Anti-Abortion Yet Pro Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[mapleoak]

It doesn’t say she was born without sin, it says "in the first instance of her conception " she was without sin.

Which would be superfulous to say that an inanimate object was conceived free of sin. That would be like saying my dog was conceived free of sin.

 

[ConallCernach]

Hey, I just handed in a paper regarding embryonic stem cells and cloning, I’ll copy it and paste it here (though I only have the rough draft with me so please mind the errors in grammar:

“Is the Catholic Church opposed to stem cell research altogether?”

The Catholic Church is often mistakenly placed as an opponent to stem cell research, but this usually the result of lacking some information.  The Catholic Church holds all human life as something that is treasured; this is because in the teachings of the Church as well as various denominations and Jewish tradition, God created man in His image; this results in an intrinsic dignity of all human life, born and unborn.  The opposition of the Church comes in the instances in which the stem cells are harvested from a human embryo, resulting in the child’s death.  The Catholic Church however, does support another area of stem cell research referred to as “adult stem cell research”; these stem cells are harvested from the patient in way that is not likely to result in death, as opposed to the expected demise of the embryo.   The latter option also has the advantage of being guaranteed to be the genotype required for the procedure.

“Why would the Church oppose something that could potentially save so many lives?”

It is undeniable that stem cells have a future as a great healing agent, but there is a tremendous cost of human life for what may be used to cure numerous non-life threatening maladies.  For each stem cell line created at least one human embryo is prematurely killed.  The temptation of saving many lives for the cost relatively few is tantamount, but a human life is something on which no value can be placed.  The opposition from the Church is underlined by the fact that there is another option with just as much, if not more, promise already in use without the cost of human lives.

“What’s wrong with performing research on embryos if those embryos are going to perish anyways?”

Firstly we must establish that these frozen embryos are not necessarily doomed to perish if they are not harvested.   In fact, these embryos are capable of being implanted and born to parents, allowing for a new type of adoption to be formed.  And should this be legalized, than these embryos are no more doomed to die than children that are up for adoption. Since neither have families, does this make them opportunities to becoming organ donors?  As we can see, these embryos deserve a chance to be born into a loving family just as much as a child in an orphanage does.

“Why wouldn’t human cloning be a more acceptable way to obtain stem cells? Isn’t there a fundamental different between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning?

There is something morbid about a society where children are conceived for the sole purpose of being sacrificed for the progression of medicine, such a scenario seems to draw images of a nightmare story from the concentration camps of the Nazi regime.   Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, an expert in bioethics and a highly educated individual in biology, points out that the current level in therapeutic cloning twins the initial steps of reproductive cloning.  But most importantly, both processes (save recent limited successes) create an embryo.  Though I will grant there is a fundamental difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, the difference being the child isn’t born with the sole purpose of dying in the case of reproductive cloning.

-Conall Cernach

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Which would be superfulous to say that an inanimate object was conceived free of sin. That would be like saying my dog was conceived free of sin.

who you callin’ an inanimate object?

are you comparing Mary to your dog?

obviously, I don’t get your point. Can you elaborate?

btw: superfluous means exceeding what is sufficient or necessary. Mary was exceeding in grace.

 

[mapleoak]

who you callin’ an inanimate object?

Would you agree that an inanimate object does not need to be preserved from original sin? Would you agree that a dog need not be preserved from original sin?

are you comparing Mary to your dog?

Since Mary was conceived without sin, she would have had to have been something other than an inanimate object from conception, rather a separate and unique human individual that of her nature was capable of inheriting original sin. But by gift of special grace she was preserved from original sin since conception. Does this not indicate that Mary was human from conception?

obviously, I don’t get your point. Can you elaborate?

Inanimate objects do not need to be preserved from sin. Masses of tissue don’t inherit original sin.

btw: superfluous means exceeding what is sufficient or necessary. Mary was exceeding in grace.

Since an inanimate object is ‘exceeding what is sufficient’ in terms of grace, it is ‘superfluous’ to preserve it from original sin.