Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stem Cell Research - Where should atheists draw the line?

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Simon.d
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭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...


  • Options
    #33
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #34
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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 ...........


  • Options
    #35
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    GothPunk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,761 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    mickeydevine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Simon.d
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭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..


  • Options
    #40
    GothPunk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,761 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭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.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #44
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    atheist don't draw lines as a group


  • Options
    #45
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #47
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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:)


  • Options
    #48
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #49
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Dades wrote: »
    Don't forget Leviticus specifically condemns shellfishness.
    Possibly the worse joke I've heard this year so far :)


  • Options
    #50
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Dades wrote: »
    Don't forget Leviticus specifically condemns shellfishness. :pac:
    robindch wrote: »
    Possibly the worse joke I've heard this year so far :)

    seriously, this joke made me react exactly like Peter in this clip

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTz0oisC3F4


  • Options
    #53
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    seriously, this joke made me react exactly like Peter in this clip

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTz0oisC3F4


    thats you that is:D


  • Options
    #54
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    CDfm wrote: »
    Jehovah witnesses dont allow blood transfussions- but this has also led to advances is "non blood" alternative products.

    Do you seriously think that bloodless surgery and its related products would never of come about where it not for the JW's stance against blood transfusions? There are plenty of reasons why bloodless surgery and the avoidance of transfusions are beneficial, regardless of the salvation that JW's imagine they will get by adhering to it. The main one being that you can't presume there will be the correct blood available for every patient so you need an alternative (in fact, there are completely bloodless hospitals in the US now because of the lack of supply from donors in those areas). There are also health risks, such as the CJD scare a few years back, or the situation where you could of contracted Hepatitis C from a transfusion before '92 as it was not being screened for.

    imo, the future of surgery is bloodless. Regardless of what beliefs some minor religious sect holds, it is generally accepted that the best approach is to not use blood unless it's absolutely necessary. Bloodless surgery removes the risk of contracting diseases that aren't yet screened for and also it decreases convalescing time.


  • Options
    #55
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    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?

    As an atheist, I have zero problem with any form of stem cell research. Because I don't view an embryo as a person, a trillion of them means as little to me (beyond their value as research specimens of course) as a pint of semen.

    As for human cloning, that is a much trickier issue, and would involve many factors, such as the health and purpose of the clones. Assuming we could clone a human perfectly (that is, without any defects), it would be a blank slate, like we are when we're born.

    There isn't really any good reason to clone humans except for research purposes, and if they're perfect copies, you're essentially doing experiments on innocent humans. I'm certain some people would argue they aren't really human as they don't have a soul, but this of course would be nonsense. That being said, it isn't intrinsically immoral to clone people, no more than it is intrinsically immoral to have children. To me, it seems like a dangerous and, more importantly, pointless exercise.

    Could it be justified, however, if for example, an individual was known to be immune to a disease, but he refused medical examination? His clone would have the same resistance, but this leads back to the problem of breeding clones for experimentation.

    As for designer babies, this is even trickier. I think it is immoral NOT to fix babies that have known defects, but where do we draw the line between fixing a serious problem and "patching up" a moderate deficiency? It could be argued that a very dumb baby has the same right to be made smarter as a child with down's syndrome has to be normal, or that a very ugly baby would lead a much happier life if it were pretty. Personally, I don't have the answers, but I will always be on the side of improving people's lives, and of improving nature, which compared to our scientific precision is like a wildly flailing, er... spaghetti monster? In all, the most important thing is to make sure that society isn't unequal. If everybody was genetically engineered, it wouldn't be the same kind of issue as it would if only the rich were.

    I certainly envisage a time when disease has been literally written out of the human condition.


  • Options
    #56
    Simon.d
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Simon.d


    Dades wrote: »
    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.

    Why is that such a good thing? What's stopping all this unrestrained thought from coming to the conclusion that murdering and stealing is actually beneficial to an individual? The fear of eternal damnation has been a useful tool in maintaining civility in society.. What would happen in it's absence?


  • Options
    #57
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    Simon.d wrote: »
    Why is that such a good thing? What's stopping all this unrestrained thought from coming to the conclusion that murdering and stealing is actually beneficial to an individual?

    The obvious conclusion that it's not?
    Simon.d wrote:
    The fear of eternal damnation has been a useful tool in maintaining civility in society.. What would happen in it's absence?

    Something crazy like the laws of the land, put in place by society to protect individuals and which are amenable to revision and reassessment?

    You really portray humans as crazed, rabid butchers only being held back by religion. I don't know whether this is because you have objective evidence that humans are awful creatures or because you desperately want to justify certain aspects of your religion.


  • Options
    #58
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Simon.d wrote: »
    The fear of eternal damnation has been a useful tool in maintaining civility in society.. What would happen in it's absence?
    Um, Sweden?


  • Options
    #59
    E=McHammer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭E=McHammer


    I don't believe in embryonic cell stem research.
    As a Christian all I can say is if atheists do not believe in heaven or a soul or an afterlife,then would they not cherish their lives more than any other religious group,and furthermore cherish the lives that are yet to be born?So why do you insist on the deaths of countless baby lives to make you live a few years longer?If you took some time to reflect on your own beliefs rather than being totally anticonformist and ignorant to any concept of a god,then maybe you would realise how precious a life is,and you are willing to throw so many away!Each of our lives is an amazing coindicdence (1 in 200million),it is to be cherished and given a fair chance at life.I would rather die myself than have an unborn human life killed for me.
    "Science" is rapidly becoming synonymous with "murder".


  • Options
    #60
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Simon.d wrote: »
    Why is that such a good thing? What's stopping all this unrestrained thought from coming to the conclusion that murdering and stealing is actually beneficial to an individual? The fear of eternal damnation has been a useful tool in maintaining civility in society.. What would happen in it's absence?

    Ahh yes, let's take a country with 98% of the population religious (nearly all Christian) mass murder and brutality could never happen, oh wait, Rwanda. Now you'll probably say they're not the right kind of believers, your kind is so much better, but still their fear of religious damnation didn't seem to kick in.

    And before I'm accused of doing something similar to the standard atheism=Stalin thing, I'm not saying this was a Christian crime, nor am I saying it was committed for religious reasons, all I'm doing is refuting your point that religion somehow makes people behave better, when clearly it doesn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    E=McHammer wrote: »
    I don't believe in embryonic cell stem research.
    As a Christian all I can say is if atheists do not believe in heaven or a soul or an afterlife,then would they not cherish their lives more than any other religious group,and furthermore cherish the lives that are yet to be born?So why do you insist on the deaths of countless baby lives to make you live a few years longer?

    When harvesting stem cells, they do not purposefully kill babies with the sole intention of taking their delicious cells. They usually use embryos which would never have been used otherwise, or aborted fetuses etc. And these are not just to make us live a few years longer, that assertion is completely ridiculous. Stem cell therapy is a last resort to cure intractable conditions which cause lifelong suffering, disability and death.
    E=MCHammer wrote:
    If you took some time to reflect on your own beliefs rather than being totally anticonformist and ignorant to any concept of a god,then maybe you would realise how precious a life is,and you are willing to throw so many away!

    Whilst I'd love to get into the argument about the Bible's views on how precious life is, I am more concerned about how precious life is for those around us and how we must strive to improve and do all we can for those unfortunate enough to have a serious medical ailment which is refractory to conventional therapy. Also, atheists reject god specifically because we are NOT ignorant. You are on an atheist board, I'd watch your words.

    E=MCHammer wrote:
    Each of our lives is an amazing coindicdence (1 in 200million),it is to be cherished and given a fair chance at life.I would rather die myself than have an unborn human life killed for me.
    "Science" is rapidly becoming synonymous with "murder".

    I would love to know where you got that figure, or how you reckon it's coincidence. I wonder so many people get pregnant with such alarming regularity when it is so rare.

    "Science" is rapidly becoming synonymous with "healing the sick". What a terrible way to go.


Advertisement