Senate to Push Embryonic Stem Cell Research
- Apr 9, 2007 - 26
The U.S. Senate will begin debate Tuesday on its version of a House-passed bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, with a vote expected Wednesday. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S. 5) would expand President Bush’s August 9, 2001, executive order, which forbids the use of federal taxpayer dollars for research on embryonic stem cells other than the stem cell lines that were already in existence at the time of his order.
Embryonic stem cell research requires the killing of human embryos in order to derive their stem cells, thereby taking human life in its earliest stage. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim that leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be used for research because, they contend, the embryos will be discarded anyway. However, many couples are choosing to adopt these embryos, better known as snowflake children. Further, a RAND study found that only an estimated 275 embryonic stem cell lines of the 400,000 frozen embryos in the U.S. would be eligible for research—far short of the thousands needed for research.
Despite their promises for cures, researchers have not produced a single human treatment through embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, utilizes sources such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, fat, and placentas and does not harm or destroy human life. We should continue to fund this ethical form of stem cell research, which has treated more than 70 ailments, rather than embryo-destructive research.
President Bush strongly opposes legislation to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and has announced that he would use his veto power if S. 5 reaches his desk, but it appears Senate support is near the magic number 67, enough to override a veto.
If you agree that taxpayers should not have to fund research that requires killing human embryos, please tell your senators to vote against S. 5.
You can call your senators by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. The operator will then connect you to the senator’s office of your choice. If you do not know who your senators are, or if you would prefer to use email, just click here, enter your zip code in the space provided, and email them the suggested letter or one entirely your own.
Thank you for taking a few moments out of your busy schedule to demonstrate your concern for these fellow human beings in their earliest stage of development.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Children, Parenting, Adoption, Life, Cloning, Infertility, Stem-Cell Research, Science, Bioethics
comments (post your own) feed
1 On Apr 10th, 2007, at 12:46am, steve wrote:
Gee willikers, who do I believe? Eminent scientists who tell me that stem cell research has the potential to overcome untold human suffering or Richard Land who tells me it’s a waste time? What are Dr Land’s scientific credentials - a man who believes that women were created through a god removing a man’s rib (in a garden that also contained a talking snake)!?
At the end of the day I suspect it doesn’t matter if America does commit to this research as I’m sure more enlightened countries will provide the environment for significant breakthroughs. Of course the difference is that the US will then find itself importing the results of the research rather than reaping the benefits of exporting them.
One day Christians in the US will actually ask their leadership (eg Richard Land) “what exactly is at the end of the garden path you’re leading us down”?
2 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 3:25pm, Matt wrote:
How can so-called “Christians” live with a clear conscious, while seeing those in pain and suffering by not allowing embryonic stem cell research to go on? Major breakthrough’s have already been discovered, but having not enough funding curtails the ability to discover other major cures. I think these people are selfish. I’m sure these people have some family member, or someone they know with a fatal disease that can be cured with embroyonic stem cell research, and to, to supposedly save a life that may ultimately never be born anyway is foolish.
There are too many people that can benefit from a handful of stem cells to worry about a few embroyo’s.
Maybe our honorable senators will wise up, wake up, and do the right thing by voting for embroyonic stem cell research funding.
3 On Apr 16th, 2007, at 6:05am, Barry Wright wrote:
For the two posts above:
It does not take a PhD to understand that life in embryonic stages is just that - life. It is unethical and barbaric to even consider harvesting an unborn child for its stem cells. If either one of you would have done your homework you would discover that not one case involving embryonic stem cells has proven productive. Additionally, scientists have not overcome the problems of cell compatibility, or the problem of age, and a plethora of other variables that play into the viablity of this idea. There are too many unknowns to even consider it. Science is supposed to be conducted for the benefit of humanity - not its senseless destruction. It is horrific to just arbitrarily take one’s life without his/her permission to save another. Embryonic stem cell research is bad science - period. Your ad hominem attacks are unnecessary.
4 On Apr 16th, 2007, at 12:36pm, steve wrote:
Barry, my view is that life in terms of a definition should be based upon consciousness. This definition means that most of us see no ethical dilemma in turning off the ‘life’ support system to someone who is brain dead. I would argue that a fetus in its early stages is technically brain dead and, as such, can’t be considered to be alive. I acknowledge that there may be some ethical concerns with destroying something that has the potential to have a life but the embryo itself cannot be regarded as human.
I don’t understand your (or Richard Land’s) point with regard to scientific outcomes wrt embryonic stem cell research. It is RESEARCH. The question is will this research lead to something meaningful? I’m simply saying that I’d rather trust scientists who know something about the subject and have their careers on the line to answer this question rather than an unqualified bible basher.
I was pleased to note your support for euthanasia.
5 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 4:46am, Barry Wright wrote:
Steve,
Taken in context, I was not commenting on euthanasia - only abortion on demand for the purpose of harvesting the unborn for their stem cells. It is absurd to think that a person who is pro-life, such as myself, would support euthanasia.
Secondly, you want to define life as being based on consciousness and that the unborn are brain-dead. Two comments about these lines of thought: 1. Brain-dead people do not grow; a fetus does. Only living beings and things grow. 2. If you were knocked unconscious then I suppose that would justify harvesting your stem cells as well for the purpose of reasearch without your permission.
Science for the sake of science, progress, or research does not justify violating another person’s humanity. I do not put my trust in man, rather I place it in the hands of Christ alone.
Fighting the evil of disease is a good thing, but not at the expense of the lives of others.
6 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 10:11am, steve wrote:
Barry, you said “It is horrific to just arbitrarily take one’s life without his/her permission to save another”. I assumed that your reference to giving permission had some relevance thus my remark about euthanasia.
I didn’t say the fetus was brain dead. I was simply trying to say that because an embryo in its early stages doesn’t have a brain then its status as ‘human’ is comparable to a brain dead person.
I found your reference to trusting only in Christ most interesting. I have recently come to believe that Christ is a mythical figure but if he has issued a paper on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research then I’d certainly appreciate the reference.
7 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 2:02pm, Jacob wrote:
@steve,
It seems to me that you place most (if not all) of your trust in science and your own reasoning. Do you ever wonder if you might be wrong?
A research paper has as much chance of being wrong as someone who is operating by faith based on biblical principals - at least how you describe the delusions of faith. It’s interesting to me how much we rely on the answers that science provides, when we really know so little of the world and the universe, much less answers to the “big” questions about what life is all about. Not only that, but today’s science is disproving yesterday’s science, and tomorrow’s will do the same. Seems like shakey ground to place my trust.
As far as stem cell research goes, I’m curious as to when an embryo becomes human in your mind. Is it when it develops a brain, is it at birth, is it when it is viable outside the mother’s body, when? It’s a hard line to draw in the sand for me, but maybe you have better answers.
Look, you really aren’t going to convince any Christians on this site that they are illogical and mistaken in their faith. Our assurance comes from something that is beyond mere things we can comprehend, and is hard to explain to someone who hasn’t experienced it.
I’ll make a deal with you though; if there is anything I can do for you or pray for you about I’ll be happy to do so.
Good luck on your search.
8 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 3:40pm, steve wrote:
Jacob, yes I’ve often wondered if I was wrong. It is this self reflection about my beliefs that caused me to denounce my Christianity (so I can assure you I do know what its like to be a pious Christian). I acknowledge that science and scientists often get it wrong but have you noticed that when scientists get tricked into believing something that ultimately turns out to be wrong (eg Piltdown man) it is science itself that proves the falsity. To me this is much more ethical than the bible believing Christian way of regarding their belief as inerrant.
As for when does an embryo become human (in terms of when should it be given human rights) - by my definition it doesn’t. The questions you ask all relate to the fetal stage of development - you do know the difference don’t you?
Instead of praying for me use the time to research the science.
9 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 6:58pm, Barry Wright wrote:
Hi Steve,
What is it about Christ that you do not believe to be real?
10 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 9:41am, steve wrote:
Barry, I said earlier that Christ is a myth so there is actually nothing or no one to believe in. But I have an open mind (as free thinkers tend to do) so if evidence is presented to show I’m wrong then I’ll change my mind. My challenge to you was to point out to me where this so called Christ had expressed an opinion on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.
11 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 9:49am, Jacob wrote:
@steve,
I hope this doesn’t come across as combative, but you may be suprised to learn that I am actually quite educated. I love science, and I research and read constantly. I am simply cautious of science’s limitations.
I would like to go back to the embryo question. And I misspoke when it came to referring to the developing baby simply as an embryo (that is generally the term up to 8 weeks of development and a fetus after that). Just to be clear though, the embryo starts to develop a brain at 4 weeks, and the fetus essentially completes brain development at week 33. Since your earlier argument was based around the embryo not being human because it has no brain, my simple question is what level of development does it need to have to be considered human. If you say it can at no point be considered human (that is until after birth) then you are conflicting a bit with your earlier argument concerning the brain.
So is a 4 week embryo human (with a developing brain), or is a 33 week old fetus a human (with a developed brain)? And what about a baby born with brain damage, human or not?
12 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 10:10am, Jacob wrote:
@steve,
One more comment. Being “Pious” (definition: “having or showing or expressing reverence for a deity”) isn’t what salvation is about. I can show reverence without ever having a relationship. There is a difference.
I’m curious, though, and I completely understand if you prefer to not answer, but having previously been a Christian, what made you turn away? Was is an especially tragic event in your life, was it hypocrisy in or the attitude of your church, or did you simple get there through and intellectual revelation? I’m not trying to convince you that you were wrong in any of your decisions, it just seems like you’re really angry about something and I feel for you about that.
By the way, since I had some extra time after researching the science, I’ve been praying that God will bless you. I hope that doesn’t offend you, but thought you should know.
13 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 11:06am, steve wrote:
Jacob, sorry if I sounded a bit condescending but your offer to pray for me after I thought I made it pretty clear I was a non-believer was never going to get a gentle response (a bit like offering meat to someone you know is a vegetarian).
As for when do I think a human is actually a human - I don’t know. I do, however, feel comfortable enough to state it doesn’t happen during embryonic development. My guess would be that the generation of brain waves during fetal development may be the answer but there are a lot of people much smarter than me working on this issue.
14 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 11:44am, steve wrote:
Jacob, your interest in my ‘loss of faith’ is appreciated - your desire to pray for me is not.
The journey from being a believer to a free thinker is usually long and winding (well it was in my case) but the catalyst for deconversion in my case was a prosperity preacher called Creflo Dollar.
I used to watch Dollar on early morning TV because I actually liked his style - he was entertaining. But I had been trained in cognitive psychology and it suddenly dawned on me that he was taking known scientific principles and inserting the word god rather than explain the cognitive process. In other words if you followed Dollar’s techniques there was a reasonable chance you would prosper but it had nothing to do with God.
This revelation led me to reevaluate the various religious beliefs I had and I eventually came to the conclusion I had been deluded.
15 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 9:38pm, Barry wrote:
Steve,
Christ was real. Christ is real. There are too many credible witnesses to attest to this. It is dishonest to say there are not. Just recently there was a TV documentary trying to “prove” that Christ’s so-called family tomb had been discovered. This notion is an outright lie, but the funny thing is this - even those who wish to deny Christ’s diety acknowledge His life.
The Bible does address the issue of embyronic stem cell research. It tells us we should not murder. This has to happen in the process of harvesting stem cells from an embryo - the embryo is destroyed. Because there is no explicit, prescriptive laws in Scripture addressing stem cell research does not mean we should avoid teachings with the same implications.
16 On Apr 20th, 2007, at 9:50pm, Barry wrote:
Steve,
I cannot offer you any “proof” of God’s existence. I also understand that you cannot prove He does not exist either. Your worldview relies only upon what you can experience with the senses; it does not believe in what it cannot see.
The problem with this is that it rules out what is real. Non-material things are real - such as numbers, logic, or our thoughts.
God is very real. He created this universe in such a way that we must utilize faith to understand Him. Choosing to do otherwise is suppressing the truth. The only way to be a free thinker is to be free in Christ. We are either a slave to sin a slave to Him.
Please don’t judge all Christians by one man’s poor theology. There are some of us who do actually read the Bible for what it is really supposed to be - God’s Word. Not some recipe for getting rich.
17 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 12:23am, Matt wrote:
I can’t stand it anymore!! Getting all these comments in my email box, and all the ignorance is driving me nuts, but I have to write a response, not that it will do much good in changing the minds of people with narrow-minded thinking.
All I have to say about the subject is that I am spiritual, and I believe in God, I believe he exists with only faith to go on. Nonetheless, I believe that stem cell research is a viable solution to many diseases that are facing us in the world. In my opinion, to deprive the world of cures to major diseases by not allowing research to go on is sheer stupidity, and believing that there is a LIVING HUMAN in an embryo is totally ignorant!
There is life because it is a living organism, but IT IS NOT YET HUMAN! This ignorance is the result of brain-washing by those that try to control the masses to believe those views, no matter how narrow-minded those views are.
18 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 8:26am, Barry Wright wrote:
Steve,
Here’s the reason for my conviction. In Psalms 139 (if you read the Bible), we find language there that alludes to God’s knowledge of us before He created us in the womb.
If you believe in God, then you must accept thata He IS ultimate reality. His mind is the beginning of all things - including life itself. Since He IS the creator of all things and sustainer of all things, then we must deduce that He alone determines when those things begin and end. Concerning human beings our “personhood,” our “humanity” begins in His mind when He determined to create our physical form. In as such, only He can determine when to end our lives as well. Bottom line - life does not begin at conception. It truly begins somewhere in eternity past when God decided to bring us into this reality in which we now live. There is more to our existence, our life than just being human.
19 On Apr 30th, 2007, at 4:08pm, steve wrote:
Barry, your conviction that Psalm 139 is the basis of your belief is interesting (post 18). Psalm 139 also says…
139:21 O Lord, do I not hate those who hate you,
and despise those who oppose you?
139:22 I absolutely hate them,
they have become my enemies!
I assume from this that you actually hate me Barry. Is that your stance? (Note: I don’t hate god - you can’t hate something that doesn’t exist, however I do oppose the belief in his existence so I guess this qualifies me to at least be despised as per 139:21 which is escalated to hate in 139:22).
20 On Apr 30th, 2007, at 4:31pm, steve wrote:
Barry, you said: “Christ was real. Christ is real. There are too many credible witnesses to attest to this. It is dishonest to say there are not.” Poppycock! If there were credible witnesses then Christ would be part of the mainstream history syllabus.
You also said: “The only way to be a free thinker is to be free in Christ. We are either a slave to sin [or] a slave to Him”. Hmmm I think I’d rather not be a slave to anything but feel free to enslave yourself but please don’t confuse it with free thinking.
Finally: “Please don’t judge all Christians by one man’s poor theology”. I didn’t. I said Dollar was merely a catalyst for my deprogramming. To be honest though, if Christianity insists on hanging around, then I’d rather see prosperity preachers like Dollar who promote getting something out of life while you’re alive rather than those who insist on personal sacrifice in the hope of a non existent afterlife.
21 On May 1st, 2007, at 2:31pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Steve said,
and
Considering the fact there are more copies of the Bible floating around the world right now than any other book (ever), my feelings aren’t terribly hurt if a history syllabus fails to mention him, though I suspect more do than you realize. :-)
According to numerous historical references, Jesus existed. Setting aside the reliability of the 4 Gospels and the rest of the New Testment, multiple early non-Christian sources reference New Testament figures.
Just a few examples (not exhaustive):
-Flavius Josephus (ca. 37-ca. 100)
-Tacitus (ca.56-ca.117)
-Pliny the Younger (63-ca.113)
-Phlegon (2nd century)
-Thallus (1st, 2nd century)
-Suetonius (ca. 69/75 - after 130)
-Lucian (A.D. 120 - after A.D. 180)
-Celsus (2nd century)
-The Jewish Talmud
New Testament documents (books) are cited by…
-Clement (ca. 95, 11 docs)
-Ignatius (c.107, 24 docs)
-Polycarp (c.110, 18 docs)
Of course, you may question the credibiliy of each of those sources. But then you’d have to logically carry that critism to ‘classic writings’ such as Homer, Plato and Ceasar. (I presume you’re ok with those on a ‘mainstream syllabus’?) The time gap b/t the those writings and the events they wrote about are far greater (500-1200 yrs) then manuscripts of the NT (25 yrs), but I don’t see many folks deconstructing the _existence_ of the Roman empire. Perhaps you’d like to make that argument… ?
Even the scholars with whom we’d disagree with on many issues (theological or otherwise) agree that Jesus _existed_.
PBS (not exactly a bastian for Christians) has designated an entire series to the study of Jesus. Among those interviewed are scholars from Yale, Harvard and Duke. They’ve certainly concluded that Jesus existed.
Now, you may choose to believe whether or not Jesus is who he said he is (God become man). That’s the beauty of Christianity: it’s up to you to accept or deny.
But to claim Jesus a myth is nothing short of revisionist history and detracts from claims of being ‘open minded’ and ‘free thinking’.
22 On May 1st, 2007, at 4:15pm, steve wrote:
Hi Matt, nice to see you’re back - plenty of unanswered questions on other threads for you to answer.
Look, I understand your role as a staffer with the ERLC is to make sure that those paying your salary are fed their daily dose of doctrine. You seem to be a pretty clever guy so I’m sure you know as well as I do that all the references you make to the historicity of Christ have been well and truly refuted and proven to be false (in terms of proving your Christ’s existence).
I’ve no reason not to want to believe in Christ’s existence. If he did exist then great. But why didn’t he write a letter to his mom when he was traveling? Why didn’t someone watching this great miracle worker decide to paint a picture of him? Why did none of the official records of the time make any reference to him? Why was god so keen to cover his tracks?
Where is Christ’s manuscript on the ethics on embryonic stem cell research?
23 On May 2nd, 2007, at 5:31am, Barry Wright wrote:
Steve,
You are a walking contradiction. In one of your posts above you admit to your belief in God, then in this last one you tell me you do not. Which is it?
If this is some sort of game to you, then I ask that you stop toying around and wasting people’s time. If, however, you are truly interested in engaging in an honest dialogue, then I am willing to continue.
Lastly, you have once again pulled words out of context in an attempt to label me. Again, this is immature on your part. Because you have done this twice now leads me to believe that you are not interested in an honest dialogue, but rather only an opportunity to mock Christians.
What are your intentions?
24 On May 2nd, 2007, at 9:59am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Steve, (post 22)
All in 2 short sentences you
(1) made an inaccurate presumption about my employment and
(2) attributed deceptive (almost conspiratorial) motives to me, my employer (ERLC), and Southern Baptists at large (since they fund the ERLC and other SBC entities).
Personally, I’m inclined to defend myself against the above aspersions, but I’ll respond to the other questions in your post and rest my case (for the sake of this post) here with a (partial) quote from “Peter Kreeft”, Ph.D., a professor of philosophy at Boston College:
(emphasis added)
...more of Dr. Kreeft’s take on Arguments from History.
(Matt is on staff at ERLC.)
25 On May 2nd, 2007, at 3:43pm, steve wrote:
Barry, I’m not sure how I led you to think I believe in a god but let’s put the record straight - I am an ATHIEST - I believe in one less god than you.
My intentions (since you ask) are not to promote my lack of belief nor to mock Christians it is simply to attack the Christian faith. But I do this only because organizations such as the ERLC are using this faith to try to influence public policy. If the ERLC says ESCR is wrong because the bible says so then the bible obviously needs to be critically attacked.
Lastly, I didn’t label you - you labeled you. You referred to Psalm 139 as being “..the reason for my conviction”. I’m sorry Barry but why is it that Christians regularly take paragraphs out of the bible to ‘prove’ a point yet whenever people like me do it we are pulling words out of context.
Come on Barry, fess up - do you hate me because Psalm 139 tells you that you should?
26 On May 3rd, 2007, at 12:05pm, steve wrote:
Matt, You got me - I plead guilty. I guess I’m just getting tired of seeing the way you Christians continue to drag out historical references that true historians have already moved on from as being false or fraudulent. Josephus is the classic example. Historians regard Josephus’ ‘references’ to Christ the same way scientists think about Piltdown man - fraud, fraud, fraud. But despite this you continue to put it forward as if it’s true. Sorry mate, but intellectual dishonesty is a sin even in the secular world.
As for Peter Kreeft: this is a man who converted from Protestantism to Catholicism as an adult. So, given he is true to his faith, this means that when he takes communion on Sundays he actually thinks he is eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. And you want me to take the theology of a person with such cannibalistic tendencies seriously!