<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Friday, February 13, 2004

Borrowed from a friend

Every time a pro-abortion dolt (like Governor Granholm, or John Kerry, or Teddy Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer, or Tom Harkin, or Diane Feinstein, or Frank Lautenberg, or Hillary Clinton and/or her deviant husband) says we don’t know when life begins, the following should be tattooed on their forehead.

Is the following a secular enough agreement!!??

When does life begin? http://www.roevwade.org/upl39.html

* In 1981, a US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Speaking on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

* "The Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence. Human life began at conception "

* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

* Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

* Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

In Steinberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology."

"Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."


Pro-Choice Advocates Agree that Abortion Kills Humans.
http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/casey/ch3.html#S4

Many abortion advocates have agreed that abortion kills human life: A 1963 Planned Parenthood brochure says that life begins at conception: This is a direct quote "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

Former Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton admits that the preborn are alive in her 1986 book:

"There are many sperm cells in the [seminal] fluid. If one of them meets an egg cell inside the mother, new life can begin to grow... If one of your friends is pregnant, ask her to let your child 'feel the baby move.' ... A baby grows in a special place inside the mother, called the uterus -- not in her stomach. In nine months it is born."

Similarly, Dr. Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood has stated that "[a]bortion is the taking of a human life" and Dr. Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood and founder of the Guttmacher Institute, the research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, has stated "[f]ertilization has then taken place; a baby has been conceived." While many abortion defenders readily concede that abortion kills human life, it is necessary to expound on this point because examining the nature of the unborn human being at the point of conception shows the inherent dignity that we all share from our biologic beginnings that are hidden from eyes of the world.

Not only have representatives from the nations largest abortion provider agreed that life begins at conception, but others who support abortion have agreed that abortion is murder. Dr. Magda Denes who performed two years of research in an abortion facility and compiled her results told a Chicago newspaper "There wasn’t an (abortion) doctor who at one time or another in the questioning did not say ‘this is murder.’"

This so called “Women’s Right to Choose…to abort her baby” has as its foundation, three main points:

1. It must ignore universally acknowledged biological facts,

2. It denies federal and state laws that clearly identify the unborn as a person with rights.

3. It promotes a blatant lie that “It’s” a woman’s body” When clearly “IT” is her baby

Thursday, February 05, 2004

Here’s an excerpt from an excellent essay regarding cloning. Google this man Smith for more great reading. The complete essay is available for reading at http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL01/pro_biomedical.htm or Click Here



PRO-LIFE CHALLENGE


Biomedical Ethics

The Radical Depth and Scope of the Cloning Agenda
By Wesley J. Smith

Ever since embryonic stem cells were first extracted from human embryos in 1998, biotechnologists, abetted by a compliant media, have promised they would soon lead to miraculous medical cures for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

First, we were told, all that would be needed were stem cell lines extracted from "surplus" embryos "left over" from in vitro fertilization procedures, a procedure that destroys the embryo. Then, when fears were raised about auto-immune tissue rejection, we were told that what we really need is so-called "therapeutic cloning."
(Proponents insist this be distinguished from "reproductive cloning," cloning from which a baby would be brought to term and delivered. But both use an identical technique. The only difference is that laws promoting "therapeutic cloning" mandate that the new human life be destroyed.)

The premise of this dubious argument: because the DNA of the cloned embryo and patient will be almost identical, once biotechnologists learn to make cloned embryos of patients, the clones can be destroyed for their cells and tissues for use in medical treatments without worrying about rejection.

What hokum. There is a myriad of practical and ethical obstacles that almost surely make "therapeutic cloning" a pipe dream.

Scientists haven't yet been able to successfully clone a human embryo to the one-week stage where stem cells would be sufficiently developed for extraction. Moreover, it is completely unsafe at this time to use embryonic stem cells derived from any source in human subjects because they tend to cause tumors.

More importantly - - and this is the great story that the Establishment Media insists on all but ignoring - - adult stem cells and other non-embryonic tissue therapies continue to advance toward human use at a breathtaking pace. Indeed, not only have the animal studies been remarkable, but human patients have also already been treated successfully with their own stem cells in medical trials.

Consider this very partial list of adult and other non-embryonic stem cell success stories that you probably didn't read in your local newspaper:

* Brain function in five human patients with advanced Parkinson's disease was partially restored using a natural body chemical known as glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF). One year after the infusion of GDNF, all patients had clinical improvement of motor function and the ability to perform activities of daily living.

* In another Parkinson's case, a patient treated with his own brain stem cells appears to have experienced a substantial remission with no adverse side effects. Dennis Turner was expected by this time to require a wheelchair and extensive medication. Instead, he has substantially reduced his medication and rarely reports any noticeable symptoms of his Parkinson's. Human trials in this technique are due to begin soon.

* It now appears that cells taken from a patient's own bone marrow or blood are able to restore cardiac function. In Michigan, sixteen-year-old Dimitri Bonnville, who was shot through the heart with a nail and suffered a heart attack, has experienced marked improvement in his heart's ability to pump blood after being treated with his own blood stem cells. (This was such big news that even the New York Times covered it.) Meanwhile, in Brazil, four out of five heart transplant candidates treated with their own bone marrow stem cells are reported to no longer need new hearts.

* Harvard Medical School researchers reversed juvenile onset diabetes (type-1) in mice using "precursor cells" taken from spleens of healthy mice and injecting them into diabetic animals. The cells transformed into pancreatic islet cells. The technique will begin human trials as soon as sufficient funding is made available.

* Severed spinal cords in rats were regenerated using gene therapy to prevent the growth of scar tissue that inhibits nerve regeneration. The rats recovered the ability to walk within weeks of receiving the treatments. The next step will be to try the technique with monkeys. If that succeeds, human trials would follow. This is tremendous news that cannot come close to being matched by "therapeutic cloning" experiments in animals. A new era appears to be dawning in which our own cells will be the sources of very potent medicine. Rather than having to choose between morality and the wonders of regenerative medicine, it increasingly looks like we can have both, since with adult stem cells no human lives are taken nor are humans created and exploited as mere "products."

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