STEM CELLS

I haven’t written a lot about embryonic stem cell research, but most people could guess which side of the argument this proud member of the vast, pro-life conspiracy comes down on. Today’s New York Times has an article about a new procedure that seems to produce the raw material’s to form new ESC lines without killing the embryo the cells are harvested from. As the Times itself said:

“This method, if confirmed in other laboratories, would seem to remove the principal objection to the research.”

And maybe it does. My question is this: If this magic cell can grow into the panacea of establishing colonies of stem cells and these stem cells can grow into anything, livers, toenails, etc, everything the liberals promise, can it not grow into a whole person? Seriously, is this 1/8th of a person able to form into a whole person? Senator Brownbeck shares my concern and the answer he received was:

“…there was no evidence that a single blastomere could develop into a person. “

Is there no evidence because the single blastomere was never given the chance? The good doctor’s answer seems like a Clinton obfuscation, “I’m confident no evidence will be found of any wrongdoing….”

So that’s my question concerning this new procedure and I welcome anything that doesn’t kill babies. Sad I have to be happy with the lack of a negative, but when it comes to how we treat our weakest and most innocent members of our society, that’s about the best I can hope for.

The article does bring forth a whole slew of other observations worth mentioning:

Look at the verbal knots the writer ties himself into so as to give NO impression that a fertilized egg might be a human life. The embryos are referred to as a “blastomeres” and “blastocysts”. On the other hand in Mr. Wade’s defense he did get this past the editor:

“Harvesting the blastocyst-stage cells kills the embryo, a principal objection of those who oppose the research.”

I’m surprised the word “kills” was used, that seems to give weight and value to the “blastocyst-stage cells”, not something I expect from the Times. So maybe I’m all wet here.

Also in the article was the fact that ESC research is not illegal in this country. If you got your news from the MSM, you would be sure, given the hysteria and doom-mongering on the left that Bu$h/Hitler had made ESC research a crime punishable by death or at least imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. In fact, as the article says:

“Mr. Bush has allowed federal financing for research on human embryonic stem cells, provided they were established before Aug. 9, 2001. Although that might seem to rule out any new cell lines derived from blastomeres, Dr. Battey said that was not clear because the embryo would not be destroyed, and that he would seek guidance on the point.

The federal policy does not affect privately financed stem cell research, like that done by Advanced Cell.”

That’s right, the only thing Herr Bush won’t allow is Federal financing of the NEW stem cell lines. Research on the existing lines is still Federally funded and private funding can do whatever they want.

Probably the most disturbing thing in the article isn’t addressed directly, but clues are given for what I call the Dirty Little Secret of fertility clinics – the wonton destruction of life everyday in this little Menegle labs. Look at these quotes:

“In fertility clinics, where the embryo is available outside the woman in the normal course of in vitro fertilization, one of these blastomeres can be removed for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome.

The embryo, now with seven cells, can be implanted in the woman if no defect is found.” (Bolding mine)

What if a defect is found, like the one mentioned – Down syndrome? It is “discarded”. Or, in more simple terms, it is killed. If no defect is found, it can be implanted and nine months later – out pops a baby. So, we can’t pretend the blastomere with Down Syndrome is any less of a life than one without.

The objection we pro-lifers have to all of these procedures, including the big daddy of them all, abortion is that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. And that is why we still remain cautious with the new procedure; because it occurs after conception.