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
Comments
-
Perhaps I am too tired and really not thinking clearly, but this seems a simple one to me.
No, you don't. My reason (in my current state, subject to change TM) is simple. Should you go ahead and give the organs to the sick boy, you're giving license to anyone with a sick child (who needs a new organ) a reason to take another life and be almost guaranteed the donation of said organ to your child. All for what? 10 years in jail out in 5 (in our current legislative system).
Hmm, I know I'm not thinking this through properly... so go on, show me what I am missing...
You are "missing" that there are organs to save the boy, but you don't give them to the boy (thus allowing him to die) because you are punishing the mother and sending a message of discouragement.
So there were organs to save the boy but you let him die in order to discourage future killings. Imagine explaining to the boy that you have the organs to save him sitting over there but you aren't going to save him, you are going to let him die.
But you aren't really missing anything, there is no clear cut answer to this, at least not as far as I can think. It comes down to a judgement call.0 -
I dont get that analogy at all. If an aborted foetus is going to be thrown in the bin why not use what we can?
Theres also no reason why sources not involving abortions cant be used as well though.
Lets leave abortions out of this. The last thing the world needs is another abortion debate via the back door.
What you should be asking is if the sources were not from abortion would I be happy and the answer would be yes my religous dilemma would be solved.0 -
You are "missing" that there are organs to save the boy, but you don't give them to the boy (thus allowing him to die) because you are punishing the mother and sending a message of discouragement.
So there were organs to save the boy but you let him die in order to discourage future killings. Imagine explaining to the boy that you have the organs to save him sitting over there but you aren't going to save him, you are going to let him die.
But you aren't really missing anything, there is no clear cut answer to this, at least not as far as I can think. It comes down to a judgement call.
I went down that path, but ended up right back where I started and with what I posted.
It is a toughie for sure, but interesting to think about.0 -
Say a boy is dying of some organ failure. His mother shoots another boy in the head. The mother then says do what you want with me, but give the organs of the dead boy to my son.
Would you do it?
I'd imagine you give the boy the organs and then sentence the mother for her crime. I always think that you should make the best of what you have, ie it is a tragedy that it happened but there is no reason to punish others for the choices of one for no reason other than to take the moral high ground.
As an aside, I wonder if the mother managed to check if the boy she shot was a match for her son....hmmm0 -
MatthewVII wrote: »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
"Science" is rapidly becoming synonymous with "healing the sick". What a terrible way to go.
I think you should probably say individuals views are. After all - a Christian can only give his or her own opinion based on their philosophy and religous belief and how they interpretation of the bible.
Can you envisage a situation where stem cells are available which would not upset Christians by their source. This is a dilemma and its a crucial question doncha think. Transplants are allowed so in theory it is allowable.
As I understand it -what we are dealing here with is an abstraction as the current reality is that its not proven that stem cells can deliver these miracle cures- like spinal chord regeneration . We are waiting pending the investigation of its potential to do so- so the current research is based on assessing both its potential and then the potential application and safety of any resultant technology.Is this a fair summary?
Thats very different to saying that definate cures for spinal injuries are in the bag.Am I correct?
There are also a lot of other groups (other than Christians)who have an interest in regulating the potential and safety of any resultant technology. So am I right that other groups might be concerned too?0 -
Advertisement
-
Like I have said several times already, it is possible that there will always be a need for embryonic stem cells. Of course I'd rather use adult stem cells, but the fact remains that in order to make adult stem cells, we need to study embryonic stem cells. Which means for the time being at least, if you want adult stem cell research to continue, you're going to have to allow people to use embryonic stem cells.Even if it is from IVF it is a developing human being. I think humanity should be progressing with finding a solution to be able to use adult cells rather than messing with something as contentious as life.
What is your opinion on IVF? Embryos are created and destroyed in the process, outside of the mother. Surely they aren't developing human beings considering they will only exist in the petri dish for a couple of days at best unless they are implanted in a host. Would you rather they implanted all the embryos in the mother, or if some of the embryos die is that acceptable?
It's hard to converse with someone who doesn't appear to listen to you. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly?You know that is nonsense, abortion wasn't even widespread until about 40 years ago in the UK and the US which really spearheaded it on a major scale, of course many Americans to this day contest the Roe vs Wade decision, and think that individual states should be able to legislate on the issue. Now we see the UK trying to impose pro-choice legislation on a by and large pro-life population in Northern Ireland. This would raise political questions also into how the UK and the USA regard their own systems of federalism and devolved government.
How is it that I give you examples of countries where abortion is legal and under little to no pressure from pro-life groups e.g. Japan (legal since 1948) and Sweden (1938) and you mention the U.K. and the U.S.? What has abortion being 'widespread' got to do with anything? Stem cell research wasn't even heard of 40 years ago so I'm finding trouble seeing what your point is. Let me state again: There are countries on this fair planet that have legalised abortion and have little to no pro-life movement. In these countries they have passed the point of debate about abortion, it is legal and has been for a long time. Some of these countries also have labs that are using aborted embryos as a source of embryonic stem cells. You cannot ignore that fact, so I shall ask again: What is better, to use the aborted embryos, with the mothers permission, for research or throw them in the bin?
Even in the U.K. and the U.S. where abortion is often a hot topic, whilst everyone is debating the issue, abortions are still being performed. So whilst you are trying to convince people that your opinion is correct, abortions are being performed. So even if the entire world decides to make abortion illegal next week, in the mean time abortions are still being performed. Surely it makes sense to use the aborted embryos for something than to just throw them in the bin.
So yes, we have passed the point of debating the ethics of abortion. Abortions are being performed!
It doesn't seem fair to apply caveats to someone elses hypothetical situation. I asked you all to play along, if you don't want to, that's fine.I'm rather interested to what this treatment is, and if it involves stem cells surely when more research is carried out on making adult cells more effective for the task it won't be exclusively from aborted embryos or IVF formulated embryos both of which I'd consider developing human beings.
Pardon me, an opinion is the truth now? Do countries change their laws based upon lobby groups from other countries frequently enough to make you confident that they would change their laws?I'm sure a few in both countries support the pro-life cause, and I do think that people can be convinced if they are willing to hear the truth about something irrespective of their geographical location or culture. How is my point about countries where it is illegal useless? Just because they won't use aborted embryos doesn't mean that we shouldn't seek the same path as they are seeking in relation to the issue.
I wasn't dismissing the pro-life movement, it just seems like you're grasping at straws and refusing to allow the conversation to move forward. There is no worldwide consensus on abortion and most likely never will be. Your point about countries where abortion is illegal is useless because there will be no aborted embryos for use in research there.
I guess that's a long winded way of saying you'd rather the aborted embryos went in the bin.I see that as being unimportant in relation to what is ethical or unethical. If abortion is considered to be wrong, then manipulating those who are deceased through abortion is really no better, as in considering it we must also consider if abortion itself is wrong. You consider it a matter that the question of abortion has gone away, I must really ask you if you have been around in the last decade? In terms of ethics, even for a large proportion of the populations you speak of in countries where it is legal, it is a consideration that has to be made. Do people really want to exascerbate what is already bad, or pursue the ethically cleaner alternative?
I think this analagy is unfair to my question, as the dead boy was alive and was most certainly murdered. He most likely had friends and a family that loved him. I'm sure he was afraid when some woman pulled a gun on him and depending on how good the womans shot was could have experienced a lot of pain before he died.It is an interesting question, if you consider abortion wrong would you still consider using the stem cells.
Personally I don't see the abortion of embryos to be wrong (must have a working brain is my criteria which we can discuss on another thread). But if I did I would have trouble with this question. Do you benefit from a crime once it has taken place? Do you let others benefit from a crime once it is has taken place?
Say a boy is dying of some organ failure. His mother shoots another boy in the head. The mother then says do what you want with me, but give the organs of the dead boy to my son.
Would you do it?
On the other hand, an early embryo is a lump of cells or a mish-mash of layered tissue types. Do we 'murder' embryos not used for IVF treatment?
Perhaps I am getting into semantics but I really feel this analagy confuses what I'm trying to say. I think a more simple analagy could be more analagous - e.g. if someone is murdered and they have an organ donor card, is it wrong to take their organs? It's a legal matter - if abortion is legal in the country than the mother has the right to say if the embryo can or cannot be used for research. You cannot steal someones organs, but the law allows for people to sign up for their organs to be used when they die, or for their family to make that decision when they die.
You are correct in a way. Stem cell research will definitely deliver new treatments, some of which could be so ground breaking I guess people would call them 'medical miracles'. It is not all hypothetical - when we learn exactly what makes stem cells different from differentiated cells and if we can turn differentiated cells back into stem cells, the possibilities for treatments are phenomenal. Cures for spinal injuries using stem cells kind of are in the bag - there has been some success on this front in animal models.As I understand it -what we are dealing here with is an abstraction as the current reality is that its not proven that stem cells can deliver these miracle cures- like spinal chord regeneration . We are waiting pending the investigation of its potential to do so- so the current research is based on assessing both its potential and then the potential application and safety of any resultant technology.Is this a fair summary?
Thats very different to saying that definate cures for spinal injuries are in the bag.Am I correct?
It's a bit like the Human Genome Project. The Human Genome Project was controversial because of the monetary expense and people believed that once we knew where all the genes were that we could do everything. What people didn't realise was that once we know where all the genes are we then have do find out what all the genes do. So whilst the Human Genome Project was worth the money, there's a time buffer there between knowledge and application. With stem cells, we know what they can do it's just a matter of finding out how to apply them to clinical treatments.
What I think is happening is this: Researchers are using embryonic stem cells to discover what treatments are possible whilst other groups are trying to discover how to transform differentiated cells back into totipotent or pluripotent stem cells. It makes the most sense time wise. If we do things this way, it means that treatments will come about faster. That's what the science of medicine is like - people are suffering and dying of diseases and disorders every day so there's always a push to find new treatments to cure them.
Spinal cures should be easy, it's more complicated stuff like Parkinson's that has yet to be explored. We can't find out what is possible unless we research it, but there is enough promise there to get a lot of people very excited about the potential of stem cell technology. We know what stem cells naturally do - it's amazing. Getting them to work the way we want them to is the hardest part.0 -
There are a few issues here that jump out at me- but let me preface this by saying its easy to be abstract on this but if iI had a deperately ill child and a life saving treatment was available I would take it.
Are Catholics the only religous group with issues on embryos from abortions this.Are there any Christian faiths that take a different line?What about other faiths say Muslims or Hindu -do they have a view?
A few months back in the UK a Hindu Temple applied to have a cow with TB exempted from being slaughtered as it was sacred. So its a bit different from a Jew not eating a food thats not kosher.
So a foetus thats subject to a clinical abortion will still in a Catholics mind be "Sacred" with a capital "S" and I just wonder if scientists who are Christian work on this research. Do they have a code of ethics around which they work?
Has this been adressed and are there clinical practices etc for christians to work in this area- or is it an atheist thang?
I don't think its an atheist vs christian thing as I imagine an atheist would have issues with taking stem cells from babies that were smothered deliberately say in a famine in a third world country.
There has been some coverage in the British press about the softening of GPs attitudes to Euthenasia with around 40% of them no longer having objections to treatments which hasten death. ( 4 0ut of 10 British GPs have Harold Shipman as a role model :eek:).
So do you get the blurring of ideas that I see.0 -
What is your opinion on IVF? Embryos are created and destroyed in the process, outside of the mother. Surely they aren't developing human beings considering they will only exist in the petri dish for a couple of days at best unless they are implanted in a host. Would you rather they implanted all the embryos in the mother, or if some of the embryos die is that acceptable?
I don't think it is the role of humans to destroy life at all and I think it is a subject that is to be respected and honoured as life is one of the most precious things anyone has to offer. I don't think humans should be killing human life.It's hard to converse with someone who doesn't appear to listen to you. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly?
Perhaps not.How is it that I give you examples of countries where abortion is legal and under little to no pressure from pro-life groups e.g. Japan (legal since 1948) and Sweden (1938) and you mention the U.K. and the U.S.? What has abortion being 'widespread' got to do with anything? Stem cell research wasn't even heard of 40 years ago so I'm finding trouble seeing what your point is. Let me state again: There are countries on this fair planet that have legalised abortion and have little to no pro-life movement. In these countries they have passed the point of debate about abortion, it is legal and has been for a long time. Some of these countries also have labs that are using aborted embryos as a source of embryonic stem cells. You cannot ignore that fact, so I shall ask again: What is better, to use the aborted embryos, with the mothers permission, for research or throw them in the bin?
Whether or not countries are under little or no (there are pro-life activists in every country) pressure from pro-life groups is quite honestly irrelevant to me. Just because there may be little pressure doesn't change ethics or the moral situation for abortions. I consider morality to be universal not subjective, just as the laws of science are objective, so are the laws of morality. Just as people may lack an understanding of several scientific fields, people may also be confused about morality.Even in the U.K. and the U.S. where abortion is often a hot topic, whilst everyone is debating the issue, abortions are still being performed. So whilst you are trying to convince people that your opinion is correct, abortions are being performed. So even if the entire world decides to make abortion illegal next week, in the mean time abortions are still being performed. Surely it makes sense to use the aborted embryos for something than to just throw them in the bin.
So just because it's happening makes it acceptable? Let me jump in with a reductio ad absurdum argument here, just because people are getting raped it's acceptable? Or just because people thieve it's acceptable? Certainly not, and I would hope that the full extent of the law would be applied fairly to said individuals.
As for what you say of making sense, I would have thought it would have made sense not to encourage this barbaric practice in the first place, but I guess one can just look at how regressive some societies seem to be, even the ones who claim to be the most civilised and cultured.So yes, we have passed the point of debating the ethics of abortion. Abortions are being performed!
No we haven't, and this is just a means of sidetracking major issues and to try to move on to abuse this further.It doesn't seem fair to apply caveats to someone elses hypothetical situation. I asked you all to play along, if you don't want to, that's fine.
How can I play along with something I blatently disagree with? I respect life and I think it is a gift, something that is to be upholded as special in society.Pardon me, an opinion is the truth now? Do countries change their laws based upon lobby groups from other countries frequently enough to make you confident that they would change their laws?
Well, I would think that the current phenomenon of a foetus not being considered human life is due to pro-choice attempts to redefine the word to suit themselves.I wasn't dismissing the pro-life movement, it just seems like you're grasping at straws and refusing to allow the conversation to move forward. There is no worldwide consensus on abortion and most likely never will be. Your point about countries where abortion is illegal is useless because there will be no aborted embryos for use in research there.
I guess that's a long winded way of saying you'd rather the aborted embryos went in the bin.
Grasping at straws to refuse the conversation to move forward? Do you not realise that the legality of abortion is an issue to deal with even before we start to understand how to deal with the aborted foetuses? As I say, as humans opt in for organ donations after death, it would be illegal to expect the same from another human life without permission. I would prefer if life was respected and abortions did not take place actually, if that is so much to ask?I think this analagy is unfair to my question, as the dead boy was alive and was most certainly murdered. He most likely had friends and a family that loved him. I'm sure he was afraid when some woman pulled a gun on him and depending on how good the womans shot was could have experienced a lot of pain before he died.
The foetus is also alive and is also a developing human life. As for the point on having friends and family who loved him, would you support the death of someone who was reviled but innocent?On the other hand, an early embryo is a lump of cells or a mish-mash of layered tissue types. Do we 'murder' embryos not used for IVF treatment?
Is it though and why do you suggest this?You cannot steal someones organs, but the law allows for people to sign up for their organs to be used when they die, or for their family to make that decision when they die.
And yet this is the suggestion with extracting from embryos. I really cannot see the difference between the example you have provided and the case of the unborn.0 -
And yet this is the suggestion with extracting from embryos. I really cannot see the difference between the example you have provided and the case of the unborn.
I must admit I have problems understanding the science - but its one example - I would prefer to see the science discussed here where at least you can ask questions then part of a pro/pro debate.0 -
IVF is used to create life, it just so happens to involve the death of a few embryos in the process. You also didn't really answer my questions.I don't think it is the role of humans to destroy life at all and I think it is a subject that is to be respected and honoured as life is one of the most precious things anyone has to offer. I don't think humans should be killing human life.
If you consider morality to be objective, you are a fine example of moral absolutism. I'm speaking very generally now, but very few things are black and white. Science is based on cold hard facts, morality is most certainly subjective. There are certain common rules one could consider moral absolutes, but morality in general is more relative and subjective in practice. You can't deny this fact by simply stating that other people who disagree with your moral opinions are 'confused'. (It's also highly condescending.)Whether or not countries are under little or no (there are pro-life activists in every country) pressure from pro-life groups is quite honestly irrelevant to me. Just because there may be little pressure doesn't change ethics or the moral situation for abortions. I consider morality to be universal not subjective, just as the laws of science are objective, so are the laws of morality. Just as people may lack an understanding of several scientific fields, people may also be confused about morality.
Interesting that you mention the law, because abortion is legal in some countries. Is rape legal anywhere? Is theft? I'm fairly certain there is an almost universal societal agreement that rape and theft are wrong, not so with abortion.So just because it's happening makes it acceptable? Let me jump in with a reductio ad absurdum argument here, just because people are getting raped it's acceptable? Or just because people thieve it's acceptable? Certainly not, and I would hope that the full extent of the law would be applied fairly to said individuals.
Besides, you're moving further and further away from my point. I was not making any comment on how acceptable abortion is, only that abortions are happening as we speak in many countries worldwide. Therefore the question as to what happens to the aborted embryos is raised. Incinerating them seems wasteful.
Why are you insulting countries that have laws based on a different opinion to your own? If they legalised abortion based upon democratic discussion and voting, who are you to call them 'regressive'? There were simply more of the people who have a different opinion to you on the ethics of abortions in those countries.As for what you say of making sense, I would have thought it would have made sense not to encourage this barbaric practice in the first place, but I guess one can just look at how regressive some societies seem to be, even the ones who claim to be the most civilised and cultured.
Using the aborted embryos is hardly encouraging the practice. I don't see researchers actively campaigning for mothers to have abortions, do you? The fact remains that after an abortion the cells/remains are usually incinerated. They don't get a grave or an urn, they just go in a big bin basically. Abortions are not happy occurances, but it seems to me to be more wasteful to throw the embryos in the bin than to use them for research.
Let me rephrase then: Many countries around the world are passed the stage of debating the ethics of abortions and have since had them legalised; In these countries it now exists the question as to whether using the aborted embryos is acceptable.No we haven't, and this is just a means of sidetracking major issues and to try to move on to abuse this further.
Jakkass, you're turning this entire discussion into a pro-life/pro-choice argument that will go nowhere. I think it's unfair on the OP to hijack the thread and make it all about abortion, when we were trying to discuss the ethics of using aborted embryos under the umbrella of discussing stem cells. I posed a hypothetical question which you did not like and have not answered. If you think life is a gift, couldn't you have just said that? That you wouldn't accept the life saving treatment as it just wouldn't be acceptable on moral/ethical grounds?How can I play along with something I blatently disagree with? I respect life and I think it is a gift, something that is to be upholded as special in society.
So when you're not declaring your opinion as truth, you declare that those who disagree with you are 'redefining' terms to suit them. Could it be that they just don't agree with you?Well, I would think that the current phenomenon of a foetus not being considered human life is due to pro-choice attempts to redefine the word to suit themselves.
Couldn't you have just stated that in the first place? I don't want to discuss the legality of abortion, I asked you when you first started making the conversation more about abortion and less about stem cells that perhaps it is for the best that we don't open the can of worms that is an abortion debate. You clearly have strong feelings on the subject so I don't blame you for wanting to focus on the legality/morality of abortions. However, it is not something that I would enjoy so if you continue to specifically address abortion, I won't be replying.Grasping at straws to refuse the conversation to move forward? Do you not realise that the legality of abortion is an issue to deal with even before we start to understand how to deal with the aborted foetuses? As I say, as humans opt in for organ donations after death, it would be illegal to expect the same from another human life without permission. I would prefer if life was respected and abortions did not take place actually, if that is so much to ask?
I guess this is me asking if we can please try to get back on topic (stem cells, designer babies etc).
Whether someone should live or die has nothing to do with how likeable or guilty they are. Remind me, what has this got to do with stem cells?As for the point on having friends and family who loved him, would you support the death of someone who was reviled but innocent?
I meant those points as food for thought for Wicknight and not an excuse to continue any more abortion talk. If you're interested in human embryogenesis here's a link to a very good Wikipedia article on the subject.Is it though and why do you suggest this?
Exactly there is no difference. When someone dies, the family can dictate whether the organs are harvested or not. In some countries where abortion is legal, after an abortion the mother can dictate whether the aborted embryos stem cells are harvested or not.And yet this is the suggestion with extracting from embryos. I really cannot see the difference between the example you have provided and the case of the unborn.0 -
Advertisement
-
IVF is used to create life, it just so happens to involve the death of a few embryos in the process. You also didn't really answer my questions.
It involves more death than creation then?If you consider morality to be objective, you are a fine example of moral absolutism. I'm speaking very generally now, but very few things are black and white. Science is based on cold hard facts, morality is most certainly subjective. There are certain common rules one could consider moral absolutes, but morality in general is more relative and subjective in practice. You can't deny this fact by simply stating that other people who disagree with your moral opinions are 'confused'. (It's also highly condescending.)
Well I fall into the philosophy of Socrates, Immanuel Kant, C.S Lewis and no doubt countless others on the subject. The laws of morality are no different to the laws of physics, or the laws of biology for me. What matters is what we can discern from it. There are things which are clearly right and things which are clearly wrong. If you are a moral relativist / subjectivist you would have serious problems in condemning acts of genocide as absolutely wrong, could it be that it was right for them to do that? Why are your morals the ones that transcend in that situation and not in others? Anyone who holds moral relativity is essentially forcing themselves to be a hypocrite on issues such as these if they have any form of moral compass.Interesting that you mention the law, because abortion is legal in some countries. Is rape legal anywhere? Is theft? I'm fairly certain there is an almost universal societal agreement that rape and theft are wrong, not so with abortion.
Again, this is only if we view morals to be "societal agreements". If you see my last point, morals far transcend "societal agreements" in my opinion anyway.Besides, you're moving further and further away from my point. I was not making any comment on how acceptable abortion is, only that abortions are happening as we speak in many countries worldwide. Therefore the question as to what happens to the aborted embryos is raised. Incinerating them seems wasteful.
No, I'm not really. You are discussing using aborted embryos for stem cell research. There is a pre-requisite of that discussion taking place however, and that is the ethics behind abortion. They are intrinsically linked, for one to consider using aborted embryos in stem cell research one is encouraging abortion to take place.Why are you insulting countries that have laws based on a different opinion to your own? If they legalised abortion based upon democratic discussion and voting, who are you to call them 'regressive'? There were simply more of the people who have a different opinion to you on the ethics of abortions in those countries.
It's not insulting the countries, it's insulting abortion, a barbaric practice. I try to hate what is evil and hold to what is good. In this case I hate abortion, just as much as I hate suicide bombings, armed resistance, war, terrorism and so on. If I hate abortion, I would consider it regressive yes, just as many people happen to consider pro-life views to be regressive.
It is an interesting trend that it is the Islamic world, South America, and Africa that are holding to pro-life values today, whereas the Western world is rejecting them and abandoning the high value that people have put on it for centuries.Using the aborted embryos is hardly encouraging the practice. I don't see researchers actively campaigning for mothers to have abortions, do you? The fact remains that after an abortion the cells/remains are usually incinerated. They don't get a grave or an urn, they just go in a big bin basically. Abortions are not happy occurances, but it seems to me to be more wasteful to throw the embryos in the bin than to use them for research.
Of course it is. What do you think that those researchers are going to start doing if they can't get any more aborted embryos? Ask for people to produce more, and if it becomes a medical practice it deadlocks abortion into a necessary thing to take place. I can't agree with that. I'm glad that many other scientists seem to be taking the other route on this issue though.Let me rephrase then: Many countries around the world are passed the stage of debating the ethics of abortions and have since had them legalised; In these countries it now exists the question as to whether using the aborted embryos is acceptable.
The debate is never over in any country, there are people who are always going to stand up and insist that the rights of the unborn be counted just like in other civil rights issues, and yes this is a violation of human rights if one consults the UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 8 which concerns the right to life.Jakkass, you're turning this entire discussion into a pro-life/pro-choice argument that will go nowhere. I think it's unfair on the OP to hijack the thread and make it all about abortion, when we were trying to discuss the ethics of using aborted embryos under the umbrella of discussing stem cells. I posed a hypothetical question which you did not like and have not answered. If you think life is a gift, couldn't you have just said that? That you wouldn't accept the life saving treatment as it just wouldn't be acceptable on moral/ethical grounds?
So when you're not declaring your opinion as truth, you declare that those who disagree with you are 'redefining' terms to suit them. Could it be that they just don't agree with you?
I'm not hijacking the thread, there is a prerequisite to this discussion to be had and you know it. I'd ask that you wouldn't stifle what needs to be said we are discussing aborted embryos after all, and their viability for stem cell research. Hence abortion is a likely issue to be discussed.
As for your hypothetical question, I cannot possibly comment on said situation until I actually am in such a situation. Another one such as this was whether or not I as a Christian could reject my faith and accept martyrdom if I was captured by militants. I honestly don't know. I'd like to think I could in both situations.Couldn't you have just stated that in the first place? I don't want to discuss the legality of abortion, I asked you when you first started making the conversation more about abortion and less about stem cells that perhaps it is for the best that we don't open the can of worms that is an abortion debate. You clearly have strong feelings on the subject so I don't blame you for wanting to focus on the legality/morality of abortions. However, it is not something that I would enjoy so if you continue to specifically address abortion, I won't be replying.
It's a prerequisite to the discussion and you are discussing aborted embryos, therefore it is quite acceptable to discuss abortion. If you are not willing that is fine, but you would be ignoring a key component of the argument.I guess this is me asking if we can please try to get back on topic (stem cells, designer babies etc).
Whether someone should live or die has nothing to do with how likeable or guilty they are. Remind me, what has this got to do with stem cells?
I believe the quote I had quoted from you the last time should explain this:I think this analagy is unfair to my question, as the dead boy was alive and was most certainly murdered. He most likely had friends and a family that loved him. I'm sure he was afraid when some woman pulled a gun on him and depending on how good the womans shot was could have experienced a lot of pain before he died.
Note the bold. Irrespective of whether this boy had friends or not is irrelevant, even if the world hated him it wouldn't matter. The same should be considered in relation to the unborn.0 -
Having thought of it.Embryos from IVF research are OK for use in my book.To be viable they would need to be implanted in the womb etc to be in conditions to survive. So thats the difference with embryos from abortion in that those have a chance to survive. Thats the distinction in my book.
Im Catholic but someone would really have to come up with a good argument- more than **** is a sin.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 79125
It is an interesting trend that it is the Islamic world, South America, and Africa that are holding to pro-life values today, whereas the Western world is rejecting them and abandoning the high value that people have put on it for centuries.
lol, what high values? Centuries ago they didn't believe the soul entered a fetus until x days and before that was fair game0 -
lol, what high values? Centuries ago they didn't believe the soul entered a fetus until x days and before that was fair game
Thats centuries ago - but how would you accomadate his objections to stem cell research not using embryos from abortion.
Many people other then Christians have problems so do you dismiss these to.
So faced with this what "ethics" would you suggest that you thing would be acceptable. Its harder to do that then be a smartarse.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 79125
He wasn't talking about that in that paragraph, he was making an unfounded blanket generalisation.Thats centuries ago - but how would you accomadate his objections to stem cell research not using embryos from abortion.
He objects to it from ivf as well, so he just doesn't approve of SCR at all it seems
Well yes as demonstrated by his middle east reference, but that has nothing to do with what I responded toMany people other then Christians have problems with this.
Asking someone to explain and maybe back up their vague "we've all held pro life morals for centuries" is being a smart arse? :rolleyes: Glad that's cleared up for meSo faced with this what "ethics" would you suggest that you thing would be acceptable. Its harder to do that then be a smartarse.
I've been reading Gothpunk's discussion with jakkass with interest. So far it's consisted of "well in the cases where abortions do happen, would you prefer the remains be thrown in the bin or used for research?" His responses have been "I don't like abortion there are prolifers everywhere and abortions are evil". It's got nothing to do with abortions being evil, it's saying that they do happen and even if they were banned tomorrow we still have remains left over which can be used for research. Prating about abortion and regressive societies is question-dodging. It's not holding a moral position, it's going off on a tangent unrelated to the matter at hand.
I have no problem with either abortion (within reason, i.e. everyone being firmly educated on contraception and abortion as a last resort) nor using the cells with permission.0 -
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 79125
-
He wasn't talking about that in that paragraph, he was making an unfounded blanket generalisation.
He objects to it from ivf as well, so he just doesn't approve of SCR at all it seems
Asking someone to explain and maybe back up their vague "we've all held pro life morals for centuries" is being a smart arse? :rolleyes: Glad that's cleared up for me
I've been reading Gothpunk's discussion with jakkass with interest. So far it's consisted of "well in the cases where abortions do happen, would you prefer the remains be thrown in the bin or used for research?" His responses have been "I don't like abortion there are prolifers everywhere and abortions are evil".
I have no problem with either abortion (within reason, i.e. everyone being firmly educated on contraception and abortion as a last resort) nor using the cells with permission.
I know this is an atheist thread.If you look at it atheists do object to abortion at certain stages and would be against organ retention at hospitals too.
Me - I believe human life is Sacred and disagree with abortions as a source for stem cells as I object to abortion on moral grounds -stem cell havesting does not justify it or make it palatable.
I gave my reasons for IVF embryos being acceptable but thats me. So what can you suggest that others would agree with?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 79125
What are you talking about? Did I suggest this wasn't an atheist thread ?I know this is an atheist thread.If you look at it atheists do object to abortion at certain stages and would be against organ retention at hospitals too.
Do I have to solve world peace to post on a thread replying to a minor point now?I gave my reasons for IVF embryos being acceptable but thats me. So what can you suggest that others would agree with?0 -
What are you talking about? Did I suggest this wasn't an atheist thread ?
Do I have to solve world peace to post on a thread replying to a minor point now?
What I am saying is that its also up to stem cell rearchers to prove to us that what they are doing is moral and ethical.The purpose of the thread being where should the line be drawn - Im saying surplus IVF embryos should be ok.
Using embryos from abortions is bound to offend loads of people and actually work against getting this type of technology accepted.Thats fine for people who want that -but not everone wants a polarised debate or solution.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30406
I agree with abortion up to a point, if the feotus has not developed a nervous system yet then i don't see anything morally wrong with it and see no reason why stem cell research or any other type of research shouldnt be carried out on it if they have the consent of the parents. If it saves peoples lives in the long run it's not a bad thing.
Where i do draw the line is the likes of human cloning,designer babies etc. If they can somehow clone a set of lungs or a heart then thats fine,but cloning a whole human being is unethical as who's to say the clone should not have the right to live etc. Designer babies is all a little too "master race" and i dont really see anything wrong with the conventional method of conception, a sometimes forgotten sci-fi movie called Gattaca investigates this pretty well.0 -
I agree with abortion up to a point, if the feotus has not developed a nervous system yet then i don't see anything morally wrong with it and see no reason why stem cell research or any other type of research shouldnt be carried out on it if they have the consent of the parents. If it saves peoples lives in the long run it's not a bad thing.
Are atheists capable of any type of compromise against using abortion sourced embryos give there is an alternative?0 -
In the long if we as a species are to survive we are going to have to genetically engineer our offspring. So while there may be ethical issues around designer babies we are going to have to work them out.
Genetic engineering is inevitable due to medicine. Modern medicine has almost eliminated natural selection as a factor in our reproduction. People with chronic illnesses are now living full lives and reproducing themselves passing on their less fit genes. In the long term this will lead to the genetic fitness of the entire human race faltering and there will be consequences in terms of our survival as a species or at least our quality of life. We will need to replace the function that natural selection played keeping our genes fit for survival with an artificial process.0 -
Are atheists capable of any type of compromise against using abortion sourced embryos give there is an alternative?
What do you mean by compromise?
Do you mean something like saying I've no problem with this, but I appreciate that others do so I think we should use the stem cells that are not sourced from aborted embryos where possible
If so, I've no problem with that.0 -
What do you mean by compromise?
Do you mean something like saying I've no problem with this, but I appreciate that others do so I think we should use the stem cells that are not sourced from aborted embryos where possible
If so, I've no problem with that.
Would you have any probs with the edit Ive suggested.
I think in the debate there is a tendency to polarise opinions so that the argument develops legs and walks by itself. Once people get a little bit of power as part of an interest group and getting used to telling others what to do -its very hard to shut themk up
.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30406
Are atheists capable of any type of compromise against using abortion sourced embryos give there is an alternative?
Yeah, if it gets the job done and gets the religious groups off people backs then i'm all for it. I didnt mean abortion sourced embryos were the be all and end all, i was just saying that i don't have a problem with it, i see your point and agree that if theres a less controversial alternative then its probably the best way to go.0 -
Yes, I don't think we should stop this research altogether because some have problems with it. I think the rewards from this research are too great. If the rewards were not so important (a new make up system, or better way to kill garden weeds or some such) I would probably hold a different viewWould you have any probs with the edit Ive suggested.
But then I don't have a problem with it in the first place, so I appreciate that people don't agree with me.0 -
Yes, I don't think we should stop this research altogether because some have problems with it. I think the rewards from this research are too great. If the rewards were not so important (a new make up system, or better way to kill garden weeds or some such) I would probably hold a different view
But then I don't have a problem with it in the first place, so I appreciate that people don't agree with me.
Not just some -Wicknight-lots of people ,religions and cultures do have problems with it.
What you propose is theoretical and you have no idea if similar stuff has worked with animals.
In science,scientists follow what they think has potential- its a bit like alchemy- the research is there to assess its potential. Nobody knows whether the theories work.
Come on, if scientists were so intent that it worked they would have solutions that would have worked on animals. So far they dont so what they are doing is gratuitous.0 -
Ok, I don't think we should stop this research altogether because "lots" have problems with it.Not just some -Wicknight-lots of people ,religions and cultures do have problems with it.What you propose is theoretical and you have no idea if similar stuff has worked with animals.
What did I propose?
Scientists don't follow what they think has potential. Doctors follow what they think has potential because doctors have a different goal (cure people) to scientist (learn).In science,scientists follow what they think has potential- its a bit like alchemy- the research is there to assess its potential. Nobody knows whether the theories work.
For the doctors to apply stem cell research to fighting disease the scientist have to first figure out how stem cells work. The potential of curing people is not the goal of science. More often than not scientists don't have a clue how their research will be eventually used to help people.Come on, if scientists were so intent that it worked they would have solutions that would have worked on animals. So far they dont so what they are doing is gratuitous.
I'm not sure what you mean by all that (I'm having another one of our "what the heck are you talking about" moments CDfm :pac:)
Stem cell treatments have already been applied to animals, and has been for a good number of years. For example in 2005 scientists managed to regrow nerve endings in mice that had been paralysed.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure what you mean by all that (I'm having another one of our "what the heck are you talking about" moments CDfm :pac:)
Stem cell treatments have already been applied to animals, and has been for a good number of years. For example in 2005 scientists managed to regrow nerve endings in mice that had been paralysed.
I havent suggested stopping it- but I do think by ensuring the stem cells used are not the result of abortions would make it more "Believer" friendy. Similar to dolphin friendly tuna -same idea.
I am not saying stem cell research does not have great potential but a sure fire way to have guaranteed objections is to continue with sourcing stem cells from clinically aborted embryos. A red rag to a bull. Talk about making a present of an argument and legitimacy to the extreme Pro-life movement.
I am not objecting to researching its potential but doing so in an ethical way and keeping interested parties happy.
No one can say where stem cells are sourced for research or clinical use?0
Advertisement