Stem Cell Research - Where should atheists draw the line?

CDfm · 04-02-2009 7:26pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

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

I think the high profile nature of it helped get funding for it -yes.

Simon.d · 04-02-2009 8:02pm

MatthewVII wrote: »

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.

I'm not portraying humans as "crazed rabid butchers", I'm simply not assuming that society as we know it isn't somewhat dependent on one of it's biggest and oldest institutions, or that the positive social norms we take for granted aren't somewhat dependent on a significant portion of our society believing in such fairy-tales..

And I'm not Religious!! I too like to think for myself, but I'm not blinded by the popular atheist mantra that religions are all bad.. They are the opium for the masses, and I'm simply suggesting that living within a society going cold turkey may not be the nicest experience.. It's a possibility that should at least be considered...

MatthewVII · 04-02-2009 8:05pm

Simon.d wrote: »

I'm not portraying humans as "crazed rabid butchers", I'm simply not assuming that society as we know it isn't somewhat dependent on one of it's biggest and oldest institutions, or that the positive social norms we take for granted aren't somewhat dependent on a significant portion of our society believing in such fairy-tales.

I really think society isn't dependent on it. When one thinks of it from a purely logistical standpoint, what would change? People who want to be evil will still be evil. The threat of eternal damnation is completely empty.

As for society depending on religion for social norms, surely even if religion were needed, societal rules would have become self-sufficient by now?

CDfm · 04-02-2009 9:36pm

MatthewVII wrote: »

I really think society isn't dependent on it. When one thinks of it from a purely logistical standpoint, what would change? People who want to be evil will still be evil. The threat of eternal damnation is completely empty.

As for society depending on religion for social norms, surely even if religion were needed, societal rules would have become self-sufficient by now?

I think you assume the christians presume atheists do not have ethics. I think posters such as Chocolate sauce dispel that myth as he makes it very simple to "fix sick babies" as the most justifiable reason for stem cell research.

Then he introduces choice and that Matthew is where ethics enter into the mix about what is the essence of life and all that metaphysical stuff that Christians do in a very clear way but some atheists prefer didnt exist.

Its like being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty at the same time and thats the dichotomy. An atheist might hold those views and you might hold those views but they are not logical to me. If I proposed why not use convicted murders as organ donors - the jails are full of them and if it helps a sick child its worth it.

Can you argue against that? Yet you question someones right to question harvesting stem cells from foetii because they are a by product of an abortion.

Atheists do think about ethics and the sanctity of human life. Maybe they dont express it like I do as a Catholic but they do.

MatthewVII · 04-02-2009 10:25pm

CDfm wrote: »

Its like being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty at the same time and thats the dichotomy. An atheist might hold those views and you might hold those views but they are not logical to me. If I proposed why not use convicted murders as organ donors - the jails are full of them and if it helps a sick child its worth it.

Can you argue against that? Yet you question someones right to question harvesting stem cells from foetii because they are a by product of an abortion.

Atheists do think about ethics and the sanctity of human life. Maybe they dont express it like I do as a Catholic but they do.

You quite misunderstand me, I said that harvesting stem cells from an aborted fetus was an excellent reason for harvest. If the baby will die anyway, it isn't hurting anyone to use it's stem cells. Similarly I think that organ donorship should be an opt out rather than opt in system.

And for the record, I am not exactly pro-abortion (I believe if reasonable means of avoiding them are possible they should be taken - esp adoption, many parents would love the chance of a baby) but I am definitely pro-choice (if the mother feels its the only option, she should definitely have the right to do it)

As an aside, I am pro-death penalty when the crime is sufficiently serious and a guilty mind and act is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

As for using sentenced prisoners as organ donors, I go along with Cardozo's assertion that any human of sane mind has the right to decide what shall be done to their own bodies. Of course, when one dies one doesn't have a sane mind, so they have no claim to withholding organs in my eyes.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I think atheists have no ethics. I think you may have gotten the wrong idea from my posts. What I'm saying is that atheists are capable of more relevant morals than Christians

Bottle_of_Smoke · 04-02-2009 11:34pm

I think in the future they will laugh at us as being old fashioned for being against designer babies.

A lot of girls I know wouldn't want to go out with a ginger guy as they hate the thought of having a ginger kid.

I'm 5'7 myself so I think it would be pretty cruel to have kids with a girl who's 5'0 as the kids would be even tinier. To be honest I'll prob avoid it.

Is there really much difference between these examples and "designer babies"?

CDfm · 05-02-2009 12:57am

MatthewVII wrote: »

You quite misunderstand me, I said that harvesting stem cells from an aborted fetus was an excellent reason for harvest. If the baby will die anyway, it isn't hurting anyone to use it's stem cells. Similarly I think that organ donorship should be an opt out rather than opt in system.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I think atheists have no ethics. I think you may have gotten the wrong idea from my posts. What I'm saying is that atheists are capable of more relevant morals than Christians

The point I am making is that there are other sources of stem cells than an aborted fetus and its that source that some Christians have a moral dilemma with. Thats only one issue and other than that loads of other groups have difficulty with the application of the technology. So there is a kind of coalition where Christians form just a part.There are other too like Tony Blair who compromise their professed beliefs on these issues.

An example of such a coalition in the US has been the Womens movement and right wing political and religous groups alliance which acts together on pornography and sex worker issues. They are strange bedfellows but get legislation passed.

What are the relevant morals that atheists have here on the stem cell issue? Is it a real issue as we know there are other sources of stem cells available?As Ive shown the aborted fetus issue is easily overcome with "donations".

What about other people who have objections? IMO its a spin that the only ones with objections are Christians. Others to have objections for ethical reasons. You wouldnt dub oponents of GM foods radicals for holding similar views

Húrin · 05-02-2009 1:06am

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.

Christians do think for themselves. They just don't rely entirely on their native cultures to provide reference points.

Dades · 05-02-2009 10:45am

Húrin wrote: »

Christians do think for themselves. They just don't rely entirely on their native cultures to provide reference points.

So when they're not relying on their native culture to provide reference points, they're relying on a 2000 year old Middle Eastern one?

And regarding thinking for themselves, I recall you stating before that you have given the bible precedence over your own conscience.

CDfm · 05-02-2009 11:33am

Dades wrote: »

So when they're not relying on their native culture to provide reference points, they're relying on a 2000 year old Middle Eastern one?

And regarding thinking for themselves, I recall you stating before that you have given the bible precedence over your own conscience.

Ah Dades - so there is a disagreement on the stem cell issue - thats not soley based on religion now is it.

Some of the beliefs stem from philosophical and ethical issues that are shared between lots of people believers and non believers. Thats the crucial issue.

Aristotle pre-dates Christianity yet no-one is dissing his thinking.

IM thinking and I am asking the question what do you understand the Catholic objections to stem cell research to be?

But in terms of this issue -where is the Christian objection and what are the options available? Where are the facts to support your view.

THere are other concerns that are common to all people.The Greens have objections to similar technology?

philologos · 05-02-2009 11:54am

Can't stem cells be extracted from adult cells? If so I don't see the reason why this must be done on embryos.

MatthewVII wrote: »

You quite misunderstand me, I said that harvesting stem cells from an aborted fetus was an excellent reason for harvest. If the baby will die anyway, it isn't hurting anyone to use it's stem cells. Similarly I think that organ donorship should be an opt out rather than opt in system.

Are you acknowledging something in this post about abortion suggesting that it is the killing of a baby, or are you suggesting that if a child would be deemed ill and then aborted that the cells should be extracted from?

Dades: I'd say the Bible formed my conscience after accepting Christianity as my faith.

CDfm · 05-02-2009 12:16pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Can't stem cells be extracted from adult cells? If so I don't see the reason why this must be done on embryos.

Are you acknowledging something in this post about abortion suggesting that it is the killing of a baby, or are you suggesting that if a child would be deemed ill and then aborted that the cells should be extracted from?

Dades: I'd say the Bible formed my conscience after accepting Christianity as my faith.

Thats my point - there are certain types of cells which can be extracted from adults that can be used. GothPunk explained a bit of this in Post 36.

What I dont understand is why if there are alternative sources of embryo stem cells other than those harvested from aborted foetii that the alternative sources are not used. While its more serious than pork to Jews or Muslims you know its going to be offensive.

Criticising the Bible - you might as well criticise Aristotle or Plato but people still read them in philosophy and they were important thinkers.

MatthewVII · 05-02-2009 12:21pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Can't stem cells be extracted from adult cells? If so I don't see the reason why this must be done on embryos.

I believe the stem cells extracted from adults are not as totipotent as the ones extracted from embryos. The are working on ways to retroconvert them to more primitive forms but no real promising results so far.

Jakkass wrote:

Are you acknowledging something in this post about abortion suggesting that it is the killing of a baby, or are you suggesting that if a child would be deemed ill and then aborted that the cells should be extracted from?

I'm saying that in the case of an abortion which is either spontaneous or planned for whatever reason, stem cell extraction doesn't seem to be unethical.

Goduznt Xzst · 05-02-2009 12:40pm

CDfm wrote: »

I think the high profile nature of it helped get funding for it -yes.

I think the JW's just provided the perfect guinea pigs for doctors to try out their new bloodless procedures on, and in that regard they did help further it as it probably would of taken a lot longer to get permission for human testing. I seriously doubt however that these procedures where, in the slightest, developed with JW's mainly in mind. As I've already outlined, bloodless surgery is beneficial for a lot of reasons, least of which being to keep an infinitesimally small number of patients from an extremely small sect happy.

In regards to stem cell research, I have no ethical qualms with it. I don't regard aborted foetuses as killing in any regard so research and utilization of that matter, if beneficial, I am in support of.

As an aside, I am also pro assumed consent in regards to organ donation. I also feel that along with their freedom rights, an inmate should lose their right to say what happens to their organs after they die if they should die while incarcerated.

GothPunk · 05-02-2009 12:47pm

CDfm wrote: »

What I dont understand is why if there are alternative sources of embryo stem cells other than those harvested from aborted foetii that the alternative sources are not used. While its more serious than pork to Jews or Muslims you know its going to be offensive.

The reason why embryonic stem cells need to be used is because we don't know how to turn adult cells into stem cells yet. We may never be able to achieve this and that was my previous point. However, we're damn well going to try hard to see if we can. We still need embryonic stem cells to understand what makes them different from adult cells.

Not to mention the fact that we have the technology now (using embryonic stem cells) to treat many diseases and disorders that were once almost untreatable. If a fully grown adult is suffering and there is an embryo going to go in the bin, where's the problem in harvesting stem cells from the embryo to allievate and cure someone of suffering?

Let me state again: We do not have stem cells originating from adult cells. At the moment the best we have are bone marrow transplants (which can only create the different types of blood cell and thus is used to cure leukemia) and umbilical cord (which is still a work in progress. I don't know of any treatments using umbilical cord cells). Thus we can not treat anybody and will have to wait for molecular biologists to play catch up. It is possible that we will never be able to create stem cells from adult cells. At best it will take us a long time to figure it out - gene expression on the cellwide scale is very complex.

If some old aristocrat wants to inject their face with embryonic stem cells, sure I'm against that when there are much better uses for embryonic stem cells.

Stem cells need to be harvested early in the development of the embryo, in most cases the embryo doesn't even have fully developed organs yet. The embryo doesn't even have solid bones yet never mind a brain and functioning nervous system. In fact, totipotent stem cells, the type of stem cell that can become absolutely any cell type, only exist in the first few days after fertilisation and thus in many cases we really are just dealing with a ball of cells.

CDfm · 05-02-2009 1:17pm

GothPunk wrote: »

The reason why embryonic stem cells need to be used is because we don't know how to turn adult cells into stem cells yet. We may never be able to achieve this and that was my previous point. However, we're damn well going to try hard to see if we can. We still need embryonic stem cells to understand what makes them different from adult cells.

Not to mention the fact that we have the technology now (using embryonic stem cells) to treat many diseases and disorders that were once almost untreatable. If a fully grown adult is suffering and there is an embryo going to go in the bin, where's the problem in harvesting stem cells from the embryo to allievate and cure someone of suffering?

Let me state again: We do not have stem cells originating from adult cells. At the moment the best we have are bone marrow transplants (which can only create the different types of blood cell and thus is used to cure leukemia) and umbilical cord (which is still a work in progress.

Thanks GothPunk -so really the whole issue of aborted foetii is misinformation. Oh, dear.

I told you that science bamboozles me. So what then are the objections flying around?

AS scientists you follow the facts and the most promising results .Have any tests been done on animals with similar biology to test the technology so that Christian objections are satisfied?

GothPunk · 05-02-2009 2:21pm

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks GothPunk -so really the whole issue of aborted foetii is misinformation. Oh, dear.

I told you that science bamboozles me. So what then are the objections flying around?

AS scientists you follow the facts and the most promising results .Have any tests been done on animals with similar biology to test the technology so that Christian objections are satisfied?

Aborted foetii are used in some countries, it's just that from a scientific point of view, unused embryos left over from in vitro fertilisation are the best source - the cells are all totipotent stem cells and it's the most ethical way to source embryonic stem cells. In fact from what a short search has found me, the use of aborted foetii is still in the research stage, so when we're talking about new treatments more than likely we're dealing with unused embryos.

The arguments I have heard go back to what I said in one of my previous posts about 'potential for life' and the 'eternal soul'. Some people see a human embryo in a freezer or a petri dish as having the same right to life as a fully grown human. I cannot understand this. There is no sense in this 'potential for life' argument as we don't cry every time someone has a **** or menstruates. I do view human life, all life, as special, perhaps even sacred in a way. However, some people go further and believe life is a gift from god. That the second a human sperm hits an human egg, a human exists, a soul, a potential for human brilliance, a special snowflake etc. It takes a female (with male assistance) to create life, not god.

We give infertile couples a chance to concieve using in vitro fertilisation. That helps parents (with the money) a chance to raise a child. It is no miracle. It is science, medicine, a life that would not exist without petri dishes and steady hands. It is also an imprecise science - several maybe even ten or fifty embryos must be created in the hope that even one will successfully implant in the mothers/surrogates womb and grow to full term. Some couples have the remaining embryos destroyed. Some couples allow the embryos to be harvested for embryonic stem cells.

Do you hear a lot of people giving out about mothers who don't choose to be implanted with every single embryo that was created for her IVF? Surely that is the rational follow through of the 'potential for life' argument? However, if those embryos are harvested for embryonic stem cells and they help a alleviate someones (who is actually alive!) suffering, isn't that much better than throwing them away? (Believe me, embryos do get thrown in the bin and incinerated as a result of IVF, or frozen and never used.)

In fact, like I said before - people are going to have clinical abortions whether we all like it or not. Surely it is better for the aborted embryo or foetus to be used for something instead of just going in the bin? Hell, every day some women take the morning after pill which effectively is a very very early chemically induced abortion.

Where I am going with all this is this: Clearly there is some grey area here that most people work within. However, I would argue that some religious people are more inclined to work with absolutes. There is either life or no life. The objections come from people who are not willing to even consider the facts.

To answer your question about the use of other animals, other animals are always used for this kind of research before the work moves on to humans. I think that religious objection to stem cell technology will always crop up because once we learn how to do something in mice or another model organism, the work is carried over using human cells.

People just don't understand how alot of this stuff works which breeds fear and mistrust. Scientists try to explain how it works but a lot of people (e.g. the religious right in the U.S.) spread misinformation so people get confused.

I will say that following the converage of the 'chimeric'(:rolleyes:) embryo that was created a while ago I have very little faith in the ability of even the leading newspapers and news stations to get the facts right on molecular and cell biology.

Simon.d · 05-02-2009 2:39pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Can't stem cells be extracted from adult cells? If so I don't see the reason why this must be done on embryos.

Pictures always brighten up a subject...

Looking at the picture, the embryonic stem cell is shown as the "precursor cell", the single cell at the top of the tree, which then continually divides and differentiates as the embryo grows, creating lots of new generations of different types of cells..

Lots of different regulatory proteins then act of the branches of the tree, and control the switching on and off different genes, which in turn control what proteins that cell can produce, which in turn defines the tissue type that cell can create.. Looking at each branch separately, each new cell generation is slightly different than the previous one, owing to the differential effect the action of different regulatory proteins have on gene expression (i.e. defining the proteins that cell can produce)..

Adult stem cells would lie somewhere in the middle of that tree, meaning they've already chosen a branch of differentiation, i.e. you have blood stem cells which can create different types of blood cells (red, white, platelets etc.) as the body needs them... However, embryonic stems cells are positioned at the route to every branch, meaning in the lab it is "easy" to direct these cells down any path by exposing them to the right set of regulatory proteins, meaning any tissue type can be created by a stem cell..

This is great from a medical research perspective, as all human tissues can be created in a petri dish, which can subsequently be experimented on, i.e. testing new drugs and the like.. From a therapeutic perspective, it's not as great because embryonic stem cells have their own unique genome, meaning like any normal tissue/organ transplant from person to person, they are at risk of rejection (unless it's a cloned embryo of course! which is a whole different ethical debate) , though useful none the less...

However, if adult stem cells were harvested from the person to be treated, and it were possible to reverse them along their differentiation branch it may be possible to grow the needed tissues in the lab and subsequently transplant them in with little risk of rejection.. Which from a therapeutic perspective would be better, so it's a technology that should be pursued nonetheless..

CDfm · 05-02-2009 6:51pm

Guys it sounds wonderful. Where is the catch.

Explain the objections to me that the Catholic chrch have and whether these are true.

philologos · 05-02-2009 8:09pm

MatthewVII wrote: »

I'm saying that in the case of an abortion which is either spontaneous or planned for whatever reason, stem cell extraction doesn't seem to be unethical.

Theres still the question of ethics surrounding abortion before we even get to the stage of deciding what to do with the foetus.

GothPunk · 05-02-2009 8:42pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Theres still the question of ethics surrounding abortion before we even get to the stage of deciding what to do with the foetus.

Like I have been saying, abortions happen whether we like it or not. It's not like we're speaking hypothetically - Your statement makes it sound like everyone is still deciding whether abortions should happen or not. I'm sure you could list off plenty of countries where abortion is legal, so there will always be aborted embryos somewhere. Surely we're passed that stage now; it is not better to harvest embryonic stem cells from aborted embryos than to just throw them in the bin?

Would you refuse a life-saving stem cell based medical treatment that came about primarily through research using aborted embryos?

CDfm · 05-02-2009 8:46pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think the JW's just provided the perfect guinea pigs for doctors to try out their new bloodless procedures on.

LOL:D

CDfm · 05-02-2009 8:51pm

GothPunk wrote: »

Would you refuse a life-saving stem cell based medical treatment that came about primarily through research using aborted embryos?

But thats like saying hang an innocent guy as a deterrent?

What about sources not involving abortions - are there? if only to humour us Catholics who are spooked by abortions. Bad magic.

fitz0 · 05-02-2009 8:56pm

CDfm wrote: »

But thats like saying hang an innocent guy as a deterrent?

What about sources not involving abortions - are there? if only to humour us Catholics who are spooked by abortions. Bad magic.

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.

philologos · 05-02-2009 9:16pm

GothPunk wrote: »

Like I have been saying, abortions happen whether we like it or not. It's not like we're speaking hypothetically - Your statement makes it sound like everyone is still deciding whether abortions should happen or not. I'm sure you could list off plenty of countries where abortion is legal, so there will always be aborted embryos somewhere. Surely we're passed that stage now; it is not better to harvest embryonic stem cells from aborted embryos than to just throw them in the bin?

I disagree with you that abortions will happen irrespective of our efforts. People do and are questioning the legality of abortions across the world, just look at the pro-life movement.

I could also list you countries where abortion is illegal except in cases of likely fatality to the mother.

We have nowhere near passed that stage.

GothPunk wrote: »

Would you refuse a life-saving stem cell based medical treatment that came about primarily through research using aborted embryos?

I don't think it's acceptable to use the body of a person who hasn't been asked for permission to use for medical research of treatment.

GothPunk · 05-02-2009 9:17pm

fitz0 wrote: »

Theres also no reason why sources not involving abortions cant be used as well though.

The point of that question is to see if Jakkass has a grey area on the subject.

Of course it's more probable that a treatment would come about through research using unused IVF embryos, but different labs have different sources. So I'm asking you to just imagine that there is some life saving treatment that was developed using aborted embryos as a source of stem cells, but does not require them for the final treatment.

Up until now, abortion was just abortion pretty much. Some people see it as unethical or completely amoral. However, in the present medical research climate, it's possible an important clinical treatment will come about through research using stem cells sourced from aborted embryos.

So for someone who sees abortion as unethical, do they hold that position so strongly that they'd turn down any treatment that only exists because of the use of aborted embryos? I would like to think that people would value their lives more than personal feelings of moral superiority.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you that abortions will happen irrespective of our efforts. People do and are questioning the legality of abortions across the world, just look at the pro-life movement.

I could also list you countries where abortion is illegal except in cases of likely fatality to the mother.

We have nowhere near passed that stage.

I'm well aware of the pro-life movement. Surely you don't think that countries like Japan or the Netherlands would be swayed on the matter? I doubt the Japanese government feels a lot of pressure about it. Japan is also a very important country in terms of genetic research so it's a good example in this case. Your point about countries where it's illegal is unimportant to my argument as automatically we know that no stem cell research using aborted embryos will exist in those countries.

What is important is the fact that there are countries where abortion is legal and there are absolutely no signs of that fact ever changing. So yes, I do think we have passed that stage - we are at a point now where there are countries that have legal abortions and will do for the foreseeable future. Therefore the matter of "deciding what to do with the foetus" as you put it exists in these countries. So I ask again, is it not better to use the aborted embryo for something than to just throw it in the bin (with the mothers consent of course)?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it's acceptable to use the body of a person who hasn't been asked for permission to use for medical research of treatment.

The fact that you use the term 'person' to describe a ball of cells tells me that it's perhaps for the best that we don't go down a road of debate here. Most likely it won't go anywhere.

philologos · 05-02-2009 11:43pm

GothPunk wrote: »

The point of that question is to see if Jakkass has a grey area on the subject.

Of course it's more probable that a treatment would come about through research using unused IVF embryos, but different labs have different sources. So I'm asking you to just imagine that there is some life saving treatment that was developed using aborted embryos as a source of stem cells, but does not require them for the final treatment.

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

Up until now, abortion was just abortion pretty much. Some people see it as unethical or completely amoral. However, in the present medical research climate, it's possible an important clinical treatment will come about through research using stem cells sourced from aborted embryos.

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

So for someone who sees abortion as unethical, do they hold that position so strongly that they'd turn down any treatment that only exists because of the use of aborted embryos? I would like to think that people would value their lives more than personal feelings of moral superiority.

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

I'm well aware of the pro-life movement. Surely you don't think that countries like Japan or the Netherlands would be swayed on the matter? I doubt the Japanese government feels a lot of pressure about it. Japan is also a very important country in terms of genetic research so it's a good example in this case. Your point about countries where it's illegal is unimportant to my argument as automatically we know that no stem cell research using aborted embryos will exist in those countries.

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

What is important is the fact that there are countries where abortion is legal and there are absolutely no signs of that fact ever changing. So yes, I do think we have passed that stage - we are at a point now where there are countries that have legal abortions and will do for the foreseeable future. Therefore the matter of "deciding what to do with the foetus" as you put it exists in these countries. So I ask again, is it not better to use the aborted embryo for something than to just throw it in the bin (with the mothers consent of course)?
The fact that you use the term 'person' to describe a ball of cells tells me that it's perhaps for the best that we don't go down a road of debate here. Most likely it won't go anywhere.

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?

robindch · 05-02-2009 11:52pm

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

That's what people are doing. Not only because ethically, it's far less contentious, but also (I believe) because adult stem cells can be harvested and reused for the same adult humans with less messing than foetal stem cells containing different DNA.

I haven't been following development all that closely, and I may be wrong, but I believe that these days, there are few procedures which still require foetal stem cells in preference to adult ones.

Zombrex · 06-02-2009 12:14am

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?

My gut instinct is to say no, doing so would be rewarding the actions of the mother. But then you think well what the mother did was independent to the boy. What ever the mother did you now have a sick boy and the organs from a dead boy that can help him.

So it becomes a bit trickier.

Do you not give the boy the organs in order to be seen not to be rewarding the actions of the mother.

Isn't morality fun ... some days I do long for a book that tells me what to think ... but only for a second :P

Mena · 06-02-2009 12:23am

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you not give the boy the organs in order to be seen not to be rewarding the actions of the mother.

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...

Stem Cell Research - Where should atheists draw the line?

Comments