Stem Cell Research

[hopeful]

Since today Senator Bill Frist announced that he has reversed his position on government funding for embryonic stem cell research, I am hoping that some of our more conservative pipsters can answer this question, which I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer to:
What more noble, life-affirming use can there be for an embryo that will otherwise be thrown in the garbage, than to contribute to research that may cure diseases and save lives?
In the interest of full disclosure, I have some bias in this area, as my beautiful 16-year-old daughter has had type I diabetes since she was four years old and requires daily insulin and 8-10 fingerstick blood tests each day, and my mother has Parkinson's disease.
Would love to hear an intelligent answer.
Thank you.

This post will be relocated to: General Chat. MOD - YB.

[Twicewise]

OK hopeful, I'm about as conservative as you can get, so let me try to explain.

There are several questions that have to be asked on the topic of stem cell research, and the answers to those questions become increasingly disturbing.

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.

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.

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?

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.



I understand your point of view. I myself suffer from nerve damage that has caused my left vocal cord to cease functioning. It might be that I could be cured, and that I could talk normally through embryonic stem cell research. It's very appealing to think about a cure. And I'm sure, that when you look at your daughter all that you can think about is finding a way for her to be healed of her malady. We all love people who have been sick, and would have given anything in order to see them get well again. But what price are we willing to pay in order to establish that? Do we really want to be a people who set up clinics that will harvest the unborn. I think that we had better examine carefully what kind of people we are, and if we are willing to pay that price in order to remain healthy and young.

I know this has been graphic, but you did ask for an explanation.

- TwiceWise

[catmando]

Breaking News

BioE First to Clone and Commercialize Multipotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Umbilical Cord Blood

Rare Multi-Lineage Progenitor Cells Provide New, Viable Platform for Stem Cell Research Free from Public, Political Controversy Surrounding Use of Embryonic Stem Cells

BioE(R), Inc., a biotechnology company, announced today commercial availability of its clonal stem cell lines defined by the company as Multi-Lineage Progenitor Cells(TM) (MLPCs(TM)). BioE is the first company in the world to make these multipotent, normal, adult stem cells available for research use to researchers and medical companies with an interest in regenerative medicine and drug development. This announcement is being made in conjunction with the 11th annual meeting of the International Society of Cellular Therapy (ISCT) being held May 4-7 in Vancouver, British Columbia, where BioE is presenting data on its MLPCs.

These rare stem cells were discovered by BioE in postpartum human umbilical cord blood, and provide a new, viable platform for stem cell research free from the public and political controversy surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, approximately four million births occurred in the United States in 2002, with most stem-cell-rich umbilical cord blood being discarded.

"We are very pleased to be the first company to bring the thousands of clinical stem cell and regenerative medicine researchers a new stem-cell tool for conducting their studies," said Michael Haider, president and chief executive officer of BioE. "We look forward to providing this community with stem cells that can be expanded without differentiating and prompted to turn into a variety of tissues, and pioneering an exciting new market within the fields of regenerative medicine and drug screening."

During the past two years, scientists at BioE have successfully differentiated the cloned MLPCs into tissues representative of the three germinal layers, including neural stem cells, nerve cells, liver/pancreas precursors, skeletal muscle, fat cells, bone cells and blood vessels. Each of BioE's MLPC clonal stem cell lines was derived from a distinct, individual cell and is genetically normal. BioE will provide genetic and cellular characterization of each clonal stem cell line with each research-use license.

"BioE's studies utilizing its innovative stem cell isolation technology have led to the characterization of unique and interesting clonal stem cell lines," said David McKenna, M.D., BioE research collaborator from the University of Minnesota. "The potential for this cell type derived from umbilical cord blood seems unlimited, with multiple applications in cellular therapy -- including possibilities in cardiac and other organ-specific regenerative medicine; adjunctive therapy in bone marrow transplantation; and gene therapy based treatment modalities."

Medical Significance

MLPCs directly address a number of current constraints in stem cell and life sciences research, regenerative medicine, tissue engineering and drug screening. Within these market segments, MLPCs will offer a broad spectrum of new investigational opportunities for a wide variety of researchers due to their ability to expand and their well-defined, controllable differentiation capabilities. As a result, these adult-source stem cells may advance stem cell, life science and regenerative medicine research and lower drug developmental costs, while accelerating the discovery process. For example, some current issues MLPCs could impact include:

-- According to a 2003 National Institutes of Health publication titled, "Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine," the Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research reported that sources of human stem cells that can be cultured in-vitro are perhaps the most critical need of investigators, and most types of adult-source stem cells are difficult to grow in culture, and their potential plasticity has not been clearly established.

-- According to some industry estimates, pharmaceutical companies are projected to spend $6 billion by 2007 on current screening paradigms -- such as ADME/Tox (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity) -- for testing drug compound interactions within variable and difficult-to-control cell-based biological systems.

"MLPC clones provide a viable alternative to primary bone marrow and cord blood harvests for developing tissue engineering and regeneration protocols," said Dr. Colin McGuckin, director of the Stem Cell Therapy Program and reader in Stem Cell Biology and Tissue Engineering at Kingston University in London. "We have been working with BioE for two years on a number of projects, and it is one of the few companies developing protocols for the use of umbilical cord blood that accelerate our work towards finding clinical-grade therapies in hematology and tissue engineering research. With these cell lines, researchers should be able to develop repeatable protocols for tissue engineering research and to characterize the cytokine combination necessary for defined tissue generation. Similarly, biomaterials and bioengineering researchers should also benefit from this type of cell line."

About BioE

BioE is a biotechnology company developing antibody based diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for use across a wide variety of medical specialties to improve patient outcomes and quality of life. Privately owned, the company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minn. For more information about BioE, please visit www.bioe.com or call (800) 350-6466.

CONTACT:
BioE, Inc., St. Paul Corporate Communications: Missy Ekern, 651-287-0327 [email protected] or Sales: Terry Murray, 866-855-7344 x704 [email protected] or Haberman & Associates Media: Jon Zurbey, 612-372-6446 [email protected]

[Style]

Good job Twicewise. Very nicely written and I dont think it is too graphic. Your Points are well made.

[hopeful]

Twicewise,
Sorry it has taken so long to reply to your answer to my question. Your answer was so comprehensive that I did some research so that I could reply intelligently. Here are my responses (in blue) to your questions, with quotes from some of my research sources:

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

[Twicewise]

Well Hopeful, I don’t love a good debate all that much. But your response was intelligent, well thought and deserves an answer.

You have made two points of justification. The first, since these embryo’s are going to be discarded anyway then we might as well experiment on them. I don’t think that this argument is compelling. After all, we can say that same thing about grandpa. He died last Wednesday, and now his body is going to simply be buried in the cemetery anyway. We might as well experiment on his body to see if we can’t come up with some sort of a cure. In fact, Grandpa isn’t dead yet, but he’s terminally ill. The doctor’s say that he has less than a week. After that he’s just going to be taken out to the cemetery and covered over with dirt. I say we have an obligation to perform experiments on grandpa rather than allow the last week of his life to simply go to waste. If would be hesitant to perform experiments on the living body of Grandpa then why are we so willing to do it on embryo's. After all both are potentially going to be thrown away in a week.

Your second argument is that we have the right to experiment on them because they are very small, and very immature. Thus you have once again raised the question of when does human life begin. Is a blastocyst, an embryo only five days old, a human being or not. Are embryos that have been left frozen at a fertilization clinic human beings or not. If they are human then we have no business experimenting on them at any age. If they are not human, then we have to ask the question, “when do they become human? When are they worthy to take on the essential God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”

It is my perception that you do not believe that a blastocyst is human, or is deserving of the protections that a human being would have. I assume that you would not want to do experiments on a new born baby to see what diseases their body can cure. So, some time during the embryo’s stay in the womb it goes from being a blastocyst with no rights, to being a human being with full God given rights.

So where is it reasonable to draw that line? Should we draw the line at five months when the baby can feel pain? Should we draw the line at nine weeks when the internal organs are complete? Should we draw the line at five weeks when the fingers and toes begin to develop? Should we draw the line at 22 days when the heart begins to beat? Should we draw the line at one week when the embryo travels through the fallopian tube and attaches to the uterus wall? Or should we draw the line at conception when the miracle of life begins, when the sperm and egg unite together to form a unique individual with its own DNA and a fingerprint unlike anyone else’s. (And yes, I know that he or she doesn’t have a fingerprint yet, but I’m making the point that this is a completely unique DNA set, and that when we destroy it that particular combination of DNA will never be seen again.)

And the answer to this lies in the character of the question. Is this a medical question in which doctors will measure on a chart the height of the newly formed embryo and say, “It has become large enough to be human.” Or is this a spiritual question in which God himself will say, “I have touched this little child within the womb, and have a created a new and wonderful life.” Because if we frame this as a medical question then, by all means, there is a time when the embryo begins to look life a baby instead of like a fish. But if this is a spiritual question then we are destroying what God has created every time that we deign to manipulate life to produce something in our image rather than his image.

And so, how do we decide which kind of question this is? How do we choose between the medical answer and the spiritual answer to the question? Well, what a human life is, and what an unborn baby is depends entirely on who created them. If we are simply the product of an evolutionary chain of events then we are no different than the animals, and as the most advanced animal on the planet have the right to experiment as we will. On the other hand, if God created human beings, and if we are made in his image, then we don’t have the right to destroy what he has created. (The creation argument belongs in another thread, and we can deal with it later if you like.) We don’t know for sure the answer to this question. But as long as there is the possibility that God creates each human being, and blesses every newly formed life, then we tread in very dangerous waters every time that we choose to destroy such a life.

--------------

Secondly, you need to reconsider your argument. If one embryo can create an unlimited amount of stem cells then why is it that the scientists are demanding more. There are 79 stem cell lines in existence right now and they should provide more than enough material for experimentation. But scientists want more, why. The answer is because the embryonic material in the current 79 lines have degraded to the point of unusability. Scientists are now saying that after the 4th or 5th generation of stem cells that so many mutations develop within the material that it can longer use it to produce plentipotent cells. Thus, there is always going to be a need for more embryo’s to experiment on and to use for new cures.

-------------

One further point, Leonardo da Vinci didn’t kill his cadavers before he started experimenting on them. But every embryo used for stem cells is destroyed as a potential human being in order for the cell material to be harvested. There really isn’t an ethical comparison between the two. What right do I have to kill you in order to survive myself? In fact, the vampire mythology comes out of this very question. I can be immortal by killing you and drinking your blood. But for my life to continue I must keep on taking the lives of others. I don’t think embryonic stem cell harvesting is much different than that. The only difference is that we take their blood when they’re only a week old, rather than when they are full grown.

- TwiceWise

[spirited]

Manipulation of cells is a very touchy subject. I believe that an embryo is alive upon conception. I believe that life is sacred in ANY form. I believe that the dismissal even of the first stages of life is the opening of the door for greater attrocities. If we destroy a life or even a potential life for the "greater good" are we not performing uethanasia?? I will not stand before my Creator and say that I condoned anything that assisted in destroying His creation.
I refuse to even support assisted suicides because I believe that every person can give to society in whatever state they are in. I know that some may be in great pain, but it opens the door to saying " You have nothing left of your life to give to mankind, so now you must go." This is an evil that is much more that skin deep.
Destruction of life in any form can not be tolerated if our nation is going to continue to succeed.

[hopeful]

Twicewise,
I enjoyed reading your response, your points are compelling and I respect your strong beliefs.

If you feel that these frozen blastocysts should not be killed, I am interested on your opinion of the IVF process itself, since the blastocysts in question would not exist if not for infertile couples who utilize this technology to fulfill their desires to become parents. Should IVF be outlawed? There are between 200,000 and 400,000 frozen blastocysts in storage at the present time. Granted, most of them probably would not be usable for research, but some would. What should be done with them? In doing my research, i read that most parents avoid making this decision by leaving them in storage facilities indefinitely. Is this the right thing to do?

Regarding your argument about Grandpa, would you object to the tranplanting of a healthy heart from a young person who is brain dead but on life support into another child who will die without tranplant surgery, provided the parents give their consent? Grandpa's organs are probably not usable for any purpose, so your scenario seems unlikely. But I could be wrong, I have been wrong before.

As to where the line of where life begins should be drawn (sorry badly phrased), your perception is correct, we disagree on that point. In a democracy, I don't think that your beliefs, or those of President Bush, should be imposed on those of us with different beliefs to the point where it impedes research that could save hundreds of thousands of lives, regardless of the beliefs of the suffering patients. As I said before, there are ethical lines to be drawn, but here they have, in my opinion, (and in the opinion of the majority of American citizens, by a 2-1 margin) been drawn too narrowly.

Regarding the usability of stem cell lines, it is true that lines are not usable forever. From what I have read, as technology improves (and of course the only way to do this is to continue with the research), the researchers will get better at sustaining the lines. And as long as IVF continues to be done, new blastocysts will continue to be created.

As for the comparison to da Vinci, I was not directly comparing what he did to today's stem cell research, merely making the point that at that time his pioneering scientific endeavors were widely viewed as heretical, whereas today, autopsies, use of cadavers in medical schools, organ transplants, etc., are widely accepted practices.

I look forward to hearing from you again.

Hopeful

[Twicewise]

Hopeful,

I am of the opinion that some things destroy the soul. There are some activities which, by their very nature, destroy a person compassion and character. You can’t kill baby kittens all day long without being hardened and twisted by it. There’s no way not to be affected. There’s no way to say, “Killing baby kittens may twist other people, but it won’t change me.” Because it changes everybody, the very act itself holds within it the destruction of the moral character of the person doing it. It would be like saying, “Drinking poison may hurt other people, but it won’t hurt me. I can handle it.” Of course it will hurt you, it is, after all, poison.

I think the same thing is true about killing the unborn. There is, within the act itself, something that hardens and coarsens a person. I don’t think it’s possible to say, “Performing abortions might harden someone else, but it won’t hurt me,” because after all it’s poison and when you drink it hurts you. I think there is something within the act that destroys the soul even if it is done in the name of science or reproductive rights. And so, when someone says that they are going to create extra blastocysts, and that they will throw away the excess human tissue, I think there’s something very cold and very dehumanizing about that. Isn’t anybody else outraged that we are creating throw away humans, so that an infertile couple can become pregnant.

And the fact is that it isn’t even necessary. I did some research yesterday and found that it is possible to create a viable embryo by combining frozen sperm with a frozen egg. Thus the act of conception never takes place on the frozen material that is never used. There’s no moral quagmire to throwing away unfertilized eggs, and outdated sperm. There’s no human life that’s being destroyed in that case.

Yes, I’m very compassionate toward those who cannot have a child on their own. But I’m still opposed to creating throw away human beings for their convenience.

----------------

On the issue of harvesting organs from the brain dead. It seems like bad policy to me when we start killing someone in order to harvest the organs. It seems like only a short step from there to harvesting organs of the severely retarded. Or harvesting organs of the derelict, and the social outcast. Once again it’s, “I can take your life, in order to prolong my life.” That’s always wrong, no matter the circumstance.

It seems to me that much of your argument centers around the quality of life. The quality of the brain dead person’s life is so low that I can take what is left of his life in order to prolong my life. I will be decreasing the quality of his life, and increasing the quality of my own. But, if we begin to decide who’s life should be saved and who’s life shouldn’t be then we really have begun to play God. That person is paralyzed, therefore I’m free to take his organs. Another person is in constant pain. It would a mercy for me to kill them and take their organs. And I know that as human beings we can justify almost anything if we want it badly enough. Giving anyone that right to kill a fellow human being and harvest the organs cannot help but lead to abuse and disaster. Therefore, we shouldn’t even start down that road, when the moral pitfalls are so close and so evident.

- TwiceWise

[hopeful]

Twicewise,

Well, you have made yourself quite clear and I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Thanks, it's been interesting.

Hopeful