What is the moral thing to do with "leftover" embyros?

[pickguard1]

Bear Claw - your logic has a serious hole. Your argument is based on “these embryos will die anyway, so let’s use 'em!” Well, by that logic - anyone will die eventually. Some might even commit heinous crimes in the future, before that inevitable death. Therefore, applying your logic, anyone should be fair game to take body parts from or experiment on. Why not a healthy five year old? She’ll die anyway, right?

The point is, it is never morally OK to do evil, that good may come of it. That good does sometimes come about from evil actions doesn’t justify the evil action. It shows the mercy of God.

If an infant is orphaned because his parents are murdered, and then finds a wonderful home with adoptive parents who give him a life that is much more fulfilling than his biological parents might have been able to give, was the murderer justified and should he be set free for his “good deed”? Of course not. Same goes with killing humans for science.

Think it through, please.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Bear Claw - your logic has a serious hole. Your argument is based on “these embryos will die anyway, so let’s use 'em!” Well, by that logic - anyone will die eventually. Some might even commit heinous crimes in the future, before that inevitable death. Therefore, applying your logic, anyone should be fair game to take body parts from or experiment on. Why not a healthy five year old? She’ll die anyway, right?

The point is, it is never morally OK to do evil, that good may come of it. That good does sometimes come about from evil actions doesn’t justify the evil action. It shows the mercy of God.

If an infant is orphaned because his parents are murdered, and then finds a wonderful home with adoptive parents who give him a life that is much more fulfilling than his biological parents might have been able to give, was the murderer justified and should he be set free for his “good deed”? Of course not. Same goes with killing humans for science.

Think it through, please.

I have thought it through.

You are equating an embryo with someone who is able to live independently. I know you equate an embryo to a born human, but even by that standard it’s OK.
I’m not talking about ambushing the 5 y ear old and killing him/her, I’m talking about organ donor scenarios.

In the case of the embryos, if there are folks that want to adopt them and give birth to them, great, but the others that are about to be destroyed? There should be a cut-off point before they are destroyed, when other options are exhausted, been given a chance at adoption, etc.
Before you destroy them, use what they have to offer.

In the same case, don’t kill the 5 year old, but if someone is on the hospital bed, about to die, then would you not see the value in those organs?

 

[st_lucy]

I have thought it through.

You are equating an embryo with someone who is able to live independently. I know you equate an embryo to a born human, but even by that standard it’s OK.
I’m not talking about ambushing the 5 y ear old and killing him/her, I’m talking about organ donor scenarios.

In the case of the embryos, if there are folks that want to adopt them and give birth to them, great, but the others that are about to be destroyed? There should be a cut-off point before they are destroyed, when other options are exhausted, been given a chance at adoption, etc.
Before you destroy them, use what they have to offer.

In the same case, don’t kill the 5 year old, but if someone is on the hospital bed, about to die, then would you not see the value in those organs?

But with this train of thought why don’t we rush the mental institutions and start harvesting organs? Or go to the hospitals and take all of the patients that cnnot live independently and start to harvest their organs.

You know there was once a society that believed as you are stating here, that we should be able to experiment on those humans that not “living independently” so that we can find cures for those of us humans who are “living independently”. It is a good thing to do.
That society was the German Nazis, oh why don’t we learn from history instead of repeating it.

 

[pickguard1]

Bear Claw, you can’t equate use of embryonic stem cells to organ donation, unless you advocate the deliberate killing of the “donor” in order to harvest the organs. Stem cells cannot be harvested from embryos without killing the embryo, and once the embryo is dead, it’s stem cells are not useful. Therfore, the analogy to organ donation doesn’t stand. If there was a sick little girl who was “going” to die at some point in the future, deliberately killing her for her heart or whatever isn’t OK just because she’s sick, even mortally so.

 

[pickguard1]

st lucy, you are exactly right.

Bear Claw -Yes I am equating an embryo with a human who can live independently, and with a black human, and a white human, and a male human and a female human and a tall human , and a small human (I’m sounding like Dr. Seuss here!) why? Because they are ALL humans! There is intrinsic value that is equal in EVERY human being. Once, one group is determined to be inferior or less valuable (who gets to make that determination anyway?) what is it that stops that same group from determining that yeat a different group is less valuable? Is it only the group in power that get’s to decide these things? One day the democrats are in, and they think it’s ok to kill embryos for science. Then the republicans are in and they say, no it’s not OK. Then maybe a white supremecist group comes to power, and they say - it’s ok to kill non white embryos. Then a different group says that only asians should be saved because they have longer life spans in general anyway…it could go on forever. The point again is - there is no moral grey area here. One can’t justify a moral evil because it’s outcome will produce a good, even a great good.

 

[Bear_Claw]

This is getting a bit frustrating and I’ll bow out now.

It seems like you guys just don’t want to understand the reasoning behind it and that you are looking for ways to make your beliefs fit to justify this scenario.

If you can’t, or don’t want to see this point I’m making and keep on thinking the same way (which, basically, you are being told to think and believe by the church) then I’ll bow out.

Thanks.

 

[edwest2]

How can this scenario be unacceptable? You are condemning life saving actions. I thought Catholics are supposed to be living a life of giving, of servitude? And to die saving a hole heap of lives…now that would not be immoral would it? That would not be unacceptable…in fact I’m VERY surprised if an action like that will not go un-applauded by the Catholic community and the victims be hailed as heroes.

Think of what you are saying. How many people can one human body save via organ donation?
Corneas, hearts, kidneys, liver, lungs, skin, the list is long…

Embryos cannot give consent. The parents are responsible. The scientists who only have a wish regarding the possibility of treatments are responsible for their deaths.

As Catholics, we need to defend the right of human embryos to be allowed to develop fully and be born. Later, if they choose, they can consent to organ donation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[pickguard1]

Originally posted by Bear Claw

It seems like you guys just don’t want to understand the reasoning behind it and that you are looking for ways to make your beliefs fit to justify this scenario.

The same could be said of your arguments.

Also, while some Catholics may mindlessly follow the Church, as a general rule, we (Catholics) are supposed to use the conscience and intellect given us by God. That means that most Catholics actually reason their way through the Church’s teaching, and have come to believe in its truth.

Obviously, our arguments are coming from diametrically opposed foundations- mine, (which happens to coincide with Church teachings, because I agree with Church teachings, but in no way is based primarily on “because the Church says so”) comes from the premise that a human life is a human life period.

Yours comes from the premise that there are grades or levels of human life that allow for a possibly decreased or eliminated moral gravity for things like embryoninc stem cell research.

Until the foundational belief system in your argument is changed the shades of grey will always be there for you to justify such things.

 

[edwest2]

So, you say that the embryos cannot stay alive indefinitely, so they will inevitably die. This ties into my original point about not letting them die in vain.

As for your list of advantages:

1. is only valid because of the restrictions of the Bush administration.
2. is probably the only advantage adult stem cells have over embryonic ones.

Read this: (from explorestemcells.co.uk/AdultVSEmbryonicStemCells.html)
Adult stem cells are generally less flexible and versatile than embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have a far greater differentiation potential than adult stem cells simply because embryonic stem cells can develop into almost every type of cell in the human body. Conversely, adult stem cells may only develop into a limited number of cell types, so their potential applications are not as great as embryonic stem cells.

How about the possibilities for treating and even curing the following list of diseases: (from newdrugs.com/stem-cell-use-in-disease.htm#other_diseases)

Neurological:
Spinal cord injury and neurotrauma
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)
Stroke
Cancer:
Leukemia
Skeletal:
Replacement bony structures
Osteoporosis
Autoimmune:
Rheumatoid arthritis
Multiple sclerosis
Cardiovascular:
Acute myocardial infarct
Gastrointestinal:
Diabetes
Liver disease
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)
Integumental:
Skin transplantation
Stem cell research is involved in many other diseases other than the ones described above. This includes everything from Alzheimer’s disease to Parkinson’s to multiple myeloma to urinary incontinence

Now tell me that you will let the embryos just die in vain when they can be responsible for treating or curing one of these…

“can be”? How do you know this? Die in vain? They should have never have been created in the first place.

Embryos cannot give consent.

Adult stem cells have certain limits but they are the ethically sound alternative. And further research is ongoing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[magdelaine]

The argument for “using” said embryos is moot anyway, I have realized.

Scientist don’t use “leftover” embryos; there are legal and custodial issues involved as well as issues with being able to control for genetics, the fact that they are stored and not “fresh”, etc. No, scientists who do embryonic stem cell research create the embryos they need with donated eggs and sperm specifically with the intention of destroying them.

Now, how can *anyone *argue that this is an ethical thing to do??

 

[pickguard1]

No, scientists who do embryonic stem cell research create the embryos they need with donated eggs and sperm specifically with the intention of destroying them.

Now, how can *anyone *argue that this is an ethical thing to do??

This has to be the most concise answer I’ve seen in this thread yet!:tiphat:

 

[Bear_Claw]

I’m going to quote a poster from another thread, but the analogy is possibly the best one yet, and you should see the difference now, IF you allow yourself to be 100% honest.

What if a building were on fire. Indside were 100 frozen embryos and a group of kids. You cannot save all of them. Which gets your top priority and why?

I ask because if you are going to give equal weight to a blastocyst and a 5 year old, then you really should have no preference on the above choice.

Someone has suggested that such hypothecial situations depend on an emotional instead of a logical response and suggested that chosing the 5 year old was simply an emotional choice, not a logical one. I think the reverse is true. The logical thing to do would be, IMO, to save the 5 year old, the one with feelings, sentiency, loved ones, etc. - for what I think are obvious reasons. And that is why the “anyone who would kill an embryo would also kill a 5 year old for organs” argument falls flat with folks who don’t equate an embryo with a born person. We see the clear dividing line. We don’t see them as “equal” beings, so, no, we would not advocate harvesting organs or anything else from born folks of any age.

 

[magdelaine]

I’m going to quote a poster from another thread, but the analogy is possibly the best one yet, and you should see the difference now, IF you allow yourself to be 100% honest.

Watchmen (the movie) deals with this issue too. Is it right to kill millions in order to save billions? The movie’s flawed hero answer is what every human beings answer should be: no, the ends never justify the means. Never.

 

[pickguard1]

Bear Claw
I would agree that the choice would most likely become emotional, as yes, they are all human beings. The same analogy could be stated with 100 children, but only 50 are savable - how do you choose? In this hypothetical situation, I think it stands to reason, you save who you can. Same in the children/embryo situation.

Again, I point out that there isn’t some sort of veil over the eyes of those of us who believe embryos are of equal value to born humans, causing us to be less than “100% honest”. It is a matter of the fundamental belief system that is informing our moral arguments, vs. your fundamental belief system that is informing your arguments.

 

[judechild]

Forgive me, Bear Claw, but you’re grabbing for straws. You used the five-year-old vs. embroy analogy, thinking that that shows we don’t *really *consider embroyos as being on the same level of dignity as others. You failed to notice, however, the most basic rule in first-aid: all other things being equal, you rescue first those who are most likely to survive. It’s unfair, I know, but first responders who use this method invariably have lower death rates. The same philosophy is applicable here; the five-year-olds are definately more likely to survive. This analogy should not be used to try and justify the destruction of children.

I also want to bring back up this…

If you can’t, or don’t want to see this point I’m making and keep on thinking the same way (which, basically, you are being told to think and believe by the church) then I’ll bow out.

…and say nope, we don’t have a blind faith; we have faith with our eyes wide open!

 

[judechild]

Oh, by the way, the quote you gave apparently thought it was ridiculous that people would take organs from a five year old, but if you listen to The Bioethics Podcast (episode 99), which is put out by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, you’ll hear about how doctors didn’t even bother to wait until a group of terminal infants died before they removed their organs. I won’t say anything more than that; judge it for yourself.

 

[magdelaine]

Oh, by the way, the quote you gave apparently thought it was ridiculous that people would take organs from a five year old, but if you listen to The Bioethics Podcast (episode 99), which is put out by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, you’ll hear about how doctors didn’t even bother to wait until a group of terminal infants died before they removed their organs. I won’t say anything more than that; judge it for yourself.

Or how about doing that to a full grown man? The same ethics that allow for ESCR allows for *this *to be a-ok: thepittsburghchannel.com/health/18870843/detail.html

 

[JuneBug72]

This is getting a bit frustrating and I’ll bow out now.

It seems like you guys just don’t want to understand the reasoning behind it and that you are looking for ways to make your beliefs fit to justify this scenario.

If you can’t, or don’t want to see this point I’m making and keep on thinking the same way (which, basically, you are being told to think and believe by the church) then I’ll bow out.

Thanks.

Bear Claw this is where dogma leads us; placing a group of about 150 cells above the lives of fully developed human beings with parents, children… It would be different if these blastocytes could survive indefinitely but they cannot.

 

[magdelaine]

Bear Claw this is where dogma leads us; placing a group of about 150 cells above the lives of fully developed human beings with parents, children… It would be different if these blastocytes could survive indefinitely but they cannot.

Each of us was once an embryo. Science makes it clear that from fertilization a new human being exists, distinct from the father or mother, with his or her own internal principle directed toward continuing development towards adulthood. Thus, he/she is a bearer of human rights, with intrinsic dignity which outweighs any utilitarian consideration. Providing public funding to support research on cells obtained through the destruction of human beings, especially at their most vulnerable stages, is an affront to the dignity of all persons, and beneath the moral stature of the United States of America.

source: ncbcenter.org/details_news.asp?idOfEvent=430 (emphasis mine)

This strikes me as profoundly beautiful, not dogmatic. What is dogmatic about “dignity”?

 

[mapleoak]

The whole premise of the thread is that they are going to die anyway. Murder, in the Catholic view, in this scenario will be a given.

Nope. Murder in the Catholic view is the direct and intentional killing of innocent human life. The fact that a person is terminal is not license to commit murder. Look it up.

If they just let the embryos thaw and die, then they will have wasted opportunities to make the deaths that are inevitable, at least mean something by helping thousands or millions of people.

The sanctity of life is not something which is contingent upon what material benefits can be drawn from that person. Inasmuch, we cannot say that an aborted baby had nothing to offer the world. Fact is, no innocent life which dies, dies in vain. God happens to hear especially clear their cries for vengence when unjustly killed because their innocense is something so precious to Him. I heard the homily of a respected priest who recalled the story of a little child who’s mother had aborted her sibling yet never told her about it. One day the little girl asked her mother where her sister is as she could feel and sense her cries to God. How could this possibly be? Because young children are so innocent they are much in tune. God gives special privelege to some of those who are near to Him.

Again, the premise is that the embryos are going to die anyway.

Again, because someone is going to die does not give the green light for murder.

You are taking it out of context with organ harvesting.

No, it is very much in context, but on a smaller scale. The harvesting of parts of embryos or the process of experimenting with them is no different than killing a five year old (he’s going to die someday anyway, right?) and harvesting him or experimenting with his body. Sick indeed.

That’s why I spoke of organ donors.

I signed up to be an organ donor, and if I die in a car crash, being terribly mangled, and they can give my corneas to a blind person, that’s OK.
If I die as a result of a terrorist invasion and execution with a bullet through the eye, but my heart can be given to a man who will once again be able to walk to his child’s room at night when she’s crying for daddy, that’s OK.

See, you need to put it in context. Organ donor vs. organ harvesting.

So you would say it is alright if you were murdered so that your organs can be harvested?