Stem Cell Research...what if it was your 2 year old?

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintbtg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Squishy said:
Well, it looks like embryonic stem cell reserch is due to go ahead regardless of the opposition to it. Now i have a question.

If it turns out to be the tressure trove of cures that people are currently hoping. In the future will you all boycotte anything that can trace its origins back to this period, and to stem cell reserch.

I cannot see any mother in good conciouse allowing their child to die when a simple cure is on the market but that cure had its roots in reserch done on embryos.
Click to expand...
Your philosophy is fatally flawed.
 
Squishy said:
But being very happy to reap the rewards.
Click to expand...
Not happy, but willing.

Why then does the Church support adult stem cell research, or for that matter any medical research that somewhere benefited from unethical scientists?

I understand the reason to not support current embryonic stem cell research. But the OP is a situation where the research is in the past and adult stem cells are used.
 
Squishy said:
Does this not seem a little hypocritical then. On the one hand condemming stem cell reserch and doing as much in their power to prevent it. But being very happy to reap the rewards.
Click to expand...
You are making an assumption (making an A** out of you and me) that knowledge from ESR is used in adult stem cell research.

What if the scientists using adult stem cells were responsible and moral and did not use any knowledge gained from ESR.

To the original question, no gains from any experiments that involve the abuse, torture and murder of innocent babies should ever be used, no matter what the potential.

Why do we always compromise the Truth for the false “greater good” argument? Once we allow experimentation on innocent humans, we have opened the door for extreme evil.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark
 
Mark77 said:
You are making an assumption (making an A** out of you and me) that knowledge from ESR is used in adult stem cell research.
Click to expand...
I think that was me and it was not an assumption, but rather a question, which no one answered. Which came first? I was aware of embryonic stem cell research first, but that is just what I remember.

*If *the embryonic stem cell research came first, it is not logical to assume that adult stem cell research was conducted in an academic vacuum devoid of knowledge gained in previous work. In fact, would work with adult stem cells have even started if not for embryonic stem cell research?
 
Hopefully, those who come here to bait Catholics will realize we are on to you and your “what if” statements. I cannot speak for the actions of any individual scientist. I cannot speak for the actions of any individual parent. Sometimes, living for the Truth involves a sacrifice. It means standing up for the Truth, not “what ifs.”

If we desperately cling to our own lives and think only of ourselves, we will be cut off from God. Those human embryos, though lacking fingers and toes, are you and me. That’s right. We were all there, and fully uniquely human at that stage.

So reconsider your motives when posing these questions. Do not come here to create fear or anxiety. Each one of us who has a conscience and ears to hear, need to follow the Truth.

Peace,
Ed
 
saintbtg said:
  1. If they first found a cure using ESC but then were able to copy it using adult stem cells…would you use it then?
Click to expand...
pnewton said:
I think it is interesting that in the OP the third question dealt with using adult stem cell therapy and still many have rejected it.
Click to expand...
It would seem that many are rejecting the third option because of its origin, or “fruit of the poison tree”. It would in essence make us zombies-by-proxy.
 
First of all… research discovered stem cells … then they began to understand that adult stem cells had their origins in embryonic stem cells …

Adult stem cells have already provideded many cures to a huge variety of illnesses and disease … Adult stem cells have many advantages over mbryonic stem cells …

People come to understand their personal errors and repent all the time … it is possible for a scientist to have worked with embryonic stem cells, come to recognize that for the immoral action it is and choose to then concetrate upon adult stem cells … this is a person you could support …

There was not prohibition on embryonic stem cells - ever … the prohibition was on public taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research … the fact is that this area of rsearch has not been very promising … those who provide private funding would like to see positive and lucrative results in their life times … Embryonic stem cell research does not appear to offer that result …

Far better to get government money - you do not have to actually produce any results and the supply is endless :rolleyes:

As for the 100 embryos and the other children … False question … you would try to save all. My inablility to save all and only to save some does not mean that I then can decide to murder those I cannot save before the fire kills them. :eek:
 
pnewton said:
I think that was me and it was not an assumption, but rather a question, which no one answered. Which came first? I was aware of embryonic stem cell research first, but that is just what I remember.

*If *the embryonic stem cell research came first, it is not logical to assume that adult stem cell research was conducted in an academic vacuum devoid of knowledge gained in previous work. In fact, would work with adult stem cells have even started if not for embryonic stem cell research?
Click to expand...
Actually, these are some thoughtful points & if I remember, some of the adult stem cell research did initially involve genetic material taken from embryos.If you check on the site:Children of God For Life (I think that’s the name), you can see what the problem with that particular research was.And the actual facts, which I’m probably not remembering correctly.
 
mantilla410 said:
It would seem that many are rejecting the third option because of its origin, or “fruit of the poison tree”. It would in essence make us zombies-by-proxy.
Click to expand...
Ah, but now we have to add a “by-proxy” caveat. The Church’s teaching on remote cooperation with evil can come to bear. Let us say that embryonic stem cell research faded away forever, never to be used. Could we never use adult stem cell therapy because some of the knowledge may have come from scientist who used embryonic stem cells? Surely, if we value life first and foremost, at some point the remote cooperation with evil would become remote enough to no longer be cooperation at all.

As long as this cooperation would result in more abortions, then it would not be allowable. This is Church teaching. But if a life could be saved without taking anymore lives, should not those who are pro-life so act as to save life?

BTW - what do you mean by zombies? I see no connection. Are you a Santarinean?
 
pnewton said:
Not happy, but willing.

Why then does the Church support adult stem cell research, or for that matter any medical research that somewhere benefited from unethical scientists?

I understand the reason to not support current embryonic stem cell research. But the OP is a situation where the research is in the past and adult stem cells are used.
Click to expand...
If you could make me understand what on earth that means I might be able to respond.
 
Farley4334 said:
1 & 3. If a cure is found I would use it. I may not agree with the means by which it was obtained but it would be immoral not to use it if it existed. Now if it required further death of children, such as they had to directly use the embryonic stem cells on my child than no. I would not save my child by causing death to someone else. But if it were a case where a cure, such as medication were developed, because of children that had already been killed, as much as I opposed it and fought against it, I’d use the medication.
  1. I would not support any company using embryonic stem cells, no matter what.
Click to expand...
So if you received a gift of $1,000,000 (the proceeds from abortion procedures) from an abortion doctor, you would take the money because it was earned “legally”?

You could use the money to save innocent children and do all sorts of good, so why not take it?

You had nothing to do with the abortions, the innocent babies have already been “legally” murdered and if you don’t take the money, then it could go to someone else who might use it for more evil?

The problem with this line of thinking is that anything can be justified using the “greater good” argument. It opens wide the door to the slippery slope of anything goes.

Where do we draw the line?

If you are going to die without a liver transplant, and I am near death, with a healthy liver, why not kill me and take my liver, I’ll die soon anyway?

If your child has a fatal disease, why not experiment on dying people to try to save him? Or better yet, why not experiment on the weak and undesirable among us, they are a drain on our limited resources anyway. (Sounds an awful lot like the NAZI’s argument for horrible experiments performed on “lesser beings” at the death camps. “They’ll die anyway and they could save the lives of the superior Arian race”).

CCC 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

"But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.” Mk 10:14

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark
 
Here is a Christian based site on the history of Stem Cell Research:
godandscience.org/slideshow/stem009.html

For those who decry a Christian site: Here is a secular site with a history of stem cell research … inspite of the term “embryonic” beginning [which I take to mean “early”] … it would seem from reading the article that the origins initially focused on stem cells obtained from other then embryos [bonemarrow] …

allaboutpopularissues.org/history-of-stem-cell-research-faq.htm

From the article RE: Funding and the poster who credited Clinton with the ban making the point that it was not Bush …
In 1973 a moratorium was placed on government funding for human embryo research. In 1988 a NIH panel voted 19 to 2 in favor of government funding. In 1990, Congress voted to override the moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research, which was vetoed by President George Bush. President Clinton lifted the ban, but changed his mind the following year after public outcry. Congress banned federal funding in 1995. In 1998 DHHS Secretary Sullivan extended the moratorium. In 2000, President Bill Clinton allowed funding of research on cells derived from aborted human fetuses, but not from embryonic cells. On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his decision to allow Federal funding of research only on existing human embryonic stem cell lines created prior to his announcement. His concern was to not foster the continued destruction of living human embryos. In 2004, both houses of Congress have asked President George W. Bush to review his policy on embryonic stem cell research. President George W. Bush released a statement reiterating his moral qualms about creating human embryos to destroy them, and refused to reverse the federal policy banning government funding of ESC research (other than for ESC lines established before the funding ban).
Click to expand...
 
Mark77 said:
If you are going to die without a liver transplant, and I am near death, with a healthy liver, why not kill me and take my liver, I’ll die soon anyway?
Click to expand...
That involves a deliberately taking of life before the fact. The better analogy would be you being killed in a robbery and your liver being used to save someone else, despite the fact that your murder was a sin. Did the person who received your liver materially or remotely cooperate in your murder?
 
pnewton said:
Ah, but now we have to add a “by-proxy” caveat. The Church’s teaching on remote cooperation with evil can come to bear. Let us say that embryonic stem cell research faded away forever, never to be used. Could we never use adult stem cell therapy because some of the knowledge may have come from scientist who used embryonic stem cells? Surely, if we value life first and foremost, at some point the remote cooperation with evil would become remote enough to no longer be cooperation at all.

As long as this cooperation would result in more abortions, then it would not be allowable. This is Church teaching. But if a life could be saved without taking anymore lives, should not those who are pro-life so act as to save life?

BTW - what do you mean by zombies? I see no connection. Are you a Santarinean?
Click to expand...
I have perhaps misspoken: allow me to re-phrase. The third question as posed in the OP has a direct line of origin, so, that is most likely why it is being rejected.

As to the zombie reference, please see post #10, you will see the connection.

What is a Santarinean? :confused: I Googled it and couldn’t come up with anything.
 
mantilla410 said:
I have perhaps misspoken: allow me to re-phrase. The third question as posed in the OP has a direct line of origin, so, that is most likely why it is being rejected.

As to the zombie reference, please see post #10, you will see the connection.

What is a Santarinean? :confused: I Googled it and couldn’t come up with anything.
Click to expand...
Do you sacrifice chickens?😃 Or live in South Florida?😃 Try googling “Santeria”, (unless the previous poster had something else in mind.)
 
Squishy said:
Does this not seem a little hypocritical then. On the one hand condemming stem cell reserch and doing as much in their power to prevent it. But being very happy to reap the rewards.
Click to expand...
Food for thought: The Catholic Church also condemns extramarital sex, but cherishes the child born of it. That’s not hypocrisy.

The knowledge gained as a result of an immoral act – I don’t know how tainted that would be. But I couldn’t see, however, using the material result of an evil act: a stolen organ, cells taken from a “blastocyst”, etc.
 
I am so sorry for the terrible position you are in…I know it must just be a terrible ordeal for you and your child

You should know a small boy was given stem cell treatment and got cancer because of it…I think it happened in Israel

We can never take advantage of others no matter what good we feel will be done…it is wrong to murder…Would you take someone elses life from them to cure your child?

How would you feel knowing you did this?..I couldn’t do it…God is the creator and the author of life, not man
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top