Embryonic Stem Cell Cures

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deacon_Stephen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deacon_Stephen

Guest
Embryonic stem cell research has been passed by the US Government. The question is a moral question. Will an individual suffering from a life threatening condition be morally obligated to refrain from using a cure derived from embryonic stem cell research?
 
I am not certain that they would be morally obligated, but, since I have just gone through a very serious situation with my brother, I feel that I can confidently say that I would decline any medical treatment derived from the murder of very young children such as embryos.
 
Perhaps this questions should be asked when scientists actually DO find a cure from embryonic stem cells.

I believe, however, that adding 20 or so years to a man’s life (through the blood sacrifice of an unborn’s life) has no value when compared to the life of the new, unique person, whom would have been killed when they had their embryonic stem cells removed.
 
EverestFox said:
Perhaps this questions should be asked when scientists actually DO find a cure from embryonic stem cells.

I believe, however, that adding 20 or so years to a man’s life (through the blood sacrifice of an unborn’s life) has no value when compared to the life of the new, unique person, whom would have been killed when they had their embryonic stem cells removed.
Click to expand...
You are so right. On both counts!!!
 
EverestFox said:
. . .
I believe, however, that adding 20 or so years to a man’s life (through the blood sacrifice of an unborn’s life) has no value when compared to the life of the new, unique person, whom would have been killed when they had their embryonic stem cells removed.
Click to expand...
I think those who prolonged their own lives by draining the blood from others were called vampires in another age. 😃
 
I appreciated everyone’s viewpoint and I certainly agree that the taking of a human life is absolutely immoral and a grave sin; but the moral question still remains.

A person presented with a cure, who had no part in the activity of the developed cure, should refrain from an apparent good? I do not believe it is a question that can be answered so easily. It is also very possible that we will be faced with these decisions very soon. Can a human good come from a worldly evil? :hmmm:
 
Deacon_Stephen said:
I appreciated everyone’s viewpoint and I certainly agree that the taking of a human life is absolutely immoral and a grave sin; but the moral question still remains.

A person presented with a cure, who had no part in the activity of the developed cure, should refrain from an apparent good? I do not believe it is a question that can be answered so easily. It is also very possible that we will be faced with these decisions very soon. Can a human good come from a worldly evil? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
By using the cure, you create a market for it. And once a market for it exists, embryos will be in even greater demand. They will be produced merely for the purpose of killing them.

wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/curtain-opens-on-act-ii-of-great-stem.html

If everyone refused to use the “cure”, then the market doesn’t exist.
 
Not to hijack, but along the same lines, what about the various vaccinations out today that are derived from aborted embryos? I don’t have my Dr. Sears book with me, but I’ll list them asap if it helps. Should we refuse to vaccinate with those vaccines?
 
Deacon_Stephen said:
I appreciated everyone’s viewpoint and I certainly agree that the taking of a human life is absolutely immoral and a grave sin; but the moral question still remains.

A person presented with a cure, who had no part in the activity of the developed cure, should refrain from an apparent good? I do not believe it is a question that can be answered so easily. It is also very possible that we will be faced with these decisions very soon. Can a human good come from a worldly evil? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
I am under the impression that the stance of the Catholic Church is that anyone who directly benefits from a sin is morally culpable. I also don’t believe that this will become a big issue in the future because of the fact that embryonic stem cell treatments have not been shown to cure any disease and have a nasty habit of causing tumor formation in the brain and spine. You hear most of the proponents shouting it’s successes from the rooftops but it is not the collective miracle cure that they’ll have you believe and the studies prove it. For example, the proponents love pointing to a study to determine the effects of embryonic stem cell treatment on Parkinson’s disease. They point to the conclusion that 50% of the rats showed improvement of function after treatment but they don’t tell you that this was only temporary and that 25% of the rats developed brain tumors and died as a result of the treatment. The idea that embryonic stem cells could be a universal cure for all of these diseases and conditions was great but there comes a time when possibility, hope, and hype must come face to face with practicality, reality, facts, and ethics.

Of course, my beef with embryonic stem cell research is purely scientific in nature. I don’t see the wisdom in spending time and resources on this when adult stem cells are tried and proven, can actually cure most the same diseases, don’t carry the risk of tumor formation, and don’t present a moral quagmire.
 
TC2 said:
Not to hijack, but along the same lines, what about the various vaccinations out today that are derived from aborted embryos? I don’t have my Dr. Sears book with me, but I’ll list them asap if it helps. Should we refuse to vaccinate with those vaccines?
Click to expand...
Yes, vaccines derived from murdered children are morally reprehensible and it would not be morally licit to use them.

The Holy See has condemned this.
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=38498
 
1st to clarify:
The US govt did not lift a ban on ESC research, it was certainly legal before the new administration. What was done is the US Govt is funding this research now, a research that has little value and can be duplicated with adult stem cells from births, liposuction, and a whole host of other places. Heck one liposuction of me could give more SCs then a billion embryo.

As for your question, it going to be a case by case issue. Some vaccines are derived from aborted babies and still used today with the moral ok to use by the Church since its under a “double effect”. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy were results of the atrocities in WW2, but we are still morally allowed to use them. Where I think the wall will be is if the cure demands continuous death of a embryos, sort of a soylent green situation.
 
Jermosh said:
1st to clarify:
The US govt did not lift a ban on ESC research, it was certainly legal before the new administration. What was done is the US Govt is funding this research now, a research that has little value and can be duplicated with adult stem cells from births, liposuction, and a whole host of other places. Heck one liposuction of me could give more SCs then a billion embryo.

As for your question, it going to be a case by case issue. Some vaccines are derived from aborted babies and still used today with the moral ok to use by the Church since its under a “double effect”. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy were results of the atrocities in WW2, but we are still morally allowed to use them. Where I think the wall will be is if the cure demands continuous death of a embryos, sort of a soylent green situation.
Click to expand...
You LIE when you claim the Church says that using vaccines derived from murdered children is permissible. POST YOUR SOURCE YOU LIAR!!!

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=38498
 
rpp said:
You LIE when you claim the Church says that using vaccines derived from murdered children is permissible. POST YOUR SOURCE YOU LIAR!!!

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=38498
Click to expand...
In a careful analysis of the moral issues involved in the use of vaccines developed from fetal tissues, the Pontifical Academy for Life concludes that pharmaceutical companies have a grave moral obligation to provide vaccines that do not use fetal remains.
Although parents and doctors may be morally justified in using such vaccines, when no alternative is available, the Vatican document says that they “have a duty to take recourse to alternatives, putting pressure on political authorities and health systems” to produce morally acceptable alternative treatments. The document continues:
Click to expand...
I have been called worse though. 👍
 
TC2 said:
Not to hijack, but along the same lines, what about the various vaccinations out today that are derived from aborted embryos? I don’t have my Dr. Sears book with me, but I’ll list them asap if it helps. Should we refuse to vaccinate with those vaccines?
Click to expand...
Hi, I have been very interested in getting a link to this very subject. Would you list them for us, or PM me? Thanks.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Of course, my beef with embryonic stem cell research is purely scientific in nature. I don’t see the wisdom in spending time and resources on this when adult stem cells are tried and proven, can actually cure most the same diseases, don’t carry the risk of tumor formation, and don’t present a moral quagmire.
Click to expand...
Agree, and I think the moral push has made it better in the fact that Scientists were forced to find better uses for ASCs, they can now make them mimic ESCs in many fashions. This will increase the SC inventory by the millions, and therefor give more research to find a real cure.
 
Jermosh said:
1st to clarify:
The US govt did not lift a ban on ESC research, it was certainly legal before the new administration. What was done is the US Govt is funding this research now, a research that has little value and can be duplicated with adult stem cells from births, liposuction, and a whole host of other places. Heck one liposuction of me could give more SCs then a billion embryo.

As for your question, it going to be a case by case issue. Some vaccines are derived from aborted babies and still used today with the moral ok to use by the Church since its under a “double effect”. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy were results of the atrocities in WW2, but we are still morally allowed to use them. Where I think the wall will be is if the cure demands continuous death of a embryos, sort of a soylent green situation.
Click to expand...
 
Jermosh said:
1st to clarify:
The US govt did not lift a ban on ESC research, it was certainly legal before the new administration. What was done is the US Govt is funding this research now, a research that has little value and can be duplicated with adult stem cells from births, liposuction, and a whole host of other places. Heck one liposuction of me could give more SCs then a billion embryo.

As for your question, it going to be a case by case issue. Some vaccines are derived from aborted babies and still used today with the moral ok to use by the Church since its under a “double effect”. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy were results of the atrocities in WW2, but we are still morally allowed to use them. Where I think the wall will be is if the cure demands continuous death of a embryos, sort of a soylent green situation.
Click to expand...
Jermosh, the moral issue does seem to surround the “double effect” and if it leads to the continuous death of human lives (embryos) purely for the purpose of producing cures, it seems to me a morally reprehensible act.

Much reflection and prayer is surely needed.
 
A person presented with a cure, who had no part in the activity of the developed cure, should refrain from an apparent good? I do not believe it is a question that can be answered so easily. It is also very possible that we will be faced with these decisions very soon. Can a human good come from a worldly evil?
Click to expand...
I personally think it would be morally necessary for the person in question to refrain from treatment. The ends don’t justify the means is something the Church teaches. In this instance, the potential cure from embryonic stem cell treatment, does not justify the killing of an unborn human.

It is similar to the ruling on vaccinations though. It is morally acceptable to use vaccines that have been produced using embryonic cells. However, these embryonic cells are (were) not currently being sacrificed. It was also only acceptable if there was no other viable alternatives. For instance, some of the vaccines required for school are tainted by embryonic cell cultures (not that they still contain the cells, but that they were grown in the cells). However, if the abortions/sacrifices of the embryos is not current AND there are no other alternatives AND the disease is ultimately life threatening not only to the individual, but also to society as a whole, it is permissible to use the tainted vaccines.

I, for one, don’t think ESCs are going to ‘cure’ anything that adult SCs haven’t already cured. I don’t think they work as well & the research has proven this time & time again. So already, the conditions are not met to allow moral use of ESC as treatment b/c there are viable alternatives. Also, in general, when we speak of someone getting a ‘cure’ from SC treatment, they are the only ones at risk - not society as a whole. Therefore, they don’t meet another of the conditions for moral use of treatments. Also, as someone else mentioned, using ESCs will merely increase the ‘need’ for more embryos to be sacrificed. That in & of itself is not morally acceptable. Unlike the vaccinations, more & more embryos are needed for ESCs as they are used for ‘cures’ in various disorders/diseases. That is genocide on a whole new level IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top