Now
Fair
49°
High
75°
Low
51°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Stem cell ethics: scientific and religious viewpoints

Comments 41 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By BOB REEVES / Lincoln Journal Star

Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 - 12:24:25 am CDT

Supporters and opponents of embryonic stem cell research look at the same facts but interpret them differently.

Opponents, like Chip Maxwell of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, argue that scientific facts demonstrate an embryo is a human being, and therefore entitled to the same rights as any human patient or laboratory subject.

“The science is on our side,” Maxwell said.

Related Link(s):


6.18.07 - Stem cells: The policy
6.16.07 - Stem cells: Behind the science, in front of the debate
Behind the science;

in front of the debate

As stem cell research dominates the headlines with advances in the laboratory and a political standoff in Washington, the Journal Star takes a look at its imprint in Nebraska.

Sunday

THE SCIENCE: Learn about stem cells, the flexible building blocks from which each human being is constructed.

THE RESEARCHER: We’ll introduce you to Dr. Stephen Rennard, a researcher working with embryonic stem cells at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

Monday

THE POLICY: Regents discuss the rules adopted in 2001 that guide research at the University of Nebraska.

Tuesday

THE ETHICS: Supporters and opponents of embryonic stem cell research have the same information. They just don’t agree on an interpretation.

Wednesday

THE BENEFICIARIES: As politicians debate the necessity of embryonic stem cell research, Ben Stahl waits and hopes. Also, where research likely will first be useful.

Thursday

THE POLITICS: Stem cell research likely will play an increasing role at the ballot box. Also, the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells and what the latest scientific discovery means.

Friday

RESEARCHER 2: Meet Dr. Ira Fox, the other UNMC researcher using dated human embryonic stem cell lines to look for cures for liver disease. Also, how the body creates replacement cells.

Sunday

FUTURE OF THE MED CENTER: If UNMC wants a successful future, do its researchers need to study stem cells?



***



Hot topics

Embryonic stem cell research involves some of the same philosophical questions about human life that inflame the debates over abortion.

61 percent of Americans consider stem cell research using human embryos to be morally acceptable; 30 percent say it is morally wrong.

On abortion, 43 percent of Americans say it is morally acceptable and 44 percent say it is morally wrong.

” The Gallup Poll,

Stem Cell Research (2006)



***



Some views on stem cell ethics:

* Kathy Willey of Lincoln says there should be no limitations on stem cell research.

“We need to come out of the dark ages and move forward,” she said. “So many from all over the world could benefit from research. Stem cells seem to be a good alternative to some of the things that have been used in the past for research: animals, minorities, mentally challenged, and I think the list could go on and on.”

Willey said she is pro-choice on the issue of abortion and has no religious preference.

“I believe in a creator but I’m not part of any organized religion.”

She doesn’t see an ethical issue with using stem cells from embryos or cloning. “An embryo is just a cell configuration,” she said.

“I recognize that religion is the basis for many decisions today,” she said. “When it is a question of saving lives, much, much more should be factored in. We were given our brains and abilities ” it is up to us to use them in the best way possible.”

* Nina Rohlfs, who lives near Unadilla, attends a church affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

“I accept human stem cell research for all the potential good it can do, but I think embryonic cells should never be used when the other variety will do the job.”

She doesn’t think the ethics of stem cells will be an issue for long, because research is moving so fast that other sources of stem cells ” such as umbilical cord and amniotic fluid ” will eliminate the need for embryonic cells.

“One article I read says this shouldn’t be a worrisome issue for long,” she said.

She opposes abortion and doesn’t like the fact that “excess” embryos are destroyed in the process of in vitro fertilization.

Nevertheless, Rohlfs said, she is still “in a quandary” over embryonic stem cell research because it might have the potential to end disease for which there is now no cure.

* Peter Ringsmuth of Lincoln is a Roman Catholic who has participated in anti-abortion demonstrations. He opposes harvesting stem cells from human embryos.

“I really do believe in my heart that human life begins at conception,” he said.

He also believes medical researchers have good intentions, and stem cell research should proceed “so long as doctors do not use human embryos who in my mind are smaller human beings also known as babies.”

Destroying an embryo to harvest its stem cells is just as wrong as killing a patient to harvest his or her organs, Ringsmuth said.

The embryo has the full DNA of a human being, and therefore is entitled to the same rights as any person, he added.

“It already has a race, gender ” why not call it a little baby black girl instead of an embryo? If we call it anything but a person, we take away that value.”

* Kathy Hoyt of Omaha, supports embryonic stem cell research because she believes there are plenty of unused embryos from in vitro fertilization available.

“To my mind, it’s a lot better for them to be used for something positive than to sit in a bank someplace.

Hoyt works for an adoption agency, and believes adoption is a viable choice for a woman experiencing an unplanned pregnancy.

She is a member of the United Church of ????, which has no official position on stem cell research but is generally supportive of science.

“We really believe each person is free and capable of coming to their own decisions,” she said.

Hoyt believes stem cells have great potential, but recognizes that much research needs to be done.

“There are a lot of unknowns here,” she said. “But I believe we should use what we can while we can.”

n Rita Hejkal of Omaha has multiple sclerosis, a progressive disease with which she was diagnosed 10 years ago. She says that even if research using embryos were to produce a treatment for her disease, she would not take advantage of it.

“I would not use any treatment derived from (embryonic) stem cell research,” she said. “My conscience would not permit me.”

She supports adult stem cell research as “very promising,” but said, “I’m always on the side that doesn’t want to use human beings like things. Human beings aren’t for use.”

Hejkal, whose husband, Thomas, is an associate professor of ophthalmology at UNMC, attends a Catholic Church.

“The Catholic Church has spoken about this definitively, and I take that seriously,” she said. “But my opposition to using somebody else’s human life goes even beyond that. It’s a philosophical and a political opposition.”

“As significant for me as my Catholicism is that I’m a Democrat, and Democrats traditionally stand up for people who do not have a voice,” she said.

He argues that any basic text on genetics or embryology makes it clear that as soon as an embryo is formed from the union of a sperm and egg, it has a full complement of DNA — the same it will have throughout its development into a fetus, and eventually a human baby. 

“The No. 1 principle of medical research is that you don’t experiment on humans if the result is to destroy the subject,” he said. 

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research don’t believe DNA alone is enough to give embryos a special ethical status. In fact, during an embryo’s first few days of existence it is a blastocyst — a mass of cells that has not differentiated, and could not develop into a human being unless implanted in a mother’s womb, explained Dr. David Crouse, associate vice chancellor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 

“It has the potential to be a human being, but it isn’t if it’s not implanted,” he said.

Most people would agree that embryos growing in a laboratory don’t have the same moral value as a living, breathing human being, he said. 

In a vivid hypothetical example, he asked:  If there were a fire, and you could save a dish of embryos or a real baby, which would you choose?

Using ‘leftover’ embryos

A major argument for embryonic stem cell research is that the cells used are from “leftover” embryos produced during the process of in vitro fertilization.

Embryos not implanted would be destroyed anyway, so it makes sense to use them for research that could result in cures for such human diseases as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes, said Sanford Goodman, public advocacy director of Nebraskans for Research, a group that supports the use of embryos in research.

“For (many) years in this country we have accepted the creation and certain destruction of human embryos to treat the nonmedical condition of infertility,” he said. “Isn’t it better if they can be used for the advancement of science?”

One of the most vocal opponents of embryonic stem cell research is Greg Schleppenbach, state director of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities of the Nebraska Catholic Conference.

The basic question isn’t whether an “excess” embryo would be destroyed, but whether the embryo is a human being, he said. Schleppenbach and other opponents want to keep restrictions on federal funding to stem cell lines that were available before August 2001, so no new embryos will be destroyed. Many also would like to eliminate the production of excess embryos by fertility clinics, but that’s another issue.

Killing an embryo for research is just as wrong as Nazi doctors using prisoners for medical experiments, Schleppenbach said.

Opposition

not just religious

Both Schleppenbach and Maxwell say their opposition isn’t based on religious arguments, but on scientific evidence. The science is so convincing, Maxwell said, that “an atheist could be on our board of directors.”

According to several national polls in recent years, 60 percent or more of those questioned said they favor using embryonic stem cells for medical research. But a poll commissioned last fall by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research indicated a majority of Nebraskans oppose such research.

Some critics have called it a “push poll” because the poll question stated that “embryonic stem cell research requires live embryos to be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain the stem cells,” and asked respondents if they support or oppose using tax dollars “to fund stem cell research that requires the destruction of embryos.” Of 500 recent voters interviewed in the random survey, 39 percent said they supported tax money for embryonic stem cell research, while 56 percent were opposed.

The poll was not unfairly biased in favor of a negative response, said Maxwell. In fact, he said, polls that have failed to make clear that embryos are killed have been biased in the other direction.

This year, Nebraska pro-life groups picked embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning as major issues to rally Nebraskans.

This winter’s March for Life in downtown Lincoln focused almost entirely on stem cells rather than abortion. They turned out en masse for a March hearing on LB700, a bill to outlaw cloning — both for reproductive purposes and therapeutic cloning, which is expected to play a  key role in future stem cell research. The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee held the bill this session and plans an interim hearing later this year.

Religious views vary

In addition to the Catholic Church, a number of Protestant groups have taken positions against using embryos for stem cells. Lutherans for Life, some Orthodox groups and some evangelical groups also have raised questions about in vitro fertilization.

All three Nebraska bishops uphold the Catholic church’s position opposing both embryonic research and in vitro fertilization.

Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has written about the evil of creating human embryos in the laboratory specifically to be “chopped up for scientific research or for such purposes as forming stem-cell lines that are alleged (with almost no evidence to support the claims) to be able to cure all sorts of diseases in the future.”

But there also are a number of denominations that either take a middle ground or favor both in vitro and embryonic stem cell research, within certain ethical guidelines. 

Statements in 2004 by both the Rabinnical Council of America (Jewish) and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church support the right of couples in fertilization clinics to donate excess embryos for research, but oppose creating embryos solely to harvest stem cells.

The Rev. Nancy Huston, leader of the Nebraska Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, is a deacon in an Episcopal church in Papillion. Her organization supports a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion, and also supports embryonic stem cell research.

The coalition includes people from many faiths, including United Church of Christ, Episcopalians, Jews, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and other denominations, she said.

‘Pro life for choice’

Huston said she is sure there are some people who are pro-choice on abortion yet have reservations about stem cell research, and vice-versa. She herself doesn’t like the term “pro-life” being used only for abortion opponents.

“I’m pro-life for choice,” she said.

“In no way is (using embryos for stem cells) contrary to the will of God,” she said, noting that she also believes God wants people to pursue scientific research that result in saving lives and improving people’s health. 

Betty Hoskins, a biology professor from Massachusetts, writes in a paper published by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice that it’s possible to believe embryos are worthy of respect but still can be useful tools to help develop cures for human diseases. 

“So often in our society this is presented as an ‘either/or’ dilemma — either human tissue in any form or stage of development is sacred and therefore cannot be destroyed for any purpose, or the potential for life-saving cures overrides all other ethical considerations,” she writes. 

As in all difficult ethical decisions, she says, there are no easy answers, but both the value of individual life and the potential benefits of the research should be considered.

Where does

God come in?

Despite the differing interpretations of science, it’s basically a religious issue,  says Goodman, of Nebraskans for Research.

“We have a group of people committed to a particular view of humanity, defined by their religious viewpoints based on the Bible,” he said. “That leads them to the conclusion that says God breathes a soul into the fertilized egg.”

Goodman is not a scientist, but a number of medical researchers are part of his organization’s board. And several doctors and medical researchers sit on the board of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, which opposes research involving embryos.

Goodman feels there is an ethical argument for promoting stem cell research, because blocking it could result in increased human suffering because potential cures for diseases would not be found.

Schleppenbach accuses Goodman of religious bigotry.

“The other side tries to marginalize us as pushing our religious views on society,” Schleppenbach said. “That’s just bogus. We never refer to it (the embryo) as a soul.”

Nevertheless, the religious differences on the issue can’t be ignored — especially since some supporters of the research use religious arguments to support their position.

“I believe in a God who is big enough to be graceful about the ambiguity we feel as we take the risk and receive the gift of stem cell research as Christians in the 21st century,” said the Rev. Lauren Ekdahl, district superintendent for the United Methodist Church in Scottsbluff.

There is biblical evidence, he said, for the view that human life does not begin at conception but at the first breath, because the first man, Adam, came to life when God gave him breath. 

“I believe we can respect and honor life without idolizing its very basic incubatory stage, and thus refuse the gift of its potential ... to heal life-threatening diseases.”

“I would disagree with the idea that the embryo is a person,” said the Rev. M. Winston Baldwin, senior pastor of First Central Congregational Church in Omaha. Baldwin, a strong supporter of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, agreed with Goodman that opponents of embryonic stem cell research are “trying to impose their religious views on others.”

He believes following Christian teachings carries a moral obligation to promote medical research that helps cure diseases and save lives.

“Humankind is involved in the creation process, and I feel the creation is still happening,” he said.  “We have a responsibility to care for that creation.”

Reach Bob Reeves at 473-7212 or breeves@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Fantastic Analogy wrote on June 19, 2007 1:05 am:
" "If there were a fire, and you could save a dish of embryos or a real baby, which would you choose?" - I propose we use this test make a big list so we can tell which human beings have more worth than others. Need an organ transplant? Just find someone lower on the list. The possibilities are endless. "

 thoughts wrote on June 19, 2007 1:05 am:
" Embryonic stem cell research is truly a Pandora’s Box. The theory is that when we open the box there will be benefits of a cure from many diseases in the future. My question however is: “what is the worst case scenario for embryonic research?” Will we only clone an embryo to the blastocyst stage of development or will we be eventually cloning humans for parts or other nasty scenarios? It sounds so far fetched and I’m sure there could be lots of wild responses to my question about how bizarre and off the wall this sounds. I would like to think that as a society that enough rational minds would prevail. However, in this day and age I’m not 100% convinced. How will we make sure the worst case scenarios do not become reality? My other rambling thought I’ve had on the subject is that embryonic stem cell research is not the only option being looked at for “cures” for everything from Parkinson’s disease to paralysis. Some of the readers’ comments from previous days almost make it sound like if this doesn’t happen there is no hope. I would be surprised if pharmaceutical companies and other technology fields weren’t working on solutions that may even offer benefits long before some stem cell therapy is available. The bottom line as I see it is that the people who are working on stem cell research (both embryonic and adult) are highly intelligent. I “aced” biology is college but I’m no where near their level. My hope is that there will be a way to make embryonic stem cell research unobjectionable for moral reasons if it truly is feasible. If I’ve understood correctly, there may be embryonic stem cells in amniotic fluid that have sloughed off of a fetus?? I hope I’ve also understood correctly that there may be a way to only take a single cell from a blastocyst without destroying the entire embryo?? Let’s all hope for breakthroughs in all areas. Signed, A transplant recipient. "

 WCG wrote on June 19, 2007 6:50 am:
" Despite the denials (seems real similar to the claims about "intelligent design," doesn't it?), this is all about religion. Clearly, lying isn't a sin in their set of beliefs. An embryo may be human, but it's not a human being, a person. That is fact. Anything else is just your own personal religious belief. And in America, we don't try to force our religious beliefs on other people. We have the right - and the duty - to think for ourselves. If you don't think abortion is right, don't get an abortion. If you think two people of the same sex shouldn't get married, don't marry someone of the same sex. If you think a blastocyst has a "soul," don't get fertility treatments. But your belief has no scientific evidence to back it, not only about the existence of some supernatural "soul." Without nerve cells, without a brain, there's absolutely no thoughts, emotions, or feelings. This is not a person. It's not even a fetus. It's human, just like your fingernails are human, but it's not a human being. It's not a person. Anything else is religion, which is fine if it's comforting to believe that sort of thing, but it should not be imposed on other people. No one will force you to have fertility treatments, so don't force the rest of us to remain hidebound and ignorant. Don't force the rest of us to suffer disease and damage that this research could cure. Believe what you will, but don't try to force your own religious beliefs on everyone else. "

 my son as the embryo wrote on June 19, 2007 7:10 am:
" First of all, Adam was not conceived as the rest of us are. Adam was the first man and was taken from the dust. Second of all, I got to see my son (when he was still an embryo) when I was around six weeks pregnant. The first ultrasound was high resolution and his size was estimated at three millimeters which is less than a grain of rice. He had fingers and toes already and was constantly waving his arms and kicking his legs throughout the sonogram. He was far from taking his first breath but looked like he had life to me. "

 An embryo in a dish has 0% chance of becoming a life! wrote on June 19, 2007 8:11 am:
" How can some people state the an embryo in a dish is a human life when there is one critical element missing, a womb. Without being implanted in a womb there is no chance of this embryo becoming a life! I ask all those who are opposed to this research...Would you feel the same way if you saw your child suffering the effects of diabetes or any other disease that this research has the possibility of curing? "

 Jo Johnson wrote on June 19, 2007 8:12 am:
" I think if we have 'excess' embryo's and it can help cure another human being, then why not use them. I mean everyone's arguing that we're not giving the embryo's a chance to live, but are we giving the sick people a chance? My best friends grandmother has a severe case of Alzheimer's and it tears my friend up. If using an embryo that might not live to be a breathing human being, can help her, then why not? There are so many people everywhere in this world that have a disease that could possibly be cured by this research. I also believe strongly in God and I honestly don't think that by helping sick people get better by 'destroying' an embryo is against His word. "

 Nate wrote on June 19, 2007 8:34 am:
" I invoke Godwin's Law after Schleppenbach's comparison of stem cell research to Nazis! Sorry, he just lost his side's argument by resorting to such a tactic. (If you don't know what Godwin's Law is, look it up on Wikipedia.) "

 Crux wrote on June 19, 2007 9:01 am:
" Is the product of human conception a human being or not? What does science say? Embryology, genetics, and basic human logic indicate human life begins at conception. It is bitterly ironic that the pro-ESCR crowd points a crooked finger at the other side accusing them of bling religiosity. That's laughable. I have not heard a single, solitary adherent of ESCR to give scientific verification that a human embryo isn't a human being. SCIENCE...not conjecture. One pro-ESCR poster on this board said, "An embryo may be human, but it's not a human being, a person. That is fact. Anything else is just your own personal religious belief." Such logic and scientific rigor! Chip Maxwell is right: science is on our side. Human life begins at conception. To be consistent, the pro-ESCR crowd needs to admit that certain human life is worthy of societal protection, certain is not. "

 Jan wrote on June 19, 2007 9:02 am:
" Right on WCG. My sentiments exactly. "

 My Thoughts wrote on June 19, 2007 9:30 am:
" If we always look at the worst case scenario we as human beings will never move forward. With every positive comes a negative; and all we can do is try and lessen the negatives while increasing the positives. "

 Sylvia wrote on June 19, 2007 9:34 am:
" There may be a good argument which indicates embryos are people, but they are clearly not American Citizens. The anti-embryonic stem cell research group clearly wants amnesty for these non-english speaking, non-citizen persons. We must deport them all to to a pro-embryonic stem cell research nation immediately. At that point in time, we should build a wall to keep all of those rabble-rousing embryos out of our fair country. "

 josh wrote on June 19, 2007 9:35 am:
" Wow the Catholics using the phrase, "the other side tries to marginalize us as pushing our religious views on society,” Talk the pot calling the kettle black... "

 First of all... wrote on June 19, 2007 10:08 am:
" Adam was created out of dust. There's your "scientific" explanation. When we're debating science against people who literally believe that one guy was created out of dust and his wife was created out of a rib and they got in trouble for listening to a talking snake the argument isn't going to go anywhere. These are the same people that fought against the idea of the earth going around the sun. "

 Mike wrote on June 19, 2007 10:12 am:
" What I want to know is why those groups who oppose this research don't ask for laws banning the destruction of excess embryos from in vitro fertilization? "

 It is going to happen wrote on June 19, 2007 10:32 am:
" If you think that we are going to give up on stem cell research, you're ignorant. This science is going to happen regardless. Maybe the tax payers won't foot the bill but it is going to happen. I just hope that all of you that oppose Stem Cell research are resolute in your belief. I don't ever want to see people in opposition getting life saving care because of advancements made possible by Stem Cell research!!! Unfortunately most people are hypocrits and you will not think twice if in that position. "

 diabetes patient wrote on June 19, 2007 10:59 am:
" To WCG and others who think an embryo is not a human being, at conceptus when the sperm and the egg unite, you have a person. It is a simple scientific fact. There's nothing Biblical about that. What is Biblical is that it is morally wrong to "destroy" or kill a person to harvest parts. I'll live with my disease rather than have an embryo destroyed so that just maybe, perhaps, a cure might be found. "

 Mike Honcho wrote on June 19, 2007 11:27 am:
" Well, Mike, perhaps they do ask for such laws, but their pleas are not made into news...that could be one possibility, could it not? I don't that Adam being created from dust is any more or less scientific than the theory that our universe sprang from nothingness...or that life popped up out of primordial goop. I remember that one of the basic tenets of biology is that "life comes from life". "

 Oh Yeah.. wrote on June 19, 2007 12:00 pm:
" It has no brain - it has no heart. How in the world can anyone consider this to be a human being? We have too many so-called "christans" imparting their beliefs on us as it is. If we are going to be force-fed some basic religious laws, let's at least go with Jewish law. Those laws make much more sense than the come-lately laws of the come-lately religions. "

 rab wrote on June 19, 2007 12:09 pm:
" Do people really think that there was an "Adam and Eve" that came from dust and from Adam's rib? Seriously? People, evolution has brought humans, dogs, cats and cockroaches where they are today. We keep evolving and learning to make life better and safer for us and those to come after us. With this in mind, do you think God has given humans intelligence? If so then everyone who opposes stem cell research should be ashamed of themselves. God has given humans the capeability to make life better for all of humanity (injured and ill alike). If we don't use this knowledge for good, it's like slapping God across the face and telling him we're just gonna sit here and let all the bad in the world take us over and kill us off, even though we could use the knowledge you gave us to make life on earth better for once. But apparently there are too many people who take the bible to me exactly as it says. And if that's the case there should be no killers on death row, rapists, people guilty of adultery, and plenty of people walking around with out hands because of robbery (remember "an ey for an eye?) But of course in our world today as always we take what sounds good to us, push it on other people and if they don't agree we protest. It's time we as human beings start doing something that's good for ourselves and the rest of the world. I could go on and on but I know it's no use due to all the close minded bible thumpers. "

 Dan wrote on June 19, 2007 12:42 pm:
" I love all of this science verses religion and acting like it’s the difference between right and wrong, and us verses them. How about both sides are right. Things that can’t be explained by science can be explained by religion, fills in a lot of the gray areas. What caused the Big Bang, could it have been God. Is Gods day the same as ours, I don’t think so. How about God created life and evolved it by his great divine guidance. He evolved our ancestors until he made man at which time he gave him a soul and named him “Adam”. Then he took a part of Adam rib and cloned it and manipulated it into a female and named that “Eve” and also gave it a soul or gave a female a soul. Everybody on this board is talking about when life starts. Whatever you want to call it, I will call it an embryo, is a clump of cells until God gives it a soul at which point it is human. I have noticed that nobody has mentioned on all previous postings of any referral to a soul. So when does God give it a soul, that is the debate. For all of the people that denounce that humans have souls, which mean you denounce that you even exist and your existence your consciousness is the same as let’s say a jellyfish or a house fly. To all of the evolutionist, if a species survival of the fittest, then human race is doomed. For the last 100 years we have been saving the weaker part of our species and they have been reproducing also, making our species and gene pool weaker with there survival. So by the evolutionist theory the future of the human race will not survive, unless we are protected by a supreme being God. Now we are back to placing our future in the hands of God. "

 Dan wrote on June 19, 2007 1:08 pm:
" WCG you did mention soul "

 re: my thoughts wrote on June 19, 2007 1:24 pm:
" Adam was created from dust was not a "scientific" explanation. The claim was aimed to refute those who use this religious verse to support their cause. This verse is also viewed as the beginning of life of the entire human race and not that life only begins when an individual takes his first breath. "

 Mike Honcho wrote on June 19, 2007 1:36 pm:
" Really, this isn't so much an issue of 'religion vs. science' as it is an argument between 2 groups of people...one group says, "the end justifies the means", the other group says, "the means cannot be overlooked in a quest for an end". In my opinion, we do not know the end, we just know that there are possibilities at the end. Is the end that we seek justifiable considering the fact that we don't know what lies at that end...that I don't know. I do know that I don't think human lives/embryos/etc. should not be farmed and harvested to meet that end. I don't know whether or not an embryo is a living thing, but I know those are living cells...the embryo itself may not be living, but it's certainly not dead either. There are a lot of questions, and very few answers...and what scares me is the fact that people want to push forward on this research without all of the answers. Will ESCR really cure Alzheimer's (a terrible disease that took my grandfather's life)??? I don't know, nobody seems to. Will it cure Parkinson's disease? Down's syndrome? Does ESCR stand a significantly better chance of curing these diseases than adult stem cell research? Nobody seems to know, or even be willing to ask. "

 Brian wrote on June 19, 2007 1:58 pm:
" Rab . . . you speak of evolution as fact, but last I knew it was still a theory. Evolution is far from being proven. Nowhere . . . I repeat, NOWHERE, in the fossil record is there a case of one species evolving into another. Whether one believes in creation or evolution, both require faith. Evolutionists are just too arogant to admit it. It seems we are trying to define the line where human life begins. Does it begin at conception? Does it begin two weeks after conception? One month? Second trimester? At birth? Fact is, no one knows. My conviction (not religious belief) is that since we do not know the exact moment life begins I give life the benefit of the doubt and error on the side of caution. Therefore I believe life begins at conception. Once that line starts to be moved it begins a dangerous journey which results in the devaluing of human life. That is all too painfully seen in our culture today. "

 JR wrote on June 19, 2007 2:26 pm:
" Can you imagine where we would be today if Greg Schleppenbach and the rest of his minions were left in charge of our education and scientific research? They do not care what science tells us. They do not care the embryo which could be used for research, and could save another human's life, is destined to be destroyed anyway. They do not care if the child is born and has a disabling disease which could be cured by science. All they care about is saving that embryo, even though it has no chance of ever growing into a human. We would still be burning witches at the stake if Schleppenbach were in charge. "

 eddie wrote on June 19, 2007 2:39 pm:
" What kind of being is a human embryo, if it is not a human being? We cannot deny that it exists. Everything that exists is some kind of being. "

 Hey Mike Honcho... wrote on June 19, 2007 3:50 pm:
" "Ignorance comes from ignorance," as well. Simply because you are unable to understand the intricacies of a scientific explanation for the universe or the beginnings of life does not mean that your Biblical fairy tales are the answer. What these scientific "theories" have over your Biblical explanations is that in fact, they may very well be wrong, but at least they have a basis for argument, debate and further research... your Bible stories are a dead-end argument for reasonable individuals, making you believe you have the upper hand with this debate, when really... we (scientific-based individuals) can't convince you that Santa Claus is a fable and so is your illustrious Bible. "

 Tara wrote on June 19, 2007 3:53 pm:
" to diabetes patient--that is exactly the argument--when a egg and sperm unite, it is NOT a person. I understand there are different viewpoints on exactly when an embryo becomes a person (my vote is for when it is not physically, biologically, and non-transfer-ably dependent on another human life), however it is the religious arguments and not the scientific ones that advocate a united sperm and egg are a human worthy of protection. I respect your decision to not want to accept treatments derived from stem-cell research, but what gives you the right to make that decision for the rest of the world? "

 Adult Stem Cells are the Present and the Future wrote on June 19, 2007 4:04 pm:
" Adult Stem Cells have had many successes, but the media has chosen to ignore these. There are many sources - amniotic fluid, cord blood, etc. We don't need to be experimenting on tiny human beings. The end doesn't justify the means. We have people trying to create the perfect child using In Vitro. We have people aborting a baby girl because they wanted a baby boy. We have people aborting multiple babies before they are born because they are afraid of having a son with Autism! We have babies aborted for disabilities like Downs Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy. Or even a minor birth defect like Cleft Lip. We deprive disabled people of food and water. This isn't what our Founding Fathers fought for. "

 Jan wrote on June 19, 2007 5:05 pm:
" Good grief. I can't even comprehend the kind of argument that Mike Honcho makes. Because we don't know the end we shouldn't go down that road? We're lost, so lets stand here and die before we walk out of the forest. What a ridiculous argument. As for Brian you need to go back to a real school. There is tons of fossil evidence proving evolution. Science does not require faith. I do agree with you, that you have devalued life to the point that a few cells in a dish are as important as your grandfather. "

 Ryan wrote on June 19, 2007 5:09 pm:
" Oh yay, the ol' 'evolution is only a theory' 'argument.' Just so you know, GRAVITY is only a theory. It has never been proven, nor is anyone even close to understanding how it works. But we acknowledge that it is true and that it happens. And as for the fossil record, it's kinda hard to show a creationist an example of a missing link because they just call it a new species no matter what level of middle-ground it covers. Ah, science at its best... "

 How many times... wrote on June 19, 2007 7:10 pm:
" must this be repeated to the anti-Embryonic Stem cell research crowd? Theses are frozen embryos slated to be DESTROYED anyways. They are left over embryos from fertility clinics that are to be terminated at the request of the parents, why not use them for good? It´s not a human being if it´s not in a WOMB!!! Nobody is talking about cloning embryos, but putting to use the ones slated to be disposed of. "

 hey eddie wrote on June 19, 2007 8:53 pm:
" Maybe we should start calling it a puppy or some endangered wild animal. It might actually be protected by federal law then. "

 Sanford Goodman wrote on June 19, 2007 9:24 pm:
" BEGIN QUOTE FROM ARTICLE ABOVE Schleppenbach accuses Goodman of religious bigotry. "The other side tries to marginalize us as pushing our religious views on society,” Schleppenbach said. “That’s just bogus. We never refer to it (the embryo) as a soul.” END QUOTE FROM ARTICLE ABOVE The comment above by Schleppenbach is demonstrably false. Until NCER hired Chip Maxwell as their Executive Director, the Vision and Purpose page of the NCER web site included the following definitions copied from a download of the web page as it existed at the time. BEGIN QUOTE FROM ORIGINAL NCER WEB SITE DEFINITIONS Respect for human life, dignity and rights is based upon the following: The human being (human person) begins as a single-celled organism who contains all of the genetic material necessary to develop into an adult. Human life is a gift from God who breathes a soul into every human being at its single-cell stage. The human being has inherent dignity that is independent of societal recognition, developmental stage, age, gender, religion, health, financial position, etc. The human being is, at once, body and spirit. Therefore, any external intervention on the human body is an intervention on the entire human being. The human being is to be loved and never used merely for someone else’s goals, no matter how worthy or far-reaching. END QUOTE FROM ORIGINAL NCER WEB SITE A review of their current web site (http://ethicalresearch.net/whoAreWe.cfm) reveals that they deleted the second and fourth points above. Greg Schleppenbach is the incorporator of record for NCER and was intimately involved from the organization from its beginnings. The two "definitions" deleted also happen to be verbatim from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It strains credibility that the Director of Pro-life Activities for the Nebraska Catholic Conference disclaims any religious underpinnings to NCER's opposition to embryonic stem cell research when the record so clearly indicates otherwise. "

 Nate wrote on June 19, 2007 10:32 pm:
" Brian: You state evolution is merely a "theory"? That shows an egregious lack of understanding about the scientific method. Religion is a "hypothesis", evolution is a step above that as a "theory", meaning all available evidence and testing has shown the main points of the theory to be accurate. There may be uncertainties related to the finer points of evolution, but a theory, unlike religion, is flexible and can be changed to fit the evidence as we learn more. Regarding the fossil record, again, you show a serious lack of understanding how evolution works. A) Evolution is not a 'magic wand' that instantly transforms one organism into another; the process takes thousands or millions of years and is usually quite gradual. B) When you state there are no fossils showing evolution occurring, perhaps you are referring to "transitional" fossils, of which, there are numerous examples which have been found. In fact, the tiktaalik was discovered in 2004, which shows an intermediate phase between aquatic and land animals. It was found in exactly the age of rock that Evolution predicted it would be found in. C) With the size and age of the Earth, do you really expect scientists to find every single fossil before you accept evolution? "

 Brian wrote on June 19, 2007 11:19 pm:
" Jan . . . I am a product of our wonderful public education system so I did go to a "real school." None of my teachers or professors were able to point to a fossil record and say "see, this is where this species made the leap into this other species." I never said that science is based on faith, I said the theory of evolution takes faith because there is no smoking gun which proves it . . . hence it being called a theory. You prove my point, however, that those like you are too proud and arrogant to admit it. As far as me devaluing human life . . . are you seious? I am the proud parent of a beautiful two year old girl, and our second is due next week. Each time I saw them on ultrasound I was amazed and humbled. I saw their hearts beating. I saw them moving their arms and legs. I could clearly see their face. I was then saddened to think that if we wanted to we could go and have an abortion. Jan, you may think that I am narrow minded, but I just want to be a voice for those who do not yet have one. I am curious as to when you believe life does begin, and at what point it is no longer to have an abortion. How far along is too far along for a pregnant woman to abort her child, and how did you come to that conclusion? I am seriously intersted in your thoughts on this. I am sorry you think that I am devaluing human life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe every human life is sacred. "

 Dr. Strangelove wrote on June 20, 2007 3:46 am:
" Alternate Universe edit; “The science is on our side,” Maxwell said. He argues that any basic text on genetics or embryology makes it clear that as soon as an Soldier is formed from the union of a sperm and egg, it has a full complement of DNA — the same it will have throughout its development into a General, and eventually a human being. “The No. 1 principle of medical research is that you don’t experiment on Soldiers if the result is to destroy the subject,” he said. Supporters of Soldier stem cell research don’t believe DNA alone is enough to give embryos a special ethical status. In fact, during an embryo’s first few days of existence it is a Dough Boy — a mass of cells that has not differentiated, and could not develop into a human being unless not killed in a war, explained Dr. David Crouse, associate vice chancellor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. “It has the potential to be a human being, but it isn’t if it’s not implanted,” he said. "

 revolter wrote on June 20, 2007 5:53 am:
" Looks like WCG and Jan need some help. WCG stated several statement such as "If you don't think abortion is right, don't get an abortion. If you think two people of the same sex shouldn't get married, don't marry someone of the same sex.", etc. I'll just add a couple more. If you don't think murder is alright don't commit a murder. If you don't think robbing banks is alright don't rob banks. Just hide your head in the sand, let everyone do the dirty deed and it and pretend it's okay. This thinking is stupid. "

 Shawn wrote on June 20, 2007 9:54 am:
" I might be wrong but I thought that "scientifically" when an egg and sperm unite you have a zygote? Or is that just a new nick name for little Joey? The argument shouldn't be whether it's living or not. The argument should be that life is not designed for every single "living" thing to have a perfect life for exactly 120 yrs and then die peacefully without disturbing anyone. The point should be whether we want to create humans who amount to nothing now but could grow up to be the next Turco or Jeffrey Dahmer, while letting upstanding existing citizens who have families and memories die, or if we want to stand up and admit to those who are already attached to this world that we support them and respect what they have done so far in their lives. I personally would rather the 50 yr old man get the time to see his grandchildren grow up than see the zygote become an abused foster child. "

 Tara wrote on June 20, 2007 10:44 am:
" revolter, there is a problem with your analogies. If I have an abortion, you (or anyone else) are NOT affected by it. If a man decides to marry another man (not you), you will NOT be affected by it. If someone decides to murder or rob you, you and possibly others ARE affected by it. It is OK to regulate the actions and rights of others when their actions infringe on the rights of third-parties without their consent. It is NOT OK to regulate the rights and actions of others purely for the reason that you personally don't like the idea of what they're doing. For example, I personally don't agree with many of the comments posted here, but my rights are not infringed by the comments and I do not believe your right to state your opinions should be encroached upon simply because it is against my personal belief. "

 Yep wrote on June 20, 2007 12:01 pm:
" I just love the argument "we cannot kill an embryo, it is a human life." Don't forget these embryos, will be destroyed. So, you say it is ok to throw these embryos down a drain but you can't do research on them? Did these embryos choose to be frozen? Also From what I learned in biology and from the bible, conception only happens inside a womb, these embryos were created in a test tube. How can life be created outside the womb when the bible says different? "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In Local