Will Christian Evangelists forego promising treatment derived from embryonic stem cell research?

It is easier to beg the lords forgiveness than it is to seek his permission.
They will thank him for the miracle and partake with great joy then pray to god both to thank and to seek forgiveness just in case god is removing their name from the back of a chair.
Keep all bases covered.

 

Okay, just thought I'd jump in real quick here to offer my perspective as an evil Evangelical.

Have you guys ever seen "The Island"? It's a sci-fi thriller about a society who works on mysterious projects in hopes of someday winning a lottery to go to what they think is an island paradise. Later in the movie you discover that the paradise is actually a slaughterhouse where the people's body parts are harvested. The whole society consists of clones of "sponsors" who are waiting for organ transplants.

The hero of the movie tries to escape and let his "sponsor" know the truth about what's going on and tries to convince the sponsor to go to the media to expose what's happening. The sponsor only pretends to agree, and instead tries to lead his clone back to the slaughterhouse. The "sponsor" didn't care! He only wanted to live, no matter the expense!

The clones went on to rescue all their clone friends and save the day, but the movie gives a pretty good example of the traditional Christian viewpoint.

Christians are not against advancement in medical science (we have no problem with adult stem cell research or stem cells harvested from a placenta), we just think it's abhorant that people would seek cures by what amounts to, in our perspective, harvesting children's body parts. I have little doubt that you can do something like grow a heart out of embryonic stem cells, but the reason it's possible is that it's essentially nourishing then harvesting a child's growing heart!

In a hypothetical situation where you'd ask if it's right for an overpopulated Chinese population to sell unwanted infant daughters for their organs, I think anyone with any moral compass would be appalled! The sociopaths of our society might argue that it beats a life of poverty for the infant, that we'd help control world population, and that we'd actually create an opportunity for the impoverished Chinese society (and I say this having seen capitalist arguments for exporting cancer-causing industrial waste to the third world or not vaccinating Africans against malaria), but the majority of us would consider it a moral outrage.

Agree with our viewpoint or not, conservative Christians see embryonic stem cell research in the same light. Some of us, because of our belief in the little embryos' lives, even go so far as to implant lab-frozen embryos for fear that the tiny creatures would meet their death otherwise. It's a pretty serious issue in Christian circles.

To us, we see the potential "good" that the embryonic stem cell research brings, but we think it's at the expense of a terrible evil.

 

"To us, we see the potential "good" that the embryonic stem cell research brings, but we think it's at the expense of a terrible evil."

But that presumes those embryos were created for that reason.
The fact is, ALL of the embryos in question were created by couples having trouble conceiving naturally. This process requires producing MANY blastocysts, since the success rate is low. This is why they insert more than one at a time and often get 2 or 3 children via artificial implantation. Anyways, they produce enough embryo's to do this 2 or 3 times (rather than go through the surgical egg extraction multiple times). This is ALL done at the couples request.
What then, SHOULD we do with the leftover blastocysts after the couple finally conceives? Force implant them into someone? Keep them frozen forever (despite the limited shelf life)? Throw them out? What then is wrong with utilizing them?

I certainly can see the objection to creating embryos strictly for the purpose of harvesting "baby parts". Put that is not what happens, nor is that how stem cell therapy works. The stem cells are left over from artificial implantation attempts. And they don't grow the baby for parts. They take the stem cells (which are cells prior to cell differentiation, think unorganized glob of cells, not human form). These cells can become any kind of cell depending on the chemical triggers they receive. Thus, they can be used to REPAIR a heart, not grow a new one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 27 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]502889[/snapback]</div>

At the end of the day, this is exactly why it's hard to take the other side seriously.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of blastocysts are thrown into medical waste because they are no longer deemed necessary by couples having trouble conceiving. All advocates of research are saying is "instead of wasting them, let's instead use them to save lives". Those who oppose the research are noticeably silent on the medical waste occurring anyway at fertility clinics.

Frankly, I'm unsure why this is the case. The only reason I can come up with is the cynical political one. Eliminating the discard of blastocysts at fertility clinics effectively means banning IVF, which is highly popular with Americans desperately wanting to create a family.

I'd like for there to be another reason though. I'm all ears.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mparrish @ 2007 Aug 27 2:48 PM) [snapback]502894[/snapback]</div>

And how is IVF generally viewed? Is it considered 'interfering in the divine process'?

How much stem cell material comes from umbilical cords?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 27 2007, 03:35 PM) [snapback]502889[/snapback]</div>

The strictist of us Christians have big problems with in vitro fertilization (or at least the process employed), too. That's where I think the Christian moms implanting frozen embryos are coming from.

Granted, you hear a lot less debate over such "fertility treatments" among the Christian community, I think partially because not a lot of people understand it.

Still, the trouble comes when you consider the fertilized embryos "life". At that point, it doesn't matter if the life was discarded by another; that life is still valuable. Sort of like an orphan left on a doorstep if that makes sense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 27 2007, 03:43 PM) [snapback]502891[/snapback]</div>

That's a good question, and I'll give you the answer I gave to one of my more Republican Christian friends regarding the use of torture. He is a veteran of the most recent war in Iraq and tends to be more of the Bush-can-do-no-wrong type. He asked the hypothetical question, "What if torturing terrorists ends up saving American lives?".

My answer was that I valued the life of the terrorists' as much as that of my family members', and that I believe torture is wrong in all cases. If sticking to my values puts me and my family at risk, then I'd rather die doing what I believe is right than to live committing such wrongs.

Mind you, I hope we don't have the dillema of "either we have stem cell research or we can never treat heart disease" rather I hope we'll come up with effective alternative treatments that don't require such measures.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 27 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]502765[/snapback]</div>

Thank you Mark. I book marked it and will read it later. Just got home and am on my way out the door for some dancing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mparrish @ Aug 27 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]502894[/snapback]</div>

Let me give you my 2 cents as an evil Evangelical medical physician:

There is actually an adoption program for couples who had undergone in vitro fertilization and had extra embryos left over. These embryos are called "snow flakes", since like people, no two are identical (except probably twins). Most couple who undergo in vitro are not aware of exactly how many embryos are created when they undergo the procedure. Frozen embryos had been put up for adoption for years now - the problem is that the mainstream media doesn't mention anything about it. In fact, the oldest "snow flake" baby given for adoption is currently about 9 years old, I think.

Check out "snowflake children" in widipedia, if you don't believe me.

Regarding "wasting", I think where we differ fundamentally is the premise of what is being wasted. In my mind, an embryo is a human person, just not as developed. From your argument, I surmise that your stance on embryo's "status" is nothing more than a clump of hair (correct me if I'm wrong). Using your argument, if I find a baby abandoned in a waste basket, can I harvest his/her body parts, since it's "unwanted" and "left to be wasted"? There is a black market overseas for human organs, you know...I'm sure no one will argue with me if I report it to the authorities and find the baby's parents; or if that isn't possible, find foster parents. I'm merely giving the embryo the same dignity that I give to the baby. It's that simple.

Even if the parents of the embryo sign a waiver saying that they will donate the embryo, the same logic applies. If a couple signs a waiver to donate their 1 year old child for parts, does it matter whether 10 lives are saved or not? Of course not! The parents will go to jail! So if we don't allow this to be done to a 1 day old baby, why the "discrimination" against the embryo?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(attilazon @ Aug 27 2007, 07:13 PM) [snapback]502988[/snapback]</div>

I think this is where your belief on, when a cell is granted the status of conciousnous (not to be confused with cognition) or ability to feel pain, differs from a lot of scientists. I'm not a physician and I am still in school as a bio major but biology would seem to nod in favor of the scientists who feel that a blastocyst should not be granted full human individual status. Now I will admit that neither side knows for certain if that small collection of cells can feel pain or suffering but all the evidence we do have would lead us to believe the answer is no. IMO the rest of your argument is moot because you are talking about developed children and that is not "apples to apples".

One could go in circles in this debate using ethics and philosophy, especially if we use the argument from marginal cases. I'm sure you understand where I'm going with this. lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 27 2007, 09:53 PM) [snapback]503019[/snapback]</div>

LOL...I was a biology major in college, too, granted that was 20 years ago. In my mind, what something is intrinsically is determined by its make-up, not by its acquired qualities. For example, you are who you were 1 year ago, not because you can still talk and walk and have consciousness, but because you're still genetically you - distinct, unique. When a child is born anencephalic (meaning without a brain), he/she only lives for a very short time, but is still a child. Was it ever conscious? Probably not, nevertheless, he's still human. Some children don't feel pain because of congenital nerve defects. Are they less human than you or me? No! I find it amusing that it takes a scientist to tell me whether an embryo is human or not. It is what it is. And why does a preborn baby need to be "granted human individual status"? I find that notion disgusting & disturbing.

The problem with your argument is that you're saying (if I'm reading you correctly) is that the level of development determines whether "something/someone" is human or not. Am I (37 y.o. physician) more human than you (a younger - I presume) college student? If so, can I use you for spare parts? We're certainly more developed than a 3 - 4 week old blastocyst, so let's use it then! In my line of work, I swear to "do no harm". When cells are "harvested" from embryos (it SOUNDS so benign), the process destroys it. To evangelicals like me, that's tantamount to taking a life.

 

i view this issue as an organ donor type situation...

obviously unless the blastocyst is implanted within the time it is viable, it will "die" if you will or expire, ie no longer hold potential for anything. in a sense, it needs life support to hold potential for life. well, that or staying frozen till it is no longer viable. when someone is on life support after an auto accident or the like, and is not expected to be able to live without it, isn't that about the time that transplant specialists begin to approach family members about organ donation?

 

Just to bring up a point that I hardly hear in this debate (especially from the media):

(Disclaimer - I am a Libertarian, not a Bush supporter.)


Point - President Bush did not ban and as and as far as I know has not banned Embryonic stem cell research.


He simply does not want Federal funding beyond a limited line of stem cells. States and private industry can fund all they want with no restrictions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 27 2007, 08:55 AM) [snapback]502717[/snapback]</div>

You rarely convince someone of your argument by insulting them. You may bully them into silence, but that's not the way to win them over when they step behind the voting booth curtain.

A better approach would be to engage those opposed to ethical use of embryonic cells originally intended for conception, that are the property of the parent couple, and destined to be discarded. The ethical question is: Is it a greater waste to simply incinerate or flush the frozen embryonic cells, or allow the parents to designate the cells to be used for life-saving medical research?

We had the same kind of ethical questions regarding the use of transplanted organs, complete with the fear that the less fortunate in society would be compromised by the demand for healthy organs. Dramas were made popularizing the idea that the medical profession would get greedy and warehouse their victims for later harvesting ("Coma") and religious and political leaders worried about trade in "human parts". American society now ordains organ donation as a charitable act, even if its the parents offering up their child's organs after an unfortunate accident.

Ethical safeguards are necessary to prevent "monster science" from cheapening human life. Advancing the debate past the name calling stage would be the first step.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Aug 27 2007, 10:29 PM) [snapback]503037[/snapback]</div>

The latter situation (motor vehicle accident - organ donor) occurs all the time in hospitals. The main difference is this. The potential organ donor has someone who knows his wishes before he gets cut up. The embryo doesn't. The potential organ donor has lived his/her life. The embryo has not.

Scenario A : "My son is brain dead; he has indicated that he would like to be an organ donor, so let's use his body to save some more lives."

Scenario B : " Embryo is going to be discarded/frozen indefinitely, so let's use it for something useful"

These are 2 very different scenarios. What's missing in scenario B is this - does the embryo have a say in this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(attilazon @ Aug 27 2007, 11:40 PM) [snapback]503046[/snapback]</div>

does a two year old accident victim? does he even understand organ donation? or is it up to his parents to make the decision?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Aug 27 2007, 10:47 PM) [snapback]503049[/snapback]</div>

I forgot to point out the other thing. The motor vehicle victim is brain-dead. He's only being kept alive by machines. The embryo is healthy. Any good/fit parent will not offer up their healthy offspring to save another person's life, no matter how noble. Even if parental consent is obtained. it's still should be challenged, because the parents are not acting in the healthy embryo's best interest.

 

I don't agree with invitro fertilisation, it isn't in the interest of evolution.
I have 1 child. I wanted a second, it didn't happen, that's how it is.
IVF is creating problems for our future I believe.
If IVF is happening and the unused embryos will be flushed away anyway why not use them?

The question was would fundamentalist Christians use a medical procedure or organ from stem cell research and embryonic stem cells, the answer is yes. If it was their child or grand child that needed the cure the answer is yes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Aug 27 2007, 11:01 PM) [snapback]503056[/snapback]</div>

I find your Q & A very interesting. It presupposes that you (who do not believe in Christianity) would know exactly how a "fundamentalist Christian" would behave under a particular circumstance. Now how did you arrive at your conclusion?

While I don't doubt that there will be some Christians who would have a very difficult time saying no to your question, I for one would rather die than have someone killed so that I may live. If I had a child, I would teach my child that death is not the end, and that death is not something to be afraid of. Christians say that with certainty, because we know that after we die, we go to a better place.

I therefore respectfully disagree with you. The answer is NOT ALWAYS yes. At least in my case, it would be NO.