"Those embryos are going to be killed anyway, why not put them to good use?"

[Rosalinda]

Magician made an important point:

[sign]As embryonic research goes forward, at some point a “warm body” will emerge. Will it be fetuses farmed for organs? Genetically compatible clones to meet our ever-growing demand for longer life? [/sign]

Cloning is cloning whatever euphemism proponents use. It would be naive to believe the techniques developed for so-called “therapeutic cloning” today will not eventually be placed in women’s wombs tomorrow. In fact, there are a few rogue doctors who have already offered their services. Quite rightly do “bioethicists” and researchers shy away from endangering the life of a mother and her cloned child because it is just too dangerous for both having seen all the horrific abnormalites, deformities and malformations which result in experimental animals from SCNT.

That being said, their revulsion is based on impracticality not strong moral principles. Unless we say no today to cloning with its arbitrary restriction of 14 days we will most certainly have cloned babies tomorrow.

Suggested reading this short article by Wesley J. Smith:
lifenews.com/bio1787.html

 

[Rosalinda]

**This article at LifeSiteNews is worth reading, **
UK Researcher: Embryonic Stem Cells Have Never Been Used to Treat Anyone and no Plans Exist to do so

Dr. Hollands thinks ESCR is unnecessary because the more realistic alternative is stem cells readily available from umbilical cords. Responsible scientists know, many from direct experience, how preposterously dangerous ESCR is. Nor will cloning by nuclear cell transfer work because the embryos created from this technique suffer terrible problems. In animal research, SCNT is so inefficient less than 2% are ever born. One wonders why the haste to jump directly to experimenting with humans when so little progress has been achieved in animal models? We can have our biotechnological revolution without sacrificing the established medical priniciple, "First do no harm."

Dr. Peter Hollands is:
**

A researcher in the stem-cell biology/clinical embryology field for over 25 years boasting a PhD from Cambridge University, Dr. Peter Hollands has worked on all types of stem-cells with the exception of human embryonic stem-cells. He worked as a clinical embryologist with the team that created the first ever ‘test-tube’ baby at Bourn Hall Clinic, trained under Prof. Robert Edwards (the IVF co-inventor), and even set the groundwork for embryonic stem-cell research through the mouse-model. However, it was during his mouse-model research that Dr. Hollands realized the impossibility of transferring this technology to human beings, besides the violation of human life in destroying human embryos.

**
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082401**.html**

 

[Rosalinda]

Hasikelee, Did your letter get published? What is happening on the editorial pages of newspapers in Missouri? Is the vote “no” side getting fair representation in the letters-to-the-editor?

 

[Jennifer123]

I just want to say “thank you” to all who are posting on this issue, it is so informative and I have to say I’m using your hard work to try to dispel the myths and fallacies re: Amendment 2 on the web. I pray that it is changing some minds out there! You guys are the best.

 

[Rosalinda]

Magician correctly pointed out:

…even if legislation is enacted in the United States, the research will proceed elsewhere.

We make choices every day who we want to be; those daily actions shape our character and determine our future. The citizens of Missouri will have a rare opportunity on November 7 to participate in shaping the tomorrow they want for America. In this interview Wesley J. Smith answers the question by John Zmirak, "Is America far behind China in its growing disrespect for human life?"

… there is a drive … to unfetter science from almost any meaningful societal control. Some even assert that there is a constitutional right to conduct scientific research. There is even a quasi-religion that seems to be forming, known as “scientism,” that views science as the materialist salvation of humankind, and hence, asserts that** only scientists have the right to determine what is and is not moral in science**. If this mindset, which explicitly eschews [shuns] the sanctity/equality of human life ethic prevails in these debates, then we will be in danger of becoming a science-ocracy in which science would not serve society, but come to dominate it. In such an amoral milieu, then yes, we could be in danger of falling into the moral abyss into which China has already plunged.

godspy.com/reviews/Welcome-to-Our-Brave-New-World-An-Interview-with-Wesley-Smith-by-John-Zmirak.cfm

In other words, choose life or choose death; choose right or choose wrong; choose heaven or choose a living hell on earth.

 

[Jennifer123]

“There is even a quasi-religion that seems to be forming, known as “scientism,” that views science as the materialist salvation of humankind, and hence, asserts that only scientists have the right to determine what is and is not moral in science. If this mindset, which explicitly eschews [shuns] the sanctity/equality of human life ethic prevails in these debates, then we will be in danger of becoming a science-ocracy in which science would not serve society, but come to dominate it.”

This is exactly what I have been coming up against in the arguments about “stem cell research” specifically with regards to Amendment 2.

“Why do you have such little faith in science?” - exact quote. Even after all the unethical provisions with Amendment 2, not even with life but with the total manipulation with language and unethical provisions regarding profit and such, these people still insist “science” will not allow such abuse, even though it is literally in front of their eyes.

It’s pretty scary.

 

[Rosalinda]

Jennifer was asked:[sign]“Why do you have such little faith in science?”[/sign]

You might want to share this story of a man who was once convinced ESCR was the way to go. James Kelly suffered a spinal cord injury which left him a paraplegic. After several years researching he came to realize his faith had been misplaced and that he had trusted too much. Kelly has come to some startling, sobering conclusions. Bottom line, big biotech industry may not always have the best interests of the patients in mind. Read his account and draw your own conclusions.

… It may be especially dangerous for society to “blindly trust” its scientists, because to the scientific mind all things are supposedly equal. For example: U.S. scientist Dr. Eric R. Planka denies the concept of anthropocentrism – that mankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. When asked by a neighbor “what good are the lizards you study?” He replied, “What good are you?” He stressed this point at a recent conference by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!” **
Dr. Planka was recently named** the “Distinguished Scientist of 2006” by fellow scientists for advocating the extermination of ninety percent of the human race with the Ebola virus to protect the environment…

theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=3250

The thinking of this scientist is dangerous. Apparently, the audience cheered and gave Dr. Planka a standing ovation for suggesting our extermination. Furthermore, it is no coincidence many proponents for the creation of human life in order to destroy it refer to embryos as mere “balls of cells”. Ammendment 2 refers to them as “blastocysts” with not a word concerning their humanity.

How can an ammendment even pretend to protect human rights when it refuses to even define at what point we become human?