jews cannot eat blood from animals and must dispose of it respectfully. That's all it says. You can point to it as one example of blood being intertwined with life, but that's it. Show me "no blood = no human" based on this.
Sorry, reality is not determined by vote or by opinion. Either I am right that life begins at conception, or I am wrong. And I am not wrong.
I bet your never wrong and its probably your biggest problems. The world does not revolve and you and what you assume to be true, bar all other thoughts and opinions.
Fact.
Some people don't believe that humanity begins at conception.
Some people do believe life begins at conception.
Your idealist absolutist view that everyone is wrong who doesn't think like you doesn't matter in America. The LAW does not agree with your perspective.
Dark writes:
I would say the term blastocyst is a more accurate term than embryo.
What happened to calling them "early stem cells"? Are you admitting your deception now?
"I would say the term blastocyst is a more accurate term than embryo."
K.
"blastocyst": the modified blastula of a placental mammal
"blastula": an early metazoan embryo
How now, dark cow?
"The LAW does not agree with your perspective."
The LAW once decreed that one person deserved no more than 3/5 of the rights of another. The LAW doesn't trump biological fact.
When your side stops misleading people by showing pictures of fetuses in a womb and saying that scientists are killing babies, instead of what they actually are which is unformed cells in a petri dish.
"How do you plead?
"Not guilty, Your Honor. I did not 'murder' a 'police officer', I merely altered the physical arrangement of early worm food. "
If you cant see the relationship between blood and life by half a dozen examples from different books and scripture I cannot do anything else for you. God said "the life of ALL flesh is its blood" God said the way to eternal life is though the blood of God. Jesus offered his blood on the cross so that we may have everlasting life.
We cannot doubt that the blood of the Cross was to give eternal life. This is the blood which is to save mankind, to redeem sinners, and make the human race into children of God. The world has seen much shedding of blood, blood shed for private advantage, or to satisfy selfish desires. But the blood which Christ shed was to save mankind. This blood is life itself. "With a spear they pierced his side, and there came out blood and water," (John 19:34)
And by the way, those cells are not in any way "unformed."
correct, the term undifferentiated was more accurate but I referenced that earlier and it did not seem to reach you.
I would say the term blastocyst is a more accurate term than embryo.
What happened to calling them "early stem cells"? Are you admitting your deception now?
ES cells come from the Blastocyst, read about it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5664/1669
No, Dark, you didn't give us "half a dozen," you gave us 3, all of which deal with dietary laws. I quoted two in context; here's the third (Deut. 12:21-23):
21: If the place which the LORD your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your towns as much as you desire.
22: Just as the gazelle or the hart is eaten, so you may eat of it; the unclean and the clean alike may eat of it.
23: Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
You can go on and on about blood imagery all you want, but it doesn't prove "no blood equals no human" in either Judaism or Christianity. The more you try, the more foolish you appear.
An embryo is an embryo. Changing the word you use doesn't change what it is.
Actually there are many stages of organic development, zygote, blastocyst, these stages are often referred to as pre-embryonic stages, then cleavage, then an embryo.
These are all very basic scientific terms you can look up at any website dealing with stages of development. This is 6th grade level science.
Your not arguing science, your arguing semantics, a big difference.
Dark writes:
ES cells come from the Blastocyst, read about it.
Yes, but that doesn't make a blastocyst an "early stem cell," any more than signing an organ donor card makes a living adult an "early donor heart" or an "early donor cornea".
"SCNT is a process of fusing a skin cell and an enucleated egg to regenerate early stem cells. Scientists do not call this human cloning."
The American Medical Association certainly does. bmmg39
Lets see what the AMA said about SCNT..
"
AMA [American Medical Association] says cloning stem cells for biomedical research medically ethical
Transplant News, June 27, 2003
The use of cloning for biomedical research is consistent with present-day medical ethics, according to the largest physician's group in the US.
Delegates attending the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA), approved recommendations by the association's Council for Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) that included a statement recognizing that physicians must be free to decide on their own if they wish to participate in such research or work with products developed through such research.
The AMA adopted the following recommendations for biomedical research on stem cells derived from cloned embryos through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT):
Related Results
"SCNT enables the generation of stem cells that are specifically tailored to an individual. The material is removed from a recipient oocyte (enucleation) and replaced with the nucleus from the cell (nuclear transfer). SCNT technology is also being utilized in more basic research applications to understand molecular and cellular events underlying human diseases. However, recent federal rules restricting the use of human embryos in research has limited access of US laboratories to the cells."
Yes, but that doesn't make a blastocyst an "early stem cell,"
In the English language we use many words to represent a single thing.
They've been called pre-embryos, blastocysts, early stem cells, embryonic stems cells, and you latch on to the former to portray an image of dead babies in the womb, its wholly dishonest.
So not only now do you want to tell Scientists what research they can do, but what words they have to use to describe it? What deficiency is causes this need to dictate what everyone else should say and think?
You can go on and on about blood imagery all you want, but it doesn't prove "no blood equals no human" in either Judaism or Christianity. The more you try, the more foolish you appear.
Call me a fool for believing that the Blood of Christ give will me everlasting life. God will see who the fool really is wordsmith.
John 6:53–56 he who eats my flesh and drinks MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him".
They're not talking "manischewicz" here.
Dark, RIGHT HERE. From YOUR OWN quotation:
"The AMA adopted the following recommendations for biomedical research on stem cells derived from cloned embryos through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)."
CLONED EMBRYOS.
Call me a fool for believing that the Blood of Christ give will me everlasting life. God will see who the fool really is wordsmith.
Dark, now you're simply being willfully obtuse and absurd. The God in which you supposedly believe doesn't care for dishonesty, so please stop misrepresenting my argument.
Bmm you are NOT paying attention to the argument.
I never said you or anybody else shouldn't use the term "Embryonic".
I said Wesley should not bemoan scientists for using the term "Early" for all the reasons I've stated.
Do you have anything of substance to say?
So you say there is no corollary between blood and life but when I raise the ultimate example of Life though Christ's Blood you call it absurd?
Thats a direct example of the relationship!
I have not misrepresented your argument, apparently I've torn it completely down.
Dark: Embryology texts book will tell you that a human embryo is from the first formation of life through the 8th week, after which it is called a fetus. Also, pre embryo is not scientific, it is political. More on a new post because this is getting too long.
Dark, your claim is "no blood = no human". You have not proven it at all. All you have proven is your own lack of seriousness and credibility. My argument is clearly laid out in the comments above; when you are willing to engage it, I will continue the discussion.
I just love how "dark" would be able to get away with making this completely religious argument in FAVOR of ESCR, while scientific arguments AGAINST ESCR are misrepresented as "religious dogma."
Bernie, all you have done is refute my beliefs, and tell me I'm a fool. What exactly is your argument?
You have stated nothing to disprove the relationship between the blood of christ and everlasting life.
You have stated nothing to disprove the word of God when he says Blood is the life of ALL Flesh.
At one point you posted a few verses from one of the scriptures and claimed to know that God was only referring to jewish diets when he stated "All Flesh". You offered no proof of anything. It is possible for God to refer to the context of ALL things even when discussing a particular event.
Furthermore, your believe is yours and should you should not assume that its better than mine or more correct than mine. Mine faith is based on my knowledge and reading of the Bible and I feel god is guiding me to seek the truth. You are not one to judge me and tell me what I have to prove to you, when you offer nothing.
Wesley
Embryology texts book will also tell you that the term embryo especially applies to the stages of development after cleavage and before fetal development. Even the dictionary outlines this.
If you put a picture of clustered cells in a perti dish and a picture of a fetus in front of the general public and asked them to identify which is the embryo, the overwhelming majority would pick the fetus over the cells.
That is not an honest picture of what these scientists are doing with the cells. They are not formed fetuses, yet thats the picture pro lifers paint. In order to offer a more accurate picture of the stage of development that ESC are obtained scientists are defining their terminology.
Its not your place to tell dictate how they should define their research. But you are free to whine about it.
Dark: I quote an embryology text book in a new post. Cleavage means the first cell division, from the one-celled zygote into a two-celled organism. This occurs very early, within about 25-27 hours from the completion of fertilization. After that, by your own statement then, it is an embryo.
I am not sure about which supposed groups are arguing that an early embryo looks like a fetus. Certainly, that doesn't happen here. But what these political-scientists are doing is redefining basic scientific terms for political rather than scientific reasons--and then have the temerity to call it science. But that is anti-science.
Well even though we have some basic disagreements its good to have some honest dialog, even if it gets heated.
A final thought for those who assume they are right.
n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." John 1:1-5
"Embryology texts book will also tell you that the term embryo especially applies to the stages of development after cleavage and before fetal development."
Again, "ESPECIALLY," not "EXCLUSIVELY." It points out "especially after cleavage" because all of us had to go through that in order to be reading this right now. That doesn't mean what existed before that wasn't an embryo...
The biological definition of "life" is based on whether cells of the tissue are actively reproducing copies of themselves in the context of the growth of an organismic whole. For people, this starts at the beginning of conception. The Leviticus verse makes no reference to the issue of when individuality starts. The verse merely states that if one removes the blood from an organism that happens to have blood, the organism will die. That's all one can scientifically deduce from the verse.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home