jesus SAID,[and HE was GOD in flesh]''whoever is ashamed of me,before men,HE would be ashamed of before the father'' PAUL the apostle said''I am not ashamed of the gospel of CHRIST'' ''CONFESSION unto=SALVATION''what you speak is what you=get!! there's only 2 spirit's at work ,in the world.

CHRIST & anti-christ.JESUS said.''satan was a murderer from the beginning'' JESUS also said''in this life you shall have tribulation''

THERE IS A WAR--FOR MEN'S SOUL'S GOING ON!! ''the prosperity of a fool,is a snare-are you comfy,cozy now? lulled by material good's?AH the great=set up!! when sudden destruction come's-who will STAND?

*********THERE IS NO-MIDDLE GROUND***************** IGNORE IT,IF YOU WANT TO.BUT YOU CAN,T ESCAPE IT.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 19, 2001

Answers

Hi Al. I was just thinking this morning about how a large percentage of the human population on this planet lives in poverty with starvation and disease shortening their lives to the point that their cultures may be wiped out in a couple of generations. Do they count?

The radio news was reporting on the battle to give federal government funding to people who make human embryos and chop them up with an eye toward curing anything and everything that ails an American -- but a large percentage of Americans are simply eating themselves to death in comfy homes surrounded by electricity-hogging appliances designed to make their lives even less work-free when they aren't in their excessively large vehicles. Do embryos created for stem cell research count?

Unwanted human embryos created for couples who want biological children (but not all 25 of the children they commissioned) number in the thousands. Some want to chop up these embryos so they won't be "wasted" and others are comfy with the idea that flushing them down a toilet is ok and others want to see that all of them are given a chance to be carried and born. Is it really ok to overcome natural infertility in the first place and is it ok to overcome it 10 or 30 times per couple just to be sure the couple gets the two they wanted?

Seven babies were just born to a couple who apparently lost their other two children to genetic deficits. At least some of them may suffer lifetimes of disability simply from being part of such a large multiple birth, and I wonder how many will carry the genetic deficit? Do they count more than an adopted child?

(What about children available for adoption? Is it ok for people to make children they can't or won't take care of? Is it ok to let them create more children even after they have proven they can't or won't care for them properly? Does EVERYONE have the right to reproduce? Do the uncared for products of copulation count for as much as the right to unprotected copulation?)

There is an ethical debate going on about cloning humans, and I see no real application for that technology unless someone with enough money to have a clone created plans to harvest organs from said clone. I suppose the horrendous defects produced in the cloning process will be overcome after several (living, suffering) attempts. (When do you decide the human clone is a failure, and how do you end the experiment?) Even a cloned infant needs touch and stimulation or it will fail to thrive and die. How long do you care for a cloned human being before you take its heart or kidneys or lungs? Will we sing nursery rhymes to a clone to keep it alive rather than to make it giggle? Do clones count?

They have mixed human genes into animals, Al, did you know? I've seen video of pigs with human genes who were created to supply a biological cure for some human ailment -- too bad they are always born blind. I don't know if it is because their eyes don't work or because they are born without eyes. It looked like they didn't have eyes. What percentage of human genes does it take to call it human? We share something like 99 percent of our genes with orangutans. When do we say human hybrids count?

We let a company distribute genetically-modified corn seeds for a corn product humans aren't supposed to eat, and of course it contaminated the regular corn in the fields next to it, and of course you can't see the difference, and of course it contaminated the human food supply. When does that sort of crop contamination count as a crime?

It's all to avoid death, Al. We force biological changes at the DNA level, and it's always passed off as an attempt to cure disease or feed more people. The avoidance of death will be offered to those who can pay enough to offset production costs and offer a good living to those willing to do the work. The rest of the human population are free to suffer and die as usual, as long as they don't pass something on to the privileged that can't be cured.

Deliberately passing on AIDS (death) is counted as a crime, but so far no one has gone to jail for passing on genetic defects or causing a living being to suffer in the name of extended human longevity or contaminating human food with food products designed to kill bugs.

Time to muck out the barn again.

-- helen rants (rant@nd.rave), July 19, 2001.

DEAR HELEN, does ''as in the day's of noah'' ring a bell?? talk about some cloning going on.ever hear of the zamzummin.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 21, 2001.

Never heard of zamzummin. But I vaguely remember a story about how some guy and his wife ate from a tree of knowledge and one of the angels yelled "Holy Smoke! If they get to the tree of eternal life too they're gonna end up like us!" And the angels threw the couple out of their garden. Sunday school didn't stick with me very far, sorry. :)

-- helen (snoozing@sunday.school), July 21, 2001.

I was reminded of your rant to Al when I read this one today, Helen. Some of the questions asked [at the end] provide more food for thought than my weak mind is willing to absorb.

More Questions on All This

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 22, 2001.

Anita,

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times Thursday reporting that U.S. senators turned to the bible for guidance on whether a human embryo is equivalent to a human life and whether it may be destroyed for its stem cells.

The passage they looked at was is from the book of Genesis -

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."

Some snips -

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), an abortion opponent who supports the research, guided a panel of the Senate Appropriations Committee to Genesis, Chapter 2, Verse 7, on Wednesday.

After reading the passage, Smith said it describes a "two-step process" for creating humans: First, God formed man from the dust of the ground. Then, the verse says, God breathed into man's nostrils "the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Cells, Smith said, are like the dust of the earth, giving form to man but not "the breath of life." To gain that spirit, he said, the cells must be placed in a womb.

"I believe that life begins in a mother's womb, not in a scientist's laboratory," said Smith.

and -

A representative of the Catholic church criticized Smith's interpretation as "amateur theology."

Richard Doerflinger, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called it "absurd" to think that the womb conveys the "breath of life" to an embryo. "An embryo's development is directed completely from within--the womb simply provides a nurturing environment." If scientists created an artificial womb, he asked, would a child born from it not be human? Could it be killed for any purpose?

This also came up -

Michael West, chief executive of Advanced Cell Technology Inc., a Massachusetts company working with stem cells, said research is ethical on embryos up to two weeks of age. At about 14 days, he said, the embryo produces the beginning of a backbone. Until that point, the embryo can divide in two--producing identical twins--or two embryos can merge into one.

"This is a line that nature has drawn for us," West said. It would be illogical, he said, to treat an embryo as an individual if it could still become two people. When the British Parliament this year authorized stem cell research, it said experiments could be done on embryos up to 14 days old.

Some theologians, including a small minority of Catholic philosophers, have also backed the idea that an embryo younger than 14 days cannot be a person. They reason that the soul, the hallmark of an individual, cannot enter an embryo capable of dividing in two.

And finally from the bible again -

Smith was not the only witness Wednesday to draw on the Bible. In his testimony and in a later interview, West cited a parable from the New Testament book of Matthew, Chapter 25, in which a master gives gold to three servants.

Two go into the world and double their stake, pleasing the master. But one buries his gold in fear. "Thou wicked and slothful servant," says the master, chiding the servant for failing to be productive.

West said the federal government should not bury the chance to use stem cells to help patients. "We've been given an opportunity in medicine. To say it's better not to mess around in this area is not an answer."

And there you have our tax dollars hard at work asking the big question - Is it woman who instills the 'breath of life ... or God?

My, what a web they weave.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), July 22, 2001.

"West said the federal government should not bury the chance to use stem cells to help patients."

...to help patients do WHAT? Live longer? For what purpose? Will all patients have life extension granted to them as a right, or will the grant be based on merit (decided by whom?), or will it be offered for sale at whatever price the market will bear?

Umbilical cords are freely available and chock full of stem cells. Why not use those stem cells instead?

-- helen (i@dunno.i.just.live.here), July 22, 2001.

Helen:

Umbilical cords are freely available and chock full of stem cells. Why not use those stem cells instead?

I take it that you don't have a great deal of technical expertise in this subject. *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 22, 2001.

Good to see you again, Z! Of course I don't know, you know that. That's why I was asking why they aren't used. I know they are used for treating leukemia. Do you know why they are being used?

-- helen (do@you.know), July 22, 2001.

Good to see you again, Z! Of course I don't know, you know that. That's why I was asking why they aren't used. I know they are used for treating leukemia. Do you know why they are NOT being used in the same research as chopped-up embryos?

-- helen (do@you.know), July 22, 2001.

Helen: Could your use of "chopped up" embryos indicate an appeal to emotion, by any chance? Would your disdain of this practice be less if the embryos were NOT chopped up? Do you object to autopsies in the same way?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 22, 2001.

"Helen: Could your use of "chopped up" embryos indicate an appeal to emotion, by any chance? Would your disdain of this practice be less if the embryos were NOT chopped up? Do you object to autopsies in the same way?"

"Chopped up" was the term used on the radio news. Sure, it was an appeal to emotion on the radio, but I have questions about the ethics of the whole embryo creation industry.

I want to know why the Red Cross sends me literature every year about harvesting stem cells from umbilical cord blood in order to cure leukemia. We're bone marrow donors here, so that's why we get the info, but lately the Red Cross sends more about stem cells and less about straight bone marrow transplants. After receiving all that info about cord blood stem cells, I tried to donate my last baby's cord blood and discovered there is no way for me to do that in this area. Meanwhile some people pay to have their babies' cord blood frozen, stem cells and all, just in case their babies later develop a disease that would require a stem cell transplant.

What is different about those stem cells that they can't be used in place of embryos? Before we make human embryos in a lab strictly to harvest stem cells, please someone tell us non-techs why?

Infertile couples who commission embryos often make many more than they intend to raise. If they aren't going to turn these embryos into children, why not use them for the stem cell research instead of making even more embryos? A lot of couples don't want the moral responsibility of consigning their embryos to research -- but is this morality a little too late?

Meanwhile, those embryos sit frozen and we're gonna make more for research? The embryos are the property of the couple who donated the genetic material? But children are not property? Couples who deliberately created more embryos than they want to raise argue that the little darlings have souls, but it's ok to leave them frozen in limbo for how long? It's not ok with God to flush them or use them for fish bait but it is ok with God to make them in the first place? Wasn't infertility God's will for them? I'm tired of hearing the formerly infertile parents of quadruplets whine about how they want their other TEN embryos to be "adopted" and not "chopped up for research".

Miscarriage is embryo-flushing the natural way. So, ok, even God will flush an embryo. I tried to donate my last miscarried fetus to any research project that wanted it. They don't have a mechanism (paperwork) to do that here. I don't have a problem with organ donation or even cadaver donation, but I question the deliberate creation of potential people for medical research. Do you really want to see some people live 130 years? Can't you think of even one person who really shouldn't live 130 years? We're gonna cure everything? For whom? And what the hell for? A 130-year lifespan means no retirement before you're 105. :)

Federal funding? They don't need it. It's better for the industry if they don't have federal funding or federal oversight. If something can be done, and someone with money will pay to have it done, it's as good as done. If not here, then somewhere with fewer controls.

-- helen maybe got heat stroke or something (hot@s.hell), July 22, 2001.

Thanks for the response, Helen. I got to thinking about how many ways I could slice up something smaller than a pea and I figured someone would need a microscope to engage in such a thing.

According to Debra's reports, embryos are only considered being used before a 14 day period. The umbilical cord doesn't develop until the fourth week or later. My GUESS [and I've only had one course in embryology] is that the stem cells taken earlier in development are more able to develop into ANYTHING, versus stem cells taken later that already have a designated course.

Regarding your concern of embryos being cloned specifically for the purpose of providing spare body parts, there's very limited interest in that [from what I've read.] Certainly, researchers are looking into stuff that's just going to waste FIRST, and SO MUCH seems to be going to waste that even they seem to realize that there's already a source for their research without pushing the envelope.

Your response seemed to indicate that you feel that the very same people who created the embryos are now the people reluctant to use those embryos for research purposes. I would think quite the opposite would be the case. I would think that the folks who reject the concept of "test-tube" babies would be the ones who object.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 23, 2001.

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times Thursday reporting that U.S. senators turned to the bible for guidance...

I wonder what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... these a-holes don't comprehend?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 23, 2001.

Good grief Unc. The constitution does not require senators to avoid religion.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 23, 2001.

I think it does when they are using it as a basis for writing law.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 23, 2001.

"It would be illogical, he said, to treat an embryo as an individual if it could still become two people."

Am I missing something here? If an embryo has the potential to become two people it is less important to him than if it only had potential to become one? Dear God, this man is making our laws?

"Some theologians, including a small minority of Catholic philosophers, have also backed the idea that an embryo younger than 14 days cannot be a person. They reason that the soul, the hallmark of an individual, cannot enter an embryo capable of dividing in two."

Excuse me but Catholic philosophers should know that God works in mysterious ways. Besides, haven't they ever heard of 'twin souls'?

What a joke.

They know none of their arguments make sense. With the subject of Anita's article on one side and abortion on the other, they're lost.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), July 23, 2001.

**I wonder what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... these a-holes don't comprehend?**

unk are you one who cried to have "one nation under God, indivisible" removed from our pledge of allegiance and replaced with "one nation, indivisible"?

complete disgrace if you ask me

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 23, 2001.

No that wasn't me. But it's not a bad idea.

Separation of church and state is in the Constitution to PROTECT religious freedom. If the US government can enforce religious values with which you argee, it can also with equal fervor enforce religious values with which you do NOT agree. Since our nation was settled by people fleeing from religious persecution the Founding Fathers understood this concept quite well, and so to protect religion from state interference, and vise versa, they included that wording into the First Amendment.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 23, 2001.

Cin: The "under God" part was added in 1954, not that I'm old enough to remember that happening, mind you. [cough]

Pledge of Allegiance change

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 23, 2001.

LOL Anita

I was not aware of that, thanks

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 23, 2001.

ps...unk I see your point and btw, I meant the idea was a disgrace and not you xoxoxo =)

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 24, 2001.

Back to one of your original questions, Helen, it DOES seem that scientists are interested specifically in stem cells that haven't yet determined their path.

More on Religion and Stem Cells

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 24, 2001.