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?