Because if we didn’t laugh we’d have to cry

Chelsea has blogged a Dave Barry column poking fun at cloning . . . timely once again.

Keeping Up With the Cloners

The dishonesty of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures did not end with Amendment 2 and Wesley Smith has been doing an excellent job of keeping up with their lies and false accusations. See, More Lies from Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures and The Mendacity of Missouri Coalition for Life Saving Cures

Lately the chairman of MCLC has been using his voice to hail the the recent iPSC breakthrough (because, after all, they support “all forms of stem cell research”) and at the same time arrogantly assert that Amendment 2 opponents would have somehow prevented this breakthrough from happening, if they had their way (see here and here):

If anti-embryonic stem cell research groups had their way, this outstanding science would not have been possible. They would have blocked the very groundwork that led to the reprogramming of ordinary human skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells. If they get their way now, they will block the important research required to bring this new technique to its full lifesaving potential…Those who threaten to repeal Missourians’ access to stem cell research should allow scientists to conduct the work necessary to achieve the goals that I hope we all share: to cure disease and improve the lives of patients and families.

This is absolutely ludicrous since what we’re trying to ban here is human cloning, which had absolutely nothing to do with the iPSC discovery. Either Don Rubin is incredibly ignorant of the scientific facts surrounding the work done on iPSCs, or he is intentionally muddling the truth to advance his own agenda. Based on the nature of his Amendment 2 campaign, my guess, unfortunately, would be the latter. From Smith:

But more to the point of this post, if the opponents of Amendment 2 in MO had gotten 100% of their way, it would not have stopped the development of the new reprogrammed cells, the ESCR theoretical “heart patch,” or the drug testing. None of that work directly or indirectly involved stem cells derived from human cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer), which has not yet been done in humans. ESCR per se is not the subject of a proposed initiative to outlaw all human cloning in MO and hence all of the research successes Rubin mentions would have been unaffected. Those are scientific facts, not opinion.

It’s a dirty job keeping up with the cloners, but somebody’s got to do it. Thanks Wesley!

Fr. Tad Pacholczyk offers top 10 stem cell myths

Catholic Exchange posted this top ten that won’t be featured on Letterman, but one that every Catholic and conscientious person should know. Especially take note of #4, in light of today’s headlines. We’ll just tease you with the list – go read the commentary over at CE!

Ten Great Myths in the Debate Over Stem Cell Research

1. Stem cells can only come from embryos.

2. The Catholic Church is against stem cell research.

3. Embryonic stem cell research has the greatest promise.

4. Therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning are fundamentally different from one another.

5. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is different from cloning.

 6. By doing somatic cell nuclear transfer, we can directly produce tissues or organs without having to clone an embryo.

7. Every body cell, or somatic cell, is somehow an embryo and thus a human life.

8. Because no sperm is used in cloning, the resultant embryo can’t be a human being and it must be OK to destroy it for its stem cells.

9. Because frozen embryos may one day end up being discarded by somebody, that makes it morally allowable, even laudable, to violate and destroy those embryos.

10. Because large numbers of embryos generated during intercourse are lost from the woman’s body and die naturally, that makes it permissible for us to destroy embryos in research.