Stem-Cell Research

[vincent10395]

Thank you for the article!
I read a number of those quotes that brought up the possibility of the cell becoming cancer when injected. However, would you still be opposed even if they made the process pristine? Because embryonic cells can offer something the adult cells can’t and thats more differentiated cells types. Thanks

 

[angel12]

So, theology and science can be opposed? I thought everything science revealed is in accord with religion?

There is no conflict between scientific knowledge and religion. That doesn’t mean that everything that could be done with that knowledge is appropriate.

 

[vincent10395]

“It’s been said for nearly 20 years yet no actual cures have been found. Adult and cord blood stem cells OTOH have produced actual results.”

I’m not sure that entirely accurate but lets assume that it hasn’t produced anything thus far, does that mean we abandon 20 years worth of figuring out what doesn’t work and start all over? I would think thats the whole point of science is to keep trying.

A human person exists from conception to natural death. The size of the person is irrelevant. They are a person with a soul, all the same.

Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this one soul splitting into two? Or two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual. Is there an extra soul floating around?

__

with recent advances in genetic engineering every cell in your body hold this same potential

No, it doesn’t. Nor would cloning technology be moral.

Scratch your nose and you’ve just created a genocide of potential humans.

No, you haven’t.

A cell from your body and a human embryo are not the same thing.

But it could be and thats the point.

Why then do Christians intend on holding back these scientific advances that could alleviate the pain of countless humans?

We may not do evil in pursuit of good.

We may certainly pursue cures and treatments through adult and cord blood stem cells./quote]

I’m all for pursing treatments through adult stem-cell research, but it has its limits.

 

[vincent10395]

vincent10395:

So, theology and science can be opposed? I thought everything science revealed is in accord with religion?

There is no conflict between scientific knowledge and religion. That doesn’t mean that everything that could be done with that knowledge is appropriate.

I agree, but thats not what I was saying with that quote. Of course there have been countless examples of human torture done in the name of science over the years. However, I wanted to discuss this because it is quite clear there is a difference between embryonic stem-cell research and what Dr. Mengele did.

 

[vincent10395]

Plants have souls, do you think we should avoid killing them? Morality comes down to preventing suffering for the human race. Obviously embryos can’t feel pain so it don’t compromise morality because we use it as means to achieving a moral end.

 

[vincent10395]

We don’t need to choose the lesser of two evils when there is an alternative to do good.
[/quote]

The alternative isn’t sufficient enough. I’m all for it, but it just get us there. I can see both as a good.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Plants have souls, do you think we should avoid killing them?

Um…come again? A material soul is different than the type of soul humans have. We cannot sin to do any good, no matter what.

 

[vincent10395]

vincent10395:

Plants have souls, do you think we should avoid killing them?

Um…come again? A material soul is different than the type of soul humans have. We cannot sin to do any good, no matter what.

Of course, but you neglected to provide the context in which I said that.

Now, I brought this up elsewhere but it seems fitting here too. These embryos in this stage occasionally split becoming two separate people (identical twins). Now you claim they have a soul, so does this mean one soul is split into two? Or in the case two embryos fuse into a single chimera, where does the extra soul go? Or is it simply devoured by the other?

 

[neophyte]

How? What makes a human, human?

It is a unique member of the species homo sapiens, which makes it a human being by definition.

 

[vincent10395]

vincent10395:

How? What makes a human, human?

It is a unique member of the species homo sapiens, which makes it a human being by definition.

Fair enough. So, its a human embryo, does it necessarily follow that this embryo with its 100 cells and no brain, heart, organs, neurons ex. Has the exact same worth as you and me? That if you had the choice of saving this embryo, that feels no pain, and a two year old from a burning building, it wouldn’t matter because they’re both humans?

 

[neophyte]

Fair enough. So, its a human embryo, does it necessarily follow that this embryo with its 100 cells and no brain, heart, organs, neurons ex. Has the exact same worth as you and me?

Yes.

(Xrtra chars)

 

[vincent10395]

@Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman is right. The taking of an innocent life without just cause is intrinsically evil. We can never commit intrinsically evil actions, even to prevent another evil or bring about a greater good.
[/quote]

I agree with the first sentence but the second sentence seems to contradict. “without a just cause” What else constitutes a just cause apart from preventing evil and bringing about a greater good?

 

[vincent10395]

vincent10395:

Fair enough. So, its a human embryo, does it necessarily follow that this embryo with its 100 cells and no brain, heart, organs, neurons ex. Has the exact same worth as you and me?

Yes.

(Xrtra chars)

Interesting. And this is simply because we both have a soul? I mean, because clearly there are physical differences between a full grown man and an embryo. And if we’re being honest a full grown man can think, reason, feel pain, has access to all five senses, ex. When it all comes down to it a man can benefit society more than an embryo can so I can’t really see equality here.

 

[neophyte]

And this is simply because we both have a soul?

It’s simply because all members of the human race have equal value and all have the same unalienable rights. If not, then there’s no such thing as human rights at all.

 

[vincent10395]

No. To clarify, humans have immortal souls, different from all other living creatures, which have mortal souls. The human soul is inherently different. A plant is not as important as a human embryo.

Morality comes down to preventing suffering for the human race.

Morality comes down to obeying God’s commands and loving our neighbor. Part of God’s commandments is to not unjustly kill another human being. Even if embryonic stem cell research takes away human suffering (which is itself a morally good thing), it does so by unjustly killing another human being, which is morally evil. And as has already been said, good ends cannot be achieved by evil means.

Obviously embryos can’t feel pain so it don’t compromise morality because we use it as means to achieving a moral end.

Ultimately, the morality of embryonic stem cell research does not depend on the embryo feeling pain or not. It depends on the dignity of the human embryo. We as Catholics believe that human life and person hood begin at conception, and so embryonic stem cell research, which kills the embryo, is an affront against human dignity. It is therefore evil.
[/quote]

Good points. I agree that unjust killing is immoral, but what I’m trying to understand is why this constitutes as being “unjust”? If it accomplishes this goal of furthering our scientific advances to dealing with disease without having to inflict pain or terrible repercussions then why the hesitation? You mentioned dignity of the embryo which yes I understand the reasoning, but I would think a little child with a disease suffering unspeakable pain merits a little bit more dignity, especially when we have the means to help.

 

[vincent10395]

vincent10395:

And this is simply because we both have a soul?

It’s simply because all members of the human race have equal value and all have the same unalienable rights. If not, then there’s no such thing as human rights at all.

Makes sense. Thanks for the discussion!

 

[1ke]

I’m not sure that entirely accurate but lets assume that it hasn’t produced anything thus far, does that mean we abandon 20 years worth of figuring out what doesn’t work and start all over?

Adult and cord blood stem cells work. We have no need to start over.

And, once again, we may not do evil (kill embryos) in the pursuit of good (cures).

Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this one soul splitting into two?

No. Souls are immaterial, not material. In the case of identical twins, the second twin would receive a soul when it comes into existence.

two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual. Is there an extra soul floating around?

One dies, one survives. Souls whose bodies die leave the body. Just as our souls do.

But it could be and thats the point.

No, it isn’t and it can’t. I don’t think you understand the science. Your skin cell doesn’t “become” an embryo. You skin cell can’t “become” a person. It is always and only a skin cell. Same for other cells in your body. They are not “potential humans.” In cloning, they remove the DNA from a person’s cell, they remove the nuclear DNA from an donated ovum, inject the DNA taken from the person and only then stimulate the ovum to begin cell division.

Cloning is morally wrong as is stem cell research on human embryos no matter how the embryo came into being.

 

[humbleseeker]

When it all comes down to it a man can benefit society more than an embryo can so I can’t really see equality here.

So value is placed on utility?

 

[FCS]

From the moment of conception, a human has a soul.

Jeremiah 1:5:“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Also for all we know, that baby could grow up to find a cure for cancer or something else wonderful. There have been many famous people who were almost aborted.

And, like others have said, why not just use adult stem cells?

 

[Hodos]

There are a number of reasons this whole line of logic is flawed. First of all, the line of questioning assumes that outcomes justify the means. This isn’t true at all. Just because there may be medical or scientific benefit doesn’t mean that the means by which those benefits are obtained are ethical. The Nazis performed numerous medical experiments on the mentally ill, twins, Jews, and Slavs for reasons they felt advanced medical science, but clearly the means by which they obtained these results were immoral. The taking of human life, whatever the age or development level of the subject, is murder and is unethical no matter the benefit obtained. Second, this assumes the only way of harvesting stem cells is by killing human babies. This isn’t true. Embryonic stem cells may be obtained ethically through the donation of cord blood. It is the research we are opposed to, it’s the means of obtaining the stem cells. Last, you are assuming skin cells are potential humans, not true. Epidermal cells are dead cells, that don’t have the potential of developing into entire humans. We aren’t amoebas who replicate asexually, so your science is flawed. Nor are humans and flies ontologically on the same level.