Stem Cell Research - Where should atheists draw the line?

Simon.d

Many seem very quick to point out that theists are holding back the advancement of stem cell research, as per the quoted text below. This is a very common perspective, and was commonly aired during Bush's presidency..

Rb wrote: »

Hopefully Christianity and its retarded interference in things such as stem cell research disappears in that time though, as unfortunately that overgrown, delusional cult is holding back the true potential of science in some important parts of the world.

Do the ethical concerns of embryonic stem cell research and the like transcend religion?..

What about human cloning? Designer babies? As atheists where do we draw the line? Or do we draw any line?

Handsome Bob

Simon.d wrote: »

Many seem very quick to point out that theists are holding back the advancement of stem cell research, as per the quoted text below. This is a very common perspective, and was commonly aired during Bush's presidency..



Do the ethical concerns of embryonic stem cell research and the like transcend religion?..

What about human cloning? Designer babies? As atheists where do we draw the line? Or do we draw any line?

I imagine if Designer Babies ever did become the "norm" that it would be quite expensive, so it would only be the "norm" for those who could afford it. I don't think we need anymore reasons in this World for certain groups to try and exert their perceived supremacy over other groups. I basically see Designer Babies as just stratifying our society even more.

That is where I draw the line.

Simon.d

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I basically see Designer Babies as just stratifying our society even more.

That is where I draw the line.

Designer babies are already a reality to some degree, i.e. many are selecting "disease free" embryo's to be implanted for pregnancy, rather than opting for a more natural conception.. I don't think money would be an issue in such instances, as the state would have a vested interest regarding future health costs and productivity concerns to filter out diseased phenotypes from our population..

CDfm

Its a bit like abortion really.The definition is dependent on the origan of the cells. Im not trying to start an abortion debate and wont go there.

If one looks at a foetus as a clump of cells or a biologal mishap then its easy to make the jump that its raw material for medical research.

But if on the other hand you look at stem cell research using cells harvested from other sources.

The other issue is that its fairly speculative what stem cell research can achieve in terms of delivering cures. The debate seems to be about the sources of cells to evaluate its potential. Surely if its so contentuous it would become a non-issue of this theoretical part was tested on animals first.

Im a Christian BTW - but ethically it is a challenging issue but aborted foetuses seem to be the no go area. Are there other sources?

Zamboni

Simon.d wrote: »

As atheists where do we draw the line? Or do we draw any line?

I would think that is not up to Atheists to draw a line at all.
We democratically elect governments that in turn create/amend legislation concerning such issues. So its is up to the society and their elected representitives to draw the line.

mjg

As far as I'm concerned when it comes to Stem Cell research (and many other moral and ethical issues), non-theists have a greater range of options for their moral positions than theists who, in the majority of cases, are influenced (to say the least) by the line of their church or belief system.

Because atheists consider their position from a more uncoloured personal basis I don't think that you can group atheist opinions on these kind of moral issues as easily as you can for theists.

I am an atheist, BTW, and I am still unsure as to where I draw the line on this issue. I'm happy however that I am free to use my own discretion, reasoning and moral compass to reach a decision without an outside influence.

Handsome Bob

Simon.d wrote: »

Designer babies are already a reality to some degree, i.e. many are selecting "disease free" embryo's to be implanted for pregnancy, rather than opting for a more natural conception.. I don't think money would be an issue in such instances, as the state would have a vested interest regarding future health costs and productivity concerns to filter out diseased phenotypes from our population..

I have little issue with stem cells being used to cure people of disease. What I was talking about though is people having designer babies in the sense that they want the perfect child athlete with perfect physical attributes. I can't imagine the government fitting the bill for something like that so what we end up with is people who are well-financed availing of these "perks". Hitler would be proud (joke people, don't go mental).:pac:

CDfm

Zamboni wrote: »

I would think that is not up to Atheists to draw a line at all.
We democratically elect governments that in turn create/amend legislation concerning such issues. So its is up to the society and their elected representitives to draw the line.

Individuals elect governments. Atheists is not a collective known as a group with a shared idioligy.

So where so with the lack of a defintion -surely it would be helpful to draw the lines of objections that Christans have and which ones you agree and disagree on.

I know a lot of pro-choice atheists who are against late term abortions over 12 and 16 weeks. I dont agree that we delegate decisions to governments but are part of the process- as some said Hitler was the government in Germanym-so that argument is a cop out.

Zamboni

CDfm wrote: »

Individuals elect governments. Atheists is not a collective known as a group with a shared idioligy.

I meant we as in people in a society, not we as in Atheists.

toiletduck

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I basically see Designer Babies as just stratifying our society even more.

That is where I draw the line.

Well what you define as a 'designer baby'? Would this count?

CDfm

Zamboni wrote: »

I meant we as in people in a society, not we as in Atheists.

Im not an atheist but confused by both camps - I am not scienfically minded enough to drill down the issues on my own. THe partisans on both sides of the debate confuse me and its not as simple as people make out.

I would prefer to see arguments presented as factually, ethically and probably religously too.Instead I get dogma.

So I cant take a view as I get confused by the rhetoric -so what do you support then but the status quo and err on the side of caution.

It seems to me that pro and anti camps are more interested in arguing with one another then in presenting the facts- so we can make decisions.ie the argument is their raison d'etre and by reaching a resolution the reason for them would disappear.

WE cant agree cos we dont understand the issues.

5uspect

Godwin's law by teh 8th post :pac:
Hitler abolished German democracy once he got his hands on power removing the systems Zamboni refers to.

Hey Simon, how's tricks?

Since the whole abortion thing has cropped up I would start by saying that I'm undecided regarding terminations for purely lifestyle reasons. If social taboos about unwanted pregnancy could be broken then adoption would be a better option for many.
Of course its easy for a guy to say that...
Ultimately I would consider such a thing to be a course of last resort.

One advantage, perhaps, of the opposition to stem cell research has the discovery of less viable cells through more passive methods.

So where to draw the line?

I don't think such a thing can be possible. Any line is determined by current social norms. If we draw the line at say, disease screening, in a generation or two where the majority are genetically screened then the line may well shift to other "defects".
A sort of positive feedback loop I guess.

GothPunk

CDfm wrote: »

It seems to me that pro and anti camps are more interested in arguing with one another then in presenting the facts- so we can make decisions.ie the argument is their raison d'etre and by reaching a resolution the reason for them would disappear.

WE cant agree cos we dont understand the issues.

I think that the facts of new biological technology have indeed been ignored when the subject of stem cells comes up. I've read and heard religious arguments that were basic emotional blackmail and did not focus on the facts of the matter at all. I've even spoken to people who thought that you actually had to kill babies (as in full term born into the outside world humans) to harvest stem cells. I do often think that as a molecular biologist myself that I have a bias for medicinal science to progress and perhaps that means that I ignore some of the more 'subjective' arguments in favour of arguments based purely on facts. Sometimes I find it hard to understand why people care so much about a clump of cells - perhaps I must question myself and wonder am I right to consider them a 'clump of cells'?

I do think that outside of religious influence, that if people were presented with the facts and the steps of the process were described, that more people would be able to understand why stem cell research could be a good thing. Concepts like the eternal 'soul', comforting to some and childish as they may be, do medicine no favours and confuse the facts.

In the present climate, there is a lot of misinformation on the subject. If everyone was presented with the facts and still came to the decision that stem cell research should be illegal, I would accept that, as it would be an informed decision instead of a reactionary one.

As for designer babies, I don't quite see what the problem is with 'designing' babies to be free from genetic abnormalities related to development, by which I mean Spina Bifida or conditions like Epidermolysis Bullosa. I don't have a problem with screening embryos to be free of conditions such as these either, but screening for blue eyes and athletic potential would be where I draw the line.

However, I don't know if I trust humans with the technology. Is it a slippery slope we shouldn't risk taking? Where exactly would we draw the line that describes 'genetic abnormalities relating to development'? Edit: 5uspect you nailed it, a positive feedback loop involving 'defects'.

Simon.d

5uspect wrote: »

Hey Simon, how's tricks?

Well Boy!

5uspect wrote: »

So where to draw the line?

I don't think such a thing can be possible. Any line is determined by current social norms.

I suppose that's what I'm getting at.. Atheistic ethics seem to be missing an anchor.. The religious have their books, and although the interpretation of the books tends to differ (quite significantly) from one generation to the next, they seem to act as some kind of moral foundation.

Stem cells aside, would an atheistic society run the risk of losing the moral outlook many of us (atheists included) hold dear? Does the very fabric of our society depend on this moral foundation?

CDfm

GothPunk wrote: »

I do think that outside of religious influence, that if people were presented with the facts and the steps of the process were described, that more people would be able to understand why stem cell research could be a good thing. Concepts like the eternal 'soul', comforting to some and childish as they may be, do medicine no favours and confuse the facts.

In the present climate, there is a lot of misinformation on the subject. If everyone was presented with the facts and still came to the decision that stem cell research should be illegal, I would accept that, as it would be an informed decision instead of a reactionary one.

a bit harsh im catholic and i dont have a view on stem search research.the only thing i heard about it was on newstalk and a guy discussing dental implant technoligy.i cant wait for that.

so how can eternal soul interfere with stem cell research. there are objections to genetically modified food that are far more vocal then stem search objectors.so i imagine its that christians are being labelled the main objectors when in fact there are others.i dont know enough on this to comment but it would seem so.

So are the GM style objectors involved too just allied with the christian right or what?

CDfm

Simon.d wrote: »

Well Boy!



I suppose that's what I'm getting at.. Atheistic ethics seem to be missing an anchor.. The religious have their books, and although the interpretation of the books tends to differ (quite significantly) from one generation to the next, they seem to act as some kind of moral foundation.

Stem cells aside, would an atheistic society run the risk of losing the moral outlook many of us (atheists included) hold dear? Does the very fabric of our society depend on this moral foundation?

Ya need us Christians:)

MatthewVII

Simon.d wrote: »

I suppose that's what I'm getting at.. Atheistic ethics seem to be missing an anchor.. The religious have their books, and although the interpretation of the books tends to differ (quite significantly) from one generation to the next, they seem to act as some kind of moral foundation.

Stem cells aside, would an atheistic society run the risk of losing the moral outlook many of us (atheists included) hold dear? Does the very fabric of our society depend on this moral foundation?

I think I'd look at the word "anchor" in a different way, not as a stabiliser but more of a dragging weight preventing people from progressing. I reckon the lack of a uniform moral guideline is what makes atheism capable of the greatest morality, able to decide by common sense what is right and what is not. Adherence to moral guidelines can only get you so far, particularly when many of those are vague.

The inner moral compass is a much better guide of what is right than any book, and to my mind it seems that atheists are more willing to listen to it.

With regard to stem cells, I think that stem cell treatment is an amazing step forward and I am eager to see their use become more widespread. I saw a little girl in one of the Dublin Children's Hospitals who had extremely bad cerebral palsy and was making excellent progress on stem cell infusions from abroad. Clearly they are a useful tool for alleviating suffering, much like antibiotics, biologic monoclonal antibodies etc.

Turning to the other issue of genetic selection, I think again that this has led to an improved outlook for parents, with IVF, preimplantation diagnosis, CVS etc making a big impact on their personal lives and the burden of care on the health service (I'm sure this will become more apparent as the years pass). As for abuse by the rich, our knowledge of genetics is as of yet primitive and we have a long way to go before we can confidently isolate the multitude of genes responsible for multifactorial variables like intelligence and strength. If a parent wants their child to be the best they can be, I can totally understand that. I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with that, and I don't think it would cause massive dysfunction of society, as I imagine that the class of people who would be able to afford such expensive manipulation (assuming it is expensive, over time it might cheapen up a bit) are usually stratified above those who can't afford it anyway, so I don't think it would cause a sort of dystopian society dominated by a "master race".

What I would dislike about the "designer baby" argument is the creation of a lower tier of society which feels embittered towards their parents that they weren't positively manipulated. But then again, many lower socioeconomic groups have disdain for the upper groups anyway because of the advantages they were born with.

In any case, genetics is only part of what goes into defining your characteristics such as intelligence, height etc. Parents merely changing hair colour and other simple, superficial things doesn't seem like so big a deal.

fitz0

Simon.d wrote: »

I suppose that's what I'm getting at.. Atheistic ethics seem to be missing an anchor.. The religious have their books, and although the interpretation of the books tends to differ (quite significantly) from one generation to the next, they seem to act as some kind of moral foundation.

Stem cells aside, would an atheistic society run the risk of losing the moral outlook many of us (atheists included) hold dear? Does the very fabric of our society depend on this moral foundation?

In fairness the "moral anchor" of Christians is fairly indifferent to children and AFAIK does not really stipulate much as regards the unborn (or does it? Feel free to correct me I know you will) Has the "atheists have no moral compass" thing not been done to death? Are you saying we need the religious to keep our morals clear? And if interpretation differs from one generation to the next then its a pretty flimsy moral foundation isnt it?

CDfm

fitz0 wrote: »

In fairness the "moral anchor" of Christians is fairly indifferent to children and AFAIK does not really stipulate much as regards the unborn (or does it? Feel free to correct me I know you will) Has the "atheists have no moral compass" thing not been done to death? Are you saying we need the religious to keep our morals clear? And if interpretation differs from one generation to the next then its a pretty flimsy moral foundation isnt it?

It kind of does. And in fairness I have found some atheist discussions on morals and ethics difficult but they are not too different to catholic discussions TBH- but you could be forgiven for thinking differently with the rhetoric that goes around. The humanist stuff to me is naff.

Its when say scientists complain that they are held back by church teaching etc that I worry. Ethics and philosophy develop over time and if you were looking to politicans to provide higher thought Jackie Healy Ray would have published his reflections on "Aristotle and Potholes in Kerry"

I imagine some find the development of thought on these issues painfully slow.

Húrin

mjg wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned when it comes to Stem Cell research (and many other moral and ethical issues), non-theists have a greater range of options for their moral positions than theists who, in the majority of cases, are influenced (to say the least) by the line of their church or belief system.

Because atheists consider their position from a more uncoloured personal basis I don't think that you can group atheist opinions on these kind of moral issues as easily as you can for theists.

Atheists are as coloured by their culture as anyone else. Ideologies such as naturalism and humanism somewhat limit the "range of options for their moral positions". Now, I don't think that having a huge range of options for moral positions is a good thing in itself. It just pointlessly allows for a greater choice of wrong positions.

I am an atheist

What a surprise!

Simon.d wrote: »

Stem cells aside, would an atheistic society run the risk of losing the moral outlook many of us (atheists included) hold dear? Does the very fabric of our society depend on this moral foundation?

Ask Neitzsche.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

I think I'd look at the word "anchor" in a different way, not as a stabiliser but more of a dragging weight preventing people from progressing. I reckon the lack of a uniform moral guideline is what makes atheism capable of the greatest morality, able to decide by common sense what is right and what is not.

This also makes atheism capable of the greatest immorality. (though using these terms without a universal moral guideline is problematic)

What atheist moral system advocates ignoring the urge to seek revenge for wrongs? It is an urge that most people think nothing wrong of obeying.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

This also makes atheism capable of the greatest immorality. (though using these terms without a universal moral guideline is problematic)

What atheist moral system advocates ignoring the urge to seek revenge for wrongs? It is an urge that most people think nothing wrong of obeying.

Leviticus is well up for revenge - "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured"

I somewhat agree with you that atheists can be capable of 'flexible' morals. However I also believe that Christians can find scripture or twist scripture to justify their actions. However, when it comes to certain points (such as homosexuality), atheists have no obligations to a code so they can think about things objectively.

Handsome Bob

toiletduck wrote: »

Well what you define as a 'designer baby'? Would this count?

I'll have to refer you to post #7 for your answer to that.

pH

These things are like genies, once out of the bottle they're hard to get back in. Obviously like most people I'd be against any of this being forced on people (You must have a designer baby) but given the world we're in isn't it now a moot point?

For those "against" these sort of things how far are you prepared to go to stop them happening? War and mass murder?

Even if you look at the current "abortion debate", on which very strong feelings are held, a "no" country hasn't invaded a "yes" country to stop them doing it, nor have they really enforced sanctions or tried to isolate them politically. So what happens then if some countries allow these technologies and benefit greatly from them?

You're now in the bizarre situation where you admit that you don't mind some (say the Swedes) other people doing it, but other humans who happen to live on the same geographical patch as you, no they can't? Or are you going to go all out and stop other countries from using any of this tech? Worldwide cloning wars?

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

What atheist moral system advocates ignoring the urge to seek revenge for wrongs? It is an urge that most people think nothing wrong of obeying.

I'm not sure why you're referencing a bunch of teens and students in AH with your revenge scenario. The fact is there is no atheist moral system to advocate either killing child traffickers or not, in the same way there is none to advocate discriminating against gays or not.

Have you seen "Taken", btw?

studiorat

I was going to start a thread on a similar topic but I'll stick it here if I may...

I'm currently planning a clone of my-self to act as my own personal slave and as an organ donor for my old age. He will be just like me in every way except for a bit of a limp so he can't escape.

Any ethical advice from christians and athiests alike would be greatly appreciated...

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

I was going to start a thread on a similar topic but I'll stick it here if I may...

I'm currently planning a clone of my-self to act as my own personal slave and as an organ donor for my old age. He will be just like me in every way except for a bit of a limp so he can't escape.

Any ethical advice from christians and athiests alike would be greatly appreciated...

Keep the clone away from Guinness and large Powers

And how do you know the clone would cooperate?

Dades

studiorat wrote: »

Any ethical advice from christians and athiests alike would be greatly appreciated...

Don't give him access to your boards.ie account or he might post crap under your name.

Unless of course that's already happened.

toiletduck

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'll have to refer you to post #7 for your answer to that.

So I'll take it as a yes.

That's pretty easy to say, but imagine the benefits of such a move. It's a horrible gene and I was glad when I saw that news report. Now I dunno whether your objection is one of "slippy-slope-ism" or you think it's wrong in and of itself, but to people who have it the chance to spare their kids of it must be a wonderous thing.

GothPunk

CDfm wrote: »

a bit harsh im catholic and i dont have a view on stem search research.the only thing i heard about it was on newstalk and a guy discussing dental implant technoligy.i cant wait for that.

so how can eternal soul interfere with stem cell research. there are objections to genetically modified food that are far more vocal then stem search objectors.so i imagine its that christians are being labelled the main objectors when in fact there are others.i dont know enough on this to comment but it would seem so.

So are the GM style objectors involved too just allied with the christian right or what?

You must realise that my posts are written in very general prose and therefore will not apply to all religious folk. As I was replying to a post about people at either extreme of the argument about stem cell research I'm sure you can appreciate that I was talking about the religious who speak out against stem cell research without any understanding of the facts.

If you don't see how the concept of an eternal soul does not enter into religious arguments about stem cell research I suggest you read up on the opposition to stem cell research by the religious right in the U.S.

If people believe that a small clump of human stem cells has a 'soul', a 'potential for life' and are part of a gods great 'plan' of course that is going to influence their argument and therefore lead to opposition to stem cell research. This is an example of what people mean when they talk about the religious holding up the progress of medicine. In the broad sense it comes down to the religious who speak in absolutes - the cells are a 'life' in their eyes and there is no grey area.

You apparently don't have an opinion on stem cell research so of course what I'm saying in no way applies to you.

Handsome Bob

toiletduck wrote: »

So I'll take it as a yes.

That's pretty easy to say, but imagine the benefits of such a move. It's a horrible gene and I was glad when I saw that news report. Now I dunno whether your objection is one of "slippy-slope-ism" or you think it's wrong in and of itself, but to people who have it the chance to spare their kids of it must be a wonderous thing.

Oh I agree, my godmother died from cancer so anything that can eradicate these type of genes is welcomed by me. I'm wholeheartedly against the use of stem cells.

On the one side we have stem cell research that could eventually lead to diseases being cured, that's healthcare I would imagine that is universally available. The people would demand that expense is not involved in eradicating such diseases as cancer. On the other side of the coin however, we have stem cell research that is not so much about ensuring a healthy baby is born, but that a physically (on the outside) baby can be born. A baby that parents want to be sensational looking, to be a super athlete, to have a highly impressive IQ etc etc. My concern is whether that aspect of stem cell research would be as freely available is the health aspect of stem cell research would be. It leads to believe that only the elite, only the well financed, will be able to have these "perks". Eventually what will we have? A Super-race? Yet another division and notion of superiority in our society?

Simon.d

toiletduck wrote: »

So I'll take it as a yes.

That's pretty easy to say, but imagine the benefits of such a move. It's a horrible gene and I was glad when I saw that news report. Now I dunno whether your objection is one of "slippy-slope-ism" or you think it's wrong in and of itself, but to people who have it the chance to spare their kids of it must be a wonderous thing.

Why glad? If such a screening process was in place 50 years ago that child's mother would have been "screened", and wouldn't have been allowed to exist.. Plenty of people suffer from horrendous diseases, but would they prefer that their embryos were tossed in the bin and never given a chance at life? Would they prefer that they never existed?

Breast cancer is a treatable condition, and in 30 years time when that child is at risk of developing the disease, I'd predict that with new and improved therapies it would prove little more than an inconvenience...

Though saying that, there probably are genetic conditions that justify such a screening process... i.e. conditions where actual sufferers of the disease wish they never existed.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Oh I agree, my godmother died from cancer so anything that can eradicate these type of genes is welcomed by me.

"Anything" is a strong word.. Such a screening could have meant your Godmother's embryo was discarded...

Handsome Bob

Simon.d wrote: »

"Anything" is a strong word.. Such a screening could have meant your Godmother's embryo was discarded...

I'm not following you. Could you elaborate?

CDfm

GothPunk wrote: »

You must realise that my posts are written in very general prose and therefore will not apply to all religious folk.

This is an example of what people mean when they talk about the religious holding up the progress of medicine. In the broad sense it comes down to the religious who speak in absolutes - the cells are a 'life' in their eyes and there is no grey area.

You apparently don't have an opinion on stem cell research so of course what I'm saying in no way applies to you.

I actually do have an opinion and I do think the idea of reclaiming stem cells from aborted foetii and giving it a positive spin is antagonistic and creates a moral dilemma.It opens up the abortion debate-which we all know is polarised anyway.There is potential when you look at stemcells from other sources. But I know very little about this- but surely the ethics are similar to those of transplants.

What I do like about proper atheist debates on these issues- is that just sometimes there are scientists there who will explain the facts rather then religous/scientific debates where you get bogus positions based on dubious science. Funny that you get the former and not the latter on boards.

So on the technology -I have no problem except for the usual about the sources for harvesting cells. I have no problem with it ethically as its similar to transplants. Like others I have "Frankenstein" fears about what might be grown in the lab.

If an argument is empirical then the facts will out rather then sprculative. OMG Im sounding like an ...........

toiletduck

Simon.d wrote: »

Why glad? If such a screening process was in place 50 years ago that child's mother would have been "screened", and wouldn't have been allowed to exist.. Plenty of people suffer from horrendous diseases, but would they prefer that their embryos were tossed in the bin and never given a chance at life? Would they prefer that they never existed?

That's not fair and is changing the goalposts tbh. It's the equivalent of arguing with someone not to wear a condom because if their parents had done so on a special night... And I'm speaking from first hand experience when I say that people were glad to see such a screening taking place.

Breast cancer is a treatable condition, and in 30 years time when that child is at risk of developing the disease, I'd predict that with new and improved therapies it would prove little more than an inconvenience...

It greatly increases the chance of ovarian cancer, as well as prostate cancer in men.

GothPunk

CDfm wrote: »

I actually do have an opinion and I do think the idea of reclaiming stem cells from aborted foetii and giving it a positive spin is antagonistic and creates a moral dilemma.It opens up the abortion debate-which we all know is polarised anyway.There is potential when you look at stemcells from other sources. But I know very little about this- but surely the ethics are similar to those of transplants.

CDfm wrote: »

a bit harsh im catholic and i dont have a view on stem search research.

I meant no offence, I just thought that you freely admitted to not having an opinion about it.

Your post illustrates a great point though - clearly a lot of people don't know where stem cells come from. I'm fairly certain that the most common source for stem cells is unused embryos created for use in in vitro fertilisation, not from aborted foetii. (I don't have a reference for this but if pushed I'll have a look into it).

(As an aside: People are going to be having clinical abortions whether we like it or not; surely harvesting stem cells from aborted foetii is better then just throwing them away? If the mother allows it then who are we to stop the practice?)

Then we have adult stem cells. A lot of money is being spent on the potential use of adult stem cells, but I must stress that (perhaps all) adult stem cells have already differentiated to some degree (i.e. have undergone some change on the way to becoming a specific cell type) and therefore there will always be a focus on embryonic stem cells as we know for certain that they are undifferentiated. (I remember reading about adult stem cells found in nose tissue that could potentially be reverted back into a state like an embryonic stem cell, so it is possible that back doors to stem cell research may be created in this way.) Although they have their disadvantages, the use of adult stem cells would surely bypass all ethical concerns so that is one reason why they remain a focus for research.

Remember that cell biology is not like maths - biological systems have so many variables at play that it is hard for anyone to say for definite that adult stem cells will be viable options for medical use. That doesn't stop us from at least trying though! It is quite likely however that we will never be able to generate stem cells from any adult tissue.

CDfm

GothPunk wrote: »

I meant no offence, I just thought that you freely admitted to not having an opinion about it.

Your post illustrates a great point though - clearly a lot of people don't know where stem cells come from. I'm fairly certain that the most common source for stem cells is unused embryos created for use in in vitro fertilisation,

I didnt have an opinion - but I had a go- just throwing in my 10 cents to the debate.

No apology needed -but thanks.

With this kind of stuff I am wary of is material that interest groups produce as it has an inherent bias - and it goes down to the lowest common denominator.

I never thought of unused embryo's as the sourse of the stem cells. I wonder if they are. There are stem cells from other sources -can you get them from umimbillical chords. When you have them in labs can you grow them and get other cells?

mickeydevine

Has there ever been a line drawn that isn't crossed at some point. Its called progress. I'd like to see a designer super baby, he could clean his own arse. Yipee.

Simon.d

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm not following you. Could you elaborate?

The ethical concerns in this technology are somewhat similar to those involved in harvesting embryonic stems cells.. The genomes of a range of embryo's are tested, and those that contain the cancer causing genes are discarded (or potentially redirected to embryonic stem cell research), and those that don't are implanted in the womb. Assuming your godmother carried such a gene, and she was concieved in this manner her embryo could have been discarded/destroyed..

toiletduck wrote: »

That's not fair and is changing the goalposts tbh. It's the equivalent of arguing with someone not to wear a condom because if their parents had done so on a special night... And I'm speaking from first hand experience when I say that people were glad to see such a screening taking place.

Well that depends on your personal perspective of an embryo.. But I do get your point, and that embryo's as they stand are not people, and not that far beyond other simple organisms like protozoa in complexity, which our crazed mothers armed with your namesake regularly kill in their millions..

But I do think my point was fair.. and people suffering from similar illness' are quite happy to have had a chance at life, and wouldn't wish that it was their genotype marked as unacceptable for living..

GothPunk

CDfm wrote: »

I never thought of unused embryo's as the sourse of the stem cells. I wonder if they are. There are stem cells from other sources -can you get them from umimbillical chords. When you have them in labs can you grow them and get other cells?

Yeah at the moment the only sources for stem cells are unused embryos created for in vitro fertilisation or aborted foetii - as in there are labs around the world using stem cells from either source in current research. Research regarding stem cells originating from umbilical cord or adult tissues is still in its infancy so I guess time will tell whether we can ever obtain stem cells from sources outside of unused/aborted embryos. There is a lot of money being pumped into adult stem cell research in the U.S. so it could be sooner rather than later that we find out what is possible.

You have about 210 different types of cell in your body, which we refer to as differentiated cells. Stem cells are undifferentiated and therefore could be used to create any cell type or simple tissue in the lab, which can then be applied to clinical use - like attempting to heal a severed spinal cord. To be a bit more specific - every cell in your body contains the same genome (your genetic blueprint), but every cell is different because different genes are turned on and expressed or turned off and silent depending on the cell type. Stem cells are special though because they don't have these different levels of gene expression, but if we give them the right push we can turn them into whatever cell type we want in the lab.

Stem cells are important because not only can we put them to clinical use but we can also try to find out what the exact difference is between a stem cell and a differentiated cell. This is important as the more we understand about gene expression patterns the better we can design drugs and treatments to treat disease. It will also help us to understand certain cancers better.

CDfm

GothPunk wrote: »

Stem cells are important because not only can we put them to clinical use but we can also try to find out what the exact difference is between a stem cell and a differentiated cell. This is important as the more we understand about gene expression patterns the better we can design drugs and treatments to treat disease. It will also help us to understand certain cancers better.

Thats really interesting and I imagine you will get some hits for that. I find these areas difficult because they are beyond my comprehension but I dont like to be fed selected info and manipulated.

Its good that there is constructive investment in alternative sourses. I know Im going to upset vegetarians but I would prefer tests on chimps to drive this forward.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Leviticus is well up for revenge - "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured"

The author of Leviticus was not a Christian.

I somewhat agree with you that atheists can be capable of 'flexible' morals. However I also believe that Christians can find scripture or twist scripture to justify their actions. However, when it comes to certain points (such as homosexuality), atheists have no obligations to a code so they can think about things objectively.

There is a limit to the possible number of reasonable interpretations of scripture - this indeed being the basis of your point. This means that Christians are bound by the morals in scripture, both those that you like and those that you don't. "Twisting" is not interpretation at all, but abusive lying.

I don't see why homosexuality need be singled out as an issue. True, atheists have no obligation to a religious code to take a particular stance on it, whatever about their obligations to other codes.

Atheists have no obligation to think that homosexuality is wrong, but they also have no obligation to think that forgiving other people or helping other people beyond the requirements of self-interest is right and good.

I find this notion that being an atheist frees one from all cultural influences so that one can think about things objectively to be an odd one. To me objective thought would require a total view of everything, and no emotional bias. Which seems to be beyond humans on both counts.

bnt

Unless you have a global consensus against stem cell research, how would you stop it? Ban it in the USA, research and trials will happen in Mexico or Honduras. Ban it in the whole of the EU, it will happen in Switzerland, or Russia, or Japan. You aren't going to stop it: you might be able to manage it, if you stay on top of the research.

Oh, in case anyone's wondering whether stem cells will ever be good for anything, try reversing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis.

lostexpectation

atheist don't draw lines as a group

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists have no obligation to think that homosexuality is wrong, but they also have no obligation to think that forgiving other people or helping other people beyond the requirements of self-interest is right and good.

And yet many/most would do it anyway, without obligation.

Húrin wrote: »

I find this notion that being an atheist frees one from all cultural influences so that one can think about things objectively to be an odd one. To me objective thought would require a total view of everything, and no emotional bias. Which seems to be beyond humans on both counts.

Quite how humans manage to deal with their shortcomings regarding thinking objectively is not really the point. The point is they actually sit down and think for themselves.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

The author of Leviticus was not a Christian.

Agreed. But Leviticus is part of the Bible and is the Word of God. There can be no conflict in listening to God and listening to Jesus as they are one and the same. And even though Jesus made a new Covenant with his people, it doesn't mean that the Old Testament is wrong in any way, as the Word of God is infallible and perfect.

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists have no obligation to think that homosexuality is wrong, but they also have no obligation to think that forgiving other people or helping other people beyond the requirements of self-interest is right and good.

You're right, they just do it off their own bat as they can appreciate it is the right thing to do. No instruction necessary. If you're honestly suggesting that atheists are selfish, begrudging people because we don't have a code to adhere to I find that quite surprising.

Hurin wrote:

I find this notion that being an atheist frees one from all cultural influences so that one can think about things objectively to be an odd one. To me objective thought would require a total view of everything, and no emotional bias. Which seems to be beyond humans on both counts.

It doesn't free one from cultural influence. It DOES free one from being forced to adhere to a single unopposable rule of law which is far more of an influence than any subtle effects of society. Being able to think for onesself, see reason and sense is much more possible when one isn't dictated to by the Bible. What you are suggesting is that no bread is better than half a loaf

CDfm

lostexpectation wrote: »

atheist don't draw lines as a group

But do participate in the world. I found it hard to reconcile Tony Blairs Catholic conversion with his stance on abortion. A bit to politically expedient.

Atheists in professions do have an obligation to be ethical and philosophy without God does go back to Aristotle so as a group Atheists are not a collective they can build up values and norms that have codes of morals,ethics and norms - just different to believers and within other "groups" in society.

The metaphysics in some of the abortion threads by atheists on what defined the essence of life bamboozled me and was woolier than most Christians I know and less liberal then popular belief would have led me to think.

But throw in a creationist and atheists are all the same:)

Dades

MatthewVII wrote: »

If you're honestly suggesting that atheists are selfish, begrudging people because we don't have a code to adhere to I find that quite surprising.

Don't forget Leviticus specifically condemns shellfishness. :pac:

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Don't forget Leviticus specifically condemns shellfishness.

Possibly the worse joke I've heard this year so far

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

There is a limit to the possible number of reasonable interpretations of scripture - this indeed being the basis of your point.

Who defines what a "reasonable" interpretation is?

Húrin wrote: »

This means that Christians are bound by the morals in scripture, both those that you like and those that you don't. "Twisting" is not interpretation at all, but abusive lying.

And the history of Christianity is littered with "abusive lying", from slavery to war to genocide.

The apologetic argument that these people were not really Christians some what misses the point. Who is really a Christian, who is reasonably interpreting the Bible, are all subjective. Fred Phelps is a Christian according to his followers.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Who defines what a "reasonable" interpretation is?


And the history of Christianity is littered with "abusive lying", from slavery to war to genocide.

The apologetic argument that these people were not really Christians some what misses the point. Who is really a Christian, who is reasonably interpreting the Bible, are all subjective. Fred Phelps is a Christian according to his followers.

But Wicknight - this really is not about Biblical interpretation in a general way -its specific to stem cell research and its output and technoligy.

You must agree that though Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses read the bible their respective religions are wildly different. Jehovah witnesses dont allow blood transfussions- but this has also led to advances is "non blood" alternative products.

Apply the same criteria to our Dail and political parties who all claim to act in our best interests -so by definition you get cherry picking.

The "lying" part on slavery - thats down to the legal system and "render unto Caesar" etc part of Christian acceptance and in modern times could apply to POWs etc and thats a totally different issue then what you have here.

What Im interested in is where atheists would set the limits and why?