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

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 27 2007, 05:57 PM) [snapback]502931[/snapback]</div>

Fair enough, my friend.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Aug 27 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]502908[/snapback]</div>

I don't believe for a second that if push came to shove, anybody would sacrifice their loved ones to shield a terrorist. Even if you are that saint, the argument isn't going to convince many. A better argument is reductionist: would you condone torture if it prevented a mugging, rape, murder of a stranger, the same crimes against family and friends, the collapse of a building, poisoning of a water supply, global thermonuclear war. If you draw the line in there somewhere, what's the moral calculus? You're inevitably drawn to either extreme, and no torture is the only defensible position.

 

I am willing to bet that if any study by a reputable organisation has been or is conducted the majority of fundamentalist extremist Christians would, if put to the test of having to give approval for their child to have a life saving or suffering eliminating medical procedure the answer of the majority will be a resounding yes. Until it happens we don't know what we will say. Well I'm damn sure I'll say yes.
It is the same as if a Muslim extremist leader is asked to be a suicide bomber the answer would in the majority of cases be a resounding NO.

There may be individuals who defy the odds.

I really wonder if your child or grandchild had a disorder that condemned them to a life of suffering that might be cured through embryonic stem cell therapy if that answer might change?
I truly hope we never find out the answer to that question, I wouldn't wish suffering on anyone.
I also believe in euthanasia.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(attilazon @ Aug 27 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]503054[/snapback]</div>

welllll.... that's debatable. if you really want to get picky, it's not an embryo until it implants, and certainly one cannot attest to the "health" status of a ball of cells. back when i worked with cancer-derived cell lines, the best i could tell was alive vs dead (usually via staining), contaminated vs clean. even if you go into postimplantation (which, let's face it, happens maybe 50% of the time naturally to begin with) the embryo is on life support from its mother. it will not survive on its own any more than a braindead adult without machines for life support.

besides, how healthy would a postnatal human be, living in a vat of liquid nitrogen?

i won't get into the best interest of a ball of cells thing... i think we should be paying more attention to the children already here who are already being mistreated all over the place.

 

Here here!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(attilazon @ Aug 27 2007, 09:15 PM) [snapback]503061[/snapback]</div>

Right here is where you risk falling afoul of morality: when you also say NO on behalf of your children. Were you to deny your child necessary and available medical therapy because that therapy had come about by means you didn't approve of, I'd recommend your child be forcibly removed from your "care" and you be jailed for the deliberate torture of a minor. Moreover, were I to learn that vital medical research that could have prevented my becoming a cripple had been deliberately and systematically retarded by my parents' acting on their belief that keeping a microscopic dot of insentient cells "alive" was more highly valued than preventing a fully formed, sentient human being from becoming a lifelong cripple, there's a good chance you'd read about a case of parenticide in the newspaper.

Furthermore, this often expressed sentiment of "I'd rather die than have someone killed to save my life" is pure BS. The fact that we arm police officers with lethal weapons, wage war and otherwise stampede around the globe killng people with gruesome (and I'm convinced, gleeful) abandon puts the lie to that piece of rhetorical sanctimony in spades and tombstones.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(attilazon @ Aug 27 2007, 08:09 PM) [snapback]503030[/snapback]</div>

See there you go again calling a 100 count bundle of cells a "baby". Sine you and I differ on our opinions in this case further argument is moot. You want to romantasize a blastocyst and I want to view it as a unique bundle of cells. You also try to make the situation completely black or white. There is a vast difference between a small group of cells and a developed human child or adult. Gray areas abound.

As for the philosphy of your argument. I do not agree that varying levels of intelligence, age, or motor skills, or even conciousnous dictate the degree to which we apply morality, which is why I would treat most animals like I would a human, but when we reduce something down to such a basic level (if even a regular cell could be considered simple) and have enough evidence to believe that we are "doing no harm" then I feel that the suffering that can be aided by this research should not be hindered by dogmatic faith in something that has zero evidence (religion). Now someone could argue that we could be tampering with our gene pool by allowing people to live, who should technically be dead, and thus weakening our future generations. I could buy into that argument but since yours is based on faith and a personal opinion then we are at odds. Granted mine is opinion as well, but based on rational thinking. I'm 32yrs old btw.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(attilazon @ Aug 27 2007, 09:13 PM) [snapback]502988[/snapback]</div>

I'm still looking for a simple answers to my simple questions:

Fertility clinics discard frozen embryos by the hundreds of thousands every year. Should this be banned?
If so, where is the outcry? Where are the advocates for these hundreds of thousands?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mparrish @ Aug 28 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]503232[/snapback]</div>

Its part of the hypocrisy. Like it has been mentioned before that would be unpopular.

The biggest problem is ignorance. There are people in this thread citing movies as a reference for their convictions. I personally try to recognize what I am ignorant about and defer to experts. I think conservatives have a big unfounded ego that is unable to defer expertise and try to exercise an opinion that is laughable to knowledgeable people.

The subanatomic brain structures that handle cognition, pain perception and emotion are not present at the 1, 2, 100, 1000 or 100000-cell embryo. Can we at least agree these are not humans yet? If they were, all embryos from any species, being morphologically identical, would be human too.

 

Shouldn't devout embracers of PETA then give up their contact lenses, hearing aids, insulin and all of their medications? (And stop wearing make-up too.) No vitamins. I think no shampoo either.

I find the Christian Fundamentalists are great debaters until it's their kid on the table. Or they're the ones that are trying to get pregnant. The only Christians in the bunch that are NOT hypocrites are the Christian Scientists because they actually do practice what they preach.

 

Every couple I know that has undergone Invitro, were devout Christians. It seems that the more devout, the stronger the urge to procreate (totally unsubstantiated hypothesis on my part, but based on my limited observance). The Christians objecting to Stem cell research need to talk to their fellow Christians who are very happy and thankful for the procedure and the children it has given them. Do these parents side with the Christians objecting to stem cell research or with the scientific community? (Honest question, I'd like to know!). Are they asked upon signup if they wish to throw away the extras or donate them?

BTW, the snowflake adoption thing is luicrous. We're talking many thousands of blastocysts, of which implantation success would be VERY low and yet very expensive to attempt. There are probably even blood type issues and genetic issues complicating the implantation of these cells into a different uterus than the egg was intended for. And why in the heck would a woman want to undergo child birth for an adopted child? Why not adopt and remove the risks/pain/loss of wages that they undertake to give birth?

The whole position of stem cell and invitro being "evil" reminds me of the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is Sacred". With the Irish couple and their hundreds of children. Hilarious!

 

This is all just part of our collective advancement as a species. It takes a while to sort out these sorts of issues. This will be a foot note of history in 20-30 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 28 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]503308[/snapback]</div>

Correct!
Just like Galileo and the flat earth fundamentalists.
Moderate religious folks have a good understanding of both their theology and of scienc and can integrate the two just fine. The fundamentalist/orthodox folks are the ones that throughout history has tried to fight back scientific and cultural advancements. This is true in ALL religions and yet it just keeps on happening. IE" the Taliban, Orthodox jews and arranged marriage, creationists saying the earth is only 6000 years old.

I just hope Burrito's rants/trolling keep their focus on the fundies and leave the moderates alone. He gives agnostic/athiests a bad name when he acts out against intelligent peaceful Christians who are NOT members of the flat earth society. For that matter, I think the moderate Christians need to speak up and tell the flat earth society types to STFU so that we as a species can move on and prepare for the future, not the apocolypse. The moderates are the only ones that can open their minds up, not angry athiests.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 28 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]503320[/snapback]</div>

Darwinism in action. Sad. Being true to your beliefs may be honorable, but it is not usually a "naturally selected" trait. Just like the honorable soldier who dies via fearless fighting.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Aug 27 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]503073[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'd word it slightly differently. I wouldn't condone torturing a terrorist to death even if it potentially helped save the lives of my family/country.

My wife and I casually discussed what we'd prefer if we were taken hostage by captors who demanded something that would help kill others. We ended up both concluding that we'd prefer to be executed than enable greater destruction.

What makes that decision easy for us is that we both believe we'll be welcomed into heaven after dying because of our faith in Jesus. As a result, we'd rather reach the pearly gates with a clear conscience than remain in an already messed up world where we'd make the situation worse by our choices.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 28 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]503326[/snapback]</div>

Maybe in terms of procreation, but I think the brave and honorable live on in our society as part of our legend and culture (or Jungian archetypes, if you will). I'd argue that passing traits and influence is not purely a biological process. The world is often shaped by the ideas of those who aren't blood relatives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 28 2007, 11:46 AM) [snapback]503263[/snapback]</div>

And in fact, they don't. As reported on Penn & Tellers Bullshit! a high ranking PETA member uses a life saving drug developed through animal research. When challenged, she replied something along the lines of "well, its here now and the damage is done, but we must stop the next one."

Oh, citation left to the reader.