Stem Cell Research

There was a program on ABC last night about the progress Chris Reeves(actor who played superman)last night.He was one of the first people who had recieved stem cell treatment,and because of it he has made remarkable improvements in his health.He was not able to move a muscle from his neck down,breathing on a respirator 24 hours a day,and having no feeling in most of his body.Now he can move his legs under water,has 75% of the feeling back in his body,and can breathe for 90 minutes at a time without the respirator and rapidly improving.I personally don't see why this has been turned into such a moral issue.The embryos are unfertilized,and otherwise are just going to be thrown in a medical waste container,because they are no longer useful to impregnate anyone,because they've been sitting for to long.Put yourself in the place of the embryo(Yes I realize they have no thought process at that stage,but bear with me anyway)Would you rather be used to save the lives of countless others,or thrown away?I personally would take the first option.This could lead to countless cures for many diseases and cases of severe trauma.I think it's been blown way out of proportion by some people saying that this will lead to immoral and grotesque experiments with humans in later stages of development and such.How does everyone feel on the subject,and why???

gghornet I totally agree with you. The problem is you get all these pathetic pro-life people who complain. I think scientists should be allowed to research any type of treatment to increase the standard of life for people with injurys etc.

My opinion is that a embryo is just a clump of cells with no degree of consciousness.
Sorry to seem like a cold hearted bastard but why give a **** over a embryo

Like you say the embryo(s) would simply be thrown away.

Quote:

---

I personally don't see why this has been turned into such a moral issue.

---

Go to your local book store and buy a copy of a book called
Dracula and read it.
:cool:

I am with you Hornet that the embryos should be used to help peopel where they can... But you made one mistake in your post... to become an embryo the egg has to be fertilized... The development is stoped by the freezing... It doesn't make any differance in the long run but that is a big reason why a lot of people are outraged by their use... They are potential human beings... And one of the concerns I have heard tossed around by Pro-Lifers is that if you use the stem cells what is to stop doctors from growing a complete human and using it's organs...

Sorry all I stand corrected.Here's the academic press dictionary of science and technology's definition of embryo.And the link to where I got the info.
http://www.academicpress.com/inscigh...9/embryos3.htm
1. the stage of a multicellular organism that develops from a zygote before it becomes free-living. 2. specifically, in vertebrates, the period from after the long axis appears until all major structures are represented. In humans, this is from about two weeks after fertilization to the end of the seventh or eighth week.
O before I forget.I have read Dracula and have the entire Anne Rice collection too,and this is nothing like vampirism.I feel it's more disgusting that these embryos are just thrown away than the fact that people want to use them for research.Do you also have a problem with people donating their organs to science?That's no less disgusting in my mind.I also really doubt that any scientist that values his career would ever attampt to develop a whole human out of stem cells.I imagine if something like that were to be tried cloning would be the bigger threat.Scientists have already cloned relatively complex animals,but nothing short of maybe a few extremely small simple organisms have been formed from stem cells(by scientists anyway)

I don't give a **** if I'm the only person with a small thing called morality.


If you're destroying an embryo that would have been a life, you're killing something. Look up the word Homicide. I would not kill a life to save five thousand. My opinions are:

Listen. Scientists can do whatever the hell they want to do, until they start playing God. Scientists are not God. God created life and He's the only one who can destroy it. End of conversation. You don't give a **** about an embryo? Fine. It's the same as saying you wouldn't care to go to the slammer for murderer.


Silentstalker
[email protected]

Ok, this is a big can of worms, but im going to go fishing :) Ok, i am a pro lifer. However, I like what has been done as far as being able to heal people. Now, I personally don't see what is wrong with using what we have to heal people. The moral issues fall like this, in my opinion. (I am using an example here) In World War II, it was discovered that the Germans practiced cruel experiments on the Jews. Many good things came out of those experiments that now will help people survive sickness. Should we not use that because of the way the info was gotten? No. Neither should we not use the technology available to us. However, I believe the point of going to far is when we clone humans so that we can harvest organs. I believe live begins later than the point of conception. If I can be healed by a fertilized egg, I feel that it would be beneficial. I see nothing wrong with that, however, if a woman is pregnant with the fertilized egg, then I feel that that is abortion (which i am personally against) Some may neg me for the difference I see, however, I feel that the line is whether the embryo is in a woman or in a test tube. Also, I do see something wrong with taking this too far and cloning humans to harvest organs. *nuff of my ideas....Hope it makes sense :)

This is an issue I can't resist passing up. First off, gghornet, I am with you, I believe we should all take steps to advance the efforts to help the severly traumitized. I do not believe that babys should be aborted in the name of it. I do believe that a woman who has been raped...ie, traumitized should be given the choice to abort. I also can't see any reason to throw away anything that can be used. These are my views, and I do not support any fanatic groups on either side.

Well gghornet,I agree with you because my wife has a terminal illness called SLE(Systemic Lupus Erythmatosis).I can tell you now that there is no cure for it yet and I would certainly consider everything possible to be able to extend her wellbeing and lifespan.

Believe me when I tell you that it breaks you physically and mentally to see them in such pain and frustration and yet you can't do a thing to improve the situation.

This is my personal opinion and I am 100% with you on this one.I think mankind has suffered enough as it is.

Regards
v/man;)

Quote:

---

By: SilentStalker

Listen. Scientists can do whatever the hell they want to do, until they start playing God. Scientists are not God. God created life and He's the only one who can destroy it. End of conversation. You don't give a **** about an embryo? Fine. It's the same as saying you wouldn't care to go to the slammer for murderer.

---

What if this particular embryo happens to be athiest?

And, imo, morals and ethics have no buisness in this area of science. You say murder was bad? If you were in the same room as Hitler with a pistol, what would you do? If you were in the same room as Stalin, with a shotgun, would you pull the trigger?

But you said that one life isn't even worth 5 thousand... are you insane man!?! What if you were one of the 5 thousand...and Hitler was that one emybro? What if your child, father, mother, or sibling was one of the 5 thousand, and Stalin was the embryo... What would you choose?

And prove to me there is a god in the first place for scientists to imitate or "play". Hell, I'd give them a good 'ole pat on the back the day they play god perfectly. For the sake of the human race, I think this research should be continued without any boundaries - just like any other form of medial/scientific research.


just food for thought...

[P.S. - My views may be a bit harsh, since I believe in scientific research withouth any boundaries regardless of lost life. I'm not one for mindless tourture however. But... mistakes are made, it's fact; lives have to be lost to succeed sometimes, it's fact; we just need to learn to accept that - life was never meant to be fair.]

Here's a little more food for thought... If God had not wanted us to use the stem cells and other somewhat questionable things that science has found why did he allow men to find them in the first place?

Yea, Im down with stem cell research. But I see some peoples point. But I think if it really helps it should be allowed. I am reminded of an add I saw once:

"The good news is we found a cure/treatment for many of the diseases in the world and it can all be achived by a single plant. The bad news is the plants illegal." -- something like that, and Im sure you can all figure out what plant without me telling you. Not 100% related to this but kindof

You know, ***** the pro-lifers, ***** the religious right. Do what you want to save yer life and a loved ones life. No one has the right to tell you that you cannot cure and save your life or your loved ones. Damned if I would ALLOW that to happen to John or myself. I would go to another country and have it done and be more than willing to give up my US citizenship because that sure as hell isnt as important as curing a loved ones life. Lives being lost only because of some peoples retarded opinions is not acceptable, sure as hell isnt acceptable on my end. Like Chris Reeves said: put yourself in his shoes for only an hour and you would see what its like, just ONE hour and times that by thousands.

Brad

These so called "pro-lifers" are so damn smug, aren't they? You cripple them, or God forbid, their children and watch them turn on a dime! It's better to throw something in the trash then use it to save someone's life, or quality of life, just on a principle. What the hell kind of principle is that?!?!?

Yea, they (pro-lifers) are even against emergancy contraception (the morning after pill) this pill will (most likly) stop you from becomming pregnat if you take it the morning after intercourse. Affectivly stoping abortion (the real issue they are against, but again i think right to choice is the way to go) So they are against abortion they are against the morning after pill that will stop people from needing abortion, and by the way the morning after pill takes care of it before it forms into a living or growing being, so its not even life yet. Also many pharmacists in certain areas will refuse the sale of this pill to people. ( and thats legal? I dont get that).

It all comes down to one thing. Politics, everyone has an opinion about something and they dont care about whats better for the person , whats better for the child all they care about is their veiw is the one that turns law and it magically becomes correct.

I dont know, I cant really explain it

Quote:

---

I feel it's more disgusting that these embryos are just thrown away than the fact that people want to use them for research.

---

They wouldn't be throwing them away if they weren't irresponsibly
creating them in the first place. The analogy would be if the nazis justified
experimenting on concentration camp inmates by saying "These jews
are going to die anyway, so why let their bodies go to waste"

Many people argue that the world is overpopulated, and yet they will
go to such extraordinary means to treat rich couples in privileged
countries like the USA for infertility

Most of the embryos that we're arguing about are created by these infertility
treatments. They create and waste thousands of embryos to enable
people to have one child.

Just because a procedure is feasible, that does not make it ethical
Would you draw the ethical line if the embryos were allowed to mature so that we could
harvest their organs? At what stage of development do you aquire legal "personhood"?

Apparently, the present legal doctrine is that you become a legal person "at birth",
but eventually we will be able to raise embryos outside the human body. This suggests
the possibility that there could eventually be created, a class of human beings,
fertilized and gestated totally outside a "womb" and therefore enjoying no
legal "right to life"

The "right to life" may sound like an abstraction and an inconvenience when
you greedily desire to enjoy the fruits of research, but if the research is illicit
it could come back to haunt you.

Quote:

---

The title means exactly what the words say: NAKED lunch---a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every Fork

---

William Buroughs
:cool:

I agree with you DoktorFoobar.. most people will change their befeifs just as soon as something happens to them... Example: Christmas 1999 While working as a paramedic I ran a call to a house where a 1 year old child was in cardiac arrest... The child was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead... We found out later that the child had been sick for a few days before he had died the same was true of his 5 brothers and sisters... All the children had the same symptoms and presented with the same complaints.... Now what does this have to do with people changing their beleifs you ask? The family were Christen Scientists... Those folks that do not beleive in any form of medical treatment other then prayer... Their beliefs caused the death of one of their children and to prevent the death of any more they abandoned those beliefs... All of you who are bashing those of us for beleiving that it is ok to use stem cells to save a loved one ask yourself one question... If you could save your child, wife, lover, mother, etc by using the stem cells of an unborn embryo that was going to thrown into the furnace anyway would you do it or would you explain to your six year old that there was a way to save his life but because you feel it is wrong you are going to let them die because that embryo is more important then he or she is?

I for one would use as many embryos as it took to save my children... I would give my life if I knew it would save my child... But then again I love my children... Neg away )D

Ok, I can't stand it anymore.......grrrrrr......I have to reply....I wanted to keep silent....LOL...oh well..... 4midgethitmen, I agree with what you say. Let me just point out the other side for a second.....I always say that there are three sides to a coin, each face and the edge :) In this case, it is the pro-lifers, the pro-abortionists, and the middle ground. Just to point out where the pro-lifers come from on this issue (I am pro-life, but I have more liberal views) they say that life begins at conception whether or not it is in a tube or in the mother. That is why they see it as murder. Me, on the other hand, I see an embryo in a test tube as a piece of living tissue. I do believe that there is a point (only God knows when) when the embryo becomes a viable human life. However, I am not arguing that point. I feel that in the embryo stage, that it is no more than living cells in a person's body. At that point, I say, go ahead and use it to help. I would be the first to line up to allow stem cell research to save the life of any of my family. I believe in saving lives. Other pro-lifers may disagree with me. That is their right. Like I said in my earlier post, an embryo in a test tube is different than an embryo in the mother. That is where I draw the distinction. If I can help create an embryo in a test tube to save a life, then I will be more than happy to do so.

Just a comment on the god argument: there's no God,
so "playing God" is absurd.

This thread is very interesting. I am especially pleased with the posts that have remained calm and discussive over those that are inflammatory. Both sides have presented excellent arguments.

Let me get a couple of things out of the way first. Carbonlife, your statement that there is no God therefore the argument about playing God is wrong has no more basis in fact than my saying there is a God. You believe there is no God, that is your choice. I believe there is a God, time will prove which of us is right since there is no way to prove an absolute such as "God". However you cannot prove a negative absolute either.

Second the day after pill is considered bad by Pro-lifers because it is an abortifacient. If life begins at contraception then any abortifacient is still an abortion. The day after pill merely relieves the person of the guilt of choosing an abortion not of the fact they have caused one. Personally I believe the pill should be standardly used in cases of rape and incest to prevent the victim from facing further psychological trauma from an already devastating crime. However in other cases I am opposed to it on moral grounds. I am not opposed to contraceptive methods that prevent fertilization (condoms etc.) only those that are abortifacients.

This issue is so difficult because it hits right in the center of two contraversial belief systems. The one is the furtherance of medical research. The second is the belief that life begins at conception and that killing that life is as bad as or worse than killing an adult.

Much of the controversy with stem cell research is related to the continuing search for new strains not the use of existing ones. Once the stems cells are harvested and a strain developed they can be replicated without viable embryos. However the push is to increase the number of viable strains (if I remember right now there are 11 or so viable ones and less than 50 that may develop into viable strains). To create new viable strains requires the use of embryos that have passed a short period of growth but have not reached the fetal stage. The stem cells themselves are most active and pure then because these cells are what are used in the development process to determine what will become nerves, muscle, bone etc.

My dilemna is that I would love to see people who have faced trauma be cured. I believe that the damage of creating the current viable strains has been done and they should be used to seek cures. Just like the research done by the Nazi's we would not be doing the Jews who were tortured and killed any service by refusing to use the research to better the lives of others. However, if we were to look at that research and then justify its methods we are no better than the Nazi's.

The question was asked if I would prefer to give my life to save thousands or just have it thrown away. I have always been clear that I believe the best death I could ever face would be saving a child from a burning buiding right before a beam crushed me, killing me instantly and painlessly. Did I mention the camera that caught the entire scene and my news flash on CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC? Saving a life, dieing painlessly, and my 15 minutes of fame. I would like to believe I would be willing to sacrifice myself for thousands as well. The difference is I am making the decision. I have the ability to reason and understand the results and ramifications of my decision and sacrifice. In our society we recognize that those who are not able to reason are not held to the same standards as those that can. Embryos cannot reason, they cannot choose, you cannot ask them for their permission to sacrifice themselves. Even children cannot understand the permanency of death until a fairly late age unless they are exposed to it through tragedy.

So where do I stand on stem cell research. Two things, use the current strains as long as it does not require the sacrifice of more children (remember I believe in life at conception when all of the genetic code is available so it doen't matter if it is in the mother or the test tube). If further strains can be developed from abortions, ektopic pregnancies, etc. then I don't have a problem with that. Why, well because it is like others have said, the embryo is going to be killed anyway. With ektopic pregnancies the embryo has no chance and the mother's life is endangered. In this case I consider this the same as harvesting organs by donors if the family approves (I am proud to be an organ donor but feel sorry for whoever gets my abused organs). As for abortions it is the act of abortion that is wrong, IMO, not the harvesting of useful materials after the abortion. I would consider it wrong to encourage abortion to get stem cells however if someone came in to have an abortion I think it would be justifiable to ask them to sign a donor permit for the aborted child. In this manner new strains could be developed however not as quickly as with unrestricted development.

I believe this is one part of the edge of the coin mentioned. While I am totally opposed to abortion, while it is legal I do not see why using the victims is any worse than using the results from immoral research perpetrated by an evil regime is any different.

One thing I would like to say to everyone who has blasted the Pro-lifers. Can you remember the uproar, which continues, about animal testing. According to most articles if you supported animal testing you were barbaric and evil because animals could not defend themselves and had no choice. It was considered torture to use animals for research so that humans didn't suffer. However, it could be proven that animal testing helped develop many cures and tested many drugs that made them safer to move into the arena of human testing. Even in its least defensible arena (cosmetic and commodity testing) it helped ensure that products were safer to use. Honestly I support using animals for testing (medical only) to ensure as little suffering for humans. However, why am I now being called the same thing (inhumane and evil) because I feel it is right to protect children who also are defenseless.

Whether or not stem cell reasearch is moral or not depends on who you ask. There is no right or wrong answer as to the absolute degree of morality this research holds. How can there be when morality differs from person to person? Rather, I feel that people should focus on the scientific aspects of it instead of the philosophical part.

Lets not attack pro-lifers on this issue because even some pro-choicers out their are against this kind of research. If they dislike this stuff, it's their right too. Though, one can not deny the benefits that such research would reep. I'm sure if those people who condemn this cell research where in need of what it offered, or if a family memeber where in need of it, they'd be singing a different song.

All I essentially have to say is, if you don't like stem cell research, fine. Than never use it and don't don't contribute to it. You have to option to disregaurd it, no one is gonna foce you to use or support it. Just remember, others have an option to use and support stem cell researching if they please, so don't try to force them other wise. Lets all show each other come common curtsy

If you're for it, good for you. Just don't force your beliefs on those who don't support it.

Take care all

::Chelle::

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by carbonlifeform
Just a comment on the god argument: there's no God,
so "playing God" is absurd.

---

I think God would disagree with you on that. :) But this thread goes to illustrate a point. Our sense of morality is founded on what we believe about God. If we don't think there is a God, our morality will tend to be more pragmatic, i.e., "the end justifies the means." What is moral depends on my opinion and whether or not it benefits me. Biblical morality is based upon the will of God. Is this what God wants? The key is not, "Is it helpful to me?", but, "Is this right? Is it really what God wants? Without God our morality boils down to our opinion.

People can say, "Well, we know where to stop with the experimentation. We'll do this and no more." But every step we take blurs the boundaries just a little more. It becomes just a little easier to take the next step. Where will it all end? I think the day may come when the world wishes it could turn back the clock and rethink some of the decisions that have been made.

I agree to a point preacherman,but I'm not a religious person,therefore a "god" can't draw the line for me.So where then would that line end or begin.I always respect the religious point of view in everything,because I was raised a Catholic,but the more I study physics and biology,the more I see religion adjusting it's beliefs to go along with the laws of science.Take for instance the geocentric vs. the heliocentric vs. the elastic universe.People lost their lives to prove that the entire universe didn't revolve around the Earth and celestial bodies weren't some perfect heavenly globe.So will this be another paradigm shift for religion if only good comes from it?I agree that religion is a good place to learn morals and to find what path you want to take in life,but what place does it hold in science?

This is by no means an attack on religion.I'd just like to find an answer to a question that most religious figures would dodge.It just seems to me that religion is counter-productive in the sense that when it's teachings are proven wrong it makes an excuse and then changes it's teachings(Sort of like politics if you ask me).

I dunno, I feel even when beliving in God, morality still boils down to opinions and the individual.

Even people who believe in God, or do things in the name of God can have blurred judgement too. Everyone is guilty of it.

But I do relate to your boundary concern. I feel religion is influencing our president's choices far too much these days. Someone needs to give him a good shake and scream into his ear "Seperation of state and chruch!" For him, I believe the line between religion and politics is getting quite blurry. It's scary. don't get me wrong, I believe in God, but I also believe God has given us free will for a reason.

Take care

::Chelle::

GGHornet:

It is interesting that the example you use is from the dark ages however your point does illustrate what happens when religion relies more heavily on tradition rather than reality. Please note that the earth centic theory was not based Biblically. There is nothing in the Bible which states it, it was developed as a part of tradition which came to have the power of canon.

Most scientists tend to agree that on scientific principals the Bible was way ahead of what could be known. The food laws in Leviticus show an astounding understanding of good cuisine rules given the diseases and cooking methods of the times. Then there are anatomical references in the histories and Psalms which correlate with modern medicine but not with ancient knowledge.

In my study of science I see the opposite of what you (gghornet) describe. I see intelligent design of all things in creation. I do not accept that randomness became order and is now going back to randomness (which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as all theories of probability).

Separation of Church and State. What a misused and misunderstood concept. The separation of church and state comes from the statement that the Congress shall make no law hindering religion. It says nothing about religion trying to influence Congress or policy. Therefore the Government should not fund the schools of one religion over another. The Government should not grant protection to one religion over another. The Government is not to do anything that tries to promote a "state" religion or to deny religious freedom to others. In the Federalist papers it can be clearly seen that the founding fathers supported and encouraged people to try to influence the government based on their morals and beliefs. Religion was meant to try to influence policy but the gov. was not to grant any sect or group special access or special privilege.

Now in many ways I agree with Green Bird that morality is often taught as and that many people claim a religious basis but then twist it to support their opinion. Like Preacherman said if you don't have a basis for your morality then it is situational. All religions have a base morality even if its extent is argued. The Torah, the Khoran, the Bible, as well as the teachings of Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, and all the others have their own basic morality. It is very interesting that most of these have a very similar basic morality. Some are stricter in some areas, some groups or sects interpret rules more or less strict within each religion still there are many areas of morality that are unarguable. When someone within that religion decides to ignore these then they are saying their opinion matters more than that of the canon of their religion. They have again turned to situational morality.

I have already stated my opinion on this topic (stem cell research) and I will not do so again. I am posting this to try to clarify my feelings about religion and address some questions that were posed. One last statement; probably sure to get me a few negs.

How can we say anything is right and wrong if we deny the existence of a fundamental right and wrong. If everything is situational and is justified by events rather than a core belief then what is right today may be wrong tomorrow and right again the day after. How then do we expect our children to understand and learn to be "good" when good does not really exist and how can we condemn them for being bad if they tell us that what we are calling bad seemed good at the time? We easily become a ship tossed on the sea of situation during a storm of emotion. I think I would rather be docked in the sheltered harbor with a foundation I can believe in. I may still get rocked some and the jetty may sway but overall I know my foundation and salvation is near. To carry this analogy one step further, if you feel that you are being rocked and tossed by situations and doubts I believe that Christ is the lighthouse that can guide you to a safe harbor. You will still deal with situations, heart aches, loss and trouble but now you will have a foundation to rely on when the storms blow hardest.

/me Thank you for letting me share that

As with all things, stuff changes. The meaning of seperation of church and state is essentially the same, but more broader. One can not allow one particular religion to lay way over other religions. That would be discrimination. That's why school don't force prayer on students. Students can do it on there own time if they want, and at bible clubs if they so please, but they can not impose such a thing on the masses. It's the same within law and politics. Though, of course, not everyone goes by that. Some do things in the name of their religion*coughbushcough* and that's wrong. When politicians represent the people in important choices to be made, they must remain as unbias as possible when it comes to religion. They have to remember, they are representing diversity, not one single type of person.
-----------
Lets assume (to us) some people twist religious views, bends them to fit their own liking. Though, we really can't say, "No, no, that's not right. That's not what such and such God meant." What if it is something they truely believe and it's just a different point of view from what "rightious" is to us? Who's standards of ethics are we using? Is there even a set standard? No, nothing is "set in stone". To one individual, beliefs can seem bent, but to others they are right and justified. To say it simply, no one can really say so-and-so twisted these holy words because everyone belives and sees things differently. Morality differs the world over. There is no absolution about right or wrong (with or with out religion). Though, of course, I agree that religious morality has a basis somewhere, but what that basis is exactly is arguable.
----------
(on a slightly different note)
Though, why can't one say that situational ethics and religious ethics can mix? I believe they most certainly could, and often do. One makes choices and decisions from current circumstances, past experiences, (maybe some predisposed knowlage, but I won't get into that) and if they are religious, than religious teaching as well. Though, if one wants to get technical about it, religious morality is situational too. I'm sure you know why I'd say that. So unless you want me to explain my-self on that part, I won't go on about it any further. So in essance (to me), all judments and choices made stem from situational morality, experiences and religion just help us along to decide on what final choice would be best to make.


Those are my two cents.

Take care

::Chelle::

My answer to you, Web Carnage.


If I was in the same room with someone such as Hitler or Stalin I don't care what they did. God gave them life, and in my opinion God is the only one who can take life away. As for those who asked 'Why did God let men find stem cells in the first place?', God gave us free will. He didn't specifically let us find certain things.


And as for the athiests, ok, for once I respect your opinion. But no matter how you say it, someone put you here. If you believe in science so much, listen to it for once. Living things don't come from non-living things. How do you suppose the universe came to be?

How do you suppose miracles happen? Or that the sick are cured by having incredible faith in God. Science can prove many human things, but the supernatural, the things that require faith, it can not prove.

Take a moment to think of this: if God put life on this earth, do you think his intent was for humans to take it away?


Silentstalker
[email protected]

Quote:

---

If I was in the same room with someone such as Hitler or Stalin I don't care what they did. God gave them life, and in my opinion God is the only one who can take life away.

---

I don't mean to sound harsh silent but let me get this straight... If someone broke into your house and raped and killed your mother and you knew that if you didn't kill them they would do the same to your sister, and then your little brother, and then you you wouldn't kill them?

Quote:

---

Take a moment to think of this: if God put life on this earth, do you think his intent was for humans to take it away?

---

Yes it was under certian circumstances... The Bible is full of places were God told the faithful to take up arms and kill others... Joshua comes to mind right off... Exodus 15:3 states, "The Lord is a man of war: The Lord is his name." Numbers 21:1-3 states, (1)" And when king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came by way of the spies; then he fought against Israel, and took some of them prisioners." (2) "And Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities." (3) And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of teh place Hormah."

IMHO God gave us free will so that we could better our lives... the use of stem cells is just an extention of betterng our lives... It is not like they are fertilizing eegs for the sake of getting the stem cells... They are using stem cells that are from miscarriages, abortions (which would have happened with or without stem cell research), and those grown from existing stem cell banks... If being able to cure my sons Asthma by the use of stem cells becomes reality I will jump on it in a minute... If it means that my Mothers slide into Alzheimers is reversed and cured damn skippy I will use it, If it means that God forbid my wife gets sick and stem cells will give me even one more day with her you beat I am going to use them... Is it a sin? I do not think so...

Quote:

---

How do you suppose miracles happen? Or that the sick are cured by having incredible faith in God. Science can prove many human things, but the supernatural, the things that require faith, it can not prove.

---

Again this is just MHO... I think miracles are laws of nature that man in general hasn't learned yet... I mean let's say that God created the earth, the universe, and all life... That means also that he created the laws of nature... And since he is a God of laws even He can not change or break those laws lest He show man that it is ok to violate those laws... So miricles are nothing more than laws of nature that we do not fully understand or know about...

Just some food for thought...

No. I wouldn't kill them. Hell, why would I need to kill them the government would surely execute them. The only people who God said should be dead are those who oppose him, such as athiests, which now you're going to tell me don't oppose him but they do by denying his existance.


Ok, for one case your right. You said that if they do research by abortions, go ahead. I do not oppose stem cell research, just the fact that most stem cell research is done from abortions. If the research was only done from miscarrages I would promote it all the way, and maybe even donate some money toward it since I love medicine, but not when it envolves taking the life of someone.

I got negged by someone who told me that an embryo is not a life. Maybe we should concentrate on this specifically.

Embryo

Fetus

Child

Adolescent

Adult


By killing 'Embryo', you are taking away the life of what would have been. Why is that not concidered homicide? Does a life have to physically be born for you to kill it? Science has answered that question for us. No.


Silentstalker
[email protected]

Hmmm, I want to see the people who are against stem cell research get caught ina position where if they dont get an organ they die, then we'll see what tune they sing...

Sorry you got negged... As for your answer to my question you are a much bigger person than I am... there is no way on God's Green Earth I would let someone hurt my family if I could stop it by killing the person or persons who were commiting the crime...

As for the Embryo, Fetus, Etc... An embryo can not sustain it's own life outside the womb... And a fetus can not do so before the 7th month... sometimes the 6th with little case of survival... The point is that until a fetus can suvive outside of the womb it is in all practical terms a parasitic organism... It survives by feeding off of a host organism... Wouldn't you say that it is better that the waste products (for lack of a better term) are used to save a life then just being burned in an incinerator? The way it sits right now abortion is legal... Is that right or wrong? I am not even going to get into that one... but as I see it if the stem cells from evn one abortion can help a child with MS then it is worth it...

Eee...This is just going to go back and forth more than it has too. We all have differing opinions. Lets leave it at that.

If anything else, why not agree to just disagree :cool:

Very good sugestion Green Bird!!! :D

I am an athiest. Lets say just for the sake of argument that there is a God. And lets say that an embryo is a life. And once again say that creating it for infertile couples is irresponsible. I can see where religious people come from on all of the above issues. Now lets talk about playing god, specifically scientists with regards to embryos. Someone has to. Where is God? Where was he when I was seven and my mom lost her mind and attempted suicide when my dad left her? Where was he when my dad married a bulemic headcase who beat me sensless on a daily basis for 6 years? Where was he when my teachers looked around the bruises bought the shallow excuses? What has he done for me lately? Now I'm not saying he is responsible for this. I dont even beleive he exists. PEOPLE did things to me, and I accept that. Stuff happens. God didn't kill anyone, he doesnt exist. RELIGIOUS people kill people in HIS NAME. How dare you try to compare bodycounts with science, how many lives has religion saved? How many plagues has it ended? how many wounds has it healed? more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reasons, and since you're so up on life prevention being murder, then we can consider all their potential decendants amoung the casualties. now i dont pretend to say that science has never killed anyone or that religion has never saved a life, i am not so ignorant. I know science is not infalible, those who say otherwise are just as dangerous as those who deny science completely. I know religion is not all bad, it certainly has its place. That being said, its place is not science. it offends me to no end when i hear a doctor or other scientist say that some phenomenon "cant be explained by science". There is no such thing. Anything can be explained by science. thats what science is, rules for explaining stuff. there are only things that HAVE NOT YET BEEN explained by science. A scientist who takes the god route is just plain lazy and should be fired. you want scientific evidence there is no god? here it is: RELIGION. religion is the best proof of the nonexistence of god. no god would allow people to masquerade as prophets to rape and pillage a primitive people in his name. no BENEVOLENT one, anyway. and no god would let his followers hinder the progress of medicine with regards to such horrible diseases as can be prevented with stem cell research.

I'm done now, NEG away.

Just one point here. I have enjoyed reading the alternating views. However I must point out that I too would not stand back and let someone threaten or harm my family when it was within my power to do so. Also, if in 1944 or so I had the chance to kill Hitler I would have done it in a minute, with a clear conscience and with thanks to God that I had that chance. Same for Stalin. There is a big difference between killing a monster or a madman or even someone who has chosen to do violence over killing an innocent. There is a big difference between defending yourself and your loved ones over seeking out and killing people who you consider might potentially be a threat. This in no way is to say that the Stem Cell Research originally discussed here is the latter. It merely points out that understanding that there are times when lethal force is acceptable and times when it is not should not be confused just for the sake of an argument which happens to involve a disagreement on whether the method is killing or not.

This goes for the "you've killed all their possible progeny" statement too. If someone uses this as an argment it should be pointed out. However, if it is used to try to show that those of us believing abortion is wrong are just out on the edge crazy then it hyperbole which I have never ascribed to.

I would argue that killing a criminal in self defense in no way compares to killing a child. Whether you believe the embryo is a child or not, is alive or not, does not affect my belief that it is (just as my belief does not affect yours I am sure :cool: ).

Also you have mentioned that if one of us were affected you would want to know if we would change our minds? In many cases you may be right. You may even be right in my case but I doubt it. I would certainly want the results of the research but I do not think I would change my attitude on the method. It would be even harder if it were my wife who was affected. Disease is a rampant killer and maimer and when it threatens those you love the desire to attack back is even greater than when it threatens those you don't know. Having lost friends and loved ones to disease I know how it affected me. Again, though, while I hope they can find methods to further the research effectively without violating what I consider to be ethical practices. While I hope the current research is effective beyond our wildest dreams. If they do use what I consider unethical practices then I cannot support those methods.

Wow, I enjoy debating more than I thought. Anyway, back to the subject.


Lets say that you are an embryo. Would you like your life to be taken away for the sake of someone else's? And as for the parasitic organism, you could call an embryo that if it weren't for the fact that it hasn't full matured. And when it does, it's a person! Therefor, its an underdeveloped human.


As for you, mr. x acidreign x , the proud athiest, who the hell do you think put you here? The lady next door?



Silentstalker

Ahhh... Lets try to keep these post civil Silent stalker^_^

People will believe what they want to believe. It's their right to do so.
Lets just keep that in perspective.

Take care

::Chelle::

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by x acidreign x
I am an athiest. Lets say just for the sake of argument that there is a God. And lets say that an embryo is a life. And once again say that creating it for infertile couples is irresponsible. I can see where religious people come from on all of the above issues. Now lets talk about playing god, specifically scientists with regards to embryos. Someone has to. Where is God? Where was he when I was seven and my mom lost her mind and attempted suicide when my dad left her? Where was he when my dad married a bulemic headcase who beat me sensless on a daily basis for 6 years? Where was he when my teachers looked around the bruises bought the shallow excuses? What has he done for me lately? Now I'm not saying he is responsible for this. I dont even beleive he exists. PEOPLE did things to me, and I accept that. Stuff happens. God didn't kill anyone, he doesnt exist. RELIGIOUS people kill people in HIS NAME. How dare you try to compare bodycounts with science, how many lives has religion saved? How many plagues has it ended? how many wounds has it healed? more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reasons, and since you're so up on life prevention being murder, then we can consider all their potential decendants amoung the casualties. now i dont pretend to say that science has never killed anyone or that religion has never saved a life, i am not so ignorant. I know science is not infalible, those who say otherwise are just as dangerous as those who deny science completely. I know religion is not all bad, it certainly has its place. That being said, its place is not science. it offends me to no end when i hear a doctor or other scientist say that some phenomenon "cant be explained by science". There is no such thing. Anything can be explained by science. thats what science is, rules for explaining stuff. there are only things that HAVE NOT YET BEEN explained by science. A scientist who takes the god route is just plain lazy and should be fired. you want scientific evidence there is no god? here it is: RELIGION. religion is the best proof of the nonexistence of god. no god would allow people to masquerade as prophets to rape and pillage a primitive people in his name. no BENEVOLENT one, anyway. and no god would let his followers hinder the progress of medicine with regards to such horrible diseases as can be prevented with stem cell research.

I'm done now, NEG away.

---

Hi,
I am sorry that you have had a hard life. But would you really want a world where God takes away our freedom and makes us into robots who can only do what they are programmed to do? We have freedom to do good or evil. Some people abuse that freedom. That is a plain fact. But God made us with the freedom to choose good or evil. He took that risk because it is important to him that people follow Him and love Him of their own will. Read the first few chapters of the Bible sometime. It tells the story.

Also, it seems you want a God who runs the world the way you want it run. It really doesn't work like that. I'm am sorry for the suffering you have endured. But don't let it drive you away from God. You will never find the joy and peace you desire apart from Him. Many people seem to want a kind of contract with God: "Take care of me and give me what I want, and I will follow you." God doesn't work like that. He wants us to love Him and follow him for who He is, and not what He does for us or what He can give us. The world does not revolve around us; it revolves around God. We will only find the joy we seek in life if we seek our joy in God.

So, back to stem cell research. A "God centered" approach to moral decision making will not allow me to say, "Whatever science wants to do is ok, as long as it has some benefits." Just because something is legal, does not mean it is moral. We (humans beings) and our desires are not the measuring stick of morality. The will of God is. T

Very nicely said, Preacherman. In life we turn to God for many things, and he answers them, many times in a way that as humans we think is not correct. But in the end, God loves us and wants the best for us, but let opinions be opinions.


Silentstalker
[email protected]

The thing I think a lot of you are overlooking is that these embryos aren't growing inside of somebody,they can no longer be used to impregnate a woman because they've been sitting in a freezer for too long.It's a matter of do we throw these embryos in a medical waste container and later burn them or use them for stem cell research.What's really the immoral choice here?What would God really rather us do?Do you think he would rather tham burn or be used to save lives?