Voting - for a moral theology concern

  • Thread starter Thread starter hwinston
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hwinston

Guest
I hope this is the right sub-forum. Here’s my question.

In Missouri, there’s a proposed amendment that would make it a right to clone human embryos for the purpose of finding cures to diseases.

I’m against it, but am thinking about abstaining from voting either way on this ballot item. Here’s why:

If I vote “NO” on Amendment 2, and it passes anyway, and in 10 years there’s some cure available that would cure my daughter’s illness - I feel that it would be hypocritical to take advantage of the cure while I voted against the science in the beginning.

I had heard there were similar questions raised before about using vaccines that were produced from aborted fetuses. I’m not familiar with the discussion of that subject.

Thanks,
HW
 
hwinston said:
I hope this is the right sub-forum. Here’s my question.

In Missouri, there’s a proposed amendment that would make it a right to clone human embryos for the purpose of finding cures to diseases.

I’m against it, but am thinking about abstaining from voting either way on this ballot item. Here’s why:

If I vote “NO” on Amendment 2, and it passes anyway, and in 10 years there’s some cure available that would cure my daughter’s illness - I feel that it would be hypocritical to take advantage of the cure while I voted against the science in the beginning.

I had heard there were similar questions raised before about using vaccines that were produced from aborted fetuses. I’m not familiar with the discussion of that subject.

Thanks,
HW
Click to expand...
I voted No but would take advantage of the medical treatment, as long as the Church teachings allowed. Voting No is supporting the Holy See teaching. God Bless
 
I voted no and would abstain from using any cures produced that way. We do this with vaccines made using cell lines from aborted babies, as well.

The church does not say that it would be mortal sin to use the vaccines, but does give us the freedom to choose with the understanding that it is preferable to avoid connection with the sin of abortion.
 
hwinston said:
If I vote “NO” on Amendment 2, and it passes anyway, and in 10 years there’s some cure available that would cure my daughter’s illness - I feel that it would be hypocritical to take advantage of the cure while I voted against the science in the beginning.
HW
Click to expand...
You should vote no as that is consistent with being a witness to the truth. If a so called cure were to manifest itself in the future you can seek counsel from the Church to see if utilizing the cure were formal or material cooperation with evil. The specifics can be complicated but do not think you need to be a hypocrite.

What you need to do is be faithful and properly inform your conscience. If a cure happens and the Church says it is licit to use you will be no hypocrite. If a cure is found and the Church says you ought not use it and then you do use it, then you would be a hypocrite.

Hope I explained clearly for you.
 
I would (and am going to) vote no and I hope that I would abstain from any supposed cures. We just had a letter to the editor on that subject–the writer very snootily said that “no” voters should have their names recorded (bye bye secret ballot!) so that they could be black listed from potential cures. This same man was under the erroneous idea that if the amendment failed it was going to ban ESC.
 
aurora77 said:
I would (and am going to) vote no and I hope that I would abstain from any supposed cures. We just had a letter to the editor on that subject–the writer very snootily said that “no” voters should have their names recorded (bye bye secret ballot!) so that they could be black listed from potential cures. This same man was under the erroneous idea that if the amendment failed it was going to ban ESC.
Click to expand...
I think I would have to write a letter to the editor and remind him that there have been no medical advances to date using fetal stem cells, however there have been using adult stem cells…
 
hwinston said:
I’m against it, but am thinking about abstaining from voting either way on this ballot item. Here’s why:

If I vote “NO” on Amendment 2, and it passes anyway, and in 10 years there’s some cure available that would cure my daughter’s illness - I feel that it would be hypocritical to take advantage of the cure while I voted against the science in the beginning.
Click to expand...
I’m from MO and just sent in my absentee ballot today (I’m away at college), voting NO on amendment 2. In this poll I said I’d also abstain from using the cures.

First of all-- There’s a greater likelihood that any cures for your daughter would be found through adult stem cell research, which has yielded over 60 treatments/cures to various conditions and diseases, while embryonic stem cell research, the kind which this act endorses and funds, has yielded NONE.

Secondly (and more importantly)-- This is not an issue of avoiding future hypocrisy. It’s an issue of using science in a moral way. The research itself, because it does not respect human life itself though it attempts to help medical science, is immoral. It is also immoral to take advantage of scientific cures/treatments which have been developed using an immoral means (ie, embryonic stem cell research). Modify the old adage here-- “The ends do NOT justify the means.”

Morally, you are obligated to vote NO on the amendment. I suggest you see caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf
 
God forbid, let’s say your dd does get a disease down the road and assuming that anything comes of this culture-of-death research, that would be the time that the rubber meets the road in your faith. That will be the time that God will ask you to choose Him or this world.

We must all put our trust and faith in God and not in this world. Easier said than done, I know, but it is what we are called to as followers of Christ. I’m reminded of the Gospel where Jesus asks the rich man to leave all of his material wealth behind and follow Him…the rich man didn’t do it and how sad is it when you read that Gospel?
 
You need at least one more choice there. I would vote Yes and take advantage of any resulting treatments.
 
BillP said:
You need at least one more choice there. I would vote Yes and take advantage of any resulting treatments.
Click to expand...
BillP - You’re funny. The irony is really something else. Thanks for sharing your theological or morality-based position.
 
fix said:
Do the means used to reach that end not matter?
Click to expand...
Look I am not against abortion, but there are limits that i would have, like not after three months, etc, but if they’re not going to be born, the fetal cells should be used. i see no problem with that.
 
Wammy101 said:
Look I am not against abortion, but there are limits that i would have, like not after three months, etc, but if they’re not going to be born, the fetal cells should be used. i see no problem with that.
Click to expand...
Yes, so the ends justify the means. Anything goes as long as you achieve the desired end. The limits you claim to endorse are really hit or miss. There is no moral, or logical, reason for your limits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top