Religious Stance on Stem Cell Research

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This might seem like semantics, but to me it's an important distinction. They're not fetuses. A fetus is what an embryo is called after 11 weeks of gestation. An embryo is what a blastocyst eventually becomes after 3 weeks of gestation. The difference is important--all you need to do is see what these various phases look like to see the difference.

A blastocyst can, if implanted in a uterus, become an embryo, then a fetus, then a human being. But its own metaphysical status has to be measured in the present. It does not eat. It does not excrete. It does not have functionally differentiated domains. It cannot reproduce. It is not conscious. It is in a very real sense not yet alive.

Moreover, not all blastocysts DO have the possibility of becoming alive. It's thought that a shockingly large percentage of them fail due to chromosomal abnormalities.

Right, sorry, I knew that.

But, one can say that a blastocyst will become an embryo, a fetus and then a human being. It's just an earlier stage.

I know that regardless of how long a blastocyst, embryo or fetus is in a woman - 2 days, 2 months... she is still pregnant. But prior to the embryo stage, a woman can have her uterus scraped to terminate the pregnancy. So, does that make it any different?

[RougeUnderoos]

This is what a blastocyst looks like.

"Fetus" and "abortion" and all that don't have anything to do with it, as far as I can tell.

[Cube Inmate]

There's no way to solve the battle of ethics/morals/religion through rational argument when the views of one side are based in emotion and irrationality.

The only way to get anywhere is to just do it, no matter the arguments against, and see what the nay-sayers have to say when someone offers up a cure for Grandma's Alzheimer disease in 10 years. "Well...we could cure her, but a lot of blastocysts died for this cure, so I wouldn't feel comfortable."

[Red Mile Style]

So, when exactly does a human being become a human being then?

My first inclination would be as soon as a woman becomes pregnant. Of corse a blastocyst is small - humans start by a single egg and sperm which is microscopic small. The terms "fetus" and "abortion" obviously pertain to a later stage in the pregnancy, but it's the same thing, only at an earlier stage.

My friend went on holidays and forgot to bring her birth control pill, she came back and her and her boyfriend made whoopie. She went to the doctor a few days later and the doctor told her that if she was late, the doctor could scrape her uterus right there in the office (no abortion clinic) and she would no longer be pregnant.

I guess I am so touchy with the whole situation because my parents had me when they were pretty young - high school young, and they could have easily had an abortion and had a "normal" life like everyone else. I just can not endorse the termination of any kind of grouping of cells that can one day become a human being, because we're talking about lives here, that never got the chance to even be born. While, at least these cells are furthering human advancements so in the end it could be helping other people's lives, I still can not be supporting a death sentence.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

But, one can say that a blastocyst will become an embryo, a fetus and then a human being. It's just an earlier stage.

Take that a step further and one can say that sperm can become a human being, it's just at an earlier stage.

You could then say that I killed billions of potential people when that Pam and Tommy tape first came out.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So, when exactly does a human being become a human being then?

My first inclination would be as soon as a woman becomes pregnant.

That thing in the picture isn't inside anybody. Nobody is pregnant. It's probably on a slide in a laboratory.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Take that a step further and one can say that sperm can become a human being, it's just at an earlier stage.

You could then say that I killed billions of potential people when that Pam and Tommy tape first came out.

Nope, personally I think a human life begins when a woman becomes pregnant. I mean, a woman has an egg every month, and I wouldn't think that if she didn't get pregnant every single month that she is killing a human being. I am not against contraceptives, I think preventative measures are fine, but once the seed has been planted - it's all over baby blue.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So, when exactly does a human being become a human being then?

...

I guess I am so touchy with the whole situation because my parents had me when they were pretty young - high school young, and they could have easily had an abortion and had a "normal" life like everyone else. I just can not endorse the termination of any kind of grouping of cells that can one day become a human being, because we're talking about lives here, that never got the chance to even be born. While, at least these cells are furthering human advancements so in the end it could be helping other people's lives, I still can not be supporting a death sentence.

It's nice to see that you realize one of the reasons you're so touchy about the topic. As for all those "people" who have been "sentenced to death" in the doctor's office, how do you think they feel? Oh, that's right! They don't feel anything!

You can be thankful that you were allowed to develop, but all you're doing is extending your own fear of dying to an entity (I use the term loosely) that never lived...that never had a thought, feeling, or even a useful purpose, beyond donating cells to potentially save real lives.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Nope, personally I think a human life begins when a woman becomes pregnant. I mean, a woman has an egg every month, and I wouldn't think that if she didn't get pregnant every single month that she is killing a human being. I am not against contraceptives, I think preventative measures are fine, but once the seed has been planted - it's all over baby blue.

If that's so, then you should have no problem with harvesting embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst created in a laboratory. It's a process that in no way involves anyone ever being pregnant.

[@theCBE]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Nope, personally I think a human life begins when a woman becomes pregnant. I mean, a woman has an egg every month, and I wouldn't think that if she didn't get pregnant every single month that she is killing a human being. I am not against contraceptives, I think preventative measures are fine, but once the seed has been planted - it's all over baby blue.

When do you think a woman becomes pregnant? It is when the sperm fertalizes the egg? Or do you think its when that fertalized egg is actually implanted into the uterine wall? If a woman has her egg fertilized but menstrates before it has a chance to implant into the uterus and produce enough hormones to prevent her, period would you consider that a miscarriage? or would you consider that just not getting pregnant? Can it be consdiered a misscarriage if its even to early to tell if your pregnant?

A blastocyst is the point of cell growth right before implantation into the uterus, you can't even tell your pregnant with a home pregnancy test until after the cell is implanted in wall and produces protiens that a test recognizes as a woman being pregnant.

I personally wouldn't even consider a woman pregnant until implantation has occured.

[Cheese]

Good comments...

Comment by Richard Dawkins...

It is possible to justify civilian casualties of war, if you can make a good ‘lesser of two evils’ case. In Donald Rumsfeld’s charming phraseology, ‘stuff happens’: civilian deaths are ‘collateral damage.’ In this article, I shall compare two kinds of collateral damage – civilians as casualties of war, and embryos as casualties of stem cell research – demonstrating the hypocrisy of those who happily condone the first while vetoing the second. It is worse than hypocrisy, because of the grotesque inequality in suffering caused by the two cases.

and this should be enough...

It's one thing to read about the wonders of stem cells, but it's another thing entirely to see a movie that demonstrates their power.Video
shows two mice, each with a spinal cord injury. The first mouse was untreated, and drags its feet around pathetically. The second mouse was given stem cell treatment and miraculously hops around. Amazing stuff, and this is just the beginning.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

It's nice to see that you realize one of the reasons you're so touchy about the topic. As for all those "people" who have been "sentenced to death" in the doctor's office, how do you think they feel? Oh, that's right! They don't feel anything!

You can be thankful that you were allowed to develop, but all you're doing is extending your own fear of dying to an entity (I use the term loosely) that never lived...that never had a thought, feeling, or even a useful purpose, beyond donating cells to potentially save real lives.

Well, your empathy towards my feelings toward this topic is very respectful...

Of corse those people can't feel anything, and that in itself is sad. That's too bad they never got to see a Flames game, kiss a boy/girl, swim in the ocean... breathe. The fact that they never had that chance to think, feel or serve a purpose is the problem here... not the reason.

I am thankful that my parents choose to let me live, I think about that a lot. But by discluding my opinion based on my emotional overhaul and fear of dying for an "entity" is weak, to say the least. It sounds like you're the one who's debating based on emotion, to me.

Who's to say that "entity" won't grow up and cure cancer? There's the potential to save lives lost.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Who's to say that "entity" won't grow up and cure cancer? There's the potential to save lives lost.

So by that logic, we should all try and produce as much possible offspring so the chance of somebody growing up and curing cancer is more likely?

That seems like a bad argument.

These collections of cells are not humans, they are not fetuses, they have as much potential for becoming humans as any cell in our body with a nucleus given advacements in technology. Especially seeing as how they are sitting in petri dishes.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If that's so, then you should have no problem with harvesting embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst created in a laboratory. It's a process that in no way involves anyone ever being pregnant.

Well, that's part of the problem. Creating "entities" to use in science experiments depreciates human life and existance, in my opinion. What are the moral repercussions of this? Humans start thinking "well, it's no different than what scientists are doing" or women not treating the potential human-being as such and doing harmful activities. The first trimester is the most influential (developmental-wise) in a baby's development.

It's like in the animatrix when they harvest energy from humans... sketchy, very sketchy.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by @theCBE

When do you think a woman becomes pregnant? It is when the sperm fertalizes the egg? Or do you think its when that fertalized egg is actually implanted into the uterine wall? If a woman has her egg fertilized but menstrates before it has a chance to implant into the uterus and produce enough hormones to prevent her, period would you consider that a miscarriage? or would you consider that just not getting pregnant? Can it be consdiered a misscarriage if its even to early to tell if your pregnant?

A blastocyst is the point of cell growth right before implantation into the uterus, you can't even tell your pregnant with a home pregnancy test until after the cell is implanted in wall and produces protiens that a test recognizes as a woman being pregnant.

I personally wouldn't even consider a woman pregnant until implantation has occured.

Honestly, I've never really thought about it all this in-depth.

Interesting...

I'll think about it, and get back to you.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Humans start thinking "well, it's no different than what scientists are doing" or women not treating the potential human-being as such and doing harmful activities. The first trimester is the most influential (developmental-wise) in a baby's development.

Abortion and stem cell research are not the same issues.

These are a sphere of 150 cells, these are not humans.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

So by that logic, we should all try and produce as much possible offspring so the chance of somebody growing up and curing cancer is more likely?

That seems like a bad argument.

These collections of cells are not humans, they are not fetuses, they have as much potential for becoming humans as any cell in our body with a nucleus given advacements in technology. Especially seeing as how they are sitting in petri dishes.

Wow, that's a pretty big leap! Considering two posts ago I said I wasn't against contraceptives - actually, I am very, very pro-contraceptives

I'm just saying, you're forgetting about the potential these aborted fetuses/disguarded cells have if they are allowed to life.

As for these cells having as much potential for becoming humans as any cell in our body - that's because all our bodies started out that way. I don't think taking our cells and creating a life in a petri-dish just to perform experiments on it is right, for reasons I've already stated. REGARDLESS of how easy or accessible it may be. So, just by your rationale, since we have the technology to do it, we should? Heck, we have the technology to nuke the entire planet seven times over, I suppose not utilizing them is stupid?

Pretty big leap... huh?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Abortion and stem cell research are not the same issues.

These are a sphere of 150 cells, these are not humans.

That is your opinion, that is not the opinion held by myself. To me, while they are two seperate issues, they are very closely related. My rationale for both is the same - you're messing with people's lives, ultimately.

All humans start out as a sphere of 150 cells. It's the very beginning of life.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So, just by your rationale, since we have the technology to do it, we should? Heck, we have the technology to nuke the entire planet seven times over, I suppose not utilizing them is stupid?

Pretty big leap... huh?

You mean utilizing a technology that can quite likely cure tens of millions of people of ailments and diseases right NOW, not to mention the countless number of people in the future who would suffer from such problems?

Did you honestly just make that connection?

Comparing an incredible biological field that can save millions from suffering to nuking the planet seven times over is downright offensive and ignorant.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

All humans start out as a sphere of 150 cells. It's the very beginning of life.

All humans start out as a single sperm and egg too, so does that mean that menstruation or masturbation is a microscopic holocaust of potential human beings?