Embryonic Stem Cell Research

  • Thread starter Thread starter Warrior89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Warrior89

Guest
I am familiar with the major arguments for and against ESCR. Being against it, I need help rebuking one of the arguments for it that has been presented to me personally.

The question/argument is: If embryos are going to be aborted anyway, why not use those stem cells for research, since nothing good [supposedly] would come from throwing them away after the abortion anyhow?

The Catechism states in paragraph 1789, regarding the conscience, “One may never do evil so that good may result from it.” Since abortion is intrinsically evil, that would make using the aborted embryo an immoral act, too, would it not? But to reiterate paragraph 312, only God can bring good out of evil. Would the research provided by the embryo be considered “good”?

Also, regarding respect for the dead, the Catechism states in paragraph 2300, “The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.”

But what about the very next paragraph (2301)?: “Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research [emphasis added]. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious.” Would using an embryo for research technically be considered an autopsy? (Or would it not be an autopsy at all considering the cause of death is known?)

Would using the embryo after an abortion violate paragraph 2300? or would paragraph 2301 justify using an embryo to such an end?

Any suggestions, comments, or helpful websites would be appreciated 🙂 .
 
I suppose you could “technically” call the disection of the newly created baby an “autopsy”. The morality of it would be exactly the same as if a doctor killed any one of his patients in order to autopsy the body. :mad: The problem with stem cell reseach isn’t the research; its the killing that makes the research possible. This is why research using adult stem cells is so wonderful.
 
Here’s some links that might be helpful:

Can Frozen Embryos Be Saved? by Grace MacKinnon (This Rock: Jan 2002)

Destructive Stem-Cell Research on Human Embryos by Richard Doerflinger (including a section on “Spare” vs. “Research” embryos that might be of particular relevance to your question)

Catholic Educator’s Resource Center - Articles on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Catholic Culture has many articles, too. You can search under Stem Cell or Embryonic Stem Cell.

I hope this helps!
 
Warrior89 said:
The question/argument is: If embryos are going to be aborted anyway, why not use those stem cells for research, since nothing good [supposedly] would come from throwing them away after the abortion anyhow? .
Click to expand...
Every person is going to die. Does it follow they we can then perform whatever experiments we desire on a person, simply because they are eventually going to die anyway.
 
Warrior89 said:
I am familiar with the major arguments for and against ESCR. Being against it, I need help rebuking one of the arguments for it that has been presented to me personally.

The question/argument is: If embryos are going to be aborted anyway, why not use those stem cells for research, since nothing good [supposedly] would come from throwing them away after the abortion anyhow?

The Catechism states in paragraph 1789, regarding the conscience, “One may never do evil so that good may result from it.” Since abortion is intrinsically evil, that would make using the aborted embryo an immoral act, too, would it not? But to reiterate paragraph 312, only God can bring good out of evil. Would the research provided by the embryo be considered “good”?

Also, regarding respect for the dead, the Catechism states in paragraph 2300, “The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.”

But what about the very next paragraph (2301)?: “Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research [emphasis added]. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious.” Would using an embryo for research technically be considered an autopsy? (Or would it not be an autopsy at all considering the cause of death is known?)

Would using the embryo after an abortion violate paragraph 2300? or would paragraph 2301 justify using an embryo to such an end?

Any suggestions, comments, or helpful websites would be appreciated 🙂 .
Click to expand...
If an embryo were to die or to be spontaneously aborted, that would be a different situation than embryos (stimulated to be by fetility drugs) and harvested for either re-implantation or research.
 
I was posed the same question some time ago my answer worked well, your mileage may vary.

You could do the research, but what then?
Any cure or benefit to be found here is at the sacrifice of lives.
Any possible use is going to depend upon more lives lost.

You may even end up making death a commodity.
 
Given the fact that is now possible to create embryonic stem cells from non-embryonic sources, why anyone is still advocating using embryos for research is truly puzzling. It’s almost as if the real agenda has more to do with killing embryos than any actual medical research.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
Given the fact that is now possible to create embryonic stem cells from non-embryonic sources, why anyone is still advocating using embryos for research is truly puzzling. It’s almost as if the real agenda has more to do with killing embryos than any actual medical research.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is not about the research, it is about death.
 
mlchance said:
Given the fact that is now possible to create embryonic stem cells from non-embryonic sources, why anyone is still advocating using embryos for research is truly puzzling. It’s almost as if the real agenda has more to do with killing embryos than any actual medical research.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%, but some scientists & advocates of embryonic stem cell research will say that the new, non-embryonic sources that are working so well now still aren’t as promising as embryonic stem cells. Great isn’t good enough for them. They say that the embryonic stem cells exhibit even more pluripotency & holds the most promise for cures. They think we should exhaust every avenue that might provide cures, regardless of the tiny lives lost.
 
Warrior 89, I agree with the previous responses. I would add that Fr. Tad at www.ncbcenter.org is a source to go to for info. He has a phD in neurosciences & is now a leading expert in the field of bioethics at the National Catholic Bioethics Center. He is great at explaining a lot of these complicated techniques & the ethics involved.

I know he has a section at that site that deals with this argument. People credit Katie Couric with making this common misconception go mainstream. She cornered Pres. Bush when she was at the WH to interview Mrs. Bush. He came over for a friendly hello, & she nailed him with, “Doesn’t it bother you that 400,000 embryos are just going to be destroyed anyway? Why not use them?”

Fr. Tad explains that it is never ethical to speed up another person’s demise for our own gain.
Another thing to counter their argument: If a baby is born with a condition that is not conducive to life, & is expected to live only a few hours, who in their right mind would say we should do experiments on the baby before it dies? It might lead to lots of new discoveries, but who would kill that infant? Who would condone taking the organs of death row inmates? We shouldn’t destroy human embryos for research, either.

Fr. Tad has a good section on this common lie about the 4oo,ooo embryos that goes like this… It is a lie that will allow the scientists to get their foot in the door of human experimentation. A 2002 US Rand McNally report found that of the 400,000 embryos, only about 11,000 are available for research. The rest are being reserved by the families, kept in frozen storage to grow their families in the future. The scientists know that the 11,000 embryos will only yield about 200 viable stem cell lines. They know that 200 lines will NEVER be enough for all the scientists that want to work with them for a multitude of illnesses & injuries. They know it won’t be enough, but they keep perpetuating the argument about the 400,000 that will be destroyed anyway, because they know people will be confused & buy into it. It seems to make sense, but it’s not ethical.

That’s why a lot of the biotechnology companies are pouring millions of $ into therapeutic cloning & embryo harvesting. They know the 400,000 isn’t enough! It will never stop with the 400,000, but by then the people will have bought into it.

Also, as mentioned above the huge difference between organ donation & autopsies is that those patients have to be dead. Human embryos are very much alive before a scientist grabs it & suctions out its inner cell mass for his or her stem cells. (Sorry so verbose, this topic gets me:mad: ! Good luck!
 
I just wanted to add that I went to the site I mentioned earlier, www.ncbcenter.org. Look under Fr. Tad’s Making Sense of Bioethics. One section that does discuss this argument is Thawing the Frozen Embryo Myth.

I just wanted to mention that Katie Couric actually posed that question to Karen Hughes, not President Bush. I must have “mis-remembered” since I haven’t read it in a while. Sorry!
 
mlchance said:
Given the fact that is now possible to create embryonic stem cells from non-embryonic sources, why anyone is still advocating using embryos for research is truly puzzling. It’s almost as if the real agenda has more to do with killing embryos than any actual medical research.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
You arrive at the stem cell a different way. One way you arrive at the stem cell through fusion of egg and sperm, or I suppose also a nucleus. The other way is being able to turn on the right signals. So one way your going through the front door, the other way through the back door though the back yard. By studying both methods one could come up with a clearer picture probably faster of the mechanisms that are being played out.

Of course what could be done ought to be tempered by what is ethical and moral.
 
The abortion industry already has a reputation for black market baby parts.

Who is to say that allowed aborted embryos to be experimented on wouldn’t drive a frenzy to meet the demand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top