Evidence for God from Science

Stem Cell Research!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13864044/

Advanced technology brings difficult moral and ethical decisions.

Any thoughts?

I don't see any problem as long as fetuses are not harvested.

It's a tuff call Bart... Most people are not suffering from a crippling situation so it is easy to say "Well it doesn't really affect me, I vote against it.." I think if more people had some type of life threatening ailment, the view would probably change..

Therefore most people I think would rather take the "safer" approach.

I would agree with FFC, as long as fetuses are not harvested.

Gman wrote:It's a tuff call Bart... Most people are not suffering from a crippling situation so it is easy to say "Well it doesn't really affect me, I vote against it.." I think if more people had some type of life threatening ailment, the view would probably change..

Therefore most people I think would rather take the "safer" approach.

I would agree with FFC, as long as fetuses are not harvested.

It is a tough call.

We're talking however about the use of fertilized eggs.

Where does life begin? Is it consistent to be pro-life in terms of abortion and then to presume different standards in this situation?

Abortion supporters argue in effect that the choice of the mother is a factor in determining society's responsibility to the fetus.

Granted this is earlier in development. Further, it can be argued that these are fertilized eggs that have no future chance of development as the couples involved have already conceived and these were "back-ups" and never intended for viability.

Is the value of human life and the responsibility of society to protect it, dependent upon these introduced exceptions or relative values or is there an absolute value that takes precedence?

Do the ends of advanced medical procedures to provide healing for suffering individuals justify the means of utilizing other individuals (if you accept that life begins at conception) for that purpose and thus possibly providing a strong incentive for the development and production of such "stem cells" for that purpose?

I know that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about utilizing already existing and otherwise to be discarded fertilized eggs. But does an exception here provide a platform for further expansion?

Further, this is already taking place. What is at issue here is the use of federal funds. This process and research is already taking place with private funding legally. So why is Bush making this statement?

Here's another article showing reaction from some in the scientific community.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... news_rss20

What do you guys think? Real issue? Manufactured political statement? Are there real moral implications?

Is there a line here to be drawn?

I think it's a bit hypocritical if you think killing a small cell is in moral and wrong if you still eat meat. Kind of straying of topic but they say that this cell has a soul and killing it for the benefit of other humans is wrong. People kill cows to eat, and I think a cow having a nervous system, brain, heart, and bones are a lot more likely to have a soul then this egg thing. They say it has the potential to be a human being so then killing it's wrong, but pretty much al woman have the potential to have a child and according to their standard not having constant children is wrong. It use to be religion interfering with science (oh you can do math, witch!) then science interfering with religion, (teaching evolution in school) but not this is bringing it back to religion holding back science because the pro-life people think this cell has a soul because 'God' said so. But I don't know much about politics anyway.

Birdie wrote:I think it's a bit hypocritical if you think killing a small cell is in moral and wrong if you still eat meat. Kind of straying of topic but they say that this cell has a soul and killing it for the benefit of other humans is wrong. People kill cows to eat, and I think a cow having a nervous system, brain, heart, and bones are a lot more likely to have a soul then this egg thing. They say it has the potential to be a human being so then killing it's wrong, but pretty much al woman have the potential to have a child and according to their standard not having constant children is wrong. It use to be religion interfering with science (oh you can do math, witch!) then science interfering with religion, (teaching evolution in school) but not this is bringing it back to religion holding back science because the pro-life people think this cell has a soul because 'God' said so. But I don't know much about politics anyway.

Well. Obviously we have some fundamental differences on a few issues.

1. When life begins.
2. The value of human life relative to animal life.

While politics are involved, the issue here is one of morals and ethics and yes, religion.

These issues will grow and become more complex, because the rules of the game are changing and with those changes have to come a re-evaluation of definitions. That is always messy.

The stakes are high.

Canuckster1127 wrote: 1. When life begins.
2. The value of human life relative to animal life.

What does animal life have to do with stem cell research? Are they able to take stem cells from animals and able to relate it to humans?
But with the research I just keep thinking about these scientists, discovering that stem cells can be researched and lead to cure many diseases and then being told that what they are doing cross a moral boundary. I can imagine these scientists just being like “***? So we can never go further into this?” And I can imagine the people with these diseases, looking every day on the scientists web site, eagerly awaiting new developments, and new discoveries. And then to look at the president telling them that these scientists trying cure them is crossing a moral line because this tiny creature MIGHT have feelings or a soul, more of a soul then these people with diseases? What I can't imagine is being a little 10-cell person.

Birdie wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: 1. When life begins.
2. The value of human life relative to animal life.

What does animal life have to do with stem cell research? Are they able to take stem cells from animals and able to relate it to humans?
But with the research I just keep thinking about these scientists, discovering that stem cells can be researched and lead to cure many diseases and then being told that what they are doing cross a moral boundary. I can imagine these scientists just being like “***? So we can never go further into this?” And I can imagine the people with these diseases, looking every day on the scientists web site, eagerly awaiting new developments, and new discoveries. And then to look at the president telling them that these scientists trying cure them is crossing a moral line because this tiny creature MIGHT have feelings or a soul, more of a soul then these people with diseases? What I can't imagine is being a little 10-cell person.

Birdie,

I was responding to your comments with regard to the equating of human life with animal life, so maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

In terms of stem cell research. Don't imagine it is not happening.

Check this out. http://www.medra.com/

Do you se anything wrong with this?

The cells used now for research are fertilized eggs from couple doing artificial insemination and conception that are "left over."

Imagine, labratories set up to create embryos for the purpose of stem cel harvesting.

Imagine later advances that allow for the development of clones not brought to mental awareness and used to harvest organs for people who now currently wait for donors.

See any problems?

Where would you draw the line and why?

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Imagine later advances that allow for the development of clones not brought to mental awareness and used to harvest organs for people who now currently wait for donors.

See any problems?

Where would you draw the line and why?

Bart

So what now I want to kill off clones? And you are saying the ones used now are leftover ones? And then they start making them only for the purpose of killing them. THEN they start killing clones. Well I'll decide what I think about that when they do start killing clones. And can't watch the video right now, I'll try watch it later. Thanks for the link.

Birdie wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Imagine later advances that allow for the development of clones not brought to mental awareness and used to harvest organs for people who now currently wait for donors.

See any problems?

Where would you draw the line and why?

Bart

So what now I want to kill off clones? And you are saying the ones used now are leftover ones? And then they start making them only for the purpose of killing them. THEN they start killing clones. Well I'll decide what I think about that when they do start killing clones. And can't watch the video right now, I'll try watch it later. Thanks for the link.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

I'm just trying to illustrate, in an overstated way that it is not a limited issue.

As technology advances and man's abilities in this area increase, you have to ask about the ethics and morals of doing something, just because you can.

I can see organ harvesting in the future. I may be off on the methodology. They may be able to take stem cells from a fetus and then develop an organ independent of any further growing of a human body.

Don't get hung up on my illustration so much as the main point I'm trying to make.

When does live begin?

When does moral responsibility to respect human life override any potential benefit that might be gained by other humans?

This is not new. It has been an issue that has grown and become more thorny in the last century with things like eugenics. birth control, abortion and now the implications are expanding as technology advances.

It is a problem that is not going to go away.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Birdie wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Imagine later advances that allow for the development of clones not brought to mental awareness and used to harvest organs for people who now currently wait for donors.

See any problems?

Where would you draw the line and why?

Bart

So what now I want to kill off clones? And you are saying the ones used now are leftover ones? And then they start making them only for the purpose of killing them. THEN they start killing clones. Well I'll decide what I think about that when they do start killing clones. And can't watch the video right now, I'll try watch it later. Thanks for the link.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

I'm just trying to illustrate, in an overstated way that it is not a limited issue.

As technology advances and man's abilities in this area increase, you have to ask about the ethics and morals of doing something, just because you can.

I can see organ harvesting in the future. I may be off on the methodology. They may be able to take stem cells from a fetus and then develop an organ independent of any further growing of a human body.

Don't get hung up on my illustration so much as the main point I'm trying to make.

When does live begin?

When does moral responsibility to respect human life override any potential benefit that might be gained by other humans?

This is not new. It has been an issue that has grown and become more thorny in the last century with things like eugenics. birth control, abortion and now the implications are expanding as technology advances.

It is a problem that is not going to go away.

I see what your saying and I agree, like your saying as the world moves on morals steady start becoming looser and looser so gradually that most people will agree with the killing of clones. And then the clones all suddenly have a human mind and they all start attacking us and it's the end of the world! It could happen… Like 100 years ago wearing mini skirts would be disgraceful and then they got shorter and tighter as the years go on, as so now it's acceptable. Don't get me wrong I like mini skirts (not the tight ones), very comfy… Anyway I am against abortion unless the person isn't fit to give birth and will more and likely die, she shouldn't have to be forced to try and give birth even thought she should have been careful in the first place lol. Beside she could put the baby up for adoption afterwards. Also I don't know when life begins, for sure, and I don't think you do either, for sure.

Birdie wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Birdie wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Imagine later advances that allow for the development of clones not brought to mental awareness and used to harvest organs for people who now currently wait for donors.

See any problems?

Where would you draw the line and why?

Bart

So what now I want to kill off clones? And you are saying the ones used now are leftover ones? And then they start making them only for the purpose of killing them. THEN they start killing clones. Well I'll decide what I think about that when they do start killing clones. And can't watch the video right now, I'll try watch it later. Thanks for the link.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

I'm just trying to illustrate, in an overstated way that it is not a limited issue.

As technology advances and man's abilities in this area increase, you have to ask about the ethics and morals of doing something, just because you can.

I can see organ harvesting in the future. I may be off on the methodology. They may be able to take stem cells from a fetus and then develop an organ independent of any further growing of a human body.

Don't get hung up on my illustration so much as the main point I'm trying to make.

When does live begin?

When does moral responsibility to respect human life override any potential benefit that might be gained by other humans?

This is not new. It has been an issue that has grown and become more thorny in the last century with things like eugenics. birth control, abortion and now the implications are expanding as technology advances.

It is a problem that is not going to go away.

I see what your saying and I agree, like your saying as the world moves on morals steady start becoming looser and looser so gradually that most people will agree with the killing of clones. And then the clones all suddenly have a human mind and they all start attacking us and it's the end of the world! It could happen… Like 100 years ago wearing mini skirts would be disgraceful and then they got shorter and tighter as the years go on, as so now it's acceptable. Don't get me wrong I like mini skirts (not the tight ones), very comfy… Anyway I am against abortion unless the person isn't fit to give birth and will more and likely die, she shouldn't have to be forced to try and give birth even thought she should have been careful in the first place lol. Beside she could put the baby up for adoption afterwards. Also I don't know when life begins, for sure, and I don't think you do either, for sure.

I know who does know when life begins. He made it in the first place.

He has some things to say about it in the Bible.

In the absence of any source of reference and values rooted in absolutes I shudder to think what may be in store.

Any stem-cell research would need to be bound up in tight legislation to ensure that it never went beyond using the throwaway leftovers. But how do you do that?

On the surface, it sounds as though the benefits far outweigh the potential danger, but in such a question extreme caution is needed.

If all this sounds as if I haven't fully made up my mind, you are correct.

As for when a new human life begins, that's easy. It begins at the moment of conception.

Hmmm... Why is it that every scenario given by anti-embryonic stem cell research supporters is a dystopian scenario, while every scenario given by pro-embryonic stem cell research supporters is a utopian scenario? Clearly there's a misunderstanding within ONE of these groups... no? Is it that the former doesn't understand correctly the physiology and specifics involved, along with the potential gains? Or is it the latter whom, in their excitement, overestimate the potential therapeutic gains and ignore the "dangers"?

Could there be confusion by antagonists about the projected research goals? Could there be a misunderstanding about how this research would be appropriated?

These embryos, that everyone are talking about, are no larger than the tip of a pencil, barely visible to the naked eye (50-150 cells). They've been frozen for almost 10 years because they were kept incase the male donor becomes infertile (etc.) and used via IVF. By his actions, President Bush has OK'd the destruction of these 400,000 tiny little blastocytes... err... potential humans... but that's good... right? As long as they aren't used for research purposes?

It's a paradox, I know.