Obama Determines Embryos Worthy of Destruction, Not a Pay Grade Issue

Obama supports relaxing federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which was vetoed by President Bush. The bill would have allowed federal funding to be used for research on stem cell lines obtained from discarded human embryos originally created for fertility treatments.

It isn't above his pay grade to determine that embryos are worthy of destruction. This week will prove to be decisive in his campaign in that his inability to understand the issues has become apparent. There is no change or hope in this, this is politics as usual.

Having a Cow Over Cloning

Reportedly, researchers at Newcastle University (Britain) have successfully created a clone using the genetic material of a human and inserting it into the ennucleated bovine egg. You heard it right, human DNA was inserted into the egg of a cow, resulting in what is known as a cybrid, a human-animal embryo. The lack of human eggs for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is apparently responsible for pursuing the creation of these cybrids. In the name of scientific progress, ethical lines have already been breached in the pursuit of human eggs from young, financially vulnerable women. And now, another ethical line is being entirely ignored, and we're suppose to be comforted by the fact that these tiny human-cows are destroyed after 14 or so days, not allowed to be implanted in a uterus (human? cow?) and permitted to grow.

I wonder what their beef is with the implantation of these cybrids. Do they find something wrong, something repugnant with the idea of human-cow species? Do they think that humanity is somehow defiled by creating something that cannot live as a human nor should graze in a pasture? These researchers and others who forbid the implantation of these human-animal embryos know there is something terribly wrong with this, otherwise implantation would be of no serious consequence. But what they don't appreciate is that this is not a slippery slope concern. The issue here is not about what could possibly be created in the womb, it's about what has already been created in a dish.

The age of a person is discerned by the length of their existence, with certain attributes present at certain places in development. Human persons all begin and develop the same way, unless abnormalities interrupt these natural developments. Destroying an embryo at day 14 does not prevent a human from entering into the world, it ends the life a tiny person who already exists. I am not comforted by the creation and "early" destruction of these human-cow embryos, I'm terribly alarmed that the dignity of humans has been seriously violated by people who are repulsed by the same organism at a later stage of development.

Is a Blastocyst an Embryo?

This is an interesting question as we ponder the birth of our Savior this Christmas Eve. I wasn't anticipating that this was even a question but as I began checking out some of the usages of the term blastocyst, I found myself intrigued.

According to the National Institutes of Health, a blastocyst is

a preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells produced by cell division following fertilization. The blastocyst is a sphere made up of an outer layer of cells (the trophoblast), a fluid-filled cavity (the blastocoel), and a cluster of cells on the interior (the inner cell mass).

So to rightly understand the use of the term blastocyst, we need to think not about what it is, but when and where it is. To answer the question: yes, a blastocyst is by its very definition an embryo, an embryo that has not yet implanted into the uterine wall, which is the distinction associated with the term 'preimplantation'. But the lack of implantation does not change the genetic makeup of the embryo, it simply is a geographical difference, not a logical or biological difference.

Be careful not to be confused by those who support the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research. I see them deliberately moving between the use of terms like 'blastocyst' and 'embryo'in order to create confusion because if you believe an embryo is a human being, but don't believe a blastocyst is yet an embryo, why would you object to this area of research?

Alive and a Life

But embryos and children are patently not the same and the law should not treat them as such.

The above is stated at the Women's Bioethics blog, of the Women's Bioethics Project. Assertions like this are tossed about without explanation, and this quote certainly deserves a bit more attention. It's actually an idea taken from an article "Sex, Lies, and Embryos." An interesting piece, it questions laws in Louisiana that provide a legal status to embryos that is equivalent to that of a born person.

I'm struck by the use of the term "patently" in this quote, however. This isn't an argument from science, rather it's an appeal to what they hope is the common view among Americans. The term patently refers to that which is obvious or plain to see. The only thing that is obvious is the size differential, but that does not speak to the question of the nature of the embryo, merely its size. So the question that has been left unaddressed by this piece is whether the embryo is a life - a person. We know that embryos can be alive or dead, because researchers are not interested in dead embryos as they are useless. Something that also deserves differentiation is the difference between pregnancy and conception, and pregnancy isn't a prerequiste to the existence of a living embryo.

John Edwards will 'Respect Science'

Forget about respecting life, as president John Edwards plans to "respect science." This is really no surprise to me, I'm just amused at the constant, ignorant rhetoric by the Left on ESCR. You can see this at his own site.

John Edwards believes that policy should be science driven, and that science shouldn't be politics driven. Ideological debates have drained resources from promising research. Edwards will increase funding for and lift stifling research restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, while banning reproductive human cloning.

Aside from his writer's assault on the English language, it's clear that he has no intention to allow ethical reflection on this controversial area of research. As well, it's clear that he doesn't understand that all ethical reflection is the outworking of somebody's worldview, and so his increase in funding for the research is as ideologically driven as my own desire to ban the research entirely. Finally, Edwards hasn't a clue about the science - cloning is cloning. Apparently we need to continue the discussion about so-called reproductive and therapeutic cloning. I'm sure I've blogged on that before.

But alas, does any of this matter? I think Edwards does need to hear from people of wisdom and sound mind regarding this research even though he hasn't a chance to even be the democratic nominee.

Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome is a Real Threat to Women

If you haven't been convinced by now, go read this. This is the recent experience of a young women who is undergoing infertility treatment. Approximately 30 eggs were harvested from her body, leaving her in severe pain with massive water retention, a distended stomach, dehydration, high fever and chronic vomiting over the course of a few days. This is the same process necessary to harvest eggs from the so-called donors that I believe are being exploited by the money-driven research facilities and designer baby clinics. This can't really be what we want for our young women, to suffer for the sake of doubtful research and unethical procreative techniques - all for a few bucks. This is not a life-saving procedure and simply should not be permitted as it is a real risk to women's health.

Embryonic Soldiers and the Liberal 'War on Terror'

What the heck do I mean by that? I know you're wondering. Pelosi's "100 hours" agenda seeks to end further funding for the War on Terror, yet her agenda aims to direct more tax payer dollars to embryo-destructive research. This is about to become the biggest draft in history, but these soldiers have no chance for survival. Yep, I said it. The liberals have their own "War on Terror" of sorts. But their actions to find cures are far more egregious than people realize, because they've cloaked the killing of human life in the language of hope and cures. This is an act of war against defenseless human life at it's earliest stage and is as great a threat to humanity as is abortion. Let me be clear. Embryonic stem cells are not persons. The embryos from which they are harvested are persons, and these people die when the stem cells are harvested. These soldiers bring their weapons to the front lines only to die on delivery. No matter your view on Iraq, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the lives that will be lost through ESCR and SCNT if Pelosi has her way.

Federally Funded Destruction of Early Human Life

The Degette/Castle Bill, H.R. 3, will come before the House for consideration on January 11th. The purpose of this bill is to provide federal funding for embryo-destructive research. Once again, we are faced with the question of when human life begins....and we know the answer! Yes, there are alternatives to ESCR that can and are being pursued, though the pro-aborts in Washington and the academy are not the least bit interested in pursuing their large-scale funding for these other options. If there were not any alternatives to ESCR, our arguments would be primarily focused on the personhood of the embryo, a human being in the earliest stages. This is actually the basis for arguing for alternatives to ESCR, but as evangelical Christians in bioethics, we need to be much more explicit about this point. We also need to remind Americans that proponents of ESCR are not neutral participants in search of what is ethically permissible, the fact is they've separated ethical reflection from so-called scientific progress.

The pro-abort liberal establishment is a manipulative big-government corporate machine motivated by power and money, not by cures and compassion.

Can you say women will not be exploited? A Challenge to Supporters of ESCR/SCNT

I challenge you, supporters of embryonic stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer (aka "therapeutic" cloning) to state clearly-so that women across the globe can year you-that women are not and will not be exploited and commodified by this research.

14th Annual International Conference on Bioethics

Call for Art - The Art of Medicine

14^th Annual International Conference on Bioethics
Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity
July 12-14, 2007

The Art of Medicine

A new opportunity will be available at this year's conference, Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity. Artwork by conference attendees or friends of the Center may be submitted and will be displayed for the viewing of those attending the conference. The art may be in the form of paintings, drawings, photographs, poetry, sculptures, etc. Those presenting art must be in attendance at the conference. Please plan to deliver your artwork to the designated area no later than Noon on Friday, July 13, 2007. Artwork will be available for viewing during the days of the conference. Please retrieve your artwork no later than 5:30 PM Saturday. All artwork not retrieved will become the property of The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. The Center reserves the right not to display artwork deemed inappropriate by Center staff. Please present a description of the art you will be displaying no later than May 31, 2007.

Please submit descriptions to:
James C. Moscato
The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity
2065 Half Day Road
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 USA

Call for Papers

14^th Annual International Conference on Bioethics
Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity
July 12-14, 2007

There will be opportunities to present a Professional Paper during which the speaker will address a profession-specific topic. Those papers addressing future issues related to the conference subject matter will receive first priority. There will be time allotted in each venue for participation by the attendees in a question and answer session. The reading of the paper should take 25-30 minutes with 10-15 minutes of Q&A to follow. The total time allotted will be 40 minutes.

Those wishing to present a paper must submit a synopsis of their paper by May 1, 2007. All those presenting a paper will receive a $50.00 discount toward the conference registration fee. Paper presenters will be expected to sign a permission form allowing their session to be audio recorded and distributed to those wishing to purchase a copy.

Please submit proposals to:
James C. Moscato
The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity
2065 Half Day Road
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 USA

First Female Speaker Leads Action that Exploits Women

Debate on a bill to fund embryonic stem cell research is set for Jan. 11 when the new session of Congress begins. Nancy Pelosi may go down in history as the first female Speaker of the House, but her legacy will also include her involvement in the exploitation of women. Embryonic stem cell research and so-called "therapeutic cloning" (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) will not go forward without the harvesting of eggs from women of reproductive age. As a woman who claims to be for women's rights, for "breaking the marble ceiling" it's hard to know for sure if she is all she claims to be. If Nancy Pelosi is really for women, she will pull the plug on somatic cell nuclear transfer and protect women from commodification.

I predict the next (manipulative) method for extracting eggs will be in the student loan division of the federal government....perhaps "Eggs for Education" or "Cures for College."

I'm looking forward to the Wednesday veto.

If you have any questions on the science and ethics of embryonic stem cell research, somatic cell nuclear transfer, human cloning, egg harvesting, drop me a note or contact The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

"From the Kitchen to Congress"

In Nancy Pelosi's speech today, she thanked her family for encouraging her in her work, helping her to believe and actualize the move from "the kitchen to Congress." Now perhaps I'm reading way too much into her words, but her emphasis seems to have been placed on feminist issues...."breaking the marble ceiling." As to her comment about representing all American women, I can't help but wonder if her focus is entirely misplaced. I don't want her representation because of my gender but because of my humanity. I am a human first, what happened to representation for the people? I'm terribly bothered that the 3rd in line to the presidency (I doubt any further rise to power on her part would be 'accidental') seems to be more interested in the power and advancement of women.

And does Pelosi represent the woman who strives in her chosen career of homemaker? Extreme feminism in power.

BioAgendas

Dorothy Sayers, as I have mentioned in previous posts, is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. Her reflections on femininity and humanity make her a helpful voice to the cause of human dignity in the 20th-21st century. On the desire to perfect humanity, she states

The delusion of the mechanical perfectibility of man through a combination of scientific knowledge and unconscious evolution has been responsible for much heartbreak. It is, at bottom, far more pessimistic than Christian pessimism, because, if science and progress break down, there is nothing to fall back upon. Humanism is self-contained - it provides man with no resources outside himself.

Reflecting on the idea that if this is all there is, Sayers clearly understands the consequences of such held beliefs. But in response to the quote above, I wonder if a godless culture can really be expected to do or think anything else. A society without God is a society that exists for itself. Our society, one which actively pursues scientific advancement while at the same time suppressing the idea of God, creates a world inhospitable to hope and to the miraculous. There is no sign of God, nor can there be, in a technological age that sees humanity as the means and the end.

In 2007, now and into the future, we've got to do more to challenge the symptoms of our ailing society. We must argue against the root causes - the underlying beliefs that support secular humanism, philosophical materialism.....godlessness. We may live in a postmodern culture, but the world of technological progress still abides by the principles of modernity. They just help themselves to a portion of postmodernism to escape the ethical quandaries that they can't escape from. And without ethical reflection, there is no real science, only agendas.

Does Graduated Absolutism Logically Permit Embryo Destructive Research? A Thought Experiement

This weekend I found a link at the women's bioethics blog that addresses Norm Geisler's graduated absolutism, or hierarchical absolutism as it is called in Feinberg's Ethics for a Brave New World. If you visit the link, you'll see what appears to be an outline of a book called Would You Lie to Save a Life? The Quest for God's Will This Side of Heaven: A Theology on the Ethics of Love. I was prompted to take another look at graduated absolutism and now I wonder if this position could give justification to embryo destructive research. First we need to define the concept.

Graduated, or hierarchical absolutism: there are many norms that are all universal that will eventually conflict, so they should be ordered on the basis of their significance. When the conflict occurs, one must determine which one is to receive priority consideration. Because the conflict determines that only one can be followed, no sin is committed by breaking the norm of lesser significance. Example: lying to Nazi soldiers to protect the lives of Jews.

So how does this apply to the topic of ESCR? If one actually believes that cures can be found through the harvesting of stem cells from embryos and that many of these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway (for whatever reason) then it could be postulated that the higher norm would be to save the lives of those which we all agree are human persons by use of the embryos of which there exists disagreement as to their moral status.

I'm not trying to build an argument for ESCR, heaven forbid. But I do want to see how Christian philosphy has contributed to the cultural debates.

Obama Motivated by Ideology

Tonite, Obama stated that he believes the American people have declared with their vote a desire for a "nonideological approach" to the election issues. How many ways can I say that there is no neutrality on any issue? He would love it if those of us who oppose matters such as embryonic stem cell research would put our beliefs in our pocket (as if that is possibe). The fact is, the darwinist liberals support ESCR because of their ideology. This is all there is, so there is no moral status of the embryo, therefore anything goes....amazing