It’s a shame that the RCC is behind the times in research, and would rather see embryos discarded like trash than to participate in research. They’d rather a person die than to have the cells of an already long-dead embryo go to their cure.
Only the embryos that have been destroyed for their stem cells are “dead.” The rest, who are frozen, are in suspended animation.
Speaking of being behind the times, embryonic stem cell research doesn’t work; I’m surprised that you don’t know that.
First off, it's not the Church being "behind the times in research," it's some researchers being "behind the times in ethics." W-a-a-y behind the times. Following WWII, there was pretty much a consensus that scientists would not use research that derived from non-consenting experimental subjects. But I guess lessons learned have to be re-learned in every generation.
Second, it's not true that the Church "would rather see embryos discarded." You must have misunderstood something in your caeful reading of ethics, there. The Church would approve the adoption of these embryonic human beings in the wombs of "rescue moms," as such women volunteer. It's already happening with the participation of embryo adoption agencies--- though not nearly to the extent needed.
The Church has never approved either the in-vitro creation, nor the discarding/destruction, of a human embryo.
When discussing the snail-like "progress" of ESCR in developing anything that's medically usable (present therapeutic applications: -zero-), you consistently ignore the fact that it has never been illegal in the U.S. to use human germ cell lines of whatever provenance, or human embryos themselves, for experimentation. States are free to fund it. Universities are free to fund it. Consortia of private investors and speculators are free to fund it.
And why are they apparently lacking that good-ol' can-do spirit, that entrepreneurial enthusiasm? As you know --- because I've told you --- the Wall Street Journal made this pretty clear two years ago:
James Thomson, the first scientist to derive stem cells from a human embryo, made this point clearly just a few weeks ago: "I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it's going to be very hard." He added, "those transplantation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time."
"Leading British stem cell expert Lord Winston has been even more blunt: "I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's lifetime, for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will."
Bottom line: private investment money for ESCR has been, at best, a trickle because of the remoteness of the possibility that it will ever pay off. Because as I said, after millions of dollars spent and cutting-edge experiments on 5 continents, all it's been able to produce in vivo is tumors.
But I repeat myself.
The stem cells don't come from DEAD embryos. The embryos are ALIVE, at least until the stem cells are extracted.
The Church HAS kept up with the research, and she sees, as does anyone who honestly wants to cure disease, that ADULT stem cells are the only ones that have actually worked for that purpose.
I’m Baptist, and agree with the Catholic Church which has always been against in vitro fertilization and the freezing and storing of our children of tomorrow.
So, you believe that 2 wrongs make a right?