toldailytopic: Do you support embryonic stem cell research?

[rexlunae]

Seems like you never looked into the issue.

Back at you.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

With Mosaic law, the fetus is property. For example, if a man struck a pregnant woman and the fetus was killed, there was a blood price. The New Covenant, however, is very pro-life. Abortions are against God's will because the act is not pro-life but rather preventing life to keep one's lifestyle. There is no good reason for getting an abortion, they are all detestable.

But with stem-cell research, however, there is plenty of good. Such research can save lives in incredible ways. It's common for some Christians to run through a line of defenses, such as stem cell research is 'playing God'. If it is playing God, then so is getting surgery, taking medicine, or if one thinks about hard enough, wearing a seat belt.
If there were some dividing line within all this, it would be noted in the Bible, but it is not.

The simple truth of the matter is that seeds are produced by the millions everyday by every fertile man., and they die by the millions all the same over time. The same thing goes with fertile women and their eggs, every month. Stem cell research does not count as abortion if such seeds and eggs are never issued inside the womb to grow in the first place.

 

[Lon]

It probably will not surprise anyone here that I support the research. I cannot see the supposed equivalence of a clump of cells to a person, so when asked if I would trade living breathing people for more embryos, the answer is a firm and clear 'no'.

So they have to be 'breathing' before they are people....Let's dig up your grandma and start with her :up: She won't mind, she's not a person anymore.

Then you can hold your breath for a minute, and we can take you next....

Let's take all the atheists then, they aren't really people either, just some hairless evolved monkey-thing. We have never had a problem with animal research, right?

See where all this goes? "That person is not a person ...er, until they want to put me on the experiment table."

Let's say, that parents have a baby and it dies. Is that a person? "Can we use your miscarriage for dissection and research? It isn't and hasn't ever been a person, so don't be sad. It's the same as washing off skin in the shower, nothing more."
Watch that guy get punched in the face by the 'father' and the rest of us applaud and show up at his lawsuit (irony!).

It used to be that if a couple had a miscarriage, we'd have a wake and burial and console them for their loss. We've fallen far...and fallen...and fallen....

 

[csuguy]

I just had to do a paper on stem cell resesarch...

I maintain that Embryonic Stem Cell is a moral/ethical evil. Those who try to argue that it isn't fully human yet, that isn't a person yet, are akin to those who defined blacks as 3/4 of a person. It is a common tactic to deny the humanity of those you want to use/abuse for your own benefit. And for those who say that "its just a bunch of cells" - when did you cease to be "just a bunch of cells"? Can we kill you for research purposes?

Furthermore, it is unecessary to study Embryonic Stem Cells when stem cells can be acquired from multiple other locations for study. Stem Cells acquired from Amniotic Fluid, like Embryonic Stem Cells, have the capacity to differentiate into all 3 germ cell layers. Umbilical Cords also are a good source for Stem Cells. And then, of course, adult stem cells can be acquired quite easily from anyone without any (permanent) harm.

 

[rexlunae]

So they have to be 'breathing' before they are people....

Good grief, you don't recognize a figure of speech when see one?

Let's dig up your grandma and start with her :up: She won't mind, she's not a person anymore.

I think she might object more than you assume. And I don't see any reason to make this personal.

Assuming that you're awkwardly trying to refer to one of my dearest deceased, you're still barking up the wrong tree. I don't place a lot of value in corpses, and I don't feel any attachment to the remains of loved ones. But for those who do, I would point out that the families have rights to the burial plots and the remains of their loved ones, and they exercise those rights against trespassers. So it's nothing against, or even relevant to my view on embryos.

I will add though, that if, hypothetically, the remains of a deceased loved one would help a living person to survive, I would happily donate them. Not true of a living loved person, who would, once again, object more than others.

Snipping the rest because I can't find the relevance of any of it.

 

[Lon]

Good grief, you don't recognize a figure of speech when see one?



I think she might object more than you assume. And I don't see any reason to make this personal.

Assuming that you're awkwardly trying to refer to one of my dearest deceased, you're still barking up the wrong tree. I don't place a lot of value in corpses, and I don't feel any attachment to the remains of loved ones. But for those who do, I would point out that the families have rights to the burial plots and the remains of their loved ones, and they exercise those rights against trespassers. So it's nothing against, or even relevant to my view on embryos.

I will add though, that if, hypothetically, the remains of a deceased loved one would help a living person to survive, I would happily donate them. Not true of a living loved person, who would, once again, object more than others.

Snipping the rest because I can't find the relevance of any of it.

It was a sympathetic post, trying to explain on an emotional level why this is such a polarizing topic. To me, and you can argue the facts, but not the emotion, this would be like digging up all of those who died in concentration camps so that we could live a little longer. I'm just going to be against it on humane issues.
Btw, if my grandma wasn't an organ donor, I couldn't say 'yes' regardless of the good it'd do. Even in death, she has certain rights to what happens with her body that I don't believe we have a right to usurp (even if I believed the grave was the end - doesn't effect my ethics one way or the other).

 

[Lighthouse]

...you know stem cells can be grown in a petri dish, right?

You know stem cells don't have to come from an embryo, right?

How many diseases could we have eliminated by now if stem cells could have been brought to the forefront of medical research twenty years ago?

According to the research thus far we could eliminate zero diseases from embryonic stem cells, but adult stem cells have actually led somewhere.

But, of course!

Jesus said he came that we may have life, and have it more abundantly. This research and knowledge is given to us to help people have greater life. Blessed be.

So we take the life of an unborn child? You're a moron.

 

[rexlunae]

It was a sympathetic post, trying to explain on an emotional level why this is such a polarizing topic. To me, and you can argue the facts, but not the emotion, this would be like digging up all of those who died in concentration camps so that we could live a little longer.

If you were going for sympathy, you missed big time. I don't really buy it, honestly. And you're right, you can't argue the emotion. Which makes it a little more perplexing when you try to do just that. There's no reason to drag my grandmother, or Holocaust victims into this. There's simply no relation. If you're trying to say that it's a similar emotion, then I simply can't relate, and I think you're being absurd.

I'm just going to be against it on humane issues.

Then I think your sense of humanity is broken.

Btw, if my grandma wasn't an organ donor, I couldn't say 'yes' regardless of the good it'd do.

Organ donors are on the brink of death. They still have the right to direct their medical care. And even then, their next of kin have a lot of rights to make decisions for them.

Even in death, she has certain rights to what happens with her body that I don't believe we have a right to usurp (even if I believed the grave was the end - doesn't effect my ethics one way or the other).

And yet, those rights are fairly limited. For instance, if she asked to be packed in ice and kept in the middle of your living room, you wouldn't be under any obligation to do that. And ultimately, if someone does desecrate her remains in any way, it would be you the family that would have to take that up.

I'm curious how you feel about archaeological digs that deal with human remains? Do you feel that the long-dead people's rights should be observed?

It comes back to my thesis. A corpse is no more a person than an embryo. A person leaves an estate which has certain legal rights, related to winding down a person's life. After that, the rights to their material belongings devolve to their heirs.

 

[Charity]

smile, soon you will be able to drop by on the way home from work an see your Baby growing in the Lab, no strech Marks, no cursed Pains! girls just like new!

 

[Delmar]

Stem cell research does not count as abortion if such seeds and eggs are never issued inside the womb to grow in the first place.

How do you know it doesn't count?

 

[Lon]

If you were going for sympathy, you missed big time. I don't really buy it, honestly.

Absolutely. That was inevitable. Only those on my side of this debate are going to pick that up.

And you're right, you can't argue the emotion.

True, but that's the whole point. It isn't just emotional, but our position is definitely emotionally involved. Anybody coming into the debate is going to have to address killing babies, whether it is wanted or not. You simply have to address our sentiments and values.

Which makes it a little more perplexing when you try to do just that. There's no reason to drag my grandmother, or Holocaust victims into this. There's simply no relation. If you're trying to say that it's a similar emotion, then I simply can't relate, and I think you're being absurd.

I simply cannot agree with you.

Then I think your sense of humanity is broken.

Mine? (see above)

Organ donors are on the brink of death. They still have the right to direct their medical care. And even then, their next of kin have a lot of rights to make decisions for them.

Neither here nor there. My father-in-law doesn't want to donate. When he is gone, I will respect his wishes for his own body. I am an organ donor however.

And yet, those rights are fairly limited. For instance, if she asked to be packed in ice and kept in the middle of your living room, you wouldn't be under any obligation to do that. And ultimately, if someone does desecrate her remains in any way, it would be you the family that would have to take that up.

This is true, and I have no problem with a parent making the decision, but if they had an abortion, I am against that. Scenario: If my baby required a heart and one was available from an abortion, I'd choose to wait. Such a horrible thing would tie to and conflict my feelings for my child for the rest of my life.

I'm curious how you feel about archaeological digs that deal with human remains? Do you feel that the long-dead people's rights should be observed?

If their descendants who may have a vested connection object, yes. I'm concerned about the living as was my example with you. If in anyway it affects the living adversely, we should refrain. For instance, it would be wrong to dig up the sacred burial ground of certain tribes today.

It comes back to my thesis. A corpse is no more a person than an embryo. A person leaves an estate which has certain legal rights, related to winding down a person's life. After that, the rights to their material belongings devolve to their heirs.

Agree to that point, but it is specifically what it would mean for the living I contest. We wouldn't have gone immediately into a concentration camp to harvest body parts because they happened to be 'donors' on their drivers license. It is a similar cold-calouse that we are discussing the immediate use of an abortion 'victim' and that's the emotional angle. We deem them victims of a crime and the same said perps would pack up the parts, ship them off for more $ for their pockets, take a qualude, and sleep comfortably that night.

 

[Charity]

Things r a little un balanced for the earth, where science can save an unborn infint that could not have made it to the breath of Life, as also they save Baby's that would just stop breathing an pass on.

Its possible Good picks an choose's? for what ever reason he chooses? An for christians a none christian dosnt know HOW GOD FEELS?
If you want God to control this then science will have stop interfering! if THEY save all FOR YOU! Gods will becomes pointless. an iF THEY stand there with Knowledge AN DONT HELP, many will blame THEM.

What will make you Happy?

 

[Ted L Glines]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 11th, 2011 10:42 AM

toldailytopic: Do you support embryonic stem cell research?

Does everyone know the details about embryonic stem cell research? Some of this is boring, but, in order to debate the issue intelligently, you must understand its details. This is the best I could find:

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are pluripotent stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, an early-stage embryo. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells. Isolating the embryoblast or inner cell mass (ICM) results in destruction of the fertilized human embryo, which raises ethical issues.

Embryonic stem cells are capable of propagating themselves indefinitely. This allows embryonic stem cells to be employed as useful tools for both research and regenerative medicine, because they can produce limitless numbers of themselves for continued research or clinical use.

In 1981, embryonic stem cells (ES cells) were independently first derived from mouse embryos by two groups. Martin Evans and Matthew Kaufman from the Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge published first in July, revealing a new technique for culturing the mouse embryos in the uterus to allow for an increase in cell number, allowing for the derivation of ES cells from these embryos. Gail R. Martin, from the Department of Anatomy, University of California, San Francisco, published her paper in December and coined the term “Embryonic Stem Cell”. She showed that embryos could be cultured in vitro and that ES cells could be derived from these embryos. In 1998, a breakthrough occurred when researchers, led by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, first developed a technique to isolate and grow human embryonic stem cells in cell culture.

Derivation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells:
In vitro fertilization generates multiple embryos. The surplus of embryos is not clinically used or is unsuitable for implantation into the patient, and therefore may be donated by the donor with consent. Human embryonic stem cells are derived from these donated embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro. IVF is a major treatment in infertility when other methods of assisted reproductive technology have failed. The process involves hormonally controlling the ovulatory process, removing ova (eggs) from the woman's ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a fluid medium. The fertilised egg (zygote) is then transferred to the patient's uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy. It is the extra fertilized eggs from this in vitro process which may either be discarded or donated for embrionic stem cell research.

With this clearly understood, I do support embrionic stem cell research.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Is there something wrong with using stem cells from living adults? If I remember right, no useful information has come from an embryo, yet the adults have provided much information.

This is all a red herring, designed by the left to desenitize people to the act of killing children.

I agree.

 

[Granite]

It. Is. A. Blastocyst.

You guys really don't know what you're talking about. It's really as simple as that.

And if this is all some huge conspiracy to desensitize the public, it's been...a complete, resounding, and utter failure.

 

[rexlunae]

Absolutely. That was inevitable. Only those on my side of this debate are going to pick that up.

So, you weren't going for sympathy then?

True, but that's the whole point. It isn't just emotional, but our position is definitely emotionally involved. Anybody coming into the debate is going to have to address killing babies, whether it is wanted or not. You simply have to address our sentiments and values.

Only because you try to drag in killing babies. This is not the same thing.

Not one of those pictures is of the relevant subject matter. What we're talking about looks a lot more like this:

Mine? (see above)

All the pictures above demonstrate is that you're willing to distort the issue in the service of a fanatical political ideology.

Neither here nor there. My father-in-law doesn't want to donate. When he is gone, I will respect his wishes for his own body. I am an organ donor however.

You said it yourself. You will respect his wishes. What does that tell you about who is really making the decisions?

This is true, and I have no problem with a parent making the decision, but if they had an abortion, I am against that.

We're not discussing abortion.

Scenario: If my baby required a heart and one was available from an abortion, I'd choose to wait. Such a horrible thing would tie to and conflict my feelings for my child for the rest of my life.

That's not really done right now. And I don't think your already questionable sense of humanity looks any better knowing that you'd let a living baby die because a dead fetus is somehow sacred.

If their descendants who may have a vested connection object, yes.

Then you accept that respect for the dead is maintained for the sake of the living. Good, we agree there.

Agree to that point, but it is specifically what it would mean for the living I contest. We wouldn't have gone immediately into a concentration camp to harvest body parts because they happened to be 'donors' on their drivers license. It is a similar cold-calouse that we are discussing the immediate use of an abortion 'victim' and that's the emotional angle. We deem them victims of a crime and the same said perps would pack up the parts, ship them off for more $ for their pockets, take a qualude, and sleep comfortably that night.

I don't see why you keep taking extremes for examples. It might have been a little inappropriate to go into concentration camps to harvest organs to save Nazis. But, ignoring the likelihood of finding viable organs there, I don't see where it would be inappropriate for anyone else. However, victims of crimes are often kept intact for practical reasons such as to investigate their deaths.

 

[ghost]

Looks like all Granite's boasting about being "pro-life" was just as phony as his claim that he was once a "Christian".

I suspect the next thing he will tell us is how was once really a man.

 

[Lon]

We're not discussing abortion.

What are we discussing then? That's pretty much my whole contention.

 

[Lon]

That's not really done right now. And I don't think your already questionable sense of humanity looks any better knowing that you'd let a living baby die because a dead fetus is somehow sacred.

Wrong. Again, it is about the same as a serial killer harvesting and selling body parts. If you lived in Germany in 1940, you'd have turned a blind eye then too? When does it become wrong?

 

[rexlunae]

What are we discussing then? That's pretty much my whole contention.

Stem cell research. With blastocysts. Remember?