I got this in my email a few days ago and i though it might be an interesting thing for the rest of you to see. I in no way represent the ideas represented in this article, however i did agree with some of the points.

To: Journalists and Commentators

From: Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
(202) 626-8820, or send e-mail to Legfederal@aol.com
For further information, see: http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/

Re: John Kerry's doubletalk on cloning human embryos

Date: August 24, 2004


Senator John Kerry is misrepresenting both current government policy and the scientific facts regarding medical research using human stem cells.

At the same time, Senator Kerry is trying to obfuscate his support for using CLONING to mass create human embryos for research. Two national polls released yesterday may point to the motive for this doubletalk.

Some of Kerry's many recent distortions regarding "stem cell research" are critiqued in a recent column by Will Saletan, the chief political correspondent for Slate ("Revelation of the Nerds: The religion of stem-cell research," August 10, 2004).
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104983/

The sweeping implications of Kerry's positions, particularly with respect to the use of cloning to produce human embryos for research, are explored in "The Party of Cloning," by Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (The Weekly Standard, August 30, 2004). http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/496nwmnv.asp

The practice of using cloning to create human embryos for research is often referred to as "therapeutic cloning" (although a more objective and neutral term is "cloning for research"). Kerry has endorsed so-called 'therapeutic cloning' for years. ["While I am opposed to reproductive cloning, I believe that the process of somatic cell nuclear transplant (SCNT), commonly referred to as therapeutic cloning, should be protected." Kerry letter of Sept. 3, 2002.] On July 13, 2004, Kerry cosponsored a bill (S. 303) to allow the mass creation of human embryos by cloning solely for research, as long as they are not allowed to continue developing past 14 days. This bill has nothing whatever to do with so-called "excess" embryos created and stored in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics.

Kerry's sponsorship of this bill was specifically referenced by a staffer on the national Kerry campaign, quoted in a news story that appeared in the August 10 Wall Street Journal:
Kerry policy director Sarah Bianchi says the Kerry bill prohibits cloned embryos from developing for more than 14 days or from being implanted in a uterus so they could produce live births.
(The entire August 10 WSJ story, "Kerry treads cloning tightrope," is reproduced below.)

Yet, in blatant contradiction, this same "national policy director" was quoted as follows in the August 19 Associated Press story:
Bianchi said Kerry would allow scientists to study leftover embryos that had been created for infertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded. Kerry is "absolutely not" suggesting creating embryos for the sole purpose of research, Bianchi said.
(The AP story appeared in USA Today here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-20-virtual-candidates_x.htm )

Innumerable prominent supporters of "therapeutic cloning" have acknowledged what should be obvious -- somatic cell nuclear transfer (sometimes called "nuclear transplantation"), using a human nucleus, produces an embryo of the species homo sapiens, otherwise known as a human embryo. This is "human cloning," even if it is conducted for some purpose other than giving birth. (If the cloning process did not produce a human embryo, it could hardly turn into a human baby if implanted in a uterus, and the ban on implantation in the Kerry bill would make no sense. Dolly the cloned sheep began as Dolly the cloned sheep embryo, and so it has been with every other cloned mammal.) For quotes from pro-cloning or neutral sources demonstrating that "therapeutic cloning" creates human embryos for research, see:
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/factsheetembryo.html
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/gearheart022603.html

Why, then, the new claim by Bianchi that Kerry "absolutely [does] not" favor creating human embryos for research? Perhaps the Kerry campaign's internal polling has found results similar to those of two new polls, which were conducted independently in mid-August using scientific polling methods (by coincidence, both were released on August 23):

Wilson Research Strategies, Inc., 1,000 national adults, August 16-18, 2004, margin of error 3.1%:
Which of the following comes closest to your view?
1. Cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research which would kill them should be allowed and only cloning for reproduction should be banned: 24%
2. All human cloning should be banned: 69%
3. Don't know / refused: 7%
[Other questions and answers in this poll relating to stem cell research are found here:
http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/NRLCStemCellPoll.pdf ]

International Communications Research, weighted sample of 1,001 adults, August 13-17, 2004, margin of error 3%:
Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?
Yes: 13.3%
No: 79.8%
Don't know: 6.1%
Refused: 0.7%
[Other questions and answers in this poll related to cloning and other forms of embryonic stem cell research are found here: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-163.htm ]

In the new essay linked above, Eric Cohen writes, "So it seems Democrats are now poised to cross yet another ethical and political boundary: federal funding for the creation, study, and destruction of cloned human embryos. . . . the ideology of stem cells has made the Democrats the party of cloning. And like all true believers, they believe inconvenient facts can be ignored and that history is on their side."

Journalists should not be enablers in Kerry's attempt to deny the inconvenient fact that "therapeutic cloning" involves the mass creation and destruction of human embryos, nor should his campaign be indulged in its new claim that he does not favor the very result that the legislation he has cosponsored would authorize.

I know its a long article but i didn't dare leave out anything lest it spur a multitude of flaming political fireballs.

I believe as with nearly every scientific breakthrough. The general population is against this because they are afraid of the results or the conflicts with their traditional values regardless of the potential of the science to assist our culture and society. Maybe in a few hundred yrs we will look back and think that we were ignorant for calling out these medical scientists just as we now think people were ignorant for ostracising those that thought the world was flat?

Okey dokey. Granted you have a point Noobguy, but we are talking about the generation of lives with the specific purpose of exterminating them to "benefit" of mankind. I suppose you could liken therapeutic cloning to breeding livestock for food. Though to me its is a reprehensible thing to raise a creature merely kill a creature for no other purpose than for food, i can understand the reasoning behind it. For the embryotic stem cell research i cant really find any justification for it. If you could clear that up for me that would be great. I'm not saying this to be flip, its just one of those things that gives me a migrane thinking about it.

ooh, ooh another hot topic...:P

Stem cells by definition are cells that have not differentiated into whatever type they are needed to be by the body. They can become brain cells, neurons, blood cells, muscle cells, etc. Therefore it could be possible to create stockpiles of kidneys, hearts, livers, etc that way no person would ever die 'on the waiting list' or pehaps be a way of repairing the damaged organs...also it may become possible to find cures to diseases like cancer or AIDS. It also could very well hold a way to become the fountain of youth itself.

However, stem cells are not only found in embryos, they are also found in bone marrow(although in lesser quantities). For me this would and should be the prefered way to deal with the issue. In the very least, allow researchers to study these stem cells, perhaps from their own bodies and then put off this very controversial topic 'til we actually find some useful purpose for them(if one can be found).

yes, another hot topic...

I agree with noobguy about whatever we do will be viewed upon in the future as our opinions, morals, politics getting in the way of scientific advancement.
Such is the way of things, the future will always view the pasts actions with an enlightened eye.

Putting politics aside,
My questions is... Is it right to create life just to destroy it, to save or improve another life?
I have no religious convictions to cloud my viewpoint on this issue, but still I'm left with a moral dilema.
BTW non religious people can and do have morals.
My gut reaction right now is, "No" we should not do this.
My reasoning is a follows, Science has found a way to use something for a cure.
Mostly it involves the destrucion of another life to do it.
Or to study it.
I fear that there may be another way yet not discovered to accomplish the same cure.
Just because we found "A" way to do it does not mean it's the only way.

I can imagine giving the go ahead for the cloning of embryo"s and harvesting them for study and a cure, destroying the embryo's in the process.
I can also imagine that 1,2 or 5 years down the road science finds another way to cure the same conditions that don't involve the destrucion of life.
How would I feel then if I agreed with "the end's justifies the means"?

It is true that I might feel differently if I were afflicted with an aliment that this would cure.
However I do have a nephew that it would benifit.

I have always been a scientific minded person, but right now my answer would be NO,

Just because science can do a thing doesn't mean science should do the thing.

My opinion for what it's worth!

I agree with you.
You definitly dont have to explain to us the fact that non religious people can have morals.
I am agnositc and so is Brett, and I believe both of us have our own set of values and morals.
I see what you mean about comming out with a new solution. But think about it this way. If I were a person with aids, and I didnt have long to live, I dont think I would want to wait for the "chance" of another solution comming out. And I also think I would be offended that people would consider the "life" of a stem cell more important than my fully developed life no?

The problem there is that you're still going to be waiting. Stem cell research isn't yet in the practicable state of development. Even then it's still hypothetical it may be impossible to make anything of use given today's technology.

Also a stem cell itself isn't more important, but the stem cell may have come from an embryo which you've killed...is that life less important than your own? But, then you come up to, "Why not just use your own cells to regrow your own organs?", this seems viable. (once again if this technology actually advances)

Noobguy...

The life of a stem cell is not my issue I'm wrestling with, it's the killing off of an embryo thats my dillema.
As Brett says there are other sources of stem cells that offer the same potential as embro stem cells do.
Stem cell research is still just that-research, it offers much promise I agree, but as it is right now it's not a cure and "may" not prove to be one either.
If stem cells can be harvested without killing an embryo, then I have absolutley no problem with it.
My problem with the issue is to end one life to save another.
To me it's not the issue of "one" embryo such as in abortion.
It's what would happen if the permission were given for the embryo reaserch.
My imaginings of thousands upon thousands of embryo's being killed off for reaserch.
A type of mass genocide of life in general with blatent disreguard of such that scares me.
True, if I were in a position you mentioned ie: aids
I don't know if my attitude would change, I would like to think it wouldn't, but it's like going to war, some people say they would never shoot another person no matter what.
Put them on the front lines with a loaded rifle and their prespective changes "most of the time". For me to try to imagine myself in that position is a matter of pure speculation that right now I could not give an honest answer to.

I agree with you on this Stevenet, and I'm only 13 so I don't know a whole lot about this, but do people actually know if using stem cells will create the solution to problems they say they can cure? Just wondering.

Who knows, Kathleen. That's the reason for research. A zygote is a cell (a fertilized ovum before cleavage) with vast potential, far beyond that of the flat earth society or the creationist theory.

Kathleen...

Here is a link to visit and read, there are many more available to you and I encourage you to read all viewpoints and make up your own mind. Never make a decision by what others say, we have our opinions and as you can see they don't all agree.
Stay informed and believe in your right to decide for yourself.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/7/201806.shtml

Looks like California is ago for stem cell research.

True, it has gone thru, below is a brief on it.
My question is, if they can't "clone" to get embryo stem cells then what embryo's are they getting them from?

I also see that the proposition is not just for embryonic stem cells.

Proposition 71 specifically supports all types of stem cell research, including adult, cord blood and embryonic stem cell research. It gives priority to research that is not receiving adequate or timely funding from the federal government, particularly embryonic stem cell research. That’s because there is a clear funding gap in that area of research and because scientists believe embryonic stem cells have the greatest potential to provide cures for some of the most debilitating diseases and injuries. However, all forms of stem cell research will be eligible to receive Prop 71 grants.

Proposition 71 specifically prohibits any funding for human reproductive cloning. Moreover, such human reproductive cloning is already illegal under state law.

now that the debate has calmed a bit here, I will ask the question that I've wanted to bring up the moment i saw this topic...

What is the purpose of medicine?
-is it to improve the quantity or quality of a person's life?

If quantity, what happens if we learn to live forever or at least much longer lives...surely ecological problems begin to arise...and even then, morally, should people live forever?

If quality, what does this mean? If a person gets a broken leg it obviously means that gets fixed up...but what about say cancer...if one had cancerous cells does that mean they should just be killed because of the obvious trauma and pain that goes along with surgery? Obviously this would be improving the mean overall quality of a persons life.

With food and gas getting so expensive we might have to start eating stem cells in order to survive.

haha tbob.

I do a lot of research on this field. It is extremely interesting if any care to do thier own homework.

I would just like to remind everyone that Stem Cell Research is NOT all about using embryonic cells as its only source. There DO EXIST stem cells in our bone marrow, and in umbillical cords that are useless after birth.

There was actually a very interesting documentary on the Discovery Health Channel.
There was an old man suffering from heart disease. They took a scan of his heart and revieled that much of his heart is inactive or destroyed. He had very little time left to live. In an experimental surgery, they used his own stem cells from his bone marrow and placed them near the areas of inactive heart cells. In a matter of weeks, the scans revieled that almost all of his heart muscles became active. It really turned his life around.

My point is, is that I myself do not believe in using embryonic cells as the main source. Adult stem cells are more powerful than we previously thought, and I think that funding should go into this type of research. Wouldn't it be amazing to revitalize possibly nerve cells using our own cells? We could cure so many diseases.