Bioethics

Archived Posts from this Category

November 14, 2006

British Doctors Want Infanticide

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
[2] Comments 

Things keep getting worse across the pond. Britain, a world leader in bioethical depravity, is edging closer to the Brave New World. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has made an inquiry to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics to allow the active euthanization of severely disabled newborn babies. They argue that the option to actively euthanize these babies (infanticide) will promote the overall good of families by sparing them the emotional and financial burdens associated with raising these types of children, and will prevent some late-term abortions. They wrote in their submission, “We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns.”


 

Medical advocates are turning the moral question on its head by asserting that it would be wrong to allow certain children to live. Joy Delhanty of University College London said, “I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are then going to suffer many months or years of very ill health.”


 

Bioethics professor at Manchester University, John Harris, justified the idea on the basis of existing abortion logic: “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” Harris is absolutely right. The logic of those who support abortion up to birth but not immediately after birth is unprincipled. The correction, however, will not be found in permitting the killing of newborn babies as well as the unborn, but in prohibiting both.


 

Thankfully there are still some morally sane intellectuals left in England. John Wyatt, a consulting neonatologist at University College London spoke out against the proposal saying, “Intentional killing is not part of medical care. . . . The majority of doctors and health professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to whose life is worthwhile.”


 

The Netherlands have already sanctioned the practice in what they call the Groningen Protocol. There was international outrage when the Protocol was proposed. Like so many other issues, the first time it happens there is outrage. The second and subsequent occasions there is silence. So far there is silence on Britain’s proposal.


 

I wonder if we—both Americans in general and the church in particular—really understand what is happening in our world. Do we really understand that doctors are wanting to kill newborn babies they deem unworthy of life, and where the philosophy that allows this leads? We’re making some of the same intellectual and political moves as Nazi Germany. We want to rid our world of the undesirables: the old and sick, the unwanted unborn, and the severely disabled. It’s a pursuit of perfect humanity in a perfect world. Ideological utopias always end in death of untold millions. When will we wake up to see what is happening, and that we are allowing it to be done in the name of science? I am truly afraid for the future of our world. Moral depravity is picking up momentum. What was once called evil is now called good, and what was once called good is now called evil. God warned us of this day. It is here.

 

November 10, 2006

Australia and Missouri Legalize Cloning

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Stem Cell Research
[2] Comments 

Australia’s Senate narrowly approved a bill Tuesday legalizing the cloning of embryos for destructive research. It still has to pass their House of Representatives before it becomes law, but it is fully expected to pass. The law would require that the cloned embryos be destroyed within 14 days of creation, and forbids inserting them into a woman’s womb for gestation.


What I find interesting is that it was only four years ago that Australia passed legislation allowing the use of “leftover embryos” for embryonic stem cell research. Our legislature passed a similar law this year (but it was vetoed by President Bush). During the debate we were assured that all Congress wanted was the ability to use leftover embryos, not clone embryos. I wouldn’t doubt that Australia said the same thing, but the fact of the matter is that biotechnology, when unchecked by morality, is a slippery slope. We have already seen biotech slide down the slope in Australia and other countries. In fact, we’re even seeing it in America. California, Missouri, and New Jersey have all passed laws allowing the cloning of embryos for destructive research. Don’t believe them when they say “we’ll only do X, not Y,” for tomorrow they will be wanting to do Y. Yesterday they didn’t want to clone embryos for research, today they do. Today they are saying they don’t want to gestate clones to birth, but already some scientists are saying that wouldn’t be so bad after all. As it’s been said, what was unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today, and commonplace tomorrow.

 

November 10, 2006

The 2006 Election and the Incremental Approach to Morals Legislation

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
[8] Comments 

Here’s my brief report on Tuesday’s election. I am limiting my comments to morals legislation.


Eight states had ballot initiatives pertaining to same-sex marriage: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. All but Arizona approved them (making it the first time the people have ever voted the idea down). Each measure was a little different. Colorado, Idaho, South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Arizona’s proposals outlawed domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. South Carolina and Tennessee only outlawed same-sex marriage.


South Dakota had a ballot initiative that would have prohibited abortion except for in cases to preserve the mother’s life. It failed 56/44.


California and Oregon had initiatives that would require parental notification for an abortion. Both failed.


Missouri had an initiative that would legalize cloning for destructive embryonic research. It passed 51/49.


Our worldview prevailed on the same-sex union issue, but lost on the abortion issue and on the cloning issue (we lost on the cloning issue, not because people support cloning, but because the proponents of the bill deceptively passed it off as a cloning ban just like they did in CA). A couple of those losses could have been prevented, however. Take South Dakota’s abortion ban. Polls showed that approximately the same percentage of people who said no to the measure would have voted yes if an exception was made for cases of rape and incest. Or take Arizona’s same-sex marriage ban. Had the proposal been limited to banning same-sex marriage—and not included all forms of unions such as civil unions and domestic partnerships—it probably would have passed.


What should this tell us? For one, it should tell us that sometimes the best approach to getting legislation passed is the incremental approach. Poll after poll shows that more people oppose just same-sex marriage than do those who oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions/domestic partnerships. Poll after poll shows that more people oppose abortions except in cases of rape and incest than those who oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest. While we may be persuaded that abortion in cases of rape and incest is just as evil as all other elective abortions, and while we may be persuaded that there is little difference between recognizing same-sex civil unions and recognizing same-sex marriage, it’s best to get a bill passed that prohibits some evil than it is to propose a bill prohibiting all evil and have it fail. In the former case no babies are saved, while in the latter case many will be.


This was the approach to slavery as well. In Englad, William Wilberforce fought for years, chipping away at the practice of slavery bit by bit until finally the whole edifice came down. While in several states the all-or-nothing approached worked, in Arizona and South Dakota it did not. Those states would have done well to tackle the issue slowly if polls showed people would not accept it in whole, than to shove a bite down the voters throat that was too much for them to chew at once.


For further reading on the wisdom of the incremental approach to morals legislation see http://prolifetraining.com/pro-life_blog/ and http://prolifetraining.com/pro-life_blog/

 

November 2, 2006

Cord Blood Stem Cells Generate Liver Tissue

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

Here is a story you probably won’t hear about in the mainstream media (to my knowledge no mainstream U.S. British scientists from Newcastle University—in collaboration with U.S.
news media has even reported on it). scientists—have grown human liver tissue in the lab from umbilical cord blood stem cells (a moral source for stem cells).


 

It will still be about two years before the liver tissue can be used to test drugs, five years before the liver tissue can be implanted to repair minor damaged livers, 15 years before large portions of liver tissue could be implanted to repair major liver damage, and many more years before entire liver transplants will be possible. But this is far more advanced than anything embryonic stem cells have brought us. ESCs are as of yet uncontrollable. There are no human trials utilizing ESCs, and no treatments or cures resulting from ESCs. But you wouldn’t know the great scientific and medical advances using cord blood and adult stem cells, or the utter lack of scientific and medical advances using ESCs from listening to the mainstream media. You’ll only hear loud pronouncements of the promise of ESCR. Why is it “promising”? Because it’s not produced anything yet!

 

October 30, 2006

Logical consistency please

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
Leave a Comment 

In today’s USA Today there was an article about partial birth abortion titled “ ‘Partial-birth’ cases test abortion rights’ limits”. Several things struck me about this article.First, I was surprised at both the candor and callousness with which the D&X (partial birth abortion) method of abortion was described: “The methods involve dilating a woman’s cervix to allow most of the fetus to emerge into the vagina intact, rather than dismembering the fetus in the uterus by using forceps and other instruments. In the intact method, a doctor then suctions out the fetus’ brain to collapse the head and allow delivery.” One would think the author was describing something as mundane as demolishing a house.

Second, I was astonished at the logical reasoning of the U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. Clement will be arguing on behalf of the U.S. government to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. According to the article Clement claims the procedure is “gruesome” and “resembles infanticide.” I agree, and I support his moral outrage at the practice. But Clement doesn’t stop there. According to the author “Clement has said Congress’ ban is not unconstitutional because there are alternative methods of second-trimester abortions that would remain legal. Those include a standard D&E procedure in which a doctor dismembers the fetus in the uterus, and another method known as ‘induction,’ in which a woman is given drugs that cause her to go into labor and deliver the fetus.”

I am at a loss to understand this reasoning. How is it any less gruesome to dismember the baby in the womb and evacuate it, than it is to partially extract it intact, and then proceed to kill it? One seems just as bad as the other. The issue is not how close the fetus comes to breathing air, but the killing of a human life. Maybe Clement is arguing this way for legally strategic reasons, rather than for logical reasons. I don’t know.

 

October 25, 2006

Deceptive ESCR ad

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

A group called Majority Action produced a commercial supporting embryonic stem cell research. It specifically targets U.S. Congressman Jim Walsh (NY). I have to admit that the commercial is an example of marketing genius, but it is very deceptive and employs very poor reasoning and tactics. Can you spot the incorrect facts? How about the poor tactics and reasoning?

 

October 24, 2006

Legal Absurdities Involving Abortion in CA

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics
Leave a Comment 

In a recent debate with the Planned Parenthood of CA, pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf spoke of the legal absurdities involving abortion in CA. I thought they were worth sharing. He said (reproduced by Scott in note form on his blog):

 

In California, public tax-dollars are used for what we’re all told is a totally “private” choice.

At the same time, minor children can’t smoke or drink soda pop at school, but they can be driven by school officials to get an abortion without their parent’s knowledge or consent. In short, PP believes your kids can’t be trusted to eat right but they can be trusted to abort without you knowing a thing about it.

Meanwhile, the state of California spends millions on television ads warning pregnant women not to harm their unborn offspring with cigarette smoke–an admirable goal indeed–but then turns right around and spends even more money paying for poor women to destroy the very unborn humans the ads were designed to save.

Indeed, in a majority of states, a woman may not harm her unborn offspring with alcohol or drug abuse, but she may kill it with legalized abortion. If that’s not crazy enough, imagine this scenario: A woman is driving to the abortion clinic when her car is accidentally broadsided by the same man who is scheduled to perform her abortion a few minutes later. Because of the accident, the fetus dies. Guess what the abortionist is charged with in a majority of states? You got it: homicide. Yet if the woman makes it to the clinic, that same abortionist can kill her offspring at any point in the pregnancy with no penalty at all.

Bottom line: In America today, unborn humans have a right to life if and only if their mothers want them.

 

October 19, 2006

Amazing pics of the unborn in utero

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Stem Cell Research
1 Comment 

Check out this link for the most amazing pics ever taken of a baby in the womb. The photographer is even able to get a close up pic of sperm “attacking” an egg.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/460863p-387629c.html

 

October 13, 2006

Does Plan B (morning after pill) Cause Abortions?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
[6] Comments 

In late September I mentioned that I would be posting on the topic of Plan B (a.k.a. the morning after bill), specifically whether it can function as an abortifacient as well as a contraceptive. Many pro-lifers have maintained that it does, including myself. More recent evidence, however, is challenging that understanding. This evidence has caused reputable pro-life apologists such as Scott Klusendorf, Greg Koukl, Melinda Penner, and Jivin Jehoshaphat to either change their minds on this issue, or at least back-off of making positive, absolutist claims that Plan B does have an abortifacient function.

 

Richard Poupard, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon who blogs on the Life Training Institute’s website (Scott Klusendorf’s pro-life ministry) under the name “Serge,” has written a series of posts on this topic. He presents the latest evidence on the issue from the scientific literature, all of which highly suggest Plan B does not function as an abortifacient. While I will provide links to Serge’s posts for you to read and draw your own conclusions, I would like to briefly summarize the information he presented.

 

While there is and will remain some doubt about the exact function of Plan B, recent studies highly suggest it does not thin the endometrium, but rather is limited to inhibiting ovulation. If you will remember from previous e-blog posts, I argued that there is good reason to believe regular oral/chemical contraceptives may have an abortifacient function because the evidence suggests they prevent the thickening of the endometrium (uterine lining), thereby producing a hostile environment for any embryo that might have been conceived when the primary function of the oral contraception (preventing ovulation) fails. A thinned endometrium reduces the chance of successful embryonic implantation, causing premature death (chemical abortion).

 

Since Plan B contains the same active ingredient (levonorgestrel) as many of these same oral/chemical contraceptives–albeit in a much higher dose–one would think Plan B would work in the same way; however, the evidence suggests that the increased dosage of levonorgestrel only improves the impairment of ovulation, having no effect on the endometrium. As Serge noted, “[T]here is no direct evidence that OCs [oral contraceptives] cause a ‘hostile endometrium.’ However, even if you believe that regular OCs do cause abortions, that does not indicate that Plan B EC [emergency contraception] does work via a post-fertilization event. This was a surprising aspect of this research: if Plan B acts after fertilization, the evidence…argues that it must do so by a mechanism that is different than regular OCs. … It seems that if EC works via a post-fertilization event, it must use some different mechanism than regular OCs, which appears to be based on a chronic thinning of the endometrium.”

Serge presents three lines of evidence typically employed to argue for a post-ovulatory, post-fertilization abortifacient function of Plan B:

 

  1. It works too well to merely suppress ovulation. There must be some post-fertilization effect that reduces the number of pregnancies.
  2. Since Plan B contains the same chemical ingredients as other oral contraceptives, it must work in the same way as other oral contraceptives. Since other oral contraceptives have an abortifacient function, so must Plan B.
  3. Plan B has been shown to be effective even after ovulation. This can only be explained by an abortifacient function of the drug.

 

Serge rebuts each accordingly:

 

  1. Recent studies reveal that Plan B is not nearly as effective as originally believed. It’s actual effectiveness makes sense if its function is limited to ovulation suppression.
  2. Even if we grant the possibility that the levonorgestrel in regular OCs produces a hostile endometrium, recent studies seem to indicate that levonorgestrel has no such effect in Plan B.
  3. The study purporting to demonstrate a post-ovulation effectiveness of Plan B guesstimated the date of ovulation of those involved in the study, rendering their findings inaccurate. Newer studies use more precise ways for determining ovulation, and they do not show a post-ovulation effectiveness of Plan B compared to control groups.

 

You can read the series at the following links: part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

 

 

Serge has also written a post answering the question, “Why, if Plan B does not sometimes function as an abortifacient by thinning the endometrium, does the FDA list this as one of its functions?” In short, it is because they rely on the manufacturer’s research, and a manufacturer is required to list any possible function or side-effect of a drug (much of which is based on speculation because drug manufacturers often do not know how it is that their product works [the mechanism], only that it works [the result]). Furthermore, the data that informed the manufacturer’s report of Plan B’s effectiveness (the high effectiveness rate is the reason many have believed it must have an abortifacient as well as anti-ovulatory effect) came from clinical trials that improperly guesstimated the time of ovulation. Since experimental results are only as good as the researchers’ knowledge of when ovulation occurred in the test subjects, the results themselves are highly suspect.

 

Yet another post quotes Anna Glasier, a contraceptive researcher who has shown that Plan B is not as effective in conception/preventing pregnancy as once claimed. Lower rates of effectiveness argues against a post-conception abortifacient effect.

 

Finally, Beverly Nuckols of Life Ethics provides her own review of the latest research, echoing the conclusions of Serge. This article contains further links relating to this issue. And Philip Peters reports on two lines of evidence supporting the notion that Plan B does not produce a hostile endometrium.

 

Concluding Remarks

While the research cited in favor of the conclusion that Plan B has no post-ovulation/fertilization effect is strong, this is still not a shut case. Some of the same researchers point to conflicting experimental data, and admit their lack of certainty on the matter. At this point in time all that can be said is that the evidence favors the view that Plan B lacks an abortifacient function. Further research may eliminate this doubt, but until that time we should be trepid in our conclusions about Plan B. It would be premature and foolish to boldly proclaim that it has absolutely no abortifacient function, but it would be intellectually dishonest to boldly proclaim that it does have an abortifacient function. We should be trepid in our conclusions, and wise in our practices and counsel.

 

Personally, I think it would be wise to refrain from taking Plan B until the matter is settled. When a human life may be at stake, caution and refrain is always the wisest course of action. Additionally, I think we should advise other pro-lifers about the current state of research, and counsel them accordingly. Silence on the matter would be just as foolish as bold assertions supporting or condemning the use of Plan B. We need to be intellectually honest, wise, and tolerant of disagreement while we sort through these issues in community with other pro-lifers.

 

October 9, 2006

Step aside Frankenstein, here comes Frankenbunny

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

I never ceased to be amazed at all of the scientific inaccuracies and spin the mainstream media is responsible for when reporting on embryonic stem cell research and cloning (and to a lesser extent, abortion).

This morning I read an article on This Is London about English researchers who are seeking to clone human embryos using rabbit eggs rather than human eggs. If successful, the resulting embryo would be a chimera: part human, part non-human. In this case it would be 99.9% human, .1% rabbit.

Not to make light of the moral issues involved with creating chimeras, but I can’t help to laugh when I think about what would happen if one of these cloned embryos was allowed to be born (rather than killing it within 14 days). Can you imagine what little Johnny would say in his 4th grade class when he has to research and report on his genealogy: “I am part English, part Italian, and part rabbit. My mom is the Cadbury bunny, my grandpa is Peter Cottontail, and my great grandpa is the Easter Bunny!

Humor aside, while creating chimeras has been going on for some time now, I find it odd how cavalier the reporting on it is. It is reported on as if there are no qualms about joining human and animals together. Maybe it’s because there is usually so little animal DNA involved (or the converse). The scary thing is that eventually scientists will start mixing more and more genetic info together so that it will be difficult to distinguish whether the chimera is human, animal, or something else. Right now scientists are simply getting the public comfortable with the practice in principle. Then, they will use the boil-the-frog strategy in which they will gradually and incrementally increase the mixing of DNA until they are finally able to achieve the levels of genetic mixing they really desire. The process will be slow enough that we—like a frog—won’t realize we’re being boiled in a pot of water.

But I digress. The reason I bring this article to your attention is to highlight what the article did not say, and the spin on what they did say.

What they did not say is that what these scientists want to do is clone human beings. As a general rule scientists and the media go to great lengths to avoid the “C” word, even if it means being intellectually dishonest and redefining established scientific definitions. The author did admit that what is being produced is an embryo (which is more than American media will usually admit), but s/he would not say how that embryo is being produced. S/he leaves it as the vague “create embryos.”

The article ends with these words: “The embryos will be allowed to grow for only 14 days, at which point they will be cells smaller than a pinhead.” Apart from the fact that this sentence seems to stop short of an actual finish by failing to note that they will be killed by the 14th day, and apart from the fact that this is a strange way to end an article, what is said is a common liberal tactic to devalue the life of that which they advocate killing. Why else comment on the size of the embryo? The presupposition is that since they are so small, they do not have value. How being small deprives one of value is never explained or defended. It is merely assumed, and merely asserted. The next time you hear somebody repeat this line, a good question to ask them is Exactly what size does one have to be before they become valuable and obtain the right to life? Chirp chirp chirp chirp.

 

October 6, 2006

The MCSCRC’s cloning and stem cell inaccuracies

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures (MCSCRC), a cloning and embryonic stem cell research advocacy group, uses misinformation to persuade the Michigan public towards their agenda. For example, on their FAQ page for somatic cell nuclear transfer they responded as follows to the question, “What is somatic cell nuclear transfer?”:

 

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a laboratory procedure that creates embryos for use in stem cell research; sometimes referred to as “therapeutic cloning.” In SCNT, nuclear transfer is used for medical treatment or research. For example, nuclear transfer could be used to create a line of embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the donor. These embryonic stem cells could then be used to generate specialized cells that are transplanted into the patient to replace cells lost to injury or disease. When used in a medical treatment, this would ensure that the new cells would not face rejection by the patient’s immune system. Nuclear transfer also gives researchers the ability to create stem cell lines that carry genetic defects that cause inherited human diseases, allowing them to study the origin of these diseases and potentially to develop new treatments.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>

This is simply not true. SCNT is a laboratory procedure that creates human embryos, period. What scientists intend to do with the embryos created by SCNT is irrelevant. The MCSCRC is illegitimately incorporating scientists’ intentions into the definition of SCNT itself.

 

They are a little more honest when answering the question, “How does SCNT work?”

 

SCNT substitutes the nucleus of a somatic cell (which contains all the genetic information of the patient) for the nucleus of a donated egg that has not been fertilized. In cell culture, this customized egg is then coaxed with an electronic or chemical catalyst to develop into a zygote as if it had been fertilized. The zygote begins cell division and develops into a ball of cells called the morula and then into the blastocyst at approximately five days. The inner cell mass of the blastocyst is then removed to generate a pluripotent stem cell line. After the inner cell mass is removed, the blastocyst is no longer capable of further development.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–>

At least they indicate what the product is (zygote). Unfortunately, most people will not know what that is. And rather than calling it an embryo after the one-cell stage, they refer to it as a morula. It appears that they are trying to avoid the word “human” and “embryo” at all costs.

 

And don’t miss the euphemism for killing: “no longer capable of further development.”

 

The most disingenuous quote is when answering the question, “Can SCNT be used to clone humans?” They answer:

 

No. The purpose of SCNT is to find cures and therapies to treat human disease. SCNT awakens the natural capacity for self-repair that resides in a person’s genes. While SCNT has been the technique used to clone animals like “Dolly” the sheep, there is no evidence that it could also successfully clone a human due to the increased complexity of the human organism. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical communities in the United States is that human reproductive cloning should be banned.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–>

What a mess of a statement! In one sense they are right. Current technology has not advanced to the point where a human has been successfully cloned, but people all over the world are trying to do this very thing! But they contradict themselves. They say SCNT can’t be used to clone humans, and yet they say cloning humans should be banned. Why do so if SCNT is incapable of doing so? Obviously it can.

 

To say the purpose of SCNT is to find cures is absolutely false. The purpose of SCNT is to create new human beings asexually. What the creator of those human beings does with them afterwards is irrelevant to what the purpose of SCNT is in itself.

 

On their “Facts & Myth page” they answer the supposed myth that “cloning is cloning is cloning. It’s all the same.”

 

FACT: Not all cloning is the same. According to the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), scientists do many kinds of cloning every day, most of which is commonly accepted. Cloning has allowed scientists to develop powerful new drugs and to produce insulin and useful bacteria in the lab. It also allows researchers to track the origins of biological weapons, catch criminals, and free innocent people. There’s a world of difference between reproductive cloning- something that should be banned right away – and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Therapeutic cloning is the transplanting of a patient’s own DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells that could cure devastating diseases. Reproductive cloning is the use of cloning technology to create a child. GPI, along with leading scientists and most Americans, oppose reproductive cloning.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–>

What exactly is the “world of difference” between reproductive and therapeutic cloning? There is none! It’s the same process, the same result. The only difference is what the scientist does with the clone once SCNT is complete.

 

They go on to tackle this supposed myth: “Therapeutic cloning is a slippery slope that leads to reproductive cloning. There is no dividing line between the two forms of cloning.”

FACT: Therapeutic cloning produces stem cells, not babies. With therapeutic cloning, there is no fertilization of the egg by sperm, no implantation in the uterus and no pregnancy. Dr. Harold Varmus, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a Nobel laureate, says there is a profound distinction between cloning with the intent of making a human being and research cloning to help understand and treat life-threatening diseases and conditions. Implantation into a womb is the clear, bright line that divides reproductive and non-reproductive technologies. Without implantation, no new human life is possible. This is where society can and must draw the line.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–>

This is laughable! There are so many word games being played here I don’t know where to begin. The MCSCRC recognizes that most people use “baby” to refer to a post-natal human being. By choosing to use that word they can say cloning does not produce babies. But they know that’s now what people are concerned with. People are concerned that cloning produces a new human being. And they should be because it does! Besides, therapeutic cloning does not produce stem cells. It produces human zygotes who begin to develop in the same way every one of us developed at that stage in our lives.

 

The fact that there is no fertilization involved in cloning (by definition) is irrelevant. Both fertilization and cloning produce the exact same product: a human zygote. The fact that scientists fail to implant the clone into a uterus does not change what it is. And to say “without implantation no new human life is possible” is simply false. Obviously the embryo from which the scientists are extracting stem cells are alive, and their genetic signature identifies them as human. In fact, that’s why scientists are interested in their stem cells.

 

 

 

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>1<!–[endif]–>Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

2Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

3Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

4Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/factsmyths.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

5Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/factsmyths.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

<!–[endif]–>

 

October 4, 2006

You’re Only Valuable if you Live in CA

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
Leave a Comment 

Can you imagine if I actually believed such a thing?! And yet that sort of logic is employed by abortion-choice advocates all the time.

I recently moved from Long Beach to San Jose. Would anyone think my change in physical location can deprive me of my value (or give me value if I had none before)? Of course not. So why, then, do abortion-choice advocates think the unborn’s location deprives him of value? Furthermore, why do many abortion-choice advocates think a fetus’ change in location from inside the womb to outside the womb gives him value? Why is a fetus in the womb a non-person deserving of no right to life, whereas that same fetus, once outside the womb, is now a person deserving of the right to life? This (excuse the crudeness) “magical-vagina” view of personhood—in which the birth canal confers personhood on a fetus like the king’s sword confers knighthood on a man—is rationally foolish. There is no ontological difference between the intrauterine fetus, and the extrauterine newborn. If there is no ontological difference, neither is there a moral difference.

 

October 2, 2006

Who Cares that Embryonic Stem Cells Have the Potential to Morph into any Body Cell?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

Jean Peduzzi-Nelson, associate professor in the department of anatomy and cell biology at Detroit’s Wayne State University School of Medicine, wrote an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (posted online 9-02-06) about the current state of stem cell research. She explored the common arguments for the superiority of embryonic over adult stem cells, and found each lacking in practical or rational force.

 

Peduzzi-Nelson argues that adult stem cells are not only the only source of fruitful stem cell research at this point in time, but that the successes in adult stem cell research may obviate the practical need for embryonic stem cells. While the entire article is worth the read, one portion in particular is worth quoting here. Regarding the potential of embryonic stem cells to form into any one of the body’s 200+ cells Peduzzi-Nelson writes, “The ‘potential of embryonic stem cells to possibly form every cell type’ in the body is amazing but is of little clinical relevance. As long as a stem/progenitor cell is capable of forming the cell types needed for a particular injury or disease, the capability to form every cell type is a moot point.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> In other words, so long as adult stem cells are able to form the cells we need to treat/cure disease, it is irrelevant how many other types of cells an embryonic stem cell might be able to create. What is needed are useful cells, not unuseful cells.

 

And by the way, the reason scientists say embryonic stem cells have the potential to morph into any of the body’s more than 200 cell types is because scientists have not been able to coax embryonic stem cells into doing so. While stem cells do so naturally in the normal development process, scientists have not yet discovered how to replicate the process in the lab.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>

<!–[endif]–>

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>Jean Peduzzi-Nelson, “Adult cells are behind much of stem cell success so far”; available from http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489953; Internet; accessed 25 September 2006.

 

September 28, 2006

Peter Singer on Infanticide and Protecting Animals

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
[2] Comments 

 

Princeton philosopher, Peter Singer, is best known for his support of infanticide and starting the animal liberation movement. On 9-11-06 Singer answered a host of questions on the Animal Liberation Front website, including questions about the forenamed topics. Two stand out in particular:

 

Question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Answer: Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.

 

While I think Singer is morally sick, at least he is consistent in his views…unlike most abortion-choice advocates. He is absolutely right: birth is not a morally significant difference.

 

Question: Why should we assign rights to animals when we already recognise duties (of care, preservation of their species, etc) towards them? If animals have a right to life, for example, must we protect them against natural predators in the wild?

Answer: Unfortunately, we don’t come anywhere near fulfilling the duties we have to animals. If we did, we wouldn’t be bringing misery to the lives of millions of factory farmed animals, for no reason except that we prefer the taste of their flesh to other, cruelty-free and sustainable ways of feeding ourselves. As for protecting prey from predators, if we did that we would be upsetting the ecological system, and the prey would soon become too numerous and starve.

 

This one blows me away. While Singer claims we should not protect animals from other animals, we should protect animals from ourselves. This is contradictory given Singer’s view that we are just another animal in the forest. If we shouldn’t protect animals from other animals, then there is no need for us to protect them from other humans who want to eat them. Doing so “would be upsetting the ecological system.”

 

September 27, 2006

Science vs. Ideology?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, Thinking
Leave a Comment 

The Guttmacher Institute is probably the most respected and accurate abortion-reporting agency in the U.S (they are decidedly abortion-choice in their ideology). I subscribe to their weekly e-blast to keep abreast on abortion statistics, as well as to see what kind of off-the-wall things these abortion-choicers will say next! In their August 24, 2006 email titled “Plan B Decision by FDA a Victory for Common Sense,” the GI praised the FDA’s decision to allow Plan B to be sold to adults without a prescription.

For those of you not familiar with Plan B, it is an “emergency contraceptive.” It is more commonly referred to as “the morning after pill.” If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex it will prevent conception. Many pro-lifers oppose the pill because it is believed to function as an abortifacient at the early embryonic stage as well (whether this is so will be the topic of a future post).

I was not surprised to find the GI praising the FDA’s decision. What caught my eye was a statement made by the president and CEO of the GI, Sharon Camp: “This is a historic event in the struggle for women’s reproductive health and rights, and a long-overdue victory for science over ideology.” Anyone who reads what abortion-choice advocates have to say quickly recognizes that they offer few arguments to substantiate their position. They defend it by throwing out nice-sounding slogans and catchy buzzwords that resonate with their audience. “Science over ideology” has become a favorite slogan among liberals who favor bioethical policies that allow for the destruction of prenatal human beings. Whenever someone raises a reasoned objection to their worldview, they respond that we are pushing our personal ideology at the expense of science.

A couple of things struck me about Ms. Camp’s use of this slogan, given the topic. First, she is constructing a straw-man. By pitting the pro-life view (“ideology”) against science, Ms. Camp intends to convey the notion that we are anti-science. That is simply not true, and she knows it. We are opposed to using science to kill innocent and vulnerable human beings. Our opposition is moral in nature. But it wouldn’t sound very good to put the debate in those terms: “This is…a long-overdue victory for science over morality.”

I was also struck by Ms. Camp’s reference to the pro-life position as “ideology.” I do not deny that the pro-life view is an ideology, but Ms. Camp’s use of this word is entirely rhetorical, and distorts the truth. First, she invests a negative connotation into an otherwise neutral word. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that her view on abortion is no less of an ideology than the pro-life view. They are competing and opposing ideologies. But these are the kind of word games abortion-choicers use to win the day. If you want to find substantive arguments, you’ll have to read pro-life authors!

 

September 27, 2006

Yet Another Pro-Cloning Cloning Ban Bill

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Politics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

 

 

Congressman Meisner from the state of Michigan introduced House Bill 4900 to amend sections of the public health code dealing with embryonic stem cell research (http://www.rtl.org/html/legislation/prolifeleg/pdf/EthicsTechnology/1998-SB864.pdf). It is being sold by Rep. Andy Meisner as a bill that will both permit embryonic stem cell research and prohibit human cloning. As with the Missouri and federal proposals, this bill legalizes human cloning while pretending to ban it.

 

It is similar to the other bills in that it:

 

  1. Avoids using the word “embryo” as much as possible (the MI law currently contains the word, but Meisner’s bill proposes to replace all but one occurrence with “fetus”)
  2. Prohibits human cloning by falsely defining human cloning as implanting a cloned embryo in a womb to gestate through birth.

 

Regarding the second, the bill boldly states, “A licensee or registrant shall not engage in or attempt to engage in human cloning.” Sounds good! I guess this means MI will not engage in research involving cloned embryos. But wait! That would be the proper conclusion if words meant something, but in the Meisner bill words don’t mean anything at all. Words mean whatever Meisner says they mean. He defines human cloning, not scientifically as the asexual creation of a human zygote through somatic cell nuclear transfer, but rather as “creating or attempting to create a human being by using the somatic cell nuclear transfer procedure for the purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being.”

 

As with the other bills, Meisner’s bill claims to ban human cloning by redefining the term. Rather than defining “human cloning” in terms of the process involved, and the resultant product of that process, Meisner defines human cloning in terms of what a scientist purposes its creation for. If you use somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human being for the purpose of implanting it in a womb and gestating it through birth, that is considered “human cloning” and is illegal. What about using somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human being asexually for the purpose of destructive research? According to Meisner that is not cloning. Why? Is it a different process from the one he described? No. Was the product of that process different? No. So why is one considered human cloning and the other not? Because Meisner says so!

The fact of the matter is that what one purposes to do with the product of “somatic cell nuclear transfer” does not make it, or fail to make it a clone. A clone is a clone regardless of what we do with it. Intentions do not create reality. Reality is what it is apart from what we purpose. The fact of the matter is that the act of cloning is complete at somatic cell nuclear transfer. What one decides to do with the clone (gestate it through birth, kill it for research) subsequent to the act of cloning does not change the fact that the entity itself is a human clone. But that doesn’t matter to those like Meisner. It’s much more convenient to just define cloning in such a way that it has nothing to do with cloning, ban the pseudo-form of cloning, and then go on about your cloning business all the while affirming your opposition to cloning! Wouldn’t it be funny if someone stole Meisner’s car, get apprehended, and then tell Mr. Meisner that they did not “steal” his car because they did not intend to sell it. When Meisner protests they can explain to him that “theft is the taking of someone else’s property without their permission for the purpose of selling it.” Since they had no intentions of selling it, it is not stealing. I don’t think Meisner would be persuaded. Neither should we be persuaded by his disingenuous bill.

 

Since this bill is the amending of an existing law it is important to look at what Meisner wants to take out. The law currently reads: “A person shall not use a live human embryo or neonate for nontherapeutic research….” Meisner proposes to delete “human embryo” and insert “fetus” in its place. It’s obvious why he wants to swap “fetus” for “embryo.” It’s hard to justify killing embryos when the law says you can’t. By changing the language to “fetus,” experimenting on humans up to 8 weeks old becomes legally justifiable.

 

But what about the deletion of “human”? Why delete that word? Is a fetus not human? Yes it is. Is it scientifically inaccurate to call it human? No it’s not. Then why delete the word? It is being deleted for political purposes, not clarity or scientific accuracy.

 

Thankfully the Michigan congress is controlled by pro-life Republicans, so currently the bill is going nowhere. Let’s pray it stays that way.

 

September 26, 2006

Woman in Vegetative State Plays Tennis in Her Head…and Some People are Not Happy About It

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Euthanasia
Leave a Comment 

The British journal Nature reported on some startling new evidence that those in a vegetative state may have an active mental state. MRI scans of a 23 year-old woman in an unresponsive state for five months, revealed similar brain patterns to healthy counterparts when she asked to imagine particular things such as playing tennis. (There has been mounting scientific evidence that those in a coma are fully aware of themselves, but unable to respond. Their immaterial spirit remains active and healthy, but is unable to express itself physically due to its damaged body.)

 

One would think this news would be cause for excitement, and spur those who support killing people in vegetative states to rethink their position. One would think…! Never underestimate a genuine liberal. Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe was anything but excited about this find. Goodman sees this—not as a reason to forego killing unresponsive patients—but rather as further justification for doing so. She writes:

 

[W]e do not know whether the researchers who suggest that vegetative patients may be aware of themselves and their surroundings have given us a hopeful story line or a horror story.

As University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan says, “It’s not necessarily good news that someone might have some form of consciousness but not be able to interact emotionally, socially or communicate in any way shape or form. To spend your life dimly aware but unable to let anyone know you are in there is more the subject of Stephen King or Edgar Allan Poe than some sort of medical hope.”

…

No MRI can say whether that “rich, inner life” is a tapestry of hope or a nightmare. Which cliché fits a locked-up awareness? “While there’s life there’s hope”? Or “a fate worse than death”? The researchers, in all their enthusiasm, cannot answer the fundamental question that was raised by the Schiavo case: Would you want to live like this? Nor can technology with all its power tell us what is right and wrong, humane and inhumane.

Nearly a year after her accident, the British patient had advanced into a state of minimal consciousness. She could follow a mirror with her eyes. But no machine can tell her family or doctors whether she wanted to live “like this.”

…

Woman in Vegetative State Plays Tennis in Her Head. But is it a game or a trap?

You have to understand the force of this argument. Traditionally people in favor of killing people in a persistent vegetative state argue that it is morally acceptable to do so because the person is no longer conscious. According to personhood theory, consciousness is the sine qua non for defining human value. But here we have someone arguing that they should be killed because they are conscious! This just shows how unprincipled some liberals can be. Euthanasia is an ideology that must be promoted above all, even if it necessitates a changing of one’s principles. Ultimately euthanasia is about man determining what is best for himself apart from all moral considerations, and at times, what is best for others. God help us!

 

September 26, 2006

Swiss euthanasia group wants to assist the depressed in suicide

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Euthanasia
Leave a Comment 

Euthanasia advocates seek to persuade the public toward their view by holding up the terminally ill and crying, “Have compassion.” What they don’t tell you is that their agenda involves much more than assisting the terminally ill in suicide. The terminally ill are just one step on a staircase that ultimately leads to death-on-demand.

 

One recent example of this can be seen in a Swiss euthanasia group, Dignitas. Dignitas has petitioned the Swiss court to be allowed to (legally) assist the depressed in suicide. The case will be heard October 27. (The Dutch already allow it)

 

The founder, Ludwig Minelli, said “We should see in principle suicide as a marvellous possibility given to human beings because they have a conscience… If you accept the idea of personal autonomy, you can’t make conditions that only terminally ill people should have this right. We should accept generally the right of a human being to say ‘Right, I would like to end my life’, without any pre-condition, as long as this person has capacity of discernment.”

 

He blamed “stupid ecclesiastical superstition” for the stigma attached to suicide. That’s the way to win friends and influence people!

 

September 25, 2006

ACT did not extract embryonic stem cells without harming the embryo

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Cloning, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

This is one month old news now, but I’m sure some of you heard about a new technique created by Advanced Cell Technology that allows researchers to extract a single cell from an embryo, and successfully grow a stem cell line without killing the embryo. The news story appeared on the front page of the nation’s most prestigious news papers. What didn’t appear on the front page, however, was the fact that hardly a lick of it was true. The vice-president of the company, and its chief ethicist lied on several occassions about what they did and did not do.

 

Check out two articles by Wesley J. Smith, lawyer and bioethicist, regarding this scam (here and here). It is really sad how corrupt and politicized science has become. They have a political agenda, and will stop at nothing–including outright deception–to accomplish it.

 

And for the fun of it, watch pro-life Catholic, Richard Doerflinger, confront ACT vice-president, Robert Lanza about his misrepresentations of his company’s research. He squirms, he evades, and tries to change the subject to put Doerflinger’s personal views about embryonic stem cell research in general on trial.

 

August 22, 2006

The NYT Gets Honest About Stem Cell Research Too!

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Stem Cell Research
Leave a Comment 

 

The mainstream media is on a roll. First CNN Money reported on the fact that adult stem cell research is more advanced and useful than embryonic stem cell research, and that this is not about to change anytime soon. Now the New York Times has does the same.

 

In the August 14th edition Nicholas Wade wrote an article entitled “Some Scientists See Shift in Stem Cell Hopes.” The most significant excerpts as follows:

 

Many researchers now see human embryonic stem cells as part of a long-term research program, with any sort of cell therapy being at least 5 or 10 years off.

That projection shows a gap between scientists’ views and those of the public and of people for whom the overriding purpose of research with human embryonic stem cells is to generate cells that can restore damaged tissues.

Thomas M. Jessell, a neurobiologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, said that he hoped to see the research generate new drugs for neurodegenerative diseases within the next five years but that it could be a long time before rational cell-based therapies are effective.

“Many of us feel that for the next few years the most rational way forward is not to try to push cell therapies,” Dr. Jessell said.

Stem cell scientists interviewed for the article are saying that the only short-term benefit embryonic stem cell research might yield is a better understanding of what causes certain diseases.

 

Many researchers have come to see the primary benefit of human embryonic stem cells as models for human disease. The idea is to take a cell from a patient, convert it to embryonic form, and then make the embryonic cell mature into the type that goes awry in the patient’s disease, whether it be a dopamine-producing cell for Parkinson’s disease or an insulin-making cell for diabetes.

Somewhere down this developmental path, the basic cause of the disease may emerge, and be available for study in a dish of cells. The diseased cells should also provide an excellent means of screening thousands of chemicals for new drugs.

“Stem cell biology is just a rubric that applies to many things going on in biology,” said John D. Gearhart, a Johns Hopkins University stem cell expert. “I personally feel that the beauty of these cells is that we’ll learn a lot about human biology and disease processes, and that that information will be more important than the cells themselves.”

Oh how stem cell researchers are singing a different tune after they have received all sorts of federal and state money to perform such research. Prior to the money being given they promised the world. After receiving the money they are trying to manage people’s misinformed expectations.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »