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

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 27 2007, 06:54 AM) [snapback]502679[/snapback]</div>

Some will and some won't don't get your underwear in a bundle.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 28 2007, 11:31 PM) [snapback]503618[/snapback]</div>

More like the Darwin Awards.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 28 2007, 09:31 PM) [snapback]503618[/snapback]</div>

Some will, some won't simple as that. Have you taken advantage of medical breakthroughs discovered by the Nazi's while performing inhuman experiments on Jews, Hobo's, Gypsy's, Russians and only God knows who else? Probably. <_<

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 28 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]503326[/snapback]</div>

You mean like Liberals that support and use abortion as a means of birth control or avoidance of responsibility?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 28 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]503320[/snapback]</div>

You weren’t her doctor were you? Because with 6-8 months to set aside her own blood and/or other synthetic blood substitutes you should have been sued or banned from the practice of medicine for such negligence.

Wildkow

p.s. BTW everyone is a hypocrite.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(attilazon @ Aug 27 2007, 08:40 PM) [snapback]503046[/snapback]</div>

In California, your scenario A can be: "Your son won't be 18 until tomorrow. He's technically alive and you should make a decision regarding keeping him on life support or turning off the machines. If you want to terminate life support, would you like to donate his organs?"

Minors do not make their own decisions in this regard. Their parents do. Here's how your scenario B really should be decided:

"Your frozen embryos can be donated to other couples. We currently have 1,000 years worth of embryos at the current rate of adoption of frozen embryos, so you'll have to pay for the storage until your embryos turn comes up. Or, if you don't want to pay for storage, we can destroy them. Sorry, you cannot donate your frozen embryos to medical science ... perhaps if you implant them, and then abort them in the 8th month, you would like to donate that fetus? We allow that."

Is there any evidence that God believes life begins at conception? What does the Bible say? Why did the church maintain for hundreds of years that, just like Elizabeth and John the Baptist, life doesn't being until "quickening"?

I'm not a wooden literalist, so I accept that our morality must take into account new information, especially life saving morality. But there's nothing in genetics that resolves for me when life actually beings and the soul is present. Theologically, from a Bible centered position, I don't think you can really say "conception" as the start of life. You have to go extra-biblical on this question, so I would challenge you to take a hard look at your orthodoxy for errors now that more information has been provided by science. My strongest feeling is that it happens about the time the brain develops and the rush of chemicals start coursing through the fetus, but I just don't know.

What I do know is that given two bad things, the moral choice is to choose the least bad. "Least bad" usually means that something good comes from one of the bad things. Its a bad thing to use human embryos for medical testing, but a good thing comes from it. Its a bad thing to simply destroy the human embryos, and nothing good comes of it. Which bad thing do you choose?

I have a Nazi story if any one is interested.

 

never mind I decided not to post anything here

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 28 2007, 10:28 PM) [snapback]503646[/snapback]</div>

Wow those are pretty strong words but of course they are coming from behind a keyboard. :lol:

It is not my assertion that embryonic research is equal to Nazism.

Just to set the record straight; I’m not an attorney at this time, I have never been an attorney and furthermore I never will be an attorney. Never ever accuse me of this vile practice again or I will sue!

You stated that the mother died from loss of blood following child birth. It should, I assume, be common practice for medical providers caring for these type people to pre-store their own blood or have an ample supply of synthetic blood available in case of emergency. I assume even you would agree that life threatening loss of blood is an emergency. Post partum bleeding is well known in the medical community if neither one of these steps was taken then the doctors’ negligence is responsible for her death and it is the responsible course of action to punish someone by means of monetary damages or loss of license. Unless of course as a doctor you think some stern rhetoric and a spanking will suffice?


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 28 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]503663[/snapback]</div>

There's an interesting "cost - benefit" calculation that my wife saw all the time in dealing with end-of-life issues. People who were the most adamant about keeping their loved one alive indefinitely changed their minds when they were told the estate would have to be liquidated to cover the medical costs prior to the patient going on the state Medicaid plan. The transition was not really that obvious, but after being advised of the financial facts, people would start with "You really don't think Mom will get better?" From there they would determine ... usually in about 10 minutes ... that death with dignity was better than prolonging life artificially on machines.

The Nazi story: years ago I sold demonstrative evidence for courtroom use, and one of the prominent trial lawyers told me that many of the procedures used to patch up accident victims used technology "developed" by the Nazis. In their cruel and vicious medical experiments, they used screws to put bones back together, wrapped wire around shattered bones, etc. After the war, the story goes, the Allies realized that the meticulous Nazi documentation showed that these practices actually worked. There were many experiments that were unsuccessful as well, of course. (I've never verified the story,

So, should we have adopted the practices of the Nazis -- done during their foray into intense evil -- to do "good" things for people today? Its a similar question.

 

Rather than asking a rhetorical question of an entire class of people which will never be given a consensus answer . . .

I'd rather hear if burritos and the other rabid atheists here in FHOP would accept emergency medical treatment from a Catholic or other religious based hospital? :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 30 2007, 09:57 AM) [snapback]504356[/snapback]</div>

Not the same issue. Religiously inspired attempts to actively suppress medical research, but seek to derive personal benefit from the same research is clear hypocrisy.

No one, and I mean no one (except perhaps some deeply deluded religious sects) seeks to suppress medical treatment from licensed practitioners, and the personal beliefs of the medical professionals, or of the sponsoring institions that provide facilities, are totally irrelevant. There are no protest crowds outside St. Marys demanding it be closed down because it's a religious hospital.

However, there are certain therapies deliberately withheld by some of these institions (abortion, contraceptive therapies, reproductive therapies), so the well informed patient seeking the best possible medical outcome in these therapeutic areas would do well to AVOID such an institution; that attempting to seek those kinds of treatments from such instituitions would not be hypocrisy but plain stupidity.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 30 2007, 10:30 AM) [snapback]504382[/snapback]</div>

LOL! He didn't want to answer the question. :lol:

I should truthfully like to know how you voted in this poll? I would also like to know if you were able to confirm the accusation you made against me? It just doesn’t seem fair to me as a Christian that an accusation impugning a person’s character should go unanswered. Christians and atheist alike should agree on that don’t you think?

http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=36955&hl=

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 30 2007, 10:47 AM) [snapback]504393[/snapback]</div>

I did answer it, but I suppose some thoughts have to spelled out if abstract concepts are a mite challenging:

Y - E - S.

B - u - t
s - o
w - h - a - t?

Happy now?

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 30 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]504401[/snapback]</div>

Nope, there still remains the personal attack you have not answered twice now or the poll question. You are a master at avoiding questions.

Wildkow

p.s. I'm pretty sure your new avatar is a Staggerwing but there is a faint possiblity it could be a Hiperbipe. If I remember correctly the Hiperbipe did not have a round cowl.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 30 2007, 10:47 AM) [snapback]504393[/snapback]</div>

I didn't cast a vote in that poll; as many observed, the issue has no obvious "right" or "wrong" that the available poll answers could properly quantify. But I did, without voting, put up a post in that thread that began:

"Kow, what was it you were saying about people's personal beliefs being harmless, uninterfering --- ??? Looks like one hell of an interference to me."

--- in reference to medical practioners applying religious considerations to medical decisions, in profound and direct conflict with the often expressed sentiment that personal religious belief is "harmless" and "uninterfering".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 30 2007, 10:47 AM) [snapback]504393[/snapback]</div>

If that opening statement of mine is the "accusation" you're referring to, that you have often expressed the sentiment that personal religious beliefs are harmless to other people, I'll be happy to go dig up the appropriate quotes. I don't see how my statement impugns your character; you'll have to explain that one to me because honestly I don't see it (and I apologize if it does).

Meanwhile I'll go find your statements.

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 30 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]504416[/snapback]</div>

Well right back at you as I will have to apologize too. I guess it was in the way you couched the terms that seem offensive. Upon a second, third and more readings I apologize but I would still like and answer as too your avatar. Your skillz are getting better and better. . .

BTW, once a personal belief affects others I should say that it is no longer personal.

Wildkow

p.s. I know, I know we are cross posting over the top of each other, have a good day.