Embryonic stem cells = hair follicles
The Michael J. Fox/embryonic stem cell-cloning flak has apparently renewed interest in a column I wrote two years ago entitled, “Michael J. Fox is a cannibal.” One person even advised I remove it post haste before Fox sued me for defamation. It’s a little late for that.
On page two is a fun exchange I had with a Megan Papesh, who posed an interesting question and who eventually equated early preborn humans with hair follicles….
From: Megan Papesh
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 12:26 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: curiosity
After reading your article in which you heinously call Michael J Fox a cannibal, am I left with one burning question. No, my question does not concern where you get off comparing him to Hitler or to slave owners. Your use of oversimplified sentence structure and grand generalizations already tells me that your opinion should matter as much as perhaps a toddler’s.
My question is what you would think of me in a hypothetical situation. Let me give you a little background, if this helps you (though I doubt it, as you see the world in black and white). I am a 23-year old, educated woman and I have no children, nor do I plan on ever having children. My question is thus: what would you think if I were to tell you that I am willing to become impregnated repeatedly, only to have the zygotes ( not human) harvested for the purposes of stem cell research? If this were an option available to me presently, I can assure you I would take it.
Does this make me a Nazi war criminal, comparable to Josef Mengele? Does this make me a slave trader? Or, perhaps more realistically, does this make me someone concerned with the future of our aging generations?
I would appreciate a response, as the majority of people I know and work with consider this a wonderful idea. It is not often, especially among the educated, that one hears an opinion so close-minded and biased as your own.
_______________
From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:03 PM
To: Megan Papesh
Subject: Re: curiosity
My answer to your hypothetical question: Your purposeful, repeated killing of your preborn human offspring would make you a serial killer.
_______________
From: Megan Papesh
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: Re: curiosity
Hundreds of thousands of people afflicted with diseases that could be prevented/cured through research with stem cells are currently suffering. To compare the sacrifice of several zygotes (nonhuman, bloodless, brainless, soul-less, if you will, cells) to the pain and eventual death of millions of people is not only morally repugnant, it is simply stupid. The people dying from these diseases are friends, family members, and parents.
Comparing a blastocyte that is 1/10 the size of the period at the end of this sentence to their lives is shameful. Does denying them this treatment, then, make me a mass murderer? I think I would rather be a serial killer.
_______________
From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:28 PM
To: Megan Papesh
Subject: Re: curiosity
So you’re saying level of development and size determine whether one is human or not?
_______________
From: Megan Papesh
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:43 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: Re: curiosity
This is not a question of whether or not something is or will become a human (as I stated, a zygote is a collection of cells and I do not consider this to be a human regardless of the fact that, if carried to term , it will become a human). I am wondering how you can justify giving so much weight to a collection of cells that have the potential to be born (miscarriages happen) over lives that are currently being lead and slowly, painfully ended?
_______________
From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Megan Papesh
Subject: RE: curiosity
So we’re only human “if carried to term”?
And yes, it is a question of whether or not something is or will become human. That is the entire question: When is a human a human? You indicated in your first email that level of development and size determine humanity. You indicated in your second email that age – only full-term babies – are human. Re: the latter, do those full-term babies have to be delivered to be human? What if a preterm baby is delivered? Does she not become human until her due date? You need to explain your hypothesis to me.
_______________
From: Megan Papesh
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:32 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: Re: curiosity
Despite the fact that you have done nothing to answer my questions, I will still gladly answer your’s.
A hair follicle is no less human than a zygote. They carry the exact same DNA, the only difference is that one grows into a human and the other does not. A zygote, therefore, does not possess anything uniquely human about it that the hair follicle does not. Would you argue against someone shaving their head? I don’t think so. My personal views on when a collection of cells becomes human is irrelevant to this issue. My argument is simply that the sacrifice of a ball of cells that could potentially possess actual life is worth it when you consider the benefits to those who are currently alive and suffering (and by life, before you ask, I mean consciousness and awareness. To answer your question before you ask again, I also believe that brain-dead patients are incapable of exercising the same rights as humans, such as the right to life, if they have permanently lost their ability to perceive and to be aware of their surroundings).
We can play this game of semantics as long as you wish, as I am sure you would like to because it diverts attention away from the actual issue at hand: in which situation will more lives be saved? I don’t seem to be the serial killer here. You seem to be the one condemning these poor people to death. Are you not ashamed?
_______________
From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:58 PM
To: Megan Papesh
Subject: RE: curiosity
You defy medicine, science, logic, and religion by equating a zygote identically to a hair follicle. Your personal views on when cells become human are indeed relevant in that you advocate putting to death those zygotes. You also defy science by falsely indicating dissected zygotes will save people from dying. We’re wasting each other’s time here. I’ve answered your original question.
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.
So if personhood only applies to those who are conscious and aware, is it ethical to kill someone who is asleep or under anesthesia? Now of course most people would be more fearful of a killer who only kills those who are awake and conscious, but if a doctor occasionally killed people while they were under anesthesia, wouldn’t we still agree that this is a crime and should be stopped? Or does lack of awareness mean you are just a clump of cells (oh wait, every living thing made of more than one cell is basically a clump of cells, including me…)
hmmm, well actually she said a nonhuman zygote, so if she wanted to be impregnated with animal zygotes it might be more ethical but awfully weird. (okay okay that’s not what she meant)
I also have a feeling that this person has never heard that non-embryonic stem cells have shown much more promising results in actually treating suffering people and that wasting time and money on embryonic stem cell research might not be helpful to anyone.
Of course, with her reference to hair follicles, I can’t help putting up this link to an article stating that stem cells can be harvested from hair follicles WITHOUT killing a nascent human being:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4378941.stm
Remember, Hitler convinced the Germans that the Jews were some sort of sub-human, therefore it is permissible to kill them. Do the research. How could good people kill other people? Make them not human.
Jill,
You are doing a disservice to your readers if you do not include my final email to you (that you “forgot” to include?), so I have included it here:
Hi Jill,
I didn’t equate the two per se, I compared, and I also noted that the zygote eventually turns into a human being wherein a hair follicle does not. You are incorrect in stating that I equated them as identicals. Please refer to my last email for proof. They do, however, carry the exact same DNA (if you do not agree that this is based in science, I will simply assume that you were educated in Kansas). Religion is not a science, so I will do you a favor and ignore that you mentioned it. Let’s call that “our little secret.” As for medicine, science, and logic, perhaps you could do me a favor and pick up any undergraduate level textbook in any of those courses. Perhaps we could discuss evolution?
You indicate to me that I defy science by indicating that people may be prevented from dying as the result of potentially curable diseases through stem cell research. Clearly, Jill, you have not kept up with your subscription to any medical or scientific journal. The potential for stem cell research is limitless; it’s only barrier lies in people like you and their fundamentalist, religion-based, pseudo-scientific viewpoints. When were you a nurse again? Science has advanced since then. Pick up a research article and get your science in order.
I hope one day you experience first-hand why stem cell research is such a necessity. Unfortunately, until that day comes, you will likely remain in the category of ignorant, ill-educated Bible-toters (yes, I have read some of your other articles and they are baffling!). Perhaps if I quoted some other work of fiction you would take my viewpoint seriously.
You are morally reprehensible, Jill. You hide behind your fake science and fall back on your incredible ability to divert any serious questioning to a child’s game of semantics. My only solace in your ignorant existence is that you live in an incredibly blue state, where I’m certain the majority find you less credible than do I.
May your god have mercy on your “soul,”
~Megan
I have a two comments:
1. I have a feeling that Kate has no understanding of human biology…and that she may be speaking out of her rear-end regarding her non-embryonic stem cell comment. Here’s the break down. Stem cells are useful because they have the potential to become a variety of different types of bodily tissues. This potential narrows during development. Therefore, a zygote stem cell will be the most useful, as it is totipotent and can become any type of tissue in the human body, whereas blastocyst stem cells, fetal stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and adult stem cells have less and less potential. An adult stem cell (such as from a hair follicle) is only multipotent, meaning that it is quite limited in the tissues it can become.
2. I’m surprised that you would post this, Jill. I would contend that Megan’s analysis is rather damning. I was most impressed with her following statement:
I seem to have missed your response to that one, Jill.
Reading this I cannot help but wonder whether or not you, Jill, or any of your supporters are in fact vegetarians. The reason I ask is this: if you are so concerned with the preservation of life, how could you possible justify the killing of another animal simply to satiate your own hunger? Couldn’t you simply sustain yourself on plants? But then, aren’t plants living collections of cells as well?
Furthermore, what do you do when you find an ant in your kitchen? Do you kill it because it might cause you a slight irritation? Or do you (as any person respectful of life would) pick it up and place it outside? What about an infestation? Do you place all the ants back outside your ‘rightful’ domain, or do you asphyxiate them with bug spray? I doubt very much that you let them be.
If you are so concerned with the preservation of life or would-be life, than you would not engage in any activities that are harmful to life on this planet. If your primary concern is only with human life, I have only to ask you what makes you think you are so special? It is incredibly arrogant to assume that this planet was created for our sole benefit.
So let’s say that you are only concerned with human life. Everything else was put on this planet for our collective good. In that case, it is extremely hypocritical to engage in activities that harm your fellow man/woman. I assume you drive a car. Don’t you realize you are polluting the environment and poisoning the air that your fellow humans breathe? If a pregnant woman breathes in that polluted air (which she inevitably will), then the unborn fetus will receive some of that pollution as well. You are killing unborn fetuses simply by driving to work.
Or don’t you believe in pollution? You seem to be against all scientific progress and rationale, so perhaps pollution doesn?t even exist to you. My point is: where does this end? At what point do you think to yourself, ‘Wow, I’m ridiculous?’ Apparently never.
You hide behind semantic slight-of-hand to make sure that no rational person will pay attention to the truth. The truth of the matter is that a small sacrifice of non-living entities can potentially help millions of people lead better lives. There is a domino effect. The patient with Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s who reaps the benefit of scientific research leads an easier and more meaningful life. Their friends and family no longer have to devote so much time and money to caring for them and instead can engage in real-life meaningful relationships. You are damning the poor people of this world in order to rationalize belief based solely on religion, and ignorant entirely of scientific logic.
But I know what you’ll say. ‘Man was created in the image of god. It’s the protection of humanity that I?m concerned with’. To which I say, Open Your Eyes. People like you are hindering scientific progress where benefits outweigh the costs a thousand-fold. You would rather ‘save’ a few unborn than help (and potentially save) a million more.
And lastly, if man was created in the image of god, then how do you explain birth defects, anencephaly, retardation, etc? What does that say about god? He must not have been paying very close attention.
I think that we are all losing track of the real issue here, to be a cannibal you have to eat people. I truly believe that Michael J. Fox has never eaten a person. I might even be so brave as to say that scientists actually doing stem cell research have also never eaten people. Thus, they are not cannibals. (Ok, so I am trying to be funny, but it’s true, what a “shock value” title.)
Just one serious note to Jill… religion itself defies logic and science. The end.
I think that we are all losing track of the real issue here, to be a cannibal you have to eat people. I truly believe that Michael J. Fox has never eaten a person. I might even be so brave as to say that scientists actually doing stem cell research have also never eaten people. Thus, they are not cannibals. (Ok, so I am trying to be funny, but it’s true, what a “shock value” title.)
Just one serious note to Jill… religion itself defies logic and science. The end.
Dear Megan: Your consequent email after I ended our conversation added nothing except a grander display of your ignorance. You said, for instance…
You indicate to me that I defy science by indicating that people may be prevented from dying as the result of potentially curable diseases through stem cell research.
… which was simply goofy. You also refuse to I.D. specifically what you promote, which is EMBRYONIC stem cell research. You don’t say that once in your blathering addendum. You are disengenuous.
Tony, in recent years, pluripontent stem cells have been discovered in adult stem cells, specifically the spinal cord, brain, connective tissue, and umbilical cord. Regarding the latter, just three days ago scientists reported growing sections of human liver from them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6101420.stm).
Re: your requote of Megan, we disagree on the premise, that zygotes are “nonhuman.” This is where Megan’s belief, and apparently yours differs from science, medicine, logic, and religion, which all concur human life begins at conception. The fusion of human egg and sperm does not create hamster stem cells.
Stan, most of your post is way off-topic. In answer to your last question, God says this in Exodus 4:11: “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?”
God is paying very close attention and has plans you and I often do not understand, which is what makes Him God. One thing I know, people born with maladies make you and I better people for being given the opportunity to care for them.
Hi Jill,
Perhaps an observation by Abraham Heschell may help here. When asked if he liked pretty women, he said ‘When I was young physical beauty was very important to me; but now that I am older, kindness is much preferred.’
Much of the distance between Jill and the posties is age-related. Both Jill and I know a lot of science, but as you age the word-pictures that much of science does today begins to fade and yield to actual situations. Science is very much like a computer screen with words. There is no science of any individual because science is about comparison. There is no uniqueness nor any life. DNA is a molecule … one way to perceive it as an identifier of uniqueness. It does not do many things. It does not reveal the subject’s age nor whether he/she is presently alive.
Actuality vs hypothetical-science is about a living reality. If truth be told – science is boring! Please find the DNA sequence for ‘kindness’ or gentleness, or bravery, or humility, or ……………… .
The real issue here is that you have no thoughts of your own. Everything you are regurgitating here is all from a book, if you want I could quote lines from the Curious George books if you would like, but what is the good in that. Here’s an idea form your own thoughts, stop listening to what everyone tells you to think, and become a human being. “God” gave freewill to us as a gift, he wants us to do what we feel is right, saving another human being is what’s right, do unto others as you want others to do to you, right? By the way I don’t believe in “God”, I believe in me and what’s around me. (Oh look there is an own thought, man that was hard) Some people can’t handle having a kid and the adoption process sucks so for most of these kids their lives are going to suck. So by letting abortions happen you are saving these kids from having terrible lives, lowering crime and unemployment, (cause yes these kids will turn to that life cause they have nothing else), and you will be saving someone’s life with the stem cells. So what is wrong with any of that?
Jill,
I am disappointed by your total lack of response to my entry, though I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Rather than attempt to defend your position you chose to be a complete and utter coward. I would appreciate some type of actual response rather than a dismissal. Explain to me what was ‘off-topic’, and try not to pull all your support from a book written thousands of years ago that seems to have little to no basis in fact.
Just in case you were unaware, the definition of fact is: ‘a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; etc’.
You disregarded my statements as ‘off-topic’ simply because you have no retort. You cannot argue with rationalization so you dismiss it. That is, in a word, pathetic. You are completely typical of the close-minded, irrational thinkers of your ‘age group’.
And in response to Jon McDonell… are you mad? ‘Science is boring’??? ‘It does not reveal the subject’s age nor whether he/she is presently alive.’??? Sir, have you even ever read a science book? What are you even referring to? It is entirely possible to determine age of cells or subjects and whether or not they are living. What are you even talking about? Talk about ‘off-topic’.
Science is rarely boring. It has unlocked some of the most wonderful mysteries of our universe and our being. And the best thing about it is that we are always learning more. We never presume to know everything as scientists. We leave that up to the fundamentalists.
Furthermore, to classify our difference in opinion as ‘age-related’ is not only irresponsible, but completely untrue. Some of the most brilliant minds are those much older than myself, some are within my age group, and I’m sure there are many younger. Take responsibility for your and Jill’s ignorance. You choose not to really ‘know’ or understand science because you are as a horse with blinders on. There’s one difference though… the horse cannot take them off. It is forced to see a certain way. You have the ability to remove the blinders and discover truth, yet you choose to remain ignorant.
To quote Richard Dawkins: ‘I think the idea of a divine creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe.’ People such as yourselves not only anger me, they sadden me. There is a grim future ahead for the human race if it is to be continuously subjected to willful ignorance. My only solace rests in the fact that science will not falter in the face of religion. Can you say the same?
-Stan Marsh
Jill,
Rather than embark on yet another (wasted) “blathering addendum” to my prior comments, I will simply say this: I never refused to name what it is I am supporting. You are unusually adept at putting words into the mouths of others and I could argue down on your level of ignorant belief that this is akin to lying. Jill, you are an unfortunate waste of what would otherwise be an intelligent mind. I agree with Stan—take the blinders off—though my fear is that it is too late for you. My hope, on the other hand, is that the youth of our deteriorating country can see through their parents’, schoolteachers’, and religious fear mongers’ lies and embrace scientific truth.
Jill,
I am confused by one of your earlier comments that: “God is paying very close attention and has plans you and I often do not understand, which is what makes Him God.”
If we cannot understand God’s plans, then how can we possibly make the assumption that God is against stem cell research? I know what you will say, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill,” but if one cannot understand God, because He’s God, then how can one assume that God sees a zygote as a person? It seems to me that you “understand God” when it fits your agenda, and you state that “God works in mysterious ways” when it doesn’t.
Hi Stan, Megan, Loren and Orest,
Thanks for the confirmation on my thinking. No Stan I am not mad …. I have been exposed to many fields of science endeavour over the years. Is this indoctrination? Let’s take a look: I am as well a bit of a philosopher as well, and most of your ‘arguments’ can easily be trashed from this discipline. We humans pick words as tags for describing certain things … for instance the word zygote is a term to signify development … so we have, a horse zygote, a cow zygote … and a human zygote. One is not interchangeable with the other … it is much the same with earlier phase embrionic stem cells … or later stage: babies, infants, teens, octogenarians, etc … all are words selected as words describing development. If this is not correct then ask yourselves when do we become human?
Ah yes Megan, you can ascertain aliveness, but not through our DNA. An interesting query was posed to me some years ago: prove a rock is not alive. For all science’s sophistication, not once has living matter (even the simplest) ever been fashioned in any lab. [Strange, how we believe that manipulation to the n-th degree equals the equivalent on ‘living’.]
Yet another problem stems from your understanding of ‘truth’. Many centuries ago the man we call Saint John the Evangelist understood that when Jesus claimed to be ‘the Truth’ … the whole understanding of truth from being a ‘what’ to a ‘who’ had been entered. That is why ‘science is a bore’, Stan.
Perhaps, the last thing you should look at is – the assumed understanding of words. When taking a phsyche course our prof wanted an essay on ‘the ethics of persuasion’. So I made a point of asking her , what ethics did she have in mind. ‘Oh, B.F. Skinner [a popular psychologist at the time], of course!’ She had not understood that the field of ethics was minimally 4,000 years old – very sophisticated too … B.F. Skinner’s ideas – some 10 years … his philosophy of ethics – some few centuries!
Because something is old … even if we understand very little does not mean that such is false … there is a difference in the facts and how these are selected … it seems Megan you wish to impose your truth/(your set of facts) but at the same time abhor/denigrate another’s facts. When do our facts become non-science … nonsense? Maybe look up the meaning of the word ‘science’`. But do not forget that the dictionary was written by a ‘scientist’.
Many of those ‘bad-facts’ of ours come not an unwelcome set but from the very notion that words are not isolates but are strung together to impart meaning. We cannot dismiss the way words were strung together in the past, and retain the words themselves. As the old philosopher said (watching a Senac) ‘I wonder what he meant by wagging his finger?’ The ancient world prompted thought not as an imposition on the future, but as a place to begin the journey to truth.
Megan writes, “I also noted that the zygote eventually turns into a human being wherein a hair follicle does not.” Then challenges Jill to “get her science in order.”
I think it is Megan who need to get her science in order. A human zygote is a complete human organism, not a potential human organism. That is a scientific fact. There is no other point at which a new human organism emerges than at conception.
A human embryo is a human organism. It is alive so it has “being.” Therefore, a human embryo is a human being. I ask, “What else would it be?”
Rebecca,
Since when is a zygote a “complete human organism?” Where are its arms? Where is its mouth?…its blood?
Your assertion is lunacy.
Tony
First John:
Your argument is completely incoherent. Fix your syntax and perhaps your grammar and maybe I will understand just what it is you are getting at and we can converse with one another. As it stands, your argument did nothing but baffle me and I would love to comment back to you.
Now you, Rebecca:
A zygote is a complete human organism? That’s right, because zygotes bleed human blood. They feel human emotions. The zygote has consciousness. (Please pick up on my sarcasm here. If it helps: Would you argue that a sunflower seed is a sunflower and should be displayed as such in a vase in your kitchen?) It may be a human organism (I have never argued otherwise), Rebecca, but it is certainly not complete and certainly not comparable to literally complete human organisms. Rebecca you pose an unfortunate argument. Like Jill, you resort to mere semantics in an attempt to convey meaning when all you are really doing is talking yourself in circles. This argument is pointless, as there is no argument with your type (yes, I said “with your type,” shame on me).
Hi Jill,
Since I do not want to make assumptions, I would like to ask you to answer a few questions when you get the chance. I noticed in you Bio, that you proudly note that President Bush invited you to both his August 2002 signing of Born Alive Infants Protection Act, as well as when he signed the signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in November 2003. My first question is are you a supporter of the Republican party and its policies? Secondly, do you support President Bush and his policies. I may have some follow up questions based on your response. Thanks for your time.
B.C.
Sorry Megan,
re-read my post and do note where you could have problems. Unfortunately my spell-checker allows words spelled correctly but completely incorrect in context. I was in too much of a hurry when posting!
I am really intrigued by the science that you allude to saying what the human-zygote is. Perhaps, its the non-acceptance of a ‘soul’ that has you fixated on physicality, I do not know.
Thomas Aquinas ‘proof’ for the existence of the soul was indirect: he said just as thought was immaterial, its source .. the soul … is also/had-to-be immaterial. I have not read a better explanation …. although I have read some people who state that this does not exist. But this is a belief not a fact.
A teacher once told her class that because one could not see God, God did not exist. One of her pupils wondered if the teacher’s thoughts could be seen. If not, do these exist, or not?
A few posts back, I wrote just a few words that DNA-science does not now know …. and likely never will. Here’s a few more: courage, trust, faith, fidelity, intelligence, ignorance, duplicity, caring, tolerance, peacefulness, hope, … the list can be very long!
I am personally very far from any kind of intellectual or physical perfection …. so much so, that it is painful for some to watch me (twisted that I am) in my wheelchair. And yet, these people would never envisage that somehow my humanity had been forfeited by my disease process and that now I am ‘killable’. What is the basis that a human zygote has forfeited his/her humanity? Is it because there is no ‘soul’ present? Prove it.
In case you are stuck on the seed-tree idea … a seed that is germinated is probably an equivalent of a mammal’s fertilized egg. The only major-difference between the two is time and nutrition.
Has anyone seen this new Chastity Video?
Crank up the volume and enjoy the VIDEO!
http://generationsforlife.org/2006/1103/from-dawn-eden/#comments
——
An excerpt from Dawn
Tony, I said that the results were more promising. I was referring to RESULTS not hypotheses or theories. Yes, in the original theories embryonic stem cells were thought to have greater potential than “adult” stem cells, but the research findings have shown adult stem cells to have far greater success in treating actual human beings with disorders or diseases. Furthermore, your comments may be outdated. Adult stem cells may have more potential to become different types of cells than previously thought:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/127/116688.htm
By the way, the very totipotentiality that you mentioned regarding ES cells actually presents a reason to predict that ES cell treatments may not be successful: teratomas. (Do you even know what a teratoma is?) Have you heard of the risks of rejection that may be greater with ES cells?
Are you aware that the few studies that actually used ES cells to treat humans reported “variable” positive effects and several bad effects?
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/5/1219
Are you aware of the many studies published in peer-reviewed journals describing successful treatment of numerous problems such as corneal scarring, x-linked immunodeficiency, and heart disease using adult stem cells? I can give you some references if you’d like.
As a graduate student, I know that I’m not an expert, but I think my understanding of cell biology and the current literature is better than yours–but maybe I’m biased due to your immature vulgarity. I also know that there are some experts that agree with me and others that agree with you. However, the big difference from what you seem to think is that those experts PREDICT better results with ES cells–they have not already found better results. In science journals such as Nature, you tend to see a lot of support for ES cell research as well as questions about its efficacy and safety and some reports of ethical questioning.
As a final remark, if you can find an article in a peer-reviewed journal stating that the results (not predicted results) of ES cell treatments for humans overall were more successful and promising than adult stem cell treatments, please type the reference and post it. I’d like to know if I’ve missed something. I would most likely be able to access the journal thanks to my university.
– just to round things out a bit – many folks perceive that ‘concretness’ or ‘thingness’ is all that exists and therefore, the only reality that counts. In such circumstances, things unseen are less real,
Explain, in a concrete way, ‘time’ … or ‘space-distance’ in the physics/mathematics sense … as in speed/acceleration … or energy. [[Einstein wrote E=mc(squared) … so, E (energy) = mass times the speed of light [cannot be seen] squared.]] We do know how fast light travels, but we do not know what speed is in any concrete view.
Let’s take something simple like the vacuum … it gets more powerful the less ‘things’ are in it. How about force: magnets have no force beyond what is seen eh?
I can assure you this is a small view into a universe that is mostly unseen. An ethic based primarily on utilitarianism [only what is useful/’scientific’ counts] is a fraud because it is much too simple.
Tony: Megan mentioned that totipotency = teratomas, i.e., tumors. Michael Fox alluded to that in his ABC interview with Stephanopoulos:
“In fact, they just did some work where they found that it actually relieved the symptoms of Parkinson’s in one test, but there some residue, some tissue residue that built up, which is not ideal.”
I’m amazed at strange zeal of embryonic stem cell proponents. It’s almost mad, really. If you find yourself undetered in your zeak to see that embryos are available for experimentation by the fact that adult stem cells have now been proven to be pluripotent – that which escrs are promoted – why is that?
BC – I’m a supporter of many planks of the Republican Party’s platform, the foremost being its pro-life plank. I’m a supporter of the Republican Party to the extent that while not perfect, it promotes the life issue. The political alternative is the Democrat Party, which fights every pro-life advance and promotes every anti-life advance. Democrat Party leadership and its plank are currently enemies of the sanctity of life.
Lauren said, “If we cannot understand God’s plans, then how can we possibly make the assumption that God is against stem cell research? I know what you will say, the Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but if one cannot understand God, because He’s God, then how can one assume that God sees a zygote as a person? It seems to me that you ‘understand God’ when it fits your agenda, and you state that ‘God works in mysterious ways’ when it doesn’t.”
Lauren, we often do not understand WHY God does things, but we have been given rules, truths, and principles to live by. You’re right, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” (It actually says, “murder,” which has slightly different meaning, but that’s an aside.)
So we humans cannot murder. God may choose to take a life or allow a life to be taken by accident or illness, but that’s His decision.
How do we know that “God sees a zygote as a person”? By Scripture:
Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”
Psalm 139:13-16: “You alone created my inner being…. Every day of my life was recorded in your book before one of them had taken place.”
Ephesians 2:10: “He has created us in Christ Jesus to live lives filled with good works that he has prepared for us to do.”
God planned each of us – including you – before the beginning of the world, and clearly conception is our starting point in His eyes.
Therefore, since we are not allowed to murder, dissecting “zygotes,” as you insist on calling them is wrong.
Hi Jill,
Thanks for your response. I find it interesting though that you indicate that the Republican Party is “Pro-Life”. The reason that I say that is because of the fact that the both the Republican Party and our current President George W Bush do fall into the Pro-Life category when it comes to not supporting a womans right to choose and when it comes to abortion. that being said however the Republican right including our current president also strongly support both Capital Punishment(that would be the Death Penalty for the laymen) and the War in Iraq, a war that not only our own troops are dying on daily basis but also a tremendous amount of innocent Iraqis as well all of which was based on a huge lie told to the American people. My point is why are these tragic deaths in Iraq okay and the deaths of the people who die at the hands of the state okay, but a bunch of cells that occur right after conception is not? I see a huge amount of hypocrisy in this stance. Assuming that your stance that life does in fact occur at conception, why are some deaths are okay, but other deaths are not? Also, who gets to decide this?
I just fail to see how one person can be both “Pro-Life” and yet also Pro DEATH as well.
I’d like to hear how you feel about this.
Thanks again for your time,
B.C.
Hi BC,
I would love this too … but for quite another reason than refutation. All life (and I do mean ‘all’) is in need of support/affirmation. God is the Author and source of all life …. He is (Living). Are we not ‘playing-god’ when we assume life to be ended by killing/murder? Does life end? …. belief or fact?
Is abortion about our ‘belief’ that we do not need new-life?
I just read an article that puts a very different view on the relationship of science and life ………….. much to consider!
http://www.oralchelation.com/viewpoint/karl_loren/article2.htm
Hi John,
Just a few of things. First off, you can’t have it both ways. Life either begins at conception or it does not. You can say for the purposes of abortion/embryonic stem cell research that it begins at conception and then turn around and then say that the embryo needs to be carried to term in order for it to bring new life. That is a total and complete contradiction.
Secondly, I am truly hoping that the article that you linked to was done to bring levity to an otherwise tense situation, because if that is the type of “scientific” material that you are using as your basis of scientific fact, then there really is no point in continuing the conversation.
Lastly, too many people today like to play God and it is not the folks who are trying to make the quality of life better for other people. They are the ones who try to control my thoughts and actions by telling me that if I do think and act a certain way that I am going to go to hell. There is only one being in this universe that is going to judge where I spend my afterlife and he isn’t of this earth. If God didn’t want us to act a certain way or think a certain way, he certainly has the means to prevent us from doing it without any other “non-divine” help. In other words, if God really didn’t want us to work on making peoples quality of life better through scientific means like stem cell research, then he would wipe those thoughts from our minds or wipe those people away from the face of the earth. I mean he is all powerful and all knowing right? I suppose that scientific research on stem cells could always be part of his plan for us and it is quite arrogant to think that you or anyone else for that matter knows what his plan really is.
B.C.
wonderful BC,
no, the science thinking in the article was not frivolous, but deserves much concentration.
The problem you allude to is at the very core of pro-life thinking . It has to do with the significance-value of human life. In some sense you are saying (I think), that the soul-life of a person grows as their physical reality grows. This same reasoning can be employed to denigrate disabled or elderly folks to the status of sub-human … the same way the Nazi’s denigrated the Jewish people. If this value can be gained, it can be lost/forfeit too!
Just as a woman cannot be 1/2 pregnant … she either is or isn’t … a person is or isn’t human – no matter the age or circumstance. On such a basis are rights inalienable … if not, rights are whims.
Hi John,
Based on your response, I am not entirely sure that you read what I wrote. Aside from that though, what is your opinion on gametes?
An embryo is most definitely a complete human organism. Do not confuse completeness with development. Human embryos are complete organisms even if they’re not completely DEVELOPED.
Hi BC,
I did read your post a number of times, and something in Rebecca’s post may have twigged me onto our differences. When you affirm that life begins at conception perhaps you assume that only a lillte life also exists (that matches the smallness of a few cells). Pro-lifers contend that life itself is whole and absolute, while development may be partial. Therefore, a complete whole life ensues at conception even though a physical development has yet to take place.
PS … your notion of what the word ‘science’ means is very common these days. The word actually means any body of knowledge. the ‘science’ you refer to is known as natural science … the core sciences are called ‘hard’ and are often enumerated as: mathematics, physics, chemistry, electricity/electronics … ‘softer’ sciences include biology, psychology, ecology, economics, sociology, on and on. The last century was filled with scientists trying to make the ‘softer’ sciences have the imagined certitude attached to the ‘hard’ sciences.
Many people assume a false acceptance of scientific jargon. I am schooled enough in this process to note its flaws. Two glaring ones were pointed to in previous posts … no scientist or team of scientists has EVER produced life even the very simplest. [They are extremely good at creating destruction, though.] The second huge flaw is that the vast majority of our universe is unseen (and uncontrollable). Life is directed by soul!
The in-your-face dominion of God is found in His jurisdiction over life. All science is dependant on language and all language is based on past occurrences. Life is … now/present
Many feel that they are forced to accept this view … but this view is not ‘owned’ by anyone. Someone cannot be forced to accept. We as people can accept that beauty is preferred to ugliness, that joy is preferable to pain; that truth resonates better than lies … that life is to be welcomed and death shunned. Wisdom is; hope is; you is … acceptance is embracing the universe that is
BC (and John):
I figured your original question was leading to your second, which is about consistency: How can one oppose abortion or embryonic stem cell research as the killing of human life and support the death penalty and war, which result in the killing of human life?
First, the correct translation of Exodus 20:13 is actually, “Thou shalt not murder,” not, “Thou shalt not kill.” There is a difference.
Death penalty
Biblically speaking, God authorizes governments to merit capital punishment for specious crimes for: 1) punishment; 2) to rid society of its worst criminals.
You equally compared murdering innocent humans with killing guilty humans who have most likely murdered innocent humans. The comparison is not valid.
For starters, those guilty humans have gone through a jury trial and an extensive appeals process. Innocent humans murdered via abortion or dissection via embryonic stem cell experimentation do not receive such treatment.
Further, guilty humans cannot be dealt cruel deaths, hence the outlaw of drawing and quartering, for instance. Innocent humans murdered via abortion are coincidentally sometimes literally drawn and quartered. There is certainly no consideration for cruel and unusual punishment.
You may say sometimes innocent people are put to death by capital punishment. That is a sad consequence of living in an imperfect world but is no reason to halt the process altogether. Rather, the process should be improved so innocent people are not condemned. And the process is ever being improved, particularly with the advent of DNA analysis. I wish DNA analysis were allowed to determine the guilt or innocence of preborn humans before they were killed.
But let’s say the death penalty is wrong. There is still a hierarchy of need for attention. Whereas perhaps 50-100 guilty people are put to death every year in the US by capital punishment, 1.3 million innocent people are put to death every year in the US by abortion. Where should one’s first attention go?
War
God also authorizes governments to protect their people, and sometimes this results in war, and sometimes war results in the killing of innocent people, a sad consequence of that war.
But wars are to be waged for reasons of security. Should a government allow its own people to be killed or overtaken by another government because the first government fears innocent people in the second government may be killed by defending its own? No.
BC, you and I are going to disagree that the War in Iraq is necessary. I believe it is foolhardy to “misunderestimate” Hussein’s intentions. This week it was revealed he planned to build nuclear weapons. The other arguments for and against have been gone over again and again, so I will spare us.
It is also foolhardy to “misunderestimate” the intentions of Islamic extremists, and I believe the religion of Islam. They mean to ultimately conquer us and force us to practice their barbaric beliefs. One of their beliefs is Christianity is wrong and should be abandoned. To allow that without a fight is crazy. Christians in America will not allow that, even if nonChristians would.
I think one important truth to understand is there is good and there is evil. That is no cliche to brush over. I clearly see that. I can then clearly see black and white. One gets mixed up by thinking life is full of shades of grey.
Hi Jill,
Thanks again for your response. As a practicing Catholic, I have never in my entire life ever read a bible that stated anything other than, “Thou shall not kill”. It seems to me that you saying that it really says “Thou shall not murder” is a clear rationalization to the issue. Killing is killing. As just you stated yourself, “One gets mixed up by thinking life is full of shades of grey.” Additionally, no where in the Bible does it indicate anything even close to your statement “Biblically speaking, God authorizes governments to merit capital punishment for specious crimes for: 1) punishment; 2) to rid society of its worst criminals.” As a matter of fact, with God being all knowing and all powerful, he is quite capable of handling societies worst criminals on his own, once again without “non-devine” intervention.
In regards to the War, aside from the point that it is pretty clear to even the president himself today that Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat to the US, and even if he was again the commandment states “Thou shall not kill”, it is not “Thou shall not kill unless this situation arises or that situation arises”.
If you are truly “Pro-life” then that should apply that to all human beings and not just the ones that fit into your particular adgenda.
Thanks again for your time,
B.C.
thanks Jill,
Just thought of an analogy re. embryonic stem cell research … hope this makes sense: pretend that embryonic stem cells are the red-light of traffic lights and adult/cord cells green light. Most often when something is morally questionable, it is likewise scientifically poor also. This is a prime example of this: embryonic stem cells are fully-human (moral) and cause cancer/uncontrolled growth (science). People on the right are pointing out the red-light not forcing their moral code. It would be anticipated that a person jumping from a plane at 15,000 feet (without a parachute) will die. Am I then to say that because God did not prevent this (at least that I know), this red-light is really only a human-rule to control my activity (and my freedom = MY control). I then should have the ‘choice’ to jump. My death is of no consequence because this was My control/MY choice.
All the while, there’s this green-light … adult stem cells that have literally saved thousands of people from numerous medical problems. It would be equivalent to skydiving (with a parachute).
Employing a ‘red’ light as if it was green, soon leads to traffic chaos. Stuck in such an (unnecessary traffic jam) is ‘nuts’. Confusing the powers of the red-light with the green-lights is the same as calling for ‘stem cell research’ as traffic lights … [inferring ‘red’ and ‘green’ are equivalent … actually ‘red’ is superior].
BC,
The original Hebrew word in Ex. 20:13 is “rasah,” meaning “to murder.” To help understand its meaning, the same word is used, for example, in Nu. 35:12,25; Dt. 5:17; Jos 21:13, 21;27,32,38; Ps. 94:6; Jer. 7:9, Hos. 4:2 and 6:9.
Modern translations do interpret Ex. 20:13 using the word “murder,” for example, the New International version, New American Standard version, Message version, Amplified version, New Living Translation version, English Standard version, Contemporary English version, New King James version, Young’s Literal Translation version, Holman Christian Standard version, etc.
I daresay more translations use “murder” than “kill,” actually.
As for capital punishment, God says in Gen. 9:5-6: “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.'”
St. Paul reiterates this in the New Testament in Acts 25:11 when being threatened with death without trial: “If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!” Paul was saying that if he committed a crime worthy of death so be it, but he appealed his case to the highest government official of the land for a final verdict.
As for the role of government, St. Paul in Col. 1:16 described government as “God’s servant for your good.” He noted its role in Rom. 13:1-7 specifically to promote justice and preserve order.
I said you and I would disagree on whether the War in Iraq is called for. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on that.
I have no agenda, BC, other than God’s as much as possible. It is because God is so pro-life that he condones the most extreme punishment for the taking of life.
Hello Jill,
I just stumbled onto this site from another one on a related topic. Having read this thread, it seems that your arguments are still problematic at best. For instance, you discussed how the passage in the Bible that is commonly translated as “thou shalt not kill” should (disputedly) be rendered “you shall not murder”. Well, let’s say that’s correct–which I believe it to be, by the way. That still wouldn’t show that abortion is wrong in the eyes of God. The definition of the word “murder” is illegal killing. Therefore, unless abortion is illegal, it is not murder. “Murder” is a judicial term.
We could also look to the past when these commandments were given. Did the people (that these commandments were issued to) have any laws prohibiting abortion? This is a rather complicated issue but, in short, the answer is no. There are some restrictions on it but none of them applied to non-Jews even under the law code.
Then there’s the subject of capital punishment you mentioned. Notice the quote you provided reads, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”. It does not say that God approved of this further act of bloodshed. To get an idea of how God feels about it, we can simply look at what proceeds it: “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” Notice it does not mention any exemption or condonation for those who kill for some particular reason that they believe to be justified. In other words, the those who kill in the name of the law will face the same judgement as those who perpetrate illegal killings. The Bible clearly states that GOD is the one who will do the accounting for the lives of man. It does not say that man is authorized to play God by deciding what punishment they think the person deserves. Doing this is playing God and does not reflect an understanding of our proper role in relation to our Creator. God is perfectly capable of giving people there just deserts. Unless one believes that God is unjust or that God really didn’t mean it when He had those folks write these passages we read in our Bibles. This also spills over into the topic of wars.
Even if you believe that God condones humans killing those who have killed others, then you still have no scriptural grounds for supporting this war. In fact, if one believes that the killing of those who are not murderers is wrong in the eyes of God, then you can not support any war where it has not been established that every single person that will be killed is a murderer.
Now, let’s look at what goes on in modern wars. The majority of weapons used do not and could not distinguish between murderers and those who have never killed a single person. I’m sure you are smart enough to see that this makes it nearly impossible for one to support any modern-day war. Well, you can support war but doing so put you in direct conflict with what you say God dictates.
I went back and took a look at Colossians 1:16 and this is what the NIV said:
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
It doesn’t say what you claimed. Were you referring to some other verse?
Romans 13: 1-7 is a very relevent passage for one who wants to understand what position those who follow God should take in regards to government. Verse one is especially important. Notice it says that we should submit ourselves to the governing authorities. However, it does not say that we should support these governing authorities. If we had some obligation to support whatever government we live under, then this would mean that those who believe in the Bible would be obligated to fight and kill other Bible-believers whenever their governments decided they wanted to go to war with each other even if we didn’t agree with the reasons for it. Can anyone truly believe that God would want that?
The last thing I want to address is your second to last sentence. The truth is it is always possible to follow God’s agenda. If someone thinks that it’s a-okay to support some kinds of killing, it’s just hypocritical if you claim to be any different from all the other people who find killing people justifiable. Of course, God gives us free will and that means that people are free to be hypocritical if they just want to make themselves feel better about themselves while ignoring the “plank in their own eye” (Matt 7:3-5).
I forgot to ask one other question.
If you think that Michael J. Fox is a cannibal, then do you also view all those who have received organ transplants as cannibals? After all, those organs are human too.
Bravo, Bint. Well stated. The hypocricy of the religious right is glaring to everyone except the religious right. P.S. Sorry to hear about your pal Ted Haggard, Jill.
auto louis trader http://auto-trader.beeplog.de >state trader auto
watches rolex http://0ep.net/rolexwatches > watches rolex