Embryonic Stem Cell Question

[Nate]

On election day, citizens of the state of Michigan (of which I am one) will be able to vote whether or not to lift the current state-mandated restrictions on embryonic stem cell research (Michigan has more restrictive laws than the federal gov't). If this proposal passes, "left-over" embryos from fertility clinics will be fair game for research contingent upon the consent of the donors.

If I vote "yes", will I be guilty of murder/promoting murder? Is the creation of an embryo in a dish considered conception, or is that limited to the process happening in a female's reproductive tract? Anyone know of any good resources that address this question?

 

[Scott1]

You need to oppose lifting the protections in place.

Unfortunately, allowing this creates a market demand for aborted fetuses which we know from Scripture are human beings, created in the image of God. Not in life, not in death should human life or human bodies be handled like this.

The real benefits all along have been in adult stem cell research, which does not require destruction of a fetus, a fact which has been misrepresented by major media in presentation of this issue.

Remember also, the financial angle on this. Abortion providers will benefit financially from this directly and in a round-about way which is why major media promoted this so much in the couple weeks before the President ordered federal restriction on the practice.

Amazingly, after the federal decisions were made, the "crisis" need for fetuses to do research to prevent all serious diseases, suddenly disappeared. Don't allow yourself to be manipulated on this.

 

[Herald]

Conception begins foremost in the mind of God from eternity past. In my humble opinion technical human conception begins at fertilization. Any intentional destruction of an embryo is murder.

 

[Leslie]

What happens to the left-overs now? If they are discarded anyway, then it's a choice between death and death. On the other hand, if they are used for research, it will only encourage the fertility docs to fertilize more and more, something that I consider immoral. Also, there could be money under the table to induce women to provide what the researchers need. Is there a limit as to how many eggs per woman?

 

[Herald]

As an aside, my wife experienced premature ovarian failure in her early 30's. We wanted more children and it seemed out of the question. We visited a reproductive specialist who recommended a procedure where he could extract some of my wife's eggs and then fertilize a number of them. They would then be inserted via artificial insemination. I asked about the unused eggs and was told they could be saved for another try or disposed of. Tempting? For just a brief moment. My wife spoke up before I did and said, "No. We will not do that." We never did have anymore children but we are convinced God was glorified.

 

[Herald]

What happens to the left-overs now? If they are discarded anyway, then it's a choice between death and death. On the other hand, if they are used for research, it will only encourage the fertility docs to fertilize more and more, something that I consider immoral. Also, there could be money under the table to induce women to provide what the researchers need. Is there a limit as to how many eggs per woman?

Leslie, would you take a pre-born or new-born infant and submit him/her to medical science in the name of research? If you answer "no", how can you rationalize research on embryos?

Jeremiah 1:5 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you;

And they are not "leftovers." They are human beings.

 

[Nate]

You need to vote no.

Unfortunately, allowing this creates a market demand for aborted fetuses which we know from Scripture are human beings, created in the image of God. Not in life, not in death should human life or human bodies be handled like this.

The real benefits all along have been in adult stem cell research, which does not require destruction of a fetus, a fact which has been misrepresented by major media in this.

Remember also, the financial angle on this. Abortion providers will benefit financially from this directly and in a round-about way which is why major media promoted this so much in the couple weeks before the President ordered federal restriction on the practice.

I've heard this stated before and checked it out. No aborted fetuses have ever been used for this type of research - after ~14 days of cell division, the embryos have passed the point of usefulness for embryonic stem cell research. Abortion providers may benefit from other types of medical research, but I don't think they benefit from this.

But I do agree with you that any research that links hands with abortion providers is not an option.

 

[Nate]

What happens to the left-overs now? If they are discarded anyway, then it's a choice between death and death. On the other hand, if they are used for research, it will only encourage the fertility docs to fertilize more and more, something that I consider immoral. Also, there could be money under the table to induce women to provide what the researchers need. Is there a limit as to how many eggs per woman?

The left-overs are thrown away or frozen indefinitely. MOST fertility programs will only work with people that are willing to create many more embryos than are usually needed, thus the extras. (Some fertility programs allow the creation/implantation of one embryo at a time, but it is extremely expensive).

There seem to be provisions written into the proposal to make it illegal for anyone to benefit monetarily from selling eggs/embryos. There are also so many thousands of frozen embryos, that this would seem unnecessary.

 

[Nate]

As an aside, my wife experienced premature ovarian failure in her early 30's. We wanted more children and it seemed out of the question. We visited a reproductive specialist who recommended a procedure where he could extract some of my wife's eggs and then fertilize a number of them. They would then be inserted via artificial insemination. I asked about the unused eggs and was told they could be saved for another try or disposed of. Tempting? For just a brief moment. My wife spoke up before I did and said, "No. We will not do that." We never did have anymore children but we are convinced God was glorified.

It's good to hear that you seriously considered the effect of producing more embryos than you might have needed. It's sometimes mind-boggling to think that if IVF-produced embryos are in-fact humans, then there are untold thousands that have been frozen at this extremely early stage for decades.

 

[Nate]

Jeremiah 1:5 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you;

And they are not "leftovers." They are human beings.

I think this speaks to one of my questions. These embryos have not been and will never be in a womb. Am I being too technical if I say this verse only applies to persons who have experienced the womb?

 

[Herald]

Jeremiah 1:5 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you;

And they are not "leftovers." They are human beings.

I think this speaks to one of my questions. These embryos have not been and will never be in a womb. Am I being too technical if I say this verse only applies to persons who have experienced the womb?

Yes, you are being too technical. Artificial insemination did not exist in Jeremiah's day.

This is not difficult. God predestined each and every life in eternity past. Life is actually conceived at conception: human life! The purposeful destruction of human life is murder. That a Christian can even think otherwise boggles my mind.

 

[Scott1]

No aborted fetuses have ever been used for this type of research - after ~14 days of cell division, the embryos have passed the point of usefulness for embryonic stem cell research.

Not sure where you are getting that information.

Aborted fetuses have been used for this research, probably illegally, and it will increase a whole bunch if the protections are lifted.

Also, life begins at conception, there is no "usefulness" in God's eyes pre or post 14 days. This is a slope that once it is descended will create a gruesome back channel market for death for money- this is something every abortion provider will benefit from and that's why they and their associates in major media are promoting it.

 

[Herald]

What happens to the left-overs now? If they are discarded anyway, then it's a choice between death and death. On the other hand, if they are used for research, it will only encourage the fertility docs to fertilize more and more, something that I consider immoral. Also, there could be money under the table to induce women to provide what the researchers need. Is there a limit as to how many eggs per woman?

Leslie, would you take a pre-born or new-born infant and submit him/her to medical science in the name of research? If you answer "no", how can you rationalize research on embryos?

Jeremiah 1:5 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you;

And they are not "leftovers." They are human beings.

Leslie, I misread your post. I apologize for being strong in my response. I thought you were advocating research on embryos. I'm sorry for that.

 

[Nate]

No aborted fetuses have ever been used for this type of research - after ~14 days of cell division, the embryos have passed the point of usefulness for embryonic stem cell research.

Not sure where you are getting that information.

Aborted fetuses have been used for this research, probably illegally, and it will increase a whole bunch if the protections are lifted.

I am getting this information from my formal education. An aborted fetus contains no embryonic stem cells, therefore, no use for them in this field. Aborted fetuses have been used for other research - anyone who has received their immunizations in the USA can be certian that they have directly utilized that research.

Mr. Brown, your advice is, again, addressing exactly what I was asking - is IVF considered conception. I agree that Life begins at conception, no question about that. I take your advice seriously that I'm being too technical. Can you point me to any resources to help me?

 

[Herald]

Mr. Brown, your advice is, again, addressing exactly what I was asking - is IVF considered conception. I agree that Life begins at conception, no question about that. I take your advice seriously that I'm being too technical. Can you point me to any resources to help me?

Nate, I'm not sure what resources you're looking for. The bible clearly states that life begins at conception. That should be resource enough to establish the sanctity of life.

 

[Scott1]

No aborted fetuses have ever been used for this type of research - after ~14 days of cell division, the embryos have passed the point of usefulness for embryonic stem cell research.

Not sure where you are getting that information.

Aborted fetuses have been used for this research, probably illegally, and it will increase a whole bunch if the protections are lifted.

I am getting this information from my formal education. An aborted fetus contains no embryonic stem cells, therefore, no use for them in this field. Aborted fetuses have been used for other research - anyone who has received their immunizations in the USA can be certian that they have directly utilized that research.

Mr. Brown, your advice is, again, addressing exactly what I was asking - is IVF considered conception. I agree that Life begins at conception, no question about that. I take your advice seriously that I'm being too technical. Can you point me to any resources to help me?

Many states restrict research on aborted fetuses or embryos, but research is often permitted with consent of the patient. Almost half of the states also restrict the sale of fetuses or embryos. Louisiana is the only state that specifically prohibits research on in vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos. Illinois and Michigan also prohibit research on live embryos. Finally, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota prohibit research on cloned embryos. Virginia's law also may ban research on cloned embryos, but the statute may leave room for interpretation because human being is not defined. Therefore, there may be disagreement about whether human being includes blastocysts, embryos or fetuses. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island have statutes that prohibit human cloning only for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy, or reproductive cloning, but allow cloning for research.

The national conference of state legislatures web site shows what is at stake- research on "live" embryos. Michigan prohibits it but now is asking Christians like you to lift the protections (and open the money floodgates)

 

[Nate]

Many states restrict research on aborted fetuses or embryos, but research is often permitted with consent of the patient. Almost half of the states also restrict the sale of fetuses or embryos. Louisiana is the only state that specifically prohibits research on in vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos. Illinois and Michigan also prohibit research on live embryos. Finally, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota prohibit research on cloned embryos. Virginia's law also may ban research on cloned embryos, but the statute may leave room for interpretation because human being is not defined. Therefore, there may be disagreement about whether human being includes blastocysts, embryos or fetuses. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island have statutes that prohibit human cloning only for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy, or reproductive cloning, but allow cloning for research.

The national conference of state legislatures web site shows what is at stake- research on "live" embryos. Michigan prohibits it but now is asking Christians like you to lift the protections (and open the money floodgates)

OK. I don't dispute the fact that IVF embryos are alive in the sense that when you thaw them out the cells continue to divide and mature if placed in the correct environment. I was under the impression that when you were refering to aborted fetuses you meant 1) something much more advanced and 2) something that was taken out of a pregnant woman.

With respect to the proposal that I can vote on, this is the wording of the ammendment that will be added to the State Constitution if the measure passes:

No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

This would seemingly prohibit the money floodgates from opening.

 

[Nate]

Nate, I'm not sure what resources you're looking for. The bible clearly states that life begins at conception. That should be resource enough to establish the sanctity of life.

I'll say it again. I agree that the Bible clearly states that life begins at conception. The sanctity of this life is not to be violated. If I didn't agree with you on this point I would have no problem voting "Yes" on the ballot. I guess what I'm having trouble with is the biblical definition of conception. You mentioned IVF was not present in Jeremiah's day... that's where I am in need of help. Is the biblical definition of conception the event of joining egg and sperm regardless of where this event happens?

 

[Galatians220]

Nate, I used to be a chapter chairman for Right to Life of Michigan. Here's what our local field representative, Michelle Burke, sent to us last month:

On the evening of Monday, September 22, Michigan Citizens Against
Unrestricted Science and Experimentation (MiCAUSE) will begin airing
the first Vote No on 2 television commercial.

It appears that we will beat our opposition in this crucial air waves battle.

At about 5 p.m. today, the micro-site for our campaign,
http://www.2goes2far.com/, will be fully functioning.

By visiting http://www.2goes2far.com/ (after 5p.m. today) you'll be
able to view our television commercial.

Feel free to pass this link on to others!

Michelle A. Burke
Field Representative
Right to Life of Michigan
Vote NO on Proposal 2! 2 Goes 2 Far!
Visit www.MiCAUSE.com
Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science & Experimentation

Please look into this before voting "yes" on the stem cell proposal.

I've said it before somewhere else on this board, but the way the embryos are initially formed is immoral. This should not take place. Women's ovaries are artificially stimulated with powerful hormones to produce multiple eggs for "harvesting," which can lead to ovarian cancer ten or twenty years hence. The way the sperm is obtained, well, that's "artificial stimulation," too. The whole thing is immoral. Bad means don't produce good ends - ever.

Margaret

 

[TimV]

This is not difficult. God predestined each and every life in eternity past. Life is actually conceived at conception: human life! The purposeful destruction of human life is murder. That a Christian can even think otherwise boggles my mind.

Bill, you come recently out of a dispensational background, and the fact that your mind is boggled isn't necessarily that another brother is certainly wrong on an issue.

The modern Roman Catholic idea shared by many Protestants that a soul is created in an embryo immediately upon conception may or may not be right, or maybe some times is. We just don't know. A twin can form up to the 8th cell division. So was there two souls in one "person" at conception? Does a soul split into two?

Under Biblical law the penalties differ for causing abortion before and after "animation", which should tell you something. The theology of ensoulation is also something that it wouldn't hurt you to read up on to understand how orthodox Christians may differ with you.

But I leave you with this. If a technician destroys some fertilized eggs after years that have never been in a womb, would you
a: Insist he be put to death if there were two or three witness to the act
b: Encourage your wife to adopt one of these "people" to prevent their death?

 

[Blue Tick]

Under Biblical law the penalties differ for causing abortion before and after "animation", which should tell you something. The theology of ensoulation is also something that it wouldn't hurt you to read up on to understand how orthodox Christians may differ with you.

Tim,

Can you a elaborate a little more on this?


Thanks

 

[Nate]

Thanks for the links, Margaret. I have read/listened to both sides of this issue for a few months now, and have been studying this issue for a few years. I'm quite familiar with the technical aspects of both IVF and embryonic stem cell research.

I'm not sure that I can come up with a valid answer to your statement that most methods for harvesting eggs/sperm are immoral - This is a good point and I will definitely take it into consideration.

I'd still like to find a resource for the biblical idea of conception (this is the type of resource I'm looking for, Bill). Earlier in this thread, someone stated that God blessed him with 3 children. However, if I am going to take the prevailing definition of conception on this thread (fertilization of an egg), I don't think that this person can say that God blessed him with only 3 children. Clinicians and scientists agree that many (between 25 and 50%) fertilized eggs never make it to the uterus implantation stage - therefore the pregnant woman never knows that she is pregnant. So it's likely that most couples have had at least one or two pregnancies that they never knew about. So, none of us know how many children God has really given us. Because of this, and the other points that TimV made, I wonder if the biblical idea of conception is more than just a biological definition.

 

[Grace Alone]

In light of Nate's last post, do we consider a woman pregnant when the fertilized egg never implants?

 

[py3ak]

There has been a great advance in understanding the detailed process through which a fertilized ova passes in its development. But it seems to me that there are only two options which aren't absolutely arbitrary: fertilization and implantation. But I should think there would have to be extremely strong evidence in favor of implantation as the commencement of human life. If we are as careful as we can be not to destroy a fertilized ova, or a zygote or a blastocyst we don't have blood on our hands; but if we take life to begin at implantation and are wrong about that.... Well, do you want to answer to God for that?

 

[Scott1]

Quote:
No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

This would seemingly prohibit the money floodgates from opening.

This is the same smokescreen they used in Missouri.

The amendment makes people think they are voting to prevent trafficking in fetuses or embryos but in reality, the amendment is designed to lift protections already in place to protect creating a market for experimentation on live embryos.

Don't fall for this deception.

 

[TimV]

Quote:
Under Biblical law the penalties differ for causing abortion before and after "animation", which should tell you something. The theology of ensoulation is also something that it wouldn't hurt you to read up on to understand how orthodox Christians may differ with you.


Tim,

Can you a elaborate a little more on this?

Hey, John

If you look at the OT passage often used when discussing the subject in Exodus 21

22`And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;

23and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,

24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

and compare it with the Septuagint

22 And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

While the verses aren't the clearest in Scripture, you can see why there's never been a death penalty for early abortion in any Christian society, at least that I know of, and at least not in a written code. The Hebrew could very well be talking about either the woman or child, but when you compare it to the Greek, it's more clearly talking about the stage of the child. Can you reconcile the two? I think so, but not here and not now. And yes, I know what Calvin felt, and he may have been right.

But my intention is more a consistant understanding of the subject to help people determine a course of action rather than to water down outrage against abortion.

So I ask Bill again, since he and he wife wanted more kids. If he or others really feel

Nate, I'm not sure what resources you're looking for. The bible clearly states that life begins at conception. That should be resource enough to establish the sanctity of life.

and

This is not difficult. God predestined each and every life in eternity past. Life is actually conceived at conception: human life! The purposeful destruction of human life is murder.

and the subject is human embryos, then

If a technician destroys some fertilized eggs after years that have never been in a womb, would you

a: Insist he be put to death if there were two or three witness to the act
b: Encourage your wife to adopt one of these "people" to prevent their death?
c: Something different?

I trust you know that there are women who do this, and they are being consistant with their beliefs, and trying to prevent murder.

I personally feel strongly that this teaching lays an extra Biblical burden on well meaning people, so teachers should be very careful.

 

[brianeschen]

I think this speaks to one of my questions. These embryos have not been and will never be in a womb. Am I being too technical if I say this verse only applies to persons who have experienced the womb?

What about babies who implant in the tube? They will sometimes even have a discernible heart beat and only die because the fallopian tube is inadequate to hold a growing baby. These babies have not made it to the womb, but are clearly alive.

 

[Christusregnat]

If you look at the OT passage often used when discussing the subject in Exodus 21

22`And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;

23and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,

24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

and compare it with the Septuagint

Tim,

The passage in question deals with two issues:

1. A fight resulting in some form of damage to the baby in utero

2. A fight resulting in no damage to the baby in utero

Your handling of the passages is, I believe, not reasonable. The point that Moses makes is that the baby's life in utero has the exact same set of rights as those outside of the womb: eye for an eye, life for a life, etc.

In other words, if you fought and hit a baby in the womb, and he was born with a defect, you would be fined, or given the same defect. If you killed the baby in the womb, and he is born dead, you die. Same rights as a born child.

Perhaps you can explain where I'm missing something.

As far as how this applies to little children in scientific experiments, the same rule applies. If anyone takes their life, or damages them, it is life for light, eye for eye, etc. They have the same rights as grown ups.

Cheers,

 

[TimV]

Tim,

The passage in question deals with two issues:

1. A fight resulting in some form of damage to the baby in utero

2. A fight resulting in no damage to the baby in utero

Hey, Adam

You could read the Hebrew to be talking about damage to the woman, and it would not surprise me to find out that has been the majority take on the verse. And you could read the Greek as damage to the woman causing the foetus to be born too early to live.

My point was it's not the clearest Scripture in the Bible.

As far as how this applies to little children in scientific experiments, the same rule applies. If anyone takes their life, or damages them, it is life for light, eye for eye, etc. They have the same rights as grown ups.

There are a lot of good people out there that believe this. I just want them clarify their thinking so they can be consistant. I don't see this particular subject the way you do, and would not demand the Biblical penalty for premeditated murder for a technician who destroys some fertilized eggs that the parents don't want any more. I don't see those eggs as having the same rights as someone who has been animated, to use the terminology of theologians who've worked on this subject. What's your thinking, since we agree on so much, I'd value your opinion.

 

[Nate]

I think this speaks to one of my questions. These embryos have not been and will never be in a womb. Am I being too technical if I say this verse only applies to persons who have experienced the womb?

What about babies who implant in the tube? They will sometimes even have a discernible heart beat and only die because the fallopian tube is inadequate to hold a growing baby. These babies have not made it to the womb, but are clearly alive.

Good point. I guess my answer is that I'm being too technical with that statement. Thanks!