Poll: Stem Cell Research

[Bruce Carriker]

Given the president's recent veto of stem cell research legislation, I thought it would be interesting to sample the opinions represented here.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

Given the president's recent veto of stem cell research legislation, I thought it would be interesting to sample the opinions represented here.

Your poll missed one important way: Put them up for 'adoption'.

There are many children born this way and they are known as "snowflake" children.

Blessings,

[Marg Webb]

I have never heard of the "snowflake adoption".
Do you have more information ..?
This may be new to the younger people.

[David Showalter]

Bruce, it seems like our technology has advanced beyond our present moral and ethhical discussions, debate and conclusions. I don't know if that means our moral/ethical input is super slow or that our technology is super fast, but I do indeed believe at this point they are miles apart.

[Bruce Carriker]

Edith,

If I were smart enough to do it, I'd edit the poll to add your option. Like Marg, I have not heard of this before or I'd have included it as a possibility. How common is it?

[Mark Doble]

You asked for it! :eek:

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm


INCREDULOUS!

[Edith K. Thurmond]

I have never heard of the "snowflake adoption".
Do you have more information ..?
This may be new to the younger people.

The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family (among other groups) have lots of information on this. Carrie Gordon Earl has been keeping "on top" of the statistics, etc. of this way of adoption for quite some years now. The couples who 'adopt' usually have been led by God to do so (according to their testimonies) and feel his guidance every step of the way in giving birth to a child/ren. Most of them say that they 'adopt' siblings and that it is a very good experience.

Blessings,

[Mark Doble]

INCREDULOUS to even imagine it!

You freeze an embryo, not yet life as it is un-pregnated, then you thaw it out say 50 years later for a couple that can not have children the natural way.

[Bruce Carriker]

Great info, Mark. Thanks. This sounds like a wonderful program.

Still, it seems that 99 adoptions out of over 400,000 frozen embryos leaves a large number of embryos that must be disposed of in some other way. It doesn't seem likely that Snowflake adoptions would ever be able to place all the unwanted, frozen embryos. Given the expense and the prerequisites for adopting, it seems unlikely that this type of adoption will ever be able to place 400,000+ embryos (with more being created all the time).

That sort of leaves us with the three options (realistically, only the first two) listed in the poll.

[Billy Cox]

INCREDULOUS to even imagine it!

You freeze an embryo, not yet life as it is un-pregnated, then you thaw it out say 50 years later for a couple that can not have children the natural way.

An embryo is the result of union between a sperm and egg. Some people might take issue with saying that 'it' is not life.

[Mark Doble]

Treading carefully; If embryos are not life I do not see a problem in disposing of them.

OOPSY, an embryo is a fertilized egg... LIFE blastodermic vesicle

How dare us play with such life!

[Mark Doble]

An embryo is the result of union between a sperm and egg. Some people might take issue with saying that 'it' is not life.

You are absolutely correct... I stand corrected.:o

[Bruce Carriker]

INCREDULOUS to even imagine it!

You freeze an embryo, not yet life as it is un-pregnated, then you thaw it out say 50 years later for a couple that can not have children the natural way.

Not yet life? I thought that was the crux of the whole issue? If they are "not yet life", then what's the problem with using them for research?

As far as "banking" frozen embryos for future infertile couples, is there some reason to believe that our grandchildren, great-grandchildren will somehow lose the ability to take advantage of this technology for themselves?

Is not the creation of embryos for the sake of implantation really just another manifestation of the selfishness of the present generation? Is there some vast, unreported shortage of adoption-eligible children in the world? If the desire is to be parents, are there not plenty of children who need parents? And if that's true, then isn't the desire to maintain our own gene pool through medically-assisted reproduction techniques mere selfishness and arrogance?

Dave talks about technology outpacing our ethics, or something to that effect...forgive me if I've misstated, Dave. In our selfish desire to reproduce ourselves, it seems to me we have spawned a major ethical dilemma...what do do with the unused embryos.

[Billy Cox]

You are absolutely correct... I stand corrected.:o

I personally do not believe that an embryo is a person. There are no conditions under which an unimplanted embryo can potentially develop and grow into a fetus.

[Cindi Hammons]

The fertilized ova only has the potential for life when it is implanted in a human female. Until then, in my opinion, it is a clump of cells in a petry dish. If these cells can help humans to overcome certain diseases...use them...don't throw them away.

Once the fertilized ova is implanted, my opinion as to its disposability changes.

Cindi H. Former Fertilized Ova

[Gina Stevenson]

Your poll missed one important way: Put them up for 'adoption'.

There are many children born this way and they are known as "snowflake" children.

Blessings,

Exactly! Have heard of this a few times in the last couple of years or so ... the poll does need another option. I couldn't vote there, but vote with Edith ... let them be adopted by those who want to carry their own kids but can't seem to manage that in the "normal" way.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Forty years ago some of the discussion in this thread simply wouldn't have occurred in these circles. In an NTS theology class in the mid seventies, the professor led in prayer of confession, seeking forgiveness for Nazarenes who had been using IUDs as a means of birth control. Discussion had led to realization that IUDs do not prevent conception, but merely prevention of the fertilized egg being implanted on the uteran wall. At that time belief was that life begins at conception, with very few dissenters.

In recent years, my limited observation of conversations among Nazarenes is that the trend is toward a position that "life" is interpretted more toward viability, and sometimes even to "breath."

Has a position on this topic been influenced by economics, science, or merely societal conditioning? Does interpretation of scripture modify our position here, or is it simply perceiving that some scriptural themes have a stronger influence at different times?

The possibility of a half million "extra" embryos did not enter into the 1970s NTS class discussion.

Biological ethics was way off into the future.

[Marsha Gupton]

This is an interesting poll. I now think there are so many areas of our lives that are gray area; at least for some. Some times we feel one way about an issue until it impacts our lives or the lives of our families. I grew up in the "Leave It to Beaver" age and if you had told me then the issues that the american family would face, I would have been shocked.

I have a friend right now that is at MD Anderson in Texas being tested for a stem cell implant. She has leukemia. From what I have read briefly and I admit I am not well versed on this, stem cell research, etc. has the potential of helping alzheimers and Parkinson's disease. If anyone has ever seen someone with these diseases it is awful and it would be wonderful if they could find a cure.

Snowflake adoption - that is a new one to me. How odd. Lots of things have been done in the name of adoption. People have basically extorted money from couples desperate to adopt a baby.

Just thinking out loud on this subject.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

It disappoints me that a conversation on as complex issue as this has to start with questions that will do more to ignite argument than shed light on an important topic like this.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

Exactly! Have heard of this a few times in the last couple of years or so ... the poll does need another option. I couldn't vote there, but vote with Edith ... let them be adopted by those who want to carry their own kids but can't seem to manage that in the "normal" way.

Gina, I didn't vote/wouldn't vote! I was merely reporting on an aspect that was omitted from the poll and giving testimonies of ones who had done it. No one would know HOW I would vote if I so chose.

Blessings,

[Edith K. Thurmond]

I have a friend right now that is at MD Anderson in Texas being tested for a stem cell implant. She has leukemia. From what I have read briefly and I admit I am not well versed on this, stem cell research, etc. has the potential of helping alzheimers and Parkinson's disease. If anyone has ever seen someone with these diseases it is awful and it would be wonderful if they could find a cure.....

Just thinking out loud on this subject.

Marsha, I have thought lots about this subject too. Often I have wondered if a difference could have been made in the life of someone who recently died. Both his bone marrow transplants failed and I couldn't help but wonder if any stem cell therapy would have made a difference. I am really sorry that the treatments he had did not work. He was a great asset to his family and to those he served. He was much liked and it was popular concensus that he would have been the next governor of AR if he had not become ill and withdrawn from the race. He did much good in his 57 years and will be greatly missed!

http://www.state.ar.us/ltgov/

Sincerely,

[Marsha Gupton]

Edith

I am so sorry to hear of this.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

Edith

I am so sorry to hear of this.

Thanks! He was a very special man.

[Gina Stevenson]

What I don't quite understand about this "embryonic" stem cell research, in particular, being pushed is the "why?" of it all, since they've found "adult/umbilical cord" stem cells have been as flexible in use as "embryonic" stem cells.

So, why must embryos be created/destroyed for their stem cells when these other stem cells -- that do not destroy new lives -- have proven to work OK. Is it because it's just another step in pushing "it's OK to kill just about anyone if we find a 'good enough' reason" philosophy?

BTW, addition re the "SNOWFLAKE CHILDREN" mentioned earlier ... as I'm sitting here with the radio on: There are at least 110 "SNOWFLAKE CHILDREN" known about. There are several families at the moment, even, with something like 29 "snowflake children" that have been born, plus a couple still waiting to be born. These are implanted embryos that could have been destroyed but, instead, have been born ... or are waiting ... 110 BORN, 20 WAITING to be BORN.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

Edith

I am so sorry to hear of this.

You might be interested in reading the following. He truly did have a servant's heart.

http://www.phumc.com/Winthrop%20Paul%20Rockefeller%20Funeral%20(1).htm

Blessings,

[Hans Deventer]

In recent years, my limited observation of conversations among Nazarenes is that the trend is toward a position that "life" is interpretted more toward viability, and sometimes even to "breath."

Has a position on this topic been influenced by economics, science, or merely societal conditioning? Does interpretation of scripture modify our position here, or is it simply perceiving that some scriptural themes have a stronger influence at different times?

I don't think the interpretation of Scripture has a lot to do with it. Most will agree, innocent human life is sacred, some even believe, guilty human life is sacred.:rolleyes:

The discussion is, what it life? Where does it start. And, BTW, reading about near death experiences, the question might be added, where does it end? The answer is not hardly as simple as one would think.

[Hans Deventer]

It disappoints me that a conversation on as complex issue as this has to start with questions that will do more to ignite argument than shed light on an important topic like this.

Well, then let's try to bend the discussion into the good direction. We've seen discussions move in any possible direction, no matter how they started :basic05

We may as well try to move them into the right one!

[Jim Franklin]

As the father of two adopted sons, I totally agree with Edith that such embryos reserved for future implantation should be allowed to be adopted by couples who have been unable to produce the children they would like to have as long as it is not a homosexual pair.

[Diane Likens]

Nearly 85% of the Naznetters who voted (myself included) are of the opinion that these embryos should be used for stem cell research rather than being tossed out.

The President's veto does not put a halt to research ... it simply says that tax dollars won't be appropriated to fund it. I guess the question remaining is this: Should our tax dollars be used to fund this research?

As for myself, I haven't done enough research on the subject to form an educated opinion. I'd be interested to know what others think, though.

[Cindi Hammons]

Christianity recieves much of its morals and ethics from the Jewish religion and community. In modern day, Jewish thought is that live begins with the first breath of life. I don't remember exactly where I found this (it has been several years ago), but I was quite surprised to find that result.

Also, some birth control pills do not inhibit fertilization, but only make the uterus hostile to implantation. Some more food for thought.

Cindi H.

[Bruce Carriker]

Well, then let's try to bend the discussion into the good direction. We've seen discussions move in any possible direction, no matter how they started :basic05

We may as well try to move them into the right one!

Besides, Scott's first post assumes to know the mind of the person who started the thread. Based on how he usually conducts himself, that's something I wouldn't normally expect of Scott.

[Cindi Hammons]

Bruce,

I don't know Scott's thinking on this, so I am not commenting on that part of this thread.

I do know that polls are very, very difficult to write without exposing the poll author's bias. I am lousy at them. Looking at the wording of these options, it would appear that your bias leans toward response #2 which would allow stem cell research. That was my own choice when I responded to the poll. My reasoning for interpreting your possible bias is because of the wording you have used for responses #1 and #3. This is just a guess and I may be wrong. #1 uses the words "flush" and "throw." These words sound much more negative than "dispose." On #3, the word "force" and "mother" are used. I'm not sure I can think of any way to rephrase that option. Of course, everyone's own perceptions make almost any way of wording things offensive to someone.

This certainly isn't meant as a slam on you, it's more just a comment on the difficulty of creating a bias-less poll. Had I written this poll, I would have brought my own set of biases that most would have been able to figure out by my wording.

Cindi H.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

#1 uses the words "flush" and "throw."

I really don't think my frustration with such wording needs to be explained but thanks for doing so.

What if #2 said: "Experiment on embryonic human life as the Nazis experimented on the Jews resulting in medical benefit for the rest of the human race."

Wouldn't that tend to charge the discussion in a particular way? Surely "flush down the toilet" pretty much ends discussion and starts argument.

[Marg Webb]

You asked for it! :eek:

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm


INCREDULOUS!


I was not able to receive information from this .
I pray some have read it and will bring them to some sort of decision on adoption.
I think this might be a more sure adoption as there would be information on all types of Genetic illness in the
information one would receive.
Recall David said. "you knew me before I was in my Mother's womb".
I have no answer for this post .
Is this like, "throwing out the baby with the bath water".?

".

[Scott Rambo]

What I don't quite understand about this "embryonic" stem cell research, in particular, being pushed is the "why?" of it all, since they've found "adult/umbilical cord" stem cells have been as flexible in use as "embryonic" stem cells.

So, why must embryos be created/destroyed for their stem cells when these other stem cells -- that do not destroy new lives -- have proven to work OK. Is it because it's just another step in pushing "it's OK to kill just about anyone if we find a 'good enough' reason" philosophy?



We got pretty far down this thread before this thought was injected. There are currently "zero" treatments under development from embryonic stem cells. There are anywhere from 9 to 25 treatments under development or in human trials from adult stem cells/cord blood stem cells.

It wonders me (a little PA Dutch lingo) that we would say that a "pre-human" can be treated like a commodity, cut up and made into a part of itself in order to serve the needs of someone else, when all it needs to reach a universally accepted definition of "humanity" is some time in it's natural pre-natal environment.

Does it really make sense to even go down this road when alternative sources of stem cells offer greater promise?

[Gina Stevenson]

We got pretty far down this thread before this thought was injected. There are currently "zero" treatments under development from embryonic stem cells. There are anywhere from 9 to 25 treatments under development or in human trials from adult stem cells/cord blood stem cells.

It wonders me (a little PA Dutch lingo) that we would say that a "pre-human" can be treated like a commodity, cut up and made into a part of itself in order to serve the needs of someone else, when all it needs to reach a universally accepted definition of "humanity" is some time in it's natural pre-natal environment.

Does it really make sense to even go down this road when alternative sources of stem cells offer greater promise?

Thanks for responding ... and, no, it doesn't even make sense to fight for embryonic stem cell research ... unless for the reason aforementioned ... another step on the slippery slope to euthanasia, etc ............

[Linda Bechtold]

Another vote for adoption and ITA with Scott... adult stem cells is a much more promising field (increasing your own is ideal), that is where I feel the studies should be headed.

[Gina Stevenson]

Well, I meant that you were "voting" outside of the poll's options for the "snowflake" children that you mentioned ... so, that's what I meant by saying I'd "vote with Edith." ;)

Gina, I didn't vote/wouldn't vote! I was merely reporting on an aspect that was omitted from the poll and giving testimonies of ones who had done it. No one would know HOW I would vote if I so chose.

Blessings,

[Virginia Stimer]

I am glad that someone finally brought up the fact that research on adult and cord blood stem cells has shown more promise than embryonic stem cell research.

Virginia

[Joel Merrill]

The fertilized ova only has the potential for life when it is implanted in a human female. Until then, in my opinion, it is a clump of cells in a petry dish. If these cells can help humans to overcome certain diseases...use them...don't throw them away.

Once the fertilized ova is implanted, my opinion as to its disposability changes.

Cindi H. Former Fertilized Ova

Once an ova is fertilized, nothing else is added except nutrition. It is as human as we are. To not let it grow is murder.

Joel

[Joel Merrill]

I am glad that someone finally brought up the fact that research on adult and cord blood stem cells has shown more promise than embryonic stem cell research.

Virginia
Me too. The company I work for raises thousands of dollars for JDRF every year. Yet JDRF uses embryonic stem cell research. Many people I work with who are pro life give to JDRF not knowing. There are other organizations that are trying to find a cure that are not using embryonic stem cells.

Joel

[Cindi Hammons]

Then we disagree. I believe you are incorrect when you say that the only thing added to the fertilized ova is nutrition. One can take a fertilzed ova and give it nutrition "out the wazoo", but without implanting that ova into a uterus, it will not become faetus. It would be correct to say that nutrition and a mechanism to transfer the nutrition are added.

You do realize that when you use the word murder, you are accusing many women who use normal birth control of committing murder? The IUD and certain types of "the pill" make the uterus a hostile environment for implantation.

Just my opinion~
Cindi H.

[Ann Smith]

In 1973 I became the Director of the Family Planning Clinic in Kankakee. Back then I heard the arguments against the IUD and Pill by some. They said they were abortive agents. I didn't think so then and I still don't. I firmly believe that a fertilized ova is not a life until it is implanted. I have been our of the family planning arena for many years. There were so many other things that I disagreed with in it.

I first heard of Snowflake adoptions when I was listening to Focus on The Family on the radio. I was thrilled with the concept. I am saddened to know how much it costs. That alone would eliminate a huge number of wonderful parents. I pray that someone else will attempt to start a program such as this in other parts of the country.

Ann

[Gina Stevenson]

I first heard of Snowflake adoptions when I was listening to Focus on The Family on the radio. I was thrilled with the concept. I am saddened to know how much it costs. That alone would eliminate a huge number of wonderful parents. I pray that someone else will attempt to start a program such as this in other parts of the country.

Ann

Oh, Ann! Didn't realize it was something so costly ... that is sad when some of them might not get a chance at life ... some people may not have a chance at having a child ... only due to $$$. Something could be done, perhaps, to cut the cost of implanting, rather than destroying these "snowflake children" ... ???

[Jeni Fletcher]

I can't imagine why parents would allow their unborn children (the extra embryos from in vitro fertilization) be discarded.

The ethics of using human embryonic stem cells in research or medicine is not only a paradox but also a shame.

Laws should clearly state only donated adult stem cells or embilical cord blood stem cells may be used in research and medicine. The researchers should just stop whining about needing pluripotent stem cells. The multipotent stem cells should suffice. We don't need to grant any more power to some of these mad scientists' hands.

Laws should also state the extra human embryos remain frozen until we can figure out what best to do with them. First, prevent parents from discarding embryos. Second, begin a gov't paid program assisting adopting through programs like Snowflake and also have the gov't pay for surrogate mothers to carry the embryos to full-term.

Augghh . . . what a mess we have here. I'll have to agree with David Showalter . . .
. . . it seems like our technology has advanced beyond our present moral and ethhical discussions, debate and conclusions. I don't know if that means our moral/ethical input is super slow or that our technology is super fast, but I do indeed believe at this point they are miles apart.

It would be interesring to see this poll redone with adding two options . . . #4 adoption and #5 hold on to the emryos until we become more enlightened.