Worthy News: Cloning human embryos becomes 'constitutional right&#

[Hypathia]

So is it a chicken or is it human????

LOL, it depends on what happens I think.

Is it a chicken or an egg. If a hen sits on it and it hatches it's a chicken; if that doesn't happen it's scrambled or over-easy.

[Hypathia]

Hypathia, you obviously don't know God, so don't judge Him. God is good- he doesn't murder. The devil is bad- he comes to kill, steal and destroy. The devil and earthly situations bring about disease- not God!

I think you need to re-read my post, in context, Candi.

I agree God does not bring about disease....or kill souls thru miscarriage or any other way. I think the natural environment brings this about (not the devil) and I think earthly humans can find ways to cure disease if given the opportunity.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Hypathia

[CSLewis]

Hypathia, you obviously don't know God, so don't judge Him. God is good- he doesn't murder. The devil is bad- he comes to kill, steal and destroy. The devil and earthly situations bring about disease- not God!

This comment needs deleting.

[Hypathia]

There are anamolies to the above, in some rare cases chromosomes have had opposite outcomes and the (male sexual organ - edited by moderator) is never formed during the development, though the chromosomes show a male the outcome is a female. This doesn't happen the other way around though. I think a specific enzyme is needed in order to stimulate the growth of the uterus into a (male sexual organ edited by mod) and sometimes due to certain environmental influences the sex remains female in spite of chromosomes. That is why we all start off as girls.

Yes, I think that's how it works. Some people are born with both male and female sexes. That would be very nerve-racking for a parent. I also think something is at play here in the brains of homosexuals; maybe that too is something that could be cured in utero in the future if they could come up with a way of detecting it.

Gotta run now.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Hypathia

[Candi770]

Don't attack my credibility. I'm speaking from the heart and the mind. -- Genetically speaking the blueprint code is there, but the work still has to be done to reach the final product.

You neglected to address this:

If the stretch you are attempting to make here is true; it means that God's murders innocent souls in the womb every time a woman miscarries. It also means in a sense that God gave my child a fatal disease; that God has decided to strike down my innocent child after birth rather than before.

Would you like to do that now?

Hypathia- I was refering to these comments you made- God is good- not bad like the devil.

The devil comes to kill, steal and destroy. He is the one who brings diseases, not God.

Sorry for not making the "quote"

[Candi770]

I deleted my post, misunderstanding;

Sorry

Now Delete yours CS LEWIS please!

[EricH]

No one should be deleting any posts. If you want a post removed, ask a moderator please

[Candi770]

HELLO,

Does Missouri have sleeping Christians??? Shame on you who didn't get out and vote!!!

How aweful

there better be an appeal to this!!

I've always wondered, if man tried to do this, God would be under not obligation to give the poor thing a spirit-what would be in the poor little thing.

I think the Christians of the state did get out and vote, in large numbers. God gives people common sense and they used it in the voting booth.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense to me. What were you trying to say there?

I'm talking about what the original posters tread talks about human clones, Christians- those who follow christ would vote against them. My last sentence is concerning the human these clowns think they are going to clone- could the human flesh be given a soul/spirit by God. It doesn't seem like he would be under any obligation to give it one. So what will we have then??? Entrance for demonic spirits????

I think you're confusing therapeudic cloning with reproductive cloning Candi. They're two totally different things. They would only be cloning a person's specific body parts......not growing a baby in a bottle then cutting out what they needed (ewwwh). For example, if your kidneys gave out they'd be able to grow you a new kidney specificially suited to your body's genetic make-up. This way you #1 - wouldn't have to wait for somebody to die to get their kidneys and #2 Since the cloned kidney would have your own DNA you wouldn't have to take anti-rejection drugs everyday which is what people who get organ transplants have to do now.

Do you see what I'm saying? You have to be careful because those who are opposed to all cloning (healthy people who always think they won't need it) try to put out a lot of false information to get everyone confused so they'll oppose it too.

So your saying they could clone the organ and not a little embryo- or do they have to clone the embryo and take the little kidneys??? Wow, I need to understand this more then.

Hey, do you forgive me for getting ugly, when I was being stupid??? I just jumped into a conversation without knowing-sorry!!

[Candi770]

Yes, Eric, I did that!!

[Kansasdad]

Don't attack my credibility. I'm speaking from the heart and the mind. -- Genetically speaking the blueprint code is there, but the work still has to be done to reach the final product.

You neglected to address this:

If the stretch you are attempting to make here is true; it means that God's murders innocent souls in the womb every time a woman miscarries. It also means in a sense that God gave my child a fatal disease; that God has decided to strike down my innocent child after birth rather than before.

Would you like to do that now?

Two things, first, you keep saying that it means God murdered the innocent soul. No one ever said that the little child's soul died. There is a vast difference between the soul dieing and the body dieing. I don't think that God causes us to have a disease or have a miscarriage. Second you keep referring to scripture that says we receive the soul upon taking our first breath. Show me in context what verse says this.

Here is some fact to consider:

The Big Stem-Cell Breakthrough

That you're not hearing about . . .

by Wesley J. Smith

10/31/2006 12:12:00 PM

[. . .]

British scientists have created an artificial liver--from scratch--using stem cells. The research does offer tremendous hope for the alleviation of human suffering. But you probably didn't hear about this amazing achievement because the stem cells the scientists used to build a human liver did not come from embryos: They came from umbilical cord blood.

This made their scientific achievement politically incorrect. A story that doesn't validate the stem-cell mantra that embryonic stem cells offer the "best hope" for future cures isn't worth much attention. Even the most important adult or umbilical cord blood stem-cell breakthroughs usually receive only minor, inside-the-paper coverage. This is the primary reason why so many people

still don't know about the many advances being made on a continual basis in human research with ethical, adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells.

HERE'S THE STORY: Two scientists from Newcastle University, Nico Forraz and Colin McGuckin, have built dime-sized human livers using stem cells found in umbilical cord blood. The livers are already sufficient for use in drug testing--perhaps in place of using some animals and humans as research subjects. The scientists believe that within five years, stem-cell generated liver tissue could be sufficiently perfected for use in treating human diseases caused by injury, disease, and alcohol abuse. Perhaps in 15 years, the technique could even be employed to manufacture whole human livers suitable for transplantation.

Contrast this general media's shunning of this major story with its sensationalistic reporting several weeks ago of the bogus story that scientists had obtained embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos. That story, unlike the umbilical-cord-blood-stem-cells-into-liver breakthrough, got front-page play and major television coverage. It was deemed news because it was seen as undermining President Bush's stem-cell policy.

Indeed, if this new breakthrough had been accomplished with embryonic stem cells instead of umbilical cord blood stem cells, the headlines would have been enormous. The second paragraph of the stories would have accused President Bush of holding up potentially life-saving cures. Notable scientists and bioethicists would have been touting the new dawn of regenerative medicine that was coming into being, despite Bush's resistance.

Instead, we hear the sound of silence--thanks to the news blockade that doesn't care much about stem-cell breakthroughs unless they come from destroyed embryos.

Show me one single legitimate doccumented breakthrough accomplished with embryotic stem cells. You can't, because every time they inject embryotic stem cells into human tissue it forms tumors, and yes again this is all doccumented you just have to look.

God Bless,

K.D.