|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Stem Cell...are they ethically Christian? - 9/1/2008 5:46:10 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 394
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
NO - we should not waste time and money on ESC technology that is fraught with ethical, financial, and practical obstacles!
Do you even read what I type?
The ethical concerns associated with ESC research are connected to the fact that it requires the destruction of an embryo.
Doing experiments on existing ESC lines does not require the destruction of an embryo.
Due to this, there should be no moral quandary with continuing this research.
It really doesn't matter if there are financial problems, because my question wasn't limited to government-funded programs. If someone wants to spend their own money to finance ESC research on existing lines, then it doesn't really matter what it costs. It really doesn't even matter if it is government funded, because there are many more frivolous things our government spends money on that should be cut before something such as ESC that may end up having benefits.
The practical obstacles likewise don't matter. If it's difficult to solve some problems relating to the usability of ESC, then that's for the scientist working on the project to deal with. Solving problems is generally what scientists try to do.
So, again (with slight alteration):
If the harvesting of new embryonic stem cells was banned in all 50 states today, how would you feel [morally] about scientists continuing research on the 22+ existing embryonic stem cell lines?
quote:
There were many potential uses for the medical research performed by Nazi physicians during WWII. Is that a reason to have supported their continued research, R_S?
If that research hadn't involved the injury or death of anything human, or potentially human, then no, I probably wouldn't oppose it.
My whole reason for brining up existing stem cell lines is because no embryo is destroyed in the research. The embryo that was destroyed to harvest the cells was destroyed long ago. The cell lines already exist, any 'damage' is already done, and was done a long time ago. There is no chance that the cells in question will ever be able to become human.
For what reason would you oppose continuing ESC research on existing lines?
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stem Cell...are they ethically Christian? - 9/1/2008 10:12:10 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3159
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do you even read what I type?
The ethical concerns associated with ESC research are connected to the fact that it requires the destruction of an embryo.
Doing experiments on existing ESC lines does not require the destruction of an embryo.
Due to this, there should be no moral quandary with continuing this research. Do you even read what I type? I really do not care what you think "should be no moral quandary"! Existing ESC lines were obtained by murdering human embryos and I for one consider that an ethical obstacle.
quote:
It really doesn't matter if there are financial problems, because my question wasn't limited to government-funded programs. If someone wants to spend their own money to finance ESC research on existing lines, then it doesn't really matter what it costs. It really doesn't even matter if it is government funded, because there are many more frivolous things our government spends money on that should be cut before something such as ESC that may end up having benefits. Your understanding of health economics is incredibly naive, R_S! Limited resources should not be wasted on scientifically unproven, ethically questionable, and technically impractical procedures just to satisfy some political agenda! Period!
quote:
The practical obstacles likewise don't matter. If it's difficult to solve some problems relating to the usability of ESC, then that's for the scientist working on the project to deal with. Solving problems is generally what scientists try to do. Yes indeed, and haven't they done a marvelous job proving the merits of ASC technology and finding alternative techniques to avoid ESCR altogether!
quote:
So, again (with slight alteration):
If the harvesting of new embryonic stem cells was banned in all 50 states today, how would you feel [morally] about scientists continuing research on the 22+ existing embryonic stem cell lines? Once again, it is immoral to do research that directly results from procedures which have murdered human embryos.
quote:
If that research hadn't involved the injury or death of anything human, or potentially human, then no, I probably wouldn't oppose it.
My whole reason for brining up existing stem cell lines is because no embryo is destroyed in the research. The embryo that was destroyed to harvest the cells was destroyed long ago. The cell lines already exist, any 'damage' is already done, and was done a long time ago. There is no chance that the cells in question will ever be able to become human. Let me give you one last chance to reconsider your indefensible position, R_S. You state above that research which doesn't involve killing humans (or anything potentially human, whatever that means) is okay. Yet if the killing occurred "a long time ago" (whatever that means) and the "damage is already done" (whatever that means), then it's okay to continue such research. Thus you would favor the continued experimentation on the vital organs of unwilling prisoners, for instance, as long as they died "a long time ago so that the damage was already done"? Did I get it right?
quote:
For what reason would you oppose continuing ESC research on existing lines? I've answered this at least twice. Just because you don't like my answer won't change it!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stem Cell...are they ethically Christian? - 9/5/2008 11:43:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3159
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
HERE IS A RECENT ARTICLE showing how scientists are making pluripotent stem cells from adult cells without any significant ethical obstacles, such as murdering human embryos.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stem Cell...are they ethically Christian? - 9/12/2008 1:59:40 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 394
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Do you even read what I type? I really do not care what you think "should be no moral quandary"! Existing ESC lines were obtained by murdering human embryos and I for one consider that an ethical obstacle
The existing lines were obtained through the destruction of embryos, yes. We could have a back-and-forth about the morality about the destruction, but that's not what I was interested in.
If you're going to consider an embryo to be human, then a destroyed embryo is a corpse. My question was in relation to the morality of experimenting on the existing corpses of dead embryos, not on the murder which caused the death.
quote:
Your understanding of health economics is incredibly naive, R_S! Limited resources should not be wasted on scientifically unproven, ethically questionable, and technically impractical procedures just to satisfy some political agenda! Period!
I suppose we should stop cancer and AIDS research as well, since we've seen no cures from those quarters. We've seen advancement, sure, but no solid cure. And considering we've been trying to solve the problem of cancer since 1600 B.C. (according to Wikipedia), we might as well give up already.
Like I said, if someone chooses to invest their own money into a project, we have no right to stop it unless the research in question is illegal, and no right to protest it occuring unless it is morally repugnant. If Bill Gates wants to sink 50 billion dollars into a project to see if placing dream-catchers above people's beds stops the common cold, you might call him an idiot, but you can't rightly stop him from doing it. You might call him an idiot, but you're not going to really protest the use of that money.
quote:
Yes indeed, and haven't they done a marvelous job proving the merits of ASC technology and finding alternative techniques to avoid ESCR altogether!
Agreed, and I much favor adult stem-cell research because of this. Heck, I favor other forms of biomed research to any form of stem-cell research. This does not mean that I oppose the very idea of ESC research on exiting lines.
quote:
Once again, it is immoral to do research that directly results from procedures which have murdered human embryos.
There we go, that's the answer I was looking for... sort of.
Is it the destruction itself that you find repugnant, or the research that follows?
quote:
Let me give you one last chance to reconsider your indefensible position, R_S. You state above that research which doesn't involve killing humans (or anything potentially human, whatever that means) is okay. Yet if the killing occurred "a long time ago" (whatever that means) and the "damage is already done" (whatever that means), then it's okay to continue such research. Thus you would favor the continued experimentation on the vital organs of unwilling prisoners, for instance, as long as they died "a long time ago so that the damage was already done"? Did I get it right?
I stated that doing research doesn't involve killing humans, or anything potentially human (e.g., can never become human. That is, stem cells from a destroyed embro can not be put back into a form that could ever become human. Any humanity or potential humanity they had while still in the embryo is gone.) is okay.
Experimentation on existing ESC lines does not involve the destruction of anything human or potentially human. The harvesting of them did, but the continued use of them does not.
If you can justify the statement that prisoners are dead, then I might agree. Every prisoner I've seen to date can only properly be described as 'alive.' If they cease to be alive, they cease to be prisoners.
If you're asking if I support experimentation on the vital organs of prisoners who are executed, but have not given consent to have their organs harvested, then no, I don't. A prisoner has legal rights, and it is not legal to harvest an adult's organs without permission.
However, you seem to be equating an embryo to an adult. If any legal status were given to an embryo, then the legal status of a child would be more correctly equatable. The legality or morality of the destruction of the original embryo isn't in question with existing stem-cell research lines, as the 'damage' has already been done. The embryo is already dead.
From what I understand, when a child dies (whether naturally or otherwise) it is up to the parent to decide if they want to have the child's organs donated. Would the donation of the stem-cells of an embryo then not be a similar issue. Even if the destruction of the original embryo was morally repugnant, the results of that destruction should be used to to as much good as they can. If the consent of the parent was given to use the cells for research, how is this different than child organ donation?
quote:
I've answered this at least twice. Just because you don't like my answer won't change it!
Not really. You've responded twice, but this is really the first time you've answered me.
Your first response said, 'see my first post', with mainly dealt with the ethics of the destruction of the embryo.
The second time, my question was, "Would you oppose the continued use of existing ESC lines that would continue that research?" to which you responded, "NO - we should not waste time and money on ESC technology that is fraught with ethical, financial, and practical obstacles!"
While your response was self-contradictory, I'm simply being flippant in not responding to the meaning of your response.
Your first response had focused on the immorality of the destruction of the embryo, you hadn't really made your position on the use of stem-cells after the destruction clear. Since you hadn't yet expressed that you believed that experimentation on cells from a destroyed embryo was immoral, but merely that the destruction itself was immoral, you hadn't really made your position on existing ESC lines clear.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stem Cell...are they ethically Christian? - 9/12/2008 9:15:49 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3159
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suppose we should stop cancer and AIDS research as well, since we've seen no cures from those quarters. You really need to research your points better before making such wildly unsubstantiated claims!
quote:
If you can justify the statement that prisoners are dead, then I might agree. Every prisoner I've seen to date can only properly be described as 'alive.' If they cease to be alive, they cease to be prisoners I'm sorry you're not getting this R_S! If the prisoners are being subject to experimentation with the final consequence to be their death, then they are just as ethically "dead" as the human preborns who are subject to the very same consequence. This isn't rocket science, okay?
quote:
However, you seem to be equating an embryo to an adult. If any legal status were given to an embryo, then the legal status of a child would be more correctly equatable. No, I'm "equating" an embryo to a person! You are hiding behind legal definitions to attempt to justify your position. Just like the Nazi physicians, I might add.
quote:
While your response was self-contradictory, I'm simply being flippant in not responding to the meaning of your response.
Your first response had focused on the immorality of the destruction of the embryo, you hadn't really made your position on the use of stem-cells after the destruction clear. Since you hadn't yet expressed that you believed that experimentation on cells from a destroyed embryo was immoral, but merely that the destruction itself was immoral, you hadn't really made your position on existing ESC lines clear. My responses have been exceedingly clear because I know how much you would like me to trip up and show their weakness. Others reading this thread can judge for themselves what I've posted. Because I am a fallible human' I make mistakes of communication on these forums. But the simple truth remains - ESCR involves the killing of innocent human beings! I personally will have nothing to do with such immoral actions. You are free to choose your morals, R_S, and that choice does have consequences!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stem Cell...are they ethically Christian? - 9/13/2008 3:27:23 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 394
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm sorry you're not getting this R_S! If the prisoners are being subject to experimentation with the final consequence to be their death, then they are just as ethically "dead" as the human preborns who are subject to the very same consequence. This isn't rocket science, okay?
What are you talking about?
I never mentioned ethically dead.
The blastocyst (embryo) is destroyed when stem cells are harvested. The embryo is long dead by the time the cells are used for experimentation. There is no living embryo left when the research goes on. All that's left of the embryo is the stem-cells, and stem-cells by themselves are not in any way an embryo.
The 'preborn' in your scenario is long dead by the time the stem-cell experiments even start.
This is equivocal to a prisoner dying, and the their corpse being experimented on.
No, this isn't rocket science, it's bio-research, and that harder than rocket science.
quote:
No, I'm "equating" an embryo to a person! You are hiding behind legal definitions to attempt to justify your position. Just like the Nazi physicians, I might add.
I haven't yet attempted to justify a position. I haven't yet tried to argue against yours. I'm attempting to figure out where you stand on existing cell lines and why you take that stance. Until these things are established, there would be no use for me to try to argue against your position.
From what I can tell, the mis-understanding lies in one of our understanding of stem-cell research.
It is my understanding that the embryo is destroyed in the process of harvesting the stem-cells, and that this destruction is what is morally questionable about the research.
The research is not performed on an embryo. The experiments are not performed on an embryo. They are performed on a single sub-set of cells that were part of the embryo.
A equivocation would be killing a person, and then taking out their liver and experimenting on it. The killing is what is morally reprehensible. The experimentation on the liver is an entirely different situation.
With existing cell lines, it's like there being a person that was killed by the Nazi's, and their liver was harvested for research. That liver has been kept alive while the rest of the person was destroyed.
My question was basically, "While we agree that killing people to experiment on their livers is repugnant, do you oppose continuing research on the liver of this dead person? Continuing research does not require killing anyone, and the research may prove beneficial to humanity."
The embryo is long dead, my question is on whether you oppose continuing experimentation on the cells that are left over from that dead embryo?
quote:
My responses have been exceedingly clear because I know how much you would like me to trip up and show their weakness. Others reading this thread can judge for themselves what I've posted. Because I am a fallible human' I make mistakes of communication on these forums. But the simple truth remains - ESCR involves the killing of innocent human beings! I personally will have nothing to do with such immoral actions. You are free to choose your morals, R_S, and that choice does have consequences!
No, your responses have not been clear. They have been addressing Embryonic Stem Cell Research as if it requires destroying an embryo. For traditional ESCR this is true. For ESCR on exiting cell lines, however, this is not true. No embryo is required to be destroyed for this experimentation to continue.
I am not trying to trip you up, because I am not attempting to argue against you. I am trying to establish your position, and figure out why you hold that position. I am not interesting in arguing if I don't know what your position is in the first place.
Yes, ESCR involves killing innocent human beings. This has never been in contention. I oppose the harvesting of new stem-cells, because is requires the destruction of an embryo to harvest those cells.
I was trying to figure out your position on continuing research on the cells of embryos that have already been destroyed. There is no further killing of innocents involved. The question is one of what to do with their remains.
Again, I ask you to make your position clear.
I know that you oppose the destruction embryos.
How do you feel about research being done on existing cell lines? Existing cell lines are cultures of stem-cells that were harvested from embryos years and years ago, before the federal ban was put in place. No embryo has to be destroyed in order for exiting cell lines to be used for experimentation. The cells used are not embryos, but cells that came from embryos.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
