Category: Politics Politics by Richard R. Tryon and others
Those who want order in their lives that is based upon the Word of God as captured in the Torah or the Old or New Testaments, and those charged with preserving such words, have a hard time dealing with new discovery. Science has now come to the point of being able to not only clone life, it is close to being able to build an artificial womb in which to feed the cells combined in a petri dish. As frightening as this may sound, we need to stop and consider carefully what limit we think God put on us when it comes to using science to save lives via the use of left over or aborted fetal material- no matter from what source- spontaneous or otherwise. Read here to gain a perspective for you to challenge or think about.

CC and Stem cell research
by Richard R. Tryon

When Cal Thomas writes, people want to read and consider his fine mind’s words. It is often, as a rule, hard to find fault with his positions or the arguments behind them. But, I take issue with his words and those of many others that denounce R&D into the mysteries of life that include such science as DNA and stem-cell utilization in modern medicine.

As most biblical scholars who support a strongly conservative position regarding interpretation of the Old Testament, Thomas finds it hard to allow any room for science to consider any legitimate use of knowledge that is now close to becoming useful concerning the use of stem-cells. Why?

Christians are no closer than followers of the Old Testament, if they share the conservative view that God wrote the words of both the Old and New Testaments and therefore no man in this day and age has any way to add to the Revelations at least alluded to in Holy Scripture. As long as those in authority in the religious centers of all faiths choose to contend that they alone are empowered to research the origins of God’s words and then to apply such knowledge to modern science, we can expect that their conclusions will reflect an inability to permit any change. If they were to so much as to hint of a willingness, are they not subject to persecution from within and without?

Galileo was persecuted from the time of his discovery until the last several years when finally the Pope felt secure enough to admit this and other errors of former Popes and their administrations. No, it will not be likely to ever see any church based authority or even a strong secular person be willing to risk excommunication or even ‘shunning’ because he or she risked offering an opinion that fails to conform.

How then can we address modern science’s efforts to unlock the secrets of cell development via the study of stem-cells taken from human embryos? The most easily accepted approach is to enter the debate in a manner that tends to agree with the conservative view and allow that life is a sacred gift from God and that it begins perhaps even before conception. After all sperms and eggs are living material! For the obvious reason that sperms and eggs have no way to grow on their own into babies, we seem to want to draw the line of life at no point further back than conception! But, we did not know in Biblical times that many eggs are fertilized but fail to cause implanting such that a life-line is put in place for it to grow. Some 40% of all fertilized eggs never reach this vital point and are lost. Why do some want to label these, and all other aborted conceptions as souls or babies with legal rights of protection from harm by their host mothers?

The answer lies in their conservative need to avoid being accused of heresy! So, in an effort to bring forth new Revelation, all proponents tend to abase themselves before the leaders of the conventional wisdoms. Cal Thomas counts himself among those leaders.

If those leaders represent the intellectual leadership of a few millions of the world’s six billion souls- they do not claim that only their definition of the faithful have souls. After all, how can a one second old conception be shown to have a faith that entitles it to having a soul?

Sorry as it may sound, it seems that it will be impossible to convince the Cal Thomas’s of the world inside or out of the religious bastions of learning, unless God comes himself to represent the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and proclaims on global TV that the discoveries about life from two to five thousand years ago are as complete as He wants us to know. Somehow the level of education of the living souls on Earth left the writers and readers ever since coming up short when it comes to understanding what God expects of those created in His image.

If such an encounter produced from God a clear order that Man is not to fool around with or learn about DNA or stem-cells in ways that will give Man a chance to save lives or modify them, we will all have suddenly found out several amazing things:

1. Faith in God would no longer be the result of any free-will action. All would have a perpetual evidence that all of life must conform to God’s will or risk eternal displeasure. There is no obvious way for God to come and tell us and show us by his presence, that we should forget free-will. That option vanishes instantly.

2. If God wanted to come and tell us to avoid learning anything about the structure of life, the universe, or of our relationship more current than what He showed us in Biblical times, He would have to destroy all evidence in our minds and our history that shows that we have learned anything. That option may strike most as being totally out of step with the reasoned understanding of why God has allowed us to learn so much more than did our biblical age ancestors.

So, what does all of this have to do with compassionate conservatism? A lot! For it puts all of who recognize the importance of the conservative view on the spot. Are we for or against learning? Do we really think that we would be doing God’s will if we campaign against learning more about how we are made? Or where we may go after our souls leave our earthly bodies? Or why God will not come to break the need for our free-will decision to follow his will?

The truly compassionate conservative has to come to realize that advances in science are not in conflict with God’s will. Therefore, using stem-cells from any fetus that can’t achieve a continuing of life may be used for such purposes until such time as we do not need more and can make stem-cells on our own.
But, currently the argument rages that we must not harvest stem-cells from any fetal tissue from any source, no matter that no woman is about to volunteer to have it implanted so that she can try to nurse it to further development. That all such aborted fetuses are either dead when delivered or about to be is not relevant to some. They simply do not want man to try to put such material to any good use.

Just recently we read that after an exhaustive four tiered ethical preparation, two men and twelve women donated some 176 eggs and a somewhat larger number of sperms (they didn't count them to report the number that died before the insemination or after). Then they fertilized some 110 of the eggs and let a few of them grow to be blastocyst and finally had three stem-cell groups to harvest for research into ways to try to help others repair brain damage or overcome serious disorders like Parkinson disease or spinal cord injury.

The fat is in the fire! These eggs and sperms that might somehow have been able to add to the mass of six billion of humans now alive- or so it would seem unless someone can show that these eggs taken from volunteer women were not destined to live as babies and future adults and were 'murdered' for science. Most of the noisy folks don't seem to care too much about the loss of a few million sperms that must have been just as alive as the eggs, don't you think? What irony! When will the religious right discover that all of nature is full of wasted life potential? If God had a reason to avoid loss of such simple life forms as eggs and sperms, all plants and animals would have a very difficult time surviving! Imagine if all women had just two eggs and all men just two sperms to join to procreate in a way that would not destroy the potential of each pair! Millions of sperms die just preparing an egg so that one of them can penetrate its shell! Does God worry about this loss of life or that we failed to give sperms rights?

In our age of civil liberties we have approached, if not passed the point of being stupid about 'human rights'. Use of stem-cells will ultimately be accepted in both research and treatment, but it will take a while.

Here is the story that contains the above facts.

Stem Cells Made From Embryos Created for Research Purposes

By Will Dunham
Reuters

WASHINGTON (July 11) - For the first time, scientists have created stem cells from human embryos using eggs and sperm from volunteers who made the donations for the explicit purpose of providing tissue for medical research, according to a study published on Wednesday.

Scientists at the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk said 12 women donated eggs and two men donated sperm to create embryos that yielded a reservoir of stem cell tissue.

Most research on embryonic stem cells involves tissue from embryos created in a technique for couples having trouble conceiving a baby called in vitro fertilization. The egg is fertilized in a test tube, then implanted in the uterus.

Several eggs are fertilized, and embryos left behind after the procedure can be donated for stem cell research.

But scientists at the Jones Institute, which fostered in 1981 the first test-tube baby born in America, recruited donors specifically to create embryos for use in medical research, not live births.

Stem cells are master cells that can transform themselves into any type of cell in the body. They offer the potential of regenerating damaged organs or tissue. Many scientists believe stem cells can be used therapeutically in treating brain maladies such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes and spinal cord injuries.

In their paper in the journal Fertility & Sterility, published by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the researchers wrote that their work was ''ethically and scientifically justifiable'' and it was ''our duty to provide humankind with the best understanding of early human development.'' They said they underwent a rigorous four-tier ethics review process before proceeding.

'REALLY GHOULISH'

But opponents of using human embryos in medical research denounced the work.

''This is really ghoulish -- creating human embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them,'' said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, a group that opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research. ''It's totally wrong to kill human embryos for research.''

The study was published amid a national debate over stem cell research. President George W. Bush is expected soon to decide whether federal funds can be used for research involving embryonic stem cells.

''There's a tremendous interest in stem cells and their potential from the standpoint of their clinical application to humans,'' said Dr. William E. Gibbons, chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and spokesman for the researchers. ''I'm not going to be surprised to see intelligent people of good faith having differences in their opinions in this process.''

Gibbons said there are advantages to choosing the donors of eggs and sperm in creating embryonic stem cells. For example, younger women produce higher quality eggs, he said. Women whose eggs are fertilized using in vitro techniques generally are in their mid-30s, relatively late in their child-bearing years.

CAREFUL SCREENING

Donors were carefully screened before being accepted, the researchers said. They were given physical tests to guarantee they were healthy and were interviewed by a psychologist to ensure they understood the study and had no emotional problems before being asked to consent to take part, they added.

''We felt that we had the purest form of informed consent from the standpoint that everybody knew from the beginning how this was going to unfold,'' Gibbons said.

The researchers said the sperm and eggs were collected and joined for fertilization using standard in vitro fertilization methods. Some 162 eggs were collected from the 12 women. Following insemination, 110 were fertilized, and 40 developed to the blastocyst stage -- at which the multiplying cells formed a tiny ball. At the end of the process, within about two weeks, there were three healthy embryonic stem cell lines -- essentially reservoirs of stem cells awaiting use in research.

Gibbons said the research was approved after a careful ethics review by four different bodies. Members of the clergy, ethicists and lawyers were involved in the process, he said.

A 1995 U.S. law prohibits federal money for research in which a human embryo would be destroyed or placed at risk.

''What they did could not have been federally funded. But it's perfectly legal,'' said John Robertson, University of Texas law school professor who heads the ASRM's ethics committee.

''They certainly went through a full-scale, intensive ethics review process -- no question about that,'' Robertson added."

Yes, more will be added as this story is not yet over.

More on CC and Stem Cells
What do they have in common?

by Richard R. Tryon

American history may well mark the summer of 2001 as one full of many new currents in our political and emotional development as a nation.  Our President Bush has gone abroad not just to ‘show-boat’ and build his international image, but to put forth some meaty issues before European political, church, and military allies.

He has confounded the political leaders and surprised his critical news pundits by helping the Russian Vladimir Putin discover a worthy idea: that a linkage between the need to reduce the stockpile of cold-war era missiles and weapons; and the need to be able to stop rogue nations from using ballistic missiles in nuclear games of blackmail. That alone made the trip fruitful.

The need to address the Kyoto Treaty aimed at making the U.S. give other nations the right to pollute at our expense, so that they can capture a larger share of the global market, has been a second initiative. Although no science exists to show a way to stop the largest causes of pollution- that achieved by Mother Nature via volcanoes, and forest fires from lightening- politicians have been very successful at convincing many that it is up to them, with taxpayers money, to stop any man made process that is deemed by certain ‘noisy’ environmental groups to be negative to their causes. The key question will be, can President Bush provide a plan that will clarify the sources of the real problems and then offer a solution that is workable and not be disruptive in an unfair manner?

A third initiative of the Bush journey has been to visit the troops put ‘temporarily’ for maybe six months about five years ago by his predecesor Clinton into Bosnia and Kosovo. While it may be a political move aimed at gaining more absentee votes and support from the military voting block, it has also been a chance for Bush to show solidarity with NATO while still indicating that our Army is not meant to be a perpetual police force!

But, perhaps the most important initiative of the trip involved his visit with the Pope. Taking his wife and daughter along and presenting them in the time honored traditional dress before what some deem to be the Holiest of all humans, the President spent time with the Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church! As a Methodist, whose Protestant faithful include many who are descendants of survivors of the many Roman Catholic Church inspired Inquisitions and Holy Wars, it was a remarkable appearance. It also can be called a political ploy. Isn’t every breath of any politician capable of being so labeled? But, it is far more. For it gave the Pope the chance to publicly ‘surprise’ the President with a formidable statement of the Church’s Infallible Voice speaking about the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until death by so-called ‘natural causes’. In its most simplistic sense, the Pope’s words seem to be representing the feelings of a man, who is determined to show as much love for humans as did his apostolic mentor Jesus Christ. But, I protest that his position is not just steeped in tradition, but is confined to the kind of thinking that would have been acceptable to most, but not all, of those living two to five thousand years ago during the period when Holy Scripture describes the times when God and his Son visited the Earth and inspired others to get around to writing about it!

To my knowledge we have only one main story in the Bible of God actually writing or causing writing to reach us immediately- the Ten Commandments that Moses brought down from the Mountain were not written via a Bic pen and photocopied but by a mysterious process that etched them into stone tablets! Little is made of this miracle of print production, of course, as the message is far more important!

The Pope has enjoyed the intellectual fruits of his minions now and for most of the past two thousand years. For them to have brought forth from the ancient stories truths that tend to confound our modern living in a world of science is not unexpected. Apparent inconsistencies are glossed over. However, one book of the Bible is never allowed to interfere with the so-called ancient and immutable truths! That is the book of Revelations. It is, however, perhaps the only bridge to the future possible for the uncommon man of today. I say ‘uncommon’ because unlike the common man of 2,000 years ago, today many of us can read, write and even understand the truths and do so without the limitations of those who rely solely on those who spend their time researching ONLY the ancient words.

Taken within the context of the times when they were written, and in the context of what we can now reason had to be the limitations of man at the time when they struggled to interface to God and his Son Jesus Christ; or for that matter, any of the other Deities or Gods of any and all other historical bodies of religious thought; we can now do our own original thinking. To be sure we need to respect and listen to those who are limited cleanly and clearly by the words of the past. The Pope is the Chief spokesman for one part of that body of thought. Even though this Pope has apologized for the sins of prior Popes in matters that involved millions of Jewish lives, for example, in WWII, nobody has come forth to indicate that the apology is tantamount to a rescinding of the Vatican I inspired doctrine of “Papal Infallability” in matters of faith and morals! Why not?  Because the news at the time was focused on the act of contrition and humble apology as a needed preface before the Pope went to visit Israel, the Holy Land of the Jews as well as Muslims and Christians.

So, how does all of this play into the President’s hands as he focuses on the latest conflict between Church and State over the use of stem-cells? Such cells are taken from fetal material created by a man and a woman, after sperms and eggs are mixed in a petri dish in an effort to generate and implant a fetus. To begin with, President George W. Bush, like any political person, has to be very careful not to disturb his voter base of support. Some believe that his election without a popular majority should disqualify him from making any decisions, while others contend that he should be limited to making only choices favored by those supporters. Obviously, this president wants to make choices that are correct, and right for all Americans, while being careful to avoid negative fall-out among his supporters. How can he address the stem-cell issue now so as to be like Solomon, acceptable to all? He must do it by creating a few twenty second sound bytes that all will applaud, because they can pay attention that long and understand that he is right! I am not sure that such a feat is possible, but if so, it begins with reflections similar to those written to a friend:

“You are so right that the real issue over stem-cell is caused by the minority who follow the extreme religious leaders of both Catholic and some Protestant faiths over the notion of when does life begin? When does it have a meaningful and active soul?

I see no way to declare that sperms and eggs are not living but are instantly converted into meaningful life when one sperm gets into an egg! To me both had to be living material to do anything! Nobody ever inseminated a dead egg with a dead sperm and produced life of any sort!

I have no problem with the notion of childless couples taking left over frozen embryos from those willing to give them away; or sell them for that matter, to recover some of the cost of having found a way to put their eggs and sperms together in a way that works when the preferred one fails!

I can also imagine the time when artificial wombs can be used by Catholic priests to make better babies, already 'Saved' at conception, if they can get the eggs from a few nuns; but, I doubt that they will do so. Maybe some basketball star will team up with some cloning technique to make a few hundred more superstars, but I doubt that will happen either. Will a Bill Gates want another child that is his clone? Why? Just because it could be possible is not a reason to want to do it. Of course, Ginness would only recognize the first one!

Lets pray that Bush finds a way to support the important plus side of this matter while allowing some funding to determine when the tiny soul is activated! My bet is happens upon birth, when the Holy Spirit in the atmosphere turns it on with the first breath. Until then, sorry, but your embryo did not make it into this Earth as a living being ready for the next life somewhere. Where depends upon your time and experience here. One second of innocence should qualify for some place better than the worst, wouldn't you think?”

This letter generated this response:


“Dick, your letter was right on the money - as far as I'm concerned. My question is, from where are these Revelations going to come? They're going to have to come from something pretty miraculous for the Catholic clerics to listen and change from their present course. (The Fundamentalists aren't going to listen to anyone except the "Second Coming" for at least 3 more generations!)

How about scientists striving to learn WHEN brain function begins? I've never heard of any work regarding that, but of course I'm not on top of this subject.

The "emotional" element regarding stem cell research comes from transposed Church teaching, and I think the Church is losing not only its message but its membership in this generation alone. It may take about 100 years for us all to become purely agnostic - and then, what happens to religious thought? Will we have to wait until then for scientific research into the origin of brain activity? Violence looks like the next subject for people to latch onto if religious contemplation loses its battle. Hopefully, not.”

The above response triggered more from me:

“Your words above are exactly parallel to my own in several ways:

1. Both Catholic and Protestant Christians, as well as all other of the so-called great world religions suffer from the same problem. They have a 'vested interest' in the status quo of their knowledge as keepers of the sacred truths as studied endlessly in their monasteries, etc. by their scholars. Searching for the exact meaning of the ancients who wrote in different languages is a worthwhile activity. However, it fails to deal with what was not conveyed or transmitted one way or another via Divine understanding or Revelation at the time. Material that could not have been understood was certainly to be found in the Bible; but those living in a 'flat-world' with Heaven up and Hell down, had no way to comprehend what we know now about the universe.

2. Therefore, new Revelation is needed to help maintain the base of faith or you are exactly right. In time the churches, as we know them now, will be history and agnostics or atheists will prevail. Or will they?

3. One key to a new set of Revelations is much in the news today. The Pope, the ultimate fountain of knowledge to Catholics has met with Bush, who is pondering the stem-cell question. The wisdom of the Pope must be respected, yet we also need to know that it comes from the perspective noted in #1 above. That bias gets in the way of clear logical thinking which is needed to give better definitions, as you note above are needed, when you ask about studies of the time when 'brain function' begins. The Pope could say it begins with the first cell division of the egg and sperm, but that is not the real issue for which the most important element of truth is needed. While it is correct to say that the egg and sperm combined trigger a latent cell division capacity built into the egg which also contains not only the blueprint of direction for development, but also the initial nutriments needed, it is not necessary to conclude that God Wills that an active soul was created at the same instant of conception.

The scientific revelation, that can be accepted by people, not necessarily the Church, is that this start-up mechanism fails so often that reason tells us that God would have no need to Will that all such conceptions create his goal of a Heaven full of souls. If such were so, then about 40% more souls exist in Heaven or in God's control than could have come from those who walked on the face of the Earth alone...not to count any other planets in this or other universes!

With 'tongue in cheek' I have noted that if it is God's Will to maximize the production of souls without living experience here on Earth (given that his omnicient and omnipotent nature can't do it without our help); then the Catholic Priests should try to collect all of their sperms and as many eggs as possible to be fertilized even though they lack the ability to implant or grow such conceptions to anything beyond the instant soul stage! By this kind of reason alone, I reject the idea that souls are ready for Heaven at conception!

If the above argument is inadequate, then your notion of searching for the defining moment of soul activation is relevant along with the need to deal with some moral considerations. Soul activation in my father's book at comes with the first breath when he reasons that the Holy Spirit in the atmosphere gets to the tiny new life and turns-on electronically that minute part of the brain which he believes contains the original cell and blueprint along with the memory capacity to define the state of development. Once turned on, he reasons that this 'soul-cell' can't escape from its special place as long as the body lives and generates the magnetic force needed to keep it in place.

His thoughts allow that at death, when the body shuts down its magnetic hold,the soul cell is drawn out by the same Holy Spirit that gave it the defining moment of real life- not just embryonic existence. Those who speak of near death experiences outside of the body, looking down at it, will probably agree that somehow the body's shut-down was reversed just in time to pull the soul cell back into its place to gain still more Earthly experience.

Given that all of this is both speculative and unproven, how can it come to help bring strong faith to either those of us who believe, but wonder why so many others do not, or to bring faith to the non-believers? My father wanted to make his proof absolute but he admitted that after four tries at rewriting, he did not perfect his argument.

My goal, is not to perfect the argument, for I am convinced that God has not given us such evidence for the simple reason that we are not here ready for it. So, free-will is the only vehicle by which we can both develop and have faith.

If "You Can't Escape God" has any value, it is in the idea that readers will come to ask better questions that lead them to faith of their own free-will in a manner that the institutionalized Church has failed to do, and can't do because it is the captive of its ancient past! It is stuck with ancient and incomplete information in an age where its members require more than simple homage to those of superior intelligence who claim infallibility.

Further, I agree with you that this century is a defining one. I hope that Pres. Bush, who seems willing to defy those with simple arguments for world peace, control of nature, and a few other points, will also be willing to let the world know that stem-cell research is ok. While it may be close to the borderline of being an issue that is a moral one, it is not one to be made illegal or non supported by compassionate conservatives. He needs to make a statement that calls for not only stem-cell research but also challenges all faithful to study further the biological and theological implications of the contention that an active soul is created at conception.

If helping infertile couples procreate living children instead of a succession of dead embryos that never attached to a support system; and if that leaves one or more active souls to be sent to Heaven without Earthly experience (as we know it can be) just because the rest of the embryos manually triggered and frozen as possible implants, died for lack of support, then can we accept that as God's Will? Yes, and we can also accept that it is His Will that we continue to evolve and learn how to help love one another with medical research that proves what the Hebrew word for God- Yaweh is interpreted to mean- "I am He that Reveals Himself". If that is not part of Revelation, what is?

I am now reading a book entitled "Generations" and it will help show me more about how we are each the product of where we were when we were ten! That is when our moral values were solidly in place, subject to change before twenty, but very hard to change later. It may add to my base of reason and give both of us hope that religion will not die, but Revelation will refine it.”

For my friend, these many words were helpful as per the response:


“Dick, I've read and re-read your reply to my e-mail. It is absolutely marvelous - a nearly complete dissertation on the stem cell subject which is easy to understand, includes almost completely the salient points on both sides of the argument, and is the best refutation of the Church's view that I've read to this point. I honestly can't see how anyone who possesses adult stem cells of their own (!) can argue with "our" views! Well done, my friend.”

Well, such nice words do not provide the President with the twenty second sound bytes needed to win political approval without losing the next election! How can he convey the needed message in less than 500 words- the maximum length of what newspapers accept in their letters to the editor format?

I submit the following text for the President:

My Fellow Americans,
My Administration has studied all points of view regarding the use of human reproductive stem-cell material. When scientists artificially trigger the initial cell division routine of a fertilized egg outside of the human female body, an implant possibility exists. Using materials made available to us by God’s design, that is humans as eggs that are fertilized by human sperms in petri dishes, medical science is able to start the eggs short-term growth ability. In the cause of medical science, it is mostly used for purposes aimed at reproducing our species; but it may also be used for purposes aimed at prolonging and improving the lives of victims of such ravishing diseases as Parkinsons and Alzheimers. We have been put into the position of a Solomon trying to divide a child between Waring Parents!

Why? Some say that failure to help living people with medical research is one way to murder them! Others say that using human fertilized eggs as a resource is equivalent to murder of the unborn. Others want to help couples have children of their own.

To satisfy both points of view, I have had to consider reports from medical scientists, organized religion’s leaders, who are students of ancient Scripture, and also the thinking of more modern theological possibilities about the use of plant and animal reproductive materials.

Because of the pressing need for developing medical solutions to avoid being charged with murder of our senior populations, I have supported a limited and temporary ten year use of human genetic and reproductive materials obtained from otherwise to be discarded fetal materials that are combined in those clinics that work to help infertile couples conceive children that otherwise would never have been.

At the same time, I have authorized a study aimed at helping all those interested in the religious or theological question of when human life begins? We must determine if our human rights are sufficiently protecting all. We must insure that seniors are not pushed into premature death by a failure to use science and God given minds to search for solutions to dreaded diseases that may be eliminated by our God encouraged human efforts.

But, we must also determine when meaningful life exists that deserves our protection. It is impractical and impossible for government to regulate and care for every human sperm and egg as living material, and equally impossible to protect the 40% of all fertilized eggs that fail to attach to the God given human reproductive system of the adult female during reproductive years. Nor can we protect the endless supply of living sperms that are inseminated and die in search of the targeted eggs.

But, if we can determine beyond a reasonable doubt that an embryo is proven to be in possession of an activated and living soul sometime between the moment of conception and delivery as a breathing baby, then we may have to examine our laws to see if such entities enjoy rights that supersede the rights of the host mother and/or the father.

We will look for the research to be sponsored by both private and public sources. No doubt some religious groups will spearhead the former, while human rights activists will encourage the latter. If, within the ten years research period that we have authorized, a few souls that were destined to die because their two day old fetal material was not implanted into a uterus that would actually have supplied it with nutriment for further development, then it is possible that we will eventually be found to have innocently contributed to the demise of a fertilized egg that might have been nurtured and survived. I must be willing to accept this risk in favor of the many that may be helped by such research. We can all pray that God will look upon our decision kindly!

Here is another related story and commentary.

July 24, 2001
The Pope leads the way...

World-Wide

Pope Denounces Embryo Research
In Discussion With Bush in Rome

By JIM VANDEHEI
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy -- Pope John Paul II, weighing in
on the raging U.S. debate over stem-cell research, pressed
President Bush to bar medical experimentation using human
embryos.

"A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be,
must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at
any stage from conception until natural death," the pope said.

The pontiff's plea could complicate
both the president's courting of
Catholic voters and his decision on
whether to allow the government to
fund research using stem cells
extracted from embryos, a process
that destroys the embryo. The
81-year-old pope didn't specifically
mention the U.S. controversy over stem-cell research, but his
message was clear: A fertilized egg, from which such stem
cells are derived, constitutes a human life, whether in the
womb or outside it.

Reading a statement after meeting privately with Mr. Bush at
the papal summer residence, the pope said: "Experience is
already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences
accompanies the assault on innocent human life in the
womb, leading to accommodation and acquiescence in the
face of other related evils, such as euthanasia, infanticide,
and most recently, proposals for the creation for research
purposes of human embryos, destined to destruction in the
process."

The pope, who has made clear his opposition to the death
penalty -- which Mr. Bush adamantly favors -- also called on
America to set an example "through a vibrant culture of life."

Mr. Bush has said he believes life begins at conception, but
has refused to say if he believes an embryo outside the
womb constitutes a living being.

The president, who spoke after the pope, didn't touch on the
stem-cell issue. When pressed by reporters, Mr. Bush said
he will "continue to listen to points of view and make up my
mind when I am ready to."

"I do care about the opinions of people, particularly someone
as profound as the Holy Father," he said.

Some in the pro-research camp took a bit of hope from the
fact the pope's statement didn't zero in on Mr. Bush's most
pressing decision: Whether to support research using frozen
embryos left over at fertility clinics. But Douglas Johnson,
legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee,
said research advocates "know that the pope is just as
opposed to killing frozen embryos as he is to creating
embryos in order to kill them for research."

White House aides said last week that Mr. Bush would
decide whether to permit federal funding shortly after he
returns Wednesday. But Monday they said it isn't clear when
the president would take a position, and that while he
respects the pope's position, it is unlikely to tilt his decision.

Embryonic stem cells are primitive building-block cells that
can develop into any of the human body's specialized cells.
Scientists believe stem cells someday will be used in treating
such diseases as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's.

Many administration officials believe Mr. Bush is looking for a
compromise that would allow for a limited number of frozen
human embryos to be used for research under a strict set of
guidelines.

One of his top advisers and close friends, Republican Sen.
Bill Frist, a doctor from Tennessee, recently announced his
support of a compromise along these lines; Republicans
have said Mr. Frist was testing the water for Mr. Bush.

After Mr. Frist announced his plan, 61 senators, including
several antiabortion Republicans, sent a letter to Mr. Bush
endorsing government-backed embryonic stem-cell
research.

But the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, among
others, has warned of a backlash among antiabortion
activists if the president backs even tightly limited research.

Mr. Bush knows the country's 62 million Catholics represent
a pivotal swing vote. The candidate who won a majority of the
Catholic vote captured the presidency in seven of the past
eight elections; Mr. Bush was the exception, narrowly losing
among Catholic voters to Al Gore in 2000.

Mr. Bush has spent considerable time wooing Catholic
leaders, who tend to be more conservative on abortion and
stem-cell research than many of the church's rank-and-file
members.

The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research,
which favors stem-cell research, said it hoped Mr. Bush "will
remember the suffering of 100 million Americans with
debilitating or life-threatening diseases and injuries, and the
promise that this scientific research holds for them."

But Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, a leading opponent of embryonic research, said he
hopes the pope's view "was persuasive to the president, but
we have no way of knowing how influential his comments will
be."

-- Laurie McGinley contributed to this article.

Write to Jim VandeHei at jim.vandehei@wsj.com3

Commentary by
Richard R. Tryon
July 27, 2001

This article seems to attribute to President Bush an aura of a man looking for a way to compromise in a manner that allows some level of research without giving evidence of being in favor of ‘wanton’ murder. His ‘hair-splitting’ definition may be to agree with the Pope that a conception may represent a human life at the instant of conception, but not if it is conceived outside of the would be mother’s body!

This sort of ‘ducks the issue’ as politicians like to do. It leaves open the idea the somehow God intervenes in the time following sexual intercourse and lets a sperm join an egg. That creates, perhaps, an instant soul and maybe even a pre-born life that may ultimately be protected by a body of civil and criminal law. Of course, that body of law doesn’t yet exist, although lawyers are trying to create it!

Mixing eggs and sperms outside of the conventional, natural way that the Pope likes to claim is God’s way, may be an activity that can’t be the same. Why? Well, if God takes the action to create souls at the instant of conception in the body of a female, and has done so forever, then such mixing outside of the body is an act of Man, not God.

Considering that when God does the conceiving, and that 40% of those conceptions fail to attach or successfully grow through the gestation period of sufficient length as to allow a birth that doesn’t die with or without superhuman effort, it is not too surprising that when man puts perhaps ten eggs and a lot of sperms together in petri dishes, the implanting success rate is even lower! If it takes three tries to get one implanted and growing, then the other seven frozen spares are usually discarded. If we use some of them for research, are we experimenting with the living materials that God has been using forever inside the body, but because these were joined together outside the place where God gives His conceptions instant immortality, is it possible that these would be persons are destined to have no soul? Is God not present to activate a soul when the implanting is done?

Obviously there is a flaw or two in this thinking. Can it be that the soul is not activated at conception by God’s intervention? Could it be that the Holy Spirit handles this task for God at the moment of live birth? When the first breath of air is ingested directly by the new born? If so, then the fact that 40% of all conceptions fail to be born is not a sign that 40% of souls in Heaven have no Earthly experience beyond conception!

Seems to me like we aught to strive to qualify for Heaven in some better way than to just have been conceived and survived until the eggs nutriments have been used and the dead conception is evacuated. Might not the same be said for conceptions of the type done by technicians in a lab petrie dish are of the same variety?  If so, using the materials for medical research and cures of disease may not be a bad thing. Unless, of course, the Pope tells us that we are destined to suffer by a loving God who doesn’t want us to learn how to repair such problems of disease and deformity, except via prayer and Divine Intervention.

Those fundamentalists of all persuasions are in danger of losing their flocks!