Participants in 2007 High School Essay Contest Recognized at Illinois State Conference
During the lunch time break at the State Conference on March 24, all high school essay writers were asked to come forward. Each writer introduced himself (or herself) and took a few minutes to tell about the essay that had been submitted. This year there were 45 writers in the contest, fewer at the conference, but all received book gift certificates for the Answers in Genesis book table.

Although the bulk of our entrants come from the Lutheran High Schools who choose to make this a required assignment, there are always a number of independent writers entered as well. For those who don't attend a Lutheran High School the requirement is that they do belong to a Lutheran Church.

Every person who submits a paper for this competition is a winner in the most important way. In the course of their research they will discover pieces of information they had never even considered. Our teens are growing up in a society that often finds death as not just the easy way out but the preferred way to solve what is perceived as a problem. One high school senior prepared a speech defending abortion because it is legal -- so it must be all right. People need to read and see for themselves what is wrong with this reasoning. That is just what this program does.

The two essays here address embryonic stem cell research. The first, Adam Booher, is the $1,000 grand prize winner for 2007. The second Michelle Wetzel, is a $100 winner. In addition to these two the following writers each won $100 for their writing. We will print more of these papers whenever space allows. Other winners: Molly Hoyland, Daniell Ferrell, Malynda Oesterrick, and Zachary Gillette, all of Lutheran High School, Springfield, Illinois.

Life Essay
Grade 12
Lutheran High School
Springfield, Illinois

In this modern world of sensationalized media it is difficult to be informed rather than influenced. Many issues become clouded by biased reporting and new agencies seeking to make the news more dramatic. One such issue is that of stem cell research. The media has a tendency to report only on the conflict over it and not the fact about stem cell research itself. Rarely do news agencies mention the effects and processes of embryonic stem cell research or the encouraging success of adult stem cell research. Perhaps if Americans knew more about stem cell research, they would realize how carefully they must tread on this issue. They must also realize that stem cell research, if done with the proper moral considerations, is like to yield some very promising results.

When speaking of stem cells it is important to remember that all of these cells do not come from the same place. A distinction must be made between those cells that are obtained at the cost of a human life, and those that can be gathered without death as the price. The type of stem cells most often in the light of the media are embryonic stem cells. These are stem cells taken from a human embryo. Currently, no know method is able to successfully remove these cells without causing the death of the baby. In terms of success, Dr. Hans Keirstad states on his web site that he has "transplanted these cells into acute and chronic spinal cord injured adult rats, and demonstrates that the cells survived . . . and restored locomotor ability in paralyzed animals" (University of California Irvine Online). Dr. Keirstead hopes to reproduce the same experiment in humans. Beyond this hope, there is little success in the world of embryonic stem cell research. While this research is promising, we must remember that is comes at the cost of a human life.

Many ways exist for obtaining stem cells, beyond the human embryo, that do not cause the death of anyone. According to Focus on the Family Magazine, stem cells have been gathered from umbilical-cord blood, the placenta, brain tissue, skin, bone, marrow, and body fat (2). Not only are these cells available in many locations that do not threaten human life, they have already demonstrated success. Recently, The Springfield State Journal Register reported that scientists have grown human heart valves for babies with hear defects from the babies' own amniotic fluid (4). This is not the only success shown by non-embryonic stem cells. In fact Life Date reports a procedure where stem cells are removed from a patient's nose and used to overcome polarization. This procedure, called Olfactory Mucosa Transplantation, has already show success by allowing paraplegics to walk with some assistance (12). Non-embryonic stem cells have been used to successfully treat patients with leukemia since the 1950's. Non-embryonic stem cells already have a long history of success n treating many disorders and diseases compared with the mere chance that embryonic stem cells offer.

Based purely on results, it seems obvious that non-embryonic stem cell research is a much more promising field of study. As Christians, though, we have further reason to object to embryonic stem cell research. The human embryo is, from the moment of conception, a living child of God. This small bundle of cells inside his mother is a sinner forgiven in Christ's death and resurrection. Just as Jesus saw worth enough in this tiny human to die for him, so must we also see the value of this child's life. "This is what the LORD says, your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: "I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." In this the 24th verse of Isaiah chapter 44, God conveys the importance of every human being, even those yet unborn. Here the Lord of the Heavens, who laid out earth and sky, tells us that He has also formed each and every one of us, from the tiniest cell. All the beauty of creation is placed on the same level with the magnificence of the human embryo. This tiny life, set in motion by God's own hand, must be protected, just as every life must be.

I believe non-embryonic stem cell research is very promising. Many methods have already show successes. As Christians we are charged with the protection of those on earth who cannot protect themselves. In Matthew 25:40 Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." There is no doubt that a human embryo is one of the most defenseless forms of human life on the planet, and as Christians we must defend them as we would defend Christ. With the same verse Jesus tells us we must also work to help those who are burdened with disease. Stem cells are one of the most promising new ways to combat the collapse of our bodies as a result of sin. It is sometimes difficult in today's world to understand the role and proper position of a Christian on many issues. However, life is not one such issue. A Christian must defend life in all cases, especially the lives of the smallest embryo. But we also have an obligation to use medical technology to improve the lives of those burdened with disease.

Works cited
"Update on Stem Cell Research." Life Date Summer 2006:12
Earll, Carrie Gordon, "Stem Cell Research: Truth vs Hype." Focus on the Family Magazine January 2002:2-3

Tanner, Lindsey. "Scientists Grow Human Heart Valves." The State Journal Register 16 November 2006, 4.

Anatomy and Neurobiology Innovations is Neuroscience, University of California Irvine. 20 February 2007

Holy Bible NIV, Concordia Publishing House. Isaiah 44:24.

Holy Bible NIV, Concordia Publishing House. Matthew 25:40.

Decide for Yourself: The Value of Stem Cells

Grade 12
St. John's Lutheran
Mattoon, Illinois

Imagine being a parent expecting a child. Feelings of excitement and enthusiasm for this new baby that have built up in the past nine months now rush through every vein, pulsing adrenaline throughout the body. Many questions enter the mind as parents think about the joys of having a child. Will it be a boy or a girl? What should the name be? What color should the nursery be painted? In a realm of its own, the moment arrives; the baby is coming. Lost in another world, the trip to the hospital seems a mere second to time. The baby comes. Now, imagine the doctors in a hectic rush. As panic overtakes, and it is evident that something is completely wrong. The baby is taken out of the room, leaving the anxious parents to simply wait for an explanation. News arrives. The infant will never be normal. It was born with an infrequent genetic disorders, Trisomy 13, leaving it with a feeble heart and fragile lungs. The infant's immature brain causes the baby that seemed fine an hour ago to have neither eyesight, hearing, the ability to speak, nor the ability to walk. The chances of survival are slim to none. (Smietana24). In the eyes of many, the baby that was treasured for nine months is now frowned upon. Due to the inability to function properly, the newborn may be viewed as unimportant. Imagine being this parent. Imagine having a child with this disease, or any disease which impairs a child. Would harsh thoughts that rendered the child inhuman come to mind? This story has a major connection to the research of embryonic stem cells. While some individuals view embryos as simply a mass of cells, others view them as a living human being with undeveloped capabilities. In one process of using stem cells for research, a human embryo is used. It is evident that stem cells hold great medical potential to possibly help find cures to diseases such as cancer, Trisomy 13, or Parkinson's disease; however, the specific use of embryonic stem cells poses a great ethical debate among scientists, doctors, and every day individuals. Despite the potential embryonic stem cells hold on medical advancements, there comes a point at which morals should outweigh research. This moral boundary should not be crossed.

Before one can understand the controversy revolving around stem cell research, he must first understand the nature of stem cells and their case. Stem cells are limited, unlike any other cells in the body. They are special in that they can become different types of cells, or differentiate indefinitely. To differentiate is to become a certain type of cell. For instance, blood, skin, muscle, and heart cells, etc., are all differentiated because they are a specific type of cell. Undifferentiated cells are cells without an identity, which are stem cells. Stem cells can differentiate on impulse, or be ushered into becoming a certain type of cell via mere contact with another cell. A body cell that comes in contact with an undifferentiated stem cell can entice the undecided cell to become what it is. There are three different categories of stem cells; embryonic, umbilical cord, and adult tissue. Embryonic stem (ES) cells observably originate from human embryos. First, scientists retrieve an egg from a woman, a sperm from a male, and fertilize the egg to form a zygote. After thirty-six hours and numerous cell divisions, the embryo is deemed a blastocyst, which consists of between 100 and 200 cells. The placenta and other important nutrients the fetus will need to grow are located in the external layer of the blastocyst. The inner cell mass, located in the center of the blastocyst, contains cells that will become human tissues (Ho 53). The blastocyst is a critical stage for scientists as it is the instance in which ES cells are extracted. (Panno 77). To remove the cells, scientists snatch the inner cell mass from the blastocyst, and then place it in a culture to grow, divide, and differentiate. When removed from the blastocyst, the inner cell mass loses its source of nutrients required to develop into a human, thus killing the embryo (5). ES cells are totipotent, meaning they have the highest rate of plasticity, the ability to become any cell (xi). Umbilical cord stem cells are also said to be totipotent. They are removed from the umbilical cord, usually after a child is born. Freezing, thus saving the umbilical cords of their children is becoming more and more popular among families. Adult stem cells range from rare totipotent cells to multipotent, in which they can become only a few cells. Adult stem cells can be derived from various areas of a body, ranging from bone marrow to muscle tissues. All in all, embryonic, umbilical cord, and adult stem cells, each play a major role in the ethical controversy over the killing of an embryo for medical research purposes.

A major ethical question concerning many individuals within this debate over embryonic stem cell research is when does human life begin? Those who are pro-choice argue that a human is not formed until later in the pregnancy, when the fetus has a heartbeat, or even up to the time the fetus enters the birth canal. They feel that because the ES cells have not brain, veins, hearty, etc., they are not alive; they are only a mass of cells (Robinson, "Human: Ethical" 2-3). Therefore, to them it is okay to kill embryos for medical research. Quite the reverse, those who are pro-life as well as Christians believe that human life begins at conception. Scientifically, the embryo is human because it has DNA. DNA is what makes an individual unique; it is what makes humans human. DNA does not change throughout the developmental stage of the embryo; therefore, it can not transform into a human later on in pregnancy simply because it already is human. The Bible agrees: Psalms 139:13 states, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." From a Christian standpoint, the embryo, being formed in the womb, is a part of God's work, His plan. To kill an embryo is to end God's work, and therefore kill a life. It is murder. Further evidence that life, indeed, begins at conception is found in Psalms 52:5, "I was a sinner when my mother conceived me." This demonstrates that human life begins at conception, for how could one be a sinner if he or she were not alive? The opposition claims that one cannot compare a just-conceived embryo to a human with human rights (Kinsley 3-4). Yet, many pro-life advocates believe this is nothing new. For centuries, individuals do not want to consider something perceived as insignificant as equal to them. It occurred with black individuals. Whites would consider blacks to be three-fifths of a person, rather than treat them as equal (Smietana 27). Imagine how God feels; He made humans in His own image. God is so big and so powerful, yet He admits to having made little, insignificant humans in his resemblance. Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness." The Bible also has a verse used by Christians all around the world to prove that the "cell mass" in the womb is undeniably human life, Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed yo in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart." This verse has so much meaning behind it. God knew about the embryo, the child, the fetus, the "cell mass" before it was even created, and He made it in His image. Psalms 139:15-16 proves to the Christian, once again that the "little mass of cells" are very human, and very alive:" "My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body." In the womb, or "secret place," God distinguished the fetus, or "unformed body" as a person, as a living creature. Still, pro-choice supporters claim that the embryo is not alive; it only has the potential to become human (Robinson, "human: Ethical 1). Embryos may only have the potential to become human, but they also only have the potential to aid in medical advancement to save a life is paradoxical. The argument with embryonic stem cells is similar to the argument with abortion, but with a slight twist: "In the abortion debater . . . it is ironic that 'many argue that it is not a human until is it "out of the uterus"; (Smietana 26). Some feel that God gave humans the capability and choice to make these medical advancements with embryonic stem cells He also gave humans the ability to choice to murder, rape and kidnap, all of which are wrong. A judge would not allow the excuse that God gave the ability to murder as justification for choosing murder, and the justification does not work with the mere decision based on capability to experiment with embryonic stem cells by taking a life either.

Works cited
""Compare Popular Infertility Procedures," LocateADoc.com2006. LocateADoc.co, 5 December 2006.

Ho, Mac-Wan. "Therapeutic Human Cloning Should be Banned," Biomedical Ethics: Opposing Viewpoints, Ed. R. Espejo. Greenhaven Press: San Diego, '03

Kinsley, Michael. "If You Believe Embryos Are Human Then Curbing Research on Stem Cells Is An Odd Place to Start Protecting Them." Time Magazine 17 June, 2001

Panno, PH.D., Joseph. The New Biology: Stem Cell research: Medical Applications & Ethical Controversy. Facts on File, Inc.: New York, 2005.

Robinson, B.S. "Human Stem Cells: Background Information: Quotations, What Are Stem Cells? Religious Tolerance, 11 November 2006. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 1 December 2006.

Robinson, B.S. "Human Stem Cells: Background Information: Quotations, What Are Stem Cells? Religious Tolerance, 11 November 2006. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 1 December 2006.

Smietana, Bob. "When Does Personhood Begin?: And What Difference Does It Make?" Christianity Today, July 2004: 24-28

West, Michael D. "Therapeutic Human Cloning Should Be Permitted." Biomedical Ethics: Opposing Viewpoints, Ed. Roman Espejo. Greenhaven Press: San Diego, 2003. 45-58.