Courtesy of the NYT:

Physicians at four European universities have completed what they say is the first successful transplant of a human windpipe using a patient’s own stem cells to fashion an organ and prevent its rejection by her immune system, according to an article in the British medical journal The Lancet. One of the physicians said the surgery could herald a “new age in surgical care.” . . . .

News of the procedure coincided with speculation that President-elect Barack Obama may reverse the Bush Administration’s restrictions on stem cell research, which has been contentious in some European countries, too. Anthony Hollander, a professor at Bristol University, said ethical concerns relating to embryonic stem cell research had not surfaced in the latest procedure because it had used only the patient’s own stem cells. “This was not embryonic stem cell research,” he said in a telephone interview.

What say you President-elect Obama? Please do tell us why it is necessary to federally fund ESCR when all of these amazing scientific advancements are being accomplished without destroying embryos. Why not fund research that actually has a proven track record?

(cue crickets chirping)

President Bush: Vindicated yet again on this issue.

I think this letter to President-elect Obama is a good first step in engaging him (as well as his administration) on certain issues of life (e.g., abortion, ESCR), and I am happy to lend my support to the cause.

You can read the full text of the letter below the fold. (more…)

Catholic News Agency has the details.

Well, I guess the honeymoon will end rather quickly.

I can’t say that I am surprised.

We’ll see how Professor Kmiec and his ilk defend Obama’s support of federal funding of ESCR and the repeal of the Mexico City Policy.

*As I’ve stated repeatedly, the Party of Death includes both Dems and Republicans.

Update: For those of you following the comments, Publius and I have been down this road before.

Oh, and there are numerous examples where I have unequivocally stated that the Party of Death includes both Dems and Republicans–here, here, and here (for starters).

This is huge:

In November of last year, researchers in Wisconsin and Japan announced that they had successfully transformed regular adult cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells without the need for embryos. The advance (involving so-called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells) pointed to a potential path around the moral and political debate over embryonic stem cell research, but some advocates argued that because the technique relied on retroviruses, which might be connected to some risks of cancer, they might not be safe for clinical use.

Today in the journal Science, a group of Harvard researchers reports successfully reprogramming adult cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells without the need for such retroviruses, and so without the cancer risk . . . . 

More then ever, it appears that the promise of such pluripotent cells can be explored—all the way from basic science to the clinic—without the need to use or destroy human embryos, and so without political or ethical controversy. As President Bush put it back in 2006, in defending his approach to the issue and describing the iPS technique (which was then still largely theoretical), science and ethics need not be at odds; with the right policies and the right scientific techniques, they can be championed together. Here’s hoping.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being . . . . 

Joe Biden:

“I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have … the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability,” said Biden, who’s wife is a teacher. “Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don’t you support [embryonic] stem cell research?”

This issue isn’t going away, Senator McCain.

How can you reconcile your belief that “life begins at conception” with your support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

Here’s how you find out: if someone tells you that there are embryonic stem cells buried at ANWR, would you drill? If you answer “yes,” your inner liberal should have no problem if the embryos were replaced by oil.

Kudos to our bishops (except for the one guy who voted against it). You can read the statement here.

Senator McCain, I strongly suggest that you read this statement carefully.

also has Republican members.

Courtesy of Yuval Levin.

While Senator McCain is far from perfect, he–unlike Senators Clinton and Obama, both of whom are firmly in the pocket of Murder, Inc.–is open to the prolife position on embryonic stem cell research, and firmly pro-life in all other respects. 

John Jakubczyk sums up things nicely, noting:

The important news is that leaders in the pro-life community have an open door to discuss the subject and that the Senator knows we are about what is in the best interests of the nation and the nation’s children.

I think pro-lifers struggling with supporting Senator McCain should also keep in mind that two of the pro-life movement’s most eloquent spokesmen, Professors Robert P. George and Gerard Bradley, strongly support him. If you have any doubts about McCain’s overall commitment to the pro-life cause, I strongly encourage you to read their endorsements of the good senator.  

More to come on this. Much more.

Scott Ott rules!

Professor Richard Stith of MOJ on the misguided mindset of those who favor embryo destruction:

I conclude that pro-choice folks think pro-life claims re embryos to be not only wrong but absurd whenever (even unconsciously, in the back of their minds) they think that embryos are under construction in the womb. And pro-life folks find pro-choice denials of prized human dignity in embryos to be equally absurd whenever they think that the unborn child develops (indeed, develops itself, unlike the Polaroid photo) from the moment of fertilization.

The two sides are not quite parallel in this, however: Human beings do develop. To think they are constructed is flat error. This error remains intuitively plausible and has a decent cultural pedigree, so those who make it should not be dismissed as utterly irrational or evil, even though they may seem so from the viewpoint of one who bears in mind the facts of human development. But they are absolutely wrong. We know with certainty that quickening is an illusion, that the child is developing from the beginning, not being made from the outside, for its form lies within it, in its active potency, in its activated DNA. From the point of view of natural science (and natural theology) delayed ensoulment has lost its reason for being and Occam’s razor should cut it out of our debates.

But remains morally problematic.

Kudos to Joe Carter for this magnificent performance on NPR.

Well done, bro.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.”

–Jeremiah 1:5

What troubles me more than anything about those who support embyronic-stem-cell research is how dismissive they are of the threshold question in the debate–i.e., whether a human embryo is a life with inherent dignity and worth. Indeed, the pro-embyro-killing crowd laughs at the very suggestion, and mocks those who hold this viewpoint. Even worse, they play on the fears and hopes of those who have (currently) incurable diseases with lies (yes, you read that right, lies) about how embryonic-stem-cell research is the cure all to everything that plagues mankind, much like the snake-oil salesmen of yore. They brush away any mention of the many scientific advancements of adult-stem-cell research with a swish of the hand, and refuse to even consider the notion that destroying embryos is morally problematic.  If this isn’t the most damning evidence of the Culture-of-Death mindset that pervades our country, then I don’t know what is. 

We truly have become a barbarous and selfish people, with no concern for anyone but ourselves. Yes, people are dying of terrible diseases. And yes, I and others in the pro-life community desperately want to find a cure for every disease as soon as possible. But at what price? Are we really willing to destroy life in order to save it? Is that what it has come to? Machiavellian medicine?  Are you really sure that the embryos being destroyed for your “benefit” are nothing but “dots“?  And if you’re a Christian, do you really want to stand before a holy and righteous God one day, and answer for your support of such an evil practice? It seems to me that those dripping with know-it-all-ism ought to pause, for just a moment (before blowing past the moral stop sign), and consider the real world consequences of what they advocate, and where such research just might take us as a society. But let’s be honest, that’s not going to happen. And I’ll tell you why. Because many proponents of embryonic-stem-cell research just don’t give a damn about whether human embryos are lives infused with a soul or not (any more than they care about children in the womb). It’s all about them, and their desires (which apparently includes self-preservation at any cost). It’s radical individualism on steroids. And if a few million human embryos get destroyed in the process, then so be it. 

Joseph Bottum has an excellent post on President Bush’s ESCR (funding) veto over at the First Things blog. Here’s a taste:

I attended President Bush’s stem cell speech yesterday, and I have to say, it was a real thrill as an American to be invited to the White House to hear the president of the United States give a major policy address. Here is my impression of the day: I was seated in the third row on the right side of the podium and so had a very clear and close-up view of the president. His body language and, particularly, the “on fire” look in his eyes, convinced me that, agree or disagree with Bush, he believes in his stem cell policy wholeheartedly. And he is keeping a campaign promise—imagine that in a politician! In other words, Bush is not “pandering to his base,” as some have said. Nor is he being uncompassionate about people needing medical treatments. He truly believes that he has drawn an important moral and ethical line that does not place the imprimatur of the United States on harvesting nascent human life—as if so many ears of corn—but which at the same time does not impose his moral view on a country that substantially disagrees (at least when the embryos are “leftover IVF embryos due to be destroyed anyway” are concerned).

At a deeper level, Bush’s policy has kept the ethical debate where it belongs: Does human life have intrinsic value simply because it is human? With his stem cell policy and advocacy to outlaw all human cloning, Bush says yes. And whether the issue is the ethical propriety of embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, redefining death so that people like Terri Schiavo can be harvested for their organs, human enhancement, personhood theory, or a myriad of other biotechnological and bioethical controversies of the day, that is the fundamental issue that our nation and our world faces. Kudos to President Bush for understanding this and acting accordingly.

This is the President Bush that I proudly voted for twice, and it’s nice to see him reappear every so often.

Well done, Mr. President.

We must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value,” Bush said in his comments to specially invited families at the White House.

“Some people argue that finding new cures for disease requires the destruction of human embryos,” Bush said, before adding: “I disagree.

“I believe that with the right techniques and the right policies we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities.”

And well said too.

Here’s hoping that all of you lose your senate seats:

Alexander (R-TN), Yea

Bennett (R-UT), Yea

Burr (R-NC), Yea

Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea

Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea

Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea

Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea 
Stevens (R-AK), Yea 
Warner (R-VA), Yea

But Kudos to Georgia’s senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, who stood up for a ” Culture of Life.”

But the Party of Death crowd doesn’t have enough votes to override the president’s veto.

Senator Brownback is the man:

Adult and cord blood stem cell research has yielded 72 peer-reviewed treatments for conditions ranging from spinal injuries to leukemia. Embryonic stem cell research, which has not delivered any peer-reviewed treatments or human clinical trials, is immoral and unnecessary because of the much greater promise and track record of adult and cord blood stem cell research. . . . While researchers in the private sector are free to destroy young human lives through embryonic stem cell research, the government should not be in the business of funding this ethically troubling research with taxpayer dollars.

Excellent post by Joe Carter on IVF and embryonic stem cell research.

Loser of the day.