Redstate

Bush can veto this all he wants.  The fact is that the research is going to be done at Harvard, and elsewhere around the world, whether Bush vetoes it or not.

Here's the Harvard Gazette's article.

See also Scientific American.

Funded with my tax dollars.

Truthfully, I'd just as soon see this garbage banned altogether, but there's no realistic shot of that until 2007 or so. Doesn't mean I have to be sanguine about using humans as lab experiments.

But not funding it with tax dollars is going to slow the research in this country, and it is going to cause the companies that are looking to capitalize on that research to take their business elsewhere.  

You can make a stand on the principle that federal funds not be used for something you object to, and that's fine.  But as Harvard University has proven, it no longer takes federal money to conduct the research.  What you are doing with a federal ban is preventing research grants being issued to researchers less wealthy than the ones at Harvard.  That's fine too, because there are hundreds of universities overseas less wealthy than Harvard who don't fall under the jurisdiction of POTUS who will accept the grant money, either from their own governmental sources or from corporations.

This battle, in my mind, is over.  It was over the day Harvard decided to establish its own privately-funded laboratories.

My control and, to a lesser extent, my concern, lies within my borders. If the rest of the world elects to go to Hell, I hope they don't burn up a perfectly good handbasket in the process.

But I can't.  Do you really believe that this federal ban on stem-cell research can possibly stand in the long term?  You might be able to eke out another three years for the sake of your principles, but what about 50 years down the road?  100 years down the road?  What I would suggest for people who conscientously object to embryonic stem-cell research, or as you put it, "killing children in petri dishes" to continue to object.  But I have to tell you that I object to this kind of thinking for the same reason that I object to the "consensus" view of global-warming acolytes who brook no dissent for political reasons either.

You wish to portray those who are engaging in embryonic stem-cell research as people who have sold themselves out to the Faustian bargain of Faustian bargains.  I would suggest that if that's true, the point has already past.  And moreover, I don't believe it is true.

This argument reminds me a little of the people who want to push the pharmaceutical industry in this country overseas by interefering with the market.  50 years from now this kind of thinking will be seen as incredibly shortsighted.  

Why will all of these qualms be seen as shortsighted fifty years hence?

I don't intend to be snide or dismissive, but really want to know why you think this way.  Will the prospect of making jillions of dollars doing this sort of thing numb our consciences?  Will the prospect of health lead us to smother our misgivings concerning the commodification of life for the benefit of the wealthy and unscrupulous?  Will we awaken to the brave new world of doing evil that some good may result and find it homelike?  Will we all embrace the naive, vulgar, unscientific empiricism which holds that life you can see might - only might, given what the past two months have shown us -  be worth something but life you cannot see without the microscope or fancy machines is just so much prime matter ripe for exploitation and profiteering?  Will all of us - and all of our Churches - who object to this sort of thing just disappear, or mutilate our own traditions for the sake of mammon?  What?  

I simply do not see the "shortsightedness" angle here.  The virtue of these bestial experiments is just not that obvious.

that your extreme position on this issue will leave you isolated, not the other way around.  Most people are "squishy" on life issues.  They don't like abortion, especially late term abortions, but on the other hand a lot of people have had abortions or know someone who have had an abortion and know they aren't bad people and understand their decision.  So it comes down to the old adage that the what abortions to be illegal except in the case of "medical necessity or I want one".  And thousands of people have availed themselves of in-vitro fertility treatments that often involves the intentional destruction of many viable embryos for each successful pregnancy.  Most stem cell lines use these embryos (which would otherwise be destroyed) as their source.

Once you start condemning standard fertility clinic practices (and that is really what you are doing when you condemn stem cell research) and by extension some forms of birth control (arguably the Pill and certainly the IUD) you lose almost everyone else.  I'm sure if you took a poll today that asked "Would you support a constitutional amendment that defined life as beginning at conception even if that made oral birth control pills, IUDs, most in-vitro fertility treatments, and all fetal stem cell research illegal", support for such an amendment would be in the low single digits.

I'm wondering if the right-to-life ethical debate here will soon become moot.  Just this week South Koreans published that they could now take a normal cell from your body, trigger it into a stem cell mode, let it reproduce for a while, and then have a whole bunch of stem cells of you.  There is no egg or fertilization involved.

Here's the link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/2
0050519/pl_nm/science_stemcells_dc

As for the ethics, I see this as being little different than donating blood in advance of an operation where you expect to need a transfusion of your own blood back.  Yes, they're manipulating cells, but they're your cells.  Yes, there is life involved, but it's your life.  

If this technique proves viable, I don't see how Bush's original stem cell research objection will hold, i.e. that researchers were destroying embryos to get the stem cells.

For the benefit of the "wealthy and unscrupulous" that embryonic stem-cell research proceeds so that it can develop therapies to benefit the sick and the poor?  Or do you think that everone who suffers from diabetes is rich?  Alternately, do you think they should continue to suffer because they are poor?  Will that help them to get into heaven?

What about viruses?  We can't see them without a microscope, and they are partially composed of DNA and arguably represent the simplest and most innate life form on this planet, but nobody objects to disassembling viruses to stop the spread of HIV, do they?  And how about engineering new drugs using computers by solving the protein folding problem from first principles and being able to predict the final conformation of strings of amino acids before they are ever assembled in a laboratory in order to combat various kinds of cancer?  Do you object to using a protein that was created on a computer to help someone who has a particular variant of lymphoma?  Especially if it is a novel protein that man created, not God?  If you object to that, you should tell IBM to fold up shop right now.

Finally, do you really think that the people at Harvard University who are running these laboratories are interested in the "commodification of life?" in the sense that they will start harvesting human beings for the purposes of commodity exchange, like they do in China?

Why would the Church object to the use of therapies developed from embryonic stem cells to save the lives of people in the congregation?  Would they think it better to simply stop that research and let those people die?

Finally, let's say we ban research on human embryonic stem cells and instead allow reseach only on, say, bovine embryonic stem cells -- for the purposes of improving livestock.  Would that be more permissible under your ethics?  Why?

Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer does not avoid the debate.  Theoreticaly, you could transfer a blastocyst made this way into a womans uterus and she could carry it to term and deliver a baby.  This technique not only keeps the stem cell = destruction of life debate alive, it also brings us into the arguments against human cloning.  

But honestly these debates might as well occur together.  ES cells are going to be worthless as a therapeutic unless they are derived from your own cells through cloning.

Here are some numbers to show the type of issues that are faced in in vitro fertilization attempts. I got these from a coworker, and I think they're probably pretty typical. My coworker and his wife decided to try in vitro fertilization after years of trying to have a baby, including the fertility treatments:

Twenty-two eggs were removed from the mother. Of those eggs 14 were successfully fertilized. These 14 began growing and were frozen until they could be transplanted.  Six eggs were transplanted, of which 2 grew and were successfully delivered.

That leaves 8 successful fertilizations which were not transplanted. What to do with them? In this case they were disposed of by the clinic.

Is a ceremonial flush more dignified ending for the 8 fertilized eggs than becoming part of a clinical trial? I would argue no. They can't be stored forever, and will have to be disposed of someway.

This is a contentious issue.  Some people are "opposed to the destruction of life" some people "don't want to hamper promising research that could lead to new treatments for disease."

There is one place we can go to find the wisdom and guidance we need on this issue.... The Bible.

I propose "The Solomon Compromise".  We cut the baby in half.

"Divide the living child in two and give half to the one and half to the other."  1 Kings 3:23

At these early stages of development an embryo can be cut in half to create two separate embyos without harm.  If we fertilize an egg in a petri dish, allow it to divide several times then cut the ball of cells in half, one half can be implanted into the uterus of the intended mother and the other half can be used to produce stem cells.

Kawol, you must have considered the relentless march toward this type of biotechnology and science. The financial rewards are so immense that it may make the oil industry look a bit peakish considering the applications.

Any smart foreign government would put as much resources into such a project to get as much of a lead on the American's as they could for their soon to be realize financial benefit.

Kawol, this is not the end, this is the beginning of something that will go global so quick it will make you puke.

The trick is not to stop it, that cannot be done period, considering we are a global humanity with enormous social value differences. The trick, is to quickly find a scientific way that can both keep up and advance beyond global competition and not sacrifice a life in the process. Can that be done? I don't know. I suppose that would be what your personal definition of life is, which I do not intend to explore in any way with you. Whatever your beliefs are, I have due respect for them.

Some of the consequences of not adopting some measure such as this could be;

1. Lossing some of the top physicians educated in this country.
   
2. Developing slow and limited knowledge in a field of medicine that could replace most current forms of practices and treatments of most diseases.
   
3. Placing the finest medical institutions on the globe not in North America, but in places like Mexico, South Korea and Veitnam and then the subsequent migration of our best physicians to these  locality's so that they can keep up with the finest treatment methodes to date.
   
4. If you have N.A. based pharmaceutical stock, it would be a good time to think about selling it, until which time they can relocate their facilities, then it would be a great time to buy and hold on.

The list obviously could go on, but I'll spare us all. I am sorry to say Kawol, but I truly believe that the financial lose to the country could possibly be so great that even the most dedicated advocate might buckle under the pressure of thousand upon thousand of medical companies and those industries related to it pressuring their respective representatives.

It's Bush's job to veto it and he doesn't get hurt by it at this point. (Maybe in historical references it won't look so good, but that remains to be seen). Yet again, I believe the representatives are going to be under pressure we now may not be able to imagine. They will push it through anyways, paving the way to what you ultimately really didn't want to happen. And, like it or not, it will be a sad day for all humanity and hopefully the genie doesn't have an attitude when we release it.

No real comment, except to state that I generally endorse Kowalski's view and that the attempt to equate unimplanted embryonic cells with born children is unpersuasive to me.

Incidentally, the pharmaceutical industry has been a consistent supporter of the Republican party, but it's going to get interesting over the next couple years.  And it's not just stem cell research.  There's a massive overhaul of the Patent Statute in the works, which could make the 1998 battles (which had Phyllis Schafly claiming that the Republicans on the other side of the debate -- Hatch, et al. -- were in the pockets of the "multinationals") look like a cakewalk.

If you're dying to know more about the patent battles, I'll be covering it (once it heats up) in a bit more detail on my blog.

moral and ethical positions should be driven to the lowest possible denominator based on what polls say people think?

Again, I always find it refreshing for you guys to reinforce my observations of the left. Thanks, I do appreciate it.

You could take the "blastocyst" made by somatic cell nuclear transfer ("therapeutic cloning"), manipulate yet more, transplant it in a uterus, and 9 months later produce a baby.

But using that logic, you can't experiment on ANY human cell, because they all are "potential life".

Is it morally ok to experiment on some of my skins cells? How about a little bit of my stomach lining taken through a biopsy? No problem, right?

Well, if you take that stomach lining cell, manipulate it a lot, extract the DNA, inject the DNA into an unfertilized egg (also not "life", we don't hold a funeral once a month for every woman of child-bearing years), and manipulate it some more, you then get what looks like a "blastocyst". It has my exact genetic identity (well, it has the mitochondria of the egg donor), it has no new genetic identity. It was not the product of even assisted human conception.

Are you telling me that the scientist who does this is creating "life"? Just because a lot more human intervention in the process might lead that blastocyst to grow into a baby does not suddenly transform the combination of my stomach lining DNA and the donor egg into a new life form. If it did, then, because all of my cells have the potential, given sufficient human intervention, to grow into a new baby, no experimentation on human cells of any kind could be performed.

From the standpoint of the life debate, there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with therapeutic cloning.

In the Houston Chronicle article, notice how Orrin Hatch is a "conservative Republican" but Dianne Feinstein is a "moderate Democrat".

In 2004, Feinstein received a perfect "Liberal Quotient" of 100 from Americans for Democratic Action (pdf file), even higher than her fellow California Senator Barbra Boxer, who got a 95. Feinstein's score earned her the label of "Senate Hero". And yes, that's really what the ADA calls their score... the "liberal quotient", or "LQ".

Orrin Hatch got a 10, and he was not in fact the least liberal Senator (I count 10 who got "5"s).

I just have to ask why we would give any money to an organization with an $18 billion endowment and one that charge students $40,000 a year to attend.  It seems supply and demand are doing just fine and Harvard can find a way to fund its own research and teaching.  This is just one form of corporate welfare in my perspective.

I hope stem cell research benefits mankind, but these contentious types of research should be in the private sector.

is that the extreme pro-life position, which I would define as the official Roman Catholic Church position, is the position of a small minority of people in this country.  If this is the position that is consistently, publically, and vocally pushed, the pro-life movement will lose support quickly.  

This position is (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any of the particulars):

--An individual, human life, fully as worthy of protection as an adult, exists at the moment the sperm and egg meet.

--From that point on the life of the mother and the "child" are equally precious and worthy of judicial protection.

--Any action that destroys that life is a homicide and can only be justified only through normal legal justifications of homicide.

--Birth control methods that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg are equivalent to abortion and should be illegal.

Abortion is easy to think about in the abstract.  "Yes, I'm against abortion, killing babies is horrible and partial birth abortions are barbaric."  But individual abortions aren't abstractions, they are individual women and sometimes their partners, many of whom consider themselves pro-life, making individual decisions based on individual circumstances.  You may be able to condemn them all but most people won't.  And when push comes to shove people will think back to that time in college when they or a friend faced that decision, and it was right for them at the time, eventhough overall they think abortion wrong.

I think this has backfired on media in some ways.  I think more people call themselves conservative because they see conservative used to describe politicians they agree with.  Moderate is still the sought-after term du jour, but almost no one wants to be called a liberal (which can be devined by the fact that media won't use it where it applies).  Dems were even worried that Kerry might be "labeled" a liberal despite his very liberal voting record.  And we're seeing that same battle for Mrs. Clinton.

The media bias has made "conservative" mean mainstream Republicans instead of McCarthyism while its made liberal mean Michael Moore instead of mainstream Democrats.  An interesting dynamic.

If you look at the 2004 Liberal Quotient report, the only Senators with scores of less than 85 are Republicans (not counting Kerry and Edwards, who missed most of the votes the ADA counted... they voted liberal for every vote they actually cast). All of the Senators labelled "moderate" (a score of 40-60) by the report are actually Republicans (except Edwards, as noted).

When people talk about blind partisanship, I think these numbers show that the party of rigid ideology is the Democrats, not the Republicans.

I'd only change your third point by adding "deliberately" before "destroys".

The pro-life position is pretty straight-forward: every human being has intrinsic dignity; we know via biology that the conceptus is a human being; hence it has the same dignity had by older human beings, and that dignity should be respected by law as is that of older human beings.

How might you disagree?

liberalism is dead or at least dying.

Come on, you accuse people of "liberal bias" and yes there are a lot of social liberals out there, but as far as economically liberal, not really.  Even the environmental movement has been pretty much dead in the water for the last fifteen years.  The last major piece of environmental legislation that passed was under Bush's father.  Where are the great proponents of unions and workers rights?  Heck, where are the protectionists, even if that is wrongheaded, most of them are on big Agriculture's payroll.  Clinton was the one who worked with the Republican Congress to overhaul welfare.

What we have is a socially liberal, economically conservative Democratic Party and a socially conservative Republican Party that has no coherent economic policy other than to cut taxes and pray that it somehow causes revenue to increase before the deficits cause the dollar to crash and interest rates to go through the roof.

Why not castigate a trend or movement on the basis of what is likely to be its most public, visible face?  I doubt that the public face of the fetal farmers is going to be the diabetic given a new lease on life by some alchemic good-from-evil therapy; the public face of the movement is most likely to be presented by the cloning fetishists, the designer-baby crowd, and the extend-my-mortal-life-by-any-means-necessary folks - all the preserves of the wealthy.  This is at least arguable.  Unscrupulous?  Yes.  Researchers can utilize stem cells from cord blood or adults, and the testing of experimental therapies derived from these sources has been more promising, to date, than that of therapies derived from embryonic sources, its simply the case that there is more money and fame to be garnered by conducting research that will lead to vast cloning operations and have as their "raw material" a potentially unlimited source of stem cells.

Remarks about leaving the poor to suffer are beneath the level of debate we hope to cultivate here; none of us, regardless of the position we take on this question, wishes to facilitate suffering among the sick.  It's just cheap to suggest otherwise.

I think that your remarks about viruses and engineered proteins are impertinent, as in not relevant to the issue at hand, unless you really want to equivocate on the meaning of "life" so thoroughly that viruses, proteins, and even cattle are lumped together with human life without meaningful differentiation.  Moreover, the commodifiction of life occurs whenever human life is reduced to the level of object, intended for the use, exploitation or profit of another, without regard to its own dignity, worth, purpose or rights (if we want to speak of rights).  In other words, it is the treatment of any human life as though it were a means and not an end. (Kant got a lot wrong, but he was on the mark with that point.)  And do you seriously propose as a proposition for general acceptance the idea that Harvard is engaged in this research purely for its intellectual value - whatever that is?  No one at Harvard wants to patent a process by which these lives are manipulated for medical purposes?  Please.  That would be too naive.

Finally, the Church would object because, as I have stated, She holds it impermissible to do evil that good would result.  By the same logic that would countenance the use of embryonic cells to "save lives", one could argue that it is permissible to resolve the War on Terror by visiting atomic devastation upon the Muslim world: just sacrifice some lives to benefit the lives of others.  And as to cattle, while some of the reasearch being conducted does raise ethical questions, I trust it is obvious that I am not a member of the boy-is-a-dog-is-a-rat-is-a-cockroach school of ethics.

to put deliberately in there.  Thanks for the catch.

I would disagree with almost every point.  If you would ask me when a fetus becomes a human being, I would tell you I honestly don't know.  And when does that fetus' right to life equal that of the mother such that the decision to terminate the pregnancy becomes a concern of the State (or for that matter anyone except the mother and her doctor), again I don't know.  One thing I am absolutely certain of, that point is not during the first trimester, and is probably well into the second.

by voices on the right like Limbaugh and Hannity.

That Pew research thing the other day perpetuates the same kind of framing Republicans in a good light and framing Democrats in a negative light.  

What were the Republicans?  Enterprisers! Upbeats! Social Conservatives!

What were the Democrats?  Liberals, Disaffecteds, Disadvantaged Dems.

but I think it goes something like this:

Your skin cells are not growing into babies are they?  

It would take significant intervention to get any cell (except gametes) in your body to start down the path towards becoming a human being.  But, once it has taken the first step on that path it is a human being and it deserves the same respect and protection that any human being should have.  

Your twin would have your same genetic identity as well, does that mean that s/he is not an individual person?

Nobody is creating life, your skin, stomach, etc. cells are alive already.  What the scientist is doing is creating a human being when he transfers that DNA into an egg cell that is made capable of developing into a human being.

So as long as your skin, stomach, liver,.... cells are not headed towards personhood, experiment on them all you want.

"From the standpoint of the life debate, there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with therapeutic cloning. "

Yeah, nothing.  Well, except for the dead baby part.

can be ascribed solely to the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh where the transformation of  public perceptions of the term "liberal" are concerned.  Liberalism was a majority philosophy of a sort in the sixties, but the transformations undergone by liberals themselves set in motion the discrediting of the term in the public mind long before Limbaugh came on the scene.

The excesses of the antiwar movement were associated with liberalism, because liberals were often ambivalent at best about the things the radicals attacked.

The excesses of the sexual revolution.  Abortion.  Associated with liberalism.

"Root causes" theories of crime and rehabilitation, which turned American cities into battle zones more akin to the Balkans or Bogota than to anything civilized people would wish to call home, were a fetish of liberals in the sixties and seventies.  Still are today, in some quarters.

Fecklessness in foreign affairs - indelibly etched on the face of liberalism by Carter, at the very least, to say nothing of LBJ, McGovern and a host of Senators.

Economic stagnation and confiscatory taxation - the legacy of liberalism in economics in the seventies.  Similar approaches are still advocated by many on the left, even today.  

We could go on.  But liberalism went a long way toward self-deconstruction long before Limbaugh; at most, he articulated what many already felt and thought about liberalism.

those are the things that people are supposed to think of when they hear the word "liberal".

We could ask a liberal to make his own list of negatives from conservative politics things like war monger, privelege for the wealthy, Iran-Contra,...  But this frame has not been attached to the word Conservative by the left.

Hannity and Limbaugh, and Coulter, and others are very important in maintaining this negative association and in using it now that it is established.  Have you ever heard Hannity say the word 'liberal'?   I've called people thief and liar with less venom.

At what point in my scenario of the traverse of my stomach cell's DNA into an unfertilized egg through the cloning process become "life", a new human being? Yes, if it developed into a baby through additional human intervetion, I would call that life at some point... but I really don't know when.

To get into a little more detail of the cloning process, first you enuclate an egg (take the DNA material out of an unfertilized egg). You take one of my cells and treat it with some chemicals to prepare it. Then you take that cell or the DNA from that cell and put it, physically with a little pipette, into the enucleated, unfertilized egg. Then you give it a little jolt of electricity to fuse my DNA into the egg. Then you bathe it in some calcium to mimic the signal of the sperm and make the egg start behaving like a fertilized egg.

So at what point did you the scientist suddenly create life where there was none? When exactly did it go from being an unfertilized egg and my cast-off DNA to becoming a baby?

I'm staunchly against reproductive cloning, or harvesting clones for body parts. But I don't see anything wrong with using the therapeutic cloning process I have described to create "embryonic" stem cells for medical treatments.

One thing I am absolutely certain of, that point is not during the first trimester, and is probably well into the second.

What happens that changes the status of the baby from property to person?

How can you be certain it doesn't happen in the first trimester if you don't know what it is?

If you read the history of why the term liberal seems to be a faulty one to be associted with, you'll find that it was the republican party that coined the phrase and the incorrect meaning behind it.

I've heard alot of people refer to Liberals as being just too.....Liberal...amoung other things.

Likewise, I've heard republican's called Religious Wackos. These terms mean nothing. If it wasn't for real religious wackos, I'm sure the rights of the church would be encroached upon. And likewise again, if it wasn't for hard core Liberals like myself, certain rights for American's would start to disappear. And finally, the republican's do the same.

The social value pendulum is only going through its normal back and forth motion. What is one party's gain one day will be the others the next.

interested in engaging in a bit of tu quoque as regards the associations many have for the appelations "liberal" and "conservative".  The reality is that a good many things transpired that were either perceived as negative, or simply were negative to any sane person. and these things were seen to follow from liberal policy prescriptions.  

Liberals have endeavoured to create the sort of associations you mention for the word "conservative"; their efforts just haven't taken to the same degree as the efforts of conservatives, or the common-sense associations of many people.  Undoubtedly, there are reasons for this.

but I dont want to do it either.

"Undoubtedly, there are reasons for this."

I suggest that one of the reasons is a concerted effort to turn the word liberal into the pejorative it is today.  And the lack of such a concerted effort on the other side.

Is his post anti-Catholic in the least?

it's not my argument.  Ask the Pope.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/01-11-01humancloningclc.htm

catholics, cares what the Pope says.

that you have identified his major constituency.

You share monikers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7922271/

It's a private association of priests which is formally recognized by the Church. They argue that therapeutic cloning, to which they devote little space in the link you describe, is proscribed by existing Church teachings, which says: "[A]ttempts ... for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission', cloning or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union."

I disagree that their interpretation of those teachings is correct. I don't believe that therapeutic cloning is an "attempt for obtaining a human being". As far as I know, the Pope has not set forth a doctrinal position specifically on therapeutic cloning. I accept my Church's position that life begins at conception and that reproductive cloning would be immoral. But I disagree that therapeutic cloning is banned by those precepts.

I thought this had been settled a few hundred years ago with the example of Galileo. Even the Catholic Church was forced to reverse itself, eventually.

By limiting research in the US we will just fall behind the rest of the world. US universities are already feeling the drop in graduate student applicatants from abroad because of the restrictions on Visas. There is a developing severe shortage of scientists and engineers in this country already.

Eventually we can manage to become a banana republic run by small group of like minded people. Then we can import not only manufactured goods, but advanced medical processes as well. That, of course, assumes anyone will want our watered currency.

when a fetus becomes a human being, I would tell you I honestly don't know

But biology is pretty clear that the conceptus is an independent organism of our species... isn't that the definition of "human being," or do you use it with a different meaning?

And if that is the case (that the conceptus is a human being), and the mother wants to abort, the only instance I see where her interest even comes close to trumping the child's is when her life is truly endangered. Otherwise, I can't see how the discomfort of pregnancy is sufficient to outweigh the child's right to live. But that's all pretty standard, I suppose.

There is nothing overtly prejudicial in his post.

My question was meant to ask:  Are his conclusions the result of independent investigation, scholarly research, or merely the gain-saying of Catholic teaching as popularly understood?

http://www.holyseemission.org/cloning2003eng.html

The difference between "reproductive" cloning and "research" cloning (so-called "therapeutic" cloning) consists only in the objective of the procedure: in "reproductive" cloning one intends to develop a child by implanting the cloned embryo in a womb. In "research" cloning, one intends to use the cloned embryo in such a way that it is ultimately destroyed.  To ban "reproductive" cloning only, without prohibiting "research" cloning, would  be to allow the production of individual human lives with the intention of destroying these lives as part of the process of using them for scientific research. The early human embryo, not yet implanted into a womb, is nonetheless a human individual, with a human life, and evolving as an autonomous organism toward its full development into a human fetus Destroying this embryo is therefore a grave moral disorder, since it is the  deliberate suppression of a innocent human being.

The Holy See believes that these forms of artificial asexual and agamic reproduction to create human embryos gravely offend the dignity of the human race and the dignity of human life.  No one should ever do evil in order to achieve a good.

Since human reproductive cloning is universally condemned, only a complete ban on all forms of human embryonic cloning would achieve the goal of prohibiting human reproductive cloning.

Further, if research cloning were permitted, it would require, to be effective, a large number of human oocytes. The Holy See is concerned by this prospect for several reasons. In the first place, the process would use the women's bodies as a reservoir of oocytes without any consideration being given to the number of donations and her procreative future. In the second place, the massive demand for human oocytes would disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized of the world bringing a new type of injustice and discrimination into existence.

The Holy See seeks a complete and explicit prohibition on all techniques of creating new individual human embryos by cloning, including somatic cell nuclear transfer, embryo splitting, and other similar techniques that may develop in the future.  This prohibition must also encompass parthenogenesis and the creation of human-animal "chimeric embryos" by nuclear transfer.

anti-Catholic.  I disagree strongly with the Catholic stance on abortion and birth control and most issues of sexuality.  But I am most certainly not anti-Catholic.  I am sympathetic to the Catholic Church on almost all their other doctrinal stances.  And though I don't agree with some of their liturgical positions (the immaculate conception bothers me, I don't quite buy transubstantiation, I prefer the Protestant stance on confession, etc.), I don't think that raises Catholicism to the level of a "false church" or makes the Pope the antiChrist.  In fact, some of my best friends are Catholic.

Now as a mushy, liberal Presbyterian, I believe a ferilized egg possesses the potential to become a human being. Is a single cell or a cluster of cells with 46 (or 48--I can never remember) chromosomes a human being? I say no. You say yes.  We can argue about it all day and neither one of us will be able to produce one fact that will support our position.  Biology can't answer the question.  It is a metaphysical, philosophical, moral, and/or religious question that science can never answer.  It is like asking science to prove that God exists.

In a country where public policy should not be driven by moral issues unless there is an overwhelming consensus, further restrictions on abortion are unwise.  And if you look at opposition to abortion, the extreme no-comprimises position held by some at this site is a very small minority indeed.

I disagree strongly with the Catholic stance on abortion and birth control and most issues of sexuality.

These are doctrinal stances and they are codified in canon law and the catechism. But you aren't Catholic so your approval or disapproval isn't particularly relevant.

But I am most certainly not anti-Catholic.  I am sympathetic to the Catholic Church on almost all their other doctrinal stances.

Fair enough.

And though I don't agree with some of their liturgical positions (the immaculate conception bothers me, I don't quite buy transubstantiation, I prefer the Protestant stance on confession, etc.)

Wait, hold on for a minute. You said you are sympathetic to almost all of our other docrinial stances. Now you've just said you reject the core of Catholic doctrine. Transubstantiation is the Catholic faith. Without it we are either Anglicans or Lutherans. The Immaculate Conception is dogma. Take it or leave it but believe in it is intrinsic to Catholicism. Confession is a Sacrament. So I am left wondering what is it you agree with? The changing of vestments with liturgical seasons. The use of incense?

I don't think that raises Catholicism to the level of a "false church" or makes the Pope the antiChrist.

Okay. That is mighty open minded of you. We do appreciate it.

In fact, some of my best friends are Catholic.

Hmmm. I think Bull Connor said that about blacks.

I only have a moment right now before going off to dinner and a play, but it appears from the language you quote and this article I found with a quick search that Catholic opposition to therapeutic cloning stems not so much from the Church's opposition to abortion but from its opposition to in-vitro fertilization. That makes a little more logical sense to me.

It was more an instinictive revulsion at what liberalism became and what it demanded than an organized effort directed along the lines of a conspiracy.  Which is the way you make it sound.

It is hard to see how the basis for your position on this issue would not also require you to advocate the killing of post-birth humans if that was the current scientific research in vogue, if it was necessary to keep scientists in this country.

Biology can't answer the question.  It is a metaphysical, philosophical, moral, and/or religious question that science can never answer.

In no other species besides humans is this claim made.  You might be able to construct some sort of an argument that a human embryo is not a "person" (though I don't know what that argument could be), but you can't claim that a human embryo is not a human being.

"In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual

organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception, or

fertilization--the time when the egg cell from the female and the sperm cell from the

male join to form a single new cell, the zygote. . . ." -- Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth of

Harvard University Medical School, during the hearings on the Human Life Bill in 1981.

More here.

It seems to me they all stem from the same "Culture of Life" philosophy, but I'm not a Catholic so I don't know.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about somatic cell nuclear transfer after you read those links.

Hope you enjoyed the play.

in transubstantiation and almost all of the other core liturgical beliefs of Catholiscism. I used to be Episcopalean and my brother is an Episcopal Priest (he claims I am still Episcopalean since I can't really quit).  The Anglicans still consider themselves part of the Catholic Church, they just no longer recognize the authority of the Pope.  They certainly don't consider themselves a "Protestant" church.  Admittedly, their theology has diverged quite a bit from the Roman Catholic Church in the 500 years since the Pope denied Henry VIII his anullment.

I like the Church's doctrine on poverty, social issues other than sexuality, war, peace, the death penalty.  You know all those issues that would be considered "liberal".

Okay. That is mighty open minded of you. We do appreciate it.

Why, thank you.  Much more open minded than some Southern Baptists I know who accuse the Catholics of "worshipping the Virgin Mary" and "not true Christians because they have not been born again".  I have heard these things said by upper middle class urban Southern Baptists.

As for "some of my best friends being Catholic".  I was being flippant but I owe my life to a very close friend who helped me through the worst year of my life.  She is a very devout Catholic and if not for her support and love I doubt I would have survived that year.  So I really do have great respect for your religion even if you don't believe it.  

Thanks a lot, stem cells, for forcing me to remember all the genetics I learned in college.

It seems to me embryonic stem calls are a lose-lose situation.  One the one hand, if President Bush sticks to his guns, we will lose the edge in ES cell research as other industrialized countries go forth with it, in the process attracting the brightest minds and all the related pharmaceutical fortune.  If ES cells truly do prove to be a major medical breakthrough, history will somewhat rightly say that President Bush dropped the ball and allowed the U.S. to lag behind.  The arguments about what we already do with in vitro fertilization, DNA transplantation, and viruses are strong, but...

On the other hand, we would be foolish not to have bioethical qualms about harvesting embryos for stem cells.  This is especially true since there are other known sources of stem cells (fatty tissue, placental and umbilical cord blood, bone marrow) that do not require the destruction of life to harvest, and have, if anything, proven more promising than embryonic stem cells.  And given those qualms, President Bush is exactly right in wanting to limit federal funding.  Since when do major universities and pharmaceutical companies need government charity to conduct research.  I don't lose sleep at night worrying about Harvard and Novartis.

Now I know why I wouldn't want to be President...

Human Being, Person.  There is that which makes us Homo Sapiens--a product of evolution with 46 chromosomes--and then there is that that makes us human--thinking, sentient, beings capable of love, hate, thinking abstractly, arguing about when life begins and ends.  The Church used to talk in terms of ensoulment and quickening as the beginning of "human life" (although abortion before that time was still a sin it was not as serious).  

And that is the important issue for discussion, the philosophical issue of what "human life" is.

And I would expect a biologist testifying in support of a Human Life Bill to make such a rigid and really irrelevant statement.

Industry is not very interested in funding basic research.  Government is much better because immediate profits are not as obvious.  Although with this administration basic research has been unfortunately sacrificed for goal focussed research.

I agree that the question of personhood is a philosophical one.

But I also would argue that being a member of the species homo sapiens is sufficient. AFAIK, the only people who attempt to distinguish between a homo sapien and a human person are those who already believe they are different; that is, they beg the question.

the attempt to equate unimplanted embryonic cells with born children is unpersuasive to me.

So am I correct in assuming that, according to your view, implantation on the uteran wall is the beginning of life? Can you please explain the line of thinking that led you to this conclusion?

Please don't think I'm going to jump down your throat on this - I realize that I'm just as gung-ho pro-life as anyone on this site, but this is one issue that I'm still grappling with on a personal basis, and I'd love to hear the other side of this issue.

What about viruses?  We can't see them without a microscope, and they are partially composed of DNA and arguably represent the simplest and most innate life form on this planet, but nobody objects to disassembling viruses to stop the spread of HIV, do they?

Um, in my admitedly exotic, Santorumesque world-view, there's a huge difference between taking the life of a virus (or a rat) in the name of research and taking the life of a human being.

Finally, do you really think that the people at Harvard University who are running these laboratories are interested in the "commodification of life?" in the sense that they will start harvesting human beings for the purposes of commodity exchange, like they do in China.

One need not be cognizant of the evil one is helping along to nonetheless be helping it along. I have no doubt that many of researchers involved in the taking of human life at its embyronic stage have clear, but utterly uninformed and unenlightened, consciences.

Why would the Church object to the use of therapies developed from embryonic stem cells to save the lives of people in the congregation?

You know well the answer, but since I'm in an argumentive mood, I'll induldge you: the Church objects to the use of embyronic stem cells among other reasons because their use requires killing people.

Finally, let's say we ban research on human embryonic stem cells and instead allow reseach only on, say, bovine embryonic stem cells -- for the purposes of improving livestock.  Would that be more permissible under your ethics?

Yes, such use would be permissible for the same reason it is permissible to kill cattle, but not humans, for food.

You or your brother appear to be mis-informed about what transubstantiation means, or perhaps it has been given a different meaning from that used by Catholics to hide the heresey of the Episcopals. Anglicans and Episcopals don't believe in it as doctrine.  I don't know if you are free to believe in transubstantiation on your own.  

That link is pretty funny describing some aspects of Catholicism.  Don't ask an Anglican about Catholicism.  Anglicans are protestants.

Given your accuracy on the Episcopal Church you might want to do some research to find out wether you respect Catholicism or not, regardless of your admiration for our sister, your close friend.

As an Anglican, allow me to interject: the Anglican communion almost entirely embraces the doctrine of consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.  The Catholic church considers this doctrine to be heretical.

Yes.  There is no other coherent line that can be drawn.

Thoroughly excoriated on RedState by both liberals and conservatives, especially for my nonsequiturs and because I dared to play devil's advocate in this thread, let me share with you all the two articles on this that are running today in the Washington Post, by Michael Kinsley and David Broder.

Here's Broder's article.

Here's Kinsley's.

Kinsley's position?  The government doesn't listen to God.  The ethics are already understood and no new breakthroughs are going to be made in ethics that will, or should, prevent this research.  What we have amounts to nothing more than making a choice between ethical arguments that are already known.  We are falling behind other countries as a result of the ban. Our government is dashing hopes crushing lives inadvertently through its shortsighted politics.  The embryos are just "clumps."  They are more primitive than a mosquito.  All of the doomsaying arguments are a rehash of the IVF debate...

Both of these people are much more influential than I am, or than I will ever be.  I'm truly sorry if I offended any social conservatives here with my posts, which I'll admit, were deliberately provocative, but I did it for a reason.  The public opinion on this issue is being shaped by people at the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, not RedState.  

Is here.

Together Broder and Kinsley are helping to deliver the liberal one-two punch on this issue, and in my opinion, they are winning.

I mean Kowalski.

I'm not sure there is a way for the current Republican coalition to come out of this intact.  

How loudly do you think people will be yelling "See it's the slippery slope!  Next it will be baby-farming, zombie clones,.....etc." when they find out that ES cells are only going to be practical for therapies if they are derived from "therapeutic cloning"?

I don't see how this research can move forward under Republican leadership without dividing the party.  And if it is blocked, I think Big Pharma will withdraw its support.  The ban didn't seem to hurt Bush, but if a therapy for any disease emerges huge swaths of the public are going to demand this research.

Many Republicans honestly think this kind of research is murder.  Do you really expect to change their minds? What possible solution do you see on this issue?

although I will not fault my brother.  I am sure he had the con- and tran- substanstiation thing right.  That conversation was quite a while ago and I if anyone was wrong on facts it is me.  He is very good on his theology.  I do know they are a lot more serious about communion and handling the wine and host than true Protestants.  

As for whether or not Anglicans are Protestants.  I will stand my ground on that one.

The official position of the Church of England claims explicitly that the Church "upholds the Catholic faith." It emphasisizes its status of full communion with the Old Catholic Church -- a small community of churches that split from the Roman Catholic church in 1870. However the issue of Catholic and Protestant affiliation is often confusing, and the Anglican/English Church regards itself as a community independent of both Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines.

And very difficult to move uphill, and liable to crush you under its weight if your foothold slips even a little bit.

The problem is that I honestly don't believe that there is a solution that will satisfy everyone on the Republican/Conservative side of the political spectrum.  And I am sure that many of the arguments being proffered right now by social conservatives are influencing practically nobody on the other side.

The only thing that I can see that might inform the debate and buffer its politicization, so to speak, is to have more conscientious people such as Francis Fukuyama and David Baltimore write more articles and be interviewed on this topic by media sources.  I think the President's position has been mischaracterized on this because it is so easily bonded to the idea that everything he says is being dictated by the religious right.  But even Baltimore said, on Charlie Rose, that Bush's decision on stem cell lines was "Solomonic."  Why don't we see any of those opinions being expanded upon now?  

Instead, Michael Kinsley, who is a media maven if one ever existed, is the voice that is being heard from the pages of the Washington Post.  Kinsley most certainly has a point of view, but he is not an expert in this area, and neither is David Broder. What is going to have to happen, I think, in order for the conscientious members of faith to meet with and try to understand the scientific, ethical, and corporate interests is that there is going to have to be a kind of a "summit" in this country -- and it will need to be widely publicized and discussed, and apolitical to the greatest extent possible.  I would challenge major media organizations, universities, companies and last but certainly not least, churches to organize and host such a "summit," and do so sooner rather than later.

These are the most important decisions involving humanity that any society has ever confronted.  It is not enough, at this point, to rely on catchphrases like "hopes" and "fears of the unknown."  Those are slogans.  The words "clumps" and "mosquitos" reduce the subject to something worse than banality, just as, in its own way, the words "killing children in petri dishes" does.  

I think that's what's needed before the public can make a truly informed decision about this research.  And it could be characterized as a public-relations effort, but I don't think it's anything so trivial.  It should actually be the most important effort made by our society to make an informed decision on this subject, and there has been no such meeting of the minds until this point, as far as I can tell.  Surely, if we can ask that the federal government fund this research with tax dollars we can ask that in advance of that, we do everything we can to discuss it first.

That's about the best answer this Sisyphus has this afternoon -- I don't think it is too much  to ask this of ourselves as the richest country on Earth.  Maybe the networks could donate some time to the coverage of this.  At least after such an event, we could all reasonably say we listened to the arguments instead of just self-selecting amongst them.

Sorry for the lateness of the response.  (I'll be tied up for the next few days, and probably won't be able to respond further.)

I'm agnostic on the issue of when life begins.  I do think that implantation, not conception, is the beginning of pregnancy (that should be a fairly noncontroversial point, from a definitional perspective).  That, of course, doesn't answer the precise question presented--a life could exist prior to pregnancy, I suppose.  Indeed, I understand that some of the more absolute objections to cloning and embryonic stem cell research to require such a viewpoint, for, in those cases, the life would be in a petri dish.

I'm sorry I can't be more precise.  

Oh, and don't worry about jumping down my throat.  Sometimes it's deserved.

You're right, it is a very complex issue and deserves a complete consideration.  I can't see turning our backs on this technology even though I recognize that a treatment for disease may be a long time in coming.  But that is the thing that will end the debate.  If someone comes up with a treatment for a previously untreatable disease, this debate is over.

The other possibility I see is that we may come up with a way of isolating pluripotent stem cells from something other than embryonic tissue.  That is the only way I can see everyone being satisfied.  Catherine Verfaille's research has promise in that regard but I'm not sure that that those cells will have all the capabilities we want.

A point of magnifying our mistakes, and in a sense it is understandable they do so.  Instead we should take the opportunity to lead.  Failing to include a large portion of our society in the decision, whatever decision we adopt, will not be viewed as leadership.

This is not a mistake the United States wants to make.  It will be the worst thing that ever happened to our country, even if some of it benefits people elsewhere in the world.  

And nobody aside from the elites are really discussing it.  That's even worse.

that the problem with this issue is that frankly not many people are going to give this half the thought you clearly have. Listen, I'm a pro-lifer above all else, and I haven't formulated a very coherent position on stem cell research yet.

I'm with von to a certain extent, because I really don't equate an embryo in a petri dish with a fetus. But then I have to ask myself, as I asked von, whether the distinction we are making is based solely on whether the embryo is implanted on the uteran wall, which is really the only fundamental difference, and really doesn't change the nature of what an embryo essentially is. Still, I remain somewhat unconvinced.

I guess my point is, stem-cell research is my last stand for squishiness when it comes to pro-life issues. And if I'm squishy, you can bet the public at large just isn't ready for any politician who's too dogmatic on any side of this issue yet.

Give us time.

did you see my post downthread?

Interestingly while I was thinking about that I couldn't find the passage in The Bible where Solomon says to cut the baby in half.  Then, the doorbell rang.  It was two Jehovah's Witnesses.

They gave me some literature, read me a passage from Revelations, and then asked if I had any questions they could answer.

So, I said "Yes, can you tell me where I can find the story of Solomon and the two women arguing over the baby?"

She was a little surprised, and pleased, (I must have been the only one on my street who asked a question) she found the passage for me and I explained why I was interested in it.  She agreed it was a good idea.  And I expect to see them again soon to try to convert me.

Anyway, I take that as a sign from God that I was on the right track.  The Lord works in mysterious ways.

if you seriously think that the Lord is trying to tell you to throw your lot in with the Jehovah's Witnesses, please email me first.

Seriously.

I don't think the Koreans are waiting for our leadership.  Nor are the Chinese, nor the Japanese,.....  If we don't maintain our leadership in science there are a host of others who would like to step up to the plate.

This technology will be developed, no matter what we decide.

many people who feel the way you do would be willing to come down on the side of the research if there was a treatment based on this research.  Unfortunately that is going to take some time.  And the longer we delay the longer it will take to come up with a treatment that actually convinces people that this research is worth pursuing.

But I encourage you to keep an open mind.

but I was suggesting that The Lord wants me to pursue "The Solomon Compromise" I posted below.

There has been a great deal more success in working with cord blood cells, umbilical cells, and adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells in any case.

I think the one thing that I can say that's pretty definite is that I really don't want the government paying for this research. If embryonic stem cells really could cure Alzheimer's/paralysis/whatever, any one of those cures would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical company that found them. They certainly have the money set aside for R&D on projects that are a lot less fruitful, let them spend the money if this really is a miracle cure. The fact that Merck and Pfizer aren't jumping into the mix sends a warning signal to me that this is probably junk science.

Why should we fund it, then?  Because organizations affiliated with the U.N. are already supporting it?  Just between you and me, I'd much rather see the U.N. make this mistake than I would see the U.S. do it, but you're free to adopt your global point of view.

That's very cool. Everyone in the house is disturbed by that and no one can quite figure out why. Somehow I find it worse than just generating stem cells with the original embryo.

The quickening thing was an evidentiary standard, not a definitive point on when life begins. There's an important difference.

Pro-life advocates believe all embryos have the right to be born.  Each female pro-life advocate (say aged 18-40) should provide their womb so the unused embryos in fertility clinics can develop to an infant.

ICGEB is dedicatd to advancing biotechnology and genetic engineering to benefit developing countries.

I don't know anything about it, but I would guess they are probably more interested in things like genetically engineering crop plants to be grown in developing countries perhaps vaccine production, etc.  as well as just providing education and research opportunities in those countries.  I don't think stem cell research and cloning are going to be their top priorities.

As to why we should fund it, my reason is the same as yours, we should lead the world in the advancement of science.  If we don't others will and we will lose a competitive advantage.  It would be a shame to have the largest biomedical research infrastructure and budget in the world and not be the leader in biomedical research.  If we let others develop the technology, they will patent it and US companies and consumers will be paying foreign companies and countries for medicine.

The Soviets launched the first satellite, that doesn't mean it wasn't worth getting into the space race.

I don't know what you mean by my "global point of view" but I do recognize that we compete in a global market for scientific research, intellectual property, and pharmaceuticals/therapeutics.

The Church tends to take a dim view of slicing and dicing children for any reason.

At what point, precisely, in the process of therapeutic cloning (which I have described in other posts) does the compilation of my skin cell and an unfertilized egg become a "child"?

The "success" with partially differentiated stem cells, cord blood etc. is because of several things.  One is that they are closer to some type of fully differentiated cells, like blood cells.  It is a little like telling someone

"I don't know why your planting pepper plants in your garden my MachoNachos always taste better when I use peppers.  The leaves and roots don't taste as good."  

Embyonic Stem Cells have the potential to differentiate into any type of tissue, adult stem cells can only differentiate into a limited and defined subset of different tissues.  You can't make kidney cells with cord blood stem cells.  You might be able to make kidney cells with ES cells, but it will be a tremendous feat to get those cells to replicate the architecture of the kidney.

Same thing with the research.  Companies don't commit a lot of money to basic exploratory research no immediate profits there.  The government, through its agencies NSF, NIH, DOE, etc. is in a better position to sponsor research that does not have an immediate practical application.  Think of the human genome project, or the space program.  The government sponsored research created new knowledge and technologies that allowed the private sector to create new products.

Many big Pharma Companies are doing stem cell research.

http://www.stemcellfunding.org/fastaction/news.asp?id=1355

Those that aren't are staying out because the payoff is not immediate and there could be immediate "political" consequences.  But as more and more discoveries are made they will become more interested in getting into the field.

That it is a genetically independent human organism. I'd say, for clarity, it's when you set it off to the races with the genetic material and the "spark" -- at that point, it's a human.

The idea that I can make a human just to slice him to pieces before he looks too much like me, and somehow thereby avoid calling him human, seems a very morally shaky position, to say the least.

I also have to admit to being confused as to why reproductive cloning -- which at most produces another guy who looks just like me, but younger and likely with different mitochondrial DNA -- is so offensive, cloning to chop the kid to bits doesn't offend. To me, it should be precisely the opposite.

Is that neither SETI nor the Human Genome Project took as its underlying work the execution of humans.

Look, we disagree on this. Fine. But merely for the sake of argument, and just so I'll know where we both stand, suppose someone comes to you and says, "I have data that could be the key to defeating that fat buildup in a Tay-Sachs child [a disease that strikes home for me -- Ed.]. One catch: We got it directly from involuntary human experimentation. Lots of folks died. But I now have the cure to an almost invariably fatal genetic disorder that kills kids when they're at they should be coming into the prime of their lives." Suppose, further, that this experiment was performed with explicit state sanction in Korea, China, or some other country.

Do you accept the research or not?

The only reasons to do it are 1) vanity, 2) harvesting organs.  (Pursuing reproductive cloning for both these reasons is widely considered to be unethical.)  

Other than that, there are significan risks to both mother and child.

There are also complications involved in carrying a cloned animal to term. High rates of abortion and neonatal loss have been observed. There have also been many late gestational abortions. This is in contrast to the early spontaneous abortion that occurs naturally in humans during the first trimester. Fetal abnormalities are also abundant; abnormal placenta, pregnancy toxemia, hydroallantois (excessive fluid accumulation) all frequently occur and result in fetal abnormality. Consequently, newborns often die. High rates of late gestational losses, including stillborns and children with severe health problems would have a negative psychological effect on mothers. Furthermore, in the event that an infant is born, there is a high probability that it will not be healthy. A wide variety of tissues and organs fail to develop properly. Many cloned animals have been born with abnormalities such as respiratory failure, immune deficiency, inadequate renal function, cardiovascular problems, large birth size, post natal weight gain, and liver and joint defects. In addition to these problems, human clones would have a risk of aberrant brain development. Brain development problems in animals could easily have gone undetected in the past, and human brain development is even more complex than that of animals. This list of defects cannot be diagnosed or prevented using current technology of prenatal screening or ultrasonography. The possible benefits of human reproductive cloning do not seem to justify the risks to all the parties involved.

http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Biomedicine/HumanCloning/

Also, the clones do not come out exactly alike.  It has to do with DNA methylation and imprinting, the site discusses it a little.  

At least part of this is a technical issue that, I think, could be overcome.  The imprinting problem, in my opinion, cannot be overcome.  So the clones will never be exact and there will always be a problem with disregulation of the genome leading to abnormalities.

And I once knew much of it. But I'm at a total loss why it's unethical to clone someone for vanity or harvesting organs, but ethical to clone someone to slice and use to develop... organs for harvesting. Or, more accurately, tissue for harvesting.

No and yes.  

Please remember the rules about personal attacks and profanity.

Don't bother with telling me about the horrors done to Jews in the death camps.  I know what happened.  

I don't feel good about that answer and I could easily say "NO!  Never!"  But I'm answering honestly because I have watched someone die from a disease that has no cure and has not received enough research. If someone offers me a chance to cure it, I don't care how many blastocysts it costs.

Yes, I've taken ethics classes, and I know I don't have a good ethical framework that rationally leads to my conclusions.  But I think those sorts of things are only useful to decide where you will set your own boundaries.  I've drawn my lines in the sand and if it comes to my family, I will quickly erase my ethical boundaries and do what I can to protect my family.

that the difference here is not based on ethics for many people but on the definition of "someone".

We can all agree that a fully formed 9 months post conception individual is a person and cannot be "sliced for organ harvesting".

It is where you draw the line.  You draw it at the very earliest possible point.  Others draw it some time later.

As for the vanity part, it is unethical because it will likely result in an unhealthy individual who will be miserable.  It is very unlikely that it will produce any desirable outcome.  So even disregarding ethics, as a practical matter it just isn't worth it.

And wasn't going there.

I just wanted to establish once and for all where our lines are.

My father died of cancer -- not pleasantly, either. Could he have been cured with the tissue of a dead child, I would have been tempted, but I'd have to deal with the fact that my father lived because some child was killed.

I am terrified, given my ancestry, of Tay-Sachs in my children -- each one is cold sweats all over again until the Apgar scores come in and, honestly, until month 7 is past (yes, I know it's autosomal recessive, but I'm carrying a 1:27 and my wife a 1:200 chance, both of which are waaay too high for my comfort). But if I had to save my child by killing another, I couldn't.

It ill behooves us to effect good through evil means. Using children as research and medicinal material is not good. Frankly, and yes, this is why it's tied to abortion, unless someone can show me that a fertilized egg (or the equivalent) is not a human -- which, let's be honest, they can't -- then I am horrified by the cavalier attitude of picking an arbitrary point at which that human is not a person, and making sure to slice and dice before that arbitrary point.

Is that folks have elected an arbitrary point to decide when someone is indeed someone so that they can use that someone for whatever ends they find convenient.

They may do this honestly or dishonestly. They may make the choice as a practical one or as a decision stemming from others. Ultimately, though, my position has the simple virtue of being consistent tip to tail. I never treat humans as property. Period.

Anything else requires folks to babble on about "when does life begin" (when they really mean "personhood"), "ensoulment," "quickening," "neural capability," etc., etc.

I'm sure certainty is a bad thing, etc. The additional virtue of my position is that I'm 100% sure that no, ahem, people will be slaughtered for convenience. Everyone else is just guessing, or unconcerned.

1/27 *1/2 = 1/54

1/200 * 1/2 1/400

1/54 * 1/400 = 1/21600

I think you can relax about Tay-Sachs.

Assuming you and your wife are Caucasian, you each have a 1/25 chance of being carriers of a mutation in the CFTCR.   1/2500 chance of a child with Cystic Fibrosis.

My wife was convinced last week when my daughter was coughing and had a runny nose for an extended period that she had CF.

I'm utterly, unreasoningly paranoid where my kids are concerned. I ran those probabilities -- actually, more complicated ones, because I'm only mostly Cajun -- over three years ago. I know that the chances are slim. Doesn't change the fact that I live in a world bounded by paranoia.

The range of worries I have with each one would take years to catalogue. Suffice it to say that no amount of logic will cure this. I have resigned myself to dying at 45 as a result.

Oh: 8.

I can respect it.  That's why you haven't seen me trying to convince you to abandon it.  

Many other people have not adopted a position with such certainty or consistency.  Ultimately, they are the ones who will  decide this issue for our society.

If he (the child) died of natural causes, would you decline to have his/her kidney transplanted into your own child if suffering kidney failure?

I view the issue of fertilized eggs (in fertility clinics) that will never be implanted into a human uterus in this way.  They are already "dead" as far as ever becoming an actual child.  If we are going to put them in an autoclave and burn them up anyway why shouldn't we try to help others so that it is not a total waste?

In the process of therapeutic cloning, do you literally mean the electrical spark that's used to fuse my unique DNA with the enucleated unfertilized egg? My understanding is that at that state it still has no capacity to develop into a human being, even if implanted. After the electrical spark, it is given a calcium bath which, I understand, mimics the calcium in sperm which triggers the cell to start dividing.

What exactly do you mean by "genetically independent organism"? It is my DNA. 100% mine. Let's assume for the sake of this argument that we use an unfertilized egg from my mother or one of my sisters or any of my mother's mother's female descendants, so it is even the same mitochondrial DNA as I have. If you just mean that it can reproduce, well many of my cells can reproduce outside of my body in the right growth cultures.

At what point in this man-made process, Thomas, does God insert the soul?

(1) There is a large difference between taking already dead people and using their tissue -- and honestly, that can go either way -- and killing them to get their tissue.

(2) No. Obviously, we shouldn't autoclave them in the first place, but with that said, you're simply substituting one ill for another.

So I have no idea when the "soul is inserted." There's all sorts of opinions on that, but in the absence of a functioning Soul-O-Meter, I'm gonna side with my Church and say that the soul is inextricably bound to life, and that at any rate, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

As to the first point: I probably need to correct myself and assert the bath. With that said, let me think on that a bit.

As to what GIO means, unless you're asserting that the clone is actually connected to your bodily tissue and exists as a part of that tissue -- like, say, your kidney does -- then you're off. I'd think this is straightforward, unless you consider your twin part of you, I'd have to suggest you're being a tad disingenuous.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind.  I've read the Church's position on in-vitro fertilization.  I know you tend to agree.  I only bring it up to illustrate the point of view of the other side.

But are they? They're degenerating tissue? What killed them?

Thomas,

Of course I don't think my "clone" or my twin is a part of my body. But a collection of my skin cells, even if separated from me and cultured in a petri dish, is not a separate human being, is not a "genetically independent organism" if I understand your usage correctly.

As for the soul, I was using that to describe the beginning of "life". The soul is bound with our body, yes? But the soul is not wrapped up in pieces of our body that become separated from the rest of us. So my cast-off skin cell has no soul, it is not "life". Neither is the unfertilized egg used in the cloning process. At some point, with sufficient human manipulation, a combination of those two cells can indeed become "life". But I don't know when exactly that is. Myself, for that process, I would be inclined to decide when the cells are implanted in an actual uterus or when they develop sufficiently to develop a central nervous system.

And once again, for the hearing impaired, I fully accept the teaching of the Church that life begins at conception. I'm not trying to trap you into anything. I just don't know when the moment of conception is in therapeutic cloning.

This is a response to Thomas' post here

Yes dead.

We can argue about number one, but number two and number four fit pretty well.

No not degenerating, just not alive.

Cold and time will do the trick, or the incinerator, or the power going out,...

I hope we don't have to argue about the possiblity of embryonic quality of life at -200 C.  Even if we took them all out and implanted them, most would die.  live birth rates per thaw cycle were 16.8% versus 29.7% from fresh embryo transfer.

I know, then just making them and putting them in the freezer is creating life only to kill it.  But the harm has already been done, we are doing it already, and we are not likely to stop.  A ban on in-vitro fertilization is not going to happen in this country.

I hope that people who are reluctant about this research will hold their nose, let the research go forward, and hope that some good will come of it.

I will offer the pro-life opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research the same unsolicited advice that I offer to environmentalists who oppose genetic engineering in crop plants:  

You have valid concerns.  You are an important group who should help decide the rules for this type of science.  

That being said, this research is going to happen.  There are too many benefits.  You can't stop it.  If all you do is try to oppose it you will not have your rightful seat at the table in deciding how this technology will be used.  Corporations and others with powewrful financial interests will make the rules and your morals and perspective will be an afterthought.

That would be a loss for all of us.

Posted here so it can be read.