Is embryonic stem cell research allowed if the embryo isn't harmed?

[EphelDuath]

I’m under the assumption that our opposition to ESCR is because of the fact that it’s basically harming a human being. But since it’s possible to conduct such research without harming the embryos now, shouldn’t the Church have a restricted but positive view of it?

 

[ribozyme]

I’m under the assumption that our opposition to ESCR is because of the fact that it’s basically harming a human being. But since it’s possible to conduct such research without harming the embryos now, shouldn’t the Church have a restricted but positive view of it?

The embryo isn’t harmed because it does not have the capacity to hold preferences or suffer. However, it might kill the embryo. As a utilitarian, I have no problem with ESCR.

 

[LilyM]

I’m under the assumption that our opposition to ESCR is because of the fact that it’s basically harming a human being. But since it’s possible to conduct such research without harming the embryos now, shouldn’t the Church have a restricted but positive view of it?

What do you mean exactly when you say ‘not harmed’? Are such embryos now in all cases implanted into women of childbearing age after the ‘research’ so that they can be brought to term? I should think that denying any this opportunity would be a considerable harm.

Is whatever genetic material is taken out and/or experimented upon replaced in the embryo, either exactly as it was created (or in an improved state?). I shouldn’t think it would be morally or ethically kosher to leave any genetic material out of a human being.

Besides which there are issues as to how and why the embryo was brought into being in the first place. Remember the Church has problems with many many reproductive technologies, including IVF, for multiple reasons.

I certainly wouldn’t like to see any cases, for example, where an egg was fertilised simply to provide a future subject for experimentation, with no realistic chance of it actually being implanted and becoming a human being.

And all this is just for starters - I am in no way an expert in medical ethics. I am sure a real ethicist could come up easily with half a dozen other issues.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As with any other experimentation with humans, you need written consent from the embryo.

 

[ribozyme]

Is whatever genetic material is taken out and/or experimented upon replaced in the embryo, either exactly as it was created (or in an improved state?). I shouldn’t think it would be morally or ethically kosher to leave any genetic material out of a human being.

So Genentech is immoral for using bacterium that has human DNA (to produce certain biomolecules) such as insulin. Is it also immoral to grow lines of cancer in petri dishes? Those are examples when human DNA is outside of human beings.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

The difference between a one-celled embryo, and one human body cell is that the former is a complete human being, and the latter is just part of a complete human. ESCR always kills the human embryo, and removing just one cell from this nascent human life is the equivalent of cutting off an adults head or arm.

 

[Corki]

I’m under the assumption that our opposition to ESCR is because of the fact that it’s basically harming a human being. But since it’s possible to conduct such research without harming the embryos now, shouldn’t the Church have a restricted but positive view of it?

Last year (or early in 2008) there were news reports of “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Generated without Embryo Destruction”. The technique is similar to what IVF clinics use to test embryos before implementation in order to see which embryos have the best chance.

There are still serious ethical and religious problems, not the least of which is that in the research done to date, even though the embryos were not destroyed in order to extract the cells, they were destroyed soon afterward. No one knows what harm was done by the extraction, only that it wasn’t imediately fatal. To advance this reseach, the embryos would still have to be created via IVF techniques (test tube babies).

So, no, I can’t see the Church having a positive view of this research.

 

[1ke]

The Church has no problem with stem cell research. There are many ethical means of obtaining them, from adult stem cells and cord blood for example.

The Church rightly condemns as immoral any procedure that (a) creates a human life in an laboratry or (b) kills a human embryo to obtain its cells.

It has absolutely no problem with research that conforms to the moral law.

 

[Newbie2]

The embryo isn’t harmed because it does not have the capacity to hold preferences or suffer. However, it might kill the embryo. As a utilitarian, I have no problem with ESCR.

So killing it isn’t harming it. That’s about the most disturbing logic I’ve ever heard.

To follow that logic, it would be permissible to grab someone off the street, knock them cold before they knew what was happening, anesthetize them and harvest their organs. After all, when they’re not awake, they don’t hold preferences or suffer.

 

[ribozyme]

So killing it isn’t harming it. That’s about the most disturbing logic I’ve ever heard.

To follow that logic, it would be permissible to grab someone off the street, knock them cold before they knew what was happening, anesthetize them and harvest their organs. After all, when they’re not awake, they don’t hold preferences or suffer.

I am sure most people would prefer that would not happen them.

 

[Pete_1]

The embryo isn’t harmed because it does not have the capacity to hold preferences or suffer. However, it might kill the embryo. As a utilitarian, I have no problem with ESCR.

Even if you don’t accept the Catholic position that an embryo is a human being (and has a soul).

You must accept that the potential within the embryo to grow into a fully grown adult (if left undisturbed) is not of any significant worth, if you are to support ESCR.

 

[Newbie2]

I am sure most people would prefer that would not happen them.

Just like the baby, into which the embryo would grow if not killed?

 

[ribozyme]

Even if you don’t accept the Catholic position that an embryo is a human being (and has a soul).

You must accept that the potential within the embryo to grow into a fully grown adult (if left undisturbed) is not of any significant worth, if you are to support ESCR.

The embryo has a small chance of growing into a fascist dictator. It also has a small chance of becoming a talented inventor, or scientist. It has a much larger chance of simply being a normal laborer. It is hard to say what is the potential for the embryo ex ante.

There is also a realistic chance for the person to live a life of misery and poverty. There is no guarantee that such an embryo will live a happy and fulfilling life, and when that human life is an embryo it has no preferences or cannot suffer so its has no rights. There is also no compelling evidence *ex ante * to decide whether it must be preserved or not.

Do a translation of “itami no sekai” (I incorrectly translated it before as “sekai no itami” based on an improper usage of the gentative case.) That will tell you what I really think about the world and human life.

You could do it here in about thirty seconds:
linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/dict

 

[Pete_1]

The embryo has a small chance of growing into a fascist dictator. It also has a small chance of becoming a talented inventor, or scientist. It has a much larger chance of simply being a normal laborer. It is hard to say what is the potential for the embryo ex ante.

There is also a realistic chance for the person to live a life of misery and poverty. There is no guarantee that such an embryo will live a happy and fulfilling life, and when that human life is an embryo it has no preferences or cannot suffer so its has no rights.

Why does it matter what kind of person the embryo would grow into, surely the only thing that matters is that it would grow into a human.

Are you suggesting the poor and the miserable have a lesser right to life, and the very poor have none?

There is also no compelling evidence *ex ante * to decide whether it must be preserved or not.

What about what I just said, even if you hold the position that an embryo is not a human (this is not my belief) you must accept that the embryo has a good chance of growing into an adult human.

Does this potential have no value? Do you believe this value changes depending on what kind of human the embryo would grow into?

Do a translation of “itami no sekai” (I incorrectly translated it before as “sekai no itami” based on an improper usage of the gentative case.) That will tell you what I really think about the world and human life.

You could do it here in about thirty seconds:
linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/dict

The best response I have heard to the problem of evil is St Aquinas’, that God allows evil in order to bring a greater good from it.