Will Someone Please Explain the Logic in This?????

"British scientists claimed Wednesday to have created human sperm from embryonic stem cells for the first time, an accomplishment they say may someday help infertile men father children."

Let's see now, you kill 1 human being in order to create sperm cells so that a person can father another child.

Meanwhile the only way that those sperm could enable the man to be the real father in any sense of the word is if those embryos are actually clones of the man. So, you make a twin, kill it & then use your twin's DNA & claim it is your own.

Ther logic behind this is another 1 of those pie-in-the-sky promises that always seem to accompany embryonic stem cell research: "The technique could in 10 years allow researchers to use the basic knowledge of how sperm develop to design treatments to enable infertile men the chance to have biological children." Could, not would.

& of course the AP article lumps all stem cells into 1 group to continue being able to say those who oppose embryonic stem cell research oppose stem cell research. "Stem cells can become any cell in the body, and scientists have previously turned them into a variety of new entities, including cells from the brain, pancreas, heart and blood vessels."

Someone sees that embryonic stem cells "could" offer hope. Then, because of how the article doesn't make it clear, thinks that they are the only source of stem cells. Next that person reads another news article that Pro-lifers oppose embryonic stem cell research. & nowhere does it say they support adult stem cell research. So the person is mislead into thinking the Pro-lifers oppose stem cell research.

Meanwhile, there is already some success in doing this using ethicly derived adult stem cells. Talking to LifeNews Dr. David van Gend, national director of Australians for Ethical Stem Cell Research said "that the Newcastle researchers are already working on creating sperm from iPS cells, without exploiting embryos and he urged them to move in that direction."

"We know that iPS cells, derived from adult cells without ever using eggs or embryos, are the exact functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells. Anything an embryonic stem cell can do, an iPS can do – with the further advantage that iPS exactly matches the patient."

Dr. van Gend conluded with: “The abuses of embryonic stem cell science must be ended now that we have, in iPS, a scientifically and ethically superior alternative. I look forward to the Newcastle group’s paper showing the creation of sperm from iPS cells, not embryos."

The only answer I can come up with to explain why they are going on with this unethical form of research is simple, they want to play god.

Amazingly, the article actually talks about some of the criticism of the claim. No, not pro-life criticism, just other scientists who don't think it is actually sperm. " The article points out that Allan Pacey, a senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield said in a statement that the sperm created by Nayernia did not have the specific shape, movement and function of real sperm. Also it mentions that Azim Surani, a professor of physiology and reproduction at the University of Cambridge said the sperm produced by the Newcastle team were "a long way from being authentic sperm cells."

At this point creating embryos from lab-manufactured sperm is banned by British law. Lead researcher Karim Nayernia said they only plan to produce sperm to study the reasons behind infertility, and will not fertilize any eggs. But some lawmakers said provisions should be made to allow sperm derived from stem cells to be tested as part of potential fertility treatments.

1st of all, there will be someone who will test these "sperm" regardless of what the law says. & then what, more embryos for research?

LifeNews reports that "They also say that they could create sperm using female stem cells and ultimately create an unborn child using only genetic material from the mother without a man's involvement." (I won't go into how blasphemous a mocking of the Virgin Birth yhis is. I think that speaks for itself.)

LifeNews had a statement from Josephine Quintavalle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics. She said it was "totally wrong"."This is man at his maddest. I think that sometimes we have to stop meddling and accept infertility. Science must be totally ethical and totally safe – this is neither."

Dr. David van Gend, whom I already mentioned, talked with LifeNews.com about the problems associated with the research.

“The abuse of embryonic humans reached a sinister new low today," he said. “This is an abuse both because of its implications – namely, that scientists can now exploit a dead embryo as a source of sperm – but also because it was entirely unnecessary to use embryos as the source of stem cells. That was an ethically wanton act, to use embryos when an uncontentious and superior alternative was available."

Inch by inch & step by step we are crossing the line & taking onto ourselves roles that clearly belong only to God by defying natural law. They are playing god & all in the name of creating a better human being. How much longer God can allow this to go on before we have to face judgement?

Sources: British scientists claim to create human sperm

SCIENTISTS CREATE HUMAN SPERM FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, DESTROY HUMAN LIFE