Are there ANY lines they are not willing to cross?
By Bethany Kerr:
From Commentary Magazine:
Yuval Levin – 3.2.2007 – 11:44AM
(copied in full)
The stem-cell debate raging in the U.S. these last six years has hinged on a question of life and death – that is, whether destroying a human embryo should be permissible. But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ethical quandaries in the age of biotechnology. The kind of debates waiting for us just past the next turn will be far more subtle and complex, and directed to questions of human dignity as much as human life….
To get a hint of the mind-boggling issues to come, consider the debate over human-animal hybrids in Britain. Scientists in the UK have asked for government permission to use cloning techniques to produce a new entity that is almost entirely human, but not quite. In human cloning, a human egg is emptied of its nucleus, and in its place scientists insert the nucleus of another human adult cell (like a skin cell, for instance). The result is a developing embryo—a clone—with the genetic identity of the skin-cell donor, along with small amounts of DNA remaining from the egg donor.
The British scientists propose to use an animal egg cell—say, from a rabbit—in place of the human egg cell in this process, to avoid the risks and difficulties of obtaining eggs from women. The other adult cell would still come from a human being, so the resulting embryo would be human, but with some lingering animal DNA. No one quite knows what this would mean for its development, but the researchers propose to destroy the embryos to use their cells in research, rather than allow them to develop, so they argue there is nothing wrong with the concept. No clones would be born, and no human-animal hybrid would develop past about two weeks after conception.
The issues this raises go far beyond the “life question”. What should we make of the effort to muddy the human-animal boundary? And what of the cloning process involved? Should society abide the asexual production of a mostly-but-not-quite-human creature? The British government at first said no. But the predictable pressure from researchers soon came, with promises of cures and claims of therapeutic benefits. After a political and press campaign of several months, the hybrid advocates seem to have won the day: the government today signaled it will rethink its opposition. Welcome to the future.
I realize this has been going on for quite some time now, but after learning about the Sheep-human chimera in China, I am a little “freaked out” by it all.
Also, here is a post Jill made a month ago referring to chimeras:
One researcher is already working on creating rabbit-human embryos.
Another has inserted human cells in mouse brains.
Another has created “s/he-males” by mixing male and female cells in the same human embryo.
Another has inserted several million human neural cells into the brain of a monkey.
Another researcher inserted his own cells into a cow egg.
And finally, by certainly not conclusively, researchers have created pigs with human blood running through their veins.
It seems like people who disregard human life will cross ANY boundaries, not once considering the possible ramifications of their actions. If you dare to cross these people, or disagree with what they are doing, they always can use the excuse that it is all “in the name of science”. and they will try to villify you by saying you are just “in opposition to Science” by attempting to hinder their “progress” in “saving other human lives”.
Embryonic Stem Cells have not shown any true potential or promise in curing diseases, though pro-abortion liberals will defend it with their life…. as in the example of Christopher Reeve, who was quoted to say that only embryonic stem cells could produce “true biological miracles,” because adult stem cells “are no longer pluripotent, or capable of transforming into other cell types.”. (“A study, funded by the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, concluded in March of 2000 that “pluripotent stem cells have been detected in multiple tissues in the adult, participating in normal replacement and repair, while undergoing self-renewal.” The “pluripotent” stem cells the authors referred to are extractable from adult bone marrow.)
In contrast to Embryonic Stem Cell research, which has resulted in 0 cures (it mainly was helpful in developing tumors in rats), Adult Stem cells are actually helping people.
Also see here, here, here, and here.
Also, read about the Pluripotency of Adult Stem Cells.
And what about umbilical cord blood stem cells?
I see no reason to believe that mixing animal DNA with human DNA is going to produce any results for good either. In fact, I can see a world of possibilities that could arise. There are a lot of very freaky “What if?” scenarios I can think of.
I suppose my point is that there are other ways of helping people live longer lives!
Why is it that people are in such a hurry to alter and destroy human life, when they simply don’t have to? 
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Bethany, you definitely win the “person who can find the creepiest picture” award of the day. That freaks me out for some reason I cant describe.
I hope it is pretty where you are! Have a fantabulous day and I will be back in a little while.
lol Samantha, yes, it’s VERY freaky! It’s actually a sculpture by an artist, Patricia Piccinini, who does a lot of really freaky work.
I hope you have a great day too.:)
I second the motion.Is that a 1/2 pig and 1/2 woman? Wow! Science had better be careful. It seems that every time you turn around they are up to something even stranger.
Samantha –
I agree. When I got on the blog I thought I was still asleep because of that picture. Lesson to Valerie: Be awake when looking at Bethany’s pictures!
I do want to say something about cloning. Watch the 1st Jurrasic Park movie. Excellent scene in it where the scientist put morality in the idea of creating dinosaurs and playing God. The only person who saw any good in the manipulation of creation was the lawyer.
Always find that ironic considering what is going on now.
Bethany –
I went to the artists website.
How many drugs do you have to take in a lifetime to think of things like that?
wow.
How many drugs do you have to take in a lifetime to think of things like that?
Personally I don’t think she took enough!
She needs something to stop those hallucinations!
mk
Wow, words fail me. Sometimes pictures definitely speak louder than words ever can.
SH –
Good point!
I can’t imagine any reason why one would need to cross-breed humans and animals. It’s just… pointless, I think. A waste of scientific resources and energy.
I am in favor of stem cell research for several reasons:
-the use of adult stem cells are limited (they work for several kidns but it is still limited), whereas embryo stem cells can differentiate into almost any type of cell possible. They are responsible for more cures simply because they were isolated a long time before embryotic stem cells.
-most of the embryos used for research are embryos that are normally discarded (from fertility clinics)
-it can lead to the cure of devastating diseases
-I don’t consider cloning useful as a means to solve infertility (so many other solutions available) but the cloning techniques they use are only to help grow more cells to diferentiate and are never used to implant in a uterus, so I don’t feel a cloning argument is justified.
That human/animal hybrid freaks me out. Just…ew.
Also Valerie, I watched Jurassic Park recently, and I don’t think the procedure they describe is possible at all. And noone is trying to bring an extinct creature back “to life,” only use technology to cure diseases. It’s not the same thing, in terms of “playing God.” I think God would want us to use our brains to figure out ways to help others, where as, for example, bringing back killer dinos is not beneficial to society.
Embryonic stem cells have developed into nothing more than tumors at this point. In fact, the technology that was supposed to prevent this from happening just created bigger and more quickly spreading tumors. In addition to this, the same cells exist in the placenta. Thus, we could carry on this as of yet fruitless research without ethical qualms.
I believe it was actually the democrats apposed to such measure.
Of course, adult stem cells have had HUGE success, yet the media insists on minimizing their contribuition.
PIP –
Just replace the word Dino’s with Stem cell.
;-)
I wasn’t talking literally, I know dino’s aren’t coming back. But human/animal combo cloning thing is playing God. That’s was my point.
Geesh – you like to keep us all on our toes don’t ya!
“Embryonic stem cells have developed into nothing more than tumors at this point.”
Right. We need time to study them just like we have studied adult stem cells a decade before embryonic stem cells were isolated.
“In addition to this, the same cells exist in the placenta.”
There are some small difference, though that research is promising. The placental stem cells cannot reproduce indefinately like embryonic stem cells can. Also, extracting the amniotic fluid can pose a few health risks to the mother and this fluid can detect abnormalities with the fetus, which can encourage abortion. Those are the two ethical aspects I have heard about them. Not that embryonic research is with out it. I think we should look at all avenues.
“Of course, adult stem cells have had HUGE success, yet the media insists on minimizing their contribuition.”
Of course they have contributed. But they have had a lot of time for this research to include. Embryonic stem cells were isolated a decade later so it is still in its developing stages. Given is ability to become almost any cell type it seems to have even a greater potential than adult stem cells. Though I think research in adult stem cells should continue.
“I wasn’t talking literally, I know dino’s aren’t coming back. But human/animal combo cloning thing is playing God. That’s was my point.”
Right. :P I think that combo cloning is a baad idea. Why is it needed? I guess the idea probably came out because they thought they could compromise with the pro-life crowd about it…
“Embryonic stem cells have developed into nothing more than tumors at this point.”
Right. We need time to study them just like we have studied adult stem cells a decade before embryonic stem cells were isolated.
But why? If we have other ways that are proving successful, then why kill babies? Why not stick the moral solution that is working?
I don’t get it.
mk
Because embryonic stem cells hold more potential. Adult stem cells are limited in their ability to differentiate.
But wouldn’t it make more sense to work with adult stem cells and try to find new and better ways to use them.
I mean what if the choice were to kill two year olds because they had the best stem cells. Wouldn’t we just shake our heads and say, bummer, we’ll just have to find another way?
mk
Yes, but that is not the case, and since these embryos are going to be discarded anyway they might as well be put to good use.
Yes PIP,
But discarding them is also even. I believe creating them in the first place was evil. And I don’t believe for one minute that more won’t be created so that they can continue to experiment.
And it’s not different at all from where I’m coming from, because those are little tiny babies being experimented on.
mk
They were created for the purpose of giving infertile couples life. Was doing that wrong?
Usually the couples ask that they throw the extra embryos away. These people said, hey, we could use those, they have already been “created,” and we can use this cell to make lots of other cells to eventually help people overcome horrible diseases.
While that sounds noble PIP,
The fact remains that these were not their embryos to create. Why? Because look at the result. We take this and that one and those the rest of the little darlings away…
Again, sometimes people are called follow a different plan than the one they made for themself.
It’s tough, yes, but the consequences when you start to take things into your own hands…well, you get things that look like Bethany’s pigpeople,
aborted babies, babies that were created just to be thrown away…
I see your logic, but if you do it with these embryos? You are opening a pandoras box. It will NOT stop there.
And these are people we’re talking about. Not fruit flies. Little, whorton hears a who size people. Not garbage. Just because their parents thought of them that way, doesn’t mean we have to.
What would you call organ donation?
Um…I was an IVF baby back when IVF was shiny-new technology. It’s how I was conceived. I have a cousin who is also an IVF baby. Both my mother and my aunt are Catholic and had no qualms with this, they wanted children badly enough they were willing to use IVF (though my mom used it nearly 20 years before my aunt did). I really don’t see a problem with IVF helpig infertile couples.
Rae, I see little problem with IVF as long as an excess of embryos are not created.
But Lauren, they have to create extra embryos (well technically zygotes) to ensure that at least one of them implants in the uterus.
First we need to learn HOW the stem cells specialize. That’s basic science.
Treatments for diseases will follow (MAYBE) when the specialization process is better understood.
Lauren, adult stem cells have not had “HUGE” success. That’s a gross exaggeration.
The purpose of getting human nerve cells to grow in animals is that then they can be used in experiments to learn how they work. Especially, their long-term development and long-term pathology can be studied. There’s no other way to do that since we can’t sacrifice actual humans and do experiments with their nerve cells.
It’s certainly NOT a waste of time or energy. Understanding the development and pathology of human neurons in vivo is a very important goal.
SOMG,
There’s no other way to do that since we can’t sacrifice actual humans and do experiments with their nerve cells.
Except that a whole lot of us think that using embryos IS experimenting with human beings…
mk
The thing is MK, that most people don’t find IVF a bad thing. The vast majority of people think it is a good service. So it’s not like you can make this service illegal.
So you can let the extra embryos die…or you can use them to help people.
Similar to organ donation. These people died, and it’s sad. But these people think, “well I am going to be dead, so I might as well help others now that I won’t be using my organs.” Only here the situation is this: my extra embryos (will) die, and that’s sad. But these people think, “well they will be dead, so I might as well help others now that I won’t be using them.”
Embryos can morph into any cell so their research covers diseases that adult stem cells just can’t do.
I don’t know a whole lot about what SOMG said about the animal hybrid cells…so i can’t elaborate there.
PIP –
“The thing is MK, that most people don’t find IVF a bad thing. The vast majority of people think it is a good service. ”
I think you would be very surprised to find out how many people actually do not think IVF is a good thing.
It can give false hope. It can be painful, both physically and emotionally. It can create multiple children in one pregnancy. Talk about unwanted children. No one says, hey I think I’ll have triplets now. (When Danny was in the NICU there were 6 sets of triplets all from IVF and the hospital we were at wasn’t even the children’s hospital, imagine how many were there) It creates multiple deaths that no one even cares about.
Ah, well. Unless IVF become illegal I still believe we are doing a good thing. I still think it’s comparable to organ donation, you can either let these embryos die and discard them, or you can keep them alive long enough and do research on them to help benefit society.
If IVF becomes illegal and we can’t use the embryos that would be destined for death I think the research may become a conflict of interest, because then they would be creating embryos for the PURPOSE of killing them for research rather than “recycling” them. It’s like you guys say, “intent.” Does that make sense?
I still think that amniotic stem cells should be seriously looked into though. They seem very promising.
Valerie: I’m just wondering if you think my mom and my aunt were wrong in using IVF, as my cousin and I are both IVF babies. Without IVF, my cousin and I wouldn’t be here because neither my mom nor my aunt were able to conceive without it.
Rae –
I didn’t say that people who use IVF are wrong. I was responding to PIP saying that most people don’t think it’s a bad thing. Many people do think it causes more problems than good. However, I am very happy that you are here, along with everyone else conceived that way. Your Mom and Aunt are lucky that there weren’t more of you. Many more of you.
Actually, to be honest, my husband and I considered it. There was a medical guess that the reason I was miscarrying so much was because my hubby and I couldn’t have a girl. (Something genetic, but can’t remember the name, thank God they were wrong!). And IVF would have made sure only male’s were implanted. This is when I discovered all the downfalls to it. I talked to many, many, many women who ended up with more problems because of the false hope it can bring. Alot of emotional scars. Plus, all the multiple children because of it! yikes! At this time, we weren’t going to Church, so I wasn’t conserned about the church’s teachings on the subject. The #1 reason I declined doing it was the chance of having multiples. I didn’t think that would be fair for Danny. I can’t even tell you why I thought it would be unfair, I just did.
It comes down to personal decision. I do find it a bit ironic though. Discussing a procedure that people turn to when they have difficulty getting/keeping pregnant while we are on a site that discusses abortion.