When God spoke about Jeremiah, He wasn't talking about cells. He was talking about his foreknowledge of Jeremiah. The text says "BEFORE I formed thee in the belly", so this was nothing to do with conception. God was speaking about even before that. The fact that God has foreknowledge has no bearing on the subject of whether He chooses that every conception grow to fruition. Or that He ordains every conception. That's like saying because He knew sin would exist, and made plans in advance, He ordained it.

I don't agree with the practice of cloning - animals or humans - to grow them to maturity. There are few justifiable reasons to do this. But if cloning a few stem cells of your own can mean you don't have to live on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life, then I believe there is good reason for this. (The technology hasn't reached that stage yet, anyway.)

I think the question still boils down to whether at conception something sacred has occurred. If someone is raped, and they become pregnant, has something sacred occurred?

Does anyone on this forum suffer from any diseases that are genetically-based? Or have a child or relative who has diabetes or a more devastating condition? Please don't tell me two days of growth in a lab dish has an automatic claim on life, just because it has all the information to grow into a person. And that bunch of cells has the potential to ease, cure and prevent untold suffering among those already in existence.

Andrew, this is not an "either/or" topic. Both life, AND choice are sacred. They aren't mutually exclusive. Choice is so sacred that God allowed His Son to die, rather than enforce His rules by other means, or re-making our brains. Thank you for your comments re not doubting people's sincerity on this matter. The Catholic-driven anti-abortion lobby is also the most vocal against this research. They have managed to taint the thinking of many people about ethical issues, and the world blindly follows. And the whole theology is based on the immortal soul which comes into existence at the moment of conception.

If the preservation of life is so absolute, why did many Seventh-day Adventists protest loudly when one of our medical institutions transplanted a babboon's heart into a baby in an attempt to save the child's life?

quote:

---

Originally posted by zyph:
Kristina, we do not have souls. We ARE souls.

---

I know that. I just meant I don't know *when* it occurs - when we actually are born and draw our first breath, or when we are alive in our mother's wombs. I just didn't phrase it well.

quote:

---

The bible says a body plus breath = a soul. You can twist it all ways to fit your beliefs

---

And my beliefs are???? I'm not twisting anything - I didn't choose the best way to describe something is all. I don't appreciate the accusation, particularly since it is false. My previous post was a series of *questions* - it was not a statement of beliefs on the subject. I asked those questions because those are questions I *have*, and I thought I would like to see some discussion about them.

If I have a point to make, I'll come out and make it. I won't twist, imply, or ask questions in order to make a point without having to actually say it. I'm pretty direct and straightforward, and I don't play word games or have hidden agendas. [And this is not to say that you or anyone else thought I do -- I'm just making myself clear is all.]

quote:

---

Does anyone on this forum suffer from any diseases that are genetically-based? Or have a child or relative who has diabetes or a more devastating condition?

---

Yes - and that has to do with if one believes something is right or wrong how? I thought you disliked people basing their opinions on this subject on emotion -- my *feelings* about my son's condition have nothing to do with whether or not cloning is right or wrong.

Kristina

The only point, therefore, that I'll respond to is my question about relatives with genetic-based diseases. I wasn't actually appealing to emotion in the sense you understood. I WAS appealing to understanding - the understanding of the pain and chronic suffering that those closest to these people develop. There is an appeal to emotion on both sides of the spectrum, but only those who have truly suffered or those who have observed the suffering, have a concept of what a cure might mean. (Obviously those already born or living with illness may not benefit.) You're absolutely correct in saying our feelings do not make something right or wrong. But you might agree that there are certain situations when the lesser of two evils must be decided, because there are no simple answers.

I'm sorry to hear that your son has the sort of health problem I referred to, and I wish you all the best as you support him.

Friends?

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: zyph ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by zyph:
Kristina, the only sentence in that paragraph directed at you was the one about "we are souls".

---

Ok - thanks for clearing that up and for the kind words. I'm sorry that I seemed to be *so* upset by your post -- I was bothered by what I thought you were saying, but I wasn't angry, if you understand what I mean. I'll have to work on conveying that more clearly.

quote:

---

The only point, therefore, that I'll respond to is my question about relatives with genetic-based diseases. I wasn't actually appealing to emotion in the sense you understood. I WAS appealing to understanding - the understanding of the pain and chronic suffering that those closest to these people develop. There is an appeal to emotion on both sides of the spectrum, but only those who have truly suffered or those who have observed the suffering, have a concept of what a cure might mean. (Obviously those already born or living with illness may not benefit.) You're absolutely correct in saying our feelings do not make something right or wrong. But you might agree that there are certain situations when the lesser of two evils must be decided, because there are no simple answers.

---

I'll definitely agree with you that there are no simple answers. That's why all I had were questions. Maybe I don't truly understand what you are saying with regard to the emotions/understanding of it, although my dad does have diabetes -- my son's conditions isn't going to kill him, or even make him physically ill. But I think that the discussion of whether or not cloning should be legal should be conducted separately from any considerations like that -- I think it will only obfuscate the issue.

quote:

---

Friends?

---

Absolutely. I like discussions - I even like disagreements, as long as it's not personal -- I [hopefully!] would never hold a grudge against anyone just because we disagreed.

Kristina

Here's the article in the Student Movement:

Cloning Shocks Public
Andrews Graduate Sparks Controversy With Announcement
--------------------------
Erin FitzGerald, Editor-In-Chief

November 28, 2001 | The announcement of human embryo cloning splashed across the news on Sunday, catapulting Dr. Michael West, an Andrews University alum, into the media hot seat. As the CEO of Advanced Cell Technology, a small Worcester, Massachusetts scientific research firm Dr. West, who graduated from Andrews University in 1982 with an MS in Biology, instantly became the man of the hour.

The news sent shock waves through the scientific community, as well as the general public. The pope quickly denounced it and President Bush urged Senate to quickly push through legislation banning further research.

Senators, equally disturbed by the news, have decided to reconcile their differences and cease bickering over the cloning debate long enough to push through legislation. They’d previously decided to put off the debate until February or March.

The House passed a cloning ban in July that would make it illegal to clone human babies. The ban also prohibits the cloning of embryos for research, which is what ACT has announced their intentions to be.

The biggest debate among the American public is perhaps best summed up by a quote from Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee. "Unless Congress acts," said Johnson, "we’ll be reading that this company or another has opened a human embryo farm."

In Rome on Monday, the Vatican quickly condemned the cloning, saying that even the possibility of saving other human lives (via the cloning and growth of organs for transplants, etc.) does not justify the destruction of an embryo.

Daniel Perry, executive director of the Alliance for Aging Research countered with, "There is a big difference between cloning a human embryo in order to create a human being and using laboratory techniques to produce stem cells and other cellular therapies to treat diseases such as Parkinson’s, cancer or Alzheimer’s."

Senator Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts touched upon the feelings of many Americans when he commented "I strongly oppose the use of cloning technology to reproduce a human being. But we must also protect essential areas of medical research involving cloning technology, including stem cell research. This research holds enormous promise for achieving breakthrough cures for the dreadful diseases that touch almost every family in America."
At this point Senate watchers said it’s unclear whether lobbyists would be able to force a vote on a cloning bill, being that the Senate’s already so busy with anti-terrorism and economic stimulus bills.

Dr. West was not available for comment at press time.

Wendy

__________________________
In His Love, Mercy & Grace

Daryl

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]