Scientists Use Embryos Made Only for Research

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 11, 2001; Page A01

Scientists in Virginia have become the first in the world to harvest embryonic stem cells from human embryos that were created specifically for research and then destroyed to retrieve the potentially valuable cells.

Until now, researchers had derived stem cells only from donated embryos that had already been created in fertility clinics but were designated for disposal because they were not needed. The creation of new embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them for their stem cells runs directly counter to recent recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, the National Institutes of Health and the ethics advisory board of the European Commission.

The work drew immediate criticism from religious conservatives opposed to embryo research and from others who have been working to find middle ground in the heated political battle over embryonic stem cells. The cells show great promise for their ability to regenerate damaged tissues but are controversial because embryos must be destroyed to get them. . . .

Susan Lanzendorf, Gary Hodgen and their colleagues at the Jones Institute, part of the Eastern Virginia Medical School, consulted with clergy, ethicists, law scholars and others on the issue of creating embryos as an expendable source of stem cells. The institute's ethics committee concluded that "the creation of embryos for research purposes was justifiable and that it was our duty to provide humankind with the best understanding of early human development," the team reports in the July issue of the journal Fertility and Sterility, released today. A university ethics panel agreed.

The group extracted eggs from 12 women, who signed detailed informed consent documents and were paid $1,500 to $2,000 each, said William Gibbons, a reproductive endocrinologist there who was not involved in the work but was the only person the institute would make available to reporters. Of the 162 eggs collected and inseminated by donor sperm, 50 embryos were successfully created. The researchers destroyed 40 of those to get the stem cells that resided inside, from which three lines, or colonies, of stem cells were isolated and maintained in culture. The work was done with private funds.

Read the rest of the story.

------------------
For I know that my redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
_________________________

Linda

An embryo is not a baby, just the beginning of one. If left to grow and develop normally, it will become a person. Sperm and eggs are the same - if allowed to get together, a baby will result. Religions that believe in an immortal soul are against abortion because they believe the soul must be baptised or it will be consigned to hell or limbo. A human is made up of a body and breath (of life). When sperm and egg unite, you don't have a baby. Even after several thousand cell divisions, there is no baby. At eight weeks, the embryo is about as big as a thumbnail, and no pain can be felt until the completed development of the nervous system at about 24 weeks. I don't know how old the embryos are in the production of stem cells, but I'm sure they are extremely undeveloped, and aren't people yet. I think there are social norms in northern America (including Canada) which say Christians must be anti-abortion, and therefore against medical research which could enhance the life of those already born, at the expense of those not formed into people yet. I've heard a lot of right wing religious opinions, usually reserved for middle class politically minded protestants, on this forum. These were not the thoughts of most folk when I attended church. Has something changed? Or is this a local stance?

"A human is made up of a body and breath." Anatomically, cells breath. They must have oxygen to survive. So those few cells that form an embryo are breathing, not in the way we think of, but then neither is a baby about to be born. It won't draw its first breath until it is outside the womb, yet it breathes by taking oxygen though the umbilical cord which draws oxygen from the mother's blood. Thus this argument becomes invalid for supporting embryo and fetus destruction for any purpose.

"At eight weeks, the embryo is about as big as a thumbnail, and no pain can be felt until the completed development of the nervous system at about 24 weeks. I don't know how old the embryos are in the production of stem cells, but I'm sure they are extremely undeveloped, and aren't people yet." At what point is the embryo a person? Who is going to decide? I believe that decision alone belongs to the One who is our Creator, and He has set forth His views in Scripture:

quote:

---

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Psalms 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

"Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen." Isaiah 44:2.

"Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself." Isaiah 44:24.

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

---

God not only sees the unformed substance of those few cells that we don't want to call a person, he knows that person by name! He knows their future! They are written in His book! How dare we to think that we can destroy even those few cells with impunity and believe that it is nothing, that we have not destroyed a human being? I wonder sometimes if God weeps over those we have already destroyed, knowing that whatever they might have become will never be because we terminated them.

One last thing, ask any woman who has had even a very early miscarriage if she lost a child or if it was just a few cells. I haven't suffered a miscarriage, but those who have talk about the intense loss of a child. It may not have looked like a child, or even felt like a child, but it was a child.

------------------
For I know that my redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
_________________________

Linda

Hi Linda,

I lost two at three months due to "empty-sac"syndrome. That is where there isn't even a fetus in the amniotic sac. I can guarantee you that even though there was no visible baby present, those were my children. Emotionally and in every way possible, those were babies that I never would think to abort. Jesus I believe would have us treat the gift He begins within our bodies with more care and love than those who would snuff out a life before it even has a chance. I think it is completely vile that they are creating embryos and destroying them for the stem cells. I'd be willing to guess that Christ the great Creator feels the same way.

God bless,
Wendy

Then when a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant as a result, the rape was God's decision so that He could bring a certain person into existence?

Read about Jesus' ancestors Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38.

Was it God's will? It doesn't seem like it, but God can use something intended for evil to do good.

Evil brothers of Joseph victimized him, yet Genesis 50:20 says "But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to same many people alive."

I had a pretty "hairy" ride of circumstances that took me into this world myself but through the love of a good adoptive SDA family, things turned out OK.

------------------
You have done many good things for me, Lord, just as you promised. I believe in your commands; now teach me good judgment and knowledge. Psalm 119:65-66 NLT

[This message has been edited by Andrew Marttinen (edited July 20, 2001).]

Emotions do not make an untrue thing true. The truth of an individuals grief and loss is theirs, personal, real for them, but no amount of all these things creates a truth where none exists. I have complete understanding of what it is like to lose a child. I'm not getting into my stuff here, so you can either accept that or reject it.

The bible says many things, like God hardened Pharoah's heart. We know that doesn't mean God caused him to sin. Foreknowledge doesn't imply causation. God knew sin would enter. He therefore caused sin? Never. He knows the name and address of every human who will ever exist. He caused them to exist? Never. Ellen White said we could have been home if people had done the things they were supposed to. Therefore, there was no Godly plan that the world would still be operating as is at this point in history, or that I should exist.

John 1:13 NIV "... children born, not of natural descent nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." This text is talking about those who are children of God, and contrasts this with the other ways in which we come into the world.

So, God knows who will exist, but the end tally of who HAS existed will not be necessarily according to His plan. Otherwise, He is responsible for the bad "knitting" in a woman's womb when deformed children are born. And He brings into being the children who will die in poverty and misery on the streets of third world cities.

Bringing good out of bad is something God is excellent at, but the book of Job explains where the bad comes from.

If the stem cells from an embryo formed in a dish, and terminated - killed, if you will - before it grows beyond the basic cells (and no-one has argued that there is any inflicted pain) can ease the suffering of someone with a poor quality of life, someone who is already "cooked", then I think there is a place for this.

If our physical entity is the evidence of our existence - even when all that exists is a few cells - then to transplant living tissue from a recently-deceased complete human being onto another human is sacrilege, and should never be allowed. We should wait until the last cell stops breathing, and we all know that would make any form of transplant impossible. And Seventh-day Adventisits should never have blood transfusions, as these cells are alive and kicking, and the bible even says that the life is in the blood.

On the news last week, A senator or Congressman rebuted with the info, that the same work can be done with ADULT stem cells.

If that is true, what real agendas are running with this research as a cover ?

------------------
Edward F Sutton

As my doctor once pointed out, Hitler simply used, expanded and publically promoted stuff that was going on already.

------------------
You have done many good things for me, Lord, just as you promised. I believe in your commands; now teach me good judgment and knowledge. Psalm 119:65-66 NLT

As the argument over stem cells has increased (in the media) more information is coming to light. The research into stem cell use is as embryonic as the embryos they want to take the stem cells from. Science does not even know at this point whether or not this research will yield any viable results. As one scientist this morning on Fox News pointed out, a decade and more ago science was arguing that fetal tissue held great promise of cures for such maladies as Parkinson's disease. Today we know that it doesn't. Stem cells may be much the same way. At this time it is only hype that this is the cure for diabetes, Parkinson's, and a whole host of other diseases.

Stem cells can be gotten from adults as we all have stem cells, even in our brains. It can be gotten from the placenta and from the umbilical cords of new borns without destroying any kind of life. There is no need to take stem cells from embryos.

------------------
For I know that my redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
_________________________

Linda