[cpforlife.org]

PDF of this article

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/7/TNA07-GeorgeLee.pdf

[frogjerk]

Excellent article!

BTW, has anyone see the movie "The Island"? It is very anti-cloning and anti-abortion. This is why it was swept under the rug by Hollywood.

[cpforlife.org]

Again, though very technical, it is worth reading, because it confirms, yet once again from a scientific standpoint, that life begins at the very moment of conception.

More scientific proof to weight upon the idiots who moan stupid things about choice and a woman's body; morons ALL.

[cpforlife.org]

" From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has "wished for himself" and the spiritual soul of each man is "immediately created" by God; his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, Who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"
--The Gift of Life (Donum Vitae) No. 5 of introduction. Published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 1987. http://www.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/donumvitae.htm

[cpforlife.org]

Life begins at conception—NOT birth.
Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.

[cpforlife.org]

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[frogjerk]

All the biological characteristics of the embryo are to be found in the "clonote." Indeed, there is no point in inventing a new word. As the vast majority of people on both sides of the ethical debate understand perfectly well, what somatic cell nuclear transfer produces is a cloned embryo.

This is a classic liberal tactic of creating a euphemism or new word for one that is already well versed and commonly understood, in order to confuse the masses so that they will not come to the same moral and ethical judgment.

[workerbee]

We would not tolerate the killing of a retarded child or a person suffering from, say, brain cancer in order to harvest transplantable organs to save Jordan or Einstein.

I bet there's plenty of people who would.

[SuziQ]

Nor would anyone object to using such cells if they could be obtained from embryos lost in spontaneous abortions.

I hadn't thought of that before, but there are many 'spontaneous abortions', or miscarriages in this country every day. Many take place outside medical institutions, but for those within hospitals, why couldn't it be set up so that those babies' bodies could be donated by the parents so that their cells could be extracted and used for research? It would be similar to the set-up used for organ donation or umbilical cord blood banking, and would negate the need to 'create' embryos for later disposal.