Times of London misrepresents pro-lifers on stem cells

Times of London misrepresents pro-lifers on stem cells

The Times of London profiles a new venture by Sir Richard Branson in umbilical cord-blood stem-cell storage, the kind that does not come from killing unborn children. Yet, The Times finds a way to make pro-lifers the bad guys here.

Some anti-abortion groups believe that any use of stem cells will lead to human cloning.

Huh, wuh? Since when? In fact, nearly all pro-lifers (who knows maybe there are few who don’t) support the use of adult stem cells and cord-blood stem cells to develop treatments and cures for many ailments as an alternative to using embryonic stem cells, which are harvested by the killing of unborn children. And p.ro-lifers do oppose human cloning, but stem cells and cloning are two separate issues.

This is stem-cell libel of the most pandering liberal sort.

Technorati Tags:, , , ,

  • “And pro-lifers do oppose human cloning, but stem cells and cloning are two separate issues.”

    Not sure if it is deliberate or not, but the media proves itself to be incompetent time and time again when reporting on matters of medicine and science…especially if there is a moral question in discussion.

  • Part of the problem is that adult stem cell therapy/research might be separate from cloning, but embryonic stem cell therapy/research is not necessarily.  I got a link in my email today about Susan G. Komen and their 3-day walking thing, and I decided to see what they had to say about ESCR.  I was shocked by the outright lies they told in their press release on research funding.  I linked to it here.  The whole thing frustrated me so much! 

    Sometimes I think that the proponents of ESCR push hard even when adult stem cells have better results with no ethical problems just so that they can stick it to Pro Lifers.

  • Some anti-abortion groups believe that any use of stem cells will lead to human cloning.

    News to me. And, I expect, news to Times Online.

    The pro-lifers (and sensible people) I know are all for adult stem cell research because…uh…it seems to work.

    Embryonic stem cell research is opposed to by pro-lifers, for obvious reasons, and by sensible people for even more (I should think!) obvious reasons, number one being…it doesn’t work.

    But then, what’s reason got to do with it?

  • Christine,

    Yeah, the Susan G. Komen foundation seems to have some moral issues, in spite of the good they do.  They also are big supporters of Planned Parenthood.  Thus, they get no financial support from me.

  • Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Times might be unintentionally right on this one. From my understanding, the only way the results from stem cell research can work is through cloning – otherwise, you’ve got some rejection issues from the treatments. IIRC, current stem cell research is going to “prove” whether or not it’s possible to develop treatments, but in order for an individual to receive a treatment, a “clone” of them needs to be created to get their stem cells so that the treatment works for them – this may even be true for adult stem cells as well.

    I vaguely recall some of these details being discussed somewhere on Jimmy Akin’s blog, but I’m not 100% sure. I could be way off here, but from what I can remember, cloning and stem cell research have a solid link.

  • Some pro-lifers believe in leprechauns, too, no doubt. But is there a pro-life=pro-leprechaun GROUP? I don’t think so.

  • Adult stem cells and umbilical-cord stem cells are being used in treatments today and do not require cloning.

    Once you have harvested stem cells, and in the case of embryonic cells through abortion, they are propagated through cell lines, i.e. the cells are grown without being part of an entire embryo. Of course, the argument could be made that since stem cells have all the genes in them to become every cell in the body, they themselves could be considered embryos. But that’s theoretical and hypothetical and obviously not what the Time meant.

    Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.