Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
Elroy El
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Elroy El » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:01 pm

GOODave wrote:This issue ... abortion ... creationism ...

There are a whole host of issues you're not willing to let those with whom you disagree express.
Maybe the God you believe in is inspiring Obama to perform this act for the betterment of humanity.
Image

User avatar
pattywannamack
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by pattywannamack » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:06 pm

We've been going over this quite a bit lately in my Religion class at Mater Dei. Obviously, the Catholic teachings and reasoning behind the whole controversy are heavily emphasized, but I still feel that both sides are presented fairly well in my particular class.

One thing that I simply find interesting is that unborn animal offspring, such as the American Bald Eagle for a specific example, essentially have more rights and lawful protection than human embryos, fetuses, and whatever else you want to call an unborn child. I just want to illustrate the double standard when it comes to the rights of unborn life. I'm sure if anyone suggested that embryonic stem cell research be performed on American Bald Eagles, the notion would be shot down instantly. Heaven forbid we dare violate the rights of animals, while we turn around and desolate not only the lives, but also the rights of our own unborn future generations.
There is nothing uglier in this world than a parent riding on the success of their child.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Fordama » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 pm

pattywannamack wrote: One thing that I simply find interesting is that unborn animal offspring, such as the American Bald Eagle for a specific example, essentially have more rights and lawful protection than human embryos, fetuses, and whatever else you want to call an unborn child.
Not because eagles are not considered intrinsically more valuable, but because they were an endangered species.

Even the mathematics makes the comparison specious. A woman has about 300,000 "eggs." A female Bald Eagle produces maybe 100 in her life.

Humans aren't anything near endangered due to any lack of eggs.
pattywannamack wrote: I just want to illustrate the double standard when it comes to the rights of unborn life. I'm sure if anyone suggested that embryonic stem cell research be performed on American Bald Eagles, the notion would be shot down instantly.
That's a strawman argument. If stem cell research on Bald Eagles would have saved them from extinction, then there probably would have been stem cell research on them when money became availabe.

There is research, such as cloning, on various endangered species.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_66520544
pattywannamack wrote: Heaven forbid we dare violate the rights of animals, while we turn around and desolate not only the lives, but also the rights of our own unborn future generations.
There is no danger of us becoming extinct because of scientific research or abortion. The protection of various species is not just a matter of "rights" but of maintaining ecological balance and the food chain.

We don't protect the reproductive processes of endangered species because of any religious issues, but for simple pragmatic reasons.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by GOODave » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:45 am

Elroy El wrote: Maybe the God you believe in is inspiring Obama to perform this act for the betterment of humanity.
Maybe.

But such inspiration would mean he is acting in contradiction to His word as expressed in the Bible.

Not that he CAN'T do so, because He's omnipotent and is able to do anything ... but He doesn't typically act contrary to His revealed will.

dave

not4u13
Posts: 5481
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by not4u13 » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:38 am

GOODave wrote:
No, not at all: YOU might be talking about "medical waste from legal abortions" but that is but a very small SMALL pool of fertilized eggs. What most folks talk about when speaking of harvesting fertilized eggs for the purpose of Embryonic Stem Cell research are the "extra" eggs that were fertilized and frozen and are stored somewhere in an In Vitro Fertilization facility somewhere.

But you raise a good point in that, obviously, you don't believe a fertilized egg to be a human being so taking part on the "let science ring" side of the argument is no issue for you. I, on the other hand, believe (as ardently as you DISbelieve) that a fertilized egg is a human being so, for me, letting unbridled science advance when it means sacrificing the life of a human being who had neither choice nor representation in the decision is as onerous as if a scientist wanted to disembowel you to see how our pancreas works and maybe develop a cure for diabetes.

You (plural) do not have to agree with me, that is not my point: I simply want to convey to you the issue as pro-life advocates see it.
You have adequately protrayed the position of the "pro life" movement but it doesn't make you right about ESC research (which you acknowledge). It also doesn't mean that you have to believe that the "pro life" folks are correct to be a Christian or to have any sense of morality or even to value human life itself.

There are many people (and it appears to be the majority of people actually) who believe that this research is actually more pro life than allowing these IV embryos to be destroyed, which will be their fate anyway (unless of course you actually support the position that Nadia Suleman has taken that resulted in octuplets).

At least if they do get some use as research some good will come out of their existence. The most certainly won't be allowed to become a child (for the purpose of clarification, understand that I am using the word child to refer to the physical state we all know of as a walking, talking, breathing, human being). I happen to deal with the reality we have, not the reality we WISH we had. These embryos exist and they will be destroyed. Like it or not, those are the facts. Why would you deny their use for medical research whose eventual end could very well be to save human lives that today, cannot be saved?

Obviously your position would have to be to end IVF as well as Abortions and ESC research ... which may very well be your position.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by GOODave » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:12 am

Last things, first:
not4u13 wrote:Obviously your position would have to be to end IVF as well as Abortions and ESC research ... which may very well be your position.
I am not against IVF, per se. I am, however, against the IVF clinics' practice of fertilizing a bunch of eggs and implanting only one or two. Invariably, if the one or two take and a pregnancy results, the remaining eggs are destroyed which, in my opinion (as already expressed) deprives a human being of life.

Obviously, the implanting process that leads to a pregnancy would take longer, but I would be (and am) fine with one or two eggs at a time being fertilized and implanted. ALTHOUGH I readily acknowledge the contradiction in my position if neither of the one or two fertilized eggs results in pregnancy: They become a de facto and "created" spontaneous abortion. In acknowledging this inconsistency, I point out that I do try to make a reasoned choice as to how rigidly I'm willing for my preference to be administered.
not4u13 wrote:It also doesn't mean that you have to believe that the "pro life" folks are correct to be a Christian or to have any sense of morality or even to value human life itself.
Understood. I might have even stated such at one time or another either in here or in the old MYOC.

I freely acknowledge that other people can be moral but not support "life" as I see it. In fact, I THINK Al supports ESC but not abortion: Al (or SLK230) is a very moral individual. NOT to get anyone to cringe or suspect my motives for bringing her up, but Bev supports abortion AND ESC and I believe her to be as immoral an individual as I've ever met: Her stand on Abortion and ESC being but a small part of why I believe her to be immoral, as most in here know.
not4u13 wrote:There are many people (and it appears to be the majority of people actually) who believe that this research is actually more pro life than allowing these IV embryos to be destroyed, which will be their fate anyway (unless of course you actually support the position that Nadia Suleman has taken that resulted in octuplets).

At least if they do get some use as research some good will come out of their existence. The most certainly won't be allowed to become a child (for the purpose of clarification, understand that I am using the word child to refer to the physical state we all know of as a walking, talking, breathing, human being). I happen to deal with the reality we have, not the reality we WISH we had. These embryos exist and they will be destroyed. Like it or not, those are the facts. Why would you deny their use for medical research whose eventual end could very well be to save human lives that today, cannot be saved?
Yes, absolutely, and welcome to my world...my conundrum.

Back in MYOC, TDad and I have gone round and round on this very topic. Like you, TDad is well researched and very patient and genuine in his questioning of this very dynamic. So, as with my response to TDad, I will try to respond in kind: I don't know and cannot resolve that. I do, however, have some additional thoughts along that topic (which may or may not prove sufficient to actually resolve it, but I suspect they will not):
  • One concern about the use of fertilized eggs that will be destroyed, anyway, is will we by allowing the use of "extra" fertilized eggs create a market for those eggs by which women temporarily down on their luck will visit a "blood-bankesque" type of facility and sell their eggs that will subsequently be fertilized and sold to research facilities? It is definitely POSSIBLE, thus creating a motivation for women to, basically, sell children for destruction (O.K., maybe a LITTLE hyperbole there, but you get the idea, I'm sure). While that is a legitimate concern, I read an article just this morning that stated the fertilized eggs have been used all along. What Bush did was limit FEDERAL FUNDING for ESC research ... he did nothing to thwart the research labs from USING the fertilized eggs. So, now, I would be interested in knowing whether or not that little cottage industry has sprung up in the last few years. IF IT HAS NOT, I will have more difficulty supporting this concern.
  • I'm tempted to go down the "two wrongs don't make a right" road here. It is obvious that surplus fertilized eggs (and do you note how even I am starting to impersonalize these little human beings? Also a concern) will be destroyed if they are not used. So how does destroying them for research without any promise of ANY return on such destruction make the other destruction onerous but this one "promising" or "virtuous?" O.K., I stipulate that the nature of research is, well, RESEARCH: Some might pan out, some might not pan out ... but my comfort with destruction of a human being will only be satiated when we do TWO things: LIMIT (or obviate) the storehouse of "surplus" fertilized eggs and stop destroying fertilized eggs for research.
  • Bush also allowed for the research use of the existing supply (at that time) of fertilized eggs. I grudgingly agreed with that move but, of course, we continued to propound the supply and continue to do so today (even though "science" cannot use the ever increasing supply)...If science was in any way concerned about the destruction of life in order to preserve life, they COULD have limited their research to just those ESC's that were available when Bush signed that executive order. I'm told, however, that most labs that devote themselves to ESC research have double machines and instruments in the lab: One for use on "unfunded" research and one for "funded" research. That, to me, is ridiculous and a needless expense.
dave

not4u13
Posts: 5481
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by not4u13 » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:29 am

GOODave wrote: Last things, first:
I am not against IVF, per se. I am, however, against the IVF clinics' practice of fertilizing a bunch of eggs and implanting only one or two. Invariably, if the one or two take and a pregnancy results, the remaining eggs are destroyed which, in my opinion (as already expressed) deprives a human being of life.

Obviously, the implanting process that leads to a pregnancy would take longer, but I would be (and am) fine with one or two eggs at a time being fertilized and implanted. ALTHOUGH I readily acknowledge the contradiction in my position if neither of the one or two fertilized eggs results in pregnancy: They become a de facto and "created" spontaneous abortion. In acknowledging this inconsistency, I point out that I do try to make a reasoned choice as to how rigidly I'm willing for my preference to be administered.
A very reasoned stance and one that I understand. Of course that isn't how IVF works today. While there may be some clinics that approach the process as you have outlined, most don't. The process for fertalizing embryos is not very precise. You can't take two eggs and fertilize them. You have to harvest many eggs and attempt to fertilize them and you end up with some fertilized and some not. At least that is how I understand the process. If you are aware of more advanced capabilities I would love to hear about them. When I think we stand now, any IVF process will result in several unused, fertilized, eggs.
GOODave wrote: Understood. I might have even stated such at one time or another either in here or in the old MYOC.

I freely acknowledge that other people can be moral but not support "life" as I see it. In fact, I THINK Al supports ESC but not abortion: Al (or SLK230) is a very moral individual. NOT to get anyone to cringe or suspect my motives for bringing her up, but Bev supports abortion AND ESC and I believe her to be as immoral an individual as I've ever met: Her stand on Abortion and ESC being but a small part of why I believe her to be immoral, as most in here know.
I applaud your understanding. Most of the time your position on this particular issue does not come across as allowing any other morality to exist, but now that you remind me, I do recall you taking this stance more than once in the past.
GOODave wrote:Yes, absolutely, and welcome to my world...my conundrum.
The world of full of those nasty buggers. Too many shades of gray. Wouldn't it be nice if the line between right and wrong were more ovious? Of course ... then ... we wouldn't be the creatures God wanted us to be. Hmmm ... a conundrum in itself ... but I digress.
GOODave wrote: Back in MYOC, TDad and I have gone round and round on this very topic. Like you, TDad is well researched and very patient and genuine in his questioning of this very dynamic. So, as with my response to TDad, I will try to respond in kind: I don't know and cannot resolve that. I do, however, have some additional thoughts along that topic (which may or may not prove sufficient to actually resolve it, but I suspect they will not):
  • One concern about the use of fertilized eggs that will be destroyed, anyway, is will we by allowing the use of "extra" fertilized eggs create a market for those eggs by which women temporarily down on their luck will visit a "blood-bankesque" type of facility and sell their eggs that will subsequently be fertilized and sold to research facilities? It is definitely POSSIBLE, thus creating a motivation for women to, basically, sell children for destruction (O.K., maybe a LITTLE hyperbole there, but you get the idea, I'm sure). While that is a legitimate concern, I read an article just this morning that stated the fertilized eggs have been used all along. What Bush did was limit FEDERAL FUNDING for ESC research ... he did nothing to thwart the research labs from USING the fertilized eggs. So, now, I would be interested in knowing whether or not that little cottage industry has sprung up in the last few years. IF IT HAS NOT, I will have more difficulty supporting this concern.
I don't know how we would know if this happened or not but I most certainly would label such actions as unethical. I don't happen to believe that we should make decisions today based on the most wild possibilities of tomorrow. There are thousands of new inventions and advances that we accept today that could be used for nefarious purposes but we proceed because ordinary people who are generally moral and ethical understand the boundaries. The Lord Himself has allowed for the fact that we human beings must be faced with making choices in order to grow and mature both intellectually and spiritually. Taking the position that we should not proceed down this course because some may seek to profit from it isn't really a valid argument IMO ... but I do understand the concern.

In fact, I might suggest that a slightly different twist on this concern may be more valid. Would a couple who is currently opposed to IVF because of the issue of destroying the "extra" embryos be encouraged to proceed if they felt that these unused embryos be put to good use? Would doctors "accidentally" create more than they really need because they know they could "donate" them to "a good cause". Human behavior is interesting isn't it? It is nearly impossible to predict.
GOODave wrote:
  • I'm tempted to go down the "two wrongs don't make a right" road here. It is obvious that surplus fertilized eggs (and do you note how even I am starting to impersonalize these little human beings? Also a concern) will be destroyed if they are not used. So how does destroying them for research without any promise of ANY return on such destruction make the other destruction onerous but this one "promising" or "virtuous?" O.K., I stipulate that the nature of research is, well, RESEARCH: Some might pan out, some might not pan out ... but my comfort with destruction of a human being will only be satiated when we do TWO things: LIMIT (or obviate) the storehouse of "surplus" fertilized eggs and stop destroying fertilized eggs for research.
Interesting point here but in this case we are dealing with embroys that WILL be destroyed with no potential for any kind of benefit.
GOODave wrote:
  • Bush also allowed for the research use of the existing supply (at that time) of fertilized eggs. I grudgingly agreed with that move but, of course, we continued to propound the supply and continue to do so today (even though "science" cannot use the ever increasing supply)...If science was in any way concerned about the destruction of life in order to preserve life, they COULD have limited their research to just those ESC's that were available when Bush signed that executive order. I'm told, however, that most labs that devote themselves to ESC research have double machines and instruments in the lab: One for use on "unfunded" research and one for "funded" research. That, to me, is ridiculous and a needless expense.
dave
ESCs must be destroyed as part of the research. More are needed to continue the research. As for the different machines, they exist because of the restrictions on how the money can be used. It is a waste but it is a byproduct of the conditions that exist today. Those who want to put restrictions on federal funding that essentially limit the scientific advances force the labs to get creative in order to make their research useful. They, therefore, comply with the federal funding requirements and take their research up to that point that federal funding allows and then they must transfer their research to other equipment that is NOT backed by federal funding if they want to continue the research.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com

Elroy El
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Elroy El » Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:18 am

GOODave wrote: Maybe.

But such inspiration would mean he is acting in contradiction to His word as expressed in the Bible.

Not that he CAN'T do so, because He's omnipotent and is able to do anything ... but He doesn't typically act contrary to His revealed will.

dave
That's not true. Unless one considers mass murder part of his revealed will.
Image

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by GOODave » Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:31 am

Elroy El wrote: That's not true. Unless one considers mass murder part of his revealed will.
I must have missed the announcement that this is old man with hair-brained idea day in the community ... BUT I can't wait for your pea-brain to try to explain this one:

Go ahead (sigh) I'm reading...

Elroy El
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Elroy El » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:33 pm

GOODave wrote:I must have missed the announcement that this is old man with hair-brained idea day in the community ... BUT I can't wait for your pea-brain to try to explain this one:

Go ahead (sigh) I'm reading...
What was the purpose in the Great Flood where Noah took the animals in two by two? Or raining fire and brimstone down upon Sodom and Gomorrah?

Pretty easy really.
Image

User avatar
AsIfYouKnew
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:01 am

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by AsIfYouKnew » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:22 pm

Elroy El wrote: What was the purpose in the Great Flood where Noah took the animals in two by two? Or raining fire and brimstone down upon Sodom and Gomorrah?

Pretty easy really.
You are right. Both of those examples are very easy to understand why God did what he did, as he clearly stated it in the Bible. If you don't read the Bible, how can you criticize it?
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift

http://www.civilityinamerica.org/en/index.html

Elroy El
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Elroy El » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:42 pm

AsIfYouKnew wrote:You are right. Both of those examples are very easy to understand why God did what he did, as he clearly stated it in the Bible. If you don't read the Bible, how can you criticize it?
Who says I've never read the Bible?

I have read both examples and have yet to read why innocents were killed along with the guilty. Unless children were determined to be evil as well.

So much for a compassionate deity.
Image

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by GOODave » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:44 pm

Elroy El wrote: What was the purpose in the Great Flood where Noah took the animals in two by two? Or raining fire and brimstone down upon Sodom and Gomorrah?

Pretty easy really.
Not as easy as your brain trust apparently thinks it is.

Did you already forget: You said "murder."

Elroy El
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Elroy El » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:55 pm

GOODave wrote:Not as easy as your brain trust apparently thinks it is.

Did you already forget: You said "murder."
So God didn't make it rain during the Great Flood or bring fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah? Those were accidents? Or the deaths were unintentional?
Image

User avatar
AsIfYouKnew
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:01 am

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by AsIfYouKnew » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:59 pm

Elroy El wrote: So God didn't make it rain during the Great Flood or bring fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah? Those were accidents? Or the deaths were unintentional?
God gave life, God can take life. What is your point?
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift

http://www.civilityinamerica.org/en/index.html

Elroy El
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Elroy El » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:16 pm

AsIfYouKnew wrote: God gave life, God can take life. What is your point?
Could you explain that to Dave? He lacks a full comprehension of God's revealed word.
Image

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Brooke » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:29 pm

dirtydave wrote:
I freely acknowledge that other people can be moral but not support "life" as I see it. In fact, I THINK Al supports ESC but not abortion: Al (or SLK230) is a very moral individual. NOT to get anyone to cringe or suspect my motives for bringing her up, but Bev supports abortion AND ESC and I believe her to be as immoral an individual as I've ever met: Her stand on Abortion and ESC being but a small part of why I believe her to be immoral, as most in here know.
Why does this portly character care so much about what I think?

Why dirtydave why? Why do you care?

I'm surprised you have the wherewithal to mention the cringe factor. Maybe you are not as clueless as you appear to be. Or it could be just more of your kiss ass pandering as in: Forgive me everybody, but I just can't let an opportunity go by to complain about Bev because I am so obsessed that I can't stand it. My hideous character just won't let it go that she can't stand me and I'm going to make her sorry she rebuffed me and my BS, kiss ass, groveling personality.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by GOODave » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:30 pm

Beulah wrote:
Why does this portly character care so much about what I think?

Why dirtydave why? Why do you care?
I don't care ... read what I wrote (for understanding for a change) ... I simply used you as an example of someone I think is immoral.

User avatar
ND7
Posts: 3910
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:02 am

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by ND7 » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:35 pm

Elroy El wrote: Who says I've never read the Bible?

I have read both examples and have yet to read why innocents were killed along with the guilty. Unless children were determined to be evil as well.

So much for a compassionate deity.
Don't mistake your limited notion of compassion with love, which God is.
"What matters is not that it's true, but that I believe it; or no, not that I believe it, but that I believe it....I trust I make myself obscure."
St. Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons.

Elroy El
Posts: 3488
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research...

Post by Elroy El » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:38 pm

ND7 wrote:Don't mistake your limited notion of compassion with love, which God is.
So the innocent children killed during the Great Flood were killed with love and compassion?
Image

Post Reply