Stem-Cell Research

SLNT_FIR

SLNT_FIR

New Member
I was wondering, why is stem cell research morally wrong? I mean from Christian standpoint. I haven't done ANY research or anything... I was just curious. I don't know much about it.
 
so.... no?
rock.gif
 
It is wrong if a life is taken to obtain the stem cells (embryonic). If the stem cells originate from umbilical cord blood, no life is destroyed in the process.
 
Some people deam it immoral because it deals with basically destroying a human embryo, which can potentially be developed into a human being, to do research. But what many do not know is that there are lots of embryos in storage at abortion clinics and such places that are just going to be thrown away anyways. Why not use it to do research and potentially cure some highly troublesome diseases like diabetes and parkinsons?
 
Why would I want to support an industry that I am completely against? There should not be any babies there to use for research.

Cord blood provides that same thing without any loss of life
 
Opinion:

From a Christian stand point, life begins with God, before the womb.  Psalms 139.  To take a life from that womb is tataumont(sp) to murder.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Dec. 02 2004,10:38)]Some people deam it immoral because it deals with basically destroying a human embryo, which can potentially be developed into a human being, to do research.  But what many do not know is that there are lots of embryos in storage at abortion clinics and such places that are just going to be thrown away anyways.  Why not use it to do research and potentially cure some highly troublesome diseases like diabetes and parkinsons?
Click to expand...
what is this potentially develop into a human being?

Is it not a human being already? Are not the DNA within the egg the DNA of a human?

Or does the DNA suddenly change in the third month?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Genesis1315 @ Dec. 03 2004,4:45)]Why would I want to support an industry that I am completely against?  There should not be any babies there to use for research.

Cord blood provides that same thing without any loss of life
Click to expand...
I agree, I would prefer cord blood to be used than fluids left over from abortion clinics, I was just stating another alternative.

But I don't think you should look at abortion clinic stem cells as supporting abortion--the two issues are not synonymous. The fact of the matter is that there are many stem cells in storage just waiting to be either used for research or thrown away. Using them does not promote abortion, nor does harms no life.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Dec. 03 2004,2:26)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Dec. 02 2004,10:38)]Some people deam it immoral because it deals with basically destroying a human embryo, which can potentially be developed into a human being, to do research.  But what many do not know is that there are lots of embryos in storage at abortion clinics and such places that are just going to be thrown away anyways.  Why not use it to do research and potentially cure some highly troublesome diseases like diabetes and parkinsons?
Click to expand...
what is this potentially develop into a human being?

Is it not a human being already?  Are not the DNA within the egg the DNA of a human?

Or does the DNA suddenly change in the third month?
Click to expand...
Eh, the 'point' at which a human truely can be considered a human is highly ambiguous. I do not deam the fertilized egg to be human, as it is not alive, and possess no cognitive ability. You may believe that human life begins at conception, I do not. But even if I did, stem cell research can be done, as Genesis pointed out, with umbilical cord blood. So what's the problem?
 
I have no problem with umbilcal stem cell research.

My question was directly pointed towards your comments about a human not being a human at a certain point in that person's life cycle. Since cognitive abilities do not make/break the case for humanity (since it can still be construed as murder for certain people to remove the 'brain dead' from life support) and since the ability to respire/breath/whatever on the humans own does not break/make the case for humanity (again, it's murder to remove life support for those who require it in most cases).

As well a fertilized egg is alive. It requires a living egg and a living sperm to create the zygote.

So please define human here. Remember, cognitive ability and the ability to breath/move on its own is not a definitive characteristic of humanity. Especially since we have cases where adult humans fail to meet those requirements, and destroying their life can be construed as murder.

The only definition that I can truly come up with for human that meets all requirements is: All the cells which contain and use matching human-based DNA
 
One must wonder about the true "ethics" of one who would forfeit the life of one already living in lieu of something with only the potential for life.
 
In my mind, the defining characteristic of humanity is our intelligence. There is also, of course, our ability to form ethical systems, but that requires our high level of cognitive ability. A human embryo possess no cognitive ability whatsoever, thus I classify it as a human embryo and not a human. I do not categorize a brain dead human as inhuman, because it once could perform cognition, whereas an embryo never could.

Now of course this does not mean I believe it is ethically sound to abort unborn humans. I do lean slightly towards pro abortion, but I am still largely torn on the issue. But what we are talking about here are embryos that are going to be destroyed, regardless of whether it is for positive or neutral purposes. Thus, I do not equate these two issues are morally equal.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In my mind, the defining characteristic of humanity is our intelligence. There is also, of course, our ability to form ethical systems, but that requires our high level of cognitive ability.
Click to expand...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ] I do not categorize a brain dead human as inhuman, because it once could perform cognition, whereas an embryo never could.
Click to expand...

And the difference between a human that can no longer do these things and one that has not yet done these things is what? Neither, by your definition is currently able to do these things. You are giving browny points to those who have had a chance at life and taking them away from those that have not yet the opportunity.
 
The embryos in question won't get the oppotunity regardless of whether they are researched on or not. You are stearing towards abortion, and I'd rather not go there.
 
WHOA! Last time meesa looked here it was 3 posts... now it's 17! :eek: anyway, so using blood from umbilical cord is good, and taking it from an ACTUAL fertilized cell, is not good. right? (not really talking to Mr. Bill, or timor...)
 
rock.gif
How is taking it from the umbilical cord create ANY sort of health related issue? I don't understand what you are trying to say...
rock.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Dec. 03 2004,7:52)]I think you should decide that for yourself Silent. It's a tricky issue.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

He won't, though. It's quite apparent that, rather than deciding what he believes, he will believe what he's told he's "supposed" to believe.

sad.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top