As time marches on, the slippery slope becomes more and more evident. Hardly a year ago we were hearing an almost unanimous chorus that they would only use the leftovers from in vitro fertilization when conducting stem cell research. They would not create new embryos just for the purpose of killing them to get their embryonic stem cells. Further, they wouldn’t create human clones to be killed at the fourth or fifth day to obtain those elusive embryonic stem cells.
But a year later, the slippery slope has been greased. The main chorus we’re now hearing from these same voices sounds a bit different. Now they do want to clone humans but do not want to implant them and bring them to term. The reasons they give are in terms of abnormalities, deaths, etc. They don’t mention any moral reasons, of course.
But while they would oppose this “reproductive” cloning, now they sing a different tune regarding research cloning or, as they misname it, “therapeutic” cloning. Now we hear a chorus stating that if we would only allow research cloning, we could cure just about every disease in the book. Of course, the evidence of any such cures has been slim to none, whereas the evidence for cures by adult stem cells frequently comes tumbling at us with information of new successes. But now, quite contrary to what they were saying one year ago, they seem to feel that it is crucial to the future health of the world to allow them to clone and kill.
If they can change their minds on this so rapidly inside of one year, just what do you think their positions will be a few years from now?
Very recently in Washington, someone applied for a patent on how to make a “humouse.” Yes, you read that right, half-man and half-mouse. And no, it wasn’t Disney, it was a serious person.
Think a moment now. This person wants to do two awful things. He wants to create a half-animal, half-human. Further, he wants a patent on his manufacturing process. Is human life a commodity?
Increasingly, it seems obvious that we must stop this. Every nation should completely forbid any human cloning.
News On Immune Cells
The new stem cell discoveries you’re hearing about, almost without exception, have related to embryonic stem cells. These are the stem cells that can only be obtained by killing a four or five-day-old human embryo.
You aren’t hearing many of the developments that are coming from adult stem cells. When you use adult stem cells, you don’t have to kill anybody. You just use that individual person’s own cells, and these may be as available as skin cells. Adult stem cells have distinct advantages over embryonic ones. If a stem cell is taken from another embryo, your body may reject these cells the way it would a transplanted organ, but not if it’s a cell from your own body.
Further, embryonic stem cells are very plastic, that is, they can turn into almost anything else, but we don’t know how to control them. They have a tendency to grow wild and to form tumors, while adult stem cells don’t do this.
Recent news from the journal Nature is an all but ignored development by the media, but has great promise for treating diseases like diabetes, immune deficiencies, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, etc. Scientists have converted stem cells into immune cells, calling the process “direct and elegantly simple.”
But we’ve seen a nearly complete suppression of news on this new discovery. In contrast, the secular media continues with their frantic arguments that embryonic stem cells are best. Of course, they never mention that to get embryonic stem cells, in each case, the researcher must kill a tiny new human.
In a recently publicized, nationwide public opinion poll, Americans rejected embryonic human cloning 59% to 26% better than two to one even if it cured cancer or other major diseases.
“Destroy” Or “Kill”
Those of you who try to keep track of the ongoing debate and progress of stem cell research and cloning, please take note. In everything I read, when the subject arises, we hear about surplus embryos being “destroyed.” We hear about research experimentation on them, after which they are “destroyed.” We hear about research, or “therapeutic” cloning and experimentation, after which the clone is “destroyed.” But think a moment. We don’t destroy living humans. If we violently end their lives, we call this killing. We destroy things. We kill people. If we, as pro-lifers, continue to use the word “destroy” when we talk about the direct killing of a human embryo or a clone, then, by virtue of that wording, we help to dehumanize these tiny humans. When we dehumanize them, it’s easier to kill them. So let’s quit using “destroy” when we talk about the violent elimination of a living human embryo. Let’s start to use the correct word: kill.