Irving, Dianne N.
242 Articles at Lifeissues.net

Dr. Irving's professional activities include teaching positions at Georgetown University, Catholic University of America, and The Dominican House of Studies. She represented the Catholic Medical Association of the United States, and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, at the Scientific Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, October 28, 1999 and presented a paper on "The Dignity and Status of the Human Embryo". Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist (NIH, NCI, Bethesda, MD), an M.A. and Ph.D. philosopher (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.), and Professor of the History of Philosophy, and of Medical Ethics.

See also: Dr. Irving's commentaries on this site.

Contact: DNIrving@aol.com

Articles

Why Roe will go but NOT because of Kavanaugh

The bottom line is that when the current Supreme Court is required to review the Roe decision, they will of course need to turn to and acknowledge the long-known objective scientific facts of human embryology that Roe refused to acknowledge. THAT is why Roe will go -- NOT because of Justice Kavanaugh's or any of the other Supreme Court justices' political positions.

Date posted: 2018-10-22

GMO's, Glyphosate, and Transgenders

The devastating effects of GMO's and especially glyphosate have long been scientifically and objectively documented, including its biologically causing transgenderism. The purpose of this article is to raise the level of debate on these issues that many are so reluctant to discuss and provide significant documentation.

Date posted: 2018-10-15

Kornblihtt's fake abortion "testimony" in Argentina; Why did he really "testify"?

The purpose of this article is to examine the legitimacy of the recent testimony of Argentine "scientist" Alberto Kornblihtt against the current law prohibiting abortion in Argentina at a public hearing. His arguments are found to be so grossly scientifically, philosophically and logically in error that one wonders why he really provided such a "testimony". If pushed legally, his false definitions and contradictory concepts could even lead to the legal killing of adult human beings.

Date posted: 2018-07-26

WSJ CRACKING UP with their "Cracking the Code of Life" article??

Indeed, if the "facts" of "The" Human Genome Projects are actually empirically, objectively scientifically false concerning human beings, then so are all the non-human animal "genomes" that are based on them as those bragged about in the Wall Street Journal article.

Date posted: 2018-05-07

How the "ethics" of research using human subjects has changed since the Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg Code is a voluntary international guideline listing ten basic principles that must be met to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concerns involving the use of any human subjects in research -- including those participating in research in education.

Date posted: 2018-03-29

Why Does Islam Push Fake "Embryology" in Reaching Out To "The Youth"?

If "the youth" believe in the fake "scientific" facts of human embryology given in the Qur'an, they could then "scientifically justify" the use of abortifacients, abortions up to the fetal period (beginning at 9 weeks post-fertilization") if not longer, and the use of all those real living human embryos in destructive research (e.g., various kinds of human cloning, genetic engineering, synthetic biology, nanotechology, gene splicing, designer babies, etc.)!

Date posted: 2018-01-05

Fake Science News? Yamanaka's iPS Stem Cell Admissions -- and the Other Elephants in the Room

While Yamanaka admittedly points to some very important "elephants in the room" concerning iPS research, there are a few other "elephants" that are also involved in iPS research that need much more extensive discussion. The issues are not just "ethical" issues, but "scientific" ones as well. They are intertwined.

Date posted: 2017-01-30

Current Epidemic of Scientific Fraud and the Nuremberg Code

Given the current epidemic of scientific fraud and misconduct, it is long past time to recall the international principles of the Nuremberg Code. False scientific data and misconduct lead to false medical data, which leads to false clinical trial data, which leads to fake drugs and related products for consumers. A concurrent epidemic of physical and psychological harm, diseases, and even death has resulted. Criminal liability for such fraud and misconduct should also be considered.

Date posted: 2016-11-15

False Islamic "Human Embryology" Again in "Holy Quran, New Sciences and Development of the Human Embryo"

If Islamic human embryology as found in the Qur'an is empirically accurate and true, then abortion up to 9 weeks post-fertilization (or even beyond), IVF, artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs) which include IVF but also many genetic engineering and cloning techniques, human embryo research, human embryonic genetic engineering, human embryonic stem cell research, legal and illegal surrogacy, human trafficking, etc., are all ethical.

Date posted: 2016-07-30

Planned Parenthood's Website "Glossary" - Fake Science, Phobias, and Sexually Obsessive Definitions

Under ordinary circumstances, most people would consider this "Glossary" on Planned Parenthood's website as not just mis-informative, but grossly scientifically erroneous and pornographic as well -- and the U.S. Government is paying for it?! How many curious girls, women, men, educators and professionals are thus "educated" simply by trying to check out some "relevant" definition?

Date posted: 2016-06-28

Why Transhumanism and Gnosticism Are Anti-Catholic/Christian/Jewish

Like it or not, know it or not, Transhumanism is now global -- and at least your children and grandchildren are being flooded with it. So what's to worry about? A whole lot! It is essentially Gnosticism all dressed up in a new "name".

Date posted: 2016-05-21

March For Life 2016's "Life Principles" Continue to Use False Science

Given that the March For Life has achieved some great successes over the years to protect human life, it has done so only for some human life (those embryos and fetuses sexually reproduced/fertilization) -- not all human life (including those a-sexually reproduced through cloning, genetic engineering, etc.). And given the current hype surrounding human genetic engineering and "gene editing", the March For Life might need to worry that these a-sexually reproduced human embryos will likely be implanted into women for experimental purposes as well as for supposed "infertility" purposes.

Date posted: 2016-01-12

References: CRISPR Gene "Editing", "The" Human Genome Project, "Personalized Medicine", 23&Me -- and Genetic Junk

Responsible intellectually honest scientists and citizens need to pressure the leaders about to assemble in Washington and abroad to put a long-deserved stop to this outrageous Junk and its long-known and long-established inherent dangers to humanity.

Date posted: 2015-12-02

The Difference That Just One Word Can Make! Why Romanian Doctor's Synod Talk Was "The Best"

Summary: Amazing the difference that just one word can make! Note the following direct quote from Dr. Cernea's recent Synod address: "This ideology calls itself progressive. But it is nothing else than the ancient serpent's offer, for man to take control, to replace God, to arrange salvation here, in this world. It's an error of religious nature, it's Gnosticism. It's the task of the shepherds to recognize it, and warn the flock against this danger."

Date posted: 2015-10-25

Planned Parenthood and Human Fetal Body Parts: Sections of Main Legal Document

The concerns of the Center for Medical Progress as documented in their startling video involving Planned Parenthood's trafficking in human fetal body parts should also be viewed legally from the perspective of the main federal law governing such practices: the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act. Sections 111 and 112 of that Act are especially relevant.

Date posted: 2015-07-19

Updated References for Accurate "Language" Re "Human Being"/"Human Person"/"Personhood"

Paradoxically, there is a continuing epidemic in efforts by researchers et al to render some human beings as "non-persons", while at the same time a current epidemic by transhumanists et al to render some non-human beings and machines as "persons". Either way, such linguistic deconstructions have deadly consequences for living innocent human beings (including adults) and their progeny.

Date posted: 2015-02-03

Caution Again: Need to Use Newer URL's for Carnegie Stages for Issues Concerning the Early Human Embryo

Although the URLs for internet access to the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development were changed a couple of years ago, one can still see a number of current articles being written that continue to use the old URLs which no longer work, or cite articles in which the old URLs were used without providing corrections.

Date posted: 2014-12-24

Tangled Webs and History: Bioethics, Hastings Center, Eugenics, Gates, GMO's, Transhumanism

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" History, including the history of "bioethics", can help to untangle some of the massive sticky webs we find ourselves in today.

Date posted: 2014-10-18

Theological, Scientific, Moral and Legal Reasons NOT to Promote "From Conception to Natural Death"

Given that, oddly, there seems to be an international recurrence of prolifers promoting the erroneous phrase "from conception to natural death", perhaps my earlier article (copied below) can shed some critical light on why that is dangerous -- theologically, scientifically, morally and legally.

Date posted: 2014-09-07

Hobby Lobby Gobbledygook -- On Both Sides

In considering the Hobby Lobby case, the "religious beliefs" of the plaintiffs just happen to match the long-documented and long-acknowledged objective scientific facts of human embryology. But it would seem that there's enough gobbledygook to go around. It doesn't emanate from just the "pro-choice" side in these debates.

Date posted: 2014-07-20

Observations on a very funny video about doctors meeting bioethicists

This video is truly one of the funniest, yet timely and profound, "discussions" on "bioethics" and medical doctors I've seen in a long time. It is amusing, short and sweet, easy to understand, and yet beautifully articulate. What follows also in this article are simply a few of my own observations about how we ever got into such messes these days to begin with.

Date posted: 2014-05-27

What you need to know about "IVG" (in vitro generated gametes)

"IVG", or in vitro generated gametes, is already a reality, can be accomplished by several different kinds of asexual reproductive techniques, starting with different kinds of cells, yet very little attention has been paid to it by the public. When used with human cells, IVG is a form of human genetic engineering, and a form of human cloning -- all accomplished before the use of these engineered experimental gametes are used in "fertilization". All the foreign genes involved in this engineering feat will also be passed down through the new genetically engineered embryo's descendants

Date posted: 2014-03-22

Irving Re Gardner's Rejection of Herranz's New "Theory" on Human MZ Twinning

Summary: Any genuine bench research scientist knows all too well that you can fool some of the scientists all of the time, and all of the scientists some of the time, but you can't fool all of the scientists all of the time -- regardless if they are "prolife" or "prochoice". Such is the case with the very odd phenomenon we are currently witnessing with Herranz's recent new "theory" on human monozygotic (MZ) "identical" twinning.

Date posted: 2014-03-15

Irving Re Denker's [Comments on G. Herranz: The timing of monozygotic twinning: a criticism of the common model] in Zygote (2013)

The topic of monozygotic twinning (MT) on which the recent paper by Herranz (Herranz, 2013) focuses is indeed a fascinating one, not only for the embryologist. And, as pointed out by the author, it may on principle also be relevant for ethical discussions in the context of embryo research and stem cell work in humans. Obviously, this is the reason why the paper was published in Zygote, in spite of the fact that it concentrates on history and speculation. When reading through the paper, however, I have ended up disappointed.

Date posted: 2014-02-23

"Junk Science In, Junk Prolife Out"

Junk in, junk out, as they say. How many "pre-embryo substitutes" can you find in the "pro-life" article below that is addressing only life "in the womb" (and even then possibly only some of that time)? Let me count the ways.

Date posted: 2013-11-01

#1 - Totipotency: Scientific References

The term "totipotent" has two meanings. First, it refers to the single-cell human organism/human being/human embryo sexually reproduced by fertilization -- whether done in vivo or in vitro. This new single-cell human being is thus capable of producing all the cells, tissues and organs of an adult human being. Second, it refers to individual cells of the early developing human embryo. IF they are separated from the original embryo then they are CAPABLE of being reverted back to new embryos IF the natural biological process of "regulation" is successful.

Date posted: 2013-09-26

The Genuine Carnegie Stages

Several websites claim to be presenting the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development, but do not. They use the name, but not the same accurate empirical facts -- especially for Stage 1 (a, b, c,). This is even true for some Swiss websites. Needless to say, the Stage most falsified is Stage 1.

Date posted: 2013-09-14

Rebecca Taylor, Cloning, and Intellectual Integrity!

In fact, it is the lack of understanding of both the accurate science and the legal maneuverings involved that tricks good people into thinking that some proposed bill is "prolife" and should be supported, when in fact the bill is anti-life, results in harm and destruction of other human beings, and thus should not be supported.

Date posted: 2013-09-07

Need to know: Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, Belmont Report, OHRP

Given the extensive concerns today about the exponential increase in scientific fraud and misconduct, especially in clinical trials, and the flagrant violations of "informed consent", it would do all citizens well to keep these classic documents on file somewhere, and at least be familiar with them.

Date posted: 2013-07-06

Beware New Prolife Calls for Human Cloning "Bans"

It seems to me that a clarion call to ban all human cloning is a moral imperative. What is also a moral imperative is that prolife gets the science right so that in supporting certain bills they don't end up actually legally protecting some or even all human cloning, thus legally allowing the death and destruction of untold numbers of innocent living human beings in cloning research experiments -- not to mention the harm to untold numbers of women into whom these experimental cloned human embryos are implanted, and then often purposefully aborted.

Date posted: 2013-06-04

FERTILIZATION and IMPLANTATION of the Early Human Embryo: Accurate Scientific Resources (pp1)

When and how did you begin to exist? Or your children? Given the amazing advancements of science and medicine over the past 100 years, one would think that even the average person in the street -- even elementary school students -- would know the accurate scientific facts of their own reproduction by now. Why the confusion?

Date posted: 2013-05-11

Plan B's Manufacturer: Pills Can Be Abortifacient

Summary: It is frankly mind-blowing that there is even a question about whether or not the "emergency contraceptive" Plan B can be abortifacient. Does no one read the manufacturer's own website?

Date posted: 2013-04-29

"Contraceptive" and "Morning After" Pills: Women and Young Girls, You're On Your Own

Summary: FACTS: Plan B does not "prevent a pregnancy". It is an abortifacient. And it causes death, disease and injury to women and girls and to their unborn children. (But shhhh, don't tell anybody; it's a secret!)

Date posted: 2013-04-06

"Conception" is not "The Immaculate Conception"

The term "conception" as used by some in the debates involving the early human embryo is completely different from the term as used in the official teachings of the Catholic Church on the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Date posted: 2013-01-26

"Sanctity of Human Life Act", and the March For Life "Principles 2013"

When erroneous science, usually called "scientific fraud", is knowingly used in any endeavor it is bad enough. But when such erroneous science is knowingly used in any legal laws, regulations, guidelines, etc., the fraud becomes legalized and the deadly consequences are considerably magnified. Regardless if the term "conception" or "fertilization" is used, even the new bill's title would provide "sanctity" to some but not to all human lives.

Date posted: 2013-01-17

"IRVING: Disagreement with this "Thomistic" definition of "person""

Summary: For St. Thomas, "personhood" is not a "meaning"; nor does he or Aristotle use terms such as "unfolding" or "horizons" (modern phenomenology). For Thomas "person" applies to real human beings only -- not to communities, robots or posthumans. To paraphrase Thomas, the name of "person"(and he uses that term) does not belong to the rational part of the soul, nor to the whole soul alone -- but to the entire human substance (or, subsistens). [Thomas Aquinas, ST, Ia.q29, a.1, ans., ad.2,3,5, p. 156; ibid, a.2, ans., p. 157; also ST, IIIa.q19, a.1, ad.4.2127]

Date posted: 2013-01-01

Why Accurate Human Embryology Is Needed To Evaluate Current Trends In Research Involving Stem Cells, Genetic Engineering, Synthetic Biology and Nanotechnology

Summary: When does a new living human being begin to exist? This is an important scientific question these days, as much research -- including stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, synthetic biology, nanotechnology, etc. -- is performed using the early human embryo, and should be the starting point for any ethical analyses. But the answer to that scientific question depends on whether the human being was sexually or asexually reproduced.

Date posted: 2012-11-23

Let's Be Clear About the Science and Ethics of iPS Cell Research and Its Reproductive

Summary: The production of iPS cells may not involve the immediate killing of human embryos, but they can be used to reproduce new living human embryos for both destructive research and reproductive purposes -- not to mention the plethora of scientific and other ethical problems inherent in iPS research.

Date posted: 2012-10-25

Re "Sacred Economics"

Summary: The following current article by Charles Eisenstein about his "sacred economics" is a classic example of the use of one of the various kinds of ancient Gnostic cosmogonies underlying transhumanism/futurism, posthumanism, etc., in order to "transform" the capitalistic free market economic system (among other things). It is overtly paganistic, polytheistic, pantheistic and materialistic.

Date posted: 2012-10-13

Foundations of Transhumanism and Futurism; Short List of Website URLs

Although the terms "transhumanism" and "futurism" seem bizarre and irrelevant to most people, these movements are front and center internationally involving much of the controversial medical and scientific genetic engineering and nanotechnology research being performed today -- not to mention their intrusion into economics, art, politics, etc. These "isms" are very well funded and very powerful politically.

Date posted: 2012-10-06

"Irving Response to 'Humanity Isn't; It Becomes'"

Summary: My questions dealt only with raising awareness of (and accountability for) the real-life consequences of various definitions of "person" given, and when they claim "personhood" might have arrived during "evolution".

Date posted: 2012-09-25

Irving Response to "Bioethics under attack in new book"

Summary: Canadian physician and bioethicist Dr. Koch's new book on "bioethics" is yet another welcome attempt to educate the public about the damage that has been done for far too long by "bioethics" -- not just in the field of medicine, but across the board.

Date posted: 2012-09-18

Notice: Carnegie Stages; Lost, and Found

For those who have been following the various related debates involving the early human embryo for decades, it should be noted that the long-referenced Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development from the National Museum of Health and Medicine have recently changed their entire website with all new URLs. This means that all earlier URLs in references in articles and books are now outdated. I have recently located the new NMHM website online, with its new URLs.

Date posted: 2012-08-11

St. Thomas would support California bill for defining a child as having "more than two parents"? Not.

The real shock is Cone's appeal to Thomas Aquinas' supposed philosophical theory of "social justice" (one that Aquinas never in fact had). "Social justice" so concocted is simply "American Catholic" pop language for "liberation theology", formally refuted, rejected, and identified by the Catholic Church as nothing more than Marxist communism by any other name. Even Marx would have thrown this California bill in the trash.

Date posted: 2012-07-06

Irving Response to "Transhumanism is Religion for Atheists"

Transhumanists do "take this stuff seriously" because a lot of the technology is being accomplished much faster than non-transhumanists might think -- regardless if it ever brings us to any "Singularity" or not. Ultimately, these current "isms" are based on ancient gnostic myths.

Date posted: 2012-06-08

Irving Response to, "Calling People Vegetables: Where Did It Come From?": "De-Hominization"

The "delayed hominization" ("delayed personhood") argument for the gradual acquisition of "personhood" is illegitimately used at the beginning of life issues to justify abortion, the use of abortifacients, destructive human embryo research and genetic engineering). "If no rational soul is there yet, there is no person there yet." When that argument is transferred to end of life issues, it is called "de-hominization", or the gradual loss of "personhood", used to illegitimately justify "brain death", euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, organ transplantation, etc.

Date posted: 2012-05-20

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART): Pandora's Box Now Opened

Summary: Considerations of serious unethical consequences to individuals and societies from IVF/ART research and "infertility" facilities, including genetic engineering - especially in poorer countries.

Date posted: 2012-04-17

Three-Parent Embryos? To Help Cure Mitochondrial Diseases? What is Really Going On?

Summary: The aim or purpose of this research is supposedly to help "cure" and "eradicate" mitochondrial diseases. But is "eradicating mitochondrial disease" by means of mitochondrial transfer really possible? What is really going on?

Date posted: 2012-02-06

"Any Human Cell - iPS, Direct Programmed, Embryonic, Fetal or Adult - Can Be Genetically Engineered to Asexually Reproduce New Human Embryos for Purposes of Reproduction ('Infertility')"

Summary: A recent UNESCO document identifies several genetic engineering techniques that can be used in human reproductive cloning, using any human cell: (1) tetraploid complementation, (2) direct derivation of sperm and egg cells, and (3) embryo splitting ("twinning). Documented studies are provided in this article, and questions are raised about the legitimacy of scientific terminology used and proposed.

Date posted: 2011-12-17

Catholic Bioethicist Calls To End Ban on Reproductive Cloning

One wonders how Tauer gets from "human embryonic stem cell research" to "reproductive cloning" in this article. The answer is that it depends on how one defines a "human embryo", a "stem cell", and "reproductive cloning".

Date posted: 2011-10-16

Personhood "Language" 2008 - 2011

With "personhood" bills exploding around the world in warp speed, perhaps it is time to step back and carefully examine some of the "language" being used in many of these bills in general. The issue is not just about legal "language". It also precludes the average person from forming a "correct conscience", which in turn would constitute a false "starting point" for their own personal ethical decision making and choices.

Date posted: 2011-10-04

"iPhone APP for the Carnegie Stages, and Natural Monozygotic (Identical) Twins"

"What a great idea! Now anyone interested in the long-known and long-documented accurate scientific facts of human embryology, including when sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist, and how asexually reproduced human monozygotic twins are naturally formed in vivo, can simply download an iPhone app that takes them immediately to the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development!"

Date posted: 2011-09-08

Irving Response to Mississippi "personhood" initiative

This "personhood" initiative, like so many others, will NOT protect "all unborn human beings" at all, because ............

Date posted: 2011-08-10

"In the womb" and "conception": Poland's abortion bill, and U.S. federal judge's "science"

Summary: Even though the "good news" announced today would seem to represent clear victories for prolife and for the millions of unborn children killed every day, it needs to be pointed out that these victories are not really total because of the "language" used in the legal documents involved.

Date posted: 2011-07-08

"'Non-Human Animal' Personhood and the IEET"

Summary: Given the current efforts globally to secure "personhood" for all human beings, the influential efforts of those like transhumanists, futurists, eugenicists, genetic engineers, and animal rights advocates to secure "personhood" for non-human animals should not be overlooked. A perfect example is the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET).

Date posted: 2011-05-30

"Consumer Reports: Volunteer Your Bodies for the Greater Good"

Summary: There's nothing like history to put things in perspective. But I do have to wonder if readers would agree that all citizens of a society should volunteer for participation in purely experimental research for the "greater good"? Would you? And just what is "the greater good"? How do we know? And is this "ethical"? And who decides? And could it be legally required?

Date posted: 2011-05-26

Reliable URLs for Human Embryology: The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development

Summary: The purpose of this brief article is to provide to those who are interested three of the most reliable sources online today for the accurate scientific facts of sexually reproduced human embryos - the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development. ... Even within these Carnegie Stages reference is made to the post-fertilization asexual reproduction and development of one of every pair of new identical twins naturally reproduced in vivo (see Stages 2 through 5). One would hope that these are the accurate scientific facts that are used to describe human embryonic development in vivo (including descriptions of "prenatal development") and in vitro, for either sexually or asexually reproduced human embryos.

Date posted: 2011-05-01

"Revival" of St. Thomas' Philosophy - Yes, But Not His Erroneous "Delayed Personhood" Argument

The news of the "revival" of St. Thomas' philosophy is joyous, but cautions such as those raised by Pope Leo XIII need to be taken seriously. St. Thomas' theory of "delayed personhood" should not be "revived" but corrected, especially considering the impact it has had on the life issues.

Date posted: 2011-04-08

Irving response to support of Minnesota cloning "ban"

This current Minnesota "cloning ban" is simply a copy cat Weldon/Brownback "cloning ban". As in those "bans", it legally defines "cloning" only in terms of one cloning technique, SCNT, and therefore would not cover any of at least a dozen other kinds of human cloning techniques. Nor would it even ban human cloning by the SCNT technique itself because of mis-defining the "product" of real SCNT.

Date posted: 2011-03-19

"Exciting News - Current Up-Dated Internationally Documented Human Embryology Now Online to Public"

The International Federation of Associations of Anatomists (IFAA) has finally published online their latest documentation and update of the accurate facts of human embryology in their Terminologia Embryologica, now finally available to the public.

Date posted: 2011-02-24

"Making sense of the North Dakota Prolife Bill HB 1450?"

There was a rather odd and confusing article on a prolife bill in North Dakota this week. The article reports that the bill would criminalize the killing of the unborn "from conception". The bill itself states that "a human being" is formally defined as "an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development"; the term "person" is formally defined as including "all human beings". Nowhere in the bill is the term "conception" used. Therefore, the definition of "human being" in the bill would potentially cover all human beings. The term "conception" used in the article reporting on the bill would not. So what's with the term "conception" used in the article?

Date posted: 2011-02-16

"'Virtual Human Embryo'" - Zygote Is Stage 1c, Not Stage 1a"

The human zygote at Stage 1c of development is not when a new sexually reproduced human embryo begins to exist. Before that the new human embryo/human being already exists at Stages 1a and 1b. This critical distinction among the sub-stages of Stage 1 of the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development is now documented once again in an excellent new educational project called "The Virtual Human Embryo" at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans.

Date posted: 2011-02-07

On Janet Smith and Fr. Rhonheimer - Use of Codoms

As I read the interesting piece by Fr. Rhonheimer, I could not help but sense behind his explanations the confusing "moral theory" of "proportionalism" espoused many years ago by Fr. Richard McCormick (of "pre-embryo" fame), Charles Curran et al, and taught for so long in Catholic seminaries and Catholic universities. Note that "proportionalism" was finally formally rejected in the 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor. "Proportionalism" uses only the intentions and the circumstances to determine the morality of a human action. It does not acknowledge any human actions that are by their very nature, per se, good or evil.

Date posted: 2010-12-20

On iPS Research: "The Moral Frontiers of Stem Cell Research"

How refreshing to read this excellent article identifying scientific/moral issues that for some weird reason are never raised in "stem cell" research debates. It is especially relevant to serious concerns about iPS research and its use in human reproductive cloning. Research involving iPS and other cloning techniques is light-years ahead of the usual "ethical" discussions - unfortunately - and still not part of the public debates.

Date posted: 2010-12-08

A One-Act Play: "Crippled Consciences and the Human Embryo"

Summary: Parliamentarians meet to consider bioethics legislation on human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research. Present are the Chairman, Perplexed Parliamentarians, Narrator, and Lobbyists (including Dr. "Science", Dr. Gyno, Dr. Human Embryology, Prof. Philos, Master Bioethics, Crippled Conscience, and Well-Formed Conscience).

Date posted: 2010-11-20

Scientific documentation of the "beginning of biological development" of all human beings

Summary: Colorado's personhood amendment (Amendment 62), that protects all human beings "from the beginning of their biological development", will soon be voted on. Unfortunately, some are making the absurd claim that there�is no scientific or medical basis for the phrase "beginning of biological development". On the contrary, there are thousands of long-known internationally accepted scientific documentations of that phrase.

Date posted: 2010-10-30

Feminist Libertarian Comes Unhinged

Dr. Kischer has sufficiently debunked the wacko "human embryology" of bioethicist Scott Gilbert (as have others) in his article, "The Final Corruption of Human Embryology". ... Gilbert is no human embryologist. ... It is historically incorrect for Ms Quinn to claim that the Church had to change Her position on abortion. Despite writings of various theologians over the centuries, the Church has always formally held that abortion is wrong, regardless of any theories of when the soul is present. ... In short, to adopt such irrational bioethics logic as "self-consciousness" and "relationships" just in order to justify killing millions of innocent living unborn human beings will obviously come back to smack such ideologues in the face if and when they lose their own Singerian "personhood"

Date posted: 2010-09-24

Scientific Response to Criticism of the California Human Rights Amendment as "Protecting Fertilized Eggs"

A human embryo is a human being - not just a "cell" or a "bunch of cells"; not an "egg", and not a "pre-embryo". Yet it has been implied, even by the Attorney General of the State of California that this youngest of human beings is not a human being, but just "an egg", or just "a fertilized egg". This claim is not only ridiculous; it is also perpetrating erroneous and false science.

Date posted: 2010-06-12

Mercer's Obsolete Bioethics Plea: "A Fetus is not a Person"

Mercer has a two-fold task: (1) scientifically, to prove beyond a doubt that even if a human BEING begins to exist at "conception" (his term), that fact simply doesn't matter; and (2) philosophically, to prove beyond a doubt that a fetus is not a PERSON, and therefore can be aborted. If he can accomplish this, then - for whatever his reasons - he can champion a woman's right to abortion. Let's see if Mercer can successfully make his point.

Date posted: 2010-05-04

Scientific Response to Criticism of the California Human Rights Amendment as "Protecting Fertilized Eggs"

International agreement and documentation by the experts in human embryology and human molecular genetics make the following perfectly clear. The new single-cell human embryo formed sexually at the beginning of the process of fertilization (when the sperm makes first contact with the oocyte) is a new living human being. The new human embryo formed asexually by various natural or artificial reproductive techniques (such as one of every two identical twins) is a new living human being. They are not "eggs".

Date posted: 2010-01-28

Irving and Kischer Responses to Dr. Condic's "Science" in National Catholic Register Interview

The following responses to Dr. Maureen Condic's "science" presented in her interview on "when human life begins" with the National Catholic Register were written independently, and sent to the NCR and related others. They are copied here as sent. Such overtly erroneous "science" could be used to "justify" human cloning, human embryonic stem cell research, human reproductive genetic engineering, the use of abortifacients - whether the early human embryo is sexually or asexually reproduced, in vivo or in vitro. Such erroneous "science" needs to be identified, especially for those with little or no scientific background. Dr. Condic's interview follows at the end.

Date posted: 2010-01-06

The Moment When New Individual Human Life Begins

...Where has respect for the recognition of human life gone? What will it take to get the O'Reillys, the Hatchs, the Hendrixs, the Baltimores, the Turleys, and the Sunsteins, to recognize the long established objective scientific facts of Human Embryology? These are the people who are refractive to the truth, and they do not bother to consult the basics of scientific truth, which have been and are readily available. The only conclusion we can draw is that they prefer to insult the collective intelligence of science by elevating political correctness over and above the objective truth. But, sooner or later such political correctness will backfire - on all of us.

Date posted: 2009-11-28

American Medical Association's "Narrow Definitions", Legal "Redefinitions" ... and Reproductive Cloning

It is no shocking news that many physicians and researchers have been purposefully "doctoring" the real objective scientific facts of human embryology and related sciences for decades now in order to achieve their various goals. Whatever their reasons, it is clear that no one, and no professional organization, intends to admit the truth about what they are doing. At this point, the only rational thing to do is to sit back and watch the latest funny show.

Date posted: 2009-10-10

"Pre-embryos" and "Pre-embryo substitutes": Safeguarding human life "from the very beginning"?

The abuse of language, especially scientific "language", has shrouded clear facts about precisely when the "first moment of its existence is", and has hastened this drastic decline in the respect for human life. It is not just because of the willful and devious use of language by ardent supporters of unethical medicine and research, but also because even many of those who are dedicated to this "safeguarding" themselves fall victim to the use of erroneous "scientific" terms. There are a number of ways that the misuse of simple scientific "language" can slip into our rhetoric and our thinking processes without notice.

Date posted: 2009-06-12

Why on earth would we want to "Recapture the soul of bioethics"???

Bioethics is not Catholic ethics and any feeble attempt to convert secular bioethics to Catholic medical ethics is a total exercise in futility and wishful thinking. Rather, bioethics is the newest of dozens of different kinds of ethics. It was created out of thin air in 1978 by 11 politically appointed people (most of whom had no academic degrees in philosophy or ethics), by mandate of the U.S. Congress with their Belmont Report.

Date posted: 2009-05-29

Steinfels' "War Over Abortion" and Notre Dame University

In a recent article in the New York Times by Peter Steinfels ("Roman Catholics' War Over Abortion", NYTimes, May 9, 2009) Steinfels attempts to "explain" the concerns of Roman Catholics over the invitation to President Obama to speak and receive an honorary doctorate degree at Notre Dame University by marginalizing that opposition. While his remarks may come off as classic dissident American Catholic and is a bit "tacky", he is probably accurate to describe these efforts as exemplifying a "civil war" among American Catholics. And it's about time ... if not too late.

Date posted: 2009-05-10

Abortifacients and the Role of Correct Science in Counseling, the Formation of conscience, and Moral Decision Making

Consider the young teenagers or college students in today's society. We'll call one of them Margaret. For whatever reason, Margaret suspects that she might be pregnant, and sincerely begins to try to inform her conscience about whether or not to seek out "emergency contraceptives". She starts by seeking the advice of others whose counseling, knowledge and work she respects and trusts.

Date posted: 2009-04-20

Testimony to DHHS Re Rescinding Provider Conscience Clause

Pharmacists, hospitals, doctors and nurses should definitely not have to do abortions against their conscience. To force them by law or regulation to do so would force them to kill innocent living human beings. Such a law or regulation would be de facto a grossly unjust law that should not be tolerated by any civilized society. Those who would force others to kill innocent human beings at the request of others often attempt to appeal to false scientific claims.

Date posted: 2009-04-14

'Pluripotent' Stem Cell (iPS) Research is Not the Usual 'Adult' Stem Cell Research

An "exciting" new method of producing human "stem cells" to cure Parkinson's and many other debilitating diseases was recently announced as "breaking news" on U-tube (Dr. Oz to Oprah and Michael J Fox): "The stem cell debate is dead." But three things are important to distinguish before iPS research is so enthusiastically embraced as an "ethical alternative to human embryonic stem cell research".

Date posted: 2009-04-10

Response to Dr. Sullivan's "Doubts" About Hormonal 'Contraceptives'"

Oddly enough, several related issues involving the early human embryo and the use of various "abortifacients" that apparently had been laid to rest for several years are currently having a "rebirth", if you will. For example, if ovulation and fertilization have taken place, could the use of such "contraceptives" also be abortifacient and thus cause the death of this early developing human embryo either while still in the woman's Fallopian tube or when attempting to implant in her uterus? Or is there sufficient Doubt about this to justify their use?

Date posted: 2009-03-27

Me And Mengele

Summary: And his words had made me stop and ponder about any moral obligations and moral accountability I might have as a brand new research scientist myself. What exactly had taken place in those Nazi medical experiments with human subjects? How could such brilliant scientists and physicians have conceived and carried out such abominable crimes against humanity in the name of "science" and "the greater good"? "Well, they were just 'untermenchen', and going to die anyway; might as well get some good out of them"!

Date posted: 2009-03-13

Testimony In Support of the Maryland Personhood Amendment

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no question whatsoever as to when human beings begin to exist, and that arguments for delayed personhood can neither be scientifically nor philosophically defended successfully. To legally deny the youngest of new living innocent human beings their inherent right to life is unquestionably an obvious and odious violation of their civil rights, and it is about time that all involved in these debates be held to accountability.

Date posted: 2009-03-11

Condic's 'Pre-Zygote' Error in 'When Does Human Life Begin?'

More specifically, the use of inaccurate scientific facts of when a human being begins to exist would thus "scientifically" justify †the unethical use of living human embryos - whether reproduced sexually or asexually, whether in vivo or in vitro - as unfettered biological "material" for human embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, IVF and other ART laboratory and clinical practices, all manner of human genetic engineering (including OAR, ANT, and iPS research), as well as the early destruction of these human embryos by the use of abortifacients, the production of vaccines, the testing of chemicals and biological products, etc. Unfortunately, such unethical practices may be inadvertently advanced as the result of Dr. Condic's White Paper, unless critical scientific corrections are made - especially if such errors find their way into laws and regulations.

Date posted: 2008-11-25

Cloning: Legal, Medical, Ethical, and Social Issues

Public policy, I would think, should be based on accurate science. Scientifically we know that the immediate product of human cloning is an already existing, unique, individual, human being - the single cell human embryo - regardless of whether it is implanted or not. It is not a potential or possible human being or human embryo, nor is it a "pre-embryo; nor is it a drug. These are the correct scientific facts. Thus human cloning research essentially involves destructive human embryo research. Since research using and commercialization of human cloning uses human beings solely as illegitimate means to some one else's ends (no matter how lofty those ends), necessarily harming and destroying them, such research and commercialization is unethical, and should be totally banned.

Date posted: 2008-10-10

Human Embryology and Church Teachings

For the last 40 years debates have been raging over abortion, the use of abortifacients, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs), pre-natal genetic diagnosis, human embryo and fetal research, human embryonic "stem cell" research, human genetic engineering, human cloning, and other related issues. During that time the "scientific facts" used as the "starting points" for arguments both "pro" and "con" have been astoundingly and boldly deconstructed in order to "scientifically" justify essentially unethical actions. The consequences of this scientific misinformation to the individual formation of conscience, as well as to the public good and welfare, has already been staggering and yet to be finally weighed. This article is an attempt to start the process of correcting this shameful historical record by documenting the objective scientific facts of human embryology that have been known scientifically and professionally for over a hundred years. It will also demonstrate briefly how well a realist-based philosophy, as well as the formal teachings of the Church on these various related issues, coincide with the objective scientific truth. Clear thinking on these critical issues is the objective.

Date posted: 2008-09-22

Comments: CRTL Acknowledges Irving's Scientific, Moral and Legal Arguments on "Personhood"

It would seem that CRTL is quite graciously agreeing with the scientific and moral points that I have provided, and changing the language of their "Personhood Amendment 48" to reflect both sexually and asexually reproduced human beings (see their Press Release below). Their only remaining disagreement, i.e., over my use of the term "exclusionary" when they refer to their term "including", is, I think, still debatable -- legal advice given to me is that it would be better and far safer legally to use the more inclusive phrase, "including but not limited to". Even better to use the far safer inclusive phrase "whether sexually or asexually reproduced".

Date posted: 2008-07-20

So You Think That "Reproductive Cloning" Isn't Done Yet? Guess Again

Researchers and IVF specialists claim that "reproductive cloning" is an exciting if not still a far off possibility - implying that it has yet to be done. Wrong. Guess again. But don't take my word for it. Check out the following scientific and medical references for yourself. Obviously, "abortion" now involves asexually reproduced human embryos and fetuses in vivo.

Date posted: 2008-07-19

Neither, Nor: Bryne's and Willke's Pseudo-Battle Over Human Embryonic Stem Cells

What a painful spectacle it is to witness over the internet two such stalwart prolife physicians, who have done so much in their work to help protect the most vulnerable of human beings, battle it out over the terms "conception" and "fertilization" (as presumably when a human being begins to exist) - and both are dead wrong. Biology 101 wrong. But the greater pain is surely their unwitting participation in the further corruption of the relevant fields of science and medicine, the advocacy of legal loopholes that would allow extensive unethical human research and medical practices, and the preclusion of people in general to correctly form their consciences on these critical issues. Enough pseudo-science is enough, no matter who is dispensing it.

Date posted: 2008-06-19

"Ohio 'prolife' Bill to 'Ban' Human Cloning; Needs Homework"

Summary: Although the assumption must be that any group calling itself "prolife" is sincere in its efforts to protect the most vulnerable of human beings, e.g., human embryos, from exploitation and destruction, the current bill so offered in the State of Ohio leaves a great deal to be desired, and if passed would not fulfill its claimed purpose of being a "total human cloning ban" because of the presence of multiple legal loopholes. I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves if this proposed bill would indeed legally ban all human cloning.

Date posted: 2008-06-14

Ethical and Scientific Concerns About Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research -- Yamanaka and Thomson

In a valiant effort to resolve at last the obvious and highly divisive ethical concerns surrounding the use of human embryonic and fetal "stem cells", tissues and body parts in experimental and therapeutic research and in patient "therapies", several researchers have recently released their studies involving the production of "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS cells). However, on closer observation, because of the use of erroneous and vague scientific terms, the lack of match between the studies' claims and the details of the studies, admitted problems in the experiments, and other possible sources of artifacts and foreign antigens, these iPS studies do not appear to be a viable solution.

Date posted: 2008-06-03

Problems With Colorado's "Personhood" Amendment: The Phrase, "From the Moment of Fertilization"

According to a recent LifeSiteNews article (copied in full below), Americans finally have an "historic chance to defeat Roe v. Wade on the ballot in Colorado". The article continues with a fairly detailed account of the publicity surrounding Colorado's "personhood" Amendment 48, about to be voted on. The Amendment states that, "the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization". As the article also notes, the "Catholic Church in Colorado declares neutrality" (at least). This writer would suggest that for once the bishops got it right, because Amendment 48 would only legalize "personhood" for some categories of unborn human beings, but hardly for all. The legal and moral consequences of that would indeed set precedents, moral and legal precedents that would instead extend ever further the evils and injustices of Roe in this technological age.

Date posted: 2008-06-01

Irving Comments: "Wisconsin Bishops' Pastoral Letter On Stem Cell Research"

Surely it is problematic enough when such "pastoral letters" so mislead the faithful about these issues and lead instead to the false formation of their consciences. Worse, if all of these mis-definitions and ignored items ever make it into law, such a law would thus be riddled with legal loopholes that would legally sanction by default the use of abortifacients, abortion through nine months, In Vitro Fertilization and other artificial reproductive technologies, and the use of human embryos in destructive human embryonic stem cell research - for many sexually and all asexually reproduced human embryos, in vivo or in vitro --, not to mention the deconstruction of natural law.

Date posted: 2008-05-05

"The Impact of 'Scientific Misinformation' on Other Fields: Philosophy, Theology, Biomedical Ethics, Public Policy"

"Scientific misinformation" or inaccuracies are problematic even within the various fields of science itself. Yet few scientists seem to be aware of or concerned about the impact which scientific misinformation has on several other seemingly unrelated fields, such as philosophy, theology, biomedical ethics, and public policy -- e.g., the bioethics debates concerning the biological "marker events of human personhood" during human embryogenesis. There is a critical need for more accurate and objectively grounded scientific input into these discussions and issues by intellectually honest scientists who are academically credentialed and trained specifically in both human embryology and human genetics. See "Carnegie Stages at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_123carnegiestages1.html.

Date posted: 2006-11-21

Comments: "'Catholic' speakers weigh in on conception"

As in most states, Catholics in Wisconsin no longer understand why IVF or other ARTs are morally objectionable because no one ever taught them why this is so, even in our "Catholic" schools. Also note here the now-familiar false science "language" used currently in human cloning debates: "In vitro fertilization is the process of extracting eggs from a woman's ovaries, fertilizing them with a man's sperm, choosing the most promising cell clusters and injecting several into the mother's uterus." These "most promising cell clusters" are not just cell clusters; they are living human beings, including the single-cell embryo. Small world.

Date posted: 2006-05-31

Finally, a Strong Legal Analysis on Loopholes in the Missouri Cloning Initiative and How it Will Nullify Certain Abortion Laws

By blurring the distinction between sexually and asexually reproduced human beings, this "cloning initiative" would actually also protect activities that Missouri law now forbids, e.g., the use of tissue (stem cells) from aborted human embryos for transplantation when an abortion is procured for that purpose, offering inducements to women for procuring abortions of their unborn for the medical, scientific, experimental, or therapeutic use of tissue (stem cells) of the unborn, and using an unborn human who is aborted alive for research and experimental purposes.

Date posted: 2006-05-31

"The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development: Chart of all 23 Stages, Detailed Descriptions of Stages 1 - 6"

For human beings sexually reproduced by fertilization/conception (as distinct from asexually reproduced by cloning, etc.), the international Carnegie Stages document: "Embryonic life commences with fertilization, and hence the beginning of that process may be taken as the point de depart of stage 1." .. Thus Stage One begins when the sperm penetrates the oocyte, and continues until syngamy, defined as when the zygote begins its first cleavage division. These objective facts - much of which have been well-known, documented and published for over a hundred years - have been mutilated over the last few decades for various reasons.

Date posted: 2006-05-31

Review of Critical Article: Cobbe, "Why the apparent haste to clone humans?" [JME]

It is not that Dr. Cobbe is pointing out anything new and unknown about human cloning to his research colleagues; they know the accurate objective scientific facts and the details of the studies to which he refers. Rather, it is that finally Dr. Cobbe is publishing (for the world to see) the massive problems that his colleagues have refused to articulate or admit to all these many years.

Date posted: 2006-05-28

Fetus' Feet Do NOT Show Fish, Reptile Vestiges

There is a continuing, but useless, attempt to bolster the sagging reputation of the ole "biogenetics law" myth -- currently used in several international human cloning and human embryonic stem cell laws. Pity that journalists and especially scientists are not required to take a course in human embryology before they graduate ... and pontificate. This is part of all the fake "science" our students are going to have to unlearn in the years to come.

Date posted: 2006-05-26

Time to Be Clear Re Definition of the Human Embryo in OAR/ANT Research

It is not that we should all still be worried about the "vagueness" of what a human embryo is and when it begins to exist; all one has to do is go to the library and look it up. It is, rather, that politics and deceit have convinced the public that they are confused and doubtful. In both OAR and ANT, it would take more than changing a few genes to make the product NOT a human embryo; and "regulation" would probably undo those genetic "errors" anyway during nuclear transfer. These processes essentially involve producing a human being who is disabled, but a human being none-the-less.

Date posted: 2006-05-11

Why human stem cells can replace animal testing

It would seem that years of pressure from animal activists, like PETA, have succeeded in replacing animals used in research with cells and tissues derived from human embryos and fetuses (by killing them). Note that PETA was founded by Bioethics Founder Peter Singer, who defined "persons" as inclusive of some non-human animals and some adult human beings. And according to the federal OPRR/OHRP regulations, the early human embryo through 8 weeks just doesn't legally exist.

Date posted: 2006-05-08

Understanding Weissman's 'science' when he speaks at UCSC

It is a fascinating question. "How can those like Irving Weissman (and Michael West et al) continue to get away with such fabricated "science" - even in testimonies before Congess?" For a more realistic understanding of Weissman's "science", all one has to do is go to the library and look it up.

Date posted: 2006-05-07

After passing deceptive laws, UCSF resumes 'stem cell' work

Now, after two very deceptive laws on human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research have passed, and after the equally deceptive Proposition 71 has passed, the voters of California finally learn that the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for research purposes is a form a human cloning - and not just "stem cell research". Convenient of them to start being truthful about the real scientific facts now.

Date posted: 2006-05-07

Hastings Center Palca might try exploding the other myths about embryonic stem cells!

So, ole Joe Palca of the Hastings Center and the ole glory days of the "pre-embryo" is at it again -- spinning the same ole myths! How appropriate, and transparent, it is that he should be the one who now attempts again to "spin" the scientific fraud constantly perpetuated by bioethics in these human embryo research issues - especially to champion that of Standford University's Irving Weissman of Proposition 71 fame, who has concocted a "pre-embryo substitute" of his very own.

Date posted: 2006-05-03

Gnosticism, the Heretical Gnostic Writings, and 'Judas'

The current enthusiasm over the launching of the latest gnostic writings of "Judas" from the secret Egyptian Nag Hammadi Coptic gnostic library requires at least some minimal clarification from an historic philosophical (as distinct from religious) perspective. To not know or understand what gnosticism is is to be incapable of putting a name and a face on, questioning, or evaluating one of the most pervasive and influential mythological ideologies in our global society today.

Date posted: 2006-04-13

Hwang: Will Pitt's tighter stem cell oversight result in better 'science'?

It would seem that the University of Pittsburgh is getting nervous about all the bad news coming out concerning South Korea's stem cell researcher and cloner Hwang. Note that Pitt's new regulations involve bioethicist Jonathan Moreno (who still believes in the defunct "biogenetics law") and Meisel (who still uses the defunct "pre-embryo") who are BIOETHICS FOUNDERS.

Date posted: 2006-04-11

California's Proposition 71 pseudo 'stem cell civil wars'

The real concerns about Prop. 71 are not just about conflict of interests and egg donation - as argued by many supposedly "con" this research. The issue of the scientific fraud used to pass Prop. 71 should be at the top of their list. But there is total silence from these "prolife' opponents. Why is that? Too close to home? And where are the discussions about violations of the Declaration of Helsinki inherent in Prop. 71? Too close to home?

Date posted: 2006-03-20

Prominent Bioethicists and Academics Highlight BIO 2006 Bioethics Track

If anyone had any doubt about which "ethics" the biotech "industry" relies on, check the list of speakers -- pure Belmont Bioethics, many Founders of Bioethics. Bioethicists provide the "ethical theory" used by biotech to "ethically justify" what they want to do.

Date posted: 2006-03-18

Joke: Feminist appointee in Missouri debates thinks Weldon/Brownback definition of "cloning" is "scientific"

According to Diana Schaub, the political science chair at the Jesuit Loyola College of Maryland, the real scientific definition of cloning is: "the asexual production of a new human organism that is, at all stages of development, genetically identical to a currently existing or previously existing human being." Little does she realize that the joke is on her.

Date posted: 2006-03-10

Arrogant 'scientists' and 'ethicists' agree on global stem cell guidance

Combine all this false "science" with a brand new fabricated "bioethics" that condones and is even complicit in these scientific "myths" and you have fabricated "ethical guidelines" that justify whatever either field wants to do.

Date posted: 2006-02-24

Stanford Bioethics Consultants for "Research Ethics" Include Weissman and NIH as Their Clients - Connect the Dots

When human embryologist Dr. Ward C. Kischer and I co-authored a book several years ago entitled, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth! (1995, revised 1997), we referred to the false science being used then and the decades before in the human embryo research debates as "the hoax of the century". We could have never imagined in our wildest dreams the explosion of false and decadent science that was to come in the human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research debates - what I would call "the hoax of the millennium". Enough is enough. This has got to stop.

Date posted: 2006-02-22

Science Academy Creating Panel to Monitor Stem-Cell Research

According to Weissman, "therapeutic" cloning isn't really cloning; it is just "stem cell research". Why? Because, he claims, the product of "nuclear transfer" (as also with the product of fertilization) is just a "cell" -- not a single-cell human organism, a human being. And the human blastocyst (from which "stem cells" are derived) is just a "ball of cells" -- rather than a developing human being at the blastocyst stage. Thus all one is killing in the process of deriving "stem cells" is a "ball of cells". Hello? Anybody out there?

Date posted: 2006-02-17

Hwang: Stem cell potential said to be undimmed says AAAS

Sure, there has always been scientific fraud. But never in the history of science has it become so widespread as it is today (except, perhaps, in the Nazi medical war camps). Given the realities, one has to really wonder how dim any scientific research efforts have become. Perhaps the American Association for the Advancement of Science might be interested in addressing this more fundamental problem as well - while it ponders how to "regulate" all this stem cell fraud. Perhaps, the AAAS might even ponder how it's own guidelines have resulted in the total deconstruction of the scientific field of human embryology.

Date posted: 2006-02-17

Experimental 'IVM' incorporates erroneous Human Embryology 101

Aside from obvious ethical issues, the following article on experimental IVM -- a new method used to mature oocytes in vitro for IVF "fertility treatments" -- quotes erroneous human embryology .. Where the article obtained such scientific mis-information -- that diploid oocytes become haploid by some "hormonal signal" while still maturing in the ovary -- is speculative, but it does raise the question again as to whether or not these IVF/IVM researchers and clinicians are academically credentialed in human embryology and human genetics, and thus really know what they are doing.

Date posted: 2006-02-14

The Tragic Irony: South Korean Bioethics Committee Finds Hwang and IRBs Violated the Declaration of Helsinki

The South Korean National Bioethics Committee's interim report on Hwang and his team's fraudulent research, and the IRBs that approved it, is worthy of some attention in and of itself. Ironically, although their internal struggle would give some cause to be concerned, it could actually be a sign of hope. It was courageous South Korean junior researchers, after all, who finally exposed Hwang's research to be the fraud that it is. It might also be courageous South Korean ethicists who finally expose "bioethics" for its complicity.

Date posted: 2006-02-02

Japanese RNA Scientist's Results Can't be Duplicated?

Whatever happened to the "ethical" or "virtuous" scientist? It still matters. The falsifications of data at the bench lead to dangerous drug medications, falsification of the scientific and medical literatures for generations, misinformation used by scientific colleagues, wasting of precious grants and monies, legal loopholes in legislation and regulations, and ultimately for the total loss of confidence in the credibility of these various related fields in the eyes of the general public. Where is the accountability?

Date posted: 2006-02-01

Fraudulent science to be institutionalized in regenerative medicine journal

What will soon be applied to you and your family as standard "medicine" will really be pure "therapeutic RESEARCH" in either global clinical trials run by the "industry", or camouflaged as "innovative therapies" to individual patients behind closed doors of the offices of private physicians. Good-bye to the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Code, or even often loop-hole ridden national guidelines for the use of human subjects in research.

Date posted: 2006-01-30

What really led cloning expert [Stojkovic] to quit UK?

In Stojkovic's case, the cloned product is an "egg", an "organism" (imagine!), a "tiny biological factory for deriving stem cells". What a whopper of a "pre-embryo substitute" that one is! Does Stojkovic worry about using such fraudulent science -- is this perhaps the real reason Stojkovic fled to Spain? Or could it be that his pursuit of cloning as "infertility treatments" could fair better in a less-regulated country?

Date posted: 2006-01-29

Who is Hwang co-author Cibelli?

Despite the world-wide press coverage of South Korean Hwang's massive and historic scientific fraud scandal (except scant coverage in the U.S., including prolife), almost nothing has been reported about his U.S. co-authors and collaborators (of which there are many). One of those is Dr. Jose Cibelli, professor of animal biology (veterinarian) at Michigan State University.

Date posted: 2006-01-28

Delaware House Passes Fraudulent Human Cloning 'Ban'

One would think that by now people who are genuinely interested in banning human cloning and who really care about protecting innocent nascent human beings, patient safety, and women's rights would have gotten it right. But apparently not. .. If Delaware politicians don't want to suffer the same ignominies as South Korea's Hwang, they should seek their scientific information elsewhere from more reliable sources. Hopefully the Delaware politicians will think for themselves and pass a true total human cloning ban - protecting vulnerable innocent nascent human beings, human patients and women alike.

Date posted: 2006-01-21

If Snuppy is cloned by 'nuclear transfer', then there must be no 'virtual genetic identity'

Hurray! TIME Magazine has it right! Yes, as I and others have been trying to say for a long time now, there is no such thing as "virtual genetic identity" between an embryo cloned using the "nuclear transfer technique" (and its stem cells), and the patient-donor. That is, the product of nuclear transfer is not "genetically identical" to the donor, nor is it a "twin" of the donor. Impossible. This is no small "picky" matter, as if there is not "genetic identity" then any such stem cells injected into patients will cause severe immune rejection reactions in those patients. ... In the case of Snuppy the dog, if the DNA profiling tests both the nuclear and the mitochondrial DNA and finds a "match", then Snuppy was not cloned by nuclear transfer as Hwang claims.

Date posted: 2006-01-07

Massive Errors in International Stem Cell Forum's "Science" and 'Ethics'"

In true international bioethics fashion, this "committee" only uses data from other countries that they want to include. They stack the committees mostly with those who agree that stem cell research is "ethical" so that when the vote is taken they arrive at the "consensus" statement desired and preordained. The brand of "ethics" used is some form of "Belmont bioethics" -- a non-neutral - let me repeat, non-neutral -- and seriously defunct "federal ethics" created out of thin air by the U.S. Congress in 1978.

Date posted: 2006-00-21

Irving Weissman Finally Fakes His Way Through Hwang Scandal Interview

California's Irving Weissman has apparently finally broken his long silence about the Hwang cloning scandal. It is worth mentioning that Weissman is a close colleague of U.S. human cloner Gerald Schatten (Univ. of Pittsburgh), the senior author of Hwang's Science paper now being investigated. Most of these researchers have adopted Weissman's fake "scientific" claims that "therapeutic cloning" is not cloning (just "stem cell research"), and that the immediate product of both fertilization and asexual human reproduction is just "cells" -- not a human organism, a human being. The only "ethics" issues left to discuss are about "eggs", "hope and hype", and "regulation" -- from both sides of the aisles. Nothing about the half-dozen other major international research ethics violations clearly articulated in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Code, about faking scientific data, about injecting potentially millions of vulnerable human patients with dangerous "stem cells", about the massive killing of millions of innocent human beings at the beginning of their lives.

Date posted: 2005-12-24

How can either 'nuclear transfer' or 'twinning' produce Hwang's 'patient-specific' stem cells?

Two different kinds of cloning (asexual reproduction) are noted in the article: (1) "nuclear transfer" (if using somatic cells, SCNT); and, (2) "twinning" (blastomere division, blastomere separation, or blastocyst splitting). Neither would produce an embryo with "patient-specific" stem cells.

Date posted: 2005-12-18

When is "not-self" really "self"? International Research Ethics Standards Require Hwang's Team to Retest Its Stem Cells

Perhaps Hwang and his team are a bit reluctant because they already know beforehand that it is physically and scientifically impossible that these "stem cells" from cloned human embryos really match the patients into whom they were injected? What about addressing the other ethical requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Code - e.g., the fact that patients should understand that the research being performed is not "standard medical care", that the good of the patient involved outweighs that of "society" or "science", that patients must give ethically and legally valid informed consent to participate, as well as various other ethical obligations of others directly complicit in this research. One wonders why the international press doesn't include some of these international research ethics requirements in their investigative reporting.

Date posted: 2005-12-14

IVF Conundrum: Too Many Twins. But Caution: ART Procedures Can Cause Twinning; and, "Blastocyst Culture" Not a Moral Solution

Australia, like most other countries awash in IVF, are coming up against the serious familial and social strain and damage caused by mothers undergoing multiple pregnancies and giving birth to too many children at once. But it is a well-known fact that many of these artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs) themselves cause such phenomena as monozygotic twinning. Thus simply reducing the number of individual embryos implanted will not automatically solve the problem. One solution to multiple pregnancies is blastocyst culture and transfer, where several IVF-produced human embryos from a single patient are allowed to remain in culture longer than usual in order to allow the best of the lot to survive the rest -- the survival of the fittest -- and then be implanted as a single human embryo. But is this a moral solution?"

Date posted: 2005-12-14

Early embryo biopsy, "stem cells" - and Twins

Great excitment was recently generated about new research studies involving biopsied early human embryos as a new source of human embryonic "stem cells", a source that would by-pass the ethical objections of other "alternative methods" being discussed lately. But these scientific findings are not essentially new or unexpected; nor do they "reduce or eliminate the ethical concerns of many". Or perhaps the authors are still unfamiliar with both natural and artificial monozygotic twinning?

Date posted: 2005-11-14

"Gnostic Soup": Pagan fertility gods, IVF, Hollywood, cloning/genetic engineering, bioethics, transhumanism, libertarians, drugs, eugenics, etc.

So, you think of IVF as now just a "routine" way for women to become pregnant? Think again - it's far more exciting and colorful than that - more complicated and questionable. It is itself the physical link between the medical issues involving artificial human reproduction and the scientific issues involving all sorts of human genetic engineering research.

Date posted: 2005-11-08

Missouri Stem Cell Petition: Voters Can Push the Logic of Stowers Institute's Quirky 'Science'

At last heavy Republican political weight in Missouri is bearing down on and exposing the obvious desperation and downright fraud involved in the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, sponsored by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. .. Let's just push the logic of Neaves' quirky "science" a bit and see where else it would take the good State of Missouri besides constituitionalizing "stem cell research".

Date posted: 2005-10-28

Analysis: Local Illinois School District Science Textbook Misleads Students on Stem Cell Research

When I was recently contacted by an earnest and amiable member of a local school board who was concerned about the questionable manner in which the issue of "stem cell" research - both human embryonic and adult - was presented to the high school students in his district in a currently-used science textbook, I agreed to evaluate that section in the text for him. .. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to discover most of the major scientific errors in this presentation, which raises the question of whether or not this section, at least, was written with perhaps a political slant of the "facts" presented to the students.

Date posted: 2005-10-20

Windpipe defect repaired in womb with non-embryonic stem cells still raises ethical issues

While every new success with the use of non-human embryonic stem cells is indeed exciting and hopeful, it might not be wise to overlook the other requirements needed for truly ethical research. Special caution needs to be exercised when the subjects of such research are pre-born in utero human beings.

Date posted: 2005-10-09

"On Singer's, 'The Sanctity of Life: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow'"

Bioethicist Peter Singer's usual in-your-face arrogant pronouncements in his recent article is not new at all. But what it should do is hopefully shock those who continue to naively hold both that human beings possess inherent dignity and that what they are practicing is "bioethics" into realizing that they can't have it both ways. The sanctity of life ethics is indeed, as Singer indicates, drowning in the apparently benign tide wave of bioethics, an "ethics" which contradicts almost every tenet of human dignity. Ironically, no one makes this inherent contradiction between the sanctity of life ethics and bioethics more crystal clear than Peter Singer. At least someone gets it.

Date posted: 2005-09-28

Revisiting the Bayh-Dole Act (1980): Spawned Big Biotech, Now Has Opposite Debilitating Effects

Today's specter of harmful and inordinately priced drugs pressed on legislators and the public alike by highly organized and competitive lobbyists (now international), multiple layers of conflicts of interest, back-room industry secrets and subterfuge, falsification of scientific data, ultra-expensive complex law suits over "intellectual property" rights and patents lasting decades - how did we ever get here?

Date posted: 2005-09-24

The Role of Ethics in Science and Public Policy

The unfolding and often ugly details of the current contentious issues of human cloning, human embryonic stem cell research, and patient "therapies" have called into serious question the very integrity of scientists and medical researchers, of their data, of the institutions (both private and public) which fund them, of the politicians and legislators who promote them, and of the scientific and medical research enterprises themselves. While federal "bioethics" has obviously failed miserably, no viable alternative has yet gained acceptance. The problems continue to multiply exponentially, and thus does the need to advance a viable alternative to this federal bioethics".

Date posted: 2005-09-09

Refs. for Adult Stem Cell Successes: 250 clinical trials, over 80 diseases

It's worth saying it again; eventually people might get it: NO NEED FOR HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. See sample of references for the successful use of adult stem cells below. To date not one patient has been helped or cured with human embryonic stem cells. Smart funding -- both public and private -- should be going to successful adult stem cell research.

Date posted: 2005-09-06

Dobson's Embryonic Stem Cell Analogy With Nazi Atrocities Legitimate

As anyone who has seriously studied the Nazi medical war crimes knows with crystal clarity it is that .. unethical laws crammed with fake mythological eugenic "science" became institutionalized across the legal and social spectrum, and those "untermenschen" who were considered by the Nazis as "less-than-human" and as "worthless eaters" were exploited, tortured and killed in merciless and barbaric ways for "the greater Nazi medical/scientific good". And this was done by Nazi scientists, physicians and other medical personnel. .. Then, as now, there is no scientific question whatsoever that living human embryos -- whether sexually or asexually reproduced -- begin to exist immediately as single-cell organisms -- human beings -- and are every much as human and deserving of all the equal rights and protections as all human beings -- especially the right to life and the right not to be tortured. On one side of the analogy are the "untermenchen"; on the other side of the analogy are the "pre-embryos". Scientifically, Dr. Dobson's analogy fits ... as do the politics.


Date posted: 2005-08-13

"Conservative" Senator Frist, the U.S. Senate's Own Big "Pre-Embryo Substitute"

For Frist to claim in the same breath that he "believes" that human beings begin at conception, yet add immediately that in all conscience he supports killing them for their stem cells, seems to indicate such a "pre-embryo substitute" mentality. Frist combines this with the ridiculous on-going effort on the part of many "conservatives" that it is just a matter of "belief" that the early human embryo is even a human being! He further wiggles out of reality's tight grasp -- and out of a tight political spot -- by piously deferring to one's "conscience". Whatever happened to a "well-formed conscience" anyway, one that is morally required to start with the known objective scientific facts, rather than be just an expression of one's desires, wishes, whims, or out-of-control imaginations. Then amazingly Frist justifies his bold betrayal by claiming that there is "more" to the issue than just "faith" -- i.e., there is science! Which "science"? The science of human embryology known for over a hundred years, or the political "science" that hypes-up what is nothing more than heartless and non-empirical but very lucrative propaganda about "miracle cures" for real people using human embryonic stem cells acquired by killing mere human beings? Frist chooses the latter.

Date posted: 2005-07-30

Framing the Debates on Human Cloning and Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Pluripotent vs. TOTIPOTENT

The purpose of the following selected bibliography on human embryonic stem cells is to demonstrate and document that most of the cells of the early developing human embryo are totipotent, and to refute the current claim - from both sides of the aisles - that they are all pluripotent. That means that they can not only produce "all of the cells, tissues and organs of the adult human being", but that they also have the inherent natural capacity to undergo regulation and to thereby be reverted to new living human embryos - to be used for both research and for reproductive purposes. The obvious proof that most of these early human embryonic cells are totipotent is right before our collective eyes - in the empirical fact of "twinning".

Date posted: 2005-07-24

Conflict of Interests Haunt Weissman, NAS, Bioethics and California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

As physician Irving Weissman, progenitor of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), continues to scare audiences around the world with his Russian "ghost" stories, attention is successfully diverted from the "regulatory" crisis facing his CIRM: a multitude of conflict of interests.

Date posted: 2005-07-20

"Heritage Foundation 'Science': 'Pregnancy' Begins at 8-days??"

Much as we all wish it weren't so, people just can't have it both ways -- they can't use the accurate science sometimes (when it is convenient), and then use false science at other times (when the accurate facts are not convenient). Sooner or later it catches up with them. Nowhere is this truer than in the current debates surrounding human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research (HESCR). If prolife and all those who hold for the inherent equality of all human beings don't start getting on the same scientific page on a host of issues, they will continue to shoot themselves (and each other) in the foot, loose their debates - not to mention their credibility - and be known and remembered later only for the massive confusion they have caused even for their own followers and the corrupt bills they have helped to pass.

Date posted: 2005-07-17

Meet BIG BIO's Global Hall of Shame

Perhaps it is time to take a long hard look at the most recent GLOBAL biotech lobbyists on the block who constitute that tornado, who testify en masse at every major and minor legislative hearing, and who have mastered the art of Public Relations. Meet Big BIO.

Date posted: 2005-07-15

"Open Memorandum to Sen. Venables (Delaware): Irving Does Not Support SB 80 Cloning/IVF Bill"

Neither of these two [Irving] articles provided to you could possibly have been interpreted in any way whatsoever so as to support a bill such as SB 80. .. The "science" used is absurd on its face, exactly the kind of "science" lobbied for by many involved in California Proposition 71. .. There is no definition of "therapeutic" cloning. .. "Reproductive" cloning is defined as inclusive of the "birth" of the "product" - only after which the "product" would be a human being. .. This bill is legalizing the use of "nuclear transfer" (and all other human cloning techniques) in the guise of "human embryonic stem cell research" and "regenerative medicine". .. IVF clinics will now become centers for human cloning and other genetic engineering experiments, which could include the implantation of these experimental human embryos into women for purely research as well as for "reproductive" purposes, including "infertility treatments". .. Because of the gross scientific misinformation inherent in this bill, legally valid informed consent would be impossible  not only for the women "donating" their embryos or accepting them for "infertility treatments", but also for patients into whom these "stem cells" will be injected as "regenerative medical therapies".

Date posted: 2005-07-12

"Irving Interview Re Cuomo's 'Not on Faith Alone' Solution to Stem Cell Impasse"

Cuomo poses a scientific question, requiring a scientific answer based on objective scientific facts -- not on religion. .. Science has formally documented as an objective scientific fact for over a hundred years (Wilhelm His' Human Embryology 1880-85) that sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist immediately at fertilization. .. The single-cell human organism formed at fertilization has been categorized for many decades as Stage One in the internationally accepted Carnegie Stages of Early Human Development. .. We are in deep trouble when invested researchers, humanists and religious leaders meet to redefine the objective scientific facts. .. In this autistic bioethics worldview, terms like "democracy", "pluralism", "beliefs", and "consensus" have been used as code words for years now, as shields behind which decadent concepts can hide and flourish. .. If the only relevant issues are just "beliefs", then in such a democracy only the "beliefs" of the powerful majority will win out. The end result is the very corruption, destruction, and usurpation of pluralistic democracy itself.

Date posted: 2005-07-12

Weissman Plays "Religion" Card; Scare Tactics With Russian "Ghosts"

So the gist of Weissman's article is clearly to undermine good science and medicine - and government -- by trying to debunk the scientific credibility of those who oppose his research by playing the "Religion Card", to scare the public - and the Russians - with Ghosts of Stalin and the arms race, and to promote the same voluntary regulations as those achieved at Asilomar by his old Nobel mentor Paul Berg.


Date posted: 2005-07-02

"Another Tragic Casualty of Fr. Richard McCormick's 'Pre-embryo' Myth: Meet Missouri's Mr. Neaves"

The damage caused by the McCormick/Grobstein "pre-embryo" myth over the last 40 years has been devastating and incalculable to the Catholic Church - not to mention science. But few people fully understand the similar damage done to other churches and denominations as well. Take the case of William B. Neaves, President and CEO of Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Missouri.


Date posted: 2005-06-28

Missouri pharmacists don't need to "believe" that "emergency contraception" can cause abortions; It's an objective scientific fact.

In the article below, NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri's "survey" is referenced, indicating that pharmacists "cite morals" for bans on "emergency contraceptives" ("morning-after" pills), and that "pharmacists' right to dispense prescriptions" is "based on personal beliefs." .. The article continues with its deceptions: "EC is not the same as the RU-486 pill; it does not cause abortion and will not work if a woman is already pregnant." Wouldn't that all be convenient - if it were true?

Date posted: 2005-05-14

Missouri - Caution needed on Blunt's call for special session on abortion law

While it is obviously desirable to protect the right to life of all innocent human beings while they are in utero as well as when they are born, consider the consequences of the popular (but grossly erroneous) claim that there is no human being present until implantation.

Date posted: 2005-05-13

Scientific and Ethical Concerns About Russian/British Genetic Engineering Gene Therapies

There has been little discussion of gene therapy and its "pros" and "cons" even among scientists, much less in the public square. Obviously, issues of the "informed consent" of the patient loom large in all such experiements. But Three other concerns especially need more widespread discussion: (1) the fact that the science involved in such research is almost entirely hypothetical, and thus the physical effects on patients taking part in the research are almost unknowable and unpredictable; (2) the accidental infection of germ line (reproductive) cells during somatic cell gene therapies; and (3) the use of gene therapies that specifically target germ line cells for eugenic purposes.

Date posted: 2005-05-09

New NAS Report Ushers In Wild Wild West of Human Cloning and Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Indeed, we are clearly looking at "a Wild West of science" -- but that is the goal, as was true in human embryo research in the 1980's and 1990's. Scientists are "special people" you know. They want a "wild, wild West". They will simply build a facade of "ethics" and "regulation" around it, and fortify it with hordes of aggressive desperate "patient alliances" as their ultimate protective shield. They operate purely on the basis of a self-proclaimed absolute "freedom of scientific inquiry", hate and repulse any restrictions on their work whatsoever, and demand to "monitor and regulate themselves" -- otherwise known as the Wild Wild West of Scientific Research. The rest of society can just buzz off. .. This is precisely what this new "ethics panel" on human embryonic stem cell research (which also includes human cloning) will assure under the guise of "regulation".

Date posted: 2005-04-26

BigPharm Lies About "Pregnancy" and "Abortions" to Sell Morning-After Pills; Scientific References

[T]he BigPharm tactic:(1) Blur the real distinction between women who get pregnant naturally and women who get pregnant by IVF (or other artificial reproductive methods). That is, claim that all pregnancies begin at implantation, rather than just those that result artificially from IVF. (2) Deny that "what" is there before implantation is a new genetically unique already existing living human being (embryo), but rather claim that it is just a "pre-embryo" or a "ball of cells". The result? Women who get pregnant naturally think that they are not pregnant until implantation, and thus assume that these morning-after pills cannot possibly be abortifacient since there is no embryo there yet. .. The following objective scientific facts - all in concert with the international nomenclature committee and known for over a hundred years - refute these Big Lies from BigPharm.

Date posted: 2005-04-23

"The U.S. Belmont Report Already Requires All Citizens To Take Part in Research 'For the Greater Good'"

Veitch raises the question, "[S]hould we all be obliged - or even compelled - to become human guinea pigs in research experiments for the advancement of science and the good of society?" .. Leading bioethicist Prof. Harris responds that "the public should be 'morally obliged' to take part in research, in a similar way to wearing a seat belt or performing jury service." Although such "reasoning" might sound off-center for most people and echo research atrocities of the likes of the Nazi Holocaust, apparently few realize that the strong "moral obligation" of which Harris speaks .. is already part and parcel of the Belmont Report (1979) in the United States - the very same Report that ushered in the formal "birth of bioethics". What is more striking than Veitch's question or Harris' response is the fact that most people are oblivious to this.

Date posted: 2005-04-18

"The tragic case of Terri Schiavo; So what's 'bioethics' got to do with it?: What is 'bioethics'?"

To those of us trained at the Ph.D. level in the new "bioethics", nothing has brought home the gruesome legacy of the "birth of bioethics" in 1979 like the very tragic case of Terri Schiavo. Regardless of the pleas for a strict deference to the Rule of Law, the unprecedented outpouring of disbelief and disgust at the "consequences" of this Rule of Law is palpable for all to see. What we are witnessing is -- finally -- an almost universal recognition that some how, some way, at least part of the Rule of Law involved here is, simply put, bad law -- and that drastic changes need to be made.

Date posted: 2005-04-09

"Second Thoughts About the Cloning 'Victory' at the U.N. and Passing a U.S. 'Ban'; Definitions, Definitions, Definitions"

Presumably, then, (1) the U.N. has voted (non-binding) to "ban all forms of human cloning", and (2) we here in the U.S. should follow suit with due haste and pass the Brownback "total human cloning ban" (binding). But is this really the "prolife victory" as depicted? Let's look briefly at these two claims one at a time, just focusing on the formal scientific definition of "human cloning" used by them in these feisty cloning debates.

Date posted: 2005-03-14

Update on Scientific Definitions For Use In Legislation On Human Cloning And Other Genetic Engineering Research

To purposefully use such false science in either research (e.g., see #1 of the Nuremberg Code) or in legislation is automatically unethical and unprofessional, as it corrupts the very starting point of any further scientific, ethical, legal or social considerations which so profoundly effect so many. .. [A]s the issues and the "scientific" mis-definitions continue to change and evolve, so must any attempt at analysis or reconstruction of the accurate science to be used in legislation. .. [H]uman cloning - including all cloning techniques - is only one subdivision of the larger category of activities which can also reproduce human beings a-sexually: human genetic engineering. Most of the "scientific" loopholes built into some cloning bills and treaties would by default not only allow various other kinds of cloning techniques not articulated to be used, but they would also allow the a-sexual reproduction of living human beings for research by means of many other kinds of genetic engineering techniques (such as pronuclei transfer). Such human embryos could then be used for research, "therapy", and reproduction carte blanche, with no public oversight or professional/legal accountability. Most people wouldn't even know it was happening.


Date posted: 2005-02-26

Missouri: Fairy Tales Abound in Human Cloning Debates

"Scientific" Fairy Tales about human cloning are out of control these days in the SHOW ME STATE, attracting foreign handlers and peddlers from as far away as California, New Jersey and abroad! The insane hype, the hard-ball organizing, the thrown-together petitions, the fake science, the media blitz - all very familiar PR by now. The goal seems to be to see who can twist and manipulate the objective scientific facts the most in order to win. Anything goes, everything is allowed, no holds barred, make it up as you go along - as long as it stops that human cloning ban!

Date posted: 2005-02-12

Testimony Submitted to FDA Re Change of MAP to OTC Status

The major issue concerns when a new living human being begins to exist. Scientifically, there is no question whatsoever that this occurs at fertilization -- in vivo, or in vitro. By the time of implantation, the living human embryo is approximately already 5-7 days old. This is not a "religious", "prolife", or subjective "belief" or "opinion", but rather it is an objective scientific fact that has been known scientifically for over a hundred years, e.g., with the publication of Wilhelm His' (the "Father of Human Embryology"), Anatomie menschlicher Embryonen (Leipzig: Vogel, 1880-1885). It is also in concert with the international nomenclature for human embryology. [The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Development is the basis for the Nomina Embryologica, part of the larger Nomina Anatomica for decades until 1989. In 1999 the name was changed by the International Associations of Anatomists to Terminologia Embryologica and Terminologia Anatomica, published in 1999 by the IFAA, and is available for sale in book or CD-Rom format.]

Date posted: 2004-12-31

FRC's Brochure on Human Cloning at U.N.: Serious Flaws, Dangerous Consequences

The Family Research Council (FRC) recently distributed their brochure,Human Cloning: An Abuse of Science, at the United Nations in preparation for the debates and voting to take place in November. Although it makes some excellent points, the following short analysis of a few of the major scientific, ethical and legal flaws embedded in this cloning brochure is provided for consideration. If such serious flaws were to be embedded into the language of any U. N. "total human cloning ban", the global negative consequences would be more than seriou [Scientific references I cite are all in concert with the international nomenclature on human embryology.]

Date posted: 2004-12-27

"Analysis: California's Current Cloning Law Allows Both 'Therapeutic' and 'Reproductive' Cloning; Sets Up Arbitrary Regulatory Committee"

While many are frantically trying to figure out how to block the passage of Proposition 71 in California, most are unaware that human cloning is already legal in the state. All Proposition 71 would do is allow the citizens of the state to pay for it. ... Although the California Cloning Law appears to allow only "therapeutic" cloning, a closer examination reveals that it also allows "reproductive" cloning as well because of the massive "scientific" and "legal" loopholes used.

Date posted: 2004-12-26

What Human Embryo?

Such is merely a very small sampling of the fate of the McCormick and Grobstein "pre-embryo" over the last 30 years. Now, instead of human embryos, human individuals, human persons, human beings, human organisms, human cloning and other human genetic engineering, we now have only "pre-embryos" or their "substitutes", "cells", "reconstructed oocytes", "infertility treatments", "near-cloning", "bio-tech inventions", and "human embryonic stem cell research". Some "mental gymnastics" those are! But at what cost?

Date posted: 2004-12-11

Analysis of Legislative and Regulatory Chaos in the U.S.: Asexual Human Reproduction and Genetic Engineering

Because of the massive scientific and legal deficiencies addressed in detail below, the accumulative body of U.S. legislation, regulations, and related documents on human embryo and fetal research, human embryonic stem cell research (especially when stem cells are derived from cloned human embryos), human cloning, and other human genetic engineering activities over the last 30 years represents total chaos. These documents are contradictory and unenforceable due to vagueness, banning or regulating no human cloning or other human genetic engineering activities. Yet they continue to form the ever-expanding foundation for legal and regulatory stare decisis to be applied in the future to the next round of bills, regulations and related documents dealing with these critical issues. Because of the abject failure of this legislative process over the last 30 years, the personal and societal harm that could result from such legislative and regulatory chaos is, put simply, horrendous.

Date posted: 2004-12-03

Human Cloning As Infertility 'Treatments'

Extensive human cloning, and other forms of human genetic engineering -- all of which can asexually reproduce new living single-cell human organisms (human beings) -- are already being done in IVF clinics, for both "research" and for "reproductive" purposes. Below are just two published research studies documenting (1) the various kinds of human cloning techniques available to IVF "clinics", and (2) an example of how it is already being done.

Date posted: 2004-10-18

U.S.A. -- Human Cloning As Source of 'Non-Federally Approved' Human Embryonic 'Stem Cell Lines'

Now that so much false science has been concretized in many stateand federal laws and regulations, as well as in reports by such prestigious advisory bodies as the National Academy of Sciences, we now have included in the definition of stem cells those derived from cloned human embryos. Regardless of their source, all stem cells are now simply lumped together under the protective umbrella of stem cell research based on fairy tale science. The result is that in both federally and privately funded research, real live human cloning is being slipped through the radar using the brave new rhetoric of stem cell research .

Date posted: 2004-10-12

Definitions of a "Human Organism" and a "Cell"

Central to the current debates concerning human cloning and human genetic engineering in general, and "stem cell research" in particular (e.g., California Proposition 71), is how to define the difference between a "human organism" and a "cell". Desperate - even amusing - claims to the contrary, there is no confusion in biology as to what a "human organism" is, and how it differs from just a "cell" - regardless if one is talking about sexual or asexual human reproduction. Nor is it difficult to obtain this information. Indeed, all one would have to do is go to the library or internet and look it up. We are talking Biology 101 here (not "physics").

Date posted: 2004-10-04

Analyses: Stearns' Congressional Human Cloning Fairy Tale "Ban"; New Age and Transhumanist Legislation for "Converging Technologies"?

Although literally no attention has been drawn to it, there is yet another proposed federal human cloning 'ban" waiting in the wings - Bill H.R. 916 -- introduced by a Republican Congressman from Florida, Cliff Stearns. But this Bill seems to be cut from a different pattern than the rest. Like similar ineffective "total bans" on human cloning, this Bill too would ban no human cloning - none - thus rendering debates about "incrementalism" mute. Many of the same scientifically erroneous definitions and omissions are used in this Bill as in other similar Bills, rendering it legally impotent. But there are some "new" attempts at scientific deconstruction here, especially those that define away the entire human organism - i.e., human being -- cloned by claiming that it is just a "cell" - specifically, just an "oocyte". No human being there! But at least, perhaps, there is hope in this Bill for future human beings to be transformed into part of the One, living, breathing interconnected cosmic "Brain".

Date posted: 2004-09-08

Quick Scientific References: Human Cloning, Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Quick scientific references documenting -- with direct quotes from current human embryology and human molecular textbooks in concert with the international nomenclature -- that (1) no such thing as a "pre-embryo" or any similar "pre-embryo substitute"; (2) the immediate product of sexual (fertilization) reproduction is a new living single-cell human being, human organism, human individual, human embryo; (3) the immediate product of asexual reproduction (cloning, genetic engineering), is a new living single-cell human being, etc.

Date posted: 2004-08-31

Big Bio-Tech's Politicization -- And Destruction -- of Science;

It is not the "theology" they fear. IT IS THE OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC FACTS THEY FEAR, objective scientific facts determined by the consensus of Ph.D. human embryologists from around the world (the international Nomina Embryologica Committee). Just because a group of rogue "scientists" vote that something is an accurate scientific fact does not thereby make that "fact" accurate or true. Not just any scientist can take that vote; only those who have the legitimate academic degrees and professional experience to do so can. Otherwise such a "consensus" is a "consensus" in name only -- aka, a myth, a "fairy tale".

Date posted: 2004-08-31

BMJ's Fake Science and Scary Ethics of Cloning

The ultimate question that people must ask is, if the scientists and pharmaceutical companies are so willing to blatantly lie to them for so long about THIS issue, why wouldn't they be just as willing to lie to them about the science in ANY issue - as long as it can be "ethically justified" by Bioethics for some "greater good" -- like money?

Date posted: 2004-08-24

Church Teachings and the "Delayed Personhood" Ruse

Perhaps it is time for Catholics and others of good faith to stand back for a moment, take a deep breath, and just consider for a moment the question as to whether or not the horrific "confusion" over whether or not the earliest human embryos regardless if they are sexually or asexually reproduced are human persons is really so relevant to these abortion, cloning, and stem cell debates after all. Is the hotly debated distinction between a human being and a human person simply just another one of the many false distinctions that have permeated these bioethics debates on abortion, cloning and stem cell research like the false distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning?

Date posted: 2004-08-12

Bioethics Think Tanks and Reference Materials

If you want to keep abreast of the issues and public policies involving bioethics that are so dramatically affecting everyone -- and who is involved in these efforts -- you might want to just wander through the following three secular bioethics websites from time to time where such information is abundant.

Date posted: 2004-08-08

Plato's "Royal Lies":

Far too often scholars uncritically turn to the venerable ancient pagan philosopher Plato for "guidance" and "wisdom" simply because Plato recognized immateriality and god . Usually, frankly, it is someone who has never had a decent course in philosophy -- not to mention the history of philosophy (starting with the Pre-Socratics). Usually they don't realize how strictly philosophical presuppositions (and the errors inherent in them) have paralleled and been integrated into the histories of both theology and politics, even determining the definitions of their own fields terms. One thing is certain: these inherent philosophical errors will prove to be just as destructive within a theological or a political framework as within a purely philosophical one -- if not more so. The purpose of this article is to investigate and document just a few of the problematic conclusions to which Plato s philosophical errors must necessarily lead in the area of "philosophical anthropology", politics", and public policies.

Date posted: 2004-08-03

The Kettle Calling the Pot Fake:

There's a brave new and very interesting piece just out on how badly science has become politicized - i.e, corrupted -- over the years, especially now with the Presidential election count-down in full swing, and with politicians jumping on whatever is the most politically correct bandwagon they can find. ... While I have to agree with the author's concerns (we'll call him Kettle) about the use of waffling and fake science in the supposed cloning 'bans' proposed by the Pots, if truth be told, there's enough concern to go around for both the Pots and the Kettles.

Date posted: 2004-07-27

Iran, Abortion - and Islamic Embryology?

Does Islamic law itself justify early abortions? Could the current change in abortion law in Iran (see news article below) be just the first step toward justifying the use of abortifacients, genetic pre-selection, human cloning, human embryonic stem cell research, human genetic engineering, etc.?

Date posted: 2004-07-20

Bioethics -- What It Really Means for Prolife Nurses

What is bioethics? How did it come about? How sound is this "theory"? What impact has it had on the practice of medicine and medical research, especially its influence on medical professionals - at the bedside, up-front and personal? How has bioethics attacked the fundamental concept of "personhood", especially as formulated in bioethics as "preference" utilitarianism? How has it so profoundly affected our understanding of who is a person to the extent that we don't even know one when we're staring one in the face - at the bedside?

Date posted: 2004-07-02

Who Cares About Genetic Engineering?

Definitions have real concrete in-the-flesh consequesces, especially when used in legislation on critical research issues, such as that dealing with human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research -- just two of many kinds of human genetic engineering. But who really cares?

Date posted: 2004-06-23

Scientific References: Human Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the artificial construction, deconstruction, or reconstruction of the genetic composition of organisms and their components or precursors. It can be used for the good or for the hindrance of individual human beings or of society. Advances in human genetic engineering have been rapid since the mapping of the human genome, and already great medical benefits have been achieved. However, it has also become clear that without serious public input into public policy making decisions, a great deal of unethical research will continue, with no public scrutiny or professional or legal accountability. It is hoped that these scientific references might help and encourage more serious and meaningful public input into public policy discussions.

Date posted: 2004-05-29

How to Build a Better Human Cloning Bill or Treaty

After having published analyses of dozens of state, national, federal and international legislative attempts to ban human cloning research, I simply wish to offer seriously considered suggestions for the use of scientifically accurate language and definitions to be used in such endeavors in order to prevent loopholes which would result in much human cloning not being really banned. Many of these accurate definitions can also be used in bills and treaties concerning related issues, e.g., human embryonic stem cell research, human genetic engineering, abortion, the use of abortifacients, conscience clauses, IVF and other artificial reproductive technology research and regulation.

Date posted: 2004-03-19

"Enough word games, Ms Wershler: MAPs Maim and Kill"

Laura Wershler is right about word games. Hers. ... With disregard for the health and lives of both women and children, not to mention the objective scientific facts, Wershler tries to discredit pharmacist Maria Bizecki and recent rulings by reframing the morning-after pill (MAP) debates solely in terms of "pro-life agendas," "religious rights" and "tolerance." Why? It's the only route left to her and a failing industry. Enough is enough. No more manipulation by verbal engineering. Those who persist in trying to misinform the public should be held accountable.


Date posted: 2004-02-24

Open Letter to U.S. Catholic Church Hierarchy

Of most concern to us is the lack of any reliable, documented proof for supposed scientific facts being used on all sides of these debates, including those facts issuing from some who would presume to consider themselves as experts ... However, when pressed, they cannot provide any proof whatsoever for their scientific definitions. [T]he accurate scientific facts involved are the very starting points for any further philosophical, theological, sociological, legislative, political, public policy, and pastoral considerations, ... What is at stake in these human cloning debates is nothing less than the intended and willful production and destruction of millions of innocent living human beings, as well as a legal precedent set that conceptually can be (and already has been) rapidly transferred to millions of adult human beings in short order all under the guise of helping others .

Date posted: 2004-02-20

Reading The Singer on "Bestiality"

Peter Singer's "global ethics" is notoriously controversial. Among other outrageous "ethical conclusions" he has taught is that the infanticide of newborn human infants is "ethically acceptable" because they are not "persons", whereas the killing of certain animals who are "persons" is not. My purpose here is to very briefly explain to those unfamiliar with Singer et al where these public policy makers are "coming from", and therefore where they must logically and necessarily end up. It is to raise the question, "Is this where we want to go as a society"?

Date posted: 2004-02-08

Playing God by Manipulating Man: The Facts and Frauds of Human Cloning

The most devastating scientific myth in both the abortion and in the human cloning debates concerns the question, "When does a human being begin to exist". Proponents of both abortion and of human cloning want you to think that a human being does not begin immediately at fertilization or at cloning.

Date posted: 2003-10-04

Legally Valid Informed Consent

Obviously, "informed consent" requires that full, accurate and truthful information be disseminated to all concerned decision makers. But valid "informed consent" must also include disseminating the correct and accurate scientific information about "what" these early human embryos are -- even before discussing the ethical and public policy issues surrounding their use as sources of stem cells.

Date posted: 2002-11-14

The Early Human Embryo: 'Scientific' Myths/Facts: Implications for Ethics and Public Policy

Dr. Irving's presentation at Brussels international bioethics conference, Oct. 20, 2002. The format of the presentation consisted of a one-act drama concerning a critical piece of legislation on human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research that the Parliamentarians have already decided to propose. Each lobbyist is given a full 2 minutes to present his or her suggestions for the language to be used in the legislation before the finally vote.

Date posted: 2002-10-14

Detailed Analysis of Canadian bill C-56

Of all of the legislations that I have been asked to analyze -- on the basis of the correct science used, the linguistic loopholes employed, and the "genre" of "ethics" assumed -- this Bill is probably the most problematic.

Date posted: 2002-05-17

"Who's a Who? Are you?"

Carie and Tim poured over the complicated "informed consent" forms that explained in detail the basic human embryology, medical procedures, risks and benefits, and the proposed strategy. One question kept haunting them. "Just exactly what are these little 'pre-embryos'?," they asked their IVF researchers. "Would it be wrong to destroy some of them?"

Date posted: 2001-12-20

Canadian Bill C-13: Commentators in Denial

The first "principle" of C-13 states that "the health and well-being of children born through the application of ART technologies must be given priority." But no where in the bill are human embryos or fetuses defined as "human children". It is in the Criminal Code that a human child is defined as beginning after birth. Is that why the bill defines "a foetus" from the 57th day after fertilization or creation until birth exclusive of "any time during which its development has been suspended, and ending at birth?" Hello? The development of a foetus -- that has been suspended?

Date posted: 2001-12-17

Requested Individual Testimony on Canadian Bill C-13

"Having reviewed this bill thoroughly, it is clear to me that ... By default this bill would allow most grossly unethical research addressed, including both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" human cloning, using any cloning techniques. ... I would also suggest: Only internationally approved scientific terms and definitions should be used ... No bill is better than a flawed bill ... Legally valid informed consent is impossible ... Non-neutral ethics is presumed ... Only morally licit means must be used to limit evil. ...".

Date posted: 2001-12-16

"Requested Scientific Submission: On Possible Abortifacient Effects of Posnitor (a "morning-after" pill)"

The major issue concerns when a new living human being [normally] begins to exist. Scientifically, there is no question whatsoever that [in sexual reproduction]this occurs at fertilization -- in vivo, or in vitro. By the time of implantation, the living human embryo is approximately already 5-7 days old. This is not a "religious", "prolife", or subjective "belief" or "opinion", but rather it is an objective scientific fact that has been known scientifically for over a hundred years, e.g., with the publication of Wilhelm His' (the "Father of Human Embryology"), Anatomie menschlicher Embryonen (Leipzig: Vogel, 1880-1885). If "break-through" ovulation has taken place, and if fertilization has taken place, then several chemical effects due to Levonorgestrel's mechanisms of action after that point could constitute abortion.


Date posted: 2001-08-28

Whether the "Morning-After Pill" Can Be Abortifacient

The major issue concerns when a new living human being begins to exist. Scientifically, there is no question whatsoever that this occurs at fertilization -- in vivo, or in vitro. By the time of implantation, the living human embryo is approximately already 5-7 days old. This is not a "religious", "prolife", or subjective "belief" or "opinion", but rather it is an objective scientific fact.

Date posted: 2001-08-05

Stem Cells That Become Embryos: Implications for the NIH Guidelines on stem cell research, the NIH stem cell report, informed consent, and patient safety in clinical trials.

The very scientific and legal basis for the NIH Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells...is the claim that such human stem cells "are not themselves embryos";... However, it if could be demonstrated that human embryonic and human fetal stem cells...indeed naturally tend to become new living whole human embryos..., then ...NIH would in fact illegally be allowing the "creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes."

Date posted: 2001-08-01

Beware of Ethics and False Science

Bush's decision can move us forward by standing up to the flawed, murky principles of bioethics and fake science, or it can leave us where we are - facing irreversible chaos, conducting research on human cells and human beings, with no clear idea of right and wrong, human and nonhuman. It will depend on which ethics and which science he chooses to use. Best of all, he might just use his common sense and stop the confusion before it gets worse.

Date posted: 2001-07-15

The Impact of International Bioethics on the "Sanctity of Life Ethics", and the Ability of OB Gyns to Practice According to Conscience

The purpose of this paper is to present the correct basic scientific information regarding the human embryo -- scientific information which demonstrates empirically that normally every human being begins to exist at fertilization in the woman's fallopian tube as a single-cell embryo, the zygote. Indeed, fertilization is the beginning of the existence of the human being, the human embryo, the human organism, the human individual, and the 'embryonic period.'

Date posted: 2001-06-18

University Faculty for Life: Submission of Concern to the Canadian CIHR Re the 'Human Stem Cell Research Recommendations 2001'

We are concerned scientifically that these Recommendations: fail to acknowledge the scientific fact that the immediate product of human fertilization and human cloning is a new unique living human being, ... that individual cells and groups of cells from both totipotent and pluripotent human embryonic stem cells can "heal" themselves and exist as new individual human beings; uses discarded "scientific" myths such as the "biogenetic law" ... and the "pre-embryo", and a false scientific distinction between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" kinds of research; ... bans only one scientific method of cloning, i.e., somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Ethicallyof concern to us is that: the first ethical requirement of scientific research is not met; the means used to reach good goals are not considered; a specific defunct, normative, and eugenic "ethics" is ambiguously employed; neither mothers or fathers could give legally or ethically valid informed consent ... .

Date posted: 2001-06-03

University Faculty for Life: Submission of Concern to the British House of Lords Re the 'Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001'

Scientifically of concern to us is that these Regulations: use scientifically inaccurate human embryology and human genetics as the basis for public policy making -- e.g., the false distinction between "therapeutic"and "reproductive" human cloning, and the scientific myth of the human "preembryo" ... [F]ail to address the scientific facts that: SCNT is only one method of cloning human beings; "embryo splitting" is a form of human cloning; "fetal stem cells" used are actually often embryonic stem cells, and human germ line cells that are diploid and can therefore be cloned or used in human DNA-recombinant gene germ line transfer, thus permanently altering future generations of human beings; human chimera research is also a form of human cloning. Ethicallyof concern to us is that: it would be improbable that legally valid informed consent could really be obtained; the means used in such research are unethical -- to intentionally kill innocent living human beings in order to cure diseases or to advance scientific knowledge.

Date posted: 2001-05-31

University Faculty for Life Letter of Concern Re the Weldon/Brownback Human Cloning Bills

[T]here are provisions in this bill which would still allow for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning of human beings, in the private and public sectors, using private and public funds. ... [T]his bill: only bans one method of human cloning, [thus] allowing ... [other] methods of cloning; would not cover ... the copying of human DNA by means of DNA-recombinant human germ-line gene transfer to human gametes or human embryos in vitro, which genetic changes are then "copied" by normal sexual reproduction through the subsequent generations; would not ban cloning of extra-chromosomal and extra-nuclear DNA. [T]he use of a scientifically incorrect definition of "somatic cell" and the lack of any reference to "germ-line cells" which are also diploid and therefore capable of being cloned would also allow both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning of human beings by SCNT or by any cloning methods. Human germ-line cells would ... not be precluded from being obtained from living or dead human subjects. [T]he cloning of human chimeras is not addressed or banned. [I]f determined by one definition of "cloning" used in this bill [SCNT], virtually no human cloning would be banned.

Date posted: 2001-05-27

Who's a Who?

Since IVF couples like Carie and Tim are ALREADY parents, they ALREADY have the moral and legal obligations to protect their children from harm. This means they cannot allow any of their children to be eliminated because of some lab test, or abort them to make way for larger brothers and sisters, freeze or donate them for destructive experimentation for any reason, no matter how good it sounds. Evil may not be done that good may come of it.

Date posted: 2001-05-01

The Bioethics Mess

As bioethics supplants traditional ethics before our very eyes, few seem to question its underlying premises. But we should know it for what it is: a form of extreme utilitarianism in both its theoretical and practical forms. It bears no relation to the patient-centered Hippocratic ethics that for nearly 2,500 years required physicians to treat every human being in their care as worthy of respect, no matter how sick or small or weak or disabled. It certainly bears no relation to Catholic medical ethics, which continue the Hippocratic tradition in light of church teachings on moral law. And bioethics offers little concrete guidance to physicians and scientists even on its own terms. Perhaps one of these days, society will come to grips with the moral and practical mess that bioethics has created and come up with something to replace it. This time society will perhaps not rely so heavily on the self-proclaimed scientific and moral experts.

Date posted: 2001-05-01

Response to Bill O'Reilly: The Unborn Child is Not "a Potential Human Being"!

How really quaint for O'Reilly to depend for his belief on the Supreme Court's rather suspect version of "human embryology" in this matter. After all, it is just a question of law, isn't it? If the Supreme Court says the fetus is "just a potential human being", then it is just a "potential human being", right? End of discussion. And if the Supreme Court says that water boils at 5 degrees Fahrenheit, well, then, that is when water boils, right? And if by "common ground" O'Reilly means that we must all believe that water boils at 5 degrees Fahrenheit, then by golly, let s believe it!

Date posted: 2001-04-07

Stem Cell Research: Reductio Ad Michael Kinsley

In Kinsley's words: "Opposition to stem-cell research is the 'reductio ad absurdum' of the right-to-life argument." That is, the "right-to-life" argument is totally irrational and absurd -- and such views based solely on "faith" should not be forced on our pluralistic, multicultural, democratic society. Why? Because, according to Kinsley, these early human embryos are not human beings, much less "people" with moral rights. "If faith tells you otherwise, listen. But do not mistake it for the voice of reason." The "voice of reason", of course, is Michael Kinsley. Or is it?

Date posted: 2000-09-20

What is "Bioethics"?

The purpose of this paper is simply to provide historical confirmation of what bioethics is, who the Founders, theorists and practitioners are, identify just some of the major issues addressed (particularly those concerning research using human embryos and fetuses), and touch on some of the more salient inherent problems of and concerns about this "theory".

Date posted: 2000-06-03

Abortion: Correct Application of Natural Law Theory

The common moral principle often used in these difficult situations is that found in the time-honored theory of natural known as the principle of double effect. Properly understood, the principle of double effect evolved in order to address just these types of difficult moral dilemmas - in this case where both of the lives of those affected are innocent, and yet something must be done or will happen which inevitably will endanger one of these two innocent lives. The obvious application for our purposes here is when a woman, who is herself an innocent human being, whose human life is precious and must be respected, is pregnant with an unborn child, who is likewise an innocent human being (from fertilization onwards), and whose life is also precious and must be respected.

Date posted: 2000-02-01

Irving: Open Communication To Participants of the CBHD/NCCB Bioethics Stem Cell Coalition:

In sum, I find the manner in which Furton and Matthews-Roth have operated in this situation with regards to their posting my private e-mail -- with deletions, additions, and changes in format -- on their web site, without my permission, as well as in the oblique manner in which they have responded to my scientific comments, to be rather disingenuous. Furthermore, much of the human embryology they used in their original article as well as in their "Response" is still inaccurate and ill-founded, and could definitely be used by others to construct a "pre-embryo"-type argument which would justify the use of early human embryos in destructive experimental research -- including human embryonic stem cell research. It is unfortunate that this situation has arisen, but I have found it necessary to respond and set the record straight in order to at least try to diminish the damage to which Furton and Matthews-Roth are apparently oblivious.

Date posted: 1999-11-20

Stem Cell Research: Some Pros and Cons

The debates are raging. Many people are confused about what stem cell research really is, and wonder why all the fuss. There are several well documented and well-articulated sources of information available on this issue already, so the following is simply a brief over-view of some of the major scientific, ethical and legal pros and cons.

Date posted: 1999-10-15

The Woman and the Physician Facing Abortion:

One of the most urgent yet least discussed dilemmas concerning the woman, the physician, and a host of others facing abortion today, is access to the correct basic scientific information regarding the human embryo -- scientific information which demonstrates empirically that normally every human being begins at fertilization as a single-cell embryo, the zygote. Without this correct scientific information we are all precluded from forming our consciences correctly or making morally correct decisions about abortion, human embryo research, human embryonic stem cell research, cloning, formation of interspecies chimeras, germ-line DNA recombinant gene research and therapy, and other related current medical and scientific issues.

Date posted: 1999-10-01

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research:

The fundamental bases for the official positions of NBAC and the White House involve the arguments that either: (1) the immediate product of fertilization or cloning is not a human being yet; and/or, (2) it may be a human being, but it is not a human person yet. Both of the arguments above refer to the question, "When does a human being begin?" or for some, "When does the physical dimension of a human being begin?" This question must be answered by the objective, empirical facts demonstrated by the science of human embryology -- not by normal physicians, bioethicists, politicians, philosophers, theologians or sociologists.

Date posted: 1999-07-01

Which Medical Ethics for the 21st Century?

Everyday we read and hear about the constant onslaught of controversial medical issues, e.g., euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, test-tube babies, cloning and stem cell research, creating monsters in the lab, etc. -- it is all coming down very fast! This is not just business as usual! Yes, we will all have to make decisions about these and many other issues not even imagined yet in the 21st Century. But what will be the basis of our decisions, of our choices? Perhaps it is time to stop and seriously reconsider which medical ethics should be used as the basis of these choices -- while we still can! This choice will be critical to the well-being of each of us individually, as well as to the well-being of our society at large. I cannot help but recall a favorite caution of St. Thomas (paraphrased): "A small error in the beginning leads to a multitude of errors at the end"! Indeed, the ethical theory we choose will be the starting point for these complicated decisions. As such it can cause us to reach conclusions and perform actions that are harmful and destructive -- or those, which will enrich, fortify, and strengthen all of us. The choice, of course, is yours.

Date posted: 1999-03-14

When does life begin?

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists -- not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.

Date posted: 1999-02-01

Biomedical Research With "Decisionally Incapacitated" Human Subjects:

In sum, up to this point, the traditional distinctions used in biomedical research using human subjects have been blurred by redefining and equating: standard medical care, with therapeutic research; non-therapeutic research for a "class", with therapeutic research; beneficence for a particular individual patient, with beneficence for a "class"; "slight increase over minimal risk" research, with "high risk" research; an advanced directive for standard medical care, with an advanced directive for research participation; consent for a particular detailed research protocol, with consent for "research-in-general"; a risk/benefit ratio that refers to benefits to a particular individual patient, with a risk/benefit ratio which refers to benefits to groups or a "class". To put it mildly, such purely equivocal definitions of so many of these key medical research terms alone could render any and all informed consents and "substituted judgments" invalid.

Date posted: 1998-06-30

Cloning: When Word Games Kill

In March 1996, the news of the birth of a fatherless sheep affectionately named "Dolly" shocked the world. The possibility that human beings could be cloned too -- long the subject of jokes and science fiction -- began to awaken an inner fear... Yet answers to the scientific question emerging in the debates have revealed a prevailing inclination to avoid the verdict of human embryologists by the clever use of word games For example, in "clarifying" remarks before a recent Congressional hearing, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) ... "explained" in effect that the immediate product of cloning is only a group of cells with two significant "potentials". First, it is a "potential human being", and only becomes an actual human being (and embryo) if it is implanted in a womb.

Date posted: 1998-05-13

The Immediate Product of Human Cloning is a Human Being

Science tells us that the immediate product of human cloning is an already existing, unique, individual, human being - the single cell human embryo - regardless of whether it is implanted or not. It is not a potential or possible human being or human embryo, nor is it a pre-embryo. It is a human being.

Date posted: 1998-02-12

NIH and Human Embryo Research Revisited: What is Wrong With This Picture?

[G]iven the questionable status of the famous "bioethics principles", as well as the questionable makeup of this NIH Panel and its inherent conflict of interests - and given the Panel's indefensible theory of the moral status of the early human embryo, a theory which is selectively utilitarian and grounded on unscientific bioethics books and literature - none of their Recommendations can be defended, and so are invalid.

Date posted: 1997-06-10

Maryland State Proposed Statute For Research Using "Decisionally Impaired" Individuals: Beneficence or Abuse?

Legislating for such research on the grounds presented in this proposal would clearly translate into great abuses to ... cognitively impaired patientsv... No human being has a duty to be altruistic, or to advance scientific knowledge. ... Simply because medical benefits might possibly be obtained while participating in a therapeutic research protocol does not mean that that research is anything other than research, or that it somehow equals or is equivalent to standard medical practice or "health care".

Date posted: 1997-05-28

Ex Corde Georgiopolitam: The Many or the One?

Either you're Catholic or you're not Catholic. And if one is not Catholic or is Catholic but doesn't know Catholic teachings or dissents from them, then how does one even know how to teach and administer accurately and objectively what the Catholic Church teaches and requires? Given the noted propensities of the CP report, and the reality of GU as a Pontifical Faculty of the Roman Catholic Church, Georgetown University has some hard choices to make. They really can't have it both ways.

Date posted: 1997-03-24

Letters to Embryologist O'Rahilly, and McInerny, Re Maritain's "Thomistic" Theory of Evolution (Sept./Oct. 1996)

Thank you so kindly for inviting me to respond to Maritain's 1967 paper in Nova et Vetera and mailing me pages from his book. ... I would tend to conclude up to this point that: (1) Maritain's interpretation of Thomas is possibly filtered through both a neo-platonic and process philosophical interpretation of Thomas (interpretations which have always had many Thomistic errors and philosophical critics); (2) that delayed hominization is contradictory to both Aristotle and Thomas' mainstream metaphysics and anthropology, and thus that they theoretically contradicted themselves; (3) that Maritain leaves out of his "Thomism" several of Thomas' most key and critical doctrines; and, (4) that the scientific facts about human embryology which we now know would have them both argue for immediate hominization - and that those same scientific facts actually validate a philosophical theory of immediate hominization. Indeed, the scientific facts prove that specifically human embryogenesis takes place from fertilization on - not just from 3 months on - and that only a human being, with all of its "parts" intact, could be responsible for it from the beginning. How Maritain would have responded to my arguments I do not know - but I would have indeed loved to have been around to discuss these issues with him!

Date posted: 1996-10-12

Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: an evaluation of the arguments on "Personhood"

The science used is often selective, cryptic and/or simply incorrect, and does not apply to or is irrelevant to the philosophical issue it is trying to ground. Some still insist that the "science" being used is correct although certainly to so "insist" does not make it so. We would all welcome those who support such "scientific" claims to prove them. When all of the human embryological, human genetic and other scientific texts as well as the most recent research and assurances by the most respected researchers state clearly and unequivocally that very different basic scientific facts are universally acknowledged which actually contradict the scientific "facts" used by many of the proponents of delayed personhood, let those proponents defend their scientific "facts" openly and publicly before an open body of their scientific peers.

Date posted: 1996-09-20

Irving Response to Dr. John Haas' Book Review of: Kischer/Irving, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!

While authentic, academically sound and factually correct criticism is essential to any one's personal and professional growth and development, I find I can not grow either personally or professionally from Dr. Haas' "criticisms". Nor can I allow them to go unchallenged, as they would seriously and illegitimately weaken the arguments in our book. .His comments are philosophically naive, immature, unfounded and seriously ignore the very commonly accepted academic "facts" within the history of philosophy. He seems totally ignorant of the current arguments in secular bioethics, and tends to blur the distinction between philosophical and theological approaches to these arguments. Some of his comments also seem unrelated to any specific argument in these articles whatsoever - indeed, sometimes he seems to be simply talking to himself, or making sweeping accusations or implications which these articles simply don't merit. Finally, he attributes to me arguments and interpretations which are in fact not mine, and if he had read the articles even halfway carefully he would have realized this. Indeed, his "criticisms" are unfounded, careless and singularly unhelpful.

Date posted: 1995-11-18

Declaration of Baltimore

The purposes of this Declaration are: (1) to reaffirm the internationally accepted principles and guidelines of ethical research using human subjects, as stated in the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (CIOMS, 1993) and the Declaration of Helsinki (1989), particularly with respect to the mentally ill as a vulnerable group when used as human subjects in neurobiological research; and, (2) to specifically indicate, where appropriate, the need to refine or to further address in practice some of these principles.

Date posted: 1995-01-07

Washouts/Relapses in Patients Participating in Neurobiological Research Studies in Schizophrentia

The purpose of this paper is to familiarize those inside and outside the field with a brief background on: (1) medical research studies in schizophrenia in which washouts/relapses occurred; and, (2) some of the ethical issues which have been raised concerning such research studies.

Date posted: 1995-01-07

NIH and human embryo research: a critical analysis

These NIH recommendations are in fact the product of a small but clever and powerful group of academic and political elites - particularly in the fields of bioethics, the hard sciences and the social sciences - who, after years of unchallenged educational efforts and publications, have crafted and fabricated a working set of "ethical principles" and bogus theories of human nature, and who have really exploited the unfortunate current epidemic of infertility and childlessness, as well as the difficult problems associated with genetic imperfections and diseases, in order to advance their own research agendas.

Date posted: 1994-12-07

Politicization of Science and Philosophy: The "Delayed Personhood" Debates and Conceptual Transfer

Not all ideas and theories are equal. Some match reality and some do not. Some can be successfully defended, and some can not. When ideas and theories are based on politicized science and philosophy, the damage in terms of valid and sound knowledge is alone sufficient reason for concern. When they are also applied to millions of innocent human beings, institutions and societies the impact of inaccurate, indefensible and politicized ideas and theories can be long-term and cause devastating personal, familial, academic, institutional, social and cultural damage.

Date posted: 1994-12-01

"Affidavit in support of petition for injunction of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, Mary Doe v. Donna Shalala, et al,"

These are but a few of my concerns with the excessive built-in biases inherent in this NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, but sufficient to conclude that this Panel should be enjoined, and the United States Congress should immediately without delay investigate the legitimate standing of this Panel and its authority to make any recommendations whatsoever as to the "ethical" acceptability of the proposed human embryo research


Date posted: 1994-08-01

Letters to Fr. Neuhaus Re Ramsey Colloquium, NIH Human Embryo Research (June/Sept. 1994)

Thank you very much for your kind invitation to participate in the Ramsey Colloquium on October 6, 1994, to respond to the NIH panel's report on research using human embryos. ... I am enclosing a few items which might be useful background material for our discussions at The Ramsey Colloquium on October 6.

Date posted: 1994-06-23

Case Series on Scientific Integrity, Truth, and Consequences: Erroneous Science in Bioethics; The "Delayed Personhood" Debates

Contents: Integrity of research data and literature; the early human embryo is not a human being; the early human embryo is not a person ( pre-embryo ); delayed personhood and brain birth required physical substrate; delayed personhood actual exercising of rational attributes and sentience .

Date posted: 1994-06-01

Background Material on the Scientific and Moral Status of the Early Human Embryo: The "Personhood" Debates

These scientific and philosophical inaccuracies and uncertainties cast a serious doubt as to the integrity of the arguments for "delayed embryo or fetal personhood". [T]he corrected science and a realistic philosophy argue much more coherently for "personhood" at fertilization. A great deal is at stake - especially considering the extent to which the pivotal issue of "personhood" grounds many other related issues in bioethics ... . [T]he conclusions about "personhood" already set in place in the abortion and human embryo research debates are not isolated consideration; those redefinitions could be transferred to many other child and adult human populations, as well as to many seemingly unrelated bioethics and public policy issues.

Date posted: 1994-06-01

Academic Fraud and Conceptual Transfer in Bioethics:

" ...there has emerged a phenomenon unknown to antiquity that permeates our modern society so completely that its ubiquity scarcely leaves us any room to see it at all: the prohibition of questioning... We are confronted here with persons who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premise part of their dogma... The questions of the "individual man" are cut off by the ukase of the speculator who will not permit his construct to be disturbed." (Eric Voegelin; Science, Politics and Gnosticism)

Date posted: 1994-06-01

"New Age" Human Embryology Text Book:

It would appear to this writer that these various key definitions are being "ratcheted" in order to scientifically justify abortion, human embryo and fetal research. This is the ultimate in the on-going politicization of science. And unless the errors and inconsistencies are corrected immediately, we are not only entering a protracted period of "false concepts concerning our own development" we are entering a protracted period of abysmal abuse of human beings in medical research - pre-born and adult. The stage has already been set.

Date posted: 1994-05-01

Psychiatric Research: Reality Check:

Everyone agrees that psychiatric research is important and ought to be done. But not 'at all costs' and not 'no matter what'. This is sheer brute arrogance and a disaster waiting to happen. Unethical research should not be done -- for any reason; ethical research should.

Date posted: 1994-05-01

Letter to Fr. Burtchaell Re NIH Human Embryo Research Panel (April 1994)

The panel's reaction was such as you can imagine - rolling of the eyes, etc.; yet no challenges on anything which I stated. Even Grobstein himself has remarked that his embryology is incorrect -but then asked, "So what?"! It should be of considerable concern when they are corrected on their science - which is the major premise for their conclusion on "moral status" - and say and do absolutely nothing about it. They don't care if their science is wrong - truly amazing. It is like NIH proclaiming that there are only 12 elements in the periodic chart. Any one who disagrees is dismissed; and then everybody begins to mimic that "there are really only 12 elements in the periodic chart"!

Date posted: 1994-04-08

Can Either Scientific Facts or "Personhood" be Mediated?

All human embryologists know that by the end of fertilization the "23" chromosomes of the sperm, and the "23" chromosomes of the ovum, have combined to produce a human being possessing "46" chromosomes. However, many writers, using scientific data as their starting points, argue that "personhood" appears at different biological marker events during human embryogenesis. For example, it is argued that the human embryo is only a "blob", a lump of the mother's tissues; that the human zygote is no specifically even a human being; or that the completion of the genetic input is at the 2-cell stage. Also, hydatidiform moles and teratomas are often produced which are not human beings, thus the zygote from which they developed itself cannot be a human being. However, this science is incorrect..

Date posted: 1994-03-15

Individual Testimony Before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel

[M]y concerns about the credibility of this panel and these research proposals centers on the lack of the presence of several nationally recognized human embryologists, its perpetuation of 15 years of "fake" human embryological science, its incestuous relationship over as many years with a tightly controlled "bioethics" super-system, questions about other possible conflicts of interests that need to be raised, and an apparent willingness to disregard even the most basic ethical requirements of any scientific research proposal - most of which deals simply with scientific soundness, accuracy and design

Date posted: 1994-03-14

Quality Assurance Auditors: How to Survive Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The professional rage today seems to be to rapidly incorporate ethics courses into every field. How much derives from a genuine concern to "do the right thing", or from a fear of litigation, remains to be sorted out. One fairly concise and plausable explanation was well articulated recently in an article by Greenberg et al, quoting a senior scientist: "Years ago I probably would have said common sense and the golden rule are sufficient. I don't think that will do anymore. I think the almighty dollar has taken over so much of what we do that we need formal training."

Date posted: 1994-03-01

Post-Abortion Trauma:

Dr. Stotland attempts to argue that post-abortion trauma is a "myth" and factually &"non-existent"... If such "medical facts" (and others like them) were actually true, it is small wonder that not only young teen-age girls and younger women, but also boy friends, husbands, parents, grandparents, priests, ministers and councilors, physicians, nurses, researchers, public policy makers, Supreme Court Justices -- and yes, even psychiatrists -- have bought into such "scientific" claims which are really, themselves, in fact, "myths" and "non-existent". Unfortunately, these "scientific facts" in the biomedical literature are virtually all incorrect; yet I do not hear Dr. Stotland calling for an objective purging of these "myths" from the biomedical and bioethics literature in the name of scientific accuracy and the physician-patient relationship. Why?

Date posted: 1994-02-01

Letter to Jerome Lejeune Re Term "Pre-Embryo" (Aug. 1993)

It was and still is difficult for me to understand how all of this incorrect science could have gone unnoticed or ignored by the scientific community for so many years. ... It will take a monumental and rapid effort on the part of many to undo all of this misinformation which has had free rein for so many years.

Date posted: 1993-08-08

Accountability in Research Using Persons With Mental Illness

The aim of this article is three-fold: first, to indicate briefly some of the history relevant to the use of human subjects in medical research in general, and of persons with mental illness in particular; second, to draw attention to two of the most significant inadequacies in the Federal Regulations which deserve further examination and discussion; and third, to propose recommendations in which members of the National Association for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) could be useful in carrying out these regulations on many levels of paticipation -- including membership on IRB boards, and in the role of the "consent auditor" as proposed under the recommendations of the National Commission Report (National Commission, 1979, p. 6).

Date posted: 1993-08-01

Letters to Supreme Knight Dechant Re Help With Amicus Brief (July 1993)

I pray that you and the Knights may find it possible to help us in any small way in our support of this very special abortion case.

Date posted: 1993-07-24

Letters to Embryologist Keith L. Moore Re "Pre-Embryo"

As a former research biochemist at NIH, and a Ph.D. philosopher/bioethicist, I am writing to express my concern about your intended use of the term "pre-embryo" in your fifth edition of The Developing Human. ... I find it alarming that so many heretofore critical definitions based solely on highly debatable philosophical, sociological, political, ethical, etc., criteria - and especially those "definitions" that couldn't "make it" in their own fields - are now more and more seeking scientific data and conclusions for their very justification. In fact, I wonder if such extra-scientific influences are not beginning to "prejudice" the very data and conclusions of pure science itself - and hence this letter of concern to you.


Date posted: 1993-07-19

Amici Curiae briefs filed for University Faculty For Life to the U.S. Supreme Court on "fetal personhood"

UFL's arguments are important, because they not only confirm the Petitioner's argument that there is a scientific and medical consensus that the life of every human being begins at fertilization, but also that the term "human being" is co-extensive with the term "human person" from fertilization on. There is no real scientific or philosophical distinction between a human being and a human person, and therefore a human being is due Constitutional rights and protections at fertilization.

Date posted: 1993-07-02

Philosophical and Scientific Critiques of "Autonomy" - Based Ethics:

All embryologists know that by the end of fertilization the "23" chromosomes of the sperm, and the "23" chromosomes of the ovum, have combined to produce a human being possessing "46" chromosomes.

Date posted: 1993-04-16

"Fetal 'personhood': getting the facts straight"

However, I realized fairly quickly that not only was the philosophy used in these debates "a little weird" - but more disturbing to me - as a former research chemist and biologist - the science used was text-book incorrect - in virtually all of the arguments (other than those arguing for "personhood" at fertilization). In short, I was required to spend a good deal of extra time tracking down each and every scientific point, and correcting it through research and myriads of conversations and meetings with other scientists at NIH and elsewhere. It was important to me to straighten the science out, as these scientific observations would be the starting point of my philosophical deliberations.

Date posted: 1993-03-03

The PSDA and the Depressed Elderly:

The contribution by Ganzini et al is a gentle yet lucid reminder from practioners in the field with hands-on experience, that the PSDA as prescribed and enacted poses certain challenges for those concerned with and responsible for patient care - as well as for the protection of their "autonomy". In the case of the depressed elderly presenting to hospital admissions, a "clean fit" with those for whom the Act was intended (competent adults) appears to be lacking. ... It also points once again to the need of health care providers, lawyers, ethicists - and especially psychiatrists - to come to terms with a more realistic and agreed upon definition of "competency", "incompetency" - and, particularly, "intermittent competency".


Date posted: 1993-02-01

Which Ethics For Science and Public Policy?

To many, self-regulation implies the grounding of research activities in some "neutral" standard of "ethics" acceptable in a "pluralistic" society. Yet, there is no such thing as a "neutral ethics"; and many "contemporary" theories contain such serious theoretical deficiencies and contradictions that they are practically inapplicable.

Date posted: 1993-02-01

What are the facts about fetal 'personhood'?

I realized fairly quickly that not only was the philosophy used in these debates "a little weird" - but more disturbing to me - as a former research chemist and biologist - the science used was text-book incorrect - in virtually all of the arguments (other than those arguing for fertilization). In short, I was required to spend an extra year and a half on tracking down each scientific point and correcting it through research and myriads of conversations and meetings with other scientists at NIH and elsewhere. I resolved that once I straightened out the science, I would follow it where ever it led me! You will - as I certainly was - be shocked at where it led me!

Date posted: 1992-11-01

Letter to Cardinal Hickey Re Parish Presentations On Embryology (Sept. 1992)

I was asked to speak at your mandatory meeting of parish priests in September, which was scheduled in order to discuss the impending Maryland Abortion Referendum. The purpose of this letter is to attempt to clarify to you the reasons why I did not attend the last two of those meetings.

Date posted: 1992-09-22

Science, Philosophy, Theology and Altruism: The Chorismos and the Zygon

This paper will argue that when one splits reality into many different atomistic parts -- and then tries to claim that any one of those parts is the whole itself, major consequences follow necessarily. To paraphrase a dusty, old philosopher -- one small error in the beginning leads to a multitude of errors in the end. It will demonstrate to you that if one actually accepts a part for the whole, one must be ready to accept as well the logical -- and ethical -- consequences of that theory further down the line -- often consequences which are intuitively wrong.

Date posted: 1992-04-01