Repeating: Embryonic stem cells are yesterday’s science
I previously reported separate Japanese and U.S. “Nobel Prize worthy” breakthroughs, reprogramming adult stem cells to become the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. Jivin J reported this morning on something I think bears repeating. A Canadian research team discovery that actually predated the aforementioned is finally getting headlines, thanks to a paper published March 1 in Nature, as reported by the National Post (click to enlarge)…
Presdient Obama’s promotion of taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research is completely unnecessary and even backward. Why is he pushing it?
Mar.02, 2009 4:51 pm |
Stem cell |
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.
It’s been obvious for years that embryonic stem cell research is a waste of effort, as well as being unethical. Adult and umbilical cord stem cells have yielded all the benefits seen thus far.
But the Lefties still need this hoax to pretend that good can come from their killing.
In the same manner, they need the global warming hoax to further their agenda of economic destruction, dependency of people on the government, and their retention of power.
He is pushing it because it represents something more than the prospects of anything being gained in the near term. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research know they have nothing to offer compared to the tremendous strides currently being made with cells from morally licit sources. What they are looking at is 10 or 20 years down the road, perhaps for a kind of “fountain of youth” magic bullet, or even yielding insights into creating perfect designer babies.
Another big push behind this is big money. Big money to big universities and big research firms who in turn donate big money to the campaign coffers of their sources of funding.
What embryonic stem cell research involves is the deliberate destruction of a human being for the purposes of research. Haven’t we already been down this road in the Gulags and concentration camps of the twentieth century? That, in and of itself, should be an automatic disqualifier. But in this age of moral relativism it is OK to do these things because we cannot think clearly enough to understand the depravity of our actions.
Nevertheless, those in charge of our vast federal resources are now placing themselves squarely behind this research. Of course our objections will fall upon deaf ears, but it may behoove those who are pushing this to consider the fact that with the development of any technology, there is the principle of unintended consequences. What will be the perverted results of embryonic research gone wrong? We may not have to wait too long to find out.
If it’s really “yesterday’s science,” then what are you worried about? The funding will be available, and no one will apply for it.
Making the funding available doesn’t force anyone to use it. Of course you know that, and you know that it isn’t really yesterday’s science, so you know that scientists WILL apply for that funding and WILL make more breakthroughs, exposing your foolishness for what it is.
No the $ will be wasted on research that will NEVER produce a cure. There are already breakthroughs with adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood cells that are actually helping people. I read about a little boy whose family took him to china for a treatment with umbilical cord blood cells for his Septo Optic Dysplasia (a disease that causes blindness). If the USA would wake up and realize that ESCR will never produce a cure, and concentrate on real results, then families like this little boy’s won’t have to go to CHINA for the treatment.
Making the funding available doesn’t force anyone to use it.
Posted by: reality at March 2, 2009 7:43 PM
reality, there will always be people willing to take the money. Some people even kill for money.
ummmm, the whole ‘pro-life’ edifice is being looked at from a new perspective. Brace yourselves: http://web.mac.com/charlesgregory/ABORTICENTRISM/RESPONSIBLE_Right_to_Life.html
I know this off-topic, but this is an issue of great concern:
All people who are retired or active military who are concerned about Barack Obama are strongly encouraged to contact Dr. Orly Taitz at:
http://defendourfreedoms.us/
Orly currently has 101 total plaintiffs, 9 of them are active, 3 in Iraq, numerous in active recall.
Obama must submit his documents to prove his elgibility:
His original birth certificate with a name of the hospital, a name of the doctor, 3 signatures and a seal, his passports from Kenya and Indonesia, his immigration records and his school enrollment records from Occidental College, Harvard and Columbia.
Please all military! Contact Orly Taitz Today!
Contact other active and retired military and have them contact Orly Taitz today.
Our country and constitution is at stake.
I’m feeling a bit embarrassed that I took the bait- don’t make the same mistake as I and waste even five minutes on the ramblings at the 5:57am link. cgregor – if you think this is a “new perspective”, you’ve not been around this issue long enough.
As the coordinator of a pro-life agency that has been helping women and families for almost 25 years, I really have no time for veiled pro-abort criticism which accuses the pro-life movement of not caring for women beyond when their babies are born. I have clients whose children are now coming to us for help with their pregnancies (in other words- with some of our clients, we’re into the second and third generation of offering countless hours of care and practical help.) I have never heard that baseless and insulting accusation come from the mouth of a single client we have served- and in this debate, that’s the only voice that matters to me.
CGregor, an alleged pro-lifer, linked to a page with this:
FOR ALMOST ALL ‘PRO-LIFERS,’ THE CLOSER LIFE GETS TO BEING HUMAN, THE LESS SACRED IT BECOMES.
Charles, you need to go understand basic embryology. Each person’s human life begins at amphimixis – the finalization of the fertilization process. The zygote is a living human already.
Statements like those above indicate you are unprepared and non-serious.
Hardly convincing.
***FOCA NOW BEING PASSED THROUGH YOUR BACK DOOR (ACT BY MARCH 4th)***
PLEASE PASS THIS ON.
cgregor,
Only in the abortion debate does the argument “all you care about it ____, but what about ____???” hold water because the abortion supporter is begging the question by already assuming the unborn is not “human” or a “person.” No one takes seriously the argument “All you care about is people with AIDS- what about those people with cancer, diabetes, Parkinsons, and a host of other illnesses?” if it is put forth towards a doctor determined to find a cure for AIDS. Nor do you hear “All you care about is stopping violence against women; but when it comes to offering them better health care, better funding for education, and equal pay rights, where are you?!” to one who is concerned with violence against women.
This is part of what I was talking about yesterday with Oliver and how people don’t know how to think. For some reason, this argument that “if you’re against abortion then you need to be just as vocal and present in every other area of a child’s development” is convincing to some pro-choicers. Yet it only takes a moments reflection to clearly see that the argument is not only question-begging, but the same line of thinking would NEVER be used in any other situation.
Why is he pushing it? Because it’s hard to change your ideology, admit a mistake, and re-educate your rabid fans, that’s why.
The funding will be available, and no one will apply for it.
Is that a joke?
The goal is to so expand abortion that when mom whose baby comes early can be left to die rather than expensive life saving treatment. The premature birth will be reclassified as an abortion. This will all be part of the mandate that all treatments be reviewed for “cost effectiveness.”
My sister voted for BO. But BO’s plan for health care would have killed her son. Premature, hole in his heart and down syndrome. Follow her liberal logic she should be okay with the government letting her son die. “If the government pays, then the government gets to decide.” This was her response when I argued that her plan for the government to pay for all college would result in the government deciding what one gets to study. “We can have money wasted.”
Well she will get her wish the next time her son has to have an expensive procedure.
For Michelle, Chris, et al., there’s a difference between spending eight hours a day and every second of eighteen years dealing with human life. The eight-hour-a-day shift can very easily be construed as caring , not for;
When it’s your responsibility, for every second of a human life, whether you’re absent or present, for eighteen years, you have to be caring for it, as the website shows. Working with women subject to abuse isn’t as hard as working with the next newborn Ted Bundy to prevent from 31 to 65 victims. As cases of feral children indicate, no life will be human until someone cares for it, not simply about it. As for the validity of the argument of the site, you have only to look inside yourself to find out why you are not fully engaged in caring for human life.
Try this level of commitment: 600 hours a year and 6% of your gross income spent directly one-on-one with a child whose neighborhood you don’t want to live in, who’s not of your church, and whose parents can’t or won’t care for it. It can be done. Or the same amount of time doing these: a public school classroom volunteer, a family court guardian ad litem, a staffer for the local mental health parenting programs. If you can do it, fine. If you can’t only you know the reason why– and if you think it’s different from the root causes of aborticentrism, make sure it’s not denial.
Posted by: cgregor at March 13, 2009 5:33 AM
——
Given the number of times you refer to human beings as “it” in your post, I imagine any compassion you think you have is coming from your head and not your heart.
I pray God softens your heart, but I shudder to think how He might do it.
I’m quite comfortable with what I’ve done over the decades for needy kids and their families as a volunteer. Thank you for looking into my heart. Now take some time to look into yours. Let us know how much you’ve done to steer the next Ted Bundys in the right direction. If you’re comfortable with just “rescuing” the “unborn humans,” that’s okay with me, too.