Morality of Using Stem-Cell Cure

[buffalo]

Can you rephrase this question?

No.

 

[YADA]

Why are you asking a faith based question like this when you know it is a pointless endeavor.

Question for you:

Does the human even have a soul? In your answer, please provide documentation and measurable criteria for these events.

God is the author of life … God tells us that he knits us in our mother’s womb and calls us by name while still in utero … understanding that is not a pointless endeaver … for the Documentation …Read a bible, you will find it there …

Why are you here posting at a faith based forum [CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUM aka CAF] ***if *** you do not believe in God [and just like your unbelief in the humanity and personhood of the unborn … your unbelief does not mean it is not true]

 

[Newbie2]

No different from the abortionist’s concept of when life begins: When they say it does.

…which is a ridiculous argment, because of course the embryo is alive from the moment of conception, otherwise it’s a dead embryo. The real argument should be when does it become human, which Catholic theology teaches is at the moment of conception.

Conjecture would mean that I have interpreted this to be the case, but I did not. That’s what scientists themselves say.

But that is not relevant. This topic is not “The effectiveness of embryonic stem cells” - it is “Morality of Using Stem-Cell Cure” - which I maintain is moral.

As I’ve already mentioned, when making a decision between throwing embryos into the garbage can, or using them to improve lives, God would prefer the latter IMO.

Ah, yes, that is the point. When adult stem cells have shown more promise (and current use) to improve lives, dontcha think that God would prefer that, rather than destroying a life i.e. “Thou shalt not kill”?

 

[larsegarots]

Ah, yes, that is the point. When adult stem cells have shown more promise (and current use) to improve lives, dontcha think that God would prefer that, rather than destroying a life i.e. “Thou shalt not kill”?

Yes, I think God would prefer that we use adult stem cells than destroy a life*. I also think God would prefer that we use a embryonic stem cells than destroy a life. I don’t think that a life is being destroyed during embryonic stem cell research - especially since that embryo was going to be discarded in the first place. *My definition of life here is a human life.

---

As a side note, this was just in the news today:

“The grant follows November’s announcement that separate teams from UW and Japan had succeeded in reprogramming human skin cells back to an embryonic state, a landmark that may help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding research on human embryonic stem cells.”
redorbit.com/news/health/1510274/university_of_wisconsin_researchers_get_grant_to_study_stem_cells/

That sounds like good news for everyone.

 

[larsegarots]

God is the author of life

I agree!

Why are you here posting at a faith based forum … if you do not believe in God

If you look at my other posts you will see that I mention God a lot. In case there is any confusion: I believe in God.

for the Documentation …Read a bible

The bible is not any kind of documentation that proves humans have a soul. I believe, like you, that humans have a soul. But the fact it’s mentioned in the bible isn’t proof.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, I think God would prefer that we use adult stem cells than destroy a life*. I also think God would prefer that we use a embryonic stem cells than destroy a life. I don’t think that a life is being destroyed during embryonic stem cell research - especially since that embryo was going to be discarded in the first place. *My definition of life here is a human life.

---

As a side note, this was just in the news today:

“The grant follows November’s announcement that separate teams from UW and Japan had succeeded in reprogramming human skin cells back to an embryonic state, a landmark that may help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding research on human embryonic stem cells.”
redorbit.com/news/health/1510274/university_of_wisconsin_researchers_get_grant_to_study_stem_cells/

That sounds like good news for everyone.

Yes, good news, agreed.

Trouble is, you keep hanging on to the notion that embryonic stem cell technology is going to save lives…and what follows is that embryonic stem cells work better than adult stem cells, which at present, is simply not the case.

So, if we agree that adult stem cells are better, why not focus our attention, efforts and $$ on a morally acceptable research/treatment plan?

If you look at my other posts you will see that I mention God a lot. In case there is any confusion: I believe in God.

The bible is not any kind of documentation that proves humans have a soul. I believe, like you, that humans have a soul. But the fact it’s mentioned in the bible isn’t proof.

Well, what kind of “proof” would be acceptable? There’s no and never will be a scientific proof for a soul, so you’re left with theological and philosophical proofs. Sacred scripture demonstrates a theological proof for the existance of a soul.

 

[Pete_1]

Yes, I think God would prefer that we use adult stem cells than destroy a life*. I also think God would prefer that we use a embryonic stem cells than destroy a life. I don’t think that a life is being destroyed during embryonic stem cell research - especially since that embryo was going to be discarded in the first place. *My definition of life here is a human life.

Firstly all embryos have the potential to reach adulthood

It is the scientists that destroy this potential by using them in IVF then discarding them.

Because of this it cannot be said that the embryos would have died anyway as the scientists caused them to die by their own actions.

Therefore even if you do not accept that embryos are human beings (I do not agree with this) then you must accept that it is wrong to kill embryos on the grounds that the embryos are potential human beings.

If you do not you must concede that it is just to allow
(hypothetically) time travelling scientists to harvest your own embryonic cells because according to your logic at that time you were only a ‘potential human being’.

Therefore even if you do not accept the position that embryos are human beings (on which I think you are mistaken) how do you refute this?

1 All embryos are potential human beings
2.) It is always wrong to kill a potential human being
3.) Therefore it is wrong to kill embryos.

 

[larsegarots]

Trouble is, you keep hanging on to the notion that embryonic stem cell technology is going to save lives…and what follows is that embryonic stem cells work better than adult stem cells, which at present, is simply not the case.

So, if we agree that adult stem cells are better, why not focus our attention, efforts and $$ on a morally acceptable research/treatment plan?

It’s not me that is hanging on to this notion, but the scientific community, Harvard, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Barack Obama, and John McCain. Since I’m not a geneticist, I’m relying on the scientists that are to decide where the potential lies.

There’s no and never will be a scientific proof for a soul, so you’re left with theological and philosophical proofs.

That is exactly my point. That is why I brought this up when someone asked me for proof when God gives a soul to a human.

 

[Newbie2]

That is exactly my point. That is why I brought this up when someone asked me for proof when God gives a soul to a human.

So what you’re saying is that it isn’t proof enough for the other person, not you. I get it. :doh2:

 

[rwoehmke]

It’s not me that is hanging on to this notion, but the scientific community, Harvard, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Barack Obama, and John McCain. Since I’m not a geneticist, I’m relying on the scientists that are to decide where the potential lies.

Like I said, its research money and not altruism that drives many a scientist’s heart. I suspect it votes/money that also drives the politicians.