Question 1. Is an embryo a human being.
The Pro-Choice community has been adamant in their assertion that the unborn are not human beings and do not have the same protection that a human being deserves.
Pro-Lifers take the opposite view. An embryo is just as human as your or I, and when we perform an abortion we have actually performed a murder.
So, which one of these viewpoints is correct? There are several things that we do know for certain. We know that an embryo develops eyes, hands, fingers and toes at about six weeks. We know that, if left to develop on its own, this embryo will become a baby. We know that an embryo can feel pain at about 5 months, and so many of them feel the abortion as it's being done.
Can I say for sure that an embryo is a human being. Well, I can tell you what the Bible says in Psalm 139:11-14, "If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well."
What if an embryo truly is a human being created in the image of God. Do we still have the right to use them up. To put them in test tubes and poor corrisive chemicals on them to cause the cells to mutate and divide. Do we have the right to experiment on them to find out if we can make an embryo grow an extra kidney, so that an adult human can have that kidney.
That is the standard "pro-life" answer, but my question was regarding frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, not aborted fetuses. Why throw these cells out when they can be used to save lives? You would rather they be destroyed? That doesn't seem to fit with the pro-life point of view. In addition, we are actually talking about a blastocyst, defined here in this paragraph from the NIH website (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp):
"All human beings start their lives from a single cell, called the zygote, which is formed after fertilization. The zygote divides and forms two cells; each of those cells divides again, and so on. Pretty soon, about five days after conception, there is hollow ball of about 150 cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst is smaller than a grain of sand and contains two types of cells, the trophoblast and the inner cell mass. Embryonic stem cells are the cells that make up the inner cell mass. As embryonic stem cells can form all cell types in an adult, they are referred to as pluripotent stem cells."
These blastocysts are only at about five days' development, not five weeks. And they are not derived from aborted fetuses. I am assuming that the age of the cells does not make a difference to you, that you feel that life begins at conception, but at least when making your argument, be clear that these blastocysts do not have eyes, hands, fingers or toes.
Question 2. What is going to happen if scientists are successful and discover that embyonic stem cells can cure a multitude of diseases?
Right now it's just in the experimentation stage. For experiments we will only need to destroy a few hundred, or a few thousand embryos. But suppose that it can cure diabetes, and parkinsons, and multiple sclerosis. Suppose that there are 2 million American's per year who could be helped by this technology. What then? Now instead of needing a few thousand embryo's we need millions. Where are those millions of embryo's going to come from?
Here's a little boy who can't walk, and he only needs 12 embryo's in order to be able to regain the use of his legs. And in the bed next to his is a young mother who has a spinal cord injury. If she could gain the extract from 36 embryo's then the nerves in her back would regenerate. But there's so many people who need embryonic stem cells that the fertility clinics can't keep up. There are only a few hundred thousand frozen embryo's but now we need millions. So, where are those millions going to come from.
Well here's an idea. You could get pregnant and carry the baby inside you for two weeks. And then the embryo could be removed from your womb and harvested so that your uncle Billy, who drinks a lot, can regrow his liver. And then pharmaceutical companies will start paying young women to produce viable embryo's. Because, otherwise a little boy who could walk again never will. And so, they have to come from somewhere. Let us harvest your eggs for $250. We'll save little Timmy's life because of it. And so now, we have embryo farms where human are harvested in order to save the suffering.
When I read this, I was surprised, as it was my understanding that rather than a cure for one person requiring multiple embryos, the opposite was true, that one embryo would be able to produce stem cells to cure multitudes of people. So I researched to make sure that this is correct. Again, quoting from the NIH website:
"A stem cell line is composed of a population of cells that can replicate themselves for long periods of time in vitro, meaning out of the body. These cell lines are grown in incubators with specialized growth factor-containing media, at a temperature and oxygen/carbon dioxide mixture resembling that found in the mammalian body.
Embryonic stem cell lines, both human and mouse, can be grown indefinitely in vitro if the correct conditions are met. Importantly, these cells continue to retain their ability to form different, specialized cell types once they are removed from the special conditions that keep them in an undifferentiated, or unspecialized, state.Once a stem cell line is established from a cell in the body, it is essentially immortal, no matter how it was derived. That is, the researcher using the line will not have to go through the rigorous procedure necessary to isolate stem cells again. Once established, a cell line can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely and cells may be frozen for storage or distribution to other researchers."
And from the International Society for Stem Cell Research Website(http://www.isscr.org/public/faq.htm#2):
"Once embryonic stem cells have been established in culture, large numbers of cells can be grown for a long time, without losing the
stem cell character. The most remarkable feature of embryonic stem cells is their ability to generate all functional adult cell types. Culture
methods have been developed to turn embryonic stem cells into brain, heart, muscle cells, blood cells, blood vessels, skin, pancreatic islet cells
and bone cells...
Contrary to adult stem cells, the embryonic stem can be propagated and even amplified for a long time in culture, without losing its stem cell
character...
Human embryonic stem cells can be grown as small colonies on layers of skin cells in the presence of serum from the blood. The skin cells are known as "feeder cells" and together with the serum, provide unknown factors that nourish and support the embryonic stem cells in their undifferentiated state. When the colonies of embryonic stem cells grow too big for their culture dishes, they are divided into smaller colonies, or single cells, and transferred into new culture dishes. The cells then continue to grow. This transfer process, known as "passaging", can theoretically be repeated indefinitely.
Question number 3 - what if embryonic stem cells can be used in cosmetic surgery?
A rich woman, who wants to look young forever has noticed crows feet around her eyes. There is a new technology that will regrow skin. It's young, supple, fresh skin, without any wrinkles. It's a breakthrough technology from embryonic stem cell research. So, here's the question - should we harvest the unborn so that a vain woman can look younger. Where exactly do we draw the line when we're sacrificing embryo's for ourselves. Is it OK to cure parkinsons with the bodies of the unborn, but not to cure wrinkles?
Well, I don't really think this is an appropriate use, but if, as I stated above, there will be plenty of stem cells to go around, I suppose some will use them for cosmetic purposes, if this turns out to even be a possiblility.
Question number 4 - If there was another technology that could do the same thing without destroying human embryo's shouldn't we do it instead of embryonic stem cell research?
The truth is that adult stem cells found in fat and bone marrow have been more successful in tests than embryonic stem cells. When we begin to destroy the unborn in order to strengthen ourselves, we have entered into a very murky area of morality. And here, we can do the same thing with adult stem cells without wondering who's baby we had to kill in order to get well.
Again, from the NIH website:
"There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells."
Leonardo da Vinci, when he started cutting open cadavers so that he could draw the exquisite inner workings of the human body, was labeled a heretic by the Church, as were the first surgeons who dared to cut into living people in the hopes of curing them. Bold scientists have always been thusly criticized, and always will be. But scientific knowledge can only advance if these bold pioneers are allowed to do research. There are ethical lines to be drawn, but this is the wrong place to draw them. Senator Frist, being a surgeon, obviously is aware of the facts that I have quoted above, and intelligently changed his position on the issue, which I hope and pray will lead to a lifting of the stem cell funding ban.
I look forward to reading your thoughts on the above. I love a good debate.
--Hopeful
