In response to Geoff B’s #26 — the experiment described could be exactly the issue-avoidance mechanism they’re looking for, but the cells so engendered would have to be tested and poked and prodded and tried out to determine if they’re as fully capacitated (is that a word) as embryonic stem cells. And if they are, then I think the point I raised above obtains with respect to them, just as it does with respect to embryonic stem cells that compose an embryo — they’re just as “embryo-like” capable of engendering a human being as embryos, so what’s the difference? Surely we don’t conclude that humans only merit protection if they’re engendered via a sperm-and-egg combination? To take that position would deny person status to clones (and some identical twins).

I don’t get the reason why source material for a clone should be free of all ethical considerations if the source material for a sperm-and-egg human is not.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmY2OTUxMTgyZmM0ZDkwMGRmMzhkYjAxZmMyOWZlM2U=

Here are the highlights:

First, on Wednesday, we learned that researchers in Massachusetts, building on prior accomplishments by colleagues in Japan, had managed to transform regular skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice. Their work points to a way to produce cells with the qualities scientists value about embryonic stem cells, but without the need to create, harm, or destroy human embryos, and therefore without ethical or political controversy.

But then, on Thursday, the Congress passed a bill that would for the first time use taxpayer dollars to encourage the destruction of embryos for research. Just as it is becoming increasingly clear that scientific ingenuity could offer a way around the divisive controversies of the stem-cell debate, congressional Democrats are working to stoke those very controversies. They have opted to exacerbate what they see as a political debate that works in their favor, rather than encourage a scientific solution that would work in America’s favor.

….

Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Opposing advocates told me that the pluripotency of stem cells — their ability to become a very wide variety of different cell types — would not be of great therapeutic value, and that other sources of tissues and cells could serve the same purpose. But they ignored the unique role pluripotent cells could play in basic science.
Couldn’t the strongest part of each side’s argument — the utility of pluripotent cells on the one hand and the importance of protecting human life on the other — be brought together? I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.

NOW, THIS IS A COMMENT FROM GEOFF B: What I don’t understand, and nobody has been able to adequately explain to me yet, if we can get stem cells without destroying or harming or creating embryos, then why are we even debating this? Destroying embryos is controversial — getting stem cells other ways is not. Let’s do it without destroying embryos.

Actually….

I think that’s actually a very good guideline for using embryos. You treat both of them with respect. But neither of them is a “person” and entitled to the same protections a living, breathing person is.

I know Eve thinks the potentiality matters in distinguishing the two. But I don’t think the potentiality of the embryo is entitled to any greater respect than memory of what the cadaver was.

For a Mormon, I would hope that all stages of the procreative process would be approached prayerfully. For society at large, all I really ask is appropriate handling and ethical guidelines.

Here’s an additional consideration: The health of harvested embryos will matter, so they will be extracted in a living state, not poisoned in the uterus.

Our church does not follow the Pope’s lead on this. There is no current position that life begins at conception.

My position is that spirits are waiting their turn. If one embryo gets terminated, they’ll simply wait for another one. Otherwise, you have to take some pretty nonsensical positions about literally millions of spirits never, ever having a shot at mortality due to simple miscarriages and spontaneous abortions via natural processes.

When is the spirit irrevocably tied to the body?

Neither of us know, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t at conception.

Bobby gets adopted. Yay for Bobby. But Lisa, Michelle and Brandon don’t get adopted “in time” and get sent to the labs for research. We’ve got the resources, after all, and they weren’t going to have good lives in the orphanage. Isn’t it worth it to find out?

Not exactly a fair comparison. I acknowledge that but that’s what it feels like to me. I don’t know. I really don’t know. Many pregnancies begin and end before the woman even knows she was pregnant. What about those lost embryos? What about fetuses lost at later stages of development? I really don’t know; neither does anyone else.

When it comes down to it, we are supposed to be learning to be Godlike. I don’t think cannibalizing our unborn is an action in harmony with that.

Even if embryonic stem cells were necessary and sufficient to cure all manner of terrible diseases, stem cell opponents would still be opposed.

I’m not certain you’re right there John. I think that if stem cells could be harvested without harm to the source embryo, thus not necessitating its destruction, then stem cell opposition would diminish greatly. It’d be like a specialized kind of transplant with a special kind of donor. There probably would still be people who opposed it but I think people would find it much easier to support without the “life or death” issue.

Is there anything to be made of the fact that the opposition to stem cell research — at least here on this thread, which is not exactly representative I know — seems to be men = for and women = against? (I apologize to anyone I’ve mistakenly labeled and I thank Geoff B. and acknowledge his temperate comments. This is, I admit, a very superficial observation but it has piqued my curiosity.)