Dr David van Gend, the Queensland Secretary for the World Foundation of Doctors who Respect Human Life. The pro-life lobby really has its knickers in a knot over this issue.

Dr. van Gend is not just a Toowoomba GP and I think it maybe time for Graham Young to acknowledge the moral attitudes that the authors of these articles hold

Writing in Pro-Life news in 2002 he urges people to write to Govt. members and stress the following points.

POINTS TO MAKE

• Human life is not a commodity for science to use in experiments or for anyone to use in medical treatments.
• How outrageous that our Parliamentary representatives have chosen to pursue and develop medical treatments that will depend upon the destruction of human life.
• How horrifying as a precedent that our politicians intend to legislate to define some human beings as 'surplus'. Ask your member if he/she knows whether Australia will be the first nation to actually define certain human beings as 'surplus' so that they may be destroyed in experiments for science.
• The incredible achievements in adult stem cell research have been ignored. The use of embryos is unnecessary. I support stem cell research - using stem cells from sources which do not require that embryos are killed.
• Adult stem cell research has potential to provide tissues that are compatible for patients but this is not the case with so-called spare but unrelated embryo sources.
• Express you concern that instead of developing acceptable treatments using adult stem cells, Australia is embarking on a path that will be effective only if patients are cloned so that the clones can be cannabalised for compatible tissues.

I would suggest that the views of:

The Hon John S Lockhart AO QC (Chair)
Professor Peter Schofield (NSW)
Associate Professor Ian Kerridge (NSW
Professor Loane Skene (Vic)
Professor Barry Marshall (WA)
Associate Professor Pamela McCombe (Qld)

Are more valuable than that of yet another pro-life evangelist

My gut feeling is that human life is human life, irrespective, and I support Dr Gend's concerns. Whatever his standing in this field, many scientists with relevant background seem to have questioned what is proposed by the Lockhart Committee, including on the need/potential benefits.

David van Gend seems to take a Catholic view on most things and thats his choice I guess. But as there is no such thing as objective
morality, he does not have the right to try and impose his religious views on the rest of us, who think thats its nonsense.

I feel that my own sense of morality is more thought through then religion. If scientific research can eventually bring knowledge and help to people with lifelong diseases, in wheelchairs etc, then yup it makes perfect sense. I am far more concerned with the suffering of people and other creatures who suffer at our expense, then about organisms.

Most women can create about 400 human organsims in their lifetime, reality and the laws of nature prevail, they cannot all survive.
Every night billions of sperms and ova are flushed down the world's toilets and nobody says boo, which is fair enough.

It is a shame that John Lockhard died today aged 70. He has been much maligned by pro-life groups who have had their opposition to therapeutic cloning well rehearsed for over 6 years. The arguments they raise are identical all over the world and have been repeated for years.

If we have a process in this country for Governments to set up inquiries with eminent members of society as members, then to invite submissions from ALL areas of society surely we can accept the findings of that enquiry.

Are you saying that a former High Court Judge got it so very wrong? No what is happening is that the influential Catholic pro-life evangelists are up to their old tricks. “Get out the cloning script and repeat it everywhere we can”. And if we don’t get our own way attack the messenger. They put their submission to the enquiry and did not get their views accepted, tough luck, accept the rules and get on with life.

How can they equate an unfertilized egg from a woman which is then manipulated to have DNA from another cell implanted into it, and which then grows stem cells to human life? Somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning but why let the facts get in the way.

These religious zealots purposely blur the argument, we are ending life, these embryos deserve to be born etc. But they are not embryos they are 200 cells specifically grown to understand more about human life.

These people do have anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-cloning, anti-gay, anti-contraception views and that is their right. But they are in the minority and should accept the view of the majority. Of course they cannot because they know better than everyone else.

They call themselves pro-life but they really are anti-everything that does not suit them. How many children in this world have been abused by the catholic faiths defenders?

God botherers pretending to be academics make me vomit

YABBY I am unable to respond to you last post on Thread 61 because my computer won't scroll past the start of my own post. This has happened before, so I'll have to get it repaired. No doubt we will cross swords again on another issue.

I once would have agreed with the author that embryonic stem cell research should not be allowed until I found myself involved with seriously disabled children. Now I am convinced that their qualilty of life is far more important than that of a human embryo. If embryonic stem cells were of no advantage over adult stem cells then it would seem unlikely that any scientist would be going to the effort or expense of trying to obtain approval.

I am not certain but thought that cloned embryos do not have the capacity to become human beings as they lack the ability to form a placenta - please feel free to correct me as I can't remember where I heard this.

Yabby,you would know also that intellectual fashions have come and gone but the Catholic Church is still here, the longest surviving institution on the planet. It is the only one that connects the ancient and modern worlds.

Putting one’s faith in a list of names of Professors is resting your argument from authority on shifting sand Steve Madden. How do you know what kind of philosophy they have? You do know the most wicked men in history have been the most educated. What if their philosophy is scientism? Would you be confident in the truth of this new experimental philosophy?

That morality is not objective is something you have to dogmatically assert Yabby. But since you brought it up, how would explain progress in things like human rights if there wasn’t an objective standard to progress to? Are you sure your reading of history concerning Christianity isn’t just a matter of collecting shadows? Whence comes the light that casts them?

Now I know you don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but there is a very strong possibility that he is, given the evidence.

"And I say also to thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16.18)

"People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of [christian] orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly Chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect. (GK Chesterton.)

Your position is honest Yabby,( how can one be indifferent to Christ and his Church? Either its one big fraud (I didn't use to believe it)or its all true – what looks too good to be true actually is true.

Martin there are religions who have been around alot longer then the Catholic Church and good philosophers have been around for a lot longer too. Why you think that the Catholic Church should win brownie points for being organised as an institution, beats me.

Of course various religions survive, we pretty well understand why. That does not mean that any of what they preach is true. Fact is that most religion is based on geography. Most people simply adopt the religion they were brought up with. So had you been born in Iraq, there is a 95% chance that you would be a devout muslim :)

A claim for objective morality is made by various religions, using their so called holy books as evidence. But as there is no substantiated evidence that any of them are true, it is simply a dogmatic assertion by religion.

Human rights have been promoted by humanists for a long time. Our abilitily to reason is enough to come up with good philosophical arguments to promote them. In fact its probably superior to religious reasons, for its not about fear of judgement day or burning in hell that drives us, but thoughts of a planet that is sustainable and pleasant for all, including for future generations.

I have seen no evidence that Jesus is the son of God. God is free to write the 10 commandments on the moon for all to see. He has never done so.

My opinion is that religion should be a lifestyle choice, those who need it and believe it are free to follow it, no matter which one. I simply don't accept the tyranny of the Catholic Church, more concerned about its own survival, then about the future of the planet.

Win Brownie points? It’s the Church begun by Jesus Christ we humble ourselves before it, once denigrating like you. But it is a perilous thing to put oneself outside the teaching of the Church, ideas that are radically opposed to Christ disappear from history. The amazing resilience of the Catholic Church makes it, (like the Jews) worthy of some investigation.

Religious pluralism as a doctrine fashionable in the last 40 years only, and certainly popular only in decadent Western countries that ‘Spengler’ of The Asia Times reveals have little time left. The truth of this doctrine, is just as geographically and chronologically relative as the religious doctrines you dismiss. Have a look at religious inclusivism instead.

The objective truth of the Resurrection? see the philosopher William Lane Craig:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

Reason alone brings up Kant, DCT, and St Thomas good Christian replies for all of them, have a squizz. I like CS Lewis’ DCT reply.

Humanism - term coined by Erasmus I think, who was a very pious man. Did not believe humans were the measure of all things, when we believe in our own perfectibility we get totalitarianism.

Issues to do with free will regarding God making himself compulsorily present to us. Defeats purpose of Creation according to Christianity. If God exists that implies angels too. Hence fallen angels who certainly know God exists yet still reject the good. Irrational? Yes but evil is. As Mephistopheles in Faust reveals they will want to destroy for destruction’s sake.

Godbless Yabby

Martin, lots of religions/churches have been started by lots of people. Xtianity was cobbled together hundreds of years after your JC, once it was accepted by the Roman Govt. In the same way as the bible was cobbled together. Buddhism and Hinduism have been around alot longer, so based on your logic, we should take even more notice.

You forget that religious pluralism was simply not accepted, as the Chuch had ultimate power. Heretics were burnt at the stake. No wonder people kept their opinions to themselves.

If you want reason alone, go back to Socrates. Even he had to die for
not being pious enough.

History is full of people with humanistic tendencies, they were just never free to fully express themselves, for fear of persectution by the religious nuts. Much like the Muslim world today. Luckily in the West we ditched the religious nuts and religion has become a lifestyle choice and no more.

Craig provides no substantiated evidence about the claimed resurrection, just speculation.

Martin, if your belief helps you to cope with life, quell your anxieties etc, to balance out your brain chemistry, thats fine by
me. Just don't expect me or anyone else to take it seriously.

Buddhism and Hinduism were never a church. Never organized like the Roman Catholic Church, mere longevity was never my point.

Its easy to read our history backwards http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html

Ppl wouldn't have tried such a silly doctrine and to a large extent were probably inoculated against it (When you stop believing in God its not that you believe in nothing its that you’ll believe in anything) How can all religions be true? Thats like saying all political ideologies are equally good and true! Ppl of the Middle Ages were much wiser in that regard than us.

The burden of proof is on you re: how such an oppressed civilization became the most successful. Rather than a blinkered view of history I suggest Spengler of The Asia Times. Balanced. Factual. Learned. You’ll understand the importance of theology and faith.

The authentic Crusades are evidence of this faith – a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world.

Knights were already wealthy. Crusading made many poor (those that returned)

They knew how sinful they were and left everything in an act of charity and love.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

That speaks of freedom Yabby, not oppression. Its hard to imagine the wealthiest risking their lives and wealth defending civilization in the spirit of our age – no God, no morality, no truth only relativism. Why fight to preserve that?

Seeing history in black and white means you don’t have to think Yabby, and you’re doing a lot of that.

Craig wrote only speculation? If you treat all ancient documents that way say goodbye to info we have on Roman Empire, Ancient Greece, Socrates, Ancient Egypt etc. You have reduced the ancient world to a blank wall of unknowing speculation!

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

As for brain chemicals and coping mechanisms, again the same can be applied to you. The only justification for being a Christian is that its TRUE. Trying to explain away just allows the other to do that too. Stick to the content.

I think even now Our Lord is reckoning with you Yabby, seriously.

"the longest surviving institution on the planet."

Martin, clearly longevity was your point! Read what you wrote previously.

I've read some of your posted links, Spengler etc, and it seems to me that you are obsessed about the Islam/Christian war. Well it will probably happen, that is the problem with religious nuts on both sides. Spengler makes some huge mistakes. Iran is not a democracy. There is no free speech, canditates have to be approved by religious people etc, thats not democracy.

Anyhow, to calm your worried mind, at the end of the day its a war
that Islam can't win. For if the crunch ever came, technology is such today that Mecca and Medina would be mere nuclear holes in the ground. So which way would Muslims turn to pray? Even they would be able to understand that.

You forget something else. Within the Islamic world, as within our world, the % of religious nuts is actually quite small. Yes they hold far too much power, considering their numbers. What Islam needs is what we had to go through, get religion out of politics and let it become a mere lifestyle choice, no more. The Catholics used to dominate the West, luckily us secular types kicked them out. Now its up to countries where Islam dominates, to do the same. Signs of that happening are all over the place. The pope is not the answer to Islam, for fanatical Catholics are as bad as fanatical Muslims.

Regarding Craig etc, what it comes to in science is that the larger the claim, the more evidence we need. Yup we threw out Greek gods, why not throw out Roman versions of God too? The people of the Middle Ages were not very smart, just far mor supersticious, due to lack of knowledge. No wonder the Catholics go to Africa for converts, they are less educated, so more likely to be gullible.

The justification for being Christian or any other religion is that it makes you feel better. Homeostasis of the brain is hugely important, if you know anything about neuroscience.

Martin, tonight there was a programme on SBS about Pope Alexander 6th and his sexual exploits. Its basically similar to a book I have
called "The Sex Lives of the Popes", based on Vatican archives.

Thats the rock on which your church is built :)

Stem cell research and cloning will improve quality of life for many. And that is an understatement.

What I love most is the lovely irony the future will bring us. People against it will, in the future, without complaint or pause for reflection on their hypocrisy, use the benefits of the research for themselves and their families... they will vote against it and fight it tooth and nail, but when it yields benefits, they will be the first to put their hands in the pie and shovel it into their mouths....gg -_-

This supposed to be about whether cloning humans should be allowed. As usual Yabby and others have turned it into an attack on the Catholic Church. Who cares whether David van Gend is a Catholic or a Calithumpian? Deal with his arguments - if you can. Thank you Dr. van Gend.

In today's Mebourne Herald-Sun there's a news item which says "Cell Breakthrough" It goes on to say "Australian scientists believe they have moved a step closer to developing human embryonic stem cells capable of treating disease". "But the first therapies based on the controversial research may be 5 to 10 years away".

There's no need to wait 5-10 years for stem cell treatment of sickness and injury. ADULT STEM CELLS ARE ALREADY DOING IT. And without side effects which experiments with embryonic stem cells have given such as TEETH, HAIR AND TUMOURS.

Manufacturing human beings to use as guinea pigs for drug companies and other researchers is sickening, and UNNECESSARY.

Martin, Yabby, apologies for butting in on your conversation, but it is one of my favourite discussions.

Martin, you have learned the words of the christian marketing playbook very well. All the old favourites are there,

>>Now I know you don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but there is a very strong possibility that he is, given the evidence.<<

There isn't evidence in the conventional understanding of the word, only belief. I don't have a problem with your believing in the story, only representing it as truth. It is your opinion, I respect it, but it is still only an opinion.

>>ideas that are radically opposed to Christ disappear from history<<

This of course the classic. By appropriating perfectly normal mores and labelling them "christian" doesn't automatically separate them from the standard, non-christian human experience. If I were to found a religion based on precisely the same moral values as christianity, but without acknowledging the presence of Christ, would this not be an acceptable manner in which to conduct my life? In which case, what is the value of the Christ reference, except as a symbol?

The mores themselves existed before Christ, and continue without him. Pretending that the alternative to christian belief is merely "relativism" is the biggest fallacy in the christian handbook, but the most widely used. Crazy.

>>The objective truth of the Resurrection?<<

The article you refer to is written by a Christian academic. Objective truth?

>>When you stop believing in God its not that you believe in nothing its that you’ll believe in anything<<

There is absolutely no logic in this statement It is merely a slogan. Slogans (such as "Christ died for you") will never become true just because they are repeated.

I strongly believe that there are still many more questions that answers, and will continue to ask them. Christian evangelists, on the other hand, tend to avoid asking questions outside their belief system, as evidenced many times on OLO.

Big Al

In your regurgitation of the right to life propaganda you show your lack of knowledge about this issue.

Adult stem cell research has been taking place for over 40 years, ESC research has been going on for 5.

Stem cell transplants for leukaemia were fatal in >50% of cases, research has reduced this risk of dying to 20%. Embryonic stem cells may remove graft versus host disease and those who die using adult stem cells will live. We need this research.

Will you deny a family member treatment if ESC can cure an incurable disease?

Will these god botherers ever leave others alone.

Some of us are, at times, accused of attacking the Catholic Church, rather than addressing the issues. I see the Catholic [and some other religious organisations] as being composed of two sections. There is the purely religious arm and I have no problem with this section preaching to willing persons. And there is the political arm, run by a ruthless, unelected foreign dictator and his aides, which is set on world domination. The Pope even has the audacity to tell Catholic parliamentarians of any and all nations that they have a "moral duty" to follow his instructions.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/new/incathcircles/iccbottompg2vol8no3.htm

'Vatican Announces Campaign Against Same-Sex Marriage
The Vatican has announced a global campaign against gay marriage in a strongly-worded document released by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," restates the Vatican's views that homosexual unions are immoral, unnatural and harmful. It says that Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to oppose legislation permitting gay marriage.' etc etc etc.

[Just substitute some forms of medical research, or abortion, or contraception, or various other activities which go against Catholic dogma, for "Same-Sex Marriage" and you can see what gets up my nose.]

An elected representative, in a so-called democratic, sectarian country has an obvious duty to faithfully represent the wishes of his/her electorate, in so far as that is reasonably possible, and at the same time to respect the wishes of various minorities by making various things optional. But that's not good enough for the know-all totalitarians of various religious persuasions. Their aim is to dominate and get their own way, by any means at their disposal.

I do not choose to allow the Pope [or his agents or double agents] to decide on my medical choices, my reproductive choices, my relationship choices, in fact on any of my lifestyle choices. And why should I?

Yabby you’ve distinguished yourself again. You’ve completely missed the point about the Church.
You’re trying to say something like “a rock is long lasting too therefore the Church is as interesting as a rock” . The Church as an organisation, structure, mission, and members has outlived all others mate.

The fact you would dare call the group that defended Europe from Islamic invasion nuts is evidence of your fundamentalism. Nuclear war doesn’t seem to phase you? You’re qualified to talk about nuts and fanatics you exemplify them.

And your scientism stands and falls on this statement “the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind” but this can’t be proved in any scientific way! Scientism makes a purely arbitrary claim about what constitutes knowledge.

The kind of knowledge you use to conduct your relationships is far from scientific. Do you have compelling mathematical proof in any of them? What if you chose not to trust until you did. How many friends would you have then? God asks for a reasonable amount of trust, if we’re not prepared to give it, we like Othello risk everything.

I’m not sure whether secularists would like to be lumped in with you Yabby, but you’re kind have failed. Mark Steyn http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/its-the-demography/

The justification of your fundamentalism is that it makes you feel better. You have your dogma of scientism and anyone else who doesn’t believe it is a ‘religious nut’. But you forget in what a tiny minority you have placed yourself.

"Anyone who listens to my teaching and obeys me is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock… .But anyone who hears my teaching and ignores it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will fall with a mighty crash." Matt 7: 24-27

Athenian democracy, no votes for women and slaves. Iran has a kind, but to pick that out of Spengler? Is that you're only offering after reading him?

As for criticising Christianity. Understand your own religion first then we’ll talk.

Pericles you’re clearly not working from any playbook. Let me help.
God doesn’t want blind faith from us, otherwise it would be a virtue to put your faith in a cupboard or a dog. Faith is based on reasonable evidence. Read Othello and what happens bcz of his lack of trust or King Lear and his lack of trust.

The Resurrection has extremely strong evidence to support it. Begin with Greenleaf “Testimony of the Evangelists”, then to Lane Craig etc.

The onus is on you to show how Christianity could survive against such an antagonistic surrounding culture with constant persecution if Christ was just a ‘good guy’. Why be martyred for that? There were stoics, epicureans all kinds of ethical philosophies around at the time, comparing them to Christianity will be salutary for you Pericles – study hard!

“Can’t I just live a good life without Christ?” Been asked many times before. One shouldn’t believe something merely bcz we find it amiable. We must believe bcz it is true. Our Lord gave the ultimate example. We’re men not ostriches.

The beatitudes were a revolution – in terms of Jewish Law and Roman virtues. Many of the things Jesus taught his listeners found extremely hard to hear. Eg Man and woman becoming one flesh. We understand it now better than the original hearers.

I never claimed non believers are all relativists.

Should I dismiss an article if it was written by an “atheist scholar”?

I understand Christ’s atoning death more as I understand my own darkness. There’s no need of a Saviour if one thinks one is fine. I’ve recently from my heart thanked Jesus for what he did. We grow in understanding Pericles.

The logic is, atheists often see themselves as brave men who have
suffered the defeat of their deepest desires and who would really like
Christianity to be true. Nonsense. God is the natural object of faith, stop believing in God and you get a vacuum. A vacuum attracts everything. Look at what wacky things ppl believe these days.

Martin.

Its time for your medication mate. Try clozapine it works when other stuff has failed.

If you wish to add your views to a debate, do it. But to hijack the thread with insults and God bothering views does nobody any good.

You have imparted your wisdom over many threads, now how about a constructive post before the men in white coats come for you again.

Thank you Rex. Your diatribe proves my point about some posters being more concerned with kicking the Christians [especially those terrible Catholics] than with cloning.

Steve Madden accuses Martin of hijacking the thread! Who started attacking David van Gend on the basis that he is supposedly a Catholic? It's you and the other Catholic-haters who have done the hijacking. What's it like to be so full of hate Steve, Rex, Yabby and the rest of your ilk?

I've got no hate in me, Al. But I don't want to have my choices made for me by the Pope, or Islam, or Christian fundamentalists [or any other religion which I don't choose to be part of], or by the agents or double agents of these religious/political organisations.

I have no problem with the occasional people who knock on my door and ask me to read the Watchtower [which I decline]. I have no problem with the missionaries on bicycles. I have no problem with the Salvos rattling their tins at me, in fact I always give them something.

You may or may not have noticed that I don't criticise people for having a religious belief. I'm happy for people to be happy in ways which are meaningful to them, but I resent being judged for not necessarily sharing those beliefs.

I have lived long enough to realise that many religious organisations endeavour to force their beliefs on others by having them enshrined in law. The Catholic Church does this openly by telling Catholic politicians how to vote. When I talk about the Pope's agents, I am referring to the priests etc. They are open about who they are and who they represent. By double agents, I am referring to Catholic politicians, bureaucrats and academics etc, who to me are automatically suspect [on various matters] until they prove themselves capable of independent thought.

I presume you are a Catholic, Al. Well how would you like it if a politically powerful non-Catholic sought to influence the law in such a way that you were forced to live your life in a non-Catholic way? Pro-choice people are not like that, Al. We want options of our own choosing, after they are researched by suitably qualified people with no religious axe to grind.

Al, personally I prefer people who are honest, I am not into spin. If they have a religious agenda, they might as well just state it up front. Saves everyone alot of time reading through it all.

Martin, my point on your religious rock is that if its as solid as those popes of the past, then I find it quite amusing that you think its solid at all :) Yes the Catholic Church as an institution has been around for a while. So has prostitution. Both provide a service which some people need in life. Its when it becomes compulsory that I have a problem.

Your Spengler actually promotes a very Catholic worldview, I guess he is another of their spindoctors. Its all about obsession of Catholics/ Muslims. I think the Catholics think they are going to be outbred, so down the toilet would go the Church etc.

His notion that society has to collapse without religion, is rubbish quite frankly. Fact is that in most socieities, secularism is actually on the increase, including in the Muslim world, as people become better educated and less gullible to religious obsession.

The way that I see nuclear war is that its a sad fact that whilst some humans are intelligent enough to invent amazing things, others will be stupid enough, to misuse those same things. The worry about the religious is that they capable to rationalise a nuclear war as "it must be god's plan" etc. So if anyone is going to misuse nuclear weapons IMHO, it will be the fanatical who partake in the
Catholic/Muslim war, ie. the religiously fanatical. Religion should be a lifestyle choice and no more. Until that happens, wars based on religion will no doubt continue. Lets hope that does not cost us the planet one day.

Big Al.

I have no hate for anyone, I argue, I challenge, I annoy and I have met friends on OLO because of this. Hate is a useless emotion I gave up years ago.

Come on admit it David van Gend has written for pro-life journals, is trotted out to the media as an expert on medical ethics, and is a devout practicing Catholic.

My first post on this subject was a criticism of the lack of acknowledgement of Dr van Gend’s well known views on this issue. Instead we had information that he was a GP from Toowoomba.

My views on stem cell transplants are purely selfish. I probably know more than a GP from Toowoomba. I am in the terminal phase of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia. I don’t say this for any sympathy it is just a fact.
This disease may be cured by stem cell research; adult or even autologous stem cell transplants have a high mortality rate and always fail eventually.

With adult stem cell transplants there are two risks, graft versus host disease and the immune system of the donor. With a cell line taken from embryonic stem cells both of these problems are removed.

Don’t give me crud about growing teeth, cloning humans, the rights of the embryo. I know how important stem cell research is for my friends with CLL. Too late for me.

Go back to reading your Bible and pro-life literature. Your knowledge on this issue is very limited and a regurgitation of dogma is counter productive.

I refuse to have my choices determined by a group of people who have a moral and ethical view that is an anathema to me.

Why does the (Roman) Catholic Church think it has the right to impose its views on others? Why have an enquiry into cloning. Let’s just ask the pope what he thinks.

Report card on Al “Tries hard but could do much better”. I almost forgot the most important thing, don’t group me with Yabby, you never know what I may come up with next if I become his ilk.

Martin, I remain unconvinced.

>>Faith is based on reasonable evidence. Read Othello and what happens bcz of his lack of trust or King Lear and his lack of trust.<<

Lear and Othello are fictional characters.

Faith is consistently defined along the lines of "a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing". No mention of the presence or absence of evidence. In fact, most observers concur that faith begins at precisely the point where evidence is missing, or becomes contradictory.

And dear Greenleaf was hardly unbiased in his approach when weighing “evidence”.

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true."

There would be some objections, I'm sure, if that was the basis of our justice system. Space prohibits a full rundown of similarly dubious Greenleaf assertions, but there are more than a few.

>>The onus is on you to show how Christianity could survive against such an antagonistic surrounding culture with constant persecution if Christ was just a ‘good guy’. Why be martyred for that? <<

It is not up to me to assess someone historical character's state of mind, especially with no supporting material from the individual himself.

Rex, You are attributing something sinister to the Catholic church, organisations or individuals lobbying and seeking public suport for or against various issues. They are certainly not the only ones doing something which is quite legitimate in a democratic country. How about the Secular Humanists [which some posters might belong to] the homosexual lobby, the green lobby, the Marxists and the Freemasons? Some of those don't advertise their affiliations , but use their positions in the media and other places to influence public opinion, or otherwise help their cause.

In the past, Catholics HAVE been persecuted by people in power making the practice of their religion extremely dificult e.g. Ireland over many decades, Mexico in the 1920's, and, along with other Christians, in the various Communist countries fom 1919 onwards.

Even today, efforts are being made to silence Christians concerned about homosexuality. Your aim to confine decision making to people with no religious affiliations, is blatant discrimination and reveals your aim is to
effectively destroy all religious input in social and political questions, and have athiests making all the important decisions. I believe Yabby and Steve would agree with you, but don't expect to win.

Al

I am still waiting for you to address the issues in this thread, Don't retreat into you comfort zone and discuss religion. Come on be big and debate cloning with me.

It is you who will lose, my interest is selfish and personal.

Steve, Glad you asked. I was going to follow on, but you beat me to it.
I have just come upon a new site from the New Scientist on January 23. It says: " A stem cell has been found in adults which can turn into every single tissue in the body. "It might turn out to be the most important cell ever discovered."

Further down it goes on:"The cells were found in the bone marrow of adults by Catherine Verfaille at the University of Minnesota.. "Extrordinary claims require extraordinary proof. and though the team has published little, a patent application seen by the New Scientist shows the team has carried out extensive experiments." "These confirm that the cells dubbed multipotent adult progenitor cells or MAPC's, have the same potential as ESC's."

Anyway, have a look yourself. I'm sorry that your illness is so advanced, but I still favour adult stem cell research.

Finally, It was Yabby, and Rex and yourself who introduced the anti-religious element into the thread. I felt I had to respond to some of the remarks.

background, I have read the PubMed article that the New Scientist reported on. Not quite the same.

A bit of education about plasticity in multipotent stem cells.
Hematopoietic stem cells give rise to all the types of blood cells: red blood cells, B lymphocytes, T lymphocytes, natural killer cells, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, monocytes, macrophages, and platelets. Bone marrow stromal cells (mesenchymal stem cells) give rise to a variety of cell types: bone cells (osteocytes), cartilage cells (chondrocytes), fat cells (adipocytes), and other kinds of connective tissue cells such as those in tendons. neural stem cells in the brain give rise to its three major cell types: nerve cells (neurons) and two categories of non-neuronal cells—astrocytes and oligodendrocytes. Epithelial stem cells in the lining of the digestive tract occur in deep crypts and give rise to several cell types: absorptive cells, goblet cells, Paneth cells, and enteroendocrine cells. Skin stem cells occur in the basal layer of the epidermis and at the base of hair follicles. The epidermal stem cells give rise to keratinocytes, which migrate to the surface of the skin and form a protective layer. The follicular stem cells can give rise to both the hair follicle and to the epidermis.

The following list offers examples of adult stem cell plasticity that have been reported during the past few years.
Hematopoietic stem cells may differentiate into: three major types of brain cells (neurons, oligodendrocytes, and astrocytes); skeletal muscle cells; cardiac muscle cells; and liver cells.
Bone marrow stromal cells may differentiate into: cardiac muscle cells and skeletal muscle cells.
Brain stem cells may differentiate into: blood cells and skeletal muscle cells.

ESC are pluripotent sure they have found “plasticity” in some multipotent cells but it is a long way from pluripotent.
Next lesson growing stem cells – tomorrow

You are making false assumptions about me again, Al. I don't expect to exclude all people with a religious belief from decision making on behalf of all of us. But I am justifiably wary of "Catholic politicians, bureaucrats and academics etc, who to me are automatically suspect [on various matters] until they prove themselves capable of independent thought".

I've found the following website [it's a Catholic website, so hopefully you will accept its accuracy]:
http://www.cathnews.com/news/308/9.php

It's a little out-of-date, so some of the Catholic politicians mentioned may no longer be in parliament [Federal or NSW], but it appears likely that I would be prepared to trust the following to try to represent Australians in general, rather than obediently push the Pope's line:
Laurie Brereton---Labor.
Christopher Pyne---Liberal.
Barry O'Farrell---Liberal.
Charlie Lynn---Liberal.
Peter Wong---Uniting Party.
Clover Moore---Independant.
Peter Breen---Legal System Party.
[Politically, a nice mixed bag!]

By their refusal to express an opinion, I would not be prepared to trust Richard Alston, Kevin Andrews or Tony Abbott.

As you have pointed out, Catholics have regrettably suffered political oppression at various times and in various places. Surely this can give you an insight into why many [perhaps all] non-Catholics bitterly resent attempts to have the Pope's opinions forced onto them against their will.

Rex, when you say "many [perhaps all] non-Catholcs bitterly resent attempts to have the Pope's opinions forced onto them against their will" you are giving in to the temptation to use emotive language.

There's an old saying: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". No one can force the Pope's or anyone else's opinion on anyone, short of gunpoint or physical intimidation. They might have stronger public opinion or support in the Government to overrule your own opinion, but that's different from 'forcing the Pope's opinion " on you.

I don't like the way the Gay lobby has gained privileges for its adherants, but I don't regard them as forcing their opinions on to me. I still have my opinions even though I've been overruled.

As I previously pointed out, other social, political and other forces have been running campaigns over the years. Do you call on the Homosexual lobby, Secular Humanists, Masons, Greens, and Marxists to "prove themselves capable of independent thought" as you would have the Catholic politicians, bureaucrats etc? I don't think so.

We both know that you are only interested in "kicking the Catholic can".

You miss the point completely Al. No other worldwise institution, spends so much time and effort, through political means, to remove peoples rights. In various countries and at different levels, they have tried to deny people the right to use the pill, the right to use condoms, the right to get divorced, the right to an abortion, the rights of gays, etc. etc. It is none of their business and if they try to take away peoples rights, then it is my right to point out what a pathetic organisation they are.

Opposition to cloning on moral grounds alone ain't enough to justify banning it.

Personally I can't wait for that banner headline -"Human Cloned" - to mark the day we emerge from superstitious ignorance, in thrall to moralists keen to regulate the behaviour of everyone else.

mor·al·ist
Function: noun
Definition: Someone convinced someone else is having fun.

Lots of contributors here quibble over whether it's necessary or not. Pray tell, what IS necessary? There's so much we don't need but thanks to science we have. Medical developments once considered immoral, such as blood transfusions, IVF and organ transplants, are now widely accepted, which to me suggests opposition to scientific endeavour is learned

I look at the postings with puzzlement. Yabby is fixated on my being a Catholic, which I am not, and I fail to see why it matters. It is a strange backhand complement to the Catholic theory of life to imply that only Catholics will be moved by the dehumanisation inherent in creating offspring with no mother, no father, no place in the human family.

I respond only to Steve Madden’s erroneous claims (16 Jan) that SCNT is not cloning, and that the cloned embryo is not an embryo.

In the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 the definition of embryo clearly includes those made “by any means other than by the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm”, specifying cloning techniques (SCNT) as one such means.

An embryo is an embryo no matter how it is made. Cloning is simply one way of making an embryo.

The campaign to dehumanise the cloned embryo is an international one, and Leon Kass, head of the US President's Council on Bioethics, pleaded for honesty in public discourse about cloning:

"If we are properly to evaluate the ethics of this research and where it might lead, we must call things by their right names and not disguise what is going on with euphemism or misleading nomenclature. The initial product of the cloning technique is without doubt a living cloned human embryo, the functional equivalent of a fertilised egg...” New York Times, May 29.

Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, in its 1997 report Cloning Human Beings, explicitly stated:

"The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term."

Cloning creates a human embryo. Of that there must be no doubt and no deception. An embryo is an embryo no matter how you make it – naturally, by IVF, cloning (SCNT), parthenogenesis, whatever. They all have a life of their own. And it is wrong to create them with their destruction in mind

"And it is wrong to create them with their destruction in mind"

That is simply your view and usually one pushed by the Godsquad.
So its a subjective opinion, no more.

My subjective opinion is that if organisms, even if human, can be used to get people out of wheelchairs, end ongoing concious suffering by other humans etc, then that is fantastic and should happen.
Thats a far more humanitarian philosophy then the religious dogma, which goes all the way back to Onan and the so called holy sperms

Thanks, David van Gend: " And it is wrong to create them with their destruction in mind" . Human beings are born, and eventually die. So, to believers, it must be the case that they are created by God with their destruction in mind. There would appear to be no reason a pluripotent, shall we say? God couldn't give these concepti the eternal life after physical death believers say exists. If it is wrong to create life with its destruction in mind, why does God get to do it? Why is it wrong to imitate God? And if the zygotes used for stem cell research are not yet life proper, how is their use wrong at all?

David van Gend is assuming that the embryos are viable - which they are not.

Even if the foetal cells were viable, where does he assume the necessary 'incubators' will be found? Does he mean that all these embryos are to be implanted? Who would volunteer to be incubators? For babies which probably aren't viable and if so, likely to be deformed?

These foetal cells are not viable human beings. These cells have the potential to alleviate so much human misery, but people like van Gend are just so stuck on the idea of potential human life they ignore the human beings here and now who are suffering. It is not pro-life - an absolute misnomer, David van Gend and his ilk are pro-foetus never pro-life.

When God creates human life, it's got a chance of reaching maturity. It goes without saying that every human must die eventually. However, you want to create create human life in order to experiment on it and then deliberately destroy it. That's sick.

ESC's have not cured anybody yet. They are all promise and no results. Adult stem cells have produced results, and the discovery of a new ASC on the New Scientist site appears to be an even greater step forward. See "Ultimate Stem Cell Discovered"

www.newscientist.com.article.ns?id=dn1826

No, Big Al, not as far as believers are concerned. If God creates a life, he, being omniscient, knows when it will end, and being an omnipotent god, is also the cause of its ending. Is God sick?

You're bloody keen on the New Scientist article, which was, as others have pointed out, by no means as hopeful as you indicate. Are you clutching at straws, or do you have shares in New Scientist?

Big Al

Thanks for again bringing our attention to a four year old article that did not live up to its hype.

Adult stem cell plasticity has been shown to possibly occur in mice and in zebra fish, but this research has not been duplicated in any other lab. It is conceded by the author of this article that the plastic cells do not function.

Oh and by the way the use of Embryonic Stem Cells has just finished its first clinical trial for Parkinsons. "Researchers at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden discovered a "master determinant" that turns embryonic stem cells into bona fide dopamine neurons, brain cells that degenerate in those with Parkinson's disease."

You are still wrong, got any data more recent than Jan 2002?

This is what happens when you look cross-eyed at the screen. I saw 2006 in one place and assumed incorrectly that it was brand new stuff. I wondered why you were calling it 4 years old until I checked which January it was. My apologies. How do I get the egg off my face?

Good on you for being fair and honest, Big Al. Please take my suggestion that in this context, perhaps we should say 'ovum on your face' in the friendly spirit in which it's made.

Big Al

Thanks for your last comment.

If you need to look for papers on medical research try http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

No journalistic spin just the original publications.

Cheers
Steve Madden

Anomie, if it's all the same to you, I'll settle for the egg!

Steve, I'll have a look at that website, and from now on I'll double check the dates! I don't think anyone changes their mind in these "arm wrestles" but there's nothing like a "full and frank exchange of views" as the diplomats say.

I personally think that "Human Embro Cloning" is not recognised as the one cure, and is not by all means the answer to all Human complications and diseases. Which today is widely known too affect the majority of everyday living people around the world. While Scientists are desperately trying to find a known cure for the most common diseases such Heart Disease or serious Cancer, we are still yet years away of trying to eliminate these harmful threats to human life. This is a new begining to research itself, and this could be the closest way of understanding the cause, to these life threatening illnesses and hopefully finding a successful cure.

While organ transpants are now being used too help save lives, there is still no guarantee's patients will find a match, or there is always a possiblity that the human body will reject the living organ.
The Embro hopefully can be used to create new growth natually, from the human DNA without causing complications.

Doing this could help prolong life to translant and disease suffers until a cure is found. If given a second chance at life is possible, Wouldn't you say that anything worth trying is better then having no cure at all? At least this is a start and maybe very successful in the future, if only people could give it a chance and be thankful that something is being done, and realise that every step taken will one day lead to a cure.