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.
The use of the atomic bomb saved lives. Collateral damage (unintended) is an unfortunate part of war.

This is a topic for another thread, but I’m not a pacifist and the church does not require this.
No, but it does condemn without reservation the intentional targeting of civilian populations with weapons of mass destruction (using evil means for a good end, just like ESCR). Which is exactly what we did with incindiaries against Japan and Germany and nuclear weapons against Japan (using our Cathedral as the targeting point in Nagasaki, ironically enough).
 
Although I see your dilemma, the problem is easy to solve. The question of absolute moral right and wrongs is not contingent on popularity. It matters not one iota what anyone, or even everyone, thinks or agrees with. Jesus Himself said that if there were no humans to praise Him, the very rocks of the earth would raise up to praise Him. God makes the Laws…not man. And God is the Judge. Why should I care if Tom, Ruth, or Harry thinks I am right or wrong? It is God Who I need to worry about obeying. It is God Who is the TRUTH. It is God I want to spend eternity with.
Nicely put. I liked the reminder of the verse with the very rocks raising up. I wish I was more like this in life. :gopray2:
 
So lets try to get this ethical question straight.

Lets give a for instance question.

Embryotic stem cell are found to be a cure or fix parts of ones body that has gone wrong.

However the cells are proven to be highly rejective unless it comes directly from one of the donors.

A man and woman who created such a person together.

So the first thing a married couple should do is to get pregnant and abort the baby to remove the stem cells at a stage of growth of this Human Being so as to have such cells in frozen status should things go wrong in life.

So a man and woman should give their sperm and eggs to be united and placed in a test tube and when this life gets to the embyo stage kill and remove the stem cells of the life they both help create.

I’m confused this sounds like the killing and harvesting of a human life at a stage of development.

Does anyone disagree?

Does this sound morally right?
 
Take away the phrase “for instance”. If it isn’t happening already, it will be soon.
This is definitely murder. That child is not only the reproduction of those two people, but he is Christ’s child.
The legal exploitation and murder of these totally defenseless and voiceless people is beyond reasonable understanding.
The world was in an uproar about the Tuskagee syphillis episode…as is just. It should have been in an uproar. Those men were used as guiniau pigs without there consent…and given a death sentence.
And it was horrible, and found to be totally unnacceptable…irregardless of the medical and scientific information gained from this study.
The reason it is being allowed today is that the victims have no voice…just like the holocaust victims of Nazi Germany.
 
Take away the phrase “for instance”. If it isn’t happening already, it will be soon.
This is definitely murder. That child is not only the reproduction of those two people, but he is Christ’s child.
The legal exploitation and murder of these totally defenseless and voiceless people is beyond reasonable understanding.
The world was in an uproar about the Tuskagee syphillis episode…as is just. It should have been in an uproar. Those men were used as guiniau pigs without there consent…and given a death sentence.
And it was horrible, and found to be totally unnacceptable…irregardless of the medical and scientific information gained from this study.
The reason it is being allowed today is that the victims have no voice…just like the holocaust victims of Nazi Germany.
you are right
 
No, but it does condemn without reservation the intentional targeting of civilian populations with weapons of mass destruction (using evil means for a good end, just like ESCR). Which is exactly what we did with incindiaries against Japan and Germany and nuclear weapons against Japan (using our Cathedral as the targeting point in Nagasaki, ironically enough).
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was exclusively a “civilian” target. One reason we chose these targets was that they contained military assets. Sometime after Spain, the notion of separating civilian and miliary targets became impossible. We need to remember that this war was a kind of chaos.
 
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was exclusively a “civilian” target. One reason we chose these targets was that they contained military assets. Sometime after Spain, the notion of separating civilian and miliary targets became impossible. We need to remember that this war was a kind of chaos.
Chris I think you are in the wrong forum here.

Again as in the correct forum this was discussed in that the Emperor of Japan at the time (Hirohito) was Divine by the Japanese people and all obeyed and all fought or suffered the consequences in this life or the next.

If civilians are used as shields the civilians lives will be considered but should not deter from the destruction or protection of weapons or weapon systems that will cause death to another.

Ther Japanese war machine was hiding in these and many other cities.
 
Chris I think you are in the wrong forum here.

Again as in the correct forum this was discussed in that the Emperor of Japan at the time (Hirohito) was Divine by the Japanese people and all obeyed and all fought or suffered the consequences in this life or the next.

If civilians are used as shields the civilians lives will be considered but should not deter from the destruction or protection of weapons or weapon systems that will cause death to another.

Ther Japanese war machine was hiding in these and many other cities.
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was exclusively a “civilian” target. One reason we chose these targets was that they contained military assets. Sometime after Spain, the notion of separating civilian and miliary targets became impossible. We need to remember that this war was a kind of chaos.
Sorry, guys, but your opinions are counter to what the Church teaches. It is no more permissable to intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons than it is to use human embryos as research material to develop a cure for cancer.

Pope Paul VI called the bombings a “butchery of untold magnitude”. Pope John Paul II called it “a self destruction of mankind” and included Hiroshima and Nagasaki with Auschwitz as places of pilgrimage.

The Catechism states:
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."
I know it’s tough to take. I had always supported the bombings (I come from a military family) and excused them as well (using the same rationalizations you’ve mentioned above), but when I became a Catholic, I had to start re-evaluating my positions on certain things that didn’t wash with what the Church taught, even if it seemed counterintuitive or wrong to me.

Basically it comes down to: either we can trust in the Church’s judgment, or we can join the cafeteria.

Sorry if this is getting OT, but the principle of double effect and the idea of using evil means to achieve a good end are the *same *points of contention in both ESCR and the use of WMDs. I’ll bow out at this point so as not to derail this any further.
 
There are now therapies that use adult stem cells cultured from the person’s own body, for instance skin or nasal areas. Adult stem cells have effected cures for many health problems. Embryonic stem cells have produced nothing, nada, zip. As near as I can tell, the push for ESC research is to make sure there is a demand for aborted babies, and therefore, for abortion. The MSM just says “stem cells” without pointing out that the promising therapies are with ADULT stem cells. Then the subject is changed to ESC, making the impression that the source of the promising therapies is ESC.
 
Sorry, guys, but your opinions are counter to what the Church teaches. It is no more permissable to intentionally target civilian populations with nuclear weapons than it is to use human embryos as research material to develop a cure for cancer.

Pope Paul VI called the bombings a “butchery of untold magnitude”. Pope John Paul II called it “a self destruction of mankind” and included Hiroshima and Nagasaki with Auschwitz as places of pilgrimage.

The Catechism states:

I know it’s tough to take. I had always supported the bombings (I come from a military family) and excused them as well (using the same rationalizations you’ve mentioned above), but when I became a Catholic, I had to start re-evaluating my positions on certain things that didn’t wash with what the Church taught, even if it seemed counterintuitive or wrong to me.

Basically it comes down to: either we can trust in the Church’s judgment, or we can join the cafeteria.

Sorry if this is getting OT, but the principle of double effect and the idea of using evil means to achieve a good end are the *same *points of contention in both ESCR and the use of WMDs. I’ll bow out at this point so as not to derail this any further.
With all due respect you take the past Pope out of context. All wars are destructive and Evil is what the discussion was being raised. At times wars need to be fought and one must take up the sword. As far as Japan was concerned it was at the point of being unable to distinguish between civilian and military. It is never ok to deliberately kill innocents but I would like to hear the Pope say that the towns surrouding the death camps in Germany were innocent civilians as the daily aroma of burning flesh filled the morning air night after night of firing up the ovens.

Japanese military and civilians in the tens of thousands when areas and towns were defeated the U.S. by convenrtional methods retained their honor and committed hari kari

Kamakaze hey were like the today’s version of suicide bombers. The Japanese had strict codes of honour. They would rather die than surrender or be taken hostage. So, in the war of the Pacific, the Japanese thought a very effective way of winning would be using kamikaze pilots. They would fly their planes, full of explosives, into American planes, killing as many people as they could. This was an extremely effective, if not completely barbaric, stragedy

In the early morning hours of August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber named Enola Gay took off from the island of Tinian and headed north by northwest toward Japan. The bomber’s primary target was the city of Hiroshima, located on the deltas of southwestern Honshu Island facing the Inland Sea. Hiroshima had a civilian population of almost 300,000 and was an important military center, containing about 43,000 soldiers.

At 11:00 a.m., August 6 (Washington D.C. time), radio stations began playing a prepared statement from President Truman (right) informing the American public that the United States had dropped an entirely new type of bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima – an “atomic bomb.” Truman warned that if Japan still refused to surrender unconditionally, as demanded by the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, the United States would attack additional targets with equally devastating results. Two days later, on August 8, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria, ending American hopes that the war would end before Russian entry into the Pacific theater. By August 9th, American aircraft were showering leaflets all over Japan informing its people that “We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2,000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate. We have just begun to to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.” Meanwhile, Tibbets’s bomber group was simply waiting for the weather to clear in order to drop its next bomb, the plutonium weapon nicknamed “Fat Man” (right) that was destined for the city of Nagasaki.

one must define civilians as if woman and children take up the sword aganist their enemy then they cease to be civilians

Unfortunately the atomic bomb saved millions of lives.
 
My wife and I had 4 children. One we buried as a newborn. Not even for him would I have said yes, because the end never justifies the means.

Blessings,

Gerry
Amen to that. I have responded to many folks to wit: “The end never justifies the means” and they give me this deer in the headlights look - they simply don’t get it - but then maybe they do but don’t want to own up to the horrible truth of it all. If you claim to be a Catholic, you can’t have it both ways. The true and moral Catholic does not pick and choose as if in a cafeteria-style church.

Peace

JudithAnn
 
Of course I find many of his arguments about religion in general a bit simplistic his statement about stem cell research is bang on. Please forgive the long quote.

*There are sources of irrationality other than religious faith, of course, but none of them are celebrated for their role in shaping public policy. Supreme Court justices are not in the habit of praising our nation or its reliance upon astrology, or for its wealth of UFO sightings, or for exemplifying the various reasoning biases that psychologists have found to be more or less endemic to our species. Only mainstream religious dogmatism receives the unqualified support of government. And yet, religious faith obscures uncertainty where uncertainty manifestly exists, allowing the unknown, the implausible, and the patently false to achieve primacy over facts.
Code:
        Consider the present debate over research on human embryonic stem cells.  The problem with this research, from the religious point of view is simple:  it entails the destruction of human embryos.  The embryos in question will have been cultures in vitro (not removed from a woman’s body) and permitted to grow for three to five days.  AT this stage of development, an embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 150 cells arranged in a microscopic sphere.  Interior to the blastocyst is a small group of about 30 embryonic stem cells.  These cells have two properties that make them of such abiding interest to scientists:  as stem cells, they can remain in an unspecialized state, reproducing themselves through cell division for long periods of time (a population of such cells living in culture is known as a cell line); stem cells are also pluripotent, which means they have the potential to become any specialized cell in the human body – neurons of the brain and spinal chord, insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, muscle cells of the heart, and so forth.*
where is this from?
 
  • We also know that research on embryonic cells requires the destruction of human embryos at the 150-cell stage. There is not the slightest reason to believe, however, that such embryos have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer, or to experience the loss of life in any way at all.
    Source: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Page: 165…6*
    there is no reason to believe they might feel pain because we can not imagine nor understand life at that stage. all living things respond to stimuli, however. all living things do not experience the loss of life when they are the ones deing.
 
This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:
Code:
the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top