Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 16, 2009
Harry R. Jackson, Jr. :: Townhall.com Columnist
Kill One, Save None
by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Last Tuesday, I stood in front of the steps of Maryland State House as one of the speakers at an annual pro-life rally. Nearly 1,000 demonstrators chanted, sang, and vowed to return to their homes that night to strategize organizing their houses of worship, schools, and communities to fight the continuing devaluation of human life by the American public. When it came time for my remarks, I reminded the crowd that the battle for life was not over – we simply have new battle lines.

The day before our rally, President Obama made a powerful but concerning speech, justifying his decision to remove the restraints against government funding of embryonic stem research. The president warned twice that overstating the promise of stem cell research is wrong. This was wise, as embryonic stem cell zealots are promising handicapped men and women breakthroughs during their lifetime for the most debilitating diseases. Although it was refreshing to hear a cry for tempered expectation from the president, future research could lead to major ethical transgressions, such as human cloning.

Most pro-life conservatives believe that Congress should have banned federal involvement in human embryonic stem cell research based on the fact that it destroys a human being. We believe that the nation should never approve the destruction of living human beings to preserve or promote the health of other living human beings in the name of science. Based on this moral posture, the religious community especially encourages the use of alternative sources of stem cells, such as adult stem cells, those from umbilical cords or placentas, or other new sources such as reprogrammed skin cells by increasing federal funding for this type of research.

The embryonic stem cell research debate became personal for me this past September when my wife needed a stem cell transplant. All other treatment for her blood cancer - multiple myeloma - had failed. Let me take a moment to describe her treatment protocol. Weeks before the transplant, she went into the hospital where her own stem cells were frozen and stored. Later on, high-dose chemotherapy was administered to her in a sterile hospital unit on a 24 hour basis for a week. Finally, her stem cells were given back.

What I have just clumsily described is an autologous stem cell transplant. This by far is the most common type of transplant performed on myeloma patients today. The term “autologous” refers to stem cells that are collected from an individual and given back to that same individual. Autologous transplants are also referred to as auto grafts. The doctors believe that this treatment has given my wife back her life and her future. Ironically, this encounter with modern science reminded me why I am pro-adult stem cell research (which has yielded 72 treatments or cures like my wife’s) and anti-embryonic stem cell research (which has yielded no treatments or cures). Congress should obviously not have opened the flood gates of embryonic stem cell research because it’s ineffective!

In the ten years that embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) has been conducted, there have yet to be any successful treatments of any medical condition. In fact, ESCR is problematic in that the cells divide and multiply so rapidly that they create tumors. There are also problems of host rejection. There is, however, a successful and ethical alternative: adult stem cell research.

Unlike ESCR, seventy-two breakthroughs have been made in adult and cord blood research. These breakthroughs are addressing major health concerns, such as ovarian and breast cancer, diabetes, and heart disease among others. With the success of adult stem cell research, logical people conclude that we should put money where the breakthroughs are occurring and stop cloning embryonic cells.

We should be investing our resources in this kind of medical and scientific research that is not only effective but is also ethical in that it does not require the destruction of a human embryo. In this debate over human life, regardless of whether it is over abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or end of life issues, we must have a fixed reference point from which we do not deviate. That point is simply this: all innocent human life is deserving of our collective protection.

Research that involves the destruction or manipulation of embryonic human beings should be eliminated from universities. Higher institutions affiliated with religious institutions must understand the indictment they bring on our beliefs if they participate in research involving human embryonic cells. College alumni must take the time to find out if their alma maters are participating in morally suspect research. If an institution is using human embryos, its alumni should petition to halt such research. The academic community should set standards that define the precious and unique nature of each human life.

In a legal brief filed by Mother Teresa in a court case in New Jersey a number of years ago she wrote:

I have no new teaching for America. I seek only to recall you to faithfulness to what you once taught the world. Your nation was founded on the proposition—very old as a moral precept, but startling and innovative as a political insight—that human life is a gift of immeasurable worth, and that it deserves, always and everywhere, to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

The goal of life should not be to enrich and prolong our own lives at all costs, especially when that cost is the next generation. If we aggressively follow the path of cloning and embryonic stem cell research, we will become the first generation of Americans to fail to make sacrifices so that our posterity might prosper. We will also wrongly commit to sacrificing our posterity in the pursuit of the elusive fountain of youth. We are better than that. Let’s commit to the protection all human life.

Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Be the first to read Harry Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(48 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 12:17 PM EST
Well said.
`
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 12:24 PM EST
If Only Obama Would Seek Your Counsel
As always, Rev.Jackson, a great article. The Brody File, CBN News, writes about a weekend Times editorial naming five pastors in Obama's inside circle. It speaks of Obama's faith and his seeking advice from these pastors with whom I am not familiar with the exception of T.D.Jakes. But, from your articles Rev. Jackson I feel I know you and your worldview. It would be a great blessing to our nation if Obama would seek your advice..and listen. I feel his actions so far call into question his faith. Thank you.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 12:27 PM EST
here is what i don't understand
The majority of blastocysts used for stem cell research are left over from in vitro fertilisation treatment, and would otherwise
be destroyed.


in other words these blastocysts will be destroyed whether we use them for scientific research or not.

so what is the problem?

i could understand if we were destroying them for scientific research only, but these are left over from in vitro and are no longer wanted and will be destroyed anyway.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 1:03 PM EST
The problem is
Vitro.

First of all I dont have a problem with the concept of vitro for anyone seeking to have a child in that manner. However I do have a problem when the fertilization of eggs is beyond that which a woman is willing to have placed in her womb. Then to have those "left over" human beings discarded as trash or used as a common lab rat.

Life begins at conception, that is the problem.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 1:26 PM EST
Christianlib: Then what?
If we decide we can use unwanted humans at that stage, then what happens when we've used them all up? There is no reason why a researcher can't take donated eggs and donated sperm and create humans which are also unwanted and therefore available for use.

Your right to life shouldn't depend at any point on whether someone else wants you. As someone said in another publication, if we don't have inherent human rights, then there are no rights, only privileges for the powerful.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 1:46 PM EST
Another Moral Stand
The reason stem cell treatments are so archaic at the moment is because nobody has had a chance to research them enough because of religious ideologues. There is nothing immoral about using life to save life. You're saying a dying human being isn't worth the same as a microscopic glob of undifferentiated cells.

Here's a stand worth taking. I will personally take 1000 embryos, throw them on the floor, and step on them with my bear foot if it would cure one human being dying of alziemers.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 2:14 PM EST
anne
first, it is interesting to me that bush was allowing them to be used, only they had to stick to the ones that were already being used.

i did not hear a great out cry about that.

for example, was jackson opposed to bush's position also?

second, what i hear you saying is that we should use these thousands of in vitro blastocysts and bring them to term, regardless of whether those who donated them want them.

that is as scary to me as cloning.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 2:20 PM EST
Jack?
Jack, Jack, Jack! What's wrong with you?

You Said "Here's a stand worth taking. I will personally take 1000 embryos, throw them on the floor, and step on them with my bear foot if it would cure one human being dying of alziemers."

Did you ask just one of those thousand if they'd like to give up their lives so granny can get a couple more years? Which is more moral jack, killing someone against their will(called murder) or letting those who became ill later in life fade away naturally with as much dignity as we can?

I know the answer, Jack, and although Alzheimers is a horrible disease, and I have had relatives die of it too, not ONE of them would ever ask a baby to die for them. I would vote to acquit the guy who shot you dead while your foot was above the embryos.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 2:22 PM EST
Jack - Archiac?
What are you talking about?

I have a cousin who is a research doctor. He doesn't do stem cell research, but his area of research (which is cutting edge) has benefitted from adult stem cell research. They moved closer to a cure for the disease Rick has spent the last 30 years researching because of ASCR. At the hospital where he works, they also do ESCR. There have been NO breakthroughs in the approximate decade of research. Because of the lack of effectiveness, ESCR is slowly losing ground to ASCR. There are still zealot scientists who insist upon working in this area, but in a decade, they've produced nothing and the grantors are starting to pull funding. So now they want gov't funding reestablished. This is why they're asking for a return of gov't funding, because ESCR is losing grants because it's not producing any results -- well, except for negative ones, like the production of tumors.

Rick notes that if his research team were not producing results, they too would be losing grants. That's the way that it works. Science that doesn't pan out doesn't continue because the money goes to science that does pan out.

So, where is that archiac, Jack? If destruction of a thousand embryos had saved anyone of Alzheimers or even extended their life for a year, you'd have an argument, but it hasn't. ESCR doesn't work. A decade or more of research has produced NO treatments or cures.

OTOH, ASCR has produced more than 70 treatments.

So one saves lives without the destruction of life while the other ... does nothing. Which one should we support, obviously?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 2:30 PM EST
Christianlib
First of all, you misunderstand what was going on under hte Bush policy.

ESCR did not stop. The government just wouldn't fund anything that was from new embryos. The embryo lines that were funded had already resulted in the death of the embryos. The lines already existed. Research was allowed continued funding in those lines because the embryos had already given their lives.

Just because the gov't doesn't fund ESCR does not mean it has stopped in the United States. Many research facilities here have continued their research with private grants. Those private grants are now reducing, however, because ESCR has been such a phenomenal failure. No beneficial results from ESCR have been netted in more than a decade while ASCR has produced more than 70 treatments and cures. The results are telling.

As for the embryos produced through in vitro, I'm not really certain we should be playing god in this way, anyway, but embryo adoption would be an alternative. Human life is precious. If we can't protect the children we produce in a deliberate way, then we will all stand guilty before God on Judgment Day. I know where I will be numbered. Will you be with the goats?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 2:30 PM EST
Jack
I have never heard of anything coming out of a human womb made up of these "microscopic globs of undifferentiated cells", other than a human being.

If we could cure cancer in 10 people if YOU were to get smashed by a semi would you be willing to do that? How about if 100 or 1000 people could be cured? What if we all took a vote and decided that was a good idea?

Your "stand" only goes to the point that might makes right. This sounds good when you are the mighty, but not so good when you are the one who has to bear the consequences.

It isnt a religious ideologue it is common sense.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 2:43 PM EST
Yeah, but ...
...thing is, you're omitting integral parts of this argument.

1) ESCs that are part of O's ban-lift are those that would have been destroyed anyway. If you're that opposed to embryonic destruction, you should invest your energies with battling the fertility clinics that destroy them when they become, for whatever reasons, non-viable.

2. ESC Research is way behind in the US because of the Bush's ban the last 8 years. Logistically, it's been a nightmare for researchers.

3) ESC Researchers believe that BOTH ESC and ASC research must proceed; one does not replace the other.

I have not included supporting links because they are ubiquitously available to anyone.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 2:59 PM EST
aurorawatcher
so you are not even sure in vitro is acceptable.

as far as adopting them there are literally 10's of thousands of them.

do the donors have any rights?

you could end up with an a 20 almost genetically identical children.

should they be considered family?

as far as bush's policy, i understood it, i just don't see much difference except that new lines can be studied.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 4:07 PM EST
My heart is in this issue too.
My husband has myeloma as well. Although it is currently "smoldering" the odds are overwhelming that he will progress to multiple myeloma.
What you fail to mention in your op-ed piece is that patients who can't produce enough clean marrow for an autologous transplant sometimes can't find a close enough match to their own stem cells for a transplant.
1) Embryonic stem cells show potential because they are more of a "blank slate." This potential has not been adequately explored because....well, you know why.
2) Embryos not used for fertility purposes are eventually thrown down the drain or into the trash.
3) Why is it sacreligious to use stem cells destined for the trash but not sacreligious to use stem cells from donors? Consent? Tell me how sperm and egg or the embryo that they produce consents to ANY of the medical procedures involved in envitro feritlization or being discarded unused.
We are not just talking about giving elderly people a few more years. We are talking about a host of conditions that affect active, productive people of all ages. The fact that your wife had a successful autologous transplant doesn't mean there is no unique role for embryonic stem cells in research or treatment.

-Julie Zimmer
Vinton Iowa
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 5:01 PM EST
c-lib
"The majority of blastocysts used for stem cell research are left over from in vitro fertilisation treatment, and would otherwise
be destroyed...in other words these blastocysts will be destroyed whether we use them for scientific research or not.

so what is the problem?"

If you can't get a basic issue like this right, then your "christian" values are warped (they are the world's values). Don't accuse me of being judgmental. Well-meaning Christians simply cannot agree to disagree on this issue. One is right and one is wrong.

In answer to your question: There are NO expendable human beings, THAT is the problem. The word "blastocyst" is used to make you feel better about your position, but you are talking about human beings, and babies at that.

No amount of mental gymnastics on your part should lead you to the conclusion that Jesus would say okay to this. No doubt, you must think that an unwanted born child is a worse evil than aborting the child. But this is sophistry, akin to calling evil, good and good, evil.

Please don't call yourself a Christian. It defames the rest of us. We know evil when we see it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 6:40 PM EST
Hypocrite!
"We believe that the nation should never approve the destruction of living human beings to preserve or promote the health of other living human beings in the name of science."

Both the Repugs and a good number of Dems voted for this aweful war; but you and many others don't have a problem with lying to get this country into a totally unnecessary war in which thousands of US and allied personnel have been kill and thousands have been permanently disabled. Then there is the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians have been killed. Please spare me; your hypocricy is sickening; your words of concern for the unborn are not touching, especially when coupled with the lack of geniune concern for the those in the here and now. How shameful to discuss morality, when we have an immoral war in progress.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 6:43 PM EST
Julie
First let me say I am sorry for the situation you and your husband are in.

Your first
1) Embryonic stem cells show potential because they are more of a "blank slate."

That is not proven so we should just "explore" because we think there might be more of a chance. So lets just perform experiments on humans. Thanks but no thanks.

To your second point - I would say so what. That doesnt make it right.

Lastly donors have a choice and it doesn't kill them. It isn't sacreligious it is taking a human life. As I said before I dont have a problem with the concept of vitro for anyone seeking to have a child in that manner. However I do have a problem when the fertilization of eggs is beyond that which a woman is willing to have placed in her womb. Then to have those "left over" human beings discarded as trash or used as a common lab rat.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 6:54 PM EST
Equality
Alice writes:
"Both the Repugs and a good number of Dems voted for this aweful war; but you and many others don't have a problem with lying to get this country into a totally unnecessary war in which thousands of US and allied personnel have been kill and thousands have been permanently disabled."



war != science
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 7:16 PM EST
Well Said!
But it falls on deaf ears! America is fast becoming a nation with no moral compass. To many in this country there is no right or wrong. There is no absolute standard that dictates the way that we live and conduct ourselves as a nation. The majority of people do that which is right in their own eyes. We are going down the wrong road: the road to perdition. We mock God. Needless to say, we will one day reap what we have sown.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 7:34 PM EST
Wager
Robert Location: MI writes:
"We are going down the wrong road: the road to perdition. We mock God. Needless to say, we will one day reap what we have sown."

To those who mock God or say that He/She is dead I offer Pascal's wager.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 7:38 PM EST
Julie Zimmer
Embryonic stem cell research was never banned by George Bush. Just not funded with taxpayers money. Did you here what he said. There have been no breakthroughs whatsoever using embryonic stem cells. But lots of breakthroughs the other way. Obama tries this little ploy about this should be something decided by science. He is an idiot. At the very least if taxpayers money is being used no matter what your religious beliefs are shouldn't the money be going to the place where it can have the most chance for success.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 7:58 PM EST
christianlib
I take it by your handle that you are a 'liberal Christian'. Is that correct?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 23
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 8:37 PM EST
PJ O'Rourke, On Cancer & Stem Cells
PJ O’Rourke is dealing with cancer, right now, so if he wanted to, he could defend the president’s recent executive order promoting (with his typical strawmen and ungenerously snide references to his predecessor) the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He could wail and weep “poor me, I might need this research. I might get healed with it, and since the world is all about me, me, me, we should take this big moral jump and try! For me!”

O’ Rourke could ignore the fact that embryonic stem cell research (which did go on during the Bush years, despite the false narrative that is never corrected) has thus far yielded no effective therapies (but plenty of nightmares, despite the false narrative that is never corrected).

He could ignore the fact that if anything good was coming out of Embryonic stem cell research private capital would have been fighting all along (as they were perfectly, legally, able to do these past 8 years) to invest in the game instead of avoiding it like plague, while calling the president “heroic” (as the WH did) for “flicking his wrist” and creating a law.
He could do that, and immediately some “compassionate” sorts would jump on the opportunity to cry for him and bolster their case against lives less obvious.

But to his immense credit, O’ Rourke goes in the other direction and chooses to engage in some intellectual honesty. Brutally.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/16/pj-orourke-slams-obam a-on-stem-cell-reasoning/
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 24
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 8:56 PM EST
Again!
ESC research is ongoing in this country without gov't funding. It is also ongoing in other countries. You could argue whether the research conducted in the US is any better than say Japan, but the results have been the same. Nada, zip, zilch! ESCR does not appear to be working and you can continue to insist it has benefits, but the research hasn't panned out.

In the meantime, my cousin tells me of an ASCR treatment in his field that was under study for two years without gov't funding because under Clinton ESCR was considered the premier reseach and therefore got all the gov't grants. The treatment Rick knew about was producing results, but needed more funding to do critical safety checks and redundant studies to assure viability. The team couldn't get the funding UNTIL Bush pulled the ESCR funding and put it toward ASCR. An important treatment for a devasting neurological/immune system disease is now available because it got critical funding. Under Obama's plan, that money would still be going to ESCR, which hasn't produced anything worthwhile.

If it showed any promise, we might have a discussion about it, but more than a decade of research ALL OVER THE WORLD has produced nothing.

What part of IT DOESN'T WORK don't you people understand? Why are we putting money toward failed science that results in death when there is truly promising science languishing that doesn't?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 25
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 9:02 PM EST
Julie Zimmer
I'm sorry about your husband, but I would think you'd want a treatment available that wouldn't cause tumors, which is essentially all that Embryonic Stem Cell Research has produced so far. OTOH, Adult Stem Cell Research has produced quite a few treatments and cures and are promising even more. Government money should go to what works. ESCR has NOT worked. Throwing more money at it might produce more and quicker results IF it had shown any promise whatsoever, but it hasn't. ESCR should be a dead-stick and tax-payer money should go toward research that is producing results -- like ASCR. It's really simple. You've been sold a bill of goods -- a pie-in-the-sky scenario of hope from a scientific venue that has not panned out. If you want to advocate for stem cell research, advocate for what actually works. ACSR works. It's proven. ESCR has really only produced tumors.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 26
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 9:26 PM EST
Vicki
War does not equal science.

Science is a desire to know; a systematized knowledge derived from observation and study. It is also a way to organize facts, principles and methods. It is also a highly skilled craftsmanship and/or ability. Often this type of study is the basis for such endeavors as chemistry, medicine, social science, nutrition, engineering, building, electrical, etc.

Almost any body of knowledge can be used for good, bad or indifferenct. War methodology often uses some of the principles of "science" and the scientific method to advance the military and political causes of the day.

I will almost bet, that you use science in your everyday life; you use a computer and the internet to make your comments, that also means use of engineering to devise the computer or phone used to send your comments. Then, there is electricity. I bet you have been sick at least once in your life and received medical care and medicine-a use of science for human betterment. I bet you eat food to sustain yourself; our farmers are some of the most productive on the planet and our agriculture sciences are the envy of the world; all those charter schools [schools with dept of agriculture]-devised and funded by, OMG!, the government! I bet you have driven a car or used public transportation-again, engineering science. Also chemistry as well as engineering; we use asphalt to cover our roadways. Then there is metallurg; the science of metal and the devising of equippment.

No, Vicki, war is the product of human minds that are hell-bent on mischief and misery. Science seeks answers to questions.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 27
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 9:39 PM EST
aurorawatcher
"Nada, zip, zilch! ESCR does not appear to be working and you can continue to insist it has benefits, but the research hasn't panned out."

Oh please, so it hasn't meet your schedule so they should just give up? Have we exhausted all paths of research, do we know everything about ESC at this time?

We have not found a cure for many cancers, been working on those for decades. Time to give up!

"Under Obama's plan, that money would still be going to ESCR, which hasn't produced anything worthwhile."

This is just moose crap. You obtain money via grants and agencies such as NIH will decide who get the money. Let the grant process work and decide who gets the funds based on science merit.

Bush made it political with the banned on new stem cell lines.

"What part of IT DOESN'T WORK don't you people understand?"

What don't you understand, keep your bible at home and let the researcher continue their work.

The religious right is no longer in power and the science community is dancing with joy right now.

By the way, do we have a cure for Alzhiemer for example. You are tossing in the towel and claiming we should give up, sorry grandma..

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 28
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 9:49 PM EST
PJ O'Rourke, who cares

So O’ Rourke agree that ESC research did go on during the Bush year.

All the ban did was waste money and was just a ban in the *ss for the researchers. This is the type of government action O’Rourke supports?





Flag as Offensive

Reply # 29
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 9:54 PM EST
Embryos from ectopic pregnancies


Still waiting for the moral objections on that one.



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 30
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 10:18 PM EST
Kill One, Save None
It saddens me that, once again, religious beliefs, which should be personal and non-intrusive, are blocking the means to reduce human suffering.

A good proportion of those bible-bashing zealots have no qualms about heading off into unnecessary wars, destroying life and maiming innocents. Having God on your side is sufficient justification. Why then should we listen when they ask that we flush unused embryos down the drain, instead of using them for the good of mankind.

Like Harry Jackson’s wife, I too have multiple myeloma and received an autologous stem cell transplant a couple of years back. Having that treatment available is wonderful, but it’s not yet a cure because the cells harvested from our own bodies have minute traces of cancer in them and these ALWAYS grow back. Untainted embryonic stem-cells wouldn’t have that problem.

Think outside the square Harry, if there really is a God that is truly good then I’m certain he/she/it would jump back in horror to see these blessings flushed into sewers.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 31
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 10:58 PM EST
Mod Mark

I didn't take a position on PJ O'Rourke. I merely reproduced an article on him for the discussion.

As for ectopic pregnancies, I told you yesterday that the odds of obtaining an undamaged embryo in such a pregnancy are unlikely. Further, as I also told you, at least, 50% of the time a woman begins bleeding profusely and expels the embryo prior to getting to the doctor.

If they could harvest an embryo from an ectopic pregnancy, I would have no problem with it since the pregancy would not be viable and the woman's life would be in danger.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 32
Date: Mar 16, 2009 - 11:49 PM EST
Mod Mark
"Oh please, so it hasn't meet your schedule so they should just give up? Have we exhausted all paths of research, do we know everything about ESC at this time?"

ESC research was never banned. What was banned was US Federal money to fund it. Private funding has always been available. The Government should not be involved.

"This is just moose crap. You obtain money via grants and agencies such as NIH will decide who get the money. Let the grant process work and decide who gets the funds based on science merit."

Personally, I view your ideas of 'grant' money to be on of those pork deals inserted into the emergency bailout bill. Remember, Big 'O' said no more pork. There is no constitutional authority for the Fed to be involved in this boondoggle. This is 'moose crap'

"What don't you understand, keep your bible at home and let the researcher continue their work."

How about this - ESC has thus far prodcued nothing whereas ASC has. Since we have a winner with ASC why invest good money after bad on ESC? I understand you cannot fathom someone being in opposition to your brilliance but perhaps the opposition has some valid points.

"By the way, do we have a cure for Alzhiemer for example. You are tossing in the towel and claiming we should give up, sorry grandma.."

What do you know of Alzhiemer's disease?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 33
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 1:04 AM EST
Science and Belief
Pete Location: WA writes:
"It saddens me that, once again, religious beliefs, which should be personal and non-intrusive, are blocking the means to reduce human suffering."

"The" means? Are you a prophet? According to multiple folk in this and another similar thread ESCR has completely failed to yield any means to reduce human suffering. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Pete - "Why then should we listen when they ask that we flush unused embryos down the drain, instead of using them for the good of mankind."

I have not heard anyone here tell you to flush the unused embryos. Do you have contrary evidence? Most folk here who are against abortion seem to believe the embryos should be allowed to live and be adopted.


Pete - "Like Harry Jackson’s wife, I too have multiple myeloma and received an autologous stem cell transplant a couple of years back. Having that treatment available is wonderful, but it’s not yet a cure because the cells harvested from our own bodies have minute traces of cancer in them and these ALWAYS grow back. Untainted embryonic stem-cells wouldn’t have that problem."


neither would untainted adult stem-cells from other donors unless they too have myeloma.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 34
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 7:34 AM EST
Jack
states: Here's a stand worth taking. I will personally take 1000 embryos, throw them on the floor, and step on them with my bear foot ,,,,,

Are you a bear? Because you speak as if you were a wild animal with no morality.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 35
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 9:34 AM EST
War - what is it good for?
"war is the product of human minds that are hell-bent on mischief and misery."

Did you say the same when Clinton got us into Bosnia? . . . Thought not.

War is evil but sometimes a necessary one. People who believe it is never right have been blessed with living in a protected environment where they don't face the dangers much of the rest of the world does.

Should the Christians and the others in Somalia just bend their necks and submit to their own demise instead of defending themselves? Should no one take up arms against a foe that kills men, women and children indiscriminately? Of course not, in those cases - and others - war is a necessity of life.

Please take your platitudes and go home until you can discuss things with grown-ups.

As for "Science" Too many are treating it as a religion. The value of science is a method of thought that allows us to progress in knowledge of the physical universe - a truly valuable skill but not all-important. Many of life's questions cannot be answered by it, they must be evaluated by a different skill set, one that does not lend itself to scientific exploration. Indeed these questions do not lend themselves to those who don't have the right mindset and it is obvious you lack the required intellect.

truetolife,

Haven't you ever heard of the movie "Jack the Bear?" He certainly does speak as a wild animal. Perhaps he should be kept in a zoo with "Americanus Liberalus" on a sign outside his cage.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 36
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 10:46 AM EST
Cult of Molech
This reminds me of the ancient child sacrificing cults of the Middle East. They thought the Gods would bless them if they killed the most inocent. So it is again, history repeats itself. By sacrificing the most defensless, we will be blessed by the gods of science and the lame will walk and the sick will be healed.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 37
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 11:24 AM EST
Cybernetics
Can anyone explain why there is more focus on stem cells than cybernetics?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 38
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 11:48 AM EST
Cost Benefit Analysis
Bush's Solomonic solution allowed science to progress in ways that could have strongly argued for a reversal. Suppose the embryonic research had produced stunning results. That might have tipped the scales in favor of cures. But it did not. In this case as in climate change the Dems so-called committment to science does not include following the results of research. They pick an untested hypothesis and promote it with propaganda. We literally cannot afford to do our business this way. It is too expensive! When Obama says he wants to change the tired old policies I hear that he has no respect for that that has stood the test of time and has been proved to work. Frankly, I am more enamoured of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" than a change mantra of a progresive with ideas straight from 1850.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 39
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 11:56 AM EST
dbz77
I think it is because it is because with adult stem cells, we are basically helping along the body's healing process, putting healthy cells in the place of damaged cells. It is more natural and less likely to be rejected by the body. Cybernetics require interfacing the machine with the nervous system.

Don't get me wrong, having a bionic arm or eye would be really cool, but cool factor asside, adult and cord blood stem cells are the way to go.

By the way, I honestly don't know what kind of gov or private funding is going into cybernetics. It isn't as controversial, so it isn't making waves like ESCR is.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 40
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 11:59 AM EST
Red Herring
There is no problem with using excess embryos from IVF for research as long as the owners (parents) donate them. The idea that there are hundreds of thousands available for taking by the government is a violation of property rights. This has always been a red herring. When we allow a debate to be dominated by partisan spinmeisters, it gets real squirely.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 41
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 2:39 PM EST
Daily Steve
Bosnia was a peacekeeping endeavor accomplished under the NATO banner and was done to prevent the genocide from getting any worse and to stop the massive rape casaulties. This intervention was done to further the diplomatic efforts in the region. NO ONE lied about getting us into the conflct or the reason we went. The intervention did not cost us an arm or a leg and when President Clinto left office, he left Bush with a 250+ million dollar surplus. Clinton didn't try to hide returning military personne from picture taking or receiving the recognition they deserved.
War is not the answer and is most definitely not necessary for human beings to live with each other in a civil manner. Maybe you like the fighting and maybe you are a member of the military; but, it has been my experience, that those advocating war, often do not go themselves or send a member of their family. Few military personnel I know, ever think war is a good thing; most of the returning Iraqi vets, some with 3 tours of duty, felt it was a waste of time, talent and treasure.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 42
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 3:59 PM EST
Alice
I am a three time Iraq vet. News flash, Saddam was doing all those same things in Iraq.

Don't judge the Military unless you have been there. Do I agree with everything that was done in Iraq? NO. I beleive we should have kept our numbers up there in the begining. We would have been alot farther along now had we done that.

And don't compare our service to the murder of innocent life here in the states. Less Americans have died in Iraq than you libs kill in a day at abortion clinics.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 43
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 4:07 PM EST
A comparison of attitudes
The attitude of militant pro-ESC research crowd compares with that of us supporters of second amendment rights. They fear that any restrictions whatsoever will be the first step to banning their beloved abortion. We fear that registration and licensing are the first steps toward confiscation and the end of our rights.

The only difference is, we are right!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 44
Date: Mar 17, 2009 - 5:44 PM EST
JimRed
Great point!

Only one of those is protected by the Constitution.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 45
Date: Mar 19, 2009 - 1:36 AM EST
Previous item continued ....
Even if the donor and recipient are well matched, graft-vs.-host disease can still occur. There are many different elements involved in generating immune reactions, and each person is different, unless they are identical twins.

Testing can often find donors who match all the major elements, but there are many minor ones that will always be different. How good a match is found also depends upon the urgency of the need and some good luck.

Blood transfusion graft-vs.-host disease affects mostly the blood. Blood cells perform three functions: carrying oxygen, fighting infections, and clotting. All of these cell types are decreased in a transfusion graft-vs.-host reaction, leading to anaemia (lack of red blood cells in the blood), a decrease in resistance to infections, and an increase in bleeding. The reaction occurs between four to 30 days after the transfusion.

The tissues most affected by bone marrow graft-vs.-host disease are the skin, the liver, and the intestines. One form or the other occurs in close to half of the patients who receive bone marrow transplants.

Bone marrow graft-vs.-host disease comes in an acute and a chronic form. The acute form appears within two months of the transplant; the chronic form usually appears within three months. The acute disease produces a skin rash, liver abnormalities, and diarrhoea that can be bloody. The skin rash is primarily a patchy thickening of the skin. Chronic disease can produce a similar skin rash, a tightening or an inflammation of the skin, lesions in the mouth, drying of the eyes and mouth, hair loss, liver damage, lung damage, and indigestion. The symptoms are similar to an autoimmune disease called scleroderma.

Both forms of graft-vs.-host disease bring with them an increased risk of infections, either because of the process itself or its treatment with cortisone-like drugs and immunosuppressives. Patients can die of liver failure, infection, or other severe disturbances of their system.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 46
Date: Mar 19, 2009 - 1:43 AM EST
Out of sequence - read before Reply # 45
Vicki: ""The" means? Are you a prophet? According to multiple folk in this and another similar thread ESCR has completely failed to yield any means to reduce human suffering. Do you have evidence to the contrary?"

Not only is your lack of scientific knowledge glaringly obvious, but you seem also to struggle with basic English comprehension. By definition, blocking funding for stem-cell research blocks the means by which this research can yield results.


Vicki: "I have not heard anyone here tell you to flush the unused embryos. Do you have contrary evidence? Most folk here who are against abortion seem to believe the embryos should be allowed to live and be adopted."

Yes I do have first hand evidence that unused embryos are regularly flushed away. In fact this is occurring daily at invitro fertilization clinics around the world.

Surely you can't seriously believe that every single most basic human cell will be adopted and then successfully implanted in human recipients?

Vicki: "neither would untainted adult stem-cells from other donors unless they too have myeloma.”

It's not just the lack of myeloma that donors might have. Adult donor cells have many unique characteristics that cause danger and often death to the recipient.

I doubt whether you've heard of the condition 'graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)', but the following brief outline could be of interest to you (continued in new posting due to 2,000 character limit):
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 47
Date: Mar 19, 2009 - 7:43 PM EST
Baradiel
You miss the point entirely; to be outraged about a woman having her pregnancy terminated or the use of embryos for stem cell research is disengenuious. Your concern for that which is not here, and may never be, rings hollow when you seem to dismiss concern over the already born and their struggles with life and those hell-bent on their destruction.

War and abortion are not the same thing; although women seeking medical care for an unintended pregnancy can feel like she is in a war zone when attempting to enter or leave a clinic. Your anger at whatever, is making you come across as just plain angry and resentful that others live their lives on their own terms and not yours. Have you always been this aggressive and denigrading in your responses to people who have the audicity to disagree with you?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 48
Date: Mar 22, 2009 - 7:43 PM EST
http://right2recover.blogspot.com/2009/0
... And, I’d also like to know why telling the truth is not a moral obligation to the right wing party.

Conservatists have reported that adult stem cells have cured or treated 72 diseases, and that embryonic stem cells have cured none.

Well, here is the truth:

Only nine conditions treated with adult stem cells have demonstrated both safety and efficacy in all three phases of clinical trials and are considered as “standard therapy” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) treatments. These are: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, Aplastic Anemia, Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia, Multiple Myeloma, Myelodysplasia, Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome-X1, and Thalassemia Major.

Due to the pluripotency properties of blastocyst stem cell (that older adult stem cells do not have) has demonstrated that stem cells created from leftover lab-created blastocysts have allowed a paralyzed rat (having spinal cord injury) to walk again. The blastocysts used have not been introduced into a woman’s body and therefore a pregnancy has not occurred and no life is being taken with this research. These blastocysts would have been thrown away had science not rescued them.

Seems like right-wingers would rather continue discarding usable scientific material and spend tax payer money to try and get adult stem cells to behave the same as the “embryonic” cells being tossed.

Research should be done on all types of stem cells, and the truth should be told. Read Right to Recover Winning the Political and Religious Wars over Stem Cell Research in America to learn more....


Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.