in this issue:
poll results: AMERICANS
why this special issue: ANSWER
in defense of personhood: ALL RESOURCES, LEJEUNE, LIFE ISSUES INSTITUTE, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COALITION FOR LIFE, UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, VATICAN
in opposition to personhood: AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
politics and personhood: JEFFREY AND KISCHER
action, please: WHITE HOUSE
create and kill: JONES INSTITUTE
zinger: HONEST ERROR OR INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
final word: KANSAS LEGISLATOR
reflection for prayer: MATTHEW 10:30
poll results
AMERICANS: A recent report states that when 998 adults were polled, 57% of them said they did not know enough about embryonic stem cell research to say whether the government should fund it or not. But 54% said they did not think the government should permit scientists to create embryos for research. See “Most in Dark on Stem Cell Issue.”
why this special issue?
ANSWER: It is because of apparent confusion among the voting public that we are dedicating this special issue of Communique to the facts. Most basic is the fact that a human being is a person whose life begins at fertilization/conception. Any act that destroys an innocent person at any point, for any reason, is a criminal act of killing that should never be permitted or subsidized by any entity in a civilized society. Murder, for instance, is against the law for that reason. Embryonic stem cell research is also such an act, because it results in a person’s death.
in defense of personhood
ALL RESOURCES: On the American Life League web site, you may find papers by Professor Dianne Irving, including, “When Do Human Beings Begin,” “NIH and Human Embryo Research Revisited,” and “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” You may also access “Stem Cell Research and the Moral Status of Human Embryos,” by Professor Donal P. O’Mathuna, “Two Boats, a Helicopter and Stem Cells,” by Russell E. Saltzman, and more.
LEJEUNE: From “Jerome Lejeune: A Sign of Contradiction“: “Lejeune opposed establishment of the first test-tube baby clinic in America as unjustified experimentation on embryonic human beings.” In the Davis v. Davis case involving the fate of the couple’s “frozen embryos,” each of whom were only microscopically observable, Lejeune “demonstrated to the court that each frozen embryo had a unique and individual genetic identity and was, in fact, a tiny human being. Like every other human being, held Lejeune, these too should be protected as such by law and not considered property.”
LIFE ISSUES INSTITUTE: “I Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” by J. C. Willke, M.D.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COALITION FOR LIFE: Reports in Fax Notes for the last several months dealing with the factual position versus the political realities.
UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE: Fact sheets, including “Current Clinical Use of Adult Stem Cells,” and “The NIH Proposal for Stem Cell Research Is a Crime,” are available.
VATICAN: “The Embryo: A Sign of Contradiction,” by Bishop Elio Sgreccia says, in part, “From the moment of fertilization we are in the presence of a new, independent, individualized being which develops in continuous fashion. There is no moment which is less necessary than another … and each stage is strictly dependent upon the stage which precedes it and which determines it.”
in opposition to personhood
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS: Supports destructive research and experimentation on embryonic persons. See: “AAP Supports Federal Funding of Human Embryo Research,” 7/13/01.
politics and personhood
JEFFREY: “Bush Is Right on Stem Cell Research,” by Terence Jeffrey, editor, Human Events.
KISCHER: “Why Hatch Is Wrong on Human Life,” by C. Ward Kischer, PhD, embryologist.
action, please
WHITE HOUSE: President Bush will make the most important decision of his political career in the coming weeks when he decides on the question of human embryonic stem cell research. It will define, once and for all, whether or not he is truly pro-life. Let your voice be heard: President George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20251; fax 202-456-2461; call White House operator 202-456-1414; call White House comment line 202-456-1111; e-mail “>President Bush.
create and kill
JONES INSTITUTE: On July 13, American Life League issued the following statement responding to the experiments being carried out at the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine.
“Utilitarian scientists are creating embryonic persons for the stated purpose of killing them,” said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. “This new technology is the latest step the industry of death has taken along the lethal path which began decades ago with in vitro fertilization.”
Brown was responding to reports from Virginia’s Jones Institute, which confirm that scientists there are creating embryonic persons from donor gametes, and then killing those embryonic persons to develop stem cell lines.
“When the first in vitro fertilization baby, Louise Brown, was born in 1978, no one guessed that technology would be used to destroy ‘defective human beings’ or to ‘create’ human beings for the express purpose of killing them,” said Brown.
American Life League calls on the scientific community, Congress and the Bush administration to recognize the dignity of the human person at conception/fertilization, and to end ghoulish practices, such as IVF, which have condemned countless numbers of innocent human beings to death.
zinger
HONEST ERROR OR INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION: Accuracy in reporting the news is a must for pro-life news outlets and e-services. We were therefore amazed to see a summarized “news” report regarding ALL’s position on an anonymously written Bush administration letter claiming that the term “unborn child” would be used for the first time in HCFA’s Child Health Insurance Program. The new proposal purportedly extends coverage to expectant mothers beyond the age of 18 and classifies her baby for purposes of prenatal care as an “unborn child.” Our review of the news sources cited by Pro-Life Infonet on July 7, 2001, including Fox News, Reuters, and the Los Angeles Times, did not find the characterization erroneously reported: “American Life League joined abortion advocates in attacking the pro-life policy.” What we did find in the source material was an accurate portrayal of our position, which is that we feared the anonymous announcement was timed to provide political capital to Bush operatives as they lobbied for approval of destructive human embryonic stem cell research. We have more recently discovered that the term “unborn child” already is part of the official language used by the HCFA in its explanations of benefits. Strange, isn’t it?
final word
KANSAS LEGISLATOR: State Rep. Mary Pilcher Cook offers the following commentary, “The Political Rhetoric Behind Stem Cell Research,” reprinted here with her permission:
Let there be no doubt — everyone wants to find cures for diseases and stop the suffering of families. We all want breakthroughs on Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, diabetes and other diseases. And we are achieving those breathtaking outcomes — with adult stem cells.
Notice the difference. There are adult stem cells and there are embryonic stem cells. All too often the media uses the term “embryonic stem cells,” followed by references to “stem cells.” However “stem cell” research often refers to progress of adult stem cells. Because terms are not precise, articles and polls become misleading and embryonic research is emphasized when it has never helped a single human patient.
A study by Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a non-partisan, non-profit research organization, revealed the unbalanced reporting, “as the political stakes were elevated, the subsequent silence on non-embryo developments was striking.”
STATS revealed a widely circulated report that mouse embryonic stem cells were programmed to secrete insulin (Science, April 2001). This research received enthusiastic coverage. However, no mention was made of a more significant development discovered a year earlier, where mouse adult stem cells had successfully reversed diabetes (Nature Medicine, March 2000). And reporters left out that mice receiving embryonic stem cells still died from diabetes.
Information derived from science journals indicate adult stem cell advances are taking place very quickly. Human patients were effectively treated for heart disease using cells from their arm muscles (The Lancet, January 2001), umbilical cord cells repaired brains damaged by stroke or other diseases (Associated Press), bone marrow adult stem cells in rats created heart muscle and blood vessels, UCLA used human fat cells to create bone, cartilage and muscle tissues, and adult bone marrow stem cells can form many types of cells including liver, nerve, brain, etc. (Science, June 2001). In human patients there has been great success in relieving lupus, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and repairing nerve damage.
Adult stem cells have shown capacity to form essentially any tissue. Even scientists not against human embryonic stem-cell research have observed that adult stem cells can perform as well or better than embryonic stem cells. One enormous advantage of adult stem cells is no transplant rejection, since recipients can use their own tissue. Alternatively, embryonic stem cells have risks of tumors. When early cells are coaxed to differentiate, there is a risk of contamination, which does not happen with adult stem cells.
Unfortunately, embryonic stem cells have been held up as the “potential” universal remedy for disease despite advantages that adult stem cells have already shown us. If the most potential life-saving adult stem cell research were ignored, it would delay valuable studies that are necessary to help people today.
We need to pause, put aside emotion and promises, and take a hard look at facts. Science is not the final authority and should only give information that can help guide us. It is up to us to answer questions of what is most efficient and morally correct for humanity. As we do, it is imperative that we consider long-range ramifications of different research methods.
Several “pro-choice” organizations are against embryonic research. Martin Teitel, president of “pro-choice” Council for Responsible Genetics, comments, “No bright line exists in ethics for deciding what is helping a person and what is turning a human being into an experiment, or a product.” Their Genetic Bill of Rights notes that “commercialization of life is veiled behind promises to cure disease.”
Erwin Chargaff, a renowned DNA biochemist, says, “Research always runs the risk of getting out of control.” He calls conditions toward making human life “a kind of capitalist cannibalism.”
Wesley J. Smith, a self-proclaimed liberal stated, “If humanity isn’t special, that is exactly how we will act.” Family Research Council President Ken Connor said, “Once a utilitarian approach to human life becomes widely accepted, it will be impossible to preserve any meaningful moral restraint on medical research.” The argument that embryos are going to be discarded anyway is fallacious. Human embryos should not be thrown away. Humanity needs to acknowledge that a human embryo is life that deserves special respect.
There should not be hesitation to pursue research with adult stem cells, since it has not been conclusively determined that embryonic stem cells have more potential for curing disease. We are a civilized society and should not deliberately kill one living human to possibly benefit another. History offers endless examples of what happens when groups of humans are treated as “less than humans,” and as objects for others’ use and destruction.
A total ban on embryonic research and human cloning, as the Brownback-Weldon Human Cloning Prohibition Act is trying to achieve, would enable all of us to look forward to the future. Research concentration will then be on the most promising and exciting adult stem cell developments.
reflection for prayer
MATTHEW 10:30: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear him rather who can destroy both body and soul in hell.