Stem Cell Injunction Dictated by Doctrine

(CBS)  Last week two people I know were diagnosed with colon cancer, one of the deadliest of all cancers.

Because my wife and I are cancer survivors, and because my mother died of cancer because she was afraid to go to the doctor, I've come to know a little about the disease.

My friends have a serious illness, but there is a path to recovery that was not there not so long ago. And as I talked to them last week, I was again struck by the remarkable progress science is making to give them that path.

Being told we have cancer no longer means we've been given the death penalty.

Like all scientific breakthroughs, advances in cancer research began and depend on basic research - science's ability to go not where doctrine or tradition dictates, but where research takes it.

Ironically, my friends were diagnosed about the time a federal judge issued the injunction placing limits on stem cell research, an area that holds the greatest possibilities for medical breakthroughs since penicillin.

I have the greatest respect for those who disagree, but to me putting restraints on stem cell research is not far from those who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they believed their doctrines and tradition had already told them what they would see.

Their beliefs, too, were deeply held - but where would the store of knowledge be had their view prevailed?

As we again try to untangle the arguments over stem cells, let us also consider this: No civilization, no society, has survived if its people came to believe they knew enough and needed to know nothing more.

[GopIntegrity]

There is something strange in the idea that embryo's are naturally voided through menstration often whether they have been fertilized or not. This is considered, I presume, by the religious as divine providence?
Is there something less divine and providential if it is the case that
fertilized embryos that are fated to be discarded aren't offered one more oppurtunity to preserve life, where that life might otherwise share the same fate?
How many are willing to decree that they know with absolute surety what is and what is not divine providence?
Frankly if my immenent death were a certainty ... I would not mind at all; and consider it a redeeming honor to allow my remains or living tissue to carry life further on than my demise. Whether or not I had anything to say about it or not.
I am not so vain as to think my bodies integrity and life should only be useful to me ... if I were ... I'm not sure I'd be worthy of existance at all.

[wiseguy910]

One more comment for the childish debaters. A person's spelling has little to no bearing on the comments they have made. Your debate skills are poor if you think you have somehow proven another wrong by dismissing his or her arguments due to your critique of that individual's spelling. I have no doubt that you have made numerous spelling errors in your life. Does this mean that the points you made were null and void because you misspelled a word or two or three? Please argue like an adult and not as a child. If you persist in this foolish line of thinking, I'd be happy to challenge you to a spelling competition so that you may be properly humbled. Then, we can debate the facts of the matter; and you may be humbled again.

[FaeLight]

Have you ever destroyed life?

[wiseguy910]

For those who hide behind the argument of "You're being religious," I say you either lie or you are ignorant. Life begins at conception. That is SCIENCE. If you're not smart enough to read a science textbook, please allow me to help. EVERY embryology textbook states unambiguously that a human being's life begins at the very moment of conception. Disagree with me? Go get yourself a few copies. There is NO debate. The DNA is present and the individual's life has begun and rapid development is underway. These cells are living. Life processes are actively happening within. Those who argue to the contrary simply reject facts. The Bible doesn't mention DNA. Frances and Crick discovered it in the 1950's. The Bible doesn't talk about genes, but "SCIENCE" has confirmed that genes are present which will dictate much about the individual's life and physical makeup. Although the does mention some organs, it offers no form of scientific presentation of the organ systems of the human body, all of which are present, at least in rudimentary form, in a human embryo. So, don't repeat your ignorant mantra of this being a religious matter. Either acknowledge your ignorance of established scientific facts or worse - your acknowledgment that human life begins at the very moment of conception and your desire to destroy it.

[K1MJS]

Again, you want me to believe in your religion. You are conveniently using the term 'life' in two different contexts and mixing them up. Certainly an egg and a sperm provide something that can qualify as life in one context - a biological context. However, no one would argue that when the sperm meets the egg that you could immediately remove the zygote and it would survive, never mind thrive and pass onto the various other stages of development before the mother gives birth to her child.


In addition, it appears that some 30%, perhaps as many as 50%, of all pregnancies end in miscarriages (spontaneous termination of the pregnancy before 20 weeks of gestation). Either God or Mother Nature, depending upon your perspective, have decided that the pregnancy will not continue and that the mother will not give birth to a child.

Finally, if life begins at conception, why are birth certificates issued on the day of the person's birth - the day the new person leaves his or her mother's body? Being born is referenced throughout history, including many times in the Bible. It always refers to the moment when the new individual leaves the body of his or her mother. I would think that if God/Jesus thought that birth occurred at some time before the individual left his or her mother's body there would have been at least one reference to that in the Bible or other sacred documents. However, there is not a single reference except to the fact that birth has been considered the beginning of life. This is true since the beginning of recorded history, in every significant religion every to have existed and survived. Christmas, celebrated by Christians, celebrates the birth of Christ. Christians does not celebrate the conception of Christ but rather his birth under the Star of Bethlehem is celebrated. And even there is a difference of opinion as to the date of Christ's birth, some celebrating December 25 but others January 6.

Hence, there is plenty of evidence that not everyone agrees as to when 'life' - viable life - actually begins. You can believe whatever you want about the beginning of life as long as it does not harm any of your fellow citizens. However, you cannot impose your views - your religion - upon me or anyone else. And let me live my life, as long as I do not harm any of my fellow citizens.

[wiseguy910]

If you believe so strongly in what you espouse, then you should sacrifice yourself for the benefit of all humankind. The debate has nothing to do with "stem cells," but with the embryos they are taken from, because in taking the stem cells the embryos are destroyed. The question is over whether or not it is morally right to kill human embryos, which are human beings, baby boys and girls, at their youngest, most vulnerable state. Bob, you are going to die. You will have to face that fact, as well as your Maker. Your friends are going to die. Your enemies are going to die. No one escapes the death sentence on mankind (Romans 6:23, The Holy Bible). Obviously, this bothers you, and it should. But, allow me to draw your attention to the hypocrisy of your position. Since life is what you claim to value, why do you offer your full-fledged support to the utter destruction of the lives of these innocent ones? It is not a noble thing for an embryo to die for the betterment of countless others. It is butchery. If you were to give your life for the betterment of others in this way, then that would be a noble thing. It is self-sacrificial.

Also, this is an argument from fantasy. Do you remember the movie "Medicine Man"? In that movie, the rain forests held the key to the fight against cancer. That was an unsubstantiated claim. In the current drama, embryos hold the key to the fight against cancer. This is another unsubstantiated claim. [If they actually did, I still maintain that killing one to save another is barbaric, and morally reprehensible.] I have heard of very little promise coming from embryonic stem cell research. On the other hand, I have heard of much more promise from umbilical cord stem cell and adult stem cell research. How about a clear presentation of the facts by those who actually know what they are talking about? In light of the intentional skewing of the facts that the media has been so guilty of, I call for the media to give an unbiased rendering of facts with experts from all sides given a fair opportunity to present and respond to the arguments.

[K1MJS]

Again, shadow boxing by arguing the wrong question. I do not doubt that people who believe that life begins at the moment of conception also may feel that preventing that fertile egg from maturing is immoral. This is a matter of opinion, a matter of religious belief. I respect people's different beliefs. However, you somehow feel that everyone should adopt your religious beliefs as the one and only perspective. This is both illogical and absurd. Our founding fathers placed in our Constitution a prohibition against the establishment of a state church, a state religion. This prohibition also protects us from religion, from the religious beliefs of others. Religious doctrine cannot be made into law. There are dozens of very respectable religions in our country and not all of them believe that life begins at the time of conception. Why should these religions bow to your religion? This is wholly un-American, without a question. Go off and live your life and let others live their lives, with sincerely held religious beliefs about when life begins. Live your life and do not partake of any of the medical advances that may emerge from embryonic stem cell research. When your child develops a medical condition that could be treated with a procedure developed using embryonic stem cell research, sit by his or her bed and sooth his or her pain by telling them that your religious beliefs do not allow you to partake of any medical advances obtained from this research. I am not sure it will be of much comfort to your child as he or she dies a painful death. However, I will try to respect you for your religious beliefs. I only wish you would respect mine.

[nunovyerbeezwax]

What's truly hilarious is reading some of the comments from those opposed to ESC research. Half of them are close to being illiterate. I've never seen such a variety of spellings for the word "embryonic" or "embryo".

You idjits are so stupid you can't even write a simple sentence, yet you think everyone should abide by your opinions on scientific and medical research.

What a laugh.

[K1MJS]

Well, the U.S. Constitution does not have a literacy requirement attached to the freedom of speech guarantee. And our constitution does prohibit a state church. Freedom of religion is also guaranteed by our constitution. Part of that guarantee is protection from religion. People can have a variety of religious beliefs, each with its own version of when life begins, but they cannot impose their religious beliefs upon others. We are protected from another imposing their religious beliefs on us. The discussion surrounding embryonic stem cell research is clearly a discussion of religious beliefs. One person who believes that life begins at X point in conception and gestation has as much validity as another person who believes that life begins at Y point in conception and gestation. I think we all agree that once the fetus is born, appearing outside the womb and breathing independently, there is a person. Official birth certificates certify, legally, when the fetus becomes a legal, independent person. Birth certificates are not issued at the moment of conception. Let's all drop all this circular reasoning and just look at the situation logically. There are thousands of other important problems that need our attention. Arguing about an issue that has no solution wastes a lot of time.

[Tom19991]

Bob,
Your frustrations should be aimed at Congress and the White House, not the federal judge. While I hate activist judges, this one had it correct?the law as written needs to be changed; the President doesn?t have the power to over rule legislation.

[inketolstoy]

You "scientific" supporters of stem cell research do your job and research how many successes there have been with the billions of dollars spent on embryonic research. Now do the research on how many successes have been achieved on cord blood and adult stem cell research. Stop using the strawman arguement that others must die so that I might live and then hiding behind the name of science.

[nunovyerbeezwax]

Baloney. There have been very few diseases for which ASC are approved or effective. You DON'T KNOW whether ESC research will provide successful treatments for those diseases that are not treatable with ASC. No one does. Too bad if you disapprove of the use of embryos. They don't belong to you and you don't get to decide. The courts do, and I'm betting they'll ignore people like you and your blather.

[nunovyerbeezwax]

And an ignoramus who can't spell 'argument' is too stupid to bother with.

[rightisitsowndefense]

Hey, Bob. Did you know that just recently they managed to use a person's own stem cells to regrow their cornea so that blind people can see again? There has been more success with adult stem cells than with embryonic stem cells, yet according to Bob, we're idiots and science deniers if we don't support using embryonic stem cells. I know you said that ESC have "the capability" or "the possibility" of being amazing... the only problem is that it's not working out that way. I think maybe you're the one denying the facts...

[rureallygoingthere]

Thanks for pointing out people seem not to be mentioning. Stem cell research does not live and die with the embrio and the public needs to understand that.

[legacyABQ2]

Good article Bob!

[addnarm]

jesus loves stem cells.