Latest on stem-cells: No need to kill embryos

Alleluia! The sad fact is that all of the high profile reportage for the past few years has not cited the fact that embryonic stem cells are not the source of the successful medical results but rather induced pluripotent stem cells-i.e. stem cells harvested from the patients own body or from naturally occurring stem cells found in living people. This charade of incorrect reporting caused many uninformed people to assume that what they were being told by the big money private medical industry and research "cowboys" was true and that laws intended to protect embryos (i.e. ensouled huiman beings) was wrong-to the point of making the government itself pay for their fruitless research. Happily, one cannot suppress the truth for long! ...Basically, its the same garbage the big money private medical industry uses to this day when they say that places like Canada, Britain and France have miserable Universal Medicare-where in fact those government systems are high quality and relative low cost. I am glad that this information is getting out to a wider audience, INFORM CATHOLICS FIRST AND THEN THE COUNTRY FOR WE ARE THE SALT OF THE EARTH! Alleluia!

Once again the "World Renowned Scientists"? that the vatican is known for has jumped to a conclusion that all other reputable scientists would not even utter.
Please tell us what if this statement that you just made public turns out to be premature? You "People"?? should try using the scientific method for a change 1st rule "BE OPEN MINDED" to new ideas those who don't change usally are left behind.

Do you say publically "That we were WRONG"???? or do you take 500 years to apoligise like the vatican did with Galeio?? Please stay out of science you won't look so retarded don't utter nonsence in public!
That way I won't blog you and we won't have to throw water in your faces wake up convert to Lutherizm find a wife have a family you might like being a Dad that is open to the world.
You know if we used the law like it is used on "Joe Public" all of you's would be in prison and those in prison usally find religon when they get their first bunk buddy.

This article repeats a point that I have made several times in comments to other articles on NCR. Life such as the tiny mouse and Dolly the sheep can be cloned from skin or almost any body cell. Science is still very new at doing these procedures and Dolly suffered from a number of ailments. If we can clone mice or sheep, what keeps us from being able to clone humans? All of these experiments go on to show that we do not know when life begins, when there is soul and when there is personhood. One thing for certain is that it does not begin with fertilization of two gametes. It certainly begins in later development or now we could say that it is possible for man to make a soul though the cloning procedure. Some past Popes have even taught that soul begins at the time of quickening or the first movement of the fetus at about 12 weeks.

I don't know exactly when there is personhood or soul but since mind is a subset of soul, certainly we would need to see some sensuous development of brain before a primitive mind develops. The earliest sensuous development is that of smell and taste at about twelve weeks and this would indicate that there is a primitive structure of brain that mind could at a later point develop. All the ideas of killing humans using stem cells from embryos seem to be negated when scientists study multi potent stem cells, as man learns more, multipotent stem cells could be used just like fertilization to begin a human blastocyst, but only God in His own time can create or allow the development of personhood and a soul. I really don't see the point of why multi potent cells (blatocysts) could be used for research and not blastocyst formed from fertilization in a laboratory. I think there is a real problem of over definition by the Bishops as to when life begins. All sorts of human cells are currently used in research including, skin, liver kidney and mucosal. All of these cells are alive but of course do not have personhood or a soul. Probably, in the future any one of these cells could be used to form a multi potent stem cell and/or clone new blastocysts.

What a blastocyst needs to survive and grow into personhood is the fertile soil of the uterus in which to implant. Since way over 50% of all normally formed blatocysts do not implant in a uterus but simply pass out through the vagina, it would seem, if we were to use the Bishop’s definitions of when life begins, that God is not allowing most of humanity to grow and develop a mind, soul or personhood. There can be no abortion without an implanted blastocyst, since most of these structures in a normal woman formed with fertilization just pass out of the uterus without ever implanting. The same goes for most test tube blatocysts that never get the chance to implant in a uterus.

I see little difference in the fate of these undeveloped structures weather they were formed by scientist from non-gametal cells or weather they were formed when scientists fertilize ova with sperm in the laboratory. I do believe that the Bishops including the ones in the Seat of Peter could listen more closely to the scientist working in the field in order to try to understand what is happening before making "infallible like definitions" that are proving that the Bishops learned little from their own errors during the Copernican period.

Finally, it is important for our Bishops to recognize that the Holy Spirit will inspire whom ever He chooses and that will include scientist, theologians and philosophers that do not happen to be serving as Bishops. It is important for all to listen to the Spirit and that includes the Bishops trying to understand others that the Spirit has clearly inspired. When our Bishops fail to listen and attempt to understand other, including scientists, theologians and philosophers, they are failing to listen to the Spirit.

Peace and understanding,

R. Dennis Porch, MD

This is not news. This was made evident almost a year ago when it became a heated issue in the presidential election. Adult stem cells provide not only the raw material for regeneration, it was shown that it provides the gene stability that is required for controled growth. Embryonic stem cells are not stable. All work that has been done with them have failed.

Unfortunately, most of the private money that drives programs and issues like this have already been invested in the companies researching embryonic stem cells use. This is what is what is trying to set the table for embryonic stem cell research.

There is no moral decision that needs to be weighed. This is clear cut.

While all the armchair ethicists and politicians continue their squabbling in the West, Eastern scientists will just continue their research and leave all of our "experts" in the scientific dust.

Blastocysts are not technically embryos. Ebryonic status comes after gastrulation, when ensoulment is likely to occur (as can be demonstrated by the intentional behavior of embryos after gastrulation, but not before). A morella and a blastocyst can split and become two people, which in tradition, pre-Evangelicum Vitae Catholic ethics was proof enough to conclude that ensoulment had not occurred. Since Evangelicum Vitae was written by a cardiologist rather than an embryologist, I so no reason to respect the change. Further, when so-called embryonic stem cell research occurs, the cells that would have been a child are not killed, only the cells that become the chorion (later the afterbirh). If the cells that would become a child don't die, they were never an individual in the first place, and are identical to "adult" stem cells - except for the fact that embryonic cells may not be as useful for research. Indeed, the guidelines Obama published pretty much stop any really good research from occuring, since what is needed is the ability to do therapeutic cloning - a methodology banned by the new guidelines.

This research reminds me of a question I once asked on the America blog, and here as well, last December. If you replaced the stem cells in a blastocyst with adult stem cells from a donor and implanted the new blastocyst in a womb, whose soul would the child have: a. the stem cell donor, b. the orignial blastocyst or c. its own? This research makes that question relevant and makes it clear that the answer is c. Any other answer invites abuse of essentially cloned offspring produced this way (either for use as spare parts or allegations that they are not quite human). The role of the Church is not to condemn this practice as much as to stand up for the rights of any children so created.

Michael as always I enjoy your comments, but I don't think we can know when there is soul or personhood. Many early Papal fathers thought ensoulment occurred after quickening at about 12 weeks or more. Indeed this is the first point that we can identify a sensuous brain. Mind has been described as a subset of soul, and it would seem unlikely that we could have mindless souls or mindless people. The higher functions of brain and the development of mind do not occur until much later in development. I know you like to assign gastrulation as the most conservative time that there could be ensoulment, but it would seem unlikely or even impossible without a neuro system and semblance of mind present. Of course we can determine primitive mind somewhere after 22 weeks. Certainly personhood and ensoulment would seen to be present then. So though I agree with so much of what you say, I don't think that we can assign a soul at the time of gastrulation. It would seem that there must be more systemic development in the brain and the development of primitive mind before personhood or ensoument could be hypothesized.

Peace,
R. Dennis Porch, MD, PhD