Stem Cell Research

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...