School stem cell discussion PART I

  • Thread starter Thread starter kellyb32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kellyb32

Guest
I am taking an online psychology class and we are discussing stem cell research. This is in full, the discussion thread my professor posted, I underlined the last sentence for emphasis. She said, “Stem cell research is fascinating! Actually, this research has been performed on animals for years (one of my friends was doing so at the University of Michigan). What scientists have done is first lesion specific parts of the brain (e.g. the substania nigra). Now, the neurons are dead. Then, they take embryonic tissue and graft it onto the lesioned area. What happens is that the dendrites start to grow and the lesioned area fills! What you must now think about is how embryonic tissue is collected. As you may have suspected, animals are impregnated and then the embryo is aborted. There is absolutely no way that the American government will allow this to occur with human beings. However, stem cell research is conducted with embryos that are fertilized outside of a woman’s body. Thus, the embryo is not aborted. But, in order to obtain an embryo, a woman must donate ova; the ova are then fertilized with sperm, which soon develop into embryos in the laboratory. Our ultra-conservative, right-wing, staunchly religious American government believes that all ova are the beginning of life so this research has been stifled due to lack of funding.”

Can you help me respond to her without getting theological about the problem with this kind of research? I am questioning her about why embryonic stem cell research (SCR) is so important when adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood have already been used successfully. I also am asking what she personally believes is moral and ethical with SCR. One more thing I am addressing is if she considers ESCR to be human experimentation (like the thread on human-animal hybrids for SCR), and if she thinks human cloning would be acceptable for SCR.

So with that in mind, how can I address her scientifically, morally, ethically, and most importantly charitably? 🙂
 
Read these…
life.org.nz/bioethics2.htm
life.org.nz/bioethics3.htm
life.org.nz/abortionethicalkeyissuesfoetaltissueresearch.htm
life.org.nz/abortionkeyissueswhenlifebegins.htm

We designed this website to allow people to make their case without using pro-life or sanctity of life arguments.

We worked hard to be non-judgmental and non-biased in our approach because we believe the Truth is unassailable to someone who does not have a closed mind or alternate agenda.

Let me know how you find our website (I was project manager, researcher & wrote a lot of the content along with a couple of journalists.

I would question her use of the terms "ultra-conservative, right-wing, staunchly religious " as being judgmental, emotional and indicative of an unwillingness to even consider there may be merit in the Government position.

If she is that biased and close-minded she should not be teaching this subject.
 
kellyb32 said:
Can you help me respond to her without getting theological about the problem with this kind of research? I am questioning her about why embryonic stem cell research (SCR) is so important when adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood have already been used successfully. I also am asking what she personally believes is moral and ethical with SCR. One more thing I am addressing is if she considers ESCR to be human experimentation (like the thread on human-animal hybrids for SCR), and if she thinks human cloning would be acceptable for SCR.

So with that in mind, how can I address her scientifically, morally, ethically, and most importantly charitably? 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m actually going to a lecture tonight by a priest who happens to have a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Yale, Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, on the topic of the ethics of stem cell research. Here is an article he wrote that I think addresses your concerns.

ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_3.asp

Peace

Tim
 
You are right. The best way to address this is on natural law grounds. The proponents of ESCR want people to think that it is a religious issue, but it’s not.

Scientifically, no one is saying that ova are the beginning of life. A fertilized ovum, that is, an embryo is the beginning of a unique organism’s life. That is a universally accepted biological fact.

Make the other side be honest about its position. If they want to talk about it, they need to talk about what ESCR really is from a scientific point of view. From a scientific point of view, ESCR is research performed on parts of a human being that has been killed.
 
Excellent resources from both of you! Thank you so very much. There are a couple of things from each post that I will be able to utilize.

“The argument I had offered, interestingly, did not depend on religious dogma at all. It depended rather on an important scientific dogma, namely, that all humans come from embryonic humans. The statement that I was once an embryo is a statement about embryology, not theology. Given the fact that we were all once embryonic humans it becomes very clear why destructive embryonic research is an immoral kind of activity. Exploiting the weak and not-yet-born in the interests of the powerful and the well-heeled should not be permitted in a civilized society. This argument, moreover, can be clearly seen by atheists, not just Catholics.”

Excellent point!

“It is an objective scientific fact that human life begins at conception (fertilisation). The problem lies with the question of when a human being qualifies as a person which is a matter of philosophy. The idea of ‘delayed personhood’ or a mind/body split is regarded by many philosophers as, historically, the consequence of wrong-headed thinking about reality. It has been regarded as totally indefensible since the time of Plato with the exception of Descartes, and now some comtemporary bioethicists.”

Another excellent point!

My response to her is going to be a bit long I’m afraid…and I do not think she will grade me well because I am challenging her. She is like that unfortunately. We are not allowed to give our personal views in the class (but she can obviously), so I’ll do it in a roundabout way that will still make a valid point!

Thank you both so much for the resources. I appreciate it!
 
dylanschrader said:
You are right. The best way to address this is on natural law grounds. The proponents of ESCR want people to think that it is a religious issue, but it’s not.

Scientifically, no one is saying that ova are the beginning of life. A fertilized ovum, that is, an embryo is the beginning of a unique organism’s life. That is a universally accepted biological fact.

Make the other side be honest about its position. If they want to talk about it, they need to talk about what ESCR really is from a scientific point of view. From a scientific point of view, ESCR is research performed on parts of a human being that has been killed.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, science sees human embryos as nothing more than a piece of flesh, don’t abortionists view us the same way before we are out of the womb?

She was vague, but I think she did this to generate more of a discussion for the class. I got 2 more weeks of this module to navigate through. Uggh.
 
ricmat said:
There are several articles at my site - some address ESCR from a moral perspective, and some from a more generic perspective.

nochimera.com/stem_cell_articles.html
Click to expand...
Your link has some really good info I can glean from.

I did a search on stem cell research, adult SCR, embryonic SCR and really couldn’t find what I was looking for. I simply exluded a word that probably would have helped me…ethics. Because of my omission and frustration over not finding what I wanted, I came to the forums because I knew I would get the help I needed.

Thank you!
 
kellyb32 said:
Your link has some really good info I can glean from.

I did a search on stem cell research, adult SCR, embryonic SCR and really couldn’t find what I was looking for. I simply exluded a word that probably would have helped me…ethics. Because of my omission and frustration over not finding what I wanted, I came to the forums because I knew I would get the help I needed.

Thank you!
Click to expand...
You’re welcome!
 
Kelly, all your responses are based on religious beliefs, therefore none of them qualify for what you are looking for.

“Our ultra-conservative, right-wing, staunchly religious American government believes that all ova are the beginning of life so this research has been stifled due to lack of funding."

The teacher has provided no insult here and has spoken the truth, so what is the problem? I have friends who are all these things and proud of it. It amazes me how people can take the truth as an insult when framed as one. As the French would say - oh, you’re an American. I would not take that as an insult even if it were meant as one. Yes I am an American, and proud of it.

Back to your question. There is no scientific argument for or against ESCR, they are all emotional pleas. Ethics and right/wrong are based on religious beliefs. When early humans had enough time and bra(name removed by moderator)ower to ponder why things happen, they created beliefs to supplant the lack of actual knowledge. Those beliefs were organized into religions and other types of like minded communities that may not call themselves religious. People simply need beliefs to help them cope with what they don’t understand. Science is the same way. Theories are nothing more than beliefs based on facts found during experimentation.

While ASCR has produced wonderful results, the theory is that ESCR has greater potential. ESCR has produced wonderful results in all kind of animals, which is where all research beneficial to humans begins so the theory has some facts behind it. To rearrange the standard line – there is no proof that ASCR will provide the same benefits as ESCR. See how futile it is?

While we were all embryos at one time, we will all be dead lumps of flesh in the future with organs that stopped working, rather than not having started working in the case of embryos. See how futile it is?

It does no good to argue beliefs with another person. Beliefs are things that people hold dear and can only be changed through self examination. Closed minded people are unwilling to explore their own beliefs and that comes mainly out of fear their beliefs may be factually incorrect. If you say you believe something because it is what you have been told, then that is not actually your belief but one that you have chosen to accept as your belief. It’s obvious from your post that the belief you are trying to defend is one that was given to you and one you have chosen to accept because you don’t know enough to actually defend it unaided.

You should simply leave it at that. Perhaps engage in some self examination if you feel up to a long search for facts. Even if the majority of facts don’t support your beliefs,
you can still keep your beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is an innate requirement of being human.

Good luck.
 
wrlang said:
Kelly, all your responses are based on religious beliefs, therefore none of them qualify for what you are looking for.

Back to your question. There is no scientific argument for or against ESCR, they are all emotional pleas. Ethics and right/wrong are based on religious beliefs. When early humans had enough time and bra(name removed by moderator)ower to ponder why things happen, they created beliefs to supplant the lack of actual knowledge. Those beliefs were organized into religions and other types of like minded communities that may not call themselves religious. People simply need beliefs to help them cope with what they don’t understand. Science is the same way. Theories are nothing more than beliefs based on facts found during experimentation.
Click to expand...
There are objectively true things that we can know to various degrees and with various degrees of certainty. Some beliefs accurately represent what is; some do not.

Ethics does not have to have religious grounding. Human beings are a certain way. We have to act according to what we are and what our purpose is.

Most of what people know is not based on experience but is based on the testimony of others.
It does no good to argue beliefs with another person. Beliefs are things that people hold dear and can only be changed through self examination. Closed minded people are unwilling to explore their own beliefs and that comes mainly out of fear their beliefs may be factually incorrect. If you say you believe something because it is what you have been told, then that is not actually your belief but one that you have chosen to accept as your belief. It’s obvious from your post that the belief you are trying to defend is one that was given to you and one you have chosen to accept because you don’t know enough to actually defend it unaided.
Click to expand...
You should simply leave it at that. Perhaps engage in some self examination if you feel up to a long search for facts. Even if the majority of facts don’t support your beliefs,
you can still keep your beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is an innate requirement of being human.
Click to expand...
Human beings have intellect for a reason. We have an obligation to try to discern what is the truth. The truth of what someone believes is not contingent upon his believing it. What matters is not that I chose to believe something but whether it is true or not.

When people discuss their “beliefs,” they should be trying to get closer to what the objective truth is. It’s not a matter of taste. We’re not talking chocolate vs. vanilla. We do not have control over what is objectively true. We have control over our own actions, and this is why we are obligated to live in conformity to the truth.
 
As part of your preparation for making the arguments against embryonic stem cell research, you should visit and talk to some of the millions of people who suffer from debilitating and life threatening diseases who might eventually be helped by this… you know, just to get the whole picture and not just the one promoted by the church. My guess is that many christian opponents of this research would soften their view on it if they were so afflicted.
 
reason said:
As part of your preparation for making the arguments against embryonic stem cell research, you should visit and talk to some of the millions of people who suffer from debilitating and life threatening diseases who might eventually be helped by this… you know, just to get the whole picture and not just the one promoted by the church. My guess is that many christian opponents of this research would soften their view on it if they were so afflicted.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let’s get the perspective opposite of the one promoted by the Church. You know, the one where we kill babies to develop patented treatments. :mad:

Let’s just cut through this rhetoric - replace “embryo” with “new born” and try that same argument. It is evil to kill an innocent human being to extract a treatment that may help someone else. Period.

Peace

Tim
 
Hi, reason. I’m wondering why you assume kellyb32 doesn’t know anyone with debilitating & life-threatening diseases. There are many people WITH debilitating & life-threatening diseases who are opposed to ESCR. They understand that even treatments & cures do not justify the destruction of new human life.
 
Hi, kellyb32. I really agree with Tim. wwwncbcenter.org is a great site, & he is really lucky to hear Fr. Tad lecture.

I would also add that www.stemcellresearch is a very informative site. It is definitely biased against ESCR, but in my view it tells the other side of the story that you never hear on CNN. Anyone interested in stem cell science & cures should check it out. Good luck with your less-than-open-minded, misinformed professor…
 
reason said:
As part of your preparation for making the arguments against embryonic stem cell research, you should visit and talk to some of the millions of people who suffer from debilitating and life threatening diseases who might eventually be helped by this… you know, just to get the whole picture and not just the one promoted by the church. My guess is that many christian opponents of this research would soften their view on it if they were so afflicted.
Click to expand...
Hi reason. I do know people who are suffering with and have died from diseases. Like a family friend, a 35 year old mother, who died last year after battling non-hodgekins lymphoma. My neighbor who died less than 2 weeks ago who was in remission for the second time from lukemia. My daughter’s music teacher who has lupus. My father, mother, uncles, aunts, brother and sister, who suffer from cancers, strokes, blood disorders, mental disorders, and a whole myriad of problems. What about my friend who has a daughter that suffers from a severe genetic disorder, that I cannot think of it’s name, but she is completely disabled, has the mentality of a 6 month old, has numerous physical ailments that require her to be hospitalized frequently. The doctors did not give her a good prognosis when she was born, they said 2 years max. She is now 6. My friend told me that there is a 50/50 chance if they had another baby that it could be affected with this disorder. So they do not want another child. If they happened to get pregnant, he said that he would want his wife to abort it if it had the same disorder. His wife said she could not do that.

So I am not talking out of my rear end, when I say that I do not agree with embryonic stem cell research. I know people very well who have very real diseases and disorders that could possibly be helped by such research. But faith and reason (no pun intended) dictate that such research is immoral, no matter what the greater good may be, including if it would benefit someone close to me that I love.
 
mmm1 said:
Hi, kellyb32. I really agree with Tim. wwwncbcenter.org is a great site, & he is really lucky to hear Fr. Tad lecture.

I would also add that www.stemcellresearch is a very informative site. It is definitely biased against ESCR, but in my view it tells the other side of the story that you never hear on CNN. Anyone interested in stem cell science & cures should check it out. Good luck with your less-than-open-minded, misinformed professor…
Click to expand...
Thank you for the info. I will see what it has to offer. Who knows how long this discussion will last now that another student blasted the professor’s remarks…
 
dylanschrader said:
There are objectively true things that we can know to various degrees and with various degrees of certainty. Some beliefs accurately represent what is; some do not.

Ethics does not have to have religious grounding. Human beings are a certain way. We have to act according to what we are and what our purpose is.

Most of what people know is not based on experience but is based on the testimony of others.

Human beings have intellect for a reason. We have an obligation to try to discern what is the truth. The truth of what someone believes is not contingent upon his believing it. What matters is not that I chose to believe something but whether it is true or not.

When people discuss their “beliefs,” they should be trying to get closer to what the objective truth is. It’s not a matter of taste. We’re not talking chocolate vs. vanilla. We do not have control over what is objectively true. We have control over our own actions, and this is why we are obligated to live in conformity to the truth.
Click to expand...
Objectively true things are not subject to opinion. These are things like mathematics. There are some that would even argue the truth of mathematics. It is difficult to name one objective truth that is not mathematical in nature.

Testimony of others is something that is accepted, not objective. As odd as it may sound, few of us can attest to the accepted fact that the Earth is round(ish). Round Earth was not accepted even after theorized mathematically and eventually proven by observation but in some groups a flat Earth is still an accepted truth. Therefore, a truth is useless unless people without the capability of verifying that truth choose to believe it. Then that truth is actually subjective to the believer that cannot verify it. We can all verify that 1+1=2, but it is an accepted fact that the Earth is round because few can actually verify it by observation. Then you can even introduce the accepted fact that people will tend to observe only those pieces that support their original beliefs.

If you sit down and identify all the objectively true things you will find nothing pointing to a direction in life. It is impossible to live by objective truth because there is so little of it. Therefore all you are really left to live by is accepted fact that may not be verifiable by you and opinion that you incorrectly accept as objective fact.
 
kellyb32 said:
Hi reason. I do know people who are suffering with and have died from diseases. Like a family friend, a 35 year old mother, who died last year after battling non-hodgekins lymphoma. My neighbor who died less than 2 weeks ago who was in remission for the second time from lukemia. My daughter’s music teacher who has lupus. My father, mother, uncles, aunts, brother and sister, who suffer from cancers, strokes, blood disorders, mental disorders, and a whole myriad of problems. What about my friend who has a daughter that suffers from a severe genetic disorder, that I cannot think of it’s name, but she is completely disabled, has the mentality of a 6 month old, has numerous physical ailments that require her to be hospitalized frequently. The doctors did not give her a good prognosis when she was born, they said 2 years max. She is now 6. My friend told me that there is a 50/50 chance if they had another baby that it could be affected with this disorder. So they do not want another child. If they happened to get pregnant, he said that he would want his wife to abort it if it had the same disorder. His wife said she could not do that.

So I am not talking out of my rear end, when I say that I do not agree with embryonic stem cell research. I know people very well who have very real diseases and disorders that could possibly be helped by such research. But faith and reason (no pun intended) dictate that such research is immoral, no matter what the greater good may be, including if it would benefit someone close to me that I love.
Click to expand...
Kelly, here are some things to ponder.

What is innocence? If innocence is being without sin, then you need to seriously consider the teachings of the church. People can correct me if I’m wrong but original sin is ascribed to the soul of all people. At the time that decision was made, people were not considered alive until they were born. If life begins at conception, then isn’t the soul given at conception and therefore the burden of original sin makes the unborn child less than innocent? If the soul is given at birth, then the unborn child is soulless like the beasts of the Earth.

Perhaps the soul is given at conception, but original sin is not ascribed till birth. That would be one opinion that is not supported by any testimony that would solve the dilemma.

The church gives no guidance as to where the soul presumed of an unborn child goes. At one point, limbo was an accepted place between Heaven and Hell because it was unacceptable for an unbaptized newborn child with original sin to go to Hell if they died shortly after being born.

Is pro-life actually pro-life since they make no effort to save the 30,000 babies that die each year in the US from spontaneous abortion. Controls can be put in place to keep the majority of those babies alive, but they are very intrusive to people’s lives. What is most important, saving the lives of babies or being intrusive to everyone’s lives? How do we know that God doesn’t want us to put those controls in place to save as many babies as we can? After all, God created nature and commands man to manipulate nature for man’s benefit as long as that benefit s not a sin.

Conversely, how do we know that God did not purposely make unborn babies soulless to allow us to perform ESCR without sin?

Believing what you are told to believe, just because you are told to believe it, renders useless the intellect God commands you to use for our benefit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top