The writer doesn't understand somatic cell nuclear transfer. There is a huge difference between making a baby and making stem cells for treatment. First, there is no sperm. Second, it contains only the patient's 46 chromosomes, not 23 from a mother and 23 from a father. All you need are some skin cells from the patient, a donated egg with the nucleus removed, salt water and electricity, and you have the beginnings of therapeutic cloning (cells from the patient for the patient).
No need to be concerned about donating an egg. If it is not donated, a normal woman loses one a month in her menstrual cycle, (hundreds over her life time). Is it better to heal someone, or to flush it down the toilet?
In addition, there is no place in the Bible that says where life begins. In biblical times, they didn't even know a woman contributed an egg. They thought the man planted the seed in the woman and both she and the baby were his property, equal to planting his seed in the ground, and the ground and the plant were his property.
Further, the Christian church has been wrong on every major scientific issue it has opposed. It then later relented. Consider condeming Galileo, opposing blood transfusions and organ transplants, and on and on. Years later it relents and/or apologizes. What if in 10 years it relents on this? It may be too late for my son.
Finally, there are numerous places in the Bible where healing is encouraged. What is more important? A few cells in a clump that will never become a baby, because they will not be deposited in a womb? Or people who do exist, do feel, and are dying, when this research could possibly give them hope?You do know that no nerve cells or brain cells will develop if not placed in a womb. Even in nature, at least 40% of blastocysts don't make it down the falopian tubes. Do you really think 40% of heaven is populated by tiny groups of cells who have never even been in a womb?
Updated: 2005-02-16 08:08:05
Home | Login | Contact Us | Forum
© 2001-2016 Joplin Independent