President Barack Obama's order Monday opens the door for federal taxpayer dollars to fund expanded embryonic stem cell research again.
Stem cell research involves the destruction of the human embryo to extract the necessary cells. The embryo, not the fetus, if that makes a difference to you personally.
The downside is the destruction of the embryo, the upside is potentially huge. Cures for aids, cures for cancer, parkinson's, alzheimer's, etc. They will one day be able to grow you a new heart, with your exact DNA, if you have a heart attack. Or a new liver, or new lungs, or grow you new legs if you lose them in an accident. Truth is, we don't know what they could potentially be able to do by pursuing this. Scientists say stem cell therapy may be able to permanently arrest human aging.
It brings up a zillion ethical and moral questions. I'm at work, so I can't even get into all of them.
But to me, it comes down to one simple question.
If the destruction of a human embryo now could save the life of your daughter, or husband, or brother, or yourself, in ten years time... would you say it's worth it? I think almost anyone would, if push came to shove.
It's oh so easy to say what's right and what's wrong in a hypothetical situation... But when Push really comes to Shove, and it's your loved one laying on a hospital bed, it's not so easy.
We are talking aborted babies here right?? Not embryos or fetuses...babies..As tempting as the end results "might" be, does the end justify the means?? I don't think so...I think we know how God feels about the unborn...I can't imagine our ultimate good would ever come about as a result of something that we know to be something He is against...I can't say I know enough about any of this to argue it well, but somehow it all seems horribly wrong to me...
ReplyDeletebtw....I was thinking, maybe we should have some sort of a signal when a post is of a sensitive nature, ie political, controversial moral issue etc. We could put a (C) before the post name so that people could know and avoid if they would rather....and know if they choose to go on and comment etc., it might get irro, or annoying and need to prepared to roll with it...Is this stupid??
ReplyDeleteI think the (C) is a great idea. I'll do that from here on in.
ReplyDeleteAnd as to your first comment mom, I think part of the whole question is whether or not an embryo is a "baby".
Note the title of the blog was, I'm not sure how I feel about this one. There are embryos out there already, detached from the womb and sitting in jars. They are not ever going to be human beings, they will never been anything other that what they are.
To me, extracting stem cells from them is no different than pulling a liver out of a person who died in a car crash.
If you're a carpenter, and you get in a car accident and die, the body left behind is no longer a carpenter, it's a corpse. And in the same way, to me, an embryo from a stillbirth sitting in a jar of formaldehyde in a lab, is not a baby in any way shape or form.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Bible has any stance one way or the other about harvesting organs from dead bodies to be placed in living bodies. And I don't see how a stillborn embryo is different in that sense than a dead body. So I don't think we can say with any real confidence what the Bible has to say about stem cell research, so long as we're in agreement that we won't deliberately create embryos specifically for the purpose of research.
But if we have them around anyway, and we can use them to cure disease, why not try?
a slippery slope indeed....
ReplyDeletein vitro fertilization. destruction of unneeded human embryos to manipulate life. the bottom line is we're playing God. we're so distracted by the potential of stem cell research that we have fooled ourselves into believing we actually know what the heck we're talking about. because at the end of the day, all we can really do is "play" God. i'll be the first to admit this subject extends beyond what upland high was able to teach me, but quite frankly i believe this subject extends beyond what harvard is able to teach.
i believe it's unethical and a total disregard to the sanctity of life.
like I said, it is definitely the way it strikes me too.....it's just wrong....and let's face it, they start this and you KNOW where it will eventusally go. there is no way they won't end doing just that.....creating them themselves for the purpose of research.....it's just wrong....and I have a feeling it is just the tip of the iceberg...
ReplyDeleteI'd have to know and understand more on the subject to comment. From what you're saying John, it sounds as though these embryos were as a result of a stillborn baby and not intentionally taken from an abortion?
ReplyDeleteobviously I don't really know either...I "think" what he was saying is for now it's the stillborn & aborted babies, but I might be wrong....I think the thing is they could potentially to the test tube fertilization and they grow the baby outside of the womb for a while and THEN the stem cell testing....is this right? this is what people are afraid of...obviously, if it was JUST stillborn babies I don't see a whole lot of difference between that and human organ donations, but it is MUCH more than that from what I have understood...
ReplyDeleteJim, if stem cell research is playing God, then isn't using penicillin to kill an infection playing God? Isn't pulling a heart or a liver out of a cadaver playing God? At what point does a doctor stop being a doctor trying to alleviate suffering and become a man trying to play God?
ReplyDeleteDanae, to the best of my knowledge, (which is not complete yet I'm still reading), what they're talking about at this point is using a group of embryos from fertility clinics that for various reasons were not used to impregnate women. It's long past the point where they could be used to create life... they've been sitting in jars for years. We can literally throw them away, or we can use them for research.
I think there is a big difference between using mold to cure a disease or taking a heart from a dead body and using what could be or should have been a human being to do research. I, also, am doing more reading on this, but I think they are definitely talking about using aborted babies. Another question I have is, if these fertility clinic embryos are no longer viable why do they have them still going?
ReplyDeleteFertility clinics use way more embryos than they produce babies. As long as there are fertility clinics there will be lots of embryos.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can't see any difference between taking a "dead" embryo and using it for research vs. taking a dead body and using it for research. The only difference is the age. So long as the body died accidentally or naturally, and so long as the embryo wasn't created specifically for the purpose of research. What's the big difference?
The thing that I don't understand is, what is making those embryos "dead"? Why are they not potential for human life? That is what they were originally created for.
ReplyDeleteI'm at work so I don't have a lot of time to get into this, though I will later.
ReplyDeleteBottom line is, prior to 2000, scientists had built up a store of embryos to be used for stem cell research. They were embryos from fertility clinics. George Bush eventually passed a low that said that while no NEW embryos could be created, that using the ones already existing was permitted.
When a couple goes to a fertility clinic to conceive, they use more embryos than are necessary. So once they conceive, there are unused embryos. Normally, they are frozen.
In theory, they could be unfrozen, they don't "die" when they're frozen because they're not actually alive, they're blastocysts. They could be used to create a human life, but most of them are not, most of them are destroyed.
So we're talking about cells that will be destroyed with or without stem cell research.
in vitro fertilization produces and destroys more embryos than are needed, so that there is a greater probability of a successful pregnancy. often embryos that appear to have genetic defects are automatically discarded. because in vitro fertilization often results in multiple pregnancies, there is a high percentage of abortion in order to avoid being another "octo-mom". as a result of this extremely unnatural form of conception we're left with all of these "extra" human embryos. it's like when you put together a table from ikea and you didn't read the directions, inevitably you point to a large pile of screws/bolts/and pegs, and identify them as "extras". of course extra screws are of little consequence, the same could not be said of human embryos.
ReplyDeletesuperior genetic selection-abortion-discarding/destroying/storing human embryos - this is what i mean when i talk about playing God.
i would be against heart transplants too if people were murdered in order to obtain the hearts. i realize there are many who would say destroying human embryos is not murder, but the truth is they have no idea what they're talking about. jack used the magic beans to grow the bean stalk - but that doesn't mean even for one second he understood why the beans were magic.
a husband and wife have sex and children are born - thats the way God created us. all of these ethical and moral arguments have come as a result of a great departure from God's design
Don't be fooled by websites that are paid by companies that want to get rid of stem cell research. It all comes down to this, if we don't use stem cell research nothing will happen. that is untill we fall far behind in medical science in the united states. If we study stem cell research we have the ability to cure so many diseases and help so many people. We have such highly educated scientists and doctors and everything, you name it, that we can easily begin researching stem cell research without any lives being "taken away". Are we playing God when God gives someone a brain tumor and we open his skull and save his life? no, were simply just advancing in medical science and were learning alot about humans and the world in general and using all of this knowledge to help us live better. We are learning so much about us, but yet we still know so little, its only been since the last 100 years that we have really started building our knowledge with more knowledge and are starting to learn soooo much. i was born into a generation of the internet. i can know anything i want to know with the push of a button, its crazy, and that has only been here for 25 years or so. lets face it, all that will be done about stem cell research is it will be stalled untill one day we start really using it, because it is the future, and alot of people have a hard time taking the next steps into the future.
ReplyDeleteI think it is all a matter of how you look at it....taking a heart or liver out of a person who has died to be transplanted, or removing a tumor from a brain, or using medication to fight an infection is in no way (in my opinion) the same as "creating" an embryo...Whether it is for the purpose of a pregnacy or for scientic tests...There is no way (in my opinion) this could ever be the way God designed for it to be.....It IS like playing God....we are just a little bit closer to deciding the sex, skin color, etc. It's just not right.....and from what I understand, they are definitely talking about aborted babies as well if not right now certainly in the near future. This would give women a "purpose" with their abortions...."Well, I'm not ready for a baby, so "this" can be used for research to help someone someday." I can see a huge increase in abortions as a result of this....but then you come back to rather or not you consider abortion wrong or right as well....another way to play God in my opinion...and remember they can abort a baby at ANY time during the pregnacy....and kill it after it is born if the baby has had the misfortune to survive..think of how GOOD those babies (who would die anyway after all) would be for research....it's just not right....once a conception has occured, life has begun, whether it is inside the body or out...whether it is used to implant the baby inside of a woman, frozen for later, or thrown away, saved in a jar, or used for research doesn't matter to me....it's human life and as such should be treated with the dignity we all deserve...God has told us that human life begins with conception, and so therfore has a soul....who are we to "create" them at all??? To allow the beginning of this research is to open up a GIANT mountain of totally unethical possibilities....and then where would it stop??I for one do believe this is first of many ungodly, decisions that have been made by our new president who only pretends to be a godly man...and I am sad to I feel our whole country will suffer from the eventual outcomes.
ReplyDeleteJim, I'm not advocating in vitro fertilization. I don't have time to answer all comments right now, but I will try to.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, it's one hell of a slippery slope. It gets scary fast. But it's a slippery slope in both directions.
I think if you're going to say it's wrong to use embryos to study stem cells, you have to take it a step further and say using a condom or a birth control pill is wrong. That's the last stop on that train.
Let me clarify this. The embryos are frozen and COULD be implanted and produce a baby. They were not needed and discarded by the original couple? If this is so, then how can it be alright to do this?
ReplyDeleteStem cell research has nothing to do with choosing a childs sex, eye color, skin color, or any of that. All of that can already be done, well not all of it, but alot of it. this isnt superior genetic selection, or any of that, you guys are being irrational. Rather than only looking at negative effects, look at the positive's too. stem cell research is just the first door to many opertunities to cure cancer, to cure aids, to cure the next disease that mutates into something so furious the only thing that could save us is the development of stem cell research. You guys are taking the negative side too far and seeing the worst posible circumstances ever that could happen. those are not why we want to start the research. if we do this correctly, the only thing that can happen is good.
ReplyDeleteFor most things in this world there are two sides and usually each side can be "justified" very easily. Obviously the chance to cure horrible diseases that some of us will inevitably get has a huge appeal. But at what price? If we believe that life begins at conception then there is no way that any of these arguments be of any consequence.
ReplyDeletethere is no way that any of these arguments can be of any consequence. (not only do I need a speLl check, I need a grammar check)
ReplyDelete"I for one do believe this is first of many ungodly, decisions that have been made by our new president who only pretends to be a godly man...and I am sad to I feel our whole country will suffer from the eventual outcomes."
ReplyDelete"first of many ungodly decisions"
"only pretends to be a godly man"
"whole country will suffer"
i think your taking it a little too far deb.
Anthony, I think the point of this discussion is to let everyone state their opinons and ask and answer questions. No good will come, if we start to take shots at each other. I love you!
ReplyDeleteI work at a donut shop in Orange county, the most republican county in all of California. thats just what I've heard, don't know if thats fact. were about 100 old veterans hang out every weekend and basically what i hear all day is stupid remarks about Obama and how hes the anti-christ or how he is an idiot, this and that, rather than discussing his policies or his ideologies. they plain out hate the man just because hes a democrat and hes black. i don't have a problem if you bag on some of his policies. but bag on his policies. dont take my comment as an attack because it wasnt. i just dont want you thinking obama is an ungodly man deb, because he isnt. and i dont want you to think that this is the first of many ungodly decisions either. his decisions are based off of what he thinks will help the country the most. he means well, every man will make mistakes, but atleast give him a shot at it before you bring him down.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion has gotten horribly off course.
ReplyDeleteAnt, I'm not going to comment on everything you've said, but let me take a couple examples of things you said and see if I can't make a point.
Comment:
"Don't be fooled by websites that are paid by companies that want to get rid of stem cell research."
Response: This assumes two things; one, that there are such companies. I doubt there are. The movement against stem cell research comes mostly from the right to life movement, not a company. They most certainly do have websites, and they are very easily identified as such. 2. That someone here read some shill website and was taken in by it. There is plenty of financial motivation for stem cell research, there's no money in squashing it.
Comment:
"It all comes down to this, if we don't use stem cell research nothing will happen."
Response:
That is a demonstrably false statement. We didn't use stem cell reasearch fifty years ago, and there were plenty of medical advancements. And there is a universe of medical research going on right now that has nothing to do with stem cells.
Comment:
"We have such highly educated scientists and doctors and everything, you name it, that we can easily begin researching stem cell research without any lives being "taken away"."
Response:
Ant, that's the whole discussion. Stem cell research destroys the embryo. Some people think the embryo is sacred human life. You can disagree with them, but if you're going to disagree, you have to do more to make your point than just assert it. Saying something doesn't make it true.
Comment:
"if we do this correctly, the only thing that can happen is good."
Response:
We have absolutely no way of knowing if that is true, and we won't know if it's true until it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Scientific research without a moral discussion before hand is not necessarily a good thing. Technological advancements are not necessarily good things. Technology has improved our lives in some areas, it has also given us the atom bomb, airborn anthrax, and napalm, just to name a few things. To say that good is the only thing that can come of stem cell research is to make one hell of a gigantic assumption.
Comment:
"i think your taking it a little too far deb."
Response:
See Ant, that's exactly what the discussion is about. Drawing the line between what's right and what's wrong is at the heart of it. YOU think it's going too far to say that taking one side or the other is ungodly, and the other side thinks science is taking things too far when they look at human life as an ingredient in an experiment. Nazis had scientific experiments they ran on people, and in some people's minds there's a strong parallel. Maybe they're right and maybe they're wrong, but again, asserting an empirical answer in either direction doesn't serve anyone.
As for the guys in the donut shop, yeah sounds like you've got some racist people getting together and talking. None of them have commented on this blog, you're not talking to those people.
"his decisions are based off of what he thinks will help the country"
Which decisions are those? Every decision he makes? Barrack Obama has never in his life made a decision in self interest? He's never thought about his own career over the good of his constituents? Did he spend his whole campaign railing about congressional earmarking, depsite the fact that he earmarked over nine hundred million dollars to line the pockets of his campaign donors, purely out of a belief that that was what was best for the country? Nothing is that black and white, no pun intended.
Listen, I enjoy your comments and I hope you keep them coming. You're young and hungry to learn, which is awesome, and no one wants to shut you up, least of all me. On the contrary, I'd encourage you to keep up the dialogue.
That having been said, when you make blanket assertions about people being irrational, or taking things too far, you've taken a general discussion about stem cell research and turned it into a personal discussion about who can and who can't properly disseminate information. The indication being that you can absorb the facts rationally, while others are blinded by emotion. There's danger in that, hurt feelings for one, obliterating any hope of discourse for another.
Well, I was hearing the direction this was going last night, but I had just sat down to relax and watch American Idol (which I just plain enjoy) so I figured I'd leave this for today. I am not sure I should respond at all as I feel Diane & John did a really good job of doing so, but...first of all I do want to make sure you know Anthony that while your comments directed to me (quoting me etc.) were somewhat surprising, I am not the least bit angry or upset...I do feel like it's been pointed out not only by the other comments made, but in my comment in the first place, that they were just "my" opinions and feelings...but I understand how you might have been frustrated if you felt your point is not being heard, or you feel your beliefs (in the president) are being attacked....this whole subject (that has again already been pointed out) is a controversial MORAL issue. It is not a black and white subject with a who's wrong or who's right answer...and as most moral issues end up, it involves emotions and very strong feelings....there are many such subjects we could discuss on here that have the potential of ending up this same way. Thus, all the caution about discussing them, as it is very difficult to mix these kind of subjects with family. That's why I said what I did when I started off my comment, it is all in how you look at it......and it REALLY is....and we just look at it from very different view points...you see it as a wonderful way to discover cure for horrible diseases and putting an end to unnecessary suffering...and make no mistake here, NOTHING would make me happier...I am as horrified at the possibilies looming ahead from these things for not only myself, but for all of those I love, AND for those I will never know. They are scary and overwhelming. I have definitely considered the positive side of this issue....however, for me, the "potential" end result will NEVER justify the means......the embryos represent human life, as do the aborted babies, and as such, in my opinion, should not even exist in the first place...I feel we have been playing god for a very long time, both creating and taking life, and I believe the Bible is very clear about that as well.....we will reap what we sow. It is a Biblical principle that there is just no getting away from...I guess again for me, I believe that the Bible is the actual Word of God and therefore is a very clear picture on how I am to look at things. And I believe the Bible is very clear on when human life begins and how precious it is to Him. And believing that as I do, I just can't let my heart settle into this is all OK..I just can't. That's why to "me", it WAS an ungodly "decision" on the part of the new president. And I do find it scary as I believe there will be consequences as the Bible promises, we will reap all that this will sow as a nation....which might seem as if I have carried it out "too far", but as much as I would love to think I have, I am more afraid I haven't..
ReplyDelete"That is a demonstrably false statement. We didn't use stem cell reasearch fifty years ago, and there were plenty of medical advancements. And there is a universe of medical research going on right now that has nothing to do with stem cells"
ReplyDeletei was just trying to say that medical science was just going to advance like it normally does. and that life would just go on regularly if we dont use it.
"if we do this correctly, the only thing that can happen is good."
yes i know, a very far fetched statement, dont know what i was thinking, haha.
The indication being that you can absorb the facts rationally, while others are blinded by emotion. There's danger in that, hurt feelings for one, obliterating any hope of discourse for another.
you said it perfectly john, and i just want to apologize to you deb because looking back at this now i could see how you might take it as an attack. im on online forums alot and just quote people and and either agree or disagree. i never meant to attack you in anyway, i was just trying to point out that at the end of the day our president is still our president and all we can do now is support and pray he makes the right decision.
once again Debbie i hope you didn't take this personal as i debate alot online and at college and i never meant to attack your personal views or beliefs i was just stating mine and maybe i got a little carried away.
thank you john for responding to my comments, i basically agree with everything you said to me, and it helps me learn alot, i extremely apreciate it.
The air has been cleared, and we can all move on.
ReplyDeleteAnt, it's all among friends and the dialogue is truly a pleasure. I see no reason it can't continue, it was a very slight misunderstanding and not a big deal at all.
And to everyone else, I've been reading about what the new laws are going to be for the last couple of days, and the bottom line is that I still don't really know how I feel about the whole thing. For me it's a complex, layered issue. And as we've all seen, it's pretty controversial.
ReplyDeletejohn, are you getting most of your information on the internet? if so please provide links.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGen 11:1
ReplyDeleteNOW the whole earth had one language and one speech.
Gen 11:2
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.
Gen 11:3
Then they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar.
Gen 11:4
And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."
Gen 11:5
But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
Gen 11:6
And the LORD said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
Gen 11:7
"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."
Gen 11:8
So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
what has always struck me about this passage is verse 6 where God says now nothing they propose to do will be withheld from them. the word propose means - thought or imagine... thats a pretty crazy statement - whatever they imagine they'll be able to do. i think this is where we're heading once again...the funny thing is this whole debate might be for nothing, because at some point God is going to intervene.
This post has taken so many twists and turns that I keep forgetting to say something. Someone said something about it earlier. What makes this topic so...difficult to come to terms with, is that the embryos should have never been made in the first place. And yet, if they did indeed create life, wasn't God's hand in that? It actually goes all the way back to in vitro ferlization to begin with. Should they? Why not? I guess the problem I would have with it is creating more embryos than needed for one attempt at getting pregnant. If I'm honest, I probably would have gone the route of invitro had I not been able to get pregnant. Let's face it, I did resort to fertility drugs..was that alright? I think so. However, having said that, what I don't think I could have gone with was making more than one embryo. One that I would attempt to have a baby with. Think about it, these embryos for all intents and purposes are babies are they not? And if so, then imagine the feeling of several (who knows how many) of your children (they would be) in jars or on shelves so to speak? I couldn't do it. And I think that is where it went wrong. And so....they are no longer viable lives. Why not use them for research you might say? In my heart of hearts I'd have to say because they never should have been there in the first place.
ReplyDeleteDanae, that is what the whole question comes down to, and I guess in my heart of hearts I don't think an embryo is a human being.
ReplyDeleteIt has the potential for human life, but it is not human life. When a couple goes to a fertility clinic, they take some of the sperm from the male, treat it, and they take some eggs from the female. They fertalize the eggs outside the woman's body, "in vitro", I have no idea what kind of machine they use now but it used to be a glass test tube and a microscope. After the eggs are fertalized, one or two of them are placed back in the woman's womb where they will hopefully cling to the wall and thus start a pregnancy. The others are frozen in the even that the pregnancy terminates or the couple wants other children later on. And those are the embryos used for research.
I'm not a biologist and I'm not a theologian. I'm just a guy with an opinion.
To me, a frozen embryo is not a human being. It's not alive, it doesn't have a central nervous system or any kind of brain, it is not self aware, and it has no potential to become human life. If you place it back in a womb, it could become human life, but that, in my opinion, doesn't make it human life.
An acorn is not a tree. A tree is a tree, and an acorn is an acorn.
You could say that an embryo has the potential to become human life, but in 2009, your bone marrow has the potential for human life. If you cut off your arm, scientists could use it to create another human being. It would take some doing, but it could be done... and taking a frozen embryo and turning it into a human being also takes some doing. It doesn't happen on it's own.
As to what specific point at which a single celled zygote becomes a human being, I don't know.
The idea of an embryo having an eternal soul doesn't jive with my understanding of what a soul is.
In a natural, man and woman old fashioned getting pregnant process, there are extra zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos. I don't think each one of them was an intended human being that "died". Because I guess, for me, I can't accept the idea that a single celled organism that can be frozen and unfrozen is a human being.
I could be wrong, I don't really know.
What makes the whole thing even more complicated for me is that stem cell research could be carried on with or without a belief that life begins at conception, because there are still viable stem cells in stillbirths, which obviously occur naturally.
And as hard as it is to talk about, and as much as people might want to avoid the question, I sitll think it goes all the way back to what I said in the blog... who among us can really say we're not hypocrites?
I have some misgivings about stem cell research, I'm not positive one way or the other. In theory.
But if Melody is dying on a hospital bed, has a day or two to live, am I going to tell the doctor to let her die because the medical procedure that she needs was developed as a result of stem cell research? Hell no. Hell no.
It's not a fun way of thinking about it... but it's what it all comes down to in the end.
Then it comes back to the point of when does life begin. I guess my mind cannot grasp that it has...and yet has not...?
ReplyDeleteA spermatoza is "alive" in the sense that it moves around and has some locomotion. It is never by itself going to become a human life, but it's "alive" in the sense that it's a carbon-based set of cells that is not inatimate.
ReplyDeleteIf a married couple has sex and uses a condom, I don't think they're committing murder. They ARE subverting anyone's definition of God's plan for the procreation of the human species, but I don't think they're killing a human being.
And I think that in the same sense that a single sperm is "alive", it's not a human life. It's tissue that could be used as a portion of a potential human life. But it's impossible for me to think that each individual sperm is a human life.
Which doesn't answer the question of when it becomes a human being and ceases to be tissue.
I can't answer that question, and my gut tells me that no one can answer that question.
Your belief about religion and God and whatnot enters heavily into the picture, but looking back at human history, we know that sometimes people's interpretations of scripture have been wrong in the face of science. Five hundred years ago you were a heretic if you believed the earth was round. And I think it's possible that five hundred years from now, things people believe that they think are coming from the Bible will be looked at as misinterpretation of the Bible. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying I think there is the potential for that to be true. I don't think that's even arguable.
We live in a very odd age in that a hundred generations of humanity lived with a completely different technological reality than the one we live in today.
It's an almost impossible question to answer. Maybe even an impossible question to answer.
If you're going to take the Biblical stance that human life begins when an egg is fertalized, what you're saying is that a fertalized egg has an eternal soul. It doesn't make any kind of rational sense to me that a fertalized egg has a soul. Why would there be millions of souls whose destiny was to never be born? I realize I'm not God and that not everything has to make sense to me, but that doesn't stand the test of logic to me.
I think you could make a Christian argument that God knew in advance which human bodies would be born and which ones wouldn't, and that an embryo destined for destruction before it becomes a fetus is a mass of tissue no different than sperm, which if you get right down to it begins life as protein and carbon from some other animal.
Every time a man has sex with a woman, millions of sperm enter the equation, and I can't believe each one of those millions of sperm has a soul. Under any Christian point of view, at some point in time a mass of tissue is imbued with a soul, and I don't know when that time is, except to say that insinctively I think from a Christian perspective it would have to be said that God knew what was going to happen before hand and it's all a part of his plan.
I will admit that at times you are a little over my head, haha, however, while you make somewhat of a case for an embryo NOT being a human life, I just can't even logically go there....First of all, if you go outside of how God intended something to be, then of course you just "begin" to have the dilemmas that we have. God never intended for an egg to be fertilized outside of the woman's body. Man did that. So now we have all these possibilities. But to say that a fertilized egg is not a human life makes no sense to me...A sperm by itself, or an egg by itself is just that.....sperm or an egg....so no I have no problem with birth control whatever method you choose. But to say a fertilized egg is not a human life rather it is in the womb or outside of it, again no different to me...If it isn't anything more than that, why is it any more inside of the woman?? At what point does it actually become a human life?? When it's implanted inside the woman or at some magical stage inside the woman when it turns from just cells to an actual baby as many many people believe?? It makes no more sense to me to believe that an embryo is not a baby than to believe a baby at ANY STAGE of growth inside of a woman is not a baby.....think about it John, at one point it is nothing more than an embryo, and the moment, the very second it is implanted, it turns miraculously into a growing human life. No, all you've really done is put it where God intended for it to be in the first place where it is possible. In my opinion it is just like all of it, you either believe what the Bible actually says, or you don't....I don't think it's unclear, or can be interpreted different ways etc., as to how God sees UNBORN life...so I would have to assume that the unborn life is the same rather it is in the womb or outside of it....I know I don't explain things in the same intelligent type way you do, so I am not even sure you get what I am saying as reading back over this it is kind of jumbled. But, to me, human life has to begin at the moment of conception (rather inside the body or out) because nothing else makes any sense...So if it is safe inside the womb where it belongs and is able to grow to it's completion, or snatched out and tossed aside before it's fully grown, or left inside of a jar or in a freezer, it makes little difference...it is STILL human life.....A sperm is not human life and neither is an egg....unless I am missing something somewhere..
ReplyDeleteOh my gosh Debbie. You may think you said that jumblish..but I think you said it perfectly. IMHO that was right on. It was EXACTLY what I was thinking but don't know that I'd ever have been able to express it so well.
ReplyDeleteWho is to say what God intended? If someone gets sick and doctors cure him of cancer, is that going against what God intended? If someone DIES on the operating table, and the doctors shock his heart back to life after he's been dead for twenty minutes or an hour, did God intend for him to die or did God intend for him to live? Who can answer that? I say no one can.
ReplyDeleteThere are millions of people who were born through in vitro fertilization. If God didn't intend for that to happen, are all those people "accidents" who were never part of God's plan? And if God DID intend for all those millions of people to be born, then you could say God doesn't "like" in vitro fertilization, but because we choose to do it, he chose to work his will through it. That just doesn't fit in my brain.
Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research was legal in the U.S. during the Bush administration: the President had banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding, much of which was being conducted by pharmaceutical mega-corporations.
ReplyDeleteEmbryonic stem cells are essentially master cells, able to morph into all the cell types found in the body. If scientists could learn to control these cells and coax them into becoming specific types on demand, they could grow replacements for damaged tissue. The idea is to use this process -- still theoretical -- to cure or treat a raft of diseases and injuries, from diabetes to Alzheimer's and spinal-cord damage.
The way I see this whole picture is for scientists to learn about the human body, we have to use the human body. We have learned so much by using dead people and people that have been experimented on. But to obtain more knowledge about the human, we need the human, for the most part.
If we start building up knowledge on the foundation of life we could learn so much about us. But then the question comes in where if it’s immoral or not to use embryos to test on. and then it all comes down to your own personal beliefs if you think an embryo is a human life or not, and when I think about it, if you have a sperm on the counter and you have an egg on the counter, and you put them together you start having mitosis were chemical reactions start and the cell starts to duplicate and using those reactions and taking the stem cells can really change the way we do medical science. But do those reactions represent life?
To understand the pros and cons of stem cell research, one must first understand where stem cells come from. There are three main sources for obtaining stem cells - adult cells, cord cells, and embryonic cells. Adult stem cells can be extracted either from bone marrow or from the peripheral system. Bone marrow is a rich source of stem cells. However, some painful destruction of the bone marrow results from this procedure. Peripheral stem cells can be extracted without damage to bones, but the process takes more time. And with health issues, time is often of the essence. Although difficult to extract, since they are taken from the patient's own body, adult stem cells are superior to both umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells. They are plentiful. There is always an exact DNA match so the body's immune system never rejects them, but they can’t be used for every type of human cell like embryonic cells can.
Stem cells are found in limited quantities in every human body, and can be extracted from adult tissue with great effort but without harm. Consensus among researchers has been that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness because they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells found in the human body. However, evidence has recently emerged that adult cells may be more flexible than previously believed.
Embryonic stem cells are blank cells that have not yet been categorized or programmed by the body, and can be prompted to generate any of the 220 human cell types. Embryonic stem cells are extremely flexible.
Stem cells offer much hope for medical advancement because of their ability to grow into almost any kind of cell. For instance, neural cells in the brain and spinal cord that have been damaged can be replaced by stem cells. In the treatment of cancer, cells destroyed by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, whether it be part of the brain, heart, liver, lungs, or wherever. Dead cells of almost any kind, no matter the type of injury or disease, can be replaced with new healthy cells thanks to the amazing flexibility of stem cells.
When Bush vetoed the bill it passed 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Bush's veto.
California Gov. Schwarzenegger wrote to Bush, "Mr. President, I urge you not to make the first veto of your presidency one that turns America backwards on the path of scientific progress and limits the promise of medical miracles for generations to come."
Monday, President Obama issued an executive order reversing former President Bush's restrictions on funding to embryonic stem cell research, pledging that his administration will "make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
Obama has stipulated that human cloning will not be permitted under the new order and included a presidential memorandum requiring the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to restore "scientific integrity to government decision-making."
The way I see it, I agree with the majority of Americans who Obama said, "have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research." As long as we aren't growing new embryos with the intent to cut them apart, we say go forward with new research.
But after reading a lot, I still haven’t come to the conclusion or not if we can use the current stem cells that we have obtained and be good and be able to just use those stem cells to create more stem cells forever without ever needing to get any more embryo’s. I’m sure you can help answer that one Chuck.
and if your curious about the rest of the worlds decisions when it comes to stem cells, check out this link.
ReplyDeletehttp://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=318
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=318
This is in response to John's comment...Yes, again I do believe we have gone outside of God's "plan" on how to bring life into this world. However, that does not mean I am against all things medical such as surgery, medications etc...I also believe if someone has had his heart shaken back to life by a doc. etc., then I believe God allowed that to happen. He used the doc's hands and knowledge to save this man. If it was God's intented time for this man to die, he would have... (as they many times do no matter what the doc does)I don't believe God intends for one man to murder another either, but that happens every day as well. He allows that to happen, but now of course we are getting into free will and that whole kettle of fish. As for all the babies who have been born from in vitro fertilization, of course God loves all these people as He loves everyone else. But I do believe He allowed these pregnacies to take, these children to be born, because it was His will to do so. Look at how many others did not take and produce a child....thousands...for reasons we may never know, but He does....but once again, while all valid points and thought provoking etc., nothing said has yet to convince me that these embryos however they were conceived do not represent human life....and no matter what the end result (which do sound truly unbelievably good) still does not seem right to me... And I guess so much of it is unproven anyway and speculation...and who knows what the end result of the whole thing could be even if it did start out good...like I said a while ago, it all depends on how you look at it....either you believe an embryo is a human life or you don't...and it is therefore so going to affect how you see what ends up happening there is really no getting around it. We obviously see it differently..
ReplyDeleteAnt, there were a total of 15 lines that Bush said could be used for research. That's not many.
ReplyDeleteAnd keep in mind, it's not illegal to use any stem cells you want, you just couldn't get federal funds before.
That is what I thought.... that what we are talking about is using federal funds to do what can be done anyway. Has any one working on stem cells come up with anything staggering or why are we using our money to fund this?
ReplyDeleteThey can cure Parkinsons in mice with stem cell therapy. Sort of. The potential is through the roof.
ReplyDelete