Stem cells

[TomUK]

Thanks to the glories of youtube i've seen a couple of videos over the past few days about the whole furore in America at the moment over stem cell research etc.

Cards on the table here, i'm against abortion. I also admit that i'm not a scientist or a philosopher of ethics but some of the arguments i hear for things like stem cell research seem to me at least to be mildly compelling.

Should we as Christians but automatically resistant to a number of these potential advances or are we actually failing to use correctly the world that God gave to us?

I don't have an agenda with the post. To be honest i'm leaning away from stem cell research but consider myself open.

If i was to make a similar post in many other denominational areas then mods would probably have to close the thread due to a flame war going on. I trust that in STR we are to discuss things politely and fairly.

[john23237]

Let me put it to you this way. Let us say an individual is murdered (cold blooded murder of the most vile kind) and a donor card was found on the body. Would it be considered sinful to donate his or her organs to save the life of another person because the donor was the victim of a crime? We need to quite confusing the issues of stem cell research and abortion. If we completely outlawed stem cell research in the U.S. for all time, it would not stop a single abortion or change Roe vs Wade in the slightest. Stem cells are being discarded now that have the potentual for research and advancement in a number of medical areas. There is nothing Christian about this behavour.

[Aymn27]

Tom, there is absolutely no evidence that stem cells will do anything that the proponents say they will do. The debate going on with MJ Fox in Missouri, etc it not even about stem cells (that's what those who are for the proposition are saying though) but rather about human cloning. Cloning cells so that the stem cells may be harvested. This is all dangerous business - should we start paying women to get pregnant so we can harvest their babies that they were going to abort? Are abortion doctors (who deal in cash and it is BIG business) trustworthy enough to not sell these cells on the black market? Why must we use embroyonic stem cells as opposed to those from chord blood or adult cells?

[Simon_Templar]

Let me put it to you this way. Let us say an individual is murdered (cold blooded murder of the most vile kind) and a donor card was found on the body. Would it be considered sinful to donate his or her organs to save the life of another person because the donor was the victim of a crime? We need to quite confusing the issues of stem cell research and abortion. If we completely outlawed stem cell research in the U.S. for all time, it would not stop a single abortion or change Roe vs Wade in the slightest. Stem cells are being discarded now that have the potentual for research and advancement in a number of medical areas. There is nothing Christian about this behavour.
now let me ask you a question...

suppose, rhetorically for a moment, that murder was legal, or at least the circumstances under which you could legally kill someone were broadened to include something that you consider to be grossly immoral. Like say you could kill some one if they were homeless, or mentally handicapped.
Now, would you think it would be a good idea to allow an industry to grow up around harvesting organs from these people who were killed in this manner?

Would you consider it a good idea to think, "eh.. its going to happen anyway, so we might as well capitalize on it".

Further, adult stem cell research has produced some good results. Embrionic stem cell research, to this point, has produced none.
That leads me to believe that the issue here is really about political maneuver and not medical research.

Aymn is also correct about the Missouri issue. The constitutional ammendment actually deals with cloning, not stem cell research. The procedure the amendment is trying to protect is the procedure for cloning (the same one that was used on the infamous Dolly the sheep).

[cenimo]

This is an extremely tough call. I'm not really sure how people can expect the people who may benefit from this research to be against it.

Now let's throw this in- let's say someone who is vehmently against it came down with something the research may help to find a cure for - or they have a child who is born or becomes afflicted. Think they'd change their tune?

[ChessCastle]

We should be careful to differentiate between adult, and embryonic stem cell research.

[No Swansong]

It is true at least in my limited understanding that Adult Stemcell research has produced some wonderful results. It think it is also true that Embryonic Stemcell research has produced Bupkus as far as usable results. However even though I am against Embryonic Stemcell research, I have to admit that at least in the U.S. Researchers hands have been tied and do not have very many untainted lines to work with.
I oppose embryonic Stemcell research because it will create a very lucrative market for aborted children. I see no way to ethically justify the creation of such a market.
However I have a question that perhaps someone here can answer. What is the difference between Embryonic Stemcells and Cordblood Stemcells?

[erin74]

Yes - adult stem cell research has no presented no ethical dilemna's to date, that I am aware of (and I've done quite a bit of research into this).

I have a number of objections to stem cell research, which I have raised with my political representatives.

Cloning is a big one - in order for embryonic stem cell research to take place it is necessary to clone the individual for whom the treatment would be for. Otherwise their body is likely to reject the stem cells in the same way they might a transplant organ.
They have called this theraputic cloning, or somatic nuclear cell transfer (I may have that slightly wrong sorry). The reason being, the word 'cloning' has a negative image, which they want to shed. The thing is there is no difference at all between the process or result of a theraputic clone and a clone intended for life. So there is no reason why this will not lead to human cloning whereby a clone would be implanted into a woman and brought to full term. This is a dangerous practice we are dealing with. So far I have yet to hear of a suitable procedure to safegaurd from this eventuality.

Secondly, in order to do cloning you need a donor egg. In the UK and South Korea they have had difficulty getting women to donate their eggs. So they have already begun to offer financial incentives. Or in the case of South Korea they have pressured junior researchers into donating. This is pure exploitation of women, and in particular likely to be exploitation of women who are disadvantaged. There are defininte dangers associated with egg harvesting. Women in some European countries have already been left sterile from this practice taking place for the sake of embryonic stem cell research. Death is also a possibility. There are also studies which suggest a link between the drugs used in this process and the onset of cancer in the women undergoing it.
There is no way for this research to take place without the exploitation of women being an issue.

The only other viable option is to use animal embryo's and then inject human stem cells into it (this is what has been suggested in the Lockhart Review in Australia). Essentially this is creating a hybrid animal-human. The potential for this to be implanted into either species is just something I don't want to even consider. I don't think the world is ready for this. I hope it never will be.

Back to the topic of cancer. Embryonic stem cell research has already been shown to have difficulties with the onset of cancer being a result. The cells are too unstable, and have had a high rate of cancer presenting. So far there has been no way around this.

We must also question why the excess of embryo's from IVF. Their existance shouldn't justify this process, but should cause us to question why there have been so many excess embryo's created - this is an additional ethical concern, not just something to benefit from.

The reason some scientists prefer embryonic stem cell research to adult stem cell research is because embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. That means that they have not decided what they are going to be yet. Adult stem cells to date have been generally limited in their use to where they were collected from. That being said, they have had a lot of success and the process is already being used to treat patients. They are now also using this process to grow organs which are identical to that of the person the cells have been taken from, and so can be implanted without fear of rejection.
Recently scientists have been able to isolate in pigs adult stem cells with pluripotent potential. That means they have the benefit of the embryonic stem cell, in that their purpose is yet to be determined, and the advantage of adult stem cells, in that the body will not reject them.
The implications of this is that there would be no need to use embryo's to do this research.

So why are so many countries, like my own, still so determined to go down this path???

It is a survival of the fittest mentality - but at what cost, and to whom? We can not just look at this issue and make decisions based on the possibility that there may be some benefit from this research - it is not enough to justify exploiting those with no voice, be they they unborn child, or the disadvantaged women. When there are viable alternatives one has to wonder why this issue continues to hold political support.

[erin74]

Cordblood stemcells are adult stemcells - cordblood is a rich source of adult stem cells.

[No Swansong]

Thanks Erin!

[Iosias]

If Stem cell experiments destroy embryos then we should reject it outright!

[john23237]

There have been some very real concerns raised here that clearly need to be addressed. I cannot address the specifics of the Missouri issue, as I am not familar with it. As to the others, most are not directly the result of stem cell research as such. For example, Simon raises a valid question, but would the best answer not be to address the broaden grounds for execution? It would not be the fault of research that a government was so abusive. Go after the broaden laws, not the research. Aymn points out that immoral, unethical, and even criminal activity might grow around this and Erin points out the possible, and indeed actual, exploitation of females. The obvious answer is to outlaw such acts and then vigorously inforce these laws. We outlaw the sale of donor organs. The same concept of regulation should apply. Underlying the concerns seems to be the cloning issue. To be plain about it, cloning cells does NOT have to led to a "Dr. Frankinstein" outcome. To sum up, ALL research has the potentual for abuse of one kind or another and that is why it should and is regulated, but to band it entirely is not the right answer.

[Aymn27]

If Stem cell experiments destroy embryos then we should reject it outright!
I'll buy that for a dollar!

[erin74]

There have been some very real concerns raised here that clearly need to be addressed. I cannot address the specifics of the Missouri issue, as I am not familar with it. As to the others, most are not directly the result of stem cell research as such. For example, Simon raises a valid question, but would the best answer not be to address the broaden grounds for execution? It would not be the fault of research that a government was so abusive. Go after the broaden laws, not the research. Aymn points out that immoral, unethical, and even criminal activity might grow around this and Erin points out the possible, and indeed actual, exploitation of females. The obvious answer is to outlaw such acts and then vigorously inforce these laws. We outlaw the sale of donor organs. The same concept of regulation should apply. Underlying the concerns seems to be the cloning issue. To be plain about it, cloning cells does NOT have to led to a "Dr. Frankinstein" outcome. To sum up, ALL research has the potentual for abuse of one kind or another and that is why it should and is regulated, but to band it entirely is not the right answer.
It doesn't have to - but the proposed processes are not enough to show that it will not happen in the future. What if they discover that it is better to fully clone the person in order to have more success in treatment - will we then head down that path.

Already scientists have moved from finding the best time to collect stem cells being day x to being later - I can't remember the exact numbers. How far will they be allowed to go - it's all about pushing the barriers.

BTW - anyone seen the Island?

John - I wonder what you thought about the fact that adult stem cell research seems to have discovered a pluripotent stem cell. Should we proceed with embryonic research if adult research can do exactly the same thing??

[No Swansong]

I'll buy that for a dollar!


You been watchin Arny?

[She]

Tom, there is absolutely no evidence that stem cells will do anything that the proponents say they will do. The debate going on with MJ Fox in Missouri, etc it not even about stem cells (that's what those who are for the proposition are saying though) but rather about human cloning. Cloning cells so that the stem cells may be harvested. This is all dangerous business - should we start paying women to get pregnant so we can harvest their babies that they were going to abort? Are abortion doctors (who deal in cash and it is BIG business) trustworthy enough to not sell these cells on the black market? Why must we use embroyonic stem cells as opposed to those from chord blood or adult cells?

:confused:

As far as I understand it, what Michael J Fox wants does not involve pregnant women or abortion doctors. He wants cells from his body taken and made into blastocysts with identical genetic make-up to himself. The stem cells are then harvested from these blastocysts in the laboratory. This is the best treatment option for him since they are bio-identical to his own cells.

Stem cells from cord blood and aborted embryos/fetuses are not as effective since they count as a 'transplant' with all the inherent risks to life for the person receiving the transplant. (Immune suppressant drugs leading to possible cancer and dangerous infections.)

What Michael J Fox wants is not that unethical when you consider that these 'clones' are:
1. Still at a very early stage of development.
2. Have been artificially made using his own cells (NOT his sperm cells).
3. There is a very high possibility that they are not viable.
4. They are not potential human beings since they would probably not survive.
5. Michael J Fox and people like him, need alleviation from their suffering.

When Dolly the sheep was cloned, there were many clones that did not survive. She was one of a large number of identical clones and she was the lucky one.

[erin74]

A blastocyst is an early stage of an embryo.

What they do is remove the identitfying dna from the embryo and inject MJF's DNA, so that his body will not reject it.

There is no research to support that this will assist his condition.
The embryo prior to the removal of it's dna would have been viable.
We were all once at an early stage of development. Now we are who we are.
Is the fact that they are not viable any reason to create them - how is that more ethical than not creating them in the first place?
What about the suffering of the women who may become sterile or worse because of having eggs harvested in order to make this possible?

It is tragic that people suffer and die from such illnesses as Parkinsons. There is no evidence that this will resolve that suffering. And we cannot just have an 'at any costs' approach to finding solutions to these illnesses. There are some costs that are too high, and are not ours to offer up.

[SumTinWong]

To me if the choice is tossing the embryos in the trash, or using them for possible scientific breakthroughs, the choice is obvious. Use them. But i do not want to see people buying and selling viable usable embryos on the open market like cattle.

It makes no sense to me to not use something that is going to be thrown away and destroyed anyway if it has the possibilty of doing some good. If it does no good, what is harmed as they were going to be destroyed anyway? JMHO.

[erin74]

It extends beyond excess embryo's.

There is the alternative of embryo adoption for those who have difficulties conceiving.

If there were a great number of people in coma's for some tragic reason would we support they be used for scientific research, rather than respectfully allowing their life support systems to be switched off. I certainly hope not.

It is tragic that so many excess embryo's have been created, and I think we need to be asking our politicians why this has been allowed to occur. I think the most respecteful thing to do is to either seek to have them be allowed to be adopted (this is not even an option in our country - people travel o/s to do it), or respectfully allow for the destruction of these embryos.

[Finella]

I don't know all the details of stem cell research, but I am pretty familiar with how IVF clinics work and how embryos are handled -- so just to clarify how this works in the U.S., anyway --

Prior to receiving any treatment, couples seeking IVF have to sign consent forms that explicity state how the embryos will be treated if they are frozen and stored. This includes who gets the embryos if the couple divorces, if one of the couple dies, and if the couple disappears and does not remain in contact with the clinic after a period of time (usually 5-6 years). The instructions do include the option of donating the embryos to research, and the clinic should also specify what purpose that research would be. You can choose to have the embryos returned to you (in which case they would die unless you happen to have your own tanks to store them), or you can also choose to put them up for adoption. Even then, however, this consent alone is not enough to hand over the embryos to an adoptive couple or to a research lab. More consent would have to be obtained when that specific situation arises.

The point being, that with the large number of frozen embryos being stored, they cannot simply be harvested for research purposes without a couple giving express consent. And this is the way it should be. I am certain that the scientists who want to do stem cell research on human embryos would expect nothing else. Regulation of medical research in the U.S. is very, very strict -- institutional review boards (IRBs) scrutinize the ethics of every research design and are also very concerned with the informed consent process. And the scrutiny only gets tighter and stricter by every passing year, because research facilities are concerned about liability.

So I don't see how a process that is this strictly regulated could lead to the slippery slope everyone is concerned about. No one is forcing these couples to donate their embryos to research. And not every unneeded embryo will be adopted. The only other option is to freeze them indefinitely (and they'll die eventually that way, too) or to let them die. Not every embryo that is transferred into a woman in IVF survives, either, and this is also the case in natural conception when the embryo may not implant for unknown reasons.

[Finella]

Erin -- one reason there are so many extra frozen embryos in the U.S. is that medical insurance doesn't usually cover IVF treatment. So women are stimulated to produce a large number of eggs in one cycle, which can result in a large number of embryos. When not all of the embryos are needed, they get stored. But sometimes you wind up with 5, 10 or more embryos after a couple has already had the 2-3 kids they want.

This is also why you see multiple pregnancies increase under IVF, because everyone wants to get the most bang for the buck, so doctors transfer 2 or 3 (or more) embryos in one cycle to increase the chances for pregnancy. So the insurance companies say they don't want to cover IVF because they don't want to promote higher-risk multiple pregnancies, while the families have no choice to get the most they can out of the limited number of IVF cycles they can afford by transferring lots of embryos. It's a silly stalemate.

But I'm not sure if the excess of human embryos exists in other countries, and in countries where insurance covers IVF or not. that would be interesting to see. But the insurance issue is my theory.

[She]

A blastocyst is an early stage of an embryo.

What they do is remove the identitfying dna from the embryo and inject MJF's DNA, so that his body will not reject it.

No, I don't think they use an embryo in the first place.

Please see the following link:

http://www.asrm.org/Media/Ethics/cloning.pdf

Unfortunately I am unable to copy and paste but what the above article says is that, the DNA is taken from an adult cell and injected into an oocyte not a blastocyst. Therefore it is an UNFERTILIZED egg which is being used. The DNA is removed from an unfertilized egg and replaced with DNA from the person who wants to be cloned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer

In SCNT the nucleus, which contains the organism's DNA, of a somatic cell (a body cell other than a sperm or egg cell) is removed and the rest of the cell is discarded. At the same time, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed. The nucleus of the somatic cell is then inserted into the enucleated egg cell. After being inserted into the egg, the somatic cell nucleus is reprogrammed by the host cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated in such a way that it begins to divide. After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (an early stage embryo with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism.

The cell is stimulated to make it start dividing. This happens naturally when an egg is fertilized. But in this case the egg has not been fertilized and so the egg has to be stimulated artificially.

[SumTinWong]

I guess I do not understand why some feel it is okay to destroy an embryo but not let it be used to possibly help people. Blows my mind I guess.

[john23237]

John - I wonder what you thought about the fact that adult stem cell research seems to have discovered a pluripotent stem cell. Should we proceed with embryonic research if adult research can do exactly the same thing??

I am greatly excited and pleased by this, but until further work is done in this area, we still have need of strictly controlled embryonic research. If further work proves successful, this issue may become mute, but until then, we cannot waste valuble research time. The world is filled with Micheal Foxs. Each one of them need, expect, and deserve our best efforts conducted in a respectful, ethical, and professional matter.

[She]

I guess I do not understand why some feel it is okay to destroy an embryo but not let it be used to possibly help people. Blows my mind I guess.

You'd be surprised at the number of Christians who use 'abortificient' contraception e.g. IUD, mini-pill, morning after pill, etc. All these methods result in the destruction of fertilized eggs (blastocysts). Yet, there is widespread condemnation regarding the use of an artificially produced blastocyst to help someone with a terminal illness.

P.S. I just want to add that I have never used abortificient contraception and I never would.

[john23237]

You'd be surprised at the number of Christians who use 'abortificient' contraception e.g. IUD, mini-pill, morning after pill, etc. All these methods result in the destruction of fertilized eggs (blastocysts). Yet, there is widespread condemnation regarding the use of an artificially produced blastocyst to help someone with a terminal illness.

No, I am not surprised. This is a matter(stem cell research) that should be addressed by medical ethicists and state regulatory boards, but it has become yet another battle cry in the culture wars.:sigh:

[No Swansong]

I guess I do not understand why some feel it is okay to destroy an embryo but not let it be used to possibly help people. Blows my mind I guess.

At least I am consistent I don't support either. But exactly who here has supported the destruction of an embryo or did I miss something? (wouldn't be the first time, not even the first time today)

[erin74]

No, I don't think they use an embryo in the first place.

Please see the following link:

http://www.asrm.org/Media/Ethics/cloning.pdf

Unfortunately I am unable to copy and paste but what the above article says is that, the DNA is taken from an adult cell and injected into an oocyte not a blastocyst. Therefore it is an UNFERTILIZED egg which is being used. The DNA is removed from an unfertilized egg and replaced with DNA from the person who wants to be cloned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer



The cell is stimulated to make it start dividing. This happens naturally when an egg is fertilized. But in this case the egg has not been fertilized and so the egg has to be stimulated artificially.
SCNT = human cloning. It is the same thing. From the wikipedia link:


In genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics) and developmental biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology), somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a technique for creating an ovum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovum) with a donor nucleus (see process below) . It can be used in embryonic stem cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell) research, or in regenerative medicine where it is sometimes referred to "therapeutic cloning." It can also be used as the first step in the process of reproductive cloning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning).


When the egg is stimulated to divide it creates a blastocyst, which is an embryo (ie a clone of the person from whom the DNA is taken). This is destroyed in order to collect the new stem cells.

The collection of the egg endangers women.
The creation of a cloned embryo just to destroy it for the sake of the person who is being cloned is just wrong.

[erin74]

You'd be surprised at the number of Christians who use 'abortificient' contraception e.g. IUD, mini-pill, morning after pill, etc. All these methods result in the destruction of fertilized eggs (blastocysts). Yet, there is widespread condemnation regarding the use of an artificially produced blastocyst to help someone with a terminal illness.

P.S. I just want to add that I have never used abortificient contraception and I never would.
I am against this process as well.

I think this research has raised questions that also bring the ethics of abortion and IVF back into the limelight.

I had concerns about the number of IVF embryo's that are created and implanted. We know christians who have gone through IVF. They have chosen to have less eggs collected and fertilised, and have committed to having them all implanted. They will only implant one at a time. It will be more expensive, but implanting more than one at a time increases the risk for each embryo. They do not want to put any of these embyro's at risk, for each is precious to them, and deserves a chance at life. By implanting multiple embyro's it creates a higher risk for each individual embryo. The reason it is done is that there is a higher chance of one of them succeeding if more than one is implanted.

The IVF process works on statistics - they are working toward the most likelihood of successful pregnancies. They do not take into regard the life of the embryo.

All of these procedures (stem cell research, abortion, IVF) leave us with the question of when does life begin. If life begins before these processes take place, which I think it does, we cannot be so flippant as to create a life in order to destroy it for the sake of a better quality of life from someone else.

[erin74]

At least I am consistent I don't support either. But exactly who here has supported the destruction of an embryo or did I miss something? (wouldn't be the first time, not even the first time today)
Those that support embryonic stem cell research are supporting the destruction of an embryo.

[She]

Those that support embryonic stem cell research are supporting the destruction of an embryo.

I don't support the destruction of 'normal' embryos i.e. embryos which were created using sperm and ova. It is possible to draw a moral distinction between an embryo which was man-made from an adult cell and one which was made using sperm and ova. The latter was made by God (even if it was created in a test-tube) and holds the DNA of a new and unique individual. Whereas the former 'clone' is a copy of the adult from whom the cell was taken. And, I might add, an artificial copy without much potential to survive and become a human being, even if given that opportunity.

[No Swansong]

:confused:

As far as I understand it, what Michael J Fox wants does not involve pregnant women or abortion doctors. He wants cells from his body taken and made into blastocysts with identical genetic make-up to himself. The stem cells are then harvested from these blastocysts in the laboratory. This is the best treatment option for him since they are bio-identical to his own cells.

Stem cells from cord blood and aborted embryos/fetuses are not as effective since they count as a 'transplant' with all the inherent risks to life for the person receiving the transplant. (Immune suppressant drugs leading to possible cancer and dangerous infections.)

What Michael J Fox wants is not that unethical when you consider that these 'clones' are:
1. Still at a very early stage of development.
2. Have been artificially made using his own cells (NOT his sperm cells).
3. There is a very high possibility that they are not viable.
4. They are not potential human beings since they would probably not survive.
5. Michael J Fox and people like him, need alleviation from their suffering.

When Dolly the sheep was cloned, there were many clones that did not survive. She was one of a large number of identical clones and she was the lucky one.


My only question about this is "is it possible that the created embryo may survive and develop?" The answer to all the above at least for me comes down to that question. Is it a potential human life. If the answer to that question is yes, then to me there is no ethical way to treat the embryo as a means. (I guess you would call me a Kantian)

[No Swansong]

:confused:

As far as I understand it, what Michael J Fox wants does not involve pregnant women or abortion doctors. He wants cells from his body taken and made into blastocysts with identical genetic make-up to himself. The stem cells are then harvested from these blastocysts in the laboratory. This is the best treatment option for him since they are bio-identical to his own cells.

Stem cells from cord blood and aborted embryos/fetuses are not as effective since they count as a 'transplant' with all the inherent risks to life for the person receiving the transplant. (Immune suppressant drugs leading to possible cancer and dangerous infections.)

What Michael J Fox wants is not that unethical when you consider that these 'clones' are:
1. Still at a very early stage of development.
2. Have been artificially made using his own cells (NOT his sperm cells).
3. There is a very high possibility that they are not viable.
4. They are not potential human beings since they would probably not survive.
5. Michael J Fox and people like him, need alleviation from their suffering.

When Dolly the sheep was cloned, there were many clones that did not survive. She was one of a large number of identical clones and she was the lucky one.

No, I am not surprised. This is a matter(stem cell research) that should be addressed by medical ethicists and state regulatory boards, but it has become yet another battle cry in the culture wars.:sigh:

Those that support embryonic stem cell research are supporting the destruction of an embryo.



That I understand but I don't think that is what Bud was refering to.

[erin74]

Human cloning is illegal pretty much everywhere, so there is no record of a human clone being created.

However, there are records of other species surviving this process -the most well known being Dolly the sheep.

While unlikely to make it through the processes involved to reach birth, it is possible that the embryo may survive and develop.

That is this is the beginning of life in the same way that any other embryo is the beginning of life, and in the same way that each of us were once an embryo at the beginning of our lives.

A friend of mine shared with me a letter he is writing to some senators. He makes the point that none of us would like to have been willfully destroyed at this stage of our lives. Can we not afford this right to others, even at very early stages of development. Especially as they are not able to take part in this debate. If they had a voice, what do you think they would say?

We as christians are called to defend the weak - how many times were christians told to look after orphans and widows, the weak of that society. We should defend these who have no voice.