Sunday, October 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Setting Up and Painting Crosses
We will touch up and dip new crosses this Saturday at 1:30 at the Irwin's house. Also, we will set the crosses up on Saunday September 30 at 1:30. Meet at the Knight's of Columbus.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
MRL Paints Crosses 8/25
Members of Right to Life painted over 90 crosses for the Cemetery of the Innocent at Ken and Lois Irwin's house.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Adoption: A Choice All Can Agree On
When a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly and thinks she can’t raise the child for various reasons she has to make a choice. In this time of agony, regret and sadness she has a lot of decisions to make.She looks at having an abortion to end the pregnancy because it is fast and seems easy. On the other hand she knows she has the opportunity to carry the child for nine months and raise it on her own. This is a daunting and enormous decision the mother is faced with. She may not want to have an abortion because she has heard of post-abortion syndrome and doesn’t want to regret it later but she also doesn’t think she can raise a child due to her age, education, or financial situation.What other choice does she have? Adoption, and it is a choice that everyone can agree on. She can choose to carry her baby and bring it to the world and then let someone that she can trust will raise her baby will adopt it.
Adoption is key to fewer abortions. After abortion was legalized in 1973 abortion rates went up and adoptions went down. Politicians that are not for the ban on abortion also see the importance of having more adoptions and fewer abortions. Looking at adoption as a choice is very important because it is a choice that both sides, whether you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life, can find common ground on. When you are dealing with a topic such as abortion you need to be able to find an idea that both sides see as a solution. This is where adoption comes into play in a big way. Women that are going through the decision making process need to understand that abortion or raising the child aren’t her only two choices. When they explore the possibility of adoption they can find some peace in knowing that they are bringing new life into the world and making sure their child is raised the best way possible. I know it must be hard for them to go through 9 months of pregnancy in order to put their child up for adoption but at least that way they don’t have to think about what could have been, the life that could have been lived. And in that life many things could have happened. What if some of the greatest people this world has ever known had been aborted? Where would our world be now? Even those who aren’t in the spotlight have a purpose and a contribution to their communities that only they can do or give. We might be aborting the future finder of the cure for cancer or the doctor who finds out how to stop the spreading of AIDS.I hope that our generation is the one that says no to abortion. Not everyone at a given time can raise a child but every one can choose adoption. I hope that during my life span I can at least see abortions decrease. If for one day in the United States every woman who was going to have an abortion decided to have an adoption instead, 4,000 lives would be saved. I know that everyone has their own opinion on this topic but I think that if we can find common ground we can begin to truly change the world in a positive way.
There are adoption agencies out there who’s goals are to help a woman through the pregnancy process and finding a family to adopt. One agency is the Adoption Network Law Center, adoptionnetwork.com. They help women through unexpected pregnancies with lining up a family to adopt as well as financial assistance.With all of this in mind I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a new movie coming out this Fall. It is called Bella and has won many film festivals including the Toronto Film Festival which is one of the most prestigious in the world. I had the opportunity to see a showing of it in June.. Bella puts everything I talked about earlier in this column into a real life scenario. It shows the trouble of a young woman trying to decide what to do after getting pregnant. She says that it is taken care of, that she will just go in and have an abortion until a friend from work asks her one question: “Have you thought about adoption?” The movie goes through their relationship through the ordeal and shows the power of friendship and family. This movie is not political and is not preachy.. All ticket sales from the first weekend in the theatres will go to crisis pregnancy centers. I hope a lot of people go to see Bella even if it means driving out of town to see it.Lets all work together on helping promote adoptions in America because as the banner in Muscatine Right to Life’s 4th of July float said, “The future is in out hands.“Andrew Rauenbuehler is a member of the Muscatine Right to Life
Adoption is key to fewer abortions. After abortion was legalized in 1973 abortion rates went up and adoptions went down. Politicians that are not for the ban on abortion also see the importance of having more adoptions and fewer abortions. Looking at adoption as a choice is very important because it is a choice that both sides, whether you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life, can find common ground on. When you are dealing with a topic such as abortion you need to be able to find an idea that both sides see as a solution. This is where adoption comes into play in a big way. Women that are going through the decision making process need to understand that abortion or raising the child aren’t her only two choices. When they explore the possibility of adoption they can find some peace in knowing that they are bringing new life into the world and making sure their child is raised the best way possible. I know it must be hard for them to go through 9 months of pregnancy in order to put their child up for adoption but at least that way they don’t have to think about what could have been, the life that could have been lived. And in that life many things could have happened. What if some of the greatest people this world has ever known had been aborted? Where would our world be now? Even those who aren’t in the spotlight have a purpose and a contribution to their communities that only they can do or give. We might be aborting the future finder of the cure for cancer or the doctor who finds out how to stop the spreading of AIDS.I hope that our generation is the one that says no to abortion. Not everyone at a given time can raise a child but every one can choose adoption. I hope that during my life span I can at least see abortions decrease. If for one day in the United States every woman who was going to have an abortion decided to have an adoption instead, 4,000 lives would be saved. I know that everyone has their own opinion on this topic but I think that if we can find common ground we can begin to truly change the world in a positive way.
There are adoption agencies out there who’s goals are to help a woman through the pregnancy process and finding a family to adopt. One agency is the Adoption Network Law Center, adoptionnetwork.com. They help women through unexpected pregnancies with lining up a family to adopt as well as financial assistance.With all of this in mind I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a new movie coming out this Fall. It is called Bella and has won many film festivals including the Toronto Film Festival which is one of the most prestigious in the world. I had the opportunity to see a showing of it in June.. Bella puts everything I talked about earlier in this column into a real life scenario. It shows the trouble of a young woman trying to decide what to do after getting pregnant. She says that it is taken care of, that she will just go in and have an abortion until a friend from work asks her one question: “Have you thought about adoption?” The movie goes through their relationship through the ordeal and shows the power of friendship and family. This movie is not political and is not preachy.. All ticket sales from the first weekend in the theatres will go to crisis pregnancy centers. I hope a lot of people go to see Bella even if it means driving out of town to see it.Lets all work together on helping promote adoptions in America because as the banner in Muscatine Right to Life’s 4th of July float said, “The future is in out hands.“Andrew Rauenbuehler is a member of the Muscatine Right to Life
Thursday, July 12, 2007
4th of July Parade
MRL's parade float had many member's come out to walk and pass out candy and pro-life wristbands and bookmarks.
Embryonic stem cell research cases yield no success
Embryonic stem cell research cases yield no success
By Hannah Flanders
This letter is written in response to the June 28 letter to the editor claiming that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise.First of all, there are no signs of embryonic stem cell research yielding any success cases. Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College, said, “Embryo stem cells entered the world in 1981 ... [with] cells isolated from early mouse embryos .. Even in the mouse system itself, where both authentic ES cells and virtually unlimited genetically compatible subjects had been available since 1981, there had been essentially no progress in curing or even palliating disabling conditions for which mouse ‘models’ existed, such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s and so forth.” (“Averting the Clone Age: Prospects and Perils of Human Developmental Manipulation”- Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Vol. 19:2003, pp. 446-447).
Scientists in favor of embryonic stem cell research are promoting the potential of embryonic stem cells because there is a lot of money involved with the embryonic stem cell movement. They do not favor adult stem cell research because when a patient uses their own adult stem cells for treatments science labs cannot patent them. However, they would be able to do so with embryonic stem cells and these have the potential of becoming VERY expensive, therefore ESCR scientists will make a lot of money for the embryonic stem cell research industries — which are not even working!
Adult stem cell research on the other hand has treated 73 medical cases which have generated success. Coincidently, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and stroke damages as well as type J juvenile diabetes are listed among these successful treatments.It is true that embryonic stem cells are more flexible than adult stem cells; however because of this flexibility, there also comes a consequence; since the embryonic stem cells are so flexible they are prone to grow cancerous tumors because of the instability caused from the flexibility of the embryonic stem cells.I applaud President Bush for vetoing the bill which would allow federal funding for a system of embryonic stem cell research.Embryonic stem cell research is not only unethical, but also ineffective. By all means, the U.S. is not falling behind in the stem cell research movement, despite America’s so-called “restrictive” policies; it still remains the world’s leader in the field of stem cell research.The Scientist recently reported: that the U.S. is by far the world’s leader in the total number of stem cell articles published, alone accounting for 42% of all stem cell articles published world wide between 2000 and 2004 — even with its supposedly restrictive approach to stem cell research.That is four times the articles published by the second leading nation, Germany, which accounted for 10.2 percent of all stem cell articles published worldwide.Germany, by the way, has the most restrictive policies governing hESCR [human Embryonic Stem Cell Research] in all Europe, and led other European nations in the number of articles published.I would not be so passionate about this particular research if it were not for the fact that human lives are at stake for the sake of embryonic stem cell research. An embryo is a human being in his or her most innocent and vulnerable form of life.Why should society promote an ineffective research that requires destroying these human beings when there are already better alternatives that are actually working?
By Hannah Flanders
This letter is written in response to the June 28 letter to the editor claiming that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise.First of all, there are no signs of embryonic stem cell research yielding any success cases. Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College, said, “Embryo stem cells entered the world in 1981 ... [with] cells isolated from early mouse embryos .. Even in the mouse system itself, where both authentic ES cells and virtually unlimited genetically compatible subjects had been available since 1981, there had been essentially no progress in curing or even palliating disabling conditions for which mouse ‘models’ existed, such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s and so forth.” (“Averting the Clone Age: Prospects and Perils of Human Developmental Manipulation”- Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Vol. 19:2003, pp. 446-447).
Scientists in favor of embryonic stem cell research are promoting the potential of embryonic stem cells because there is a lot of money involved with the embryonic stem cell movement. They do not favor adult stem cell research because when a patient uses their own adult stem cells for treatments science labs cannot patent them. However, they would be able to do so with embryonic stem cells and these have the potential of becoming VERY expensive, therefore ESCR scientists will make a lot of money for the embryonic stem cell research industries — which are not even working!
Adult stem cell research on the other hand has treated 73 medical cases which have generated success. Coincidently, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and stroke damages as well as type J juvenile diabetes are listed among these successful treatments.It is true that embryonic stem cells are more flexible than adult stem cells; however because of this flexibility, there also comes a consequence; since the embryonic stem cells are so flexible they are prone to grow cancerous tumors because of the instability caused from the flexibility of the embryonic stem cells.I applaud President Bush for vetoing the bill which would allow federal funding for a system of embryonic stem cell research.Embryonic stem cell research is not only unethical, but also ineffective. By all means, the U.S. is not falling behind in the stem cell research movement, despite America’s so-called “restrictive” policies; it still remains the world’s leader in the field of stem cell research.The Scientist recently reported: that the U.S. is by far the world’s leader in the total number of stem cell articles published, alone accounting for 42% of all stem cell articles published world wide between 2000 and 2004 — even with its supposedly restrictive approach to stem cell research.That is four times the articles published by the second leading nation, Germany, which accounted for 10.2 percent of all stem cell articles published worldwide.Germany, by the way, has the most restrictive policies governing hESCR [human Embryonic Stem Cell Research] in all Europe, and led other European nations in the number of articles published.I would not be so passionate about this particular research if it were not for the fact that human lives are at stake for the sake of embryonic stem cell research. An embryo is a human being in his or her most innocent and vulnerable form of life.Why should society promote an ineffective research that requires destroying these human beings when there are already better alternatives that are actually working?
Embryonic stem cell research should not be funded with tax dollars
Embryonic stem-cell research should not be funded with tax dollars
By Andrew Rauenbuehler, Muscatine Right to Life
Embryonic Stem-Cell Research should not be funded with tax dollarsThis letter is in response to a letter published on June 28 by Alan T. Light of Iowa City. He states that embryonic stem cells are the key to cure many diseases. Once again he is overlooking the research of adult stem cells which are donated and have already cured many diseases, many by helping parts of the immune system.Last week on EWTN many patients that were cured with adult stem-cells called into a show to share their story. Mr. Light thinks that federal funding of the research is important so that cures can be found.
I would urge Mr. Light to send a donation of his own money to a laboratory doing research on embryonic stem-cells instead of making tax dollars of citizens who know that the process is inmoral and unethical pay for the funding. He also thinks that a Democratic president and congress needs to be elected for the funding to go through. Not that all democrats support this research, but really he is saying that a president and congress that doesn’t respect life needs to be put into office. When will people begin to realize the importance of life in this country?
By Andrew Rauenbuehler, Muscatine Right to Life
Embryonic Stem-Cell Research should not be funded with tax dollarsThis letter is in response to a letter published on June 28 by Alan T. Light of Iowa City. He states that embryonic stem cells are the key to cure many diseases. Once again he is overlooking the research of adult stem cells which are donated and have already cured many diseases, many by helping parts of the immune system.Last week on EWTN many patients that were cured with adult stem-cells called into a show to share their story. Mr. Light thinks that federal funding of the research is important so that cures can be found.
I would urge Mr. Light to send a donation of his own money to a laboratory doing research on embryonic stem-cells instead of making tax dollars of citizens who know that the process is inmoral and unethical pay for the funding. He also thinks that a Democratic president and congress needs to be elected for the funding to go through. Not that all democrats support this research, but really he is saying that a president and congress that doesn’t respect life needs to be put into office. When will people begin to realize the importance of life in this country?
Sunday, July 8, 2007
What's Wrong with Embryonic Stem-Cell Research?
Rich Deem
Embryonic stem cell research is a hot topic that seems to pit anti-abortion conservatives against pro-abortion liberals. The conservatives claim that there are better alternatives to embryonic stem cells, while the liberals claim that conservatives are blocking research that will provide cures to many tragic diseases. Much of the rhetoric is designed to muddy the waters to invoke emotional responses of those within each camp. This paper is designed to break through sound-bites and go the heart of the matter - what are the scientific issues that impact the question of stem cell research.
What is stem cell research
Much of what is promoted as being news is actually an oversimplification of the issues. Many news articles about stem cell research never distinguish between the kind of stem cell research that is being promoted. For example, the media often reports of breakthrough treatment for patients without mentioning that, in all cases, the source of stem cells is adult tissues. We know this to be true, because embryonic stem cells have never been used in human patients, and won't likely be used in the near future (see reasons, below).
Where do stem cells come from?
Stem cells are classified as being pluripotent or multipotent. Stem cells that are pluripotent are capable of forming virtually all of the possible tissue types found in human beings. These stem cells can only be found in a certain stage (a blastocyst) in human embryos. Multipotent stem cells are partially differentiated, so that they can form a limited number of tissue types. Multipotent stem cells can be found in the fetus, in umbilical cord blood, and numerous adult tissues.
History of stem cell research
Although the controversy of stem cell research is only recent, research first began in the 1960's. The primary source of early human stem cells was adult bone marrow, the tissue that makes red and white blood cells. Since scientists realized that bone marrow was a good source of stem cells, early transplants were initiated in the early 1970's to treat diseases that involved the immune system (genetic immunodeficiencies and cancers of the immune system). Bone marrow-derived stem cell therapy has been extremely successful, with dozens of diseases being treated and cured through the use of these adult stem cells. However, because the donor tissue type must be closely matched to the patient, finding a compatible donor can be problematic. If you haven't already done so, you should become part of the Bone Marrow Registry.
Failures of therapeutic cloning
With the advent of animal cloning, scientists had thought that patient-specific human cloning might provide cures without the tissue incompatibility problems usually associated with transplants. Specific stem cells, developed using clones genetically identical to the patient, would integrate optimally into the patient's body. Although ideal in theory, problems associated with human cloning have been quite formidable. After many years of trying to produce human clones, a South Korean group claimed to have done so in 2004,2 followed by a claim that they had produced patient-specific clones. However, subsequent questions revealed that all the research was fraudulent. Contrary to the original claims, the researchers failed to produce even one clone after over 2,000 attempts. Although a number of labs are working on producing human clones, none have succeeded - even after several years of additional attempts. At a cost of $1,000-$2,000 just to produce each human egg,3 therapeutic cloning would easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, for each patient. Therefore, these kinds of therapies would only be available to the wealthy, assuming the technical difficulties will eventually be eliminated.
Embryonic stem cell research no longer necessary?
Three separate groups of researchers showed recently that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice.4 It is very likely that the technique can be used with human cells. The fact that these cells were pluripotent was proved by producing fetuses derived entirely from these transformed skin cells.
What diseases might be cured by stem cell research?
Stem cells have been promoted as a cure for numerous diseases in the popular press, although the reality of the science suggests otherwise. For example, claims that stem cells might cure Alzheimer’s disease are certainly untrue. According to Michael Shelanski, Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain (Columbia University Medical Center), “I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small.” Ronald D.G. McKay, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke says, “To start with, people need a fairy tale.”5 Stem cell research is widely promoted as a possible cure for type I and type II diabetes. However, these diseases involve the destruction of islet pancreatic cells by the patient's immune system. Even if tissue-compatible islet cells can be produced, transplanting them into a patient will be a very temporary cure, since the patient's immune system will attack the transplant in short order. So, a total cure for diabetes might have to involve a total immune compartment replacement (with its risks), in addition to an islet cell transplant. Parkinson’s disease is another disease that is often mentioned as potentially curable through stem cell research. Proponents of ESCR cite studies in which embryonic stem cells produce dopamine in the brain of rats. However, only 50% of the rats had improvement of function and 25% developed brain tumors and died!6 A main problem for ESCR is that these stem cells spontaneously form tumors in virtually all studies that have been conducted to date. In addition, it seems that the number of dopamine-producing neurons declined over time, suggesting that the cure might be just temporary.7
Problems in stem cell research
According to many stem cell researchers, embryonic stem cells are the preferred stem cells for cell-based therapies. Although they tend be be more versatile than adult stem cells, other sources (including umbilical cord stem cells) have proven to be just as versatile.1 The same properties that make embryonic stem cells so versatile are also the properties that make them unusable for therapy. Unless completely differentiated prior to use in patients, these cells will migrate throughout the body to produce tumors. Experiments performed in mice and rats have shown that spontaneous tumor formation is a persistent problem.6-8 Maintaining and growing embryonic stem cell lines has also been problematic. Some of these lines have mutated, making them unusable in patients.9 The main problem with embryonic stem cell research is the problem is tissue incompatibility.10 Millions of lines must be established in order to serve a significant percentage of potential patients. The use of autologous adult stem cells (cells from the patient) eliminates the problems with tumorogenesis, mutation, and tissue incompatibility. However, since such individualized therapies could not be patented, the pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentives to pursue such therapies. In contrast, embryonic stem cell lines could be patented. Since millions of lines would be required to serve all the different tissue types of patients, pharmaceutical companies could charge a fortune for each patented line they produced. Scientists and research facilities that produced such lines would also reap large financial benefits. The highly favorable financial aspect of embryonic stem cell research is one of the main driving forces behind the push to fund this research.
The problems involved with embryonic stem cell therapies are so formidable that renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Keith Black remarked in 2004 (during California's Proposition 71 stem cell campaign) that his lab would pursue only adult stem cell research. In fact, his group (the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai) recently announced that they had converted adult stem cells into neural stem cells.11
Conclusion
Human embryonic stem cell research has been promoted as being the best way to pursue cell-based therapies for a number of diseases. Although embryonic stem cells are the most versatile type of stem cells, they are unacceptable for therapy because they spontaneously form tumors when transplanted into a compatible host. Embryonic stem cells also suffer from the usual tissue compatibility problems associated with donor transplants. The proposed solution to tissue compatibility problems, therapeutic cloning, is technically challenging (i.e., it hasn't been accomplished yet) and fiscally prohibitive (costs on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient). In contrast to embryonic stem cell technologies, adult stem cells have been used to treat dozens of diseases, with the list growing every year. Pursuing this technology would eliminate the tissue rejection problems associated with embryonic stem cells, and the high cost associated with therapeutic cloning. However, because individualized adult stem cell therapies cannot be patented, this research does not appeal to biotech companies and scientists and research centers seeking royalty payments for patents.
Embryonic stem cell research is a hot topic that seems to pit anti-abortion conservatives against pro-abortion liberals. The conservatives claim that there are better alternatives to embryonic stem cells, while the liberals claim that conservatives are blocking research that will provide cures to many tragic diseases. Much of the rhetoric is designed to muddy the waters to invoke emotional responses of those within each camp. This paper is designed to break through sound-bites and go the heart of the matter - what are the scientific issues that impact the question of stem cell research.
What is stem cell research
Much of what is promoted as being news is actually an oversimplification of the issues. Many news articles about stem cell research never distinguish between the kind of stem cell research that is being promoted. For example, the media often reports of breakthrough treatment for patients without mentioning that, in all cases, the source of stem cells is adult tissues. We know this to be true, because embryonic stem cells have never been used in human patients, and won't likely be used in the near future (see reasons, below).
Where do stem cells come from?
Stem cells are classified as being pluripotent or multipotent. Stem cells that are pluripotent are capable of forming virtually all of the possible tissue types found in human beings. These stem cells can only be found in a certain stage (a blastocyst) in human embryos. Multipotent stem cells are partially differentiated, so that they can form a limited number of tissue types. Multipotent stem cells can be found in the fetus, in umbilical cord blood, and numerous adult tissues.
History of stem cell research
Although the controversy of stem cell research is only recent, research first began in the 1960's. The primary source of early human stem cells was adult bone marrow, the tissue that makes red and white blood cells. Since scientists realized that bone marrow was a good source of stem cells, early transplants were initiated in the early 1970's to treat diseases that involved the immune system (genetic immunodeficiencies and cancers of the immune system). Bone marrow-derived stem cell therapy has been extremely successful, with dozens of diseases being treated and cured through the use of these adult stem cells. However, because the donor tissue type must be closely matched to the patient, finding a compatible donor can be problematic. If you haven't already done so, you should become part of the Bone Marrow Registry.
Failures of therapeutic cloning
With the advent of animal cloning, scientists had thought that patient-specific human cloning might provide cures without the tissue incompatibility problems usually associated with transplants. Specific stem cells, developed using clones genetically identical to the patient, would integrate optimally into the patient's body. Although ideal in theory, problems associated with human cloning have been quite formidable. After many years of trying to produce human clones, a South Korean group claimed to have done so in 2004,2 followed by a claim that they had produced patient-specific clones. However, subsequent questions revealed that all the research was fraudulent. Contrary to the original claims, the researchers failed to produce even one clone after over 2,000 attempts. Although a number of labs are working on producing human clones, none have succeeded - even after several years of additional attempts. At a cost of $1,000-$2,000 just to produce each human egg,3 therapeutic cloning would easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, for each patient. Therefore, these kinds of therapies would only be available to the wealthy, assuming the technical difficulties will eventually be eliminated.
Embryonic stem cell research no longer necessary?
Three separate groups of researchers showed recently that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice.4 It is very likely that the technique can be used with human cells. The fact that these cells were pluripotent was proved by producing fetuses derived entirely from these transformed skin cells.
What diseases might be cured by stem cell research?
Stem cells have been promoted as a cure for numerous diseases in the popular press, although the reality of the science suggests otherwise. For example, claims that stem cells might cure Alzheimer’s disease are certainly untrue. According to Michael Shelanski, Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain (Columbia University Medical Center), “I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small.” Ronald D.G. McKay, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke says, “To start with, people need a fairy tale.”5 Stem cell research is widely promoted as a possible cure for type I and type II diabetes. However, these diseases involve the destruction of islet pancreatic cells by the patient's immune system. Even if tissue-compatible islet cells can be produced, transplanting them into a patient will be a very temporary cure, since the patient's immune system will attack the transplant in short order. So, a total cure for diabetes might have to involve a total immune compartment replacement (with its risks), in addition to an islet cell transplant. Parkinson’s disease is another disease that is often mentioned as potentially curable through stem cell research. Proponents of ESCR cite studies in which embryonic stem cells produce dopamine in the brain of rats. However, only 50% of the rats had improvement of function and 25% developed brain tumors and died!6 A main problem for ESCR is that these stem cells spontaneously form tumors in virtually all studies that have been conducted to date. In addition, it seems that the number of dopamine-producing neurons declined over time, suggesting that the cure might be just temporary.7
Problems in stem cell research
According to many stem cell researchers, embryonic stem cells are the preferred stem cells for cell-based therapies. Although they tend be be more versatile than adult stem cells, other sources (including umbilical cord stem cells) have proven to be just as versatile.1 The same properties that make embryonic stem cells so versatile are also the properties that make them unusable for therapy. Unless completely differentiated prior to use in patients, these cells will migrate throughout the body to produce tumors. Experiments performed in mice and rats have shown that spontaneous tumor formation is a persistent problem.6-8 Maintaining and growing embryonic stem cell lines has also been problematic. Some of these lines have mutated, making them unusable in patients.9 The main problem with embryonic stem cell research is the problem is tissue incompatibility.10 Millions of lines must be established in order to serve a significant percentage of potential patients. The use of autologous adult stem cells (cells from the patient) eliminates the problems with tumorogenesis, mutation, and tissue incompatibility. However, since such individualized therapies could not be patented, the pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentives to pursue such therapies. In contrast, embryonic stem cell lines could be patented. Since millions of lines would be required to serve all the different tissue types of patients, pharmaceutical companies could charge a fortune for each patented line they produced. Scientists and research facilities that produced such lines would also reap large financial benefits. The highly favorable financial aspect of embryonic stem cell research is one of the main driving forces behind the push to fund this research.
The problems involved with embryonic stem cell therapies are so formidable that renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Keith Black remarked in 2004 (during California's Proposition 71 stem cell campaign) that his lab would pursue only adult stem cell research. In fact, his group (the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai) recently announced that they had converted adult stem cells into neural stem cells.11
Conclusion
Human embryonic stem cell research has been promoted as being the best way to pursue cell-based therapies for a number of diseases. Although embryonic stem cells are the most versatile type of stem cells, they are unacceptable for therapy because they spontaneously form tumors when transplanted into a compatible host. Embryonic stem cells also suffer from the usual tissue compatibility problems associated with donor transplants. The proposed solution to tissue compatibility problems, therapeutic cloning, is technically challenging (i.e., it hasn't been accomplished yet) and fiscally prohibitive (costs on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient). In contrast to embryonic stem cell technologies, adult stem cells have been used to treat dozens of diseases, with the list growing every year. Pursuing this technology would eliminate the tissue rejection problems associated with embryonic stem cells, and the high cost associated with therapeutic cloning. However, because individualized adult stem cell therapies cannot be patented, this research does not appeal to biotech companies and scientists and research centers seeking royalty payments for patents.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
MRL Recital Benefit and Dessert Reception
Muscatine Right to Life will sponser a musical recital on Friday June 22, 7pm at St. Mathias Catholic Church, Muscatine. There will be a ton of local talent performing! Following the recital there will be a dessert and beverage reception in Gannon Hall, connected to the Church.
This will be MRL's first fundraiser.!
If you would like some flyers to hand around contact MRL at muscatinerighttolife@hotmail.com
This will be MRL's first fundraiser.!
If you would like some flyers to hand around contact MRL at muscatinerighttolife@hotmail.com
Saturday, March 24, 2007
MRL's First Guest Editorial
Iowans misled about stem cell bill
By Hannah Flanders
Readers: Muscatine Right to Life hopes that a series of guest editorials, beginning today and running about once a month, will help residents of the Muscatine area be better aware of pro-life issues and what is going on in the Legislature or even in our own community.
—Andrew Rauenbuehler
Muscatine Right to Life
Were Iowa citizens deceived and even lied to when the governor pushed to repeal the Iowa human cloning ban by calling it a so-called stem cell research initiative?Without a doubt, the citizens of Iowa have been craftily misinformed on the issues and facts concerning the so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill.
The most frustrating part about this bill is that there has NEVER been a ban on any kind of stem cell research in Iowa. Before this bill was ever brought up, all scientists in Iowa had the legal ability to perform any form of stem cell research! We Iowans were led to believe the fallacy that the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill would allow stem cell research to begin in Iowa, which is most obviously unnecessary since there never was a ban on stem cell research in the first place.Although any kind of stem cell research was permitted in the state of Iowa, what was not allowed was any form of human cloning. Before the passing of this human cloning bill, it was a Class C felony for anyone to attempt cloning a human being. The penalty of this action would result in a 15-year prison term.We Iowans were told that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning through this bill. We were also told that House File 287 and Senate File 162, so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bills, merely entered the human cloning code section to add language allowing “somatic cell nuclear transfer” to be legal according to the bill, and we were then assured that having taken the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” language out, the Iowa human cloning ban (initiated in 2002) would be reaffirmed.What we were not told was that somatic cell nuclear transfer is a form of human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is also known as “therapeutic cloning.” Through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, human embryos can be formed without a male sperm involved.The process works in this system: Scientists take the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and put it into an egg cell (ovum) that has had its nucleus removed. Regardless of any arguments, the result of this process is a cloned embryo. In fact, somatic cell nuclear transfer was the exact method used to clone “Dolly” the sheep.The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply the act of creating a human embryo without a male sperm.The cloned human embryos formed through somatic cell nuclear transfer could either be implanted within a woman’s womb (which is known as reproductive cloning) or could be used for scientific research in which the clone would be harvested for its stem cells and therefore destroyed. Somatic cell nuclear transfer” (therapeutic cloning) and reproductive cloning are exactly the same, the only difference between these two cloning methods is that in one case the clone would be implanted in a woman’s womb and in the other it would be destroyed.Reproductive cloning is still illegal in the state of Iowa.As fellow citizens and taxpayers of Iowa, we deserve the right to be informed on the plans and happenings in the Iowa Legislature. Those in favor of the human cloning bill did not properly inform the Iowa citizens that somatic cell nuclear transfer and therapeutic cloning are the same thing. They merely told us that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning and that our human cloning ban would be reaffirmed.If no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning, then why was the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill concerning somatic cell nuclear transfer passed? Human cloning and somatic nuclear cell transfer are the same thing, whether stated simply or scientifically. How is it possible that the Iowa Legislature can take language from the cloning code section (somatic cell nuclear transfer) and then reaffirm the ban on cloning if, somatic nuclear cell transfer is cloning?Wouldn’t you agree that this would be making something both legal and illegal at the same time?The bottom line is human cloning is no longer banned in the state of Iowa.
Hannah Flanders, age 15, is a member of the recently formed Muscatine Right to Life chapter, part of a national organization whose stated goal is to “restore legal protection to innocent human life.”
By Hannah Flanders
Readers: Muscatine Right to Life hopes that a series of guest editorials, beginning today and running about once a month, will help residents of the Muscatine area be better aware of pro-life issues and what is going on in the Legislature or even in our own community.
—Andrew Rauenbuehler
Muscatine Right to Life
Were Iowa citizens deceived and even lied to when the governor pushed to repeal the Iowa human cloning ban by calling it a so-called stem cell research initiative?Without a doubt, the citizens of Iowa have been craftily misinformed on the issues and facts concerning the so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill.
The most frustrating part about this bill is that there has NEVER been a ban on any kind of stem cell research in Iowa. Before this bill was ever brought up, all scientists in Iowa had the legal ability to perform any form of stem cell research! We Iowans were led to believe the fallacy that the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill would allow stem cell research to begin in Iowa, which is most obviously unnecessary since there never was a ban on stem cell research in the first place.Although any kind of stem cell research was permitted in the state of Iowa, what was not allowed was any form of human cloning. Before the passing of this human cloning bill, it was a Class C felony for anyone to attempt cloning a human being. The penalty of this action would result in a 15-year prison term.We Iowans were told that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning through this bill. We were also told that House File 287 and Senate File 162, so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bills, merely entered the human cloning code section to add language allowing “somatic cell nuclear transfer” to be legal according to the bill, and we were then assured that having taken the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” language out, the Iowa human cloning ban (initiated in 2002) would be reaffirmed.What we were not told was that somatic cell nuclear transfer is a form of human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is also known as “therapeutic cloning.” Through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, human embryos can be formed without a male sperm involved.The process works in this system: Scientists take the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and put it into an egg cell (ovum) that has had its nucleus removed. Regardless of any arguments, the result of this process is a cloned embryo. In fact, somatic cell nuclear transfer was the exact method used to clone “Dolly” the sheep.The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply the act of creating a human embryo without a male sperm.The cloned human embryos formed through somatic cell nuclear transfer could either be implanted within a woman’s womb (which is known as reproductive cloning) or could be used for scientific research in which the clone would be harvested for its stem cells and therefore destroyed. Somatic cell nuclear transfer” (therapeutic cloning) and reproductive cloning are exactly the same, the only difference between these two cloning methods is that in one case the clone would be implanted in a woman’s womb and in the other it would be destroyed.Reproductive cloning is still illegal in the state of Iowa.As fellow citizens and taxpayers of Iowa, we deserve the right to be informed on the plans and happenings in the Iowa Legislature. Those in favor of the human cloning bill did not properly inform the Iowa citizens that somatic cell nuclear transfer and therapeutic cloning are the same thing. They merely told us that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning and that our human cloning ban would be reaffirmed.If no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning, then why was the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill concerning somatic cell nuclear transfer passed? Human cloning and somatic nuclear cell transfer are the same thing, whether stated simply or scientifically. How is it possible that the Iowa Legislature can take language from the cloning code section (somatic cell nuclear transfer) and then reaffirm the ban on cloning if, somatic nuclear cell transfer is cloning?Wouldn’t you agree that this would be making something both legal and illegal at the same time?The bottom line is human cloning is no longer banned in the state of Iowa.
Hannah Flanders, age 15, is a member of the recently formed Muscatine Right to Life chapter, part of a national organization whose stated goal is to “restore legal protection to innocent human life.”
Friday, March 23, 2007
MRL's Guest Editorial in the Muscatine Journal
Muscatine Right to Life will start having a monthly guest editorial published in the Muscatine Journal. Look for the first one soon. If you would like to write one to be published in a coming month send it to muscatinerighttolife@hotmail.com.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
CEDAW
Urge senators to oppose CEDAW (pro-abortion treaty)
WASHINGTON (February 27, 2007) – The U.S. Senate could vote this year on whether to ratify a treaty that some international bodies have interpreted to prohibit any limitations on abortion.
The treaty is called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or for short “CEDAW” (pronounced “SEE-daw”). NRLC strongly opposes ratification of CEDAW because the treaty already has been construed to condemn virtually all limits on abortion by the U.N. committee that is charged with enforcing it, by the European Parliament, and by pro-abortion litigating groups. Many other pro-life organizations also oppose ratification of CEDAW, including Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Focus on the Family, and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.
What is CEDAW?
The CEDAW is a treaty that was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979. Since then it has been ratified by 185 nations, but never by the United States. President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty and sent it to the Senate in 1980, but the Senate has never voted on whether to ratify it – in part because of serious questions about the impact it could have in many areas of U.S. law, including laws pertaining to abortion.
Although the CEDAW does not mention the word “abortion,” Article 12 does require signing nations to “eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality between men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.” Since about 1995, Article 12 and other provisions have been creatively interpreted by official bodies, ranging from the European Parliament to the UN CEDAW Committee, to condemn limitations on abortion, on grounds that any restrictions on abortion constitute discrimination against women. To read NRLC's February 1, 2007 letter to the Senate, which cites a number of examples, click here.
The NRLC letter to the Senate concluded: “In summary: the CEDAW, if ratified, would be used to assert an international obligation on the federal and state governments to provide public funding for abortion, to refrain from adopting or enforcing restrictions on partial-birth abortions, to refrain from adopting or enforcing laws to protect the rights of parents with respect to their minor daughters, to eliminate conscience-protection laws, and otherwise to condemn any limitations on abortion. . . . For these reasons, a vote in favor of a ratification resolution is a vote in favor of all of these sweeping pro-abortion policies, and will be accurately so characterized in our scorecard of key roll call votes for the 110th Congress.”
Prospects in 2007 Senator Joseph Biden (D-De.), a CEDAW supporter who took over this year as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other Senate Democrats are under pressure from liberal advocacy groups to press the treaty to a vote of the full Senate this year.
All but a few of the Senate’s 51 Democrats already have endorsed the CEDAW. However, many of the 49 Republican senators have never taken a position on it. Even if every Democratic senator voted in favor of ratification, treaty supporters would need 16 Republican senators’ votes in order to achieve the required two-thirds margin (if every senator votes). “Ratification of CEDAW can be stopped,” says NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “It requires the votes of only one-third of the senators, plus one, to block ratification of a treaty.”
Immediate Action Requested
Please enter your zip code into the "Take Action" Box below, in order to send e-mail urging your two U.S. senators to oppose ratification of the CEDAW.
Also, you can telephone any senator’s office through the U.S. Capitol switchboard, 202-224-3121. If you are not sure who your senators are, just tell the operator which state you live in, and you will be directed to the correct offices. Or, you can look up the direct phone and fax numbers for the offices of your U.S. Senators by going to the "Elected Officials" tab at the top of this page. PLEASE NOTE: Because of security procedures, there are often long delays in the delivery and counting of U.S. mail on Capitol Hill, so we highly recommend the use of e-mail, telephone, and fax. Whatever methods you choose, you should make it clear that you are a constituent, politely urge the senator to “oppose ratification of the CEDAW (pronounced ‘SEE-daw’) treaty,” and ask for a written response explaining the senator's position.
WASHINGTON (February 27, 2007) – The U.S. Senate could vote this year on whether to ratify a treaty that some international bodies have interpreted to prohibit any limitations on abortion.
The treaty is called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or for short “CEDAW” (pronounced “SEE-daw”). NRLC strongly opposes ratification of CEDAW because the treaty already has been construed to condemn virtually all limits on abortion by the U.N. committee that is charged with enforcing it, by the European Parliament, and by pro-abortion litigating groups. Many other pro-life organizations also oppose ratification of CEDAW, including Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Focus on the Family, and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.
What is CEDAW?
The CEDAW is a treaty that was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979. Since then it has been ratified by 185 nations, but never by the United States. President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty and sent it to the Senate in 1980, but the Senate has never voted on whether to ratify it – in part because of serious questions about the impact it could have in many areas of U.S. law, including laws pertaining to abortion.
Although the CEDAW does not mention the word “abortion,” Article 12 does require signing nations to “eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality between men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.” Since about 1995, Article 12 and other provisions have been creatively interpreted by official bodies, ranging from the European Parliament to the UN CEDAW Committee, to condemn limitations on abortion, on grounds that any restrictions on abortion constitute discrimination against women. To read NRLC's February 1, 2007 letter to the Senate, which cites a number of examples, click here.
The NRLC letter to the Senate concluded: “In summary: the CEDAW, if ratified, would be used to assert an international obligation on the federal and state governments to provide public funding for abortion, to refrain from adopting or enforcing restrictions on partial-birth abortions, to refrain from adopting or enforcing laws to protect the rights of parents with respect to their minor daughters, to eliminate conscience-protection laws, and otherwise to condemn any limitations on abortion. . . . For these reasons, a vote in favor of a ratification resolution is a vote in favor of all of these sweeping pro-abortion policies, and will be accurately so characterized in our scorecard of key roll call votes for the 110th Congress.”
Prospects in 2007 Senator Joseph Biden (D-De.), a CEDAW supporter who took over this year as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other Senate Democrats are under pressure from liberal advocacy groups to press the treaty to a vote of the full Senate this year.
All but a few of the Senate’s 51 Democrats already have endorsed the CEDAW. However, many of the 49 Republican senators have never taken a position on it. Even if every Democratic senator voted in favor of ratification, treaty supporters would need 16 Republican senators’ votes in order to achieve the required two-thirds margin (if every senator votes). “Ratification of CEDAW can be stopped,” says NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “It requires the votes of only one-third of the senators, plus one, to block ratification of a treaty.”
Immediate Action Requested
Please enter your zip code into the "Take Action" Box below, in order to send e-mail urging your two U.S. senators to oppose ratification of the CEDAW.
Also, you can telephone any senator’s office through the U.S. Capitol switchboard, 202-224-3121. If you are not sure who your senators are, just tell the operator which state you live in, and you will be directed to the correct offices. Or, you can look up the direct phone and fax numbers for the offices of your U.S. Senators by going to the "Elected Officials" tab at the top of this page. PLEASE NOTE: Because of security procedures, there are often long delays in the delivery and counting of U.S. mail on Capitol Hill, so we highly recommend the use of e-mail, telephone, and fax. Whatever methods you choose, you should make it clear that you are a constituent, politely urge the senator to “oppose ratification of the CEDAW (pronounced ‘SEE-daw’) treaty,” and ask for a written response explaining the senator's position.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Recent Letters to the Editor
Embryo research misrepresentedBy Ed Siering, Muscatine, Iowa
The Iowa Legislature has enacted and the governor has signed into law a statute that permits medical research on cloned embryos. Despite decades of research on animal models and despite almost a full decade of research with human embryos, embryonic stem cells have not produced a single medical benefit.Why does the Iowa government expect economic benefit from funding such research when, according to Forbes magazine, the challenges of creating commercial products from embryonic stem cells is so difficult and prohibitively expensive that private investors and most major drug and biotech companies have not invested in it?
Why is there no private money willing to so venture?Thousands and thousands of patients have benefited from adult stem cell treatments; patients afflicted with various cancers, autoimmune diseases, anemias and blood disorders, metabolic disorders, wounds, and injuries have all been cured using adult stem cells, including the latest discovery, stem cells from cord blood.
But from embryos? Nada. Iowa, your Legislature and your governor have an agenda that they are not sharing with you. They are not being honest.
Why embryonic stem cell research is immoralBy Hannah Flanders,Age 15, Member, Muscatine Right to Life
I was very disappointed that the “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill passed in the Iowa Legislature. To put it plainly, embryonic stem cell research is immoral and unethical.In order for scientists to research embryonic stem cell lines, they use a process called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” which is also known as therapeutic cloning!The phrase “somatic nuclear cell transfer” means taking the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and putting it into an egg cell (ovum), which has had its nucleus removed. When the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” process” is applied, it forms a human embryo without a male sperm. This was the exact method in which “Dolly” the sheep was cloned.
It is very discouraging, because not only is embryonic stem cell research immoral, but it is also ineffective. Today there is not one successful treatment of embryonic stem cell research to report, whereas adult stem cell research (which I support 100 percent) has already generated 72 success cases!The difference between embryonic and adult stem cell research is black and white: Embryonic stem cell research is destroying lives, while adult stem cell research is saving them.
Although some people choose not to believe an embryo is a human being, they must agree that at one point ,every human being was in the form of an embryo — this is basic biology. I think many will agree with me that they are glad they were protected from an “embryonic stem cell research initiative” when they were in the form of an embryo.In the United States, we have a federal law (initiated in 1940) that protects bald eagles in every form of life. If someone shot a bald eagle, they would be subject to the penalties of the law. This same punishment would be inflicted upon those who destroyed the bird’s eggs (embryos). I am disgusted that our country will protect animals in EVERY stage of life, yet will not do the same for human beings.I am certainly not opposed to finding cures for those who have terminal illnesses. I have many close friends with type 1 juvenile diabetes.As much as I would like to see them cured, embryonic stem cell research is not justifiable. The fact that we would be curing one person at the expense of another’s life is utterly inhumane and incredibly selfish.Why not put our efforts toward a more promising alternative such as adult stem cell research?Life is a gift and it deserves protection and respect in every form from conception until natural death.
The Iowa Legislature has enacted and the governor has signed into law a statute that permits medical research on cloned embryos. Despite decades of research on animal models and despite almost a full decade of research with human embryos, embryonic stem cells have not produced a single medical benefit.Why does the Iowa government expect economic benefit from funding such research when, according to Forbes magazine, the challenges of creating commercial products from embryonic stem cells is so difficult and prohibitively expensive that private investors and most major drug and biotech companies have not invested in it?
Why is there no private money willing to so venture?Thousands and thousands of patients have benefited from adult stem cell treatments; patients afflicted with various cancers, autoimmune diseases, anemias and blood disorders, metabolic disorders, wounds, and injuries have all been cured using adult stem cells, including the latest discovery, stem cells from cord blood.
But from embryos? Nada. Iowa, your Legislature and your governor have an agenda that they are not sharing with you. They are not being honest.
Why embryonic stem cell research is immoralBy Hannah Flanders,Age 15, Member, Muscatine Right to Life
I was very disappointed that the “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill passed in the Iowa Legislature. To put it plainly, embryonic stem cell research is immoral and unethical.In order for scientists to research embryonic stem cell lines, they use a process called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” which is also known as therapeutic cloning!The phrase “somatic nuclear cell transfer” means taking the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and putting it into an egg cell (ovum), which has had its nucleus removed. When the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” process” is applied, it forms a human embryo without a male sperm. This was the exact method in which “Dolly” the sheep was cloned.
It is very discouraging, because not only is embryonic stem cell research immoral, but it is also ineffective. Today there is not one successful treatment of embryonic stem cell research to report, whereas adult stem cell research (which I support 100 percent) has already generated 72 success cases!The difference between embryonic and adult stem cell research is black and white: Embryonic stem cell research is destroying lives, while adult stem cell research is saving them.
Although some people choose not to believe an embryo is a human being, they must agree that at one point ,every human being was in the form of an embryo — this is basic biology. I think many will agree with me that they are glad they were protected from an “embryonic stem cell research initiative” when they were in the form of an embryo.In the United States, we have a federal law (initiated in 1940) that protects bald eagles in every form of life. If someone shot a bald eagle, they would be subject to the penalties of the law. This same punishment would be inflicted upon those who destroyed the bird’s eggs (embryos). I am disgusted that our country will protect animals in EVERY stage of life, yet will not do the same for human beings.I am certainly not opposed to finding cures for those who have terminal illnesses. I have many close friends with type 1 juvenile diabetes.As much as I would like to see them cured, embryonic stem cell research is not justifiable. The fact that we would be curing one person at the expense of another’s life is utterly inhumane and incredibly selfish.Why not put our efforts toward a more promising alternative such as adult stem cell research?Life is a gift and it deserves protection and respect in every form from conception until natural death.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Justin Wright, Sophmore at MHS, Gives Speech on Abortion in English
Should abortion be allowed? Do you think that if someone is defenseless, that another person should be able to kill him or her? Should they be able to cause someone to suffer? Of course not. Abortionists think that having an unwanted baby can be bad for the mother's health. They think that beautiful, innocent children may "pollute and over-populate the earth" if they are unwanted. They think that the mother should decide if she wants her baby or not. And these doctors don't even tell the mothers how much suffering it will cause for her baby. And, abortionists don't tell the mothers how terminating their pregnancy will affect her life for years to come. In the womb, the baby's heart begins to beat about 22 days from conception. Conception means forming, or being pregnant. Being pregnant means having a child developing in the body. This means that from the moment the egg is fertilized, it is a new life forming within the mother's womb. It doesn't even have to be a matter of morality; it just has to be a matter of ethics. There are ten gruesome ways to terminate a pregnancy. One way is suction aspiration, or vacuum cutterage. This is where a powerful suction tube with a sharp cutting edge is inserted into the womb. The suction dismembers the body of the developing baby and tears the placenta from the wall of the uterus, sucking blood, amniotic fluid, placental tissue, and all the baby's body parts into a collection bottle. Another way is dilation and cutterage. In this technique, the cervix is dilated or stretched to permit the insertion of a loop shaped steel knife. The body of the baby is cut into pieces and removed and the placenta is scraped off the uterine wall. A third way is partial-birth abortion. This is when the surgeon puts forceps into the womb, pulls the baby out by its leg; all except for the head, which is left in the womb. The surgeon then stabs the back of the baby's skull with scissors and spreads the tips apart, leaving a cleft so that the suction catheter can suck the baby's brains out. Since the baby's head is still in the womb during this procedure, the baby feels the pain and shock of the doctor pulling him out and then dies as the doctor stabs the scissors into the baby's skull. I have some visuals depicting this exercise. There are also medications and drugs that terminate the pregnancy at a very early stage. Even though the abortionist uses anesthesia, 97% of women felt pain during the abortion process. About 33% felt moderate to very severe pain. Clinical research provides evidence that having an abortion can cause psychological harm to a lot of women. "Women who report negative after-effects from abortion know exactly what their problem is" observed psychologist Wanda Franz, Ph.D. "They report horrible nightmares of children calling to them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood," Franz said. "When they are reminded of the abortion," Franz testified, "the women re-experienced it with terrible psychological pain ... They feel worthless and victimized because they failed at the most natural of human activities -- the role of being a mother." Is this what we want women to feel? Abortion is such a filthy way of getting out of the responsibility and joy of parenthood. In 2004, President Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which states that any "child in utero" is considered to be a legal victim if injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. The bills definition of "child in utero" is "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Out of 73,000 abortions: 21 women died 1 in 100 experienced infection complications 1 in 20 women experienced complications in a subsequent pregnancy 400% increase in tubal pregnancies 100% increase in miscarriages 4% increase in labor problems 83% increase in delivering problems 300% increase in premature deaths Over half the women who abort eventually need psychiatric treatment 5-10% of women go sterile after an abortion Women who have had an abortion have a higher incidence of suicide than other women. There are over 150 physical complications resulting from abortions: Bladder damage Bowels inadvertently sucked out besides the baby Cervical lacerations Coma Convulsions Embolisms Genital tract infections Hemorrhage Incomplete abortion Injury to the intestines Kidney damage Kidney loss Multiple organ removal Pelvic infection Pelvic removal Perforation of the bladder Perforation of the bowel And on and on... There are positive alternatives to abortion. You can keep the baby, and help it to grow into an adult. Or, adoption is a very good option as well. There are so many couples that are unable to have children who would do so much to be able to rear a small child. It is easier than we think to put a baby up for adoption. We need to urge out parents to vote pro-life because when we are of voting age, too many more babies will have been murdered. We need to save as many of these little children as we can. There have been over 40 million killings since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, and that is way too many. For more information on how to help win the war against this barbaric practice and protect the sanctity and beauty of life, talk to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
