Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Gondring; Coleus; Pyro7480
"It’s a shame that the RCC is behind the times in research, and would rather see embryos discarded like trash than to participate in research."

First off, it's not the Church being "behind the times in research," it's some researchers being "behind the times in ethics." W-a-a-y behind the times. Following WWII, there was pretty much a consensus that scientists would not use research that derived from non-consenting experimental subjects. But I guess lessons learned have to be re-learned in every generation.

Second, it's not true that the Church "would rather see embryos discarded." You must have misunderstood something in your caeful reading of ethics, there. The Church would approve the adoption of these embryonic human beings in the wombs of "rescue moms," as such women volunteer. It's already happening with the participation of embryo adoption agencies--- though not nearly to the extent needed.

The Church has never approved either the in-vitro creation, nor the discarding/destruction, of a human embryo.

When discussing the snail-like "progress" of ESCR in developing anything that's medically usable (present therapeutic applications: -zero-), you consistently ignore the fact that it has never been illegal in the U.S. to use human germ cell lines of whatever provenance, or human embryos themselves, for experimentation. States are free to fund it. Universities are free to fund it. Consortia of private investors and speculators are free to fund it.

And why are they apparently lacking that good-ol' can-do spirit, that entrepreneurial enthusiasm? As you know --- because I've told you --- the Wall Street Journal made this pretty clear two years ago:

James Thomson, the first scientist to derive stem cells from a human embryo, made this point clearly just a few weeks ago: "I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it's going to be very hard." He added, "those transplantation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time."

"Leading British stem cell expert Lord Winston has been even more blunt: "I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's lifetime, for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will."

Bottom line: private investment money for ESCR has been, at best, a trickle because of the remoteness of the possibility that it will ever pay off. Because as I said, after millions of dollars spent and cutting-edge experiments on 5 continents, all it's been able to produce in vivo is tumors.

But I repeat myself.

13 posted on 03/03/2009 3:25:16 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Pleased to be of service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o
The Church would approve the adoption of these embryonic human beings in the wombs of "rescue moms," as such women volunteer. It's already happening with the participation of embryo adoption agencies--- though not nearly to the extent needed.

And if people don't buy the bread, you'd rather it be discarded than given to the hungry?

By your own implication ("not nearly to the extent needed"), embryos are discarded. That is occurring...it's a fact. And given that end, or the alternative (participation in research), the RCC chooses against the latter.

And why are they apparently lacking that good-ol' can-do spirit, that entrepreneurial enthusiasm?

Perhaps because there's funding available elsewhere.

"[...] those transplantation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time." --James Thomson, pointing out the promise of the research path.

"[...] be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will." --Lord Winston, downplaying hopes, but not saying they won't be helpful.

Bottom line: private investment money for ESCR has been, at best, a trickle because of the remoteness of the possibility that it will ever pay off. Because as I said, after millions of dollars spent and cutting-edge experiments on 5 continents, all it's been able to produce in vivo is tumors.

That claim is demonstrably false, but I have no reason to believe you will stop using it even if I falsify it again. However, any honest third party can do a Google search and see that you're wrong.

But I repeat myself.

Yes, you do...despite being wrong.

18 posted on 03/03/2009 8:25:48 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Thought you might be interested in reading what your source had to say about iPS... "Well, what I hope will not happen is that everybody says, ‘See? We don’t have to do embryonic stem cell research now.’ ... This may not be the end of the story. These pluripotent cells may not be perfectly like embryonic stem cells. We don’t know yet." --James Thomson
27 posted on 03/04/2009 7:55:19 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson