How to frame the Stem Cell discussion

[MarcoPolo]

Many moons ago, I started a similar thread regarding how to frame the abortion issue. And now I get the same sentiment regarding embryonic stem cell research.

One of the apologetic arguments against embryonic stem cell research that Christians use is that we can conduct the same kind of research via adult or umbilical cord stem cells. In other words, the reason some Christians suggest we not conduct embryonic stem cell research is because we wouldn’t get any better cures out of it.

But suppose we get to a point where we can definitively make some kind of scientific advancement only by way of embryonic stem cells? Then where is that Christian argument?

I think the argument against embryonic stem cell research based on the same science available in adult stem cells can be effective, and it is something we should explore, but it is limited as an apologetic. I think it’s secondary to where the apologetic should focus—namely that destroying embryos is immoral. Whether or not we can make scientific advancements unique to embryonic stem cell research does not change the fact that killing tiny humans is immoral.

What say you?

 

[thistle]

Many moons ago, I started a similar thread regarding how to frame the abortion issue. And now I get the same sentiment regarding embryonic stem cell research.

One of the apologetic arguments against embryonic stem cell research that Christians use is that we can conduct the same kind of research via adult or umbilical cord stem cells. In other words, the reason some Christians suggest we not conduct embryonic stem cell research is because we wouldn’t get any better cures out of it.

But suppose we get to a point where we can definitively make some kind of scientific advancement only by way of embryonic stem cells? Then where is that Christian argument?

I think the argument against embryonic stem cell research based on the same science available in adult stem cells can be effective, and it is something we should explore, but it is limited as an apologetic. I think it’s secondary to where the apologetic should focus—namely that destroying embryos is immoral. Whether or not we can make scientific advancements unique to embryonic stem cell research does not change the fact that killing tiny humans is immoral.

What say you?

It is murder plain and simple. How can any Christian agree that to save people it is necessary to murder others.

 

[Axion]

Yes. It’s immoral. it’s also unnecessary, since adult stem cells are actually more useful, being less likely to be rejected by the patient or cause complications. The reason embyo experiments are being pushed is not so much for healing the sick, but out of curiosity, “we can so we will,” and in order to further dehumanise the unborn, and give people a vested interest in their dehumanisation. They would love to get a cure through embryonic experimentation - if only to be able to say “look how Christians and their morality are barriers to progress.”

But the question is, where do you stop? Dr Mengele’s experiments on live humans, and those of Hirohito’s medical experiment camps certainly gave medical progress. Does that make them acceptable? Compulsory experimental surgery on poor orphans from the 3rd World would probably lead to great medical advance. Is that the next move? If not, why not?.

 

[yellowbicycle]

I think you’re right.
I hear people always saying ‘We’re throwing them out anyway’ and I say ‘That’s my problem. I don’t believe people should be throw away’
See, people try to come at the debate from all angles to appeal to different people in as many ways as possible because, unfortunately, the idea that all human life is worth keeping is not universally held.
But I see what you’re saying, that you don’t want people to hang their hat on an argument that could prove faulty later.

 

[Namesake]

Many moons ago, I started a similar thread regarding how to frame the abortion issue. And now I get the same sentiment regarding embryonic stem cell research.

One of the apologetic arguments against embryonic stem cell research that Christians use is that we can conduct the same kind of research via adult or umbilical cord stem cells. In other words, the reason some Christians suggest we not conduct embryonic stem cell research is because we wouldn’t get any better cures out of it.

But suppose we get to a point where we can definitively make some kind of scientific advancement only by way of embryonic stem cells? Then where is that Christian argument?

I think the argument against embryonic stem cell research based on the same science available in adult stem cells can be effective, and it is something we should explore, but it is limited as an apologetic. I think it’s secondary to where the apologetic should focus—namely that destroying embryos is immoral. Whether or not we can make scientific advancements unique to embryonic stem cell research does not change the fact that killing tiny humans is immoral.

What say you?

If the embryos are in fertility clinics, which almost all are, they will be destroyed anyway. That’s the fact of the matter. Surplus embryos are just tossed out with the trash.

So why not use them to alleviate human suffering instead of just throwing them away? As a matter of human compassion we are compelled to alleviate suffering and those embryos can at least help in that.

 

[ricko]

It is wrong to do evil so that good may come from it. Our lifes are infinitesimally short compared to eternity. The suffering that we would endure to save the life of another would be for less than 5 seconds compared to eternity. Can we not endure that small amount of time for life eternal? If you saw the “The Passion of the Christ”, when Jesus fell at one time, the man who was helping him said something like “Keep going, it’s almost over” meaning He would die soon and the terrible suffering He was enduring would be over.

 

[Namesake]

It is wrong to do evil so that good may come from it. Our lifes are infinitesimally short compared to eternity. The suffering that we would endure to save the life of another would be for less than 5 seconds compared to eternity. Can we not endure that small amount of time for life eternal? If you saw the “The Passion of the Christ”, when Jesus fell at one time, the man who was helping him said something like “Keep going, it’s almost over” meaning He would die soon and the terrible suffering He was enduring would be over.

So then would you prefer that the embryos just be tossed out in the trash? That is exactly what will happen to them.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So then would you prefer that the embryos just be tossed out in the trash? That is exactly what will happen to them.

Why is that the only other option?

 

[MarcoPolo]

So then would you prefer that the embryos just be tossed out in the trash? That is exactly what will happen to them.

According to your dichotomy, it’s immoral both ways, correct?

 

[VociMike]

So then would you prefer that the embryos just be tossed out in the trash? That is exactly what will happen to them.

Surely it is obvious that we would prefer that they not be murdered in the first place.

What your answer ignores is that, if this technology proved useful, human beings would be bred specifically for their cells and then killed for them. Creating new people simply to kill them and mine their parts would become a big industry. Would you prefer that?

 

[mlchance]

If the embryos are in fertility clinics, which almost all are, they will be destroyed anyway.

Eventually, you’re going to be destroyed too. Mind if we harvest a few of your organs now?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Evan]

Here’s a quote from William Saletan in Slate slate.com/id/2213287/

Proponents of embryo research are insisting that because we’re in a life-and-death struggle—in this case, a scientific struggle—anyone who impedes that struggle by renouncing effective tools is irrational and irresponsible. The war on disease is like the war on terror: Either you’re with science, or you’re against it. . . .

Think about what’s being dismissed here as “politics” and “ideology.” You don’t have to equate embryos with full-grown human beings—I don’t—to appreciate the danger of exploiting them. Embryos are the beginnings of people. They’re not parts of people. They’re the whole thing, in very early form. Harvesting them, whether for research or medicine, is different from harvesting other kinds of cells. It’s the difference between using an object and using a subject. How long can we grow this subject before dismembering it to get useful cells? How far should we strip-mine humanity in order to save it?

If you have trouble taking this question seriously—if you think it’s just the hypersensitivity of fetus-lovers—try shifting the context from stem cells to torture. There, the question is: How much ruthless violence should we use to defeat ruthless violence? The paradox and the dilemma are easy to recognize. Creating and destroying embryos to save lives presents a similar, though not equal, dilemma.

and ends with

The stem-cell fight wasn’t a fight between ideology and science. It was a fight between 5-day-olds and 50-year-olds. The 50-year-olds won. The question now is what to do with our 5-day-olds, our 5-week-olds, and our increasingly useful parts.

 

[yellowbicycle]

Surely it is obvious that we would prefer that they not be murdered in the first place.

What your answer ignores is that, if this technology proved useful, human beings would be bred specifically for their cells and then killed for them. Creating new people simply to kill them and mine their parts would become a big industry. Would you prefer that?

Your response is close.
It is not that human beings WOULD be bred specifically for their cells.
They already are, in parts of the former Soviet Union.
BBC had an article on it awhile back. I wish I could find the link right now. Women are getting pregnant specifically for the purpose of selling the embryos. The US had a ban on embryonic stem cell research. Europe didn’t. They needed stem cells, and, though their laws in THEIR OWN countries prohibited women from selling embryos they were perfectly happy buying them from women in other countries.
Nice, huh?