Wednesday, January 28, 2004

Soon, too soon, the debates regarding cloning will arise in the House and Senate. The American people are sadly unprepared to understand the nuances of the arguments, because we are not well versed in the methodologies, in the 'what the heck does that mean' and 'how the heck do they do that' aspects of the issues. Here's another essay to help with preparation, then let the obfuscations begin!

Reasonable People Cannot Always Agree To Disagree

[For on-line postings of the essay and some discussions, the following are two locations: http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_5432.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/910285/posts ]

Don’t you just love it when someone with whom you're arguing says, “Well, we will just have to agree to disagree”, as a spin of the phrase ‘Reasonable people can agree to disagree’, or as the shortened version, ‘Reasonable people can disagree’? Can reasonable people disagree over cannibalism in order to permit cannibalism, without doing violence to civilization?

As a pro-life advocate who gets into lots of discussions, I hear this ‘agree to disagree’ more and more. It tells me my points are getting to the irrational heart of defense for the abortion slaughter. When an advocate for abortion of alive little ones trapped in a womb tries to discuss the topic from a reasoned position, irrational underpinnings are eventually exposed and the ‘reasoning’ stops, in favor of either ending the discussion or deflecting the ‘reasoning’ into areas better defined as emotional landmines.

A whole new field of argument is arising in defense of exploiting individual human lives. There is a common foundation for these dehumanization arguments, a theme running through the lines of reasoning from the ‘pro-choice’ camp, but the origins of that commonality are not to be found in choice to abort; it has a more subtle beginning than that.

Prior to ‘choice to abort’, dehumanization of individual life had already laid a foundation for exploiting and choosing, a basis for viewing individual human life as a phenomenon that grows in value, as opposed to being endowed with unalienable right to be. And it came into our collective psyche as a supposed benefit to humankind, a means to have science aid in conceiving babies with ‘artificial insemination’. Subtracting from our humanity, artificial insemination moved to more detached dehumanization, with in vitro fertilization, the scientific ‘miracle’ of conceiving ‘something’ outside of the woman’s body, then that thing being implanted into a woman’s body, to have a ‘growing (increasing) right to live’.

[Devout Catholics would say contraception was the beginning of dehumanization, but that’s an historical discussion and not the focus of this essay. The Roe abortion decision came in 1973, but ‘artificial insemination’ had been a reality for years prior to Roe. The first in vitro fertilization baby in the world was born in July of 1978 in England, after many years of research. Today, hundreds-of-thousands of children are born annually as a result of the IVF technique. Those children are our precious posterity,but like it or not the means to bring them into our midst has a dehumanizing effect on the earliest ages of their lifetimes.]

I cannot recall what I thought when first I learned that something could be conceived in a petri dish that would later be implanted in a woman’s body, to even later be born as a human baby. I have a vague recollection from my youth that some people warned against artificial insemination, warned that such manipulation of human conception would lead to a dehumanization process, a ‘slippery slope’. I don’t quite remember what was warned of down that slippery slope, but I don’t have to remember, because we are living in the age of arrival!

Now, at this descended-to plateau, engulfed in a degree of darkness not anticipated so long ago, we are again facing a slippery slope. How will we come to recognize it as a hazardous slope? … This time the hazard has a name. Will America reject cannibalism, despite the campaign to focus only upon the utilitarian value of cannibalism, diverting attention from the truth that we face cannibalism? If prepared properly, we will accept cannibalism, just as we accepted in vitro fertilization. [Note: I purposely repeat the word rather than allude to the reality. Cannibalism should have a revulsion value. Modern examples of cannibalism, such as the incident with plane crash victims who survived by eating the flesh of already dead crash victims, tend to blur our historic revulsion to cannibalism. Let’s focus upon the Jeffrey Dhamer version of cannibalism, the kill and consume version, as opposed to the ‘harvest from accidentally dead’ version of cannibalism.]

What could make cannibalism more palatable, more consumable? … Allow me to illustrate by sharing a recent discussion I had with a close cousin, a father of four.

My cousin asked me to explain a recent news story in which a research scientist was profiled for an heroic desire to cure his daughter’s spinal injury by developing protein matched tissues for transplantation. Nowhere in the story was the viewer (it was a TV presentation) given the underlying facts of how this tissue would be generated, only that stem cells closely matched to the daughter’s tissues would be harvested to treat her injury. As I explained the process of ‘therapeutic cloning’ (methodology the scientist intends to rely upon for the tissues he desires), my cousin displayed no revulsion to the process. No matter how graphic my description of the cloning and killing process, my cousin could see only the utilitarian value of the harvesting, never the cannibalistic reality of killing an individual human being conceived for the sole purpose of harvesting spare parts to treat the older individual human being. I was shocked that a well-educated man would not be repulsed by this cannibalism. Upon later reflection, I understood why. It’s that damn slippery slope!

Once the descending plateau is reached, an acceptance quotient has been established. In the case of therapeutic cloning, the acceptance quotient involves a speciously arranged ‘degree of humanness’ … a conceptus, or zygote, or embryo, or second (or even third) trimester fetus is not deemed a full human being. Nay Sayers will not be allowed to interfere with utilitarian value of the ‘conceive, support, kill, and harvest methodology’. Individual human life, prior to being born, is deemed ‘not yet a complete human being’ on our familiar darkened pro-choice plateau, thus to conceive individual human life, support that life, kill that life, and harvest from these ‘not yet complete human things’ is not defined as cannibalism. If these conceived individuals were admitted to be full human beings, would we still embrace the cannibalistic exploitation due to the utilitarian value of their individual designer body parts? The scientist of my cousin’s query most certainly would and my cousin would, because darkness this far down the slippery slope, this far down inside the funnel of dehumanization, is so great.

The pre-born are less human than the born? … Yes, when you strip away the rhetorical gamesmanship, the obfuscatory verbiage, that is what the arguments descend to, that is the dimness of our modern world. That is the plateau to which we’ve descended, from the seemingly innocent stage of artificial insemination then in vitro fertilization as merely medical assistance to natural conception. Touted as a boon to infertile couples, the in vitro fertilization process manipulated sex cells in a lab environment, conceived multiple embryos to be implanted in a woman’s uterus, stored excess embryos … and the process redefined the earliest age of an individual’s lifetime as but one stage ‘in a process that eventually becomes a human being’. So, where was the error in reasoning first made?

Sex cells are sub-units of organs; organs are sub-units of organisms; embryos are whole organisms. That was so quick, allow me to reiterate: cells are sub-units of organs, organs are sub-units of organisms; an individual human being is an organism; a kidney, for instance, is an organ of an organism.

In vitro fertilization manipulates, first, sex cells … sub-units of sex organs, organs of the parents. But if successful, in vitro fertilization conceives a whole, new organism … not just an organ, the whole organism! As the embryo grows, with the cell total climbing from one, to two, to three, to five, etc., the early cells are totipotent or pluripotent--less differentiated into the individual organs of the organism--thus the early cells are the organs of the individual begun with ‘petri dish’ conception, the assertions of Senator Orrin Hatch notwithstanding. [Senator Hatch claimed that conception doesn’t happen in a petri dish, possibly because Senator Hatch is pushing a bill that would allow therapeutic cloning, but not ‘reproductive cloning’. Senator Hatch has already decided that what is conceived in a petri dish and not allowed to live long enough to be born is not an individual human being, thus these ‘less than human’ beings will be fair game for killing and harvesting … fair game for his ‘to be protected’ form of cannibalism! Orrin Hatch’s reasoning has faltered at the difference between organs and whole organisms, thus he deems an embryo as no more than a non-differentiated organ that will ‘someday’ become an organism. And he’s patently and completely wrong!]

Whether in a dish or a human host, the embryo is an individual human being alive at the earliest age along the continuum we call a human lifetime. That fact is what was passed over so quickly when the debate over in vitro fertilization was squelched. That is the tiny error so grossly exploited to toss America down the slippery slope.

Now, after gradual descent (artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, amniocentesis, etc.) and later steep descent (abortion on demand, fetal tissue harvesting, partial birth abortion), we have arrived at a descended-to plateau beyond which is cannibalism, conceiving then killing individual human beings because their designer body parts at an embryonic age are of utilitarian value, of more utilitarian value than their unalienable right to life. Can ‘reasonable people’ agree to disagree on cannibalism, to allow the cannibalism to continue? May God have mercy upon America if such is reasonable at this stage in our nation’s life.

Friday, January 23, 2004

Hidden Agenda: Why Democrats Ghoulishly Protect the Roe v Wade Ruling

When the various states are calculated for number of abortions per capita, some states show higher rates than others. [This is also true for racial groupings, but we won’t go too much there in this screed.] If the laws governing abortion were written and enforced at the state levels, individually, and not controlled by the Roe and Casey and Doe Federal decisions (through the U.S. Supreme Court), what would be the long-term effect, statistically?

The truth is so shocking when considered, it is not a stretch to believe the DNC and liberals in general have realized the effect and thus have become even more determined to keep the Roe ruling as the law of the land!

Let’s peel the banana and take a look at the very real potentialities of repealing Roe and Doe and Casey.

In effect, what we’re suggesting is a complete reversal of what the rulings in Roe, Doe, and Casey accomplished. Those rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court accomplished the nullification of state statutes in effect that regulated abortion in the various individual states. Famous abortion related cases arose in Texas, Pennsylvania and other states, but the rulings set precedent for the nation as a whole (the Stenberg v Carhardt ruling was over a Nebraska statute banning partial birth abortion, but the effect was a nationwide prevention of such statutes taking effect in other states that had addressed the horror).

Within eighteen to twenty years, the number of citizens in the liberalized abortion states would fall behind that of the more restrictive states. As demographics shift, so does voting power! Some would argue that females in restrictive states will just drive to the more liberal state to hire a serial killer. Yes, they will, but the very presence of laws restricting the killing to only the most dire circumstances will have an influence on the developing children/teens and upon women for whom truth can still help them make life choices. Eventually, the states where restriction is signed into law will become the more populace, overall.

Can this be? Well, to check the possibility, turn to the statistics on traffic fatalities held by insurance companies. When the state speed limit is max at 65, those states realize a lesser death toll from speed related traffic deaths than states where the max is 70. It is a real effect and is reflected in costs for certain insurance products as regulated by the collected statistics. Consider another insurance related area, that of risky behavior in life insurance premiums; when risks such as smoking are factored into premiums, smokers pay higher rates because their behavior kills them earlier, on average.

Actuarial statistics are cold and impersonal. It is a fact that if the nation was moving toward a more liberal climate in the 1970’s, abortion killed off 44,000,000 potential liberals since 1973. Oh, to be sure, not all would have been liberal as they matured, but the greater number would have been because the trend was in that direction and is still in that direction, even with a significant percentage of 44,000,000 not around to bolster the liberal tides!

One final vague substantiating note: has Jesse Jackson or any other Politically motivated race peddler ever explained what the loss of so many aborted black children has meant to the demographics of blacks in American population percentages? No, and they wouldn’t dare, because what these spiritually bankrupt people have been championing for three decades has actually resulted in black people becoming a lessened demographic percent of population while other minorities have risen, minorities that didn’t practice such high rates of abortion over the same three decades.

There are other factors in demographics that effect population percentages, but actuarial tables would certainly show a paradigm shift in the nation’s population centers, over time by state, when the abortion holocaust is removed from Federal controls and returned to the states where dealing with homicide and citizens’ behavior is best addressed. The Democrat Party wants none of that sort of shift! Perhaps that’s why they work so hard to prevent any Federal judge being appointed who might question the constitutionality of the Roe decision. Oh, they’ll tell us they are trying to protect ‘a woman’s reproductive rights’, but since when is the right to hire an educated serial killer to off the already alive unborn a reproductive procedure?

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

And Now For Something Different ... and my Spanish is not good!

Do we have any Spanish speaking readers who would like to translate the below linked manuscript for Spanish speaking pro-life folks? Contact me at the e-mail addy in the right margin if interested.

Cada curso de la vida humano individual tiene un principio. La ciencia indica inequívoco que el concepto es ése que comienza para por lo menos un individuo por el concepto. ¿Los embriones humanos son organismos humanos, apenas pues el lector es un organismo humano, no un?clump de células? como reciente el dehumanization de embriones por los medios ha deducido.

¿Después de treinta años más de holocaust del aborto, ahora está América a emprender canibalismo como uso aclarado de maravillas médicas? Sí, el canibalismo, para ése es exacto cuáles es la metodología de la copia y de la matanza, y por lo menos un estado, Nuevo-Jersey, ha abrazado ya el reaprovechamiento de individuos humanos nuevamente concebidos, aprobando leyes para hacerlo legal entonces para concebir los diseca para sus piezas de cuerpo. Explotando los embriones humanos para sus piezas de cuerpo, sus células de vástago, están como seguramente canibalismo como si los techs médicos fueran colocar embriones en las galletas y servirlas a la gente enferma.

¿Para prevenir el?a-hah? el fenómeno (donde el americano medio realiza repentinamente que la reproducción de la investigación es reproducción definida por el uso diseñado del individuo concebido más bien que por una cierta diferencia real en la reproducción) allí ha sido un esfuerzo consciente de ocultar la verdad. Primero, los científicos intentaron llamar sus métodos que se reproducían orientados que cosechaban reproducción?therapeutic?, pero esa piel del didn?t la verdad cannibalistic suficientemente, cambian tan verbiage a la reproducción del?research?. Pero la concepción de un humano individual nuevo que se cosechará para sus piezas de cuerpo de la célula de vástago sigue siendo el objeto de la metodología.

¿Entender mejor las tecnologías implicadas en la explotación embrionaria de la célula de vástago y la reproducción humana, un manuscrito nuevo? America, We Need To Talk los?has encerrado y ofrecimos libremente al público.

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

It Is Time To Ban Human Cloning

[Does anyone read archived blogs?... That's why I'm reposting a few of last years entries.]

Why did the President call for a ban on human cloning, and the House pass such a ban that the Senate is now obstructing?

For the vast majority of Americans, the acceptance quotient regarding nascent life falls somewhere between ‘legal protection for all conceived individual human life’ and ‘legal protection for partial birth abortion.’ With acceptance of in vitro fertilization, followed eventually by the apparent necessity for some legal abortion, our society too quickly arrived at acceptance of, no, defense of, infanticide. Our society can degenerate further.

A straight-line course from our current reality will have us embracing the notion that ‘exploitation of embryonic life is needed to bolster unencumbered lives of worthy pursuit.’ Because of our tacit acceptance for the extreme treatment of individual prenatal life--forceful withdrawal of life support, abortion--it is assumed (in New Jersey, Delaware, and California, so far) that we will accept conception of individual human lives and then killing those individuals for their body parts (embryonic stem cell exploitation and therapeutic cloning). That’s cannibalism.

To legally exploit individual embryonic life, someone must arrange our agreement that killing and harvesting embryos is not the same as killing an individual. Scientists who would carry out these medical marvels know differently. Here's the key to their reasoning: embryology holds as axiomatic that individual human life is a continuum with a beginning at conception, so those seeking legalization for embryonic exploitation must promote the blatant lie that ‘embryos are not individual human life’ ... or worse, have the nation agree that these are individual human lives, exploited in earliest stage of their ‘less worthy life’, defining a higher purpose for the body parts of these embryonic individuals, to sustain others. The first level of agreement is based on a calculated lie; the second descending level of agreement is acceptance of cannibalism based on that same specious axiom that embryos are not human individuals existing at a normal age in a human lifetime.

Many people warned of a slippery slope back when outrage over in vitro fertilization was squelched.

Exploitation of nascent life is now a reality: the fetal tissue harvesting industry, with more than a billion dollars in business receipts, already influences when a woman ought to have the abortion she seeks, because fetal tissue differentiation makes later rather than earlier killing and harvesting of the fetus more desirable to those who will profit from the killing. But things can get worse: 1) embryonic stem cell exploitation now demands the conception and killing of untold numbers of embryos; 2) therapeutic cloning is based on the in vitro fertilization / conception of individual human life, with killing and harvesting as the goal when the embryo has differentiated sufficiently to make specific target-cell identification reliable. Both of these 'scientific advances', if they are not to be outlawed, require our nation to accept the specious notion that an individual human life doesn't begin with at least first cell division (onset of mitosis).

Having read this far, some (perhaps some like Senator Orrin Hatch, or nearly every Democrat elected to current office) will assert "But an embryo in a petri dish is not the same as an implanted embryo, not the same as a fetus, not the same as a born child, not the same as a toddler, not the same as …" Using a continuum argument to arbitrarily eliminate earlier ages along the continuum glares paradoxically, for the very science now hurrying to exploit embryonic life is convinced an embryo IS an individual human lifetime begun. "Outrageous assertion,” some will say. Okay, let the goals of their scientific pursuits speak for the scientists.

With in vitro fertilization, a female gamete is fertilized by a male gamete (gametes are the ‘sex cells’ of the adult male or female). Once cell division is evidenced and the embryo reaches a desired number of body parts (the embryo’s stem cells), the individual embryo is placed into the uterus of the target woman. [In most cases, several individual embryos are implanted at the same time; if too many achieve life support, the attending medical personnel will advise aborting one or more, to improve the odds for the escaping survivor].

The technician watching the product of fertilization in the ‘petri dish’ is looking for cell division, to assure that an individual human life has begun to express itself, to grow.

The technicians must achieve transfer from petri dish to human uterus at a specific stage in cell division; if they try implanting too early, the embryo will not have the sticky coating it creates which allows for attachment to the uterine wall. Timing is crucial along this life continuum as the embryo tries to survive. [If you’re still wondering, this continuum concept of individual human existence is the same reasoning regarding the onset of puberty, for example, as a normal stage in a human lifetime. The life continuum is hallmarked by form and function; even an embryo is defined by form and function of its body parts, its stem cells.]

The methodology of technicians seeking embryonic stem cells or technicians seeking to clone life have much in common with the in vitro fertilization process.

The clone is a close genetic duplicate of a parent DNA donor. With the goal of a conceptus in mind, the clone technician seeks to use a mature female gamete only, from which the chromosomal nuclear ball has been removed and the 46 chromosome nuclear material of the ‘adult donor’ is inserted. [‘Adult donor’ refers to an organism with a normal compliment of 46 chromosomes, not to the age of the donor.] In some cloning procedures, the product of male/female conception is stripped of the 46 resulting chromosomes prior to first cell division, and the 46 chromosomes of the donor are inserted.

If the cloning technician seeks to fully reproduce the genetic donor, the conceptus is observed for evidence of cell division, then, just as with typical in vitro reproduction, the embryo is inserted into a woman’s uterus for continued life support of a proven individual human organism that is a close genetic duplicate of the DNA donor. If the technician desires ‘therapeutic cloning’, instead of reproduction for a fully expressed parent donor, the embryo is not always implanted in a woman’s body (but in some procedures it is); before too many months, this individual is ‘harvested’, killing a being conceived for a ‘tissue specific’ cloning purpose. Both types of cloning reproduce the donor; the chosen destiny for the newly conceived clone defines the procedure … a short lifetime for a harvest target, or a long lifetime as an individual identical twin.

With cell division, the newly conceived human life is constructing its own space capsule (the placental bubble and the fluid that inflates it) and its own individual body and blood. In fact, it is the newly conceived individual who commandeers life support from the woman’s body; it is the embryonic individual who initiates its own growth and development AND its protection in the environment where it exists, forming a barrier that prevents the host from recognizing the other life inside her, so that her rejection response doesn’t kick in to expel the ‘visitor’.

Why is it important to realize that an embryo is a human being at an early age along a continuum of individual life? Because embryonic stem cell harvesting and therapeutic cloning aim to cannibalize individual human life.

Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for body parts? If it is, that's cannibalism as surely as eating body parts for medical cures. Perhaps that's why this President has called for a ban on all human cloning.

Now, back to what I do for the fun of it … fiction.

Scientographic Magazine:

Dateline, Inverarnan, Scotland and Sun City, Arizona, USA:

Today, the holy grail of medical sciences was realized, as scientists combining two diverse technologies verified the efficacy of their unique abilities.

Scientists building nano-sized arrays of molecule manipulators succeeded in sandwiching a cloned embryo between wafers of tasking circuits. A patient suffering from Parkinson’s will swallow a small double-layered wafer which will dissolve in the gut, dissolve all but one tiny activated circuit completed from one surface to the other of the sandwiching wafers, that is. Because of breakthroughs in circuit fixating, scientists have achieved near impossible isolation and protection from digestion for selected embryonic stem cells destined to grow a new source for the brain chemical failing in a Parkinson’s sufferer.

It is fully expected that this combined technology can stimulate the growth and regeneration of target organs throughout the body of a somatic cell donor in this therapeutic effort.

This circuit fixating technology has a bright future for further application of nanobotic manipulations in cosmetic surgical treatments. Not only can you be cured of heretofore incurable ailments throughout your extended lifetime, it will soon be possible to have the appearance you’ve always dreamed of, within reason, of course.

Spokesperson for the World Council of Churches issued a statement praising this achievement as the long prayed for freeing of humankind from the ravages of illness and genetic flaws, lifting humanity toward virtual immortality.

Citing hastily conducted polling of the American streets, this medical breakthrough has been met with mixed feelings, as most express doubts that they will be able to afford the application of the technologies.

Spokespersons for the National Democratic Party confirm that their minority legislators are drafting a bill to fund the technologies, in continuing efforts to provide unlimited, free healthcare to all Americans throughout their lifetime. In opposition, a spokesperson for the National Abortion Purveyors Rights Association has stated that they intend court actions designed to block extensive harvesting of female human gametes without the full participation of NAPRA owned Planned Parenthood facilities.

The newly formed company, Wafer Nan-E, holds exclusive patents on the combined technologies and anticipates no hindrance of their efforts in service to mankind, since the public demands newly developed measures to defeat disease and aging. Clinics are already scheduled for opening in France and Germany, with wafer production facilities in the planning stages all across Britain. It appears the ailing Chunnel will be bustling again, as technology marches on in service to humankind.

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Enlightened America?

[The following was posted on this blog last year; time to revisit the notions since the dnc is gearing up for their obfuscatory primary.]

America is assumed to be more enlightened than three plus decades ago. Is it? I can remember when Americans were outraged by TV coverage of newborn seal pup fur harvesting.

Can you imagine?… Men clubbed newborns in the head and skinned the pitiful things, alive or dead, while the mothers looked on, then left the bloody carcass at the mother's wailing side and moved to the next one! In the harvester's wake were thousands of bloody dead or dying seal pups next to their mothers! Can you imagine such inhumane behavior?

Can you imagine, decades later enlightened society now condones and promotes as a woman's right to choose the procedure known as partial birth abortion? Tell me how it is less inhuman to jerk a fully alive 16 week or older prenatal infant feet-first from its mother's body, except the head, which remains lodged inside, then jam blunt-tipped scissors into the struggling infant's soft skull and suck out its brains so the remains pop out of the woman's body into the waiting hands of the abortionist serial killer. [Brain-body connections start working quite efficiently by week 16 from conception, regarding pain sensing!] Is it less inhuman to profit then from the baby's remains, by sending all or part of the *harvested* prenatal infant off to research departments?

The only difference now from then is that the behavior murders human babies and harvests the remains, instead of seal babies. Can you imagine? Right here in America, more than 15,000 times a year, this inhuman behavior and worse occurs. Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Patty Murray, Tom Harkin, NOW, NARAL, and the entire DNC field of presidential hopefuls call it a woman's right to choose such a slaughter in the lying name of 'reproductive health', and they're proud to promote it in order to get votes!

Can you imagine? The babies being serial slaughtered in such a way are not defective, not a danger to the mother's life, merely unwanted except for their useful body parts. If that's the enlightenment of the modern political powerbrokers, we ought to 'abort' the powerbrokers not the struggling children!

Sunday, January 11, 2004


Definition :

Amniocentesis is a diagnostic procedure performed by inserting a hollow needle through the abdominal wall into the uterus and withdrawing a small amount of fluid from the sac surrounding the fetus.

Why the test is performed:

The test can detect chromosomal disorders -- such as Down's syndrome, structural defects -- such as spina bifida (open spine, where the vertebrae fail to close), anencephaly (a condition in which the brain is incomplete or missing), and many rare, inherited metabolic disorders.

Later on in a pregnancy, the test may be used to identify suspected problems such as Rh incompatibility or infection.

Late in the pregnancy, lung maturity can be determined using this test.

What the risks are :

There is a slight chance of infection or injury to the fetus. There is even a smaller chance of miscarriage. This test is typically performed when a problem is suspected, so the benefits outweigh the risk.

Okay, so what good is this 'diagnostic' testing if there isn’t an individual human being already in the womb to be tested? Shoots a huge hole in the serial killing abortion supporter’s lie that the ‘fetus’ (Latin for little child) isn’t yet a human being. If amniocentesis wasn’t specific to the already alive individual in the womb, it would have zero value for diagnosis of the child exiting into the air world in a few weeks or months.

Truth is, the newly conceived individual human built the placental sac that is punctured with the diagnostician's needle to extract some of the amniotic fluid the newly conceived individual has accumulated that 'blows up the placental bubble'!

Saturday, January 10, 2004

From The Washington Dispatch http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_7573.shtml
A Modest Proposal, Courtesy of Abortion, Inc.

Exclusive commentary by Daniel Stephens

Coordinator American Life League's Rock for Life project

American Life League's Rock for Life project

Jan 9, 2004

A similar idea was brought to light more than 200 years ago, although it was thought so absurd it was written as a satire. In 1792, Jonathan Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and Making Them Beneficial to the Public.” This essay, written as an “answer” to the epidemic potato famine raging in Ireland at the time, suggested that women of poor stature should rear their children for one year, and then sell them as food to rich families in order to gain income. This would save the children from their meager, poor existence and a certain life of crime, provide food to the upper class, and help the poorer families out of their squalor. It also suggests that domestic violence would be reduced as well as alcoholism and other social ills.

What Jonathan Swift took for granted was that people know humans aren’t livestock to be raised for feed (or for cloning, or for their stem cells). He took for granted that we, as people, regard human life with dignity. How could he have expected that here we would be, some 200 years later, slaughtering our children using the argument that it is good for them? Even in the course of his essay, Swift condemns the practice of abortion, as it seems some women were turning to desperate measures to avoid the burden of another mouth to feed (specifically in cases of adultery).

“There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions,” wrote Swift, “and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.”

Even in the midst of such poverty, Swift knew that the idea of killing a child because he or she was “unaffordable” was inhuman at its core. Hence the wonderful irony of his satirical presentation suggesting we raise children like farm animals in order to save the kingdom.

I would draw the reader’s attention to the cannibalism of individual humans at their embryo or earliest fetal age, a trend some scientists and technology companies now wish to have US swallow as enlightened application of medical technology. And they have powerful politicians aiding and abetting them! To get more background info about these issues, try this link.

Thursday, January 08, 2004

UNR researcher's stem-cell work lauded / Elaine Goodman / Reno Gazette-Journal / October 22nd, 2001


It sounds like a science fiction novel but researcher Esmail Zanjani’s experiments at the University of Nevada, Reno are real. Zanjani injects human stem cells into sheep fetuses. The sheep grow up to have human cells growing throughout their bodies.The proportion of human cells is small, and the sheep don’t show any outward human characteristics.

The experiments could lead to ways to treat genetic diseases while a child is still in the womb. The research might also produce hybrid human-animal organs for transplant into humans, with less chance of rejection than a purely animal organ. And Zanjani’s sheep give researchers a unique way to study stem cell behavior.
Most other stem cell research involves putting animal stem cells back in the same species of animal, or studying human stem cells in laboratory dishes. Zanjani’s work looks at how human stem cells behave inside an animal.

“This is one of the best models that exists today,” said Dr. John Wagner, a stem cell researcher at the University of Minnesota. “It was a very helpful breakthrough.
Wagner and other stem cell researchers across the country send Zanjani stem cells to test in his sheep. Before Zanjani’s sheep, stem cell researchers were limited to testing their cells in mice, Wagner said.

So far, Zanjani has used human bone marrow or umbilical cord blood stem cells in his research. Those stem cells don’t involve the destruction of an embryo.

Now that President Bush has lifted a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, Zanjani expects he’ll test those cells in his sheep, too. [The President didn't lift a ban, he imposed a ban on future embryocide for programs that seek Federal funding.]

Zanjani said he’ll need to get approval from the National Institutes of Health, which funds much of his research, before he works on embryonic stem cells in his laboratory. “In a couple of years, we’ll know a lot more than we know now,” he said.

Zanjani has worked with sheep since the 1960s. The 61-year-old scientist has a sheep poster and toy sheep throughout his cluttered office at the Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Reno.

Zanjani tried working with goats for awhile, but that didn’t last long. “They ate my papers,” he said.

A native of Iran, Zanjani earned his doctorate in experimental hematology at New York University and has been a professor in the University of Nevada School of Medicine in Reno since 1987.

Sheep work well in Zanjani’s research because their development closely mirrors that of humans.

Zanjani injects sheep fetuses with cells from human bone marrow or umbilical cord blood. The cells are injected before the animal’s immune system develops, so they’re not rejected as foreign.

Zanjani studies the sheep after they are born and grown up to see whether the human cells survive. Usually, human cells can be detected throughout the animal’s body.

Zanjani is hoping his research will lead to procedures to cure genetic diseases while a child is still in the womb.

Stem cells have been implanted into human fetuses to correct genetic immunodeficiency. Further study could lead to treatment in the womb of other genetic diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, Zanjani said.

But scientists still have much to learn about stem cells. For example, umbilical cord stem cells have been used to successfully treat leukemia. But the amount of cord blood is so small, researchers are looking for ways to multiply the cells in the laboratory before injecting them into patients.

“The more stem cells you give, the better the outcome (for the patient),” said Wagner of the University of Minnesota.

Researchers need to know if the stem cells grown in the lab work as well as the ones straight from the umbilical cord. Zanjani’s sheep system lets scientists such as Wagner treat stem cells in different ways and test them in a living animal.

Another possible application of Zanjani’s work is xenotransplantation, the transfer of an animal organ into a human. For example, doctors might be able to remove stem cells from a patient with liver disease, inject them into a fetal pig and transplant the newly grown pig-human liver into the patient.

The hybrid liver, with human cells matching the patient’s genes, would have less chance of rejection than a purely animal organ.

“It would certainly be better than giving them a pig liver with no human portion,” Zanjani said.

While some researchers sing the praises of embryonic stem cells and their potential to become any cell type in the body, Zanjani prefers the umbilical cord cells. He calls embryonic stem cells “untamed beasts.”

Unless treated in a special way, the embryonic cells will grow unchecked when injected into an animal’s body, essentially becoming cancer cells, Zanjani said. “Embryonic stem cells cannot be used as they are,” Zanjani said. “You have to instruct them to do something.”

Yet Zanjani is pleased that President Bush decided to lift the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. [The President didn't lift a ban, he imposed a ban on future embryocide for programs that seek Federal funding.]

Only by studying the different types of stem cells will scientists be able to determine which ones have the most potential, Zanjani said.

But Zanjani hopes that lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research won’t drain money from studies on other types of stem cells. “It will be a major, major shame if they divert a large portion of the funds to one at the expense of the other,” he said. © 2001 Reno Gazette-Journal

Wednesday, January 07, 2004

Greater potential of adult stem cells revealed
[http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cloning/cloning.jsp?id=ns99993723 ]

In a claim that could profoundly affect the future of stem cell research, scientists at biotech giant Genzyme say that many supposedly different kinds of adult stem cells are in fact indistinguishable. Stem cells hold enormous promise for treating disease.

The experiments appeared in a little-noticed paper late in 2002 (Tissue Engineering, vol 8, p 739), but are now gaining attention. If the conclusions are correct - and this is far from settled - those in the field may be in for quite a ride.

At issue are basic questions about how many different types of adult stem cells there are, what they are capable of and how to distinguish between them, not to mention who owns the patent rights.Because adult stem cells are present in everyone, they are easier to obtain than the embryonic stem cells taken from 10-day-old embryos, and far less controversial. Until recently, however, it was thought they had only limited potential.

That changed in 2002, when New Scientist revealed that Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota had discovered "multipotent adult progenitor cells", or MAPCs, apparently capable of giving rise to all tissues in the body, just like embryonic stem cells (26 January 2002, p 4). The work was later published in Nature.

Such cells could be taken from an individual and used to generate any kind of tissue needed by that person, such as muscle tissue for repairing damaged hearts.

--There's more at the link--

Tuesday, January 06, 2004

Riken Genomic Science Center has produced a textbook sized tome containing 60770 clones of mouse complementary dna. Researchers can simply punch the clones out of the page, dissolve them in water, amplify them with the polymerase chain reaction, and put them to use. [http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994445 ]

Yoshihide Hayashizaki from the RIKEN Genomic Sciences Centre in Yokohama, Japan, devised a mouse encyclopaedia that looks like an ordinary hardback, but the paper is water-soluble and instead of words, the pages contain a series of dots that hold duplicate copies of the DNA forming the 60,000 known active mouse genes.

To "read" the book, researchers punch out the paper dots containing the DNA clones - copied from the genes expressed in mouse cells - and dissolve them in water."

The paper disappears and DNA appears," says Hayashizaki. Within a few hours, unlimited copies of the genes can then be made using the DNA amplification technique PCR. Only 10 copies of the mouse encyclopaedia have been published so far.

Alison George

Sunday, January 04, 2004

Is It So Elementary, Dr. Watson?

2003 marks the fiftieth years since the discovery of the double helix, the shape of the DNA molecule that carries the message identification for an individual in a species. The April 2003 edition of Scientific American magazine carried an interview with James Watson, one of the Nobel Winners credited with defining the double helix of DNA (pp 67 – 69).

James Watson is an avowed atheist. [par 4, column 2, p. 68] That perspective didn’t seem to hinder his scientific work, but it impacts his opinions on issues such as abortion and manipulation of nascent human life. Stating as exemplary the opinions of a truly great scientific mind has subtle affectation on the ‘public mind’, on public opinion.

Whether a member of society has a religious belief or not, it is grossly misleading to have a great scientist waxing over ethical and moral issues under the guise of ‘knowing better than the average Joe’, simply because that person has reached so high an understanding of a particular topic or puzzle in science. To illustrate, refer to the last five paragraphs of the article, where in the fifth from the last, Watson waxes over the question of political supervision over scientific rigors. He says of this societal supervision, “ I think they’re so contentious, that the state shouldn’t enter in. Yes, I would just stay out of it, the way [government] should stay out of abortion. Reproductive decisions should be made by women, not the state.

I mean, cloning now is the issue. But the first clone is not like the first nuclear bomb going off. It’s not going to hurt anyone!”

There are many characterizations that could be issued regarding Dr. Watson’s assertion, but the greatest problem is his assumed dehumanization of the individual lives severely handicapped and dead during the effort to produce one healthy clone. It will damn sure ‘hurt’ those ones!

But that’s the point of the denigration exercise: only the healthy clone will be afforded the designation of a person, all other lives along the way will be designated as something less worthy of personhood. It is the same with abortion: the individual human little ones alive and sensing in the womb are designated as less than worthy for personhood simply upon the efficacy of whether the woman wants them to continue living. Nothing more complicated or deep than that, personhood is to be a function of arbitrarily designated worth.

Is it really that clear, is this arbitrary dehumanization that easy to spot? Well, in the next to last paragraph of the article, Dr. Watson states the following (and too many will swallow it without thinking) : “People say, ‘Well, these would be designer babies,’ and I say, ‘Well, what’s wrong with designer clothes?’ If you could just say, ‘My baby’s not going to have asthma,’ wouldn’t that be nice? What’s wrong with therapeutic cloning? Who’s being hurt?” Indeed, if one has adopted the belief that the earliest age along the continuum of a lifetime is not an age of the individual to be born, dehumanizing for purposes of exploitation, convenience, and expedience is easy to embrace. But the clones conceived and slaughtered for their stem cell body parts will definitely never see a sunrise, or play with a puppy, or hug their own child … because they will be killed as if the cannibalism hurts no-one and only helps the recipient of cannibalized parts.

Ultimately, it is the society that is dehumanized with such transactional ethics, arbitrarily assigning worth to a class of fellow human lives based on their utility rather than their humanity. That’s not so elementary a dismissal as Dr. Watson would have us believe.

Thursday, January 01, 2004

Confusion regarding stem cells, and specifically embryonic stem cells, revolves around understanding earliest individual human life.

The cells you’re born with aren’t the exact same tissues you have at thirty. Using sound reasoning, the development of a human body is a continuum that reaches from conception to natural death--hopefully eighty years or more after conception.

All tissue in the human body is composed of or built by cells; all of an individual human being’s cells are derived from the first diploid cell formed at conception. We are each first a human being in our body at the moment of chromosomal union and expression, a union that generates our first diploid cell of bodily existence (under normal conditions, each cell has 46 chromosomes; 23 from male and 23 from female).

There is no point after conception when 'pre-human' somehow magically transforms into human being, for we ARE a human being from conception onward, destined hopefully to develop through a long continuum of changes and growth.

Life for every individual human begins at their individual time of conception; bodily existence is a continuum of developmental changes from that moment onward, until death. Even the early embryo exhibits a will to live by seeking life support from the woman’s body.

Stem cells derived by killing embryos conceived for in vitro fertilization have been in the news lately. The National Institute of Health (NIH) will require an informed consent form from the parent(s) of the embryos killed prior to the president’s speech. Harvesting the organs of a deceased individual human being usually requires a consent form.

I’m thankful the president didn’t allow federal dollars to be spent for new killing of individual human beings in their embryonic stage of life.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?