Stem Cell Opponents To Air Celebrity Ad

To Rebut Ad Featuring Michael J. Fox, World Series Pitcher Speaks Out Against Missouri Amendment

(CBS/AP)  In an effort to shoot down a controversial measure that would legalize stem cell research in Missouri — and rebut an advertisement featuring Michael J. Fox that supports the law — opponents will respond with their own celebrity-filled ad that will air during Game 4 of the World Series Wednesday night.

The ad, sponsored by Missourians Against Human Cloning, is likely to draw attention after Fox's ad triggered a backlash — most notably from conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who has claimed Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

An added twist to the opponents' response is that St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan appears in the ad and will be the starter Wednesday against the Detroit Tigers.

Suppan, a devout Catholic, says in the ad: "Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived."

The proposed amendment to the state constitution would protect embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. A referendum on Amendment 2 will be decided during congressional elections on Nov. 7. Referendums are often included in general elections as a practical matter.

Joining Suppan are celebrities such as NFL quarterback Kurt Warner, actors Jim Caviezel and Patricia Heaton, and, baseball player Mike Sweeney. Caviezel played the role of Jesus in the film, "The Passion of the Christ."

The minute-long advertisement was completed and made available on the Internet on Tuesday afternoon. It will air across Missouri in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 7 election, reports the St. Louis News-Dispatch.

Missourians Against Human Cloning spokeswoman Cathy Ruse said the ad was already in the works, "but we sped up production after the Michael J. Fox ad came out.

"That ad claims opponents want to criminalize research and prevent the expansion of stem cell research. Those claims are just false and misleading," Ruse said. "Our gripe with Amendment 2 is it creates a right to do human cloning and it creates the right to human egg trafficking for cloning research."

Each of the celebrities warns against the measure, with Warner saying, "Beware of loopholes" and Heaton adding that the law will encourage women to sell their eggs to fertility clinics. "Low income women will be seduced by big checks," Heaton says.

Connie Farrow, a spokeswoman for Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, a supporter of the amendment, called the opponents' ad "a pathetic attempt to distort the facts and mislead voters."

"To believe the claims made in their ad you'd have to believe that over 100 nonprofit patient and medical organizations, including the Missouri State Medical Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, just to name a few, are conspiring to mislead voters," Farrow said. "And that defies commonsense."

Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, displays the tics and twitches typically associated with the disease throughout the advertisement, which backs Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, who is running for Senate and supports Amendment 2.

Fox was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991 and revealed his condition publicly in 1998. In 2000, he quit full-time acting because of his symptoms and founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, which has raised millions of dollars.

Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive disorder of the central nervous system that leaves patients increasingly unable to control their movements.

McCaskill is trying to unseat Republican incumbent James Talent, who opposes Amendment 2.

[ademeyer]

I would donate my eggs to research if it would help save Michael J. Fox.

Eggs are not "babies" Patricia. Glad we are having this debate, though. Good to get the facts out in the open.

[fcadden]

Jeez. I wish they'd seduce *me* with a big check for *my* eggs. I don't see why it's such a big deal, but then again I never understand why a lot of politics are.

[connapa]

I would like to know what kind of academic credentials ANY of these people have ( 2 jocks and multiple actors)? Do any of them have PhD's in ANY scientific field- or even in Philosophy (little alone theology) to make them qualified to object?
Mr. Fox, as an actual sufferer of Parkinson's, at least has the benefit of both personal experience with the disease, as well as having done his own research into his own disease, to know what he's talking about.
These others know nothing and are just being paid to tout the party line.
Unfortunately, based on the First Amendment, these people have the benefit of free speech- there's no qualification that what anyone of them says is accurate, or scientifically proven (unless you're trying to sell something- in which case its considererd false advertising.)

[troothdoc]

The article ends with the statement, "Republican incumbent James Talent, who opposes stem-cell research." Is the author SURE that is the case, or does Talent merely oppose the "government funding of" "fetal" stem-cell research??

Might that not be an important distinction?

[jewjewjew1]

After reading the amendment (and I'm no lawyer), I fail to see how: "Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived." Especially since the third paragraph clearly states: "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." Doesn't it reflect poorly on our political system when two people read the same bill and come to opposite conclusions on what it means?

[jewjewjew1]

After reading the amendment (and I'm no lawyer), I fail to see how: "Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived." Especially since the third paragraph clearly states: "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." Doesn't it reflect poorly on our political system when two people read the same bill and come to opposite conclusions on what it means?

The ad says: "Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived." The amendment reads: %u201CNo person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."In the ad, we are told "Beware of loopholes" and that "Low income women will be seduced by big checks.%u201D The amendment: Provision #2: "No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research." And #4: "No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures." Stored away in laboratory fridges all over our great country are fertilized eggs. When infertility couples have their eggs harvested, they don't get just one. The eggs are then fertilized and observed for a few days. It's not uncommon to produce 10 little blastocysts per IVF cycle. How many of the eggs are used? A few. What happens to the ones that are not used? Most are destroyed. The parents don't want the leftovers after a successful pregnancy, and the clinic runs out of space - so they're destroyed. What would be done with them? Well, the blastocysts could then be used to grow the cells that might cure diabetes, or - essentially to grow a healthy replacement for any diseased organ. Cloning should be forbidden. There shouldn't be a financial incentive to donating eggs. But blastocysts that would BE DESTROYED ANYWAY should be allowed to cure disease.

[cbsirene]

Kuddos to Michael J. Fox for having the guts to vocie his opinion and fight for a cause that hopefully will save his life and others afflicted wby this terrible disease.

Shane on those other celebrity who have been enlisted to combat Michael's notoriety and have no moral decency left that they prostitue themselves for a party line that is afraid of the potential breakthroguh of medical science.

[michey22]

With this amendment, the devil is hiding in the details. While the amendment appears to ban cloning to any person uneducated in the scientific details, it actually does write into the constitution the right to clone, via somatic cell nuclear transfer, human embryos. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the process by which the DNA from a body cell, such as a skin cell (rather than an egg or sperm) is extracted from one person and transfered into a fertilized egg that has had its own DNA taken out of it. Thus, the new blastocyst is a human clone - a copy - of the first person. If this blastocyst, which is clearly a human life by all scientific standards, is implanted into a woman, it will grow into a fetus, then a baby, then a child, then a teenager, and then an adult - all a progression of the same life. The amendment bans the implantation of this blastocyst, as nobody really wants human clones walking around. But, it allows human cloning - there is no question. And, further, these blastocyts may indeed be destroyed and used for research, as Provision #2 only bans the production of blastocysts via fertilization (but not SCNT)for the purpose of stem cell research. The devil is in the details, and this is truly devilish in the level of deceit, trickery, and disdain for the public's moral and ethical conscience. No one should vote for this amendment unless they truly understand it. I have a PhD in Immunology from Tufts University and it took me a few minutes.

[squiz2]

I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but you can go to www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006ballot for the full text of this and the other amendments on the ballot.

[malk_69]

"Embryonic stem cells come from an embryo -- the mass of cells in the earliest stage of human development that, if implanted in a woman's womb, will eventually grow into a fetus. When the embryo is between three and five days old, it contains stem cells, which are busily working to create the various organs and tissues that will make up the fetus."

This is something that bothers me greatly.

Another thing to consider, as is the way with most "foot in the door" methods to science...once that door is open, all hell could and will break loose. Today it will be (according to the Ammendment) that women can only "donate" their eggs. Tomorrow they will be selling them. How ethical is it to sell the potential to life?

I think we're messing with God's plan here. I for one am not about to step on God's toes.

Isn't it interesting how many people speak for God and seem to know His mind? I also love raving arguments that if "A" happens that "B" will inevitably follow. If assault rifles are forbidden then hunting rifles and pocket-knives are next. If condoms are distributed it won't lead to "safe-***", only more ***. If Wile E. Coyote jumps off a cliff, all our children will jump off cliffs. Although this amendment SPECIFICALLY MAKES IT AN EXPENSIVE CRIME to either clone or to sell, for financial advantage, any of the disputed tissue - recent posts claim that cloning and selling eggs will come soon after.

What do these posters - especially the ones who speak for God - think about the absolutely true fact that as of right now, and indefinitely if stem cell research isn't conducted - those precious stem cells, which could cure diabetes, Parkinson's and other diseases - are destroyed?

[malk_69]

"Where do researchers get human embryos? Embryos can either be made via REPRODUCTION -- merging sperm and egg -- or by CLONING. Researchers aren't LIKELY to create an embryo with sperm and egg, but many use fertilized embryos from fertility clinics.

Another way to create an embryo is via a technique called therapeutic CLONING. This technique merges a cell (from the patient who needs the stem cell therapy) with a donor egg. The nucleus is removed from the egg and replaced with the nucleus of the patient's cell.

Both methods -- using EXISTING FERTILIZED EMBRYOS and creating NEW EMBRYOS specifically for research purposes -- are controversial."

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

[malk_69]

Dear BoatDoc61

Assuming you're directing your comment at me.

I speak for what I believe in, as is my right. And you speak for what you believe in, which is yours.

When God created man, supposing you believe in God, he didn't create us in a laboratory.

[zimmcomm]

First, it is wrong to call the people airing this new ad "stem cell opponents." No one is against using adult stem cells, embilical cord blood, bone marrow, etc. to find cures. In fact, these methods are already showing great promise but biotech firms are holding out for cloning to do human research. That's what this amendment is all about. It absolutely DOES NOT ban human cloning - only the new definition of human cloning in the amendment, which is actually IMPLANTING or trying to implant a cloned human in a uterus. It does not ban implanting a cloned human in an artificial womb. This amendment provides blanket protection for the biotechnology industry under the guise of "banning" human cloning. It requires a lawyer to decipher the wording, but it was written by lawyers for the biotechnology industry and it is indeed designed to mislead voters. It is a "pig in a poke" and has no place in the Missouri constitution.

[kludge42]

One amendment is not going to overthrow all of the other laws, amendments, and referenda that ban human cloning. In addition, why would scientist need to go through the costly and time consuming steps of creating embryos, when donated ones should adequately fullfill any needs for research? As it stands, blastocysts are currently being destroyed. Whether they are life, or not, they're being destroyed. Why not put them to good use? If you can save a million people, or more, isn't that reason enough to not throw them away? Jesus healed people of disease and horrible afflictions; shouldn't we do everything possible to continue that work of healing?

[fkjr60440]

Embryonic Versus Adult Stem Cells

Most US citizens are unaware of the difference between and the scientific and economic merits of ebmryonic versus adult stem cell research. Liberals argue on moral grounds that millons of tax dollars should be spent on embryonic stem cells regardless of its scientific, medical economic and technological merits. Others argue that funding for research should be based on scientific, technological, and economic calculations. Hence they support adult stem cell research.

A. Current State of Research (Raw Data)
100% of all NIH approved stem cell clinical trials (308) on live human subjects were those involving adult stem cell research. Source: www.clinicaltrials.gov on 8/29/2005 at 2:45 PM

B. NIH Acknowledgement That Adult Stem Cells Have More Promise and Scientific Merit
Adult stem cells . . . are currently the only type of stem cell . . . used to treat human diseases . . . for over 40 years . . . to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders[, and recently] . . . diabetes and . . . kidney cancer. From http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/health.asp

C. Embyronic Stem Cells May Be Obsolete
Argonne National Laboratory scientists have made a breakthrough in adult stem cell research that would make the need for embryonic stem cell research obsolete and unnecessary. From http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/logos21-2/stem01.htm)

[zimmcomm]

To kludge42:
In Missouri, this one amendment would "change, repeal, or modify" at least 45 provisions of the Constitution of Missouri to make the creation of human beings for scientific research a constitutional right in the state. It would indeed "overthrow all of the other laws, amendments, and referenda that ban human cloning" - of which there are currently none in Missouri. That is what this amendment seeks to do - enshrine in the constitution the right to do this research so that no other law, action or regulation can change it.

As for blastocysts currently being destroyed, scientists do want to use IVF leftovers for research, but that does not hold the kind of potential for BIG money that cloning does. The product of cloned humans can be PATENTED to use for drug testing, for example.

Make no mistake - this is about MONEY. The proponents of this amendment have spent $26 MILLION on trying to get this passed - more than any other political campaign in the history of the state! Do you honestly believe the biotech industry is spending this kind of money for the good of mankind? Call me cynical, but there is HUGE money in the medical research field - for doing research, not for finding cures.

[jpark971]

You Missourians are coming close to being the laughing stock of the nation. Good thing you have Kansas as a neighbor.

[jpark971]

Please, cindyzimmer, tell me how a law would "change, repeal, or modify" at least 45 provisions of the Constitution of Missouri. Especially since that is impossible. Oh, and to make it even tougher, try doing it without lying.

[pakaal]

OK, since CBS has a link to the actual amendment, I read the document for any references to cloning. There are two references:

38d 2-1 "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."

38d 6-2 "Clone or attempt to clone a human being" means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

I'm sure someone will explain how a document that specifically says "no cloning of humans" is being touted as a document that supports cloning of humans....

[jpark971]

Pakaal!! Don't confuse them with facts!! That isn't the neocon forte.

[pakaal]

Yeah, I know. It's all Clinton's fault anyway.

[bellal-2009]

Well, they had me until the partial list of supporting organizations. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and Muscular Dystrophy Assoc. Uh, sorry folks not buying it, these are reputable organizations. What kind of trickery is going on here.

[bellal-2009]

mickey22, you used my exact word trickery. Thank you for explaining. Too bad the article didn't use someone with your expertise.

[speaksforgod]

I'm glad that Jeff Suppan took the time out from his intense focus and preparation for tonight's start to read and understand all of the ammendment in its entirety -- then go film a public service announcement. It would have been wrong of him to make a snap judgement based upon the bad advice of others and totally misinterpret the entire bill -- but he wouldn't have done that.

[speaksforgod]

I would have a thoughtful, well developed opinion on this issue, but I'm too blinded by the rapture.

[votenoon2]

pakaal, you did not finish your homework. You have to read the whole 21xx word document and connect the terms... not to mention lookup up a few on your own:

38d 6(5) ' "Human embryonic stem cell research," also reffered to as "early stem cell research", means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For the purpose of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials. '

When you lookup "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) you will find that this is the technical term for cloning! More specifically Therapeutic/Research Cloning. This still produces a human embryo, i.e., human LIFE.

For a more detailed analysis, please see http://www.moroundtable.org/pdfs/full.pdf.

[sashay03-2009]

It's nice that these athletes and celebrities have their good health while expressing their opinions on the subject. I would like to know their thoughts if they were one of the unfortunate suffering from Parkinson's or spending their lives in a wheelchairs instead of on the baseball field or in front of the camera.

[zimmcomm]

JPark971 -
The "change, repeal or modify" wording comes from the actual amendment.
NOTICE: You are advised that the proposed constitutional amendment may change,
repeal, or modify by implication or may be construed by some persons to change, repeal
or modify by implication, the following provisions of the Constitution of Missouri %u2013
Sections 2, 10, 14, and 32 of Article I; Section 1 of Article II; Sections 1, 21, 22, 23, 28,
36, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of Article III; Sections 1, 14, 36(a), 37, 37(a), 39, and 52 of Article
IV; Sections 5, 14, 17, 18, and 23, and subsection 17 of Section 27 of Article V; Sections
18(b), 18(c), 18(d), 18(k), 18(m), 19(a), 20, 31, 32(a), and 32(b) of Article VI; Section
9(a) of Article IX; Sections 1, 6, 11(a), 11(d), and 11(f) of Article X; and Section 3 or
Article XI.
I did not make that up - it's right there in the actual amendment. And no, it is not impossible. That is what constitutional amendments do - they amend the constitution, i.e., CHANGE it.

[zimmcomm]

It is also important to note that the Michael J. Fox ad is for specific political candidates - in MO, MN and MD. The "celebrity" ad was produced only to encourage people to vote against Amendment 2 in Missouri - not for or against any political candidate. They are two entirely different animals and not related to each other.

[zimmcomm]

sashay03,
I have a 24 year old daughter who is wheelchair bound with a spinal cord injury and she is completely against using human embryos for research. One reason is that adult stem cells show much more promise without the ethical and moral concerns. Embryonic stem cell research shows less promise and is more costly. Why not spend research dollars on something that has more chance of showing results sooner? Right now all this research is legal in Missouri but not being done because the research companies are holding it hostage until they get guarentees that no laws or regulations will be passed to "prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies" (again, right out of the amendment wording).

[pepinella]

The United States alone has already destroyed over forty-eight million human beings since 1973, under the guise of "women's right to choose". Now we want to create a lucrative opportunity for women to earn money by using their bodies and the lives of their unborn children through embryonic harvesting. As a woman I am ashamed of what we have done in the name of "equality, right-to-choose, and sexual freedom." God help us all.

[pakaal]

VoteNoOn2, as far as SCNT goes, yes, it CAN be used as a first step in human cloning but it is currently used in therapeutic cloning and in embryonic stem cell research. That much is true.

Fortunately, Amendment 2 specifically takes human cloning completely off the table, by saying in Section One - specifically - "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."

If you want to pose a "slippery slope" argument against the amendment, that's fine, you can argue that future amendments could open the door for human cloning. But as the amendment currently stands, the ONLY use provided by law for SCNT would be for stem cell research, and cloning humans is specifically forbidden.

[pakaal]

Some religions say a child only becomes a human at the time of birth, but Christians argue it begins at that magic moment when sperm and egg meet. Could someone tell me where in the Bible it says "a human soul enters the womb at conception"?

[pakaal]

By the way VoteNoOn2, your link to "analysis" was actually a link to partisan and biased commentary on what one side THINKS the amendment is - not helpful. Posting a link that only supports one side of an issue is a little confusing - unless of course it's your intention to mislead, in which case it's outright deception.

[zimmcomm]

pakaal,
SCNT is human cloning. That is the bottom line of what is most wrong about this amendment. SCNT is DEFINED by the scientific community as CLONING. It is not a "first step". It is what it is - making a genetic copy of an organism, in this case, a human being.
The amendment makes its own definition of cloning - it's not a human clone unless you implant or attempt to implant it into a human uterus.
As far as an analysis being just what one side thinks the amendment is - again, it is what it is. The amendment specifically grants constitutional protection to the scientific community to manufacture human life for the purpose of research. And the biotech industry ALONE is spending millions of dollars to make that happen.

[bluestardad]

STEP BACK FROM FEAR!
We in America need to pull back from this Frenzy of Fear that has spellbound us since September 11, 2001. I am not saying to let down our guard or not be prudent with our Law enforcement, Intelligence agencies or Military as their constant job is to protect the American people and they do it well. Rationally speaking it is more likely that a person will be killed in a car accident on the way to get milk than killed by a Terrorist in America. Hispanics coming across our border for work are not the terrorist or the enemy. Unfair trade practices initiated by our government are the cause of our jobs leaving and the demise of the Middle Class in America not some Terrorist plot. Political Parties have been using fear in an attempt to maintain power in this country. Americans do the math you are more likely to do yourself bodily harm than to be harmed by a Terrorist. America is a Land of Opportunity and hopes where people live in Freedom. America is not a land were people will be governed by Fear.

Michael C. Boetjer
Captain U. S. Army
Double Blue Star Father

[pakaal]

I have to disagree with you cindyzimmer. First of all, SCNT is used in therapeutic cloning and stem cell research as well as in reproductive cloning (of any animal including humans). It is only the first step - as I said. The next steps taken in the SCNT process define the results, whether it is therapeutic cloning, stem cells or reproductive cloning.

The discussion is about using the process to create stem cells, not about reproductive cloning (to "make human clones"). Since Amendment 2 (link in the article above) specifically says "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being", and since the Amendment is specifically for allowing research into stem cell research, the argument that this is about Human Cloning doesn't apply.

[pakaal]

In the SCNT process, the nucleus of an egg is taken out and replaced with another nucleus (from a somatic cell; that is a cell other than an egg or sperm), then the cells are allowed to divide. This creates the stem cells that are used in treatment.

To make a human clone you need to skip the step of harvesting the stem cells for research and instead take the following step: the egg with the replaced nucleus is inserted in a womb and the fetus is brought to term.

[zimmcomm]

As soon as the cells start to divide, you have a complete genetic replica of the human who supplied the somatic cell - a clone. What you do with it at that point doesn't change the fact that it is a human life. If left to do what it does naturally, that blastocyst will develop through the stages of zygote, embryo, fetus, and then baby - which then goes through the growth stages of toddler, teenager, adult, etc.

It's like the hypothetical situation that has been proposed - if there is an embryo in one room and a five year old in another and you can only save one from a fire, which would it be?

Okay - what if it's a newborn and a five year old? Or a teenager and a five-year-old? An senior citizen or a young cancer patient?

Stages of life or location do not determine humanity - only the genetic makeup does. That is present from the cell-division stage of SCNT - a genetic replica of the original somatic cell. Whether you harvest the cells or let it grow in a uterus, or maybe an artificial womb someday - they are human from the very start. Otherwise, what use are they to researchers?

[pakaal]

"As soon as the cells start to divide, you have a complete genetic replica of the human who supplied the somatic cell - a clone. What you do with it at that point doesn't change the fact that it is a human life."

Thank you cintyzimmer, for finally clearing this up. I didn't know this was a religious debate. While I respect the beliefs of all religions, I have to disagree with your opinion that a cell can be defined as a human.

[pakaal]

As for your hypothetical question, which would you choose, the embryo or the 5 year old, that's an excellent question.

I may be wrong but I'm going to say that the vast majority of people, myself included, will choose the 5 year old over the embryo because one is an actual living, breathing human, while the other is only the possibility or potential to become such.

[zimmcomm]

If it's not human, what is it? If it's not human, why do researchers need it? If it's not a life, why does it grow and divide?
And if it's a newborn or a five-year-old - which do you choose?
The growth difference between a newborn and a five-year-old is greater than the difference between a blastocyst and a newborn. Is the newborn less human?

[lde47]

To: pakaal who asks, "Could someone tell me where in the Bible it says a human soul enters the womb at conception?"
pakaal, Please look in your Bible at Jeremiah 1:5, "Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
If anyone has doubts about the begining of life, I suggest that you forget about asking what the Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Atheists or anyone else says or thinks. Just very simply and sincerely pray, read your Bible and ask God to show you. You won't need anyones opinion if you go to the Source. God loves you and me regardless of what we think about various issues. For one, I am glad that public and personal opinions don't affect what God thinks about me. Arguing political and religious opinions is a waste of time because the final authority is certainly NOT what I or anyone else "thinks". Only God's Word matters in the end. God loves you pakaal, unconditionally.
NCDaveNC

[malk_69]

Some are even willing to believe that the spirit exists long before conception, and that a spirit chooses its human life.

What is true? What is not true? Who knows?

But I feel that when you start messing with the unknown, it can sometimes come back to bite you in the ***.

[sashay03-2009]

cindyzimmer,

My "wheelchair bound" son is 25. I've watched him deal with this disability for the past 7 years and I find it very difficult to watch. He was a great athlete before his spinal cord injury and had a wonderful career planned as a physical therapist helping people. Obviously this dream went out the window. I get to tend to his bedsores and dress him everyday before my 8 hour shift starts. I haven't asked him his opinion on this subject but I know for a fact he would rather be on the baseball or football field rather than sitting in his wheelchair. I think everyone should try sitting in a wheelchair for a week and see how difficult it is trying to get around; especially on public transportation. I know it would drive me insane from the frustration in no time.

[zimmcomm]

I have watched my 24-year-old daughter deal with her disability with pride and awe. She is a beautiful example of overcoming adversity with grace. She never feels sorry for herself and doesn't like other people to feel pity for her.

The good news is that adult stem cells hold the greatest promise for spinal cord injury victims. A doctor in Portugal (where embryonic stem cell research is illegal) has used olfactory tissue from patients to improve their conditions. You can read a good summary of Dr. Lima's clinical trials here http://www.healingtherapies.info/OlfactoryTissue2.htm. This therapy is also supposed to be done in Michigan - where embryonic stem cell research is also illegal.

Here's the bad news. Concentration on the desire to use embryos, whether manufactured or leftovers, is stifling this more promising research, which has the potential of curing people with stem cells from their own bodies. What is more disturbing is that embryonic stem cell research on the animal testing level has been a disaster, often resulting in tumors. This research should be proven successful on animals before anyone even thinks of moving on to humans.

[pakaal]

cindyzimmer, your reference is to God's relationship to one person (Jeremiah), not an answer to my question about where in the Bible it says that a human soul enters the womb at conception. But that's OK, I can see how you can believe that because Jeremiah says that's what God said to him, it must be true for all people. Interesting reference, though, thank you. I was hoping you would point me to some spot that actually said something about abortion being wrong, since abortion has been practiced for millenia and I'm sure they did it in Biblical time as well. I would have assumed there would be a reference somewhere to the sanctity of life in the mother's body or something....

As to your questions before that, my definition of "human" doesn't include single cells, no. Or even multiple clumps of cells. Obviously a true definition of "human" would first require other specifications - moral? physical? You're making a link between thinking, judging, rational creature human and living organism human. Terry Schiavo, at the end of her life, was human - physically. Mentally, she was not.

"And if it's a newborn or a five-year-old - which do you choose?"

Gee, you keep asking me which life to spare. Makes me think I'm God or something. I don't know which I'd choose. I still wouldn't choose a blasocyst over a newborn though, because one's human, the other is not.

[speaksforgod]

Hey pakaal...
I agree with NCDaveNC. God loves you unconditionally. So does Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.