Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Against Stem Cell Policy

Posted by Soulskill on from the two-steps-forward,-two-steps-back dept.

An anonymous reader sends this quote from Reuters: "A US district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue. The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos. Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos. '(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,' Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling."

61 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

    Federal funds used to conduct research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway...

    Why distinguish?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For the research it seems a bit silly. But if the product of the research is a technology that requires the creation of embryos for the purpose of harvesting their cells, that's really creepy at best. Isn't that the deal with actially using an embryonic stem cell treatment - you need to alter some DNA in an embryo to match your own, let it grow then harvest it for your use, per individual?

      Some biochem geek explain this to me!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Ironhandx · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not exactly a bio chem geek per say, but I have done a fair amount of research, particularly into the embryonic stem cell thing.

      The problem is, destroying embryo's purposefully is what people think it always entails, in reality thats just a shortcut. Once they have embryonic stem cells from a source(something like a miscarriage etc, cells that would have been destroyed anyways) they can basically grow them in a petri dish almost indefinitely and multiply them almost infinitely. After they have a line of embryonic stem cells going they add a slurry of your DNA to them and viola, embryonic stem cells tailored to you without all that nasty purposely killing embryo's. The thing is, they need more lines of embryonic stem cells as the closer the original is to your line the easier it is for your own tailored cure, but that goes for both types of embryonic stem cells, however it adds more layers of difficulty to the non embryo destroying method than the embryo destroying one, hence the need for more lines.

      There are so many miscarriages and abortions anyways that theres no need to not use the byproduct for something useful. Its either use it or it goes in the garbage anyways.

      Any real bio chem geek feel free to correct me if I've jumbled things badly, but from what I understand, the funding was also conditional upon no embryo destruction, but lifted the blanket restriction against research into stem cells originating from embryo's period.

    3. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Informative

      Federal funds used to conduct research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway...
      Why distinguish?

      Because it was the manifest and obvious intent of Congress to forbid the Federal funding of such research. See, e.g. the dickey amendment which provides in no uncertain terms that no funds are to be expended on research in which embryos are destroyed irrespective of the origin or fate of those embryos.

      SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--
      (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
      (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).
      (b) For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

      It is absolutely galling that Obama (& his subordinates at HHS/NIH, for whom he is responsible) would just ignore the clear language of the statute and decide to fund this research. There is just no way to square it with the statute.

      [ As an aside, as a personal political matter, I would vote against such an amendment and for unrestricted funding for stem cell research. As a legal matter before the court here, the question is whether the NIH policy comports with the law not whether the law is a good, or even coherent, one. ]

    4. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldnt the use of aborted fetuses carry just as much baggage (if not more) than embryos? How does that allay any objections?

      Further, if stem cell treatments take off in a big way, will miscarriages really be enough, or will be be back in this debate?

    5. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by GreenTom · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Hold on, selectively quoting 509(2)(b):

      For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism...that is derived by...any other means from...human diploid cells.

      (I know I left I lot out, but I don't think I'm distorting the meaning). As far as I can tell, liver cells in a petri dish would count as human embryos under that definition.

    6. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not a biochem geek either, but it is my understanding that embryonic stem cells are not harvested from fetuses but from blastocysts - a much earlier stage in the human lifecycle which consists of a sphere of undifferentiated cells, not yet even implanted in the uterus wall. They can't be obtained from abortions or miscarriages, which occur later, but rather are typically surplus IVF embryos. They sidestep a lot of ethical objections by not having any sort of nervous system, or indeed any tissue differentiation apart from a separate type of cell on the outside of the sphere that is destined to form a placenta.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    7. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by fysician · · Score: 2, Informative

      One thing you are grossly misunderstanding if where you describe how ESC are tailored for individuals by mixing with "slurry" of one's DNAs. Usually, "customization" of ESC with someone's DNA entails very risky process of nuclear transfer. In essence, you suck out the native nucleus and replace it your own, so ESC becomes your own cell line to transplant to whatever tissue you need to regenerate. Being able to achieve nuclear transfer with acceptable reliability alone would be a Nobel prize worthy accomplishment. Anyway, there is a good reason to avoid embryonic stem cell altogether. The biggest reason is because we have no good ways to control its potential to form teratoma, which is basically cancerous mass of tissues of all types. That's what's happening at those rogue Russian stem cell clinics. Although it is true that ESCs have the biggest potential to regenerate, it's also most potent cancer forming cells. Some theorize that cancer is actually rogue stem cells. Another practical reason why ESCs could be avoided is because adult stem cells have been shown to be able to transform to embryonic counterparts. This is a complex topic of its own. If you are interested look up IPS = induced pluripotent stem cell.

    8. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, so I really shouldn't answer you, but I'll repeat myself anyways since you didn't read my post.

      "they can basically grow them in a petri dish almost indefinitely and multiply them almost infinitely"

      This nearly infinite amount from a single line sort of negates your argument in its entirety, and new technology and methods are pushing that nearly infinite line further and further back into effectively infinite territory.

      Basically, as there is a finite amount of variation in human genetic code that needs to be accounted for, there is a finite amount of lines that could ever be needed. As research continues it may even cease the need for new lines almost entirely since they will eventually develop a method for creating entirely new lines from existing lines.

      Also, IVF is and will continue to be a major source of these stem cells for reasons I mentioned elsewhere in the comments on this story.

    9. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by burnin1965 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are so many miscarriages and abortions anyways that theres no need to not use the byproduct for something useful.

      Embryonic stem cells are not harvested from miscarriages or abortions. They are harvested from artificially fertilized eggs that grow into embryos and have reached the blastocyst phase and have grown to 50 to 150 cells in size.

      The blastocyst that is the source of ebryonic stem cells has never came into contact with a uterus, has never been implanted into the wall of a uterus and absolutely positively never will develop beyond the blastocyst phase since there is no uterus in which to embed itself and start the process of developing the umbilical cord.

      There are ethical issues that we need to deal with but it is important to have the facts on which to base conclusions as there are many people who try to confuse the uninformed and have them believe that the evil scientists are ripping babies from the womb and killing them to collect stem cells. This is nowhere near reality.

    10. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Abortions can and do occur at this stage, but you are correct on the miscarriages. Miscarriages mostly provide different types of stem cells, but there have been some research milestones made from research on them, but less in the stem cell area and more in the genetic toolkit areas.

    11. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by The+Hatchet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually embryonic stem cells are losing ground to adult stem cells, because adult stem cells have almost no chance at all of rejection, being the persons own genetic material. Also, the aborted fetuses are destroyed anyways, it would simply be putting the literally garbage (it is thrown out otherwise) to good use, and possibly saving lives. But I guess some people don't care about saving lives.

      Even though adult stem cells will be more useful, embrionic stem cells are more useful for the beginning stages of research, as we begin to get a clue as to how they work. And hundreds of embryos are made for some proceedures, to make sure at least one will take, many of them end up garbage, and that is simply a ball of cells, barely even at the point of specialization yet. And if that is a full human being, than so is a large percentage of all life on this planet, including monkeys.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    12. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I apologize for my laymans terms and potentially making it seem more easy than it is, but I use that description frequently because it does, in laymans terms, and somewhat inaccurately, but close enough for general understanding purposes, describe it. It doesn't have anything to do with any gross misunderstanding on my part as you claim. Though your entire post seems to be a thinly veiled attack on hESCs in general. My apologies if I misread you.

      IPS's as I understand it are inferior forms of stem cells for a number of reasons, which I won't mention here as there are already several long posts on why with citations in this stories comments.

      Adult stem cells don't have anywhere near the potential of embryonic stem cells and the current advantage for some forms of treatment exists in the fact that they are already tailored to the patients DNA/Required Tissue area. As you do mention accurate implantation of embryonic stem cells is one of the major areas that needs a big breakthrough in order for them to reach their full potential, but as such, once a method is obtained to do so with good consistency the cancer problem will dissipate rapidly and the benefits will remain. More accurate implantation = less rogue embryonic stem cells that could end up in someones treatment.

      The whole tech is very new and thus there are problems. Ignoring any area of research, especially one that shows the huge promise of hESCs would be negligent beyond imagining.

    13. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They can't be obtained from abortions or miscarriages, which occur later, but rather are typically surplus IVF embryos.

      Correct, embryos harvested for ESC are 5 days post fertilization. A pregnancy test would not show that a woman is carrying a blastocyst at this point, so it is impossible that abortions will be used to supply ESC: you don't get an abortion 5 days after conception because you don't know you're pregnant.

      By the time you know you're pregnant, that embryo's stem cells have continued with development past the point of pluripotency, the ability to make any type of cell.

      They sidestep a lot of ethical objections by not having any sort of nervous system, or indeed any tissue differentiation apart from a separate type of cell on the outside of the sphere that is destined to form a placenta.

      Unfortunately, the people who object to ESC are less concerned with cell biology or anything tangible or proveable and more concerned about souls. If it has a soul, it's murder, they say.

      My question to such people is how do you know the soul is started at conception? The scripture they quote as proof is ambiguous at best (and in my opinion doesn't say much of anything relevant to the matter). I think scripture is a terrible basis for policy decisions as a rule. More importantly, it's my understanding that up until 12 days post fertilization, the embryo can split to form twins. Are these people suggesting that a twin is only half a person? Are they some type of special exception? Does twinning cause these people to question their interpretations? Of course not.

      Biology and religion have never squared well with each other, and it's pure insanity to combine those two with laws.

    14. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by burnin1965 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since you commented anonymously I don't know if you will see this but I will reply anyhow.

      It has to do with drawing the line as to what you call a human. Is a baby a human? Is a 6 or 3 month old fetus a human? Is a single fertilized egg a human? There's no easy answer because people can't even agree on how to define a human when it's full grown.

      Which is why it is very important to squash the perpetuated lies about abortions being used for embryonic stem cell research. Rather than base a moral decision on visions of dead babies it is better to learn the facts. And the fact is that there is a hugely significant difference between a fertilized egg and a 3 month old fetus, and the difference becomes even more significant when we consider that these are not fertilized eggs inside a womb that have some calculable probability of gestating and growing into a human baby. We are talking about human cells that will absolutely never gestate into a human for the same reason that an unused egg lost through menstruation or sperm ejaculated during a wet dream or even a naturally fertilized egg that fails to embed to the uterus wall will absolutely positively never become human babies even though they are human cells and under the appropriate conditions would actually have a reasonable probability of becoming a human.

      why all the fuss over embryonic stem cells? I'm not a bio-chem guy but I know enough to understand the arguements, and the one thing I don't get is that there are better stem cells out there than embryonic. Embryonic stem cells people think have a lot of promise, but they're blank slates and if you were to regrow some sort of damaged tissue, how would you control the growth so it doesn't become some cancerous tumour, especially when it's harvested from an outside source?

      It is my hope that a discovery is made that will make this question moot, however, as it stands today there are significant advantages in the use of embryonic stem cells. I have no intention of going through all the article research again but a few months back I had this same discussion with another individual and based on what I have read the adult stem cells actually present a greater risk of cancer than embryonic stem cells. In fact, the wiki article you linked to provides references to research suggesting adult stem cells are the source of cancer.

      But I will provide one additional link before I end my commenting, the utilization of stem cells, adult or embryonic, as a source for cures to diseases will require a plentiful supply of cells. This is exactly where adult stem cells fail as noted at the National Institutes of Health.

      "Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies."

    15. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Tanktalus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They sidestep a lot of ethical objections by not having any sort of nervous system, or indeed any tissue differentiation apart from a separate type of cell on the outside of the sphere that is destined to form a placenta.

      Unfortunately, the people who object to ESC are less concerned with cell biology or anything tangible or proveable and more concerned about souls.

      I have to admit, I've never heard this as a stated objection to ESC. This is the first time I've heard either of these objections - either the nervous system OR the souls. Makes me wonder if it's a strawman.

      The reality is that the embryo is biologically a distinct human being. The same objection would be raised if we had to end a 20-year-old's life to save my mother, or a 10-year-old's life, or a 1-year-old's life, or a -8.3-month-old's life. You don't sacrifice one person's life for another (though they may choose to sacrifice their own life, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that an embryo can choose that sacrifice). And that's the basic objection.

      The secondary objection I've heard is that adult stem cells have managed to solve a great number of problems already, and, as far as I can tell, we haven't reached a limit (*) on those yet, so why go down an ethically controversial road when an ethically non-controversial road has not yet been fully explored (**)?

      (*) I use "limit" here more as a statistical limit (80-20 rule: 80% of the value, 20% of the work) rather than a mathematical one. Given this is /., I better make that explicit.

      (**) Here I use the term "fully" in the same sense as the above "limit". Great breakthroughs are being made regularly still. The pace has not slowed down. And, unlike AI or a lot of other technologies discussed on /., many of these are less than 5 years away from practical use.

    16. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't sacrifice one person's life for another (though they may choose to sacrifice their own life, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that an embryo can choose that sacrifice). And that's the basic objection.

      Of course we do. If there are life or even health-threatening complications from a pregnancy the mother will often choose to terminate it. And I doubt there are many sane people that have a problem with that.

      A fetus isn't shouldn't be considered a human being until it's viable outside the womb. Until then it's just a 'potential' human being. If we start giving the same rights to a 1 day fetus that we do to a human, where does it stop? Will a man having a wet dream be accused of genocide for the murder of millions of potential humans? Or a woman who menstruates?

    17. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by deapbluesea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My question to such people is how do you know the soul is started at conception?

      The same question could be posed as how do you know it doesn't? It's as poor an argument to base opposition to a religious belief on a question that science is completely unable to answer in the first place.

      The real question that should be posed in this is, what is the possible harm done under either assumption, and which is worse? Under the assumption that life starts at conception, then the harm done is tantamount to murder, however someone else's life might be saved by doing so. Under the assumption that these are just genetic material and don't have any moral implications to their use, then obviously the medical breakthroughs would be preferable. The point is to have the discussion without falling into religious fervor or scientific elitism (which it is since science is necessarily mute on the question of when life begins)

      My personal opinion is that breakthroughs from adult stem cells have easily eclipsed the promise of embryonic stem cells Pluripotent Adult Stem Cells. We could simply avoid any moral hazards by continuing research on those since there are no objections from any side on their use.

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    18. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by internettoughguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have just set a very silly precedent, and you need to think very hard before you eat another steak, or masturbate for that matter, or even let your wife go outside without the appropriate headgear.

    19. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by sorak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think what the other guy was referring to with IVF is this:

      When couples want to get pregnant through in vitro fertilzation, the doctor doesn't just join one sperm, and one egg, and hope it works. The process is too expensive and unreliable for it to (reasonably) work that way. So, they harvest a large number of eggs at once, and fertilize as many as possible, freezing the ones they don't need. Once the woman has been successfully impregnated, they either throw the fertilized eggs away, or send them to a stem cell research lab.

      IVF should bring with it all the ethical and moral concerns that come from first-trimester abortion (more so, when you consider how many fertilized eggs are destroyed). But, in the end, a baby pops out of a vagina, so that changes it from "murder" to "miracle from god".

    20. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Souls do not exist. There is no evidence for them. What we call a "soul" is just the maintained state of an electro-chemical chain reaction we harbour in our bodies. It's like the flame on a candle - when the candle runs out, the flame doesn't go into another existence, or have an existential breakdown seconds before dying, it just ceases to be. Keep souls out of science, for fuck's sake. Or I guess we should ask Bigfoot what he thinks about manned space exploration and do what he thinks is right?

    21. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Souls do not exist. There is no evidence for them. What we call a "soul" is just the maintained state of an electro-chemical chain reaction we harbour in our bodies.

      You do realize that your third sentence directly contradicts the first two, right?

      Perhaps you meant that souls as supernatural entities that survive the death of body don't exist, which may or may not be true but is not provable either way. However, what should be pretty obvious is that people who think that they do are not going to be impressed or convinced by your assertion that they don't, especially when you deliver it in such an inaccurate form.

      Keep souls out of science, for fuck's sake. Or I guess we should ask Bigfoot what he thinks about manned space exploration and do what he thinks is right?

      We are talking about ethics here. Metaphysical questions - such as do souls exist - are unavoidable in such a context, since what is right and wrong often depend on the underlaying assumptions about the nature of reality.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    22. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by logjon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't think people could have gotten together and said "I don't wanna die, you don't wanna die; let's not kill each other" without an invisible parental figure shaking a finger from the sky?

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
  2. I appreciate the moral implications for some by agiduda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But my mother is vegged out in a home with Alzheimer's. I may look forward to the same.

    --
    How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.
    -Benjamin Disraeli
    1. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by JimWise · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And why does that override moral concerns? Since you may face the same, why now allow doctors to stick your mother with probes, take core samples of her brain while still alive, test for levels of chemicals, amino acids, level of fat vs protein etc, which would be MUCH more accurate while still alive vs hours/days after death. Surely this would help gain insight and move forward scientific studies on how to detect Alzheimer's in a much earlier stage and more precise treatment for future sufferers. Why not re-open Nazi style medical tests on twins and fetuses, and why not lift all restrictions on live animal testing? How about using those on death row for medical research so they can at least be productive in death or force them to be organ donors? They will be dead anyways, those organs would just go to waste otherwise.

      Alzheimer's has occurred on both sides of my family (grandfather on the one side, great-grandfather on the other), my mom's cousin suffered from ALS for over 10 years and even wrote a book by using nothing but moving his eyebrows, and I have already suffered a viral infection that will remain with me the rest of my life. Every time it comes out of remission (I'm currently fighting my fourth bout) it causes the lining of my brain to swell, causing a good chunk of my synapses to get destroyed, and taking years for my brain to recover to about 80-90% of where it had been before. Maybe stem cell research would find a way to fully recover from each bout and keep me from having to drop out of school/work for a handful of years each time, and having to settle for a less effective brain after each occurrence. I still don't see that as a reason to try to lessen the moral implications involved in order to try to tilt the balance in a way that could possibly improve my life of the lives of my loved ones.

      I don't mean to say that the morals in stem cell research are clear cut, they definitely are not. I see NO reason though to purposely try to tilt the balance one way or another and fudge the morals and facts due to personal fears of potential illnesses, illnesses of friends and relatives, etc.

    2. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And why does that override moral concerns?

      Because we suffer from some bozo's religion. If for you following it is more important that avoiding getting crippled and dying to a disease that makes the last 15 years of your life a hell for your family, it shouldn't stop me from having a portion of my tax money used in an attempt to keep me from that fate. And yeah, I had Alzheimer's on both sides of my family too.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Treating human life as something that should be nurtured and not harvested is not something that is exclusive to religion. There are moral implications way beyond any silly mumbo jumbo myths.

      For example, I am against abortion as birth control (note the difference; sometimes they are medically necessary and then there are cases of rape, etc.) but that has zero to do with any mythical dude in a beard sitting up in the clouds. It's because I think life is precious and if someone without any special circumstances winds up pregnant then that fetus should be allowed the chance to grow to term.

      I'm not necessarily against embryonic stem cell research, but to dismiss the moral arguments as only those of people who cite their religion as the reason is misguided. My main concern with it is that we avoid any slippery slopes that lead to the production of embryos specifically for research. Then we are talking about the farming and harvesting of humans for our own gain.

    4. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not re-open Nazi style medical tests on twins and fetuses

      Clearly your "moral concerns" don't preclude you from making inappropriate Nazi comparisons.

      None of the research that was funded by the federal gov't since 2008 had anything to do with "creating life in order to destroy it.

      Why are the "moral" ones always the quickest to bear false witness?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by severoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am against abortion as birth control (note the difference; sometimes they are medically necessary and then there are cases of rape, etc.) but that has zero to do with any mythical dude in a beard sitting up in the clouds.

      And someone else might be against the destruction of any form of human life, including human tissue comprising a mole or a tumor.

      So what? Why should anyone regard that person's opinion as more or less than relevant than yours or mine?

      Hospitals have ethics boards of experts tasked with making these kinds of medical decisions. Abortion is a personal medical procedure, not a political issue, not unlike embryonic stem cell research.

      Consider my hypothetical person that is against destruction of any form of human life. Clearly, that is not reasonable. So, based on the state of latest medical knowledge, which forms of human life are ok to destroy and which are not? I think it has to be based on some best (conservative) guess of when sentience is present. (If you think a good argument can be made around the idea of mere "potential for life," please rethink it. Before fertilization an egg & sperm have "potential for life," and conversely, a fetus removed from the womb does not have "potential for life" until fairly late in development—so late, in fact, that it may have already developed sentience, whatever that means. To be completely consistent, you would have to accept that every egg that is allowed to go unfertilized is equivalent to murder.)

      In any case, there is no one I've yet encountered that has made an argument consistent with their own views that would also prohibit embryonic stem cell research.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    6. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's because I think life is precious and if someone without any special circumstances winds up pregnant then that fetus should be allowed the chance to grow to term.

      The problem with that line of reasoning is that, when you get right down to it, life isn't all that precious. For most of the world, it's dirt cheap in fact. Let's drop the pretense that we care about a clump of tissue that has no possibility of ever being born, or that we really give a flying fuck about the unborn foetus of someone we've never met and couldn't care less about. You may think those are very important to you, but I guarantee that neither of those is as important to you as you yourself, or someone who is close to you. They shouldn't be, if you have your priorities straight.

      The reason that it's important to consider life at all stages is far more pragmatic, and you alluded to that. If we, as a society, begin to accept that life is cheap, that life isn't worth as much as we've convinced ourselves that it is, well, it may not be an embryo or a foetus. It may very well be us, and I prefer to err on the side of caution. So, a respect for human life is important, even if only from a purely selfish perspective.

      Now, having said that, I will say that your example of requiring pregnancies to continue to term regardless of whether the parents want the child is too simplistic as well. It's easy to say, "life is precious, preserve it at all costs" but one should also take into account what the child's life is going to be like, whether in fact a given society can even afford it. These are legitimately complex issues, involving a large measure of cost-benefit analysis, as cold-blooded as that can be sometimes. If you truly wish to do the most good for the most people, you have to do what is right, not just what feels right. That's very difficult to achieve for many people, because two are often diametrically opposed. As the Bishop said, "Man is a rationalizing animal, and requires training to become a rational one." Most of us never truly learn to think, because that might require painful re-evaluation of our most cherished attitudes.

      If we decide that stem-cell research is too morally repugnant to be allowed, well, we have to accept a couple of things. One: other countries point-blank will not see it the same way, and two: even if they did, there will be a cost in human life if we do not realize any potential treatments. That's why you have to be able to make reasonably dispassionate judgments based upon some actual facts, or at least logical extrapolation based on fact, rather than simply offering an unthinking Yes or No. Furthermore, you have to be prepared to change your thinking if the facts warrant it.

      And in the U.S. at least, I can say with some certainty that we're really not very good at that. Thinking with our heads, I mean ... we're damn good at knee-jerk reactions.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I never heard the argument about being pro-birth control but anti-abortion until I dated a couple women who'd had abortions.

      With the various morning after pills, norplant, birth control pills, Mifepristone and now a drug that works for up to 7 days, the surgical abortion procedures seem very archaic and dark age.

      When a very liberal and very feminist women who has had an abortion tells you its the worst thing that could be done to a human and should be outlawed, it made me think really hard about abortions.

    8. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by insufflate10mg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you support abortions that are medically necessary then you place a higher value on the mother than the fetus. Therefore, you should have no issue with abortion in all cases. Unless of course you are not being rational.

      You're right, he does place higher value on the mother than the fetus; however, second to the mother, the fetus takes highest value. Therefore, if the mother (top priority) is not at risk, the fetus (next highest priority) should be protected and given the right to live. His argument is perfectly rational, you are wrong.

    9. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of the Nazi experiments involved creating life in order to destroy it either.

      You're really doubling down on the Nazi stuff, hey?

      Frozen embryo = victim of the Holocaust?

      it is FAR too simplistic to just state that the ONLY statements against it are based on religious morality

      Not religious morality, religious fanaticism. Morality is hard. Fanaticism is easy because your choices are already made for you. I only wish that the "pro-life" crowd was motivated by morality, because then they could be engaged in discussion. When your starting position is "there is no difference between an embryo and a human being, period" you preclude the possibility of anything like rational discussion and you're just trying to lay down the law. I have no use for people who try to lay down the law for all of us based on their religious rules.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you saw a pregnant woman drunk and drinking, would that repulse you? Why, or why not?

      Sure! Yet oddly enough, no legal system on planet Earth will charge that woman with assault. Why? Because an embryo isn't a human being with rights.

    11. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And someone else might be against the destruction of any form of human life, including human tissue comprising a mole or a tumor.

      So what? Why should anyone regard that person's opinion as more or less than relevant than yours or mine?

      The idea that human cells die constantly, while the human being continues to exist, is scientific fact... that's why that person's opinion is invalid. But to determine at which point a human being exists is something that science cannot answer. A single cell, properly nourished, can become a distinct human being. Most people don't draw the line there, but some do. And if not there, then implantation, first heartbeat, first brainwave, viability outside the mother (a moving target, of course), birth, 1 year old, able to think abstractly, 18... when does life begin? I don't know and you don't know. And there's no way to demonstrate otherwise. Where science must be silent, philosophy must take over... or theology will.

      Hospitals have ethics boards of experts tasked with making these kinds of medical decisions.

      And ethics boards of experts approved eugenics programs around the world. And beyond that, what expertise would be relevant? Is there a scientific standard to apply? Because an MD doesn't really qualify you to determine when a unique human life begins.

      Abortion is a personal medical procedure, not a political issue, not unlike embryonic stem cell research

      Way to beg the question... Currently it is both a medical procedure and a political issue. Your statement implies it should only be a medical issue. The problem is that assumes that the GP's point is invalid... or rather that your view is the only rational one.

      The legality of abortion is a perfectly valid political issue, and I would say it should be illegal in the general case.

      To be completely consistent, you would have to accept that every egg that is allowed to go unfertilized is equivalent to murder.

      I just highlighted this phrase, as it seems to sum up the entire rest of your post. This position is a ridiculous strawman. I might as well say that you have to justify allowing parents to kill dependent children, that until they can survive on their own (age of maturity), they aren't real people. Heck, if you leave a baby alone with canned food and a can opener, the baby will starve. Stupid baby.

      One can say that the combination of the two is relevant (fertilized egg) without an unfertilized egg being sacred. One can grow given nourishment alone, the other has an incomplete genetic code and cannot. One can draw the line in a lot of places, but that does not invalidate any attempt to do so. Hell, you haven't even suggested a single place to draw the line.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    12. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Treating human life as something that should be nurtured and not harvested is not something that is exclusive to religion.

      Why does this nurturing end with birth? Why not make free health-care available to everyone, even for the most expensive and experimental treatments?

      From what I've seen and heard, most 'nurturing' by the religious and politicians ends at birth. After that it's every man for himself.

    13. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by bhartman34 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think it is rational that a woman would be forced to carry the child? Just forcing someone to carry a several kilos weight for a few months continuously should sound stupid.

      There's a reason we have age of consent laws, and part of that reason is that we assume that at a certain age, a person is responsible for their own sexual activity. Anyone above the age of consent should know that one of the consequences of having sex could be pregnancy. If we're saying that women can't be expected to appreciate the consequences of sexual activity while they're of child-bearing age, should we just go ahead and say that a woman cannot legally consent until the onset of menopause? How is going to such lengths to allow someone to avoid the natural consequences of their actions even remotely okay?

      That's what makes rape a different situation in relation to abortion. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term when they didn't have a say in the sex act that led to the pregnancy. And certainly, if you have to pick one, the life of the mother should come first. But a pregnancy represents a human life (unless you've been having sex with other species, in which case it would only be partially human), with DNA distinct from either parent. The fact that the Supreme Court, nearly 40 years ago, chose to cloud the issue with the concept of viability is irrelevant to that. Lest we forget, the Supreme Court also gave us Dredd Scott. Occasionally, they screw things up and have to go back and fix them.

  3. It's just the US by nicoleb_x · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to worry, the reset of the world can still do embryonic research.

    1. Re:It's just the US by phantomcircuit · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's just federal funding. Private funding and state funding are both pushing forward.

    2. Re:It's just the US by kurokame · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, it's just NSF and DOH funding. Cutting it off will do absolutely nothing to prevent researchers from working on the subject. The expensive equipment will somehow turn up for free, the facilities bill will pay itself, and graduate students looking for a RA position won't mind that they can't get funding to pay for their tuition and room and board and medical and so forth if they work in such a lab - which won't do anything to curtail the production of future researchers in the general topic area.

      It's just federal funding. Right?

  4. Re:Playing devils advocate here by esocid · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yes, but they accomplish different things. Somatic (adult) stem cells are pretty much isolated to tissues/organs. They might work well at that, but getting them to do anything else that pluripotent (embryonic) stem cells can is out of reach.

    About this claim that embryonic stem cell research hasn't yielded anything useful yet...
    1. January 20th, 2009: Researchers produced massive volumes of “universal donor” type O-negative blood from human embryonic stem cells, potentially making blood donation a thing of the past.
    2. December 5th, 2008: Harvard scientists created spinal motor neurons from hESCs, and were able to replicate the ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease, process in a Petri dish.
    3. September 8th, 2008: Neural cells derived from hESCs showed effectiveness at reducing the clinical systems of multiple sclerosis in animals.
    4. March 15th, 2008: Scientists developed a way to convert human embryonic stem cells into dopamine-producing nerve cells, holding great promise for therapy for Parkinson’s disease.
    5. February 21st, 2008: Scientists at Novocell, Inc. created insulin-producing islet cells from human embryonic stem cells that effectively controlled insulin levels in diabetic mice.
    6. January 31st, 2008: Scientists coaxed hESCs into functional hepatocytes (liver cells) that may be used for treatment of liver diseases.
    7. September 21st, 2006: Vision was improved in rats suffering from a disease similar to age-related macular degeneration with the injection of human embryonic stem cells into the retina.
    8. July 14th, 2006: UCLA Aids Institute researchers used hESCs to create lines of mature T-cells that could fight viruses like HIV, which destroys certain types of T-cells.
    9. October 12th, 2005: Scientists used hESCs to create cancer-killing cells.
    10. September 24th, 2004: Scientists in Israel derived fully functional cardiomyocytes (heart cells) from human embryonic stem cells, paving the way for hESC-derived pacemakers and heart tissue repair.
    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  5. Re:Was this one of Obama's first things to do? by jfb2252 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Both Bush and Obama differentiated between creation of embryonic stem cells and their use in research. Bush did not allow the use of stem cell lines created after ~2000. Obama allowed the use of stem cell lines created with private funds in federal research. Both administrations viewed this as consistent with the 1996 law which prohibited Federal funds from being used to destroy embryos as the stem cell lines were created with private funds. The judge wrote that one can't make this distinction between funds used to create the lines and funds for research using the lines, that the law prohibits all research using embryonic stem cell lines. I trust that the Department of Justice will appeal.

    The judge was a Reagan appointee.

  6. Re:An (im)Modest Proposal by Ironhandx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Congrats, you know nothing at all about how IVF works.

    One of the major expenses in IVF is creating the embryos to begin with, however the cost is relatively the same thing whether they create 1 or 100(to a point anyways, its not limitless where the cost is the same but I believe it is in the hundreds somewhere before the cost increases by a significant amount). Theres a decent chance that the first lot won't take, so they always do two batches to get the success rates up to 75-80% or so. In addition they may implant up to 8 embryos in one shot to get just one to latch on. The womans natural systems will flush the remaining 7 out the door, going by a lot of the idiotic pro-life spiel, that woman just killed 7 kids.

    As an aside, a woman who tries to/gets pregnant naturally will likely flush several full fledged embryos out due to misfortune and natural occurrences. The extras from IVF can basically be considered the same thing we just can't use the natural ones because we don't catch them. Saying that killing an embryo is murder is calling almost every woman thats been pregnant a murderer. I say almost because there is that 0.00001% that may have had a pregnancy without discharging a viable embryo either at the same time or at another time while trying due to it not landing in the right place and various other misfortunes.

  7. Re:An (im)Modest Proposal by offrdbandit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately your opinion does not qualify you to dictate what is and is not morally or ethically acceptable behavior (neither does your political affiliation, nor having or not having a uterus, but then again, with simplistic reasoning such as yours, I'm not surprised you've resorted to chauvinism). Saying "it's science" or "it's progress" doesn't answer the question of whether it *SHOULD* be done... Throughout history there have been countless examples of clearly ethically dubious behavior and even blatant atrocities in an attempt to illicit some scientific "advancement" of one form or another. You don't want to debate the morality of the destruction of embryos. You want to castigate anyone who disagrees with you and frame them as somehow anti-Science. It's asinine and you (should) know it.

  8. More complicated than you think by fysician · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a good reason to avoid embryonic stem cell altogether. The biggest reason is because we have no good ways to control its potential to form teratoma, which is basically cancerous mass of tissues of all types. That's what's happening at those rogue Russian stem cell clinics. Although it is true that ESCs have the biggest potential to regenerate, it's also most potent cancer forming cells. Some theorize that cancer is actually rogue stem cells. Another practical reason why ESCs could be avoided is because adult stem cells have been shown to be able to transform to embryonic counterparts. This is a complex topic of its own. If you are interested look up IPS = induced pluripotent stem cell.

    1. Re:More complicated than you think by fysician · · Score: 2, Informative

      Baumann, 2008, "Exploring the role of cancer stem cells in radioresistance", Nature Review Cancer. Thanks for asking. If you need the actual article, I will obtain it for your pastime reading. It's a fun read.

    2. Re:More complicated than you think by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a good reason to avoid embryonic stem cell altogether. The biggest reason is because we have no good ways to control its potential to form teratoma, which is basically cancerous mass of tissues of all types.

      I disagree. That's an excellent reason to get better at ESC technology. All medicines have adverse reactions, and I bet plenty of people would be willing to risk cancer if the process cured an even worse (in their opinion) condition.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  9. Re:Was this one of Obama's first things to do? by fusellovirus · · Score: 5, Informative

    The absurdity of this "debate" is astounding. Blastocysts, which is the correct, but less headline grabbing, name for the clump of cells the "Embryotic Stems cells" are harvested from are all the result of in-vitro fertilization. The excess eggs that are a invariably a result of this procedure are then left in a freezer until become inviable and are discarded. "Embrytoic" stem cell research puts these cells to a use that benefits mankind rather that throwing them in a trashbin. Anyone who truly has a problem with destroying blastocytes needs to rail against the procedure that causes them, in vitro fertilization. But of course this makes for a far less compelling election speech or political rant.

  10. Place the blame where the blame belongs by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (I know I left I lot out, but I don't think I'm distorting the meaning). As far as I can tell, liver cells in a petri dish would count as human embryos under that definition.

    Then if President Obama wants the funding, he needs to convince Congress (which his party controls) to tighten the wording of the law, or repeal it altogether.

    The judge pretty much had to block this. The President can't simply wave his hand and declare a law passed by Congress (and sighed by the previous President) to be null and void. There's still that whole separation of powers thing to consider. If the wording of the Dickey Amendment is too vague, then it's the responsibility of Congress to fix it.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  11. So just to be clear... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death

    So, we aren't distinguishing between research destroying embryos, and research that uses embryos that necessarily are doomed to destruction if they aren't allowed to replicate in stem cell research.

    Glad I got that straight.

    There is just no way to square it with the statute.

    I disagree. Exercise the ability to distinguish, and it is clear how this is not research in which embryos are destroyed, but research in which they are allowed to live when they would otherwise be destroyed. Not live and develop into humans, but that really isn't possible anyway.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:So just to be clear... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. Exercise the ability to distinguish, and it is clear how this is not research in which embryos are destroyed, but research in which they are allowed to live when they would otherwise be destroyed.

      This is absurd reasoning. Congress does not empower the Executive to distinguish, it bans funding to all research in which the embryo is destroyed or discarded, even if it means they are allowed to live longer than they would otherwise. That distinction just isn't in the statute and the President is not allowed to insert it just because he feels it makes better policy. If the embryo is destroyed or discarded then no Federal money can be used. It's not a difficult concept.

      It's very tempting to bend the law to suit your own policy ends, especially when you can rationalize it in some putative linguistic way. If you are willing to grant all Presidents the same leeway, then at least you are making a cogent argument about Executive power. If, on the other hand, you were opposing Reagan and Bush's lawyerly evasion of the law back when they were in power then it's nothing but hypocrisy to start allowing Obama to make 'distinctions'.

      It's another manifestation of the normal 'for me but not for thee'-ism that pervades American politics. Both sides routinely excoriate the other for things they have shamelessly done when it suited them. It's utterly predictable and utterly asinine.

  12. How so? by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Adult stem cells are sub-par replacements for embryonic stem cells.

    And yet, despite your claim, almost all of the big advances from stem cell research has come from non-embryonic lines of cells.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:How so? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isolate a population of adult neural stem cells in a person with a spinal cord injury, without resorting to homogenizing (grinding up) their brain for FACS and I'll admit that maybe adult stem cell technology will be good enough for therapy.

      Otherwise, yeah, adult stem cells are convenient to some things, but are not the end all be all you're suggesting they are. We had good advances with carriage technology a long time before we got the internal combustion engine working, but it would have been extremely shortsighted to suggest that we shouldn't research internal combustion engines.

      Furthermore, from a research standpoint, ESC are absolutely indispensable. You can't use adult stem cells to study early development.

  13. Re:Wow, weak cause for harm by the plantiffs by skywire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This has to set a new low for ratio of logical validity to Insightful score. By this reasoning, if research into predicting the weather by a ritual involving chicken entrails were illegal, and a team of meteorologists and computer scientists sued the feds for funding such research because they had to compete for the scarce funding, that would demonstrate that the chicken entrails are superior.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  14. Re:Give me a fucking break by garompeta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ancient question arises: when a man is a man? Is a kid less human than an adult? Is a fetus less human than a kid? Is an embryo less human than a fetus? Is a morula less human than an embryo? And we can get to the very genesis of the conception: the fusion of the gametes. There is a very clear before and after the conception, and I strongly believe that a fertilized egg should be considered a human being because of its potentiality: feed it and let it grow and it will become a man.

  15. Fail Alert!! by telomerewhythere · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, That might be insightful if it was factually correct.

    http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx

    Even CA calls it Homicide if malicious forethought. It would be an exercise for the reader to see if the laws are ever enforced.

  16. Re:Wow, weak cause for harm by the plantiffs by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Informative

    Scientifically everyone is in absolute agreement that those embryos are 100% human

    That's an outright twisting of the truth. People agree that the material is human material, but so are my toenail clippings. Those aren't human, and that's the same debate here with blastocysts. So you're vastly overstating the case.

    I believe the lawsuit (see a few posts up in the thread) actually specifies the exact law they claim the other researchers are breaching. If you can name the exact law you claim your competitors are breaching, then yes you most certainly can go sue them...

    Nope, you also have to show harm. That's why the guy suing over "under God" in the pledge wasn't allowed to pursue his suit on behalf of his daughter, remember? (He wasn't the custodial parent.) If that's sufficient reason to dismiss a suit, it seems like this demonstration of "harm" is even weaker.

  17. Is a fertilized egg a human being? by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2

    The reality is that the embryo is biologically a distinct human being.

    Actually, that 'reality' is in dispute.

    Not the 'biologically distinct' aspect. The 'human being' aspect. An fertilized egg or a blastula is certainly 'human life', but by that definition so is a liver cell. The question is, is it a human being?

    I've thought about this, and reached the conclusion that if it doesn't have a human brain, then it's not a human being. Whether or not a brain is a sufficient condition for 'humanity', it seems to be a necessary one. So, a fertilized egg or a blastula, while certainly 'human life', is not (yet) a 'human being', so far as I can tell.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  18. What is life? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if your conclusion is right, your arguments are weak. Bacteria aren't people. Sperm can't grow into a human. If the blastocyst is 'alive', then it's a human being, at one stage of development. Whether that demands societal or governmental protection is a separate matter. Defining 'life' is tricky.

    Since 'funding scientific research' isn't an enumerated power of Congress, there's an easier solution than all of this debate-without-resolution - just stop.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:What is life? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, then tell me why before blurting out an unaccredited statement from the blue.

      Often a thesis statement precedes the evidence. It's very standard English construction.

      Bacteria aren't people.

      Neither are pluripotent stem cells or blastocysts.

      I think you're deliberately missing the point. Human blastocysts are human, the DNA settles this. Bacteria are quite clearly not human. Whether the blastocysts are alive is the question at hand.

      Sperm can't grow into a human.

      If they're coupled with an ovum they can. Ever heard of sperm banks?

      You were talking about the destruction of un-coupled sperm. Again, they can't grow into a human.

      then it's a human being, at one stage of development.

      And you think my arguments are weak. Go look up "non sequitur" again. This statement has no logical connection to your previous one.

      This is the very crux of the matter for those who are concerned. Of course it has a logical connection - some people believe that it is a living human deserving of full protections. You can't wish that away or pretend to be too obtuse to recognize it.

      Defining 'life' is tricky.

      And it's also irrelevant to this conversation, unless you're talking about "Human Life."

      Of course we are, that's the subject of the whole debate.

      Should we treat the suffering of an orangutan or dolphin any different than the suffering of the non-sentient brain impaired of our species, or even the non-brain-impaired, just because the latter looks like us?

      Of course, this is a fundamental premise of our society and system of justice, no matter what your take on embryo research is. Killing a bull, even painfully, is not a crime (in fact, it's bragged about on product labeling). Killing a handicapped child will get you life to death, depending on jurisdiction.

      For me, life is anything that can suffer.

      Oh, you have a working definition of suffering? That's escaped philosophers for centuries.

      Positing that Humans are a higher form of life, other than the fact that we're sapient, is just cruel anthropocentrism and has led to the full scale destruction of the ecosystems that made us and sustains us.

      Full-scale? Strange the world doesn't seem dead ... yep, just checked, my forest is quite healthy. You're a radical vegan localvore, I presume?

      just stop.

      I'd advise you yo do the same.

      I'm not funding any 'public' research.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. Re:Was this one of Obama's first things to do? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting, but in my experience, most embryologists don't bat an eye at calling a blastocyst an embryo.

    I have not yet heard one person opposed to stem cell research suggest actually stopping in vitro fertilization,which would be the only way to stop these embryos from being killed.

    It's true, the talking heads aren't calling for an end to IVF in the ESC debate, but they're only the loudest voices. In fact people have been calling for an end on IVF for a while, at my catholic grade school they did emphasize that. Matter of fact, they also oppose birth control methods that don't prevent conception, such as IUDs unless I'm mistaken.

    Pretty callous group of that group of out of touch old men, demanding that any fertile woman gets saddled with as many babies as possible and any couple having trouble conceiving be cursed with no babies, but they are at least somewhat consistent.