Stem cells from fatty tissue have been engineered into cancer-killers.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

If adult stem cells could indeed deliver the results claimed, why would medical researchers bother with embryonic stem cells?

If embryonic stem cells were so great, then why do researchers need funding to be coerced from taxpayers. If ESCR could even cure baldness, there would be guaranteed voluntary funding.

Adult (or more precisely, somatic) stem cells really have delivered proven cures. So the putschers of ESCR are more interested in dehumanizing the unborn than finding cures. This is why the MMM has imposed a virtual blackout on the real successes of somatic stem cells.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

The protections and safeguards that have been built into the legislation in Australia allow for research to proceed in an ethical environment, as does all medical research in this country.

No, these alleged safeguards are to make pushing the ethical boundaries more palatable to the public, whether to end life near the beginning (abortion, ESCR) or the end (assisted suicide, euthanasia). But once the ending-life legislation has been passed, these “safeguards” will be attacked as too restrictive, and be abolished or just ignored.

The euthanasia putscher Kathryn Tucker, in a speech at Seattle Pacific University 12 July 1999, said the following about the allegedly safeguarded Oregon assisted suicide law:

The Oregon measure … became overly restrictive. It has a 15-day waiting period … a 15-day waiting period would be struck down as unduly burdensome. … But in the legislative forum, you need to have measures that convince people that it’s suitably protective, so you see a 15-day waiting period.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

But you are wrong throughout, and your morality is quite worrying. Should we really decide who is really human by opinion polls? That is basically what the Germans did in the 1930s and 40s. Your morality and Hitler’s seem the same here.

And it is OK to kill non-sentient human beings? So when you are in a deep sleep or a coma, it is OK for me to kill you, right?

And all pro-lifers do oppose any so-called contraceptive when in fact it acts as an abortifacient.

Not enough research yet? But it has been going on for decades now. (And you still have not answered my question about the success of the two methods – I am afraid your ignorance is still showing here).

Finally, your naïve trust in ethical guidelines in Australia simply shows how selective you are. In every other area, you remain the quintessential skeptic. But here you just blindly take whatever spin is offered by the pro-embryo researchers. You might as well argue that tobacco ethics are just fine here, because it is in the safe hands of the tobacco industry.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I don’t think science can decide whether an embryo is “a human”, as opposed to “human”, but properly conducted polls can give a pretty good idea of public opinion on the matter.

Of course an embryo is “human”, in the sense that it contains human genetic material, but so does every other cell in our bodies.

We reserve the word “kill” for sentient beings, so Trounson’s use of the word “destroy” is far more appropriate in relation to cells. But even that language is too strong, because the cell line lives on.

But you could take his analogy further and campaign to have the ordinary contraceptive pill banned, because one of its modes of action is to act as an abortifacient. There wouldn’t be too many people, especially women, who would agree to such a ban, even those who oppose abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

As for the lack of results so far, that is because not much research has been done yet in this area. That is why the ethical debates are happening at this time.

The protections and safeguards that have been built into the legislation in Australia allow for research to proceed in an ethical environment, as does all medical research in this country. We shouldn’t judge new areas of research on the lack of “cures” to date, otherwise all medical advances would be halted before they began.

Steve Angelino, WA

Please spare us the old furphy, ‘I have science on my side, you only have morality’. This is simply a false dilemma, as I have pointed out previously. And what are you suggesting? That you are in favour of amorality? That sounds about right for most atheists. And finally, you are the one being anti-scientific here. Please inform all of us how many human cures and therapies have come about by embryonic stem cell research, Steve. Now tell us how many have come about by adult stem cell research. If you do not know the answer to those two questions, then I suggest you ease up on the anti-Christian zealotry, and start becoming a bit more scientific. Sadly, it is crusading atheistic fundamentalism and ideology, not science, that is pushing folk like you to back a method that has absolutely zero runs on the board to date.

The argument against ESC research is not that it is ‘evil’ (a term never used by Succar), but that it is not working and not necessary. And who says we are not concerned about surplus embryos? As is so often the case, when one weeds out all the straw men, red herrings and other logical fallacies in the ‘argumentation’ of atheists, there is hardly anything of substance left..

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Might I point out that the “overwhelming majority of Australians who are not atheists” don’t have a singular view on stem cell research. In fact the polls suggest that about 80% of Australians don’t accept that an embryo is a human life and are in favour of embryonic stem-cell research.

The problem that Chris pointed out was that the individual in this story started from the presupposition that embryonic stem-cell research is evil, but tried to build a case by arguing the medical science. This is no different from the creationists who start from the assumption that the Biblical version of origins is correct, then try to make the scientific evidence fit.

If adult stem cells could indeed deliver the results claimed, why would medical researchers bother with embryonic stem cells?

It also seems disingenuous that some people will argue against making use of embryos to create stem cell lines for research, but show little concern about the destruction of excess embryos created for IVF purposes.

By all means argue your case on ethical grounds, but don’t try to confuse this with the scientific debate.

Steve Angelino, WA