Stem Cell Research - Where should atheists draw the line?

GothPunk wrote: »

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?

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

GothPunk wrote: »

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:

GothPunk wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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
.

CDfm wrote: »

Would you have any probs with the edit Ive suggested.

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.

CDfm wrote: »

Not just some -Wicknight-lots of people ,religions and cultures do have problems with it.

Ok, I don't think we should stop this research altogether because "lots" have problems with it.

CDfm wrote: »

What you propose is theoretical and you have no idea if similar stuff has worked with animals.

What did I propose?

CDfm wrote: »

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.

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).

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.

CDfm wrote: »

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.

CDfm wrote: »

I havent suggested stopping it

I haven't claimed you suggested stopping it

You appear to be claiming stem cell treatment has never worked on animals so scientists should not be blindly presuing it without any indication it works, that this is unscientific (you appear to be suggesting there is some alterer motive here or something, I'm not sure what exactly your point is)

What ever your point for claiming that is, it isn't true.

It has worked on animals and in fact it has already worked on humans.

CDfm wrote: »

but I do think by ensuring the stem cells used are not the result of abortions would make it more "Believer" friendy.

I agree, but I don't think the research should halt until it is more believer friendly, which is what I thought you were asking me.

CDfm wrote: »

Similar to dolphin friendly tuna -same idea.

Not really

CDfm wrote: »

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'm not sure appeasing these people should be a high priority. They don't appear to be the most rational of people.

CDfm wrote: »

Hey - I think I have proven my credentials as one of the least knowledgeable on these science issues.

Would it not be a good idea then to stop posting things about science that are wrong.

If you don't know just say you don't know and go and find out

CDfm wrote: »

What I am suggesting is that the pro and anti lobbies might have a hidden aghenda other then getting on with their jobs.

I think the "pro lobby's" agenda is to a) learn about how stem cells work and b) put this knowledge to use fighting disease and helping crippled people.

I'm not sure they are particularly hidden about this. In fact they seem quite open about it.

CDfm wrote: »

The publicity,notoriety and media spotlight. Just a thought.

Can you name one doctor or scientist who works on stem cells?

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe reaching concensus isnt as high up the aghenda as we would like to think.

I don't think reaching a consensus is high up on the agenda at all. If people have strong religious issues with stem cell research they should take it to their politicians.

CDfm wrote: »

The science is not as clear cut as some of the moral issues tend to be. To sort out the facts from the hyperbole is difficult enough.

Then you say the science is clear cut and can be applied but preceed this with "we are still learning". So its either theoretical or its proven - it cant be both.

Oh sweet mother of Allah, how many times do we have to go over this.

Science is always theoretical, it is never proven.

Theories are models. Science is modeling. Models are never proven. They are models of how we believe the world works based on testing and research. We never "prove" a model, we simply refine it to make it more accurate. This is an infinite process, we are always learning, we are always refining. This never stops. Any model of anything can always be more accurate.

CDfm wrote: »

You also cant say whether there is any need to source embryos from clinical abortions or whether there is a steady supply from other sources?

I#m not a cell biologists, so no I can't say. Cell biologists can, but you appear to be suggesting they have an alterer motive and can't be trusted?

CDfm wrote: »

Then you complete with why have dialogue anyway.

I have no idea what that sentence means or what it is supposed to be referencing in my post. When did I "complete" with the question why have dialogue anyway.

CDfm wrote: »

Its no wonder I am confused Wicknight

I assure you after having to read some of your posts I'm more confused ... :pac:

mickeydevine wrote: »

If you read all the replies then you'd know the answer to both those questions, repeated more than once. Whats your agenda here?.

I have no agenda here.

The purpose of the thread is to see "where would atheists draw the line" on stem cell research.

I haven't read of any clinical application for embryonic stem cells. Most research is on adult stem cell research. So Im questioning whether or not there is a demand for embryonic stem cells harvested from clinical abortions and which Catholics (and other churches) dont want.

Thats the only issue concerning me.

It seems a huge debate over something there is little or no benefit from and one which has caused endless debate.Why dont the scientists just use the non-contentuous one.

Simon.d wrote: »

Because the less contentious one (i.e. the adult stem cell) isn't as useful for laboratory based research (yet!)... If a researcher wants to grow the internal lining tissue of a lung in the lab, he/she can do so with an embryonic stem cell.. If a researcher wants to create a neuronal network in the lab, he/she can do so with the very same embryonic stem cell..

However the use of embryonic stem cells in this manner may be made redundant in the future, if researchers get to grips with controlling the more stubborn and wiley adult variety...

Your right of course. I read the same answers recently in more detail. Cant think where tho.........:rolleyes:. You'll be blue in the face simon.

Simon.d wrote: »

Because the less contentious one (i.e. the adult stem cell) isn't as useful for laboratory based research (yet!)... If a researcher wants to grow the internal lining tissue of a lung in the lab, he/she can do so with an embryonic stem cell.. If a researcher wants to create a neuronal network in the lab, he/she can do so with the very same embryonic stem cell..

However the use of embryonic stem cells in this manner may be made redundant in the future, if researchers get to grips with controlling the more stubborn and wiley adult variety...

JUst for a mo -consider that its the abortion source causes the political and opposition issue that Christians- like me- have an ethical issue with.

As GothPunk said there are other sources of embryotic stem cells other then abortions.

While I have no ethical moral or religious objections to stems cells obtained thru sources other than abortions - many posters here clearly do but wont give reasons- is it adequete supply or is it just arrogant and callous indifference to others objections. You do know what it looks like?

So Im wondering should atheists draw the line at sources of embryonic stem cells other then abortions as it could result in more support and less regulation for stem cell research?

Simon.d wrote: »

I'm personally against abortions myself (outside of rape & risk of significant harm to the mother) as I'm of the opinion that people should take responsibility for their actions..

But at same time I think aborted foetus's are probably the least contentious source of embryonic stem cells (i.e. it's akin to harvesting organs from a dead body which most don't seem to have a problem with) though I'm unsure how useful such cells are, having passed the pluripotent blastocyst stage.

Thanks Simon - but you know where I am coming from is how to use the science and technology without giving the wackos and extremists on either side the opportunity to strut their stuff.

I dont want to be in an abortion debate but I would like to know more then I read in the papers or stuff thats regurgitated from interest groups.Its easier to ask these questions on A & A.

I wonder " how useful such cells are, having passed the pluripotent blastocyst stage" or what are is the viability of alternative sources?

Im with aguaclara here. Im Catholic and no doubt I would find it v v hard to resist a stem cell cure if it was my child needed it and I have kids. It gives and lead us not into temptation a different slant.

Thats the Catholic line - that stem cells sourced from abortions is like organ harvesting and not like transplants or blood transfusions.

Where would I stand if my child daughter was terminally ill and needed a kidney and I could buy a match. Would I, probably,though, I would hope I wouldn't.

I could cross lots of lines and thats why we need ethical laws and controls.