Confused: Stem Cell Research (Embryonic vs Adult)

[melensdad]

I would say that if you’re not looking for a moral debate – only scientific information – you’re hitting your head against a wall . . .

Well you are right.

The thread was started simply as an exercise to see if the atheists could come up with objective information or if they would simply provide opinion.

What I found is that they only provided opinions, nothing more. In fact when providing opinions they often simply belittled anyone who disagrees with their opinions basically dismissing anything they don’t agree with as trite. Its been an interesting exercise to see what they do because NOT ONE OF THEM has actually provided any scientific data. In fact, I have played both sides of the fence on the issue providing information that supports both types of research. Of course the only information supporting embryonic research is opinion based, and if you set the moral issues aside, very compelling.

But how can they put the moral issues aside?

 

[Rosalinda]

Melensdad, I would recommend reading this article by Dr. Diane Irving which provides an analysis based on how we ever got to the this point in the debate to begin with. As a “Johny-come-lately” to the pro-life issues I have found a little bit of historical review immensely helpful. It may be of no use whatsoever for your interlocutors but "NIH: Human Embryo Research: A Critical Analysis" will certainly clear up a few cobwebs and help to keep the debate in a proper perspective.

[sign]
**What I discovered was that objections to this research were not coming from irrational, right-wing, ignorant and uneducated bigots. Nor is this issue one of “balancing one group’s belief system against another group’s belief system”. Nor is this really about religion or pro-life zealots or anti-scientific research mentalities. Nor are these NIH recommendations grounded in or based on sound science, guided by sound moral reasoning, or constitutive of sound public policy. **
Rather, this is an issue which concerns humanity itself; it is about human rights. And those who have taken a stand against this research come from all religious, non-religious, grass roots, cultural, academic, professional, and political persuasions. [/sign]
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_64criticalanalysis.html#b33

 

[edwest2]

I had a response to a comment I made at another board and the answer was essentially this; “We don’t want anyone making us feel bad or ashamed or guilty about what we do.”

Part of the “freedom” associated with Atheism is that there is nothing beyond yourself. No God, no rules, only what you think is best for yourself. An Atheist can be a very good person, kind and loving. In fact, a prominent Atheist writer said, “Christianity has hijacked morality for itself.” In other words, you don’t have to be a Christian to do good things.

What is not rational is believing that an embryo, a fetus and a baby inches from birth do not qualify as human. It appears to me that selfish interests are the overriding interest. Some think that even though the human embryo is a human embryo, so what? It’s not going to feel any pain from being killed, and besides, once all of that stem cell stuff gets figured out, it’s treatments for everybody!! I actually saw the following statement: “Christians should stay out of the way of science.” Or, to put it another way, the means is justified by the end result.

And right now, it’s open season on religion. Unfortunately, believers are referred to as “ignorant,” when it’s clear that we’re far from it. They fear a religious takeover of the United States.

God bless,
Ed

 

[melensdad]

And right now, it’s open season on religion. Unfortunately, believers are referred to as “ignorant,” when it’s clear that we’re far from it. They fear a religious takeover of the United States.

Interesting and so true. In the debate I am in, I’m the only one who has posted links, partial articles, etc. Clearly I have posted most of the factual information and stayed on topic. But I am also the one in the debate who is being criticized. Funny thing is that the atheists keep bringing up the fact that I am Catholic and I have not mentioned morality or religion in any of my posts EXCEPT in the first one of the debate where I said I was looking to avoid any moral or opinion posts and wanted to strictly learn about the science. Yup, they are sure wrapped up in attacking me for my religion and I’m rude for staying on topic???

Its actually become funny to read the posts from the atheist because he is now just bent on attacking me and is no longer rationally discussing the topic . . . probably because he can’t.

 

[jman507]

Interesting and so true. In the debate I am in, I’m the only one who has posted links, partial articles, etc. Clearly I have posted most of the factual information and stayed on topic. But I am also the one in the debate who is being criticized. Funny thing is that the atheists keep bringing up the fact that I am Catholic and I have not mentioned morality or religion in any of my posts EXCEPT in the first one of the debate where I said I was looking to avoid any moral or opinion posts and wanted to strictly learn about the science. Yup, they are sure wrapped up in attacking me for my religion and I’m rude for staying on topic???

Its actually become funny to read the posts from the atheist because he is now just bent on attacking me and is no longer rationally discussing the topic . . . probably because he can’t.

There seems to be some irony with the whole thing, they seem to claim they are the rational ones.

 

[manualman]

Again, the issue revolves around the inherent value of human life.

Hopefully, all will agree that human life cannot be treated as a commodity for scientific, economic or even public health gain. As an example, surely they would not agree that should science discover that bone marrow from an teenage albino would cure cancer, that it would be OK to ‘breed’ them just to kill them and use the bone marrow to cure many people of cancer? If they agree that is not acceptable, then ask why not?

Once THAT is settled, you can state that because of this principle that has been established and agreed to by all, that it must be PROVEN that a tissue is not itself a human being before it is ethical to utilize it for research or therapy. An organ transplant, for example, meets the legitimacy test since it is not, by itself a unique organism and by its very nature has no ability to develop further into an independent person. An embryo, on the other hand can be demonstrated to have its own unique DNA (different from either parent), DOES have the inherent ability to develop to mature personhood, and incontrovertibly meets the definition of ‘alive.’

Then simply note that you’ve made your ethical argument for the humanity of the embryo. Given the stakes, it is the burden of those wishing to exploit the embryo to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the embryo is NOT human, but mere tissue without inherent dignity or rights. Then you proceed to poke holes in any agument he puts forward (by showing how any principle he puts forward would also cover other BORN humans). And anybody who claims that BIRTH is a magical dividing line must then demonstrate what biological change occurs that justifies this change in status.

 

[edwest2]

Prayer needs to be added to the equation. God is our greatest ally. Logic and reason will only work to a point. I have compassion for the sick and disabled, but I have heard time and time again that some people are convinced that human life does not begin until after birth. Tell that to the doctors that operated on a baby while still in the womb.

Prayer is important because we do not battle against flesh and blood.

God bless,
Ed