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

[Kansasdad]

Nobody cries over discarded egg but people never recover from the death of child. That's REALITY, not some half-baked religious theory that a few healthy, rich, white-men try to shove down everyone else's throat. [Jerry Fallwell, the guy that wants to be kept on scientific life support against his God's will ; James Dobson ; Pat Robertson ; those types ]

Actually if you knew me a little better you would know that suggesting I am influenced by Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson is quite a statement. It is quite comical in fact. Now I do like James Dobson.

Here is more to consider:

At Conception

When viewed without the lens of Aristotelian science, the biblical view of ensoulment becomes clear. In the Old Testament, the psalmist assumes the humanity of the unborn child at conception when he says, "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NRSV). This indicates that the unborn child possesses a sinful, fallen nature at the time of conception (though it does not manifest in actual, personal sins until later; cf. Romans 9:11). Since sin is a spiritual phenomenon, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and thus a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception.

The humanity of the unborn at all stages of development is also indicated by the biblical terminology used to refer to unborn children. The Hebrew term yeled, which means "child, son, boy, offspring, youth," is used to refer to the unborn child, regardless of the stage of development. (Cf. Ex. 21:22, where the Hebrew says literally "her children come out" instead of "she has a miscarriage," as in some translations.) The same is true of the term ben, which means "son, child, youth" (cf. Gen. 25:22).

From the biblical perspective, all children are children, whether born or not. The Jews neither had nor needed a specialized term for the unborn, whose humanity they saw clearly. Thus the Hebrew Scripture regularly refers to individuals existing in the womb ("I knew you in the womb," Jer. 1:5; cf. Job. 10:8

[Hypathia]

Lots to address here, I may have to do it in increments.

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.

I was going on the assertion by some of you that life (the soul) begins at conception. If that were true the only logical conclusion would be that God cut off that body that houses the soul when He allows a miscarriage. I do not believe the soul begins at conception. I also do not think that God gives us miscarriages or diseases. However, we know that when our bodies die the soul is no longer there; the same would hold true with a stillborn baby or a miscarriage. Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say; the thought I was trying to discuss.

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.

Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 6:17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.

Genesis 7:15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.

Genesis 7:22 everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

1 Kings 17:17 After this the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, became ill; and his illness was so severe that there was no breath left in him.

18: And she said to Eli'jah, "What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!"

Job 27: 2: "As God lives, who has taken away my right, and the Almighty, who has made my soul bitter;

3: as long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;

Job 33:4 The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Psalms 146:4 When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish.

Psalms 150:6 Let everything that breathes praise the LORD! Praise the LORD!

Ecc 3: 19: For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity.

20: All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.

21: Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?

Isaiah 2: 22 Turn away from man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?

Isaiah 42: 5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it:

Ezekiel 37:5 Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. 6: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD." 7: So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold, a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to its bone.

8: And as I looked, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them; but there was no breath in them. [there

[Hypathia]

A couple of things. I find it interesting that the author says the verses referring to "breath" are methaphor.....and he may be correct; however, he goes on to point to verses that imply that one has a soul in the womb...yet...he assumes those verses are to be taken literally. Why doesn't he view those verses as methaphor as well?

As for the discovery institute author, Wesley Smith, consider the institute for which he writes. It is a far-right, evangelical organization. You can read about it here: link If Mr. Smith reached different conclusions I doubt that organization would employ him. But he is a very smart man and is very knowledgable about bioethics as are many others who do not share his particular opinon or religious views. -- There have been wonderful break-thrus in stem-cell research using adult stem-cell and cord cells. With this in mind it's no wonder scientific researchers are excited about the potential break-thrus in the blank slate cells which come from discarded invitro embryos.

It's called research for a reason. Research takes a long time and a lot of money but this type of research has only been around since 1998. The internet has been around longer although not by much. The internet certainly wasn't developed overnight and as many of you know it has come a long way since it first appeared on the scene; it's much faster now and there's much more information available on it. I can hardly believe how much it has improved since I got my first computer in 1999.

Here are some good links with information on stem-cell research for those who are interested in reading up on it:

Stem-cell research foundation

Therapeudic Cloning and Stem Cell Research

Therapeudic Cloning; How it's done, possible benefits

Also I came across this quick summary at religious tolerance.com about the differing views on when personhood begins:

Detailed information on specific beliefs about personhood: It happens at conception -- the most common pro-life position link

It happens when blood first appears -- a new interpretation based on the Bible link

It happens later in pregnancy -- the most common pro-choice position link

It happens at 14 or 22 weeks gestation -- two novel arguments link

It happens during childbirth -- the traditional Jewish position link

Regardless of which view any of us hold the reality is this: Invitro fertilization is legal; and that's not likely to change. Therefore, these tiny left over embryos are being destroyed. That's just the way it is. With this in mind we have a choice between two things:

1) Continue destroying them as medical waste with no benefit to anyone OR

2) Destroy them through research which may lead to cures for some diseases somewhere down the road.

I think it's safe to say that the majority of people go with #2.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Hypathia

[Hypathia]

Regardless of which view any of us hold the reality is this: Invitro fertilization is legal; and that's not likely to change. Therefore, these tiny left over embryos are being destroyed. That's just the way it is. With this in mind we have a choice between two things:

1) Continue destroying them as medical waste with no benefit to anyone OR

2) Destroy them through research which may lead to cures for some diseases somewhere down the road.

I think it's safe to say that the majority of people go with #2.

You left out this:

3) Do neither of the above, and ban invitro fertilization, or else come up with a method of invitro fertilization that does not produce extra fetuses to be discarded in the first place.

That is something you and those who agree with you could work on for the future but I doubt you'll get the evangelical movement to get behind it. As I mentioned earlier too many tithing couples rely on invitro to get pregnant and those in leadership positions don't want to hurt the finances of their respective ministries. I did call James Dobson's organization earlier this year when the stem-cell bill was coming up. I talked about this issue with one of his telephone representatives. The spin I got was that Dr. Dobson advises couples to capture only as many "eggs" as they need. It doesn't work that way and I'm sure he has to know this; it's just his way of sidestepping the fact that most will be destroyed and still put a stamp of approval on the procedure. I told them that if they really believed embryonic stem-cell research was wrong then Dr. Dobson should stop talking about that and go to the source calling for a ban on invitro-fertilization; that he could mention it on his radio show and newsletters. Of course that hasn't happened yet and it won't happen for reasons I've already mentioned. You could always give them a call on Monday and ask him again.

Realistically that puts you back to choices 1 and 2 in the here and now; it'd be better to use them and hope for a miracle for someone else's child or other loved adult that's suffering. Even if a bann were imposed on invitro at this point in time there'd still be thousands of these embryos that will be thrown away; plenty for research.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Hypathia

[billie]

The only way I think invitro's okay is if there are other couples waiting to adopt the leftover embryos. Those are little lives.

It shouldn't matter who tithes and who doesn't. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter where the money is.

[Kansasdad]

A couple of things. I find it interesting that the author says the verses referring to "breath" are methaphor.....and he may be correct; however, he goes on to point to verses that imply that one has a soul in the womb...yet...he assumes those verses are to be taken literally. Why doesn't he view those verses as methaphor as well?

Unfortunately I don't think you really read the verses in question or you could easily have seen the answer. For example, (1:44); we are also told that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother

[Kansasdad]

Why should the country take anti-abortionists seriously when your position is so hypocritcal? Where's your outcry to ban I.F.? Where is your lawsuit to end I.F.?

Personally I have taken a stand against it. I was faced with that very choice and I rejected it. It was never an option for my wife and I. We adopted a child instead, then God blessed us with a a child by natural birth. The Catholic Church has on many occasions condemned the practice, in very public ways. I wholeheartedly agree with their position. On what basis do you call me hypocritical. Do you think that I should personally bring a lawsuit.

K.D.

[Kansasdad]

Why should the country take anti-abortionists seriously when your position is so hypocritcal? Where's your outcry to ban I.F.? Where is your lawsuit to end I.F.?

Personally I have taken a stand against it. I was faced with that very choice and I rejected it. It was never an option for my wife and I. We adopted a child instead, then God blessed us with a a child by natural birth. The Catholic Church has on many occasions condemned the practice, in very public ways. I wholeheartedly agree with their position. On what basis do you call me hypocritical. Do you think that I should personally bring a lawsuit.

K.D.

Good for you! Why do you think that I was talking to or about you specifically?

Sorry, Your post followed my post and I didn't pay attention to the quotes. However, I am an anti-abortionist and you did generalize us all into one category.

God Bless,

K.D.