Religious Stance on Stem Cell Research

[AC]

I really don’t have much of a reason for this thread other than ranting, but I presume others will have a viewpoint on the matter.

In my opinion, there really is nothing stranger and more selfish right now in the medical community than the obscene reasons used by the 'Religious community' (obviously speaking in the general broad understanding of the objection) to justify the halt of stem cell research

Without a doubt, stem cell research is one of the most promising lines of research in medicine today to generate medical therapies, cures and advancements.

There are a huge number of conditions and diseases that could very well be cured, or at least have advancements made one of these days by stem cell research.

And yet, this ground breaking, immensely important field of research is facing the risk of being terminated because of illogical and essentially selfish religious reasons.

Basically, the religious fear is that in order to proceed with stem cell research, we have to kill human embryos. These embryos are killed at a 3-5 day old stage.

But really, what exactly is a 3-5 day old embryo?



To summarize an example made by the author Sam Harris;

"Well its a collection of 150 cells. Not organized into a nervous system, there’s no brain, its a sphere of cells.

Maybe 150 cells sounds like a lot of cells.

Well there are 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.

If we know anything at all about the relationship between physical complexity and the possibility of having an experience, and the possibility of having interests, we know that more suffering is visited upon this earth every time we swat a fly than when we kill a 3 day old embryo."



And yet this seemingly obvious ethical argument simply cannot be made because of the special treatment we have as a society for religious faith. We are not allowed to question religious beliefs, because they are personal, and its an offense to do so.

But frankly, the stance that in a petri dish, we could have a small bundle of cells with a 'soul', which is able to trump the suffering of literally tens of millions of people is downright ignorant, selfish, and a very scary problem in my opinion.

When you consider it, we have on one side, this collection of 150 cells, and on the other, we have say; children suffering from diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancers, paralysis, full body burns, Parkinson’s disease.

Millions of people are suffering these horrible torments which could one day be curable thanks to this research.

It really just boggles my mind that anyone can oppose the life-saving possibilities that stem cell research offers.

Its the same stream of down right offensively intolerant views that allow a religious community to claim that 3rd world countries, African populations which lose millions to AIDS should not be able to use a condom, as it is an affront to god. This stance, is downright genocidal.

But this is another topic altogether.

I'm not sure what I hoped to accomplish with this thread... but I just had to rant.

I'd be very interested in hearing what others have to say on this matter.

[SpitFire40]

I don't have much to add, but anything that halts progress on curing disease is just mindblowingly stupid.

Want Pro-life? How about a kid that get's paralyzed playing hockey, and knowing that stems cells can help him, but a stupid (For the lack of a better word) group of people with some ideological reason to not make use of stem cells because it's "wrong" is a load of BS.

Time to look to the future.

[icarus]

Well there are other religious concerns, such as the ethics surrounding human cloning and organ harvesting. But yes, I agree, for the most part the religious zealots who oppose stem cell research are too closed-minded.

[Flames_Gimp]

yup...****es me off...not like i'm waiting for a cure or anything....

[AC]

In my opinion, its really the same situation in regards to the progress of science when opposed by religion.

We've seen it numerous times throughout history.

Some revolutionary new thought or advancement occurs, and the religious community opposes it to horrible lengths because it goes against their beliefs.

We've seen this with almost every basic medical procedure, be it transplants, blood transfusions, autopsies, what have you.

We've seen it with Copernicus' heliocentric universal understanding. The 'church' opposed this new thought, saying it was contradictory to god's will and common sense.

This opposition continues until the point where it really cannot logically be denied anymore and then a sudden reversal of stance occurs and the religious community accepts it as evidence of god's will and his love for mankind.

The religious community has been so against advancements in the past, we've seen persecutions in the name of defending god's word against new thinkers. Galileo was locked in a tower for his revolutionary concepts.

In my opinion, it really is the same situation as it has been throughout history.

The religious community will continue to be openly against stem cell research, up until the moment that through it, we have cures for such diseases as mentioned above. At that point, they will flip, and accept it as proof of god's love.

I know religion is a touchy subject. But why should it be? If somebody were to claim an outlandish stance on physics, or chemistry or what not, are we not entitled as free thinkers, and logical people to question their beliefs?

But when it comes to the protective veil of religion, its off guards?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by icarus

Well there are other religious concerns, such as the ethics surrounding human cloning and organ harvesting. But yes, I agree, for the most part the religious zealots who oppose stem cell research are too closed-minded.

I must admit that I'm pretty out of touch on this whole issue. What is the deal with the human cloning worries? I don't really get that part.

The craziest thing about all this is that it seems some of the anti-research types prefer a lot of embryos be thrown in the garbage or incinerated as opposed to being used for something that can only be considered a "pro-life" cause.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

But when it comes to the protective veil of religion, its off guards?

Off limits where and from whom? Certainly not on this board, or anywhere else on the Internet for that matter. Neither in books, nor tv, nor movies. I definitely don't agree with the claim that religion is subject to any less scrutiny than science. Perhaps it is the fact that only about 11% of the world's population is atheist that it seems to some that religion doesn't get criticised enough.

[AC]

Originally Posted by icarus

Off limits where and from whom? Certainly not on this board, or anywhere else on the Internet for that matter. Neither in books, nor tv, nor movies. I definitely don't agree with the claim that religion is subject to any less scrutiny than science. Perhaps it is the fact that only about 11% of the world's population is atheist that it seems to some that religion doesn't get criticised enough.

Perhaps not so much that religion is off guard, but that religion is the ultimate trump card. Specifically in regards to government and legal treatment.

[ikaris]

Religious concerns? Frankly, who gives a flying ****. If this sort of research can help cure cancer and disease, anyone with any sort of intelligence should support it.

[SpitFire40]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Perhaps not so much that religion is off guard, but that religion is the ultimate trump card. Specifically in regards to government and legal treatment.

Good post AC, this is exactly the problem. People can believe in what they wish but combine that with people in positions of power, and religion is DEFINETLY a problem.

[Superfraggle]

Well I actually agree with what's already been posted, but to play devil's advocate...if you truly believe that this is murder and is against God's will, it's not so much selfishness as a matter of faith. God is seen as the highest authority, and it is His will, not ours which makes that decision.

Personally, I'm not particularly religious and I'm all for stem cell research. But faith is a tricky thing to argue with. You either believe or you don't. There's not much middle ground.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I must admit that I'm pretty out of touch on this whole issue. What is the deal with the human cloning worries? I don't really get that part.

The concerns about human cloning are varied. Would they be entitled to the same human rights as we do? What about eugenics... selecting the traits you want, from hair and eye colour to resistance to disease to intelligence to physical performance? What about family relationships... what if parents choose to clone younger copies of themselves as their children (and then the children grow up and become attracted to each other or their parents)? There are also concerns about the health of human clones... mammalian clones have proven to die prematurely as compared with wild types.

Just a few ethical questions to mull over as regards human cloning. My personal take is that it is going to happen eventually somewhere in the world, whether legally or otherwise (imagine that the atomic bomb was developed during peacetime and everyone agreed not to use it, even for testing... you would have to be pretty daft to think no one would test it at some point). So it is just a matter of figuring out some sort of internationally-recognised regulations and how they can be enforced. It is going to happen sooner or later, so we had better be ready for it.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Perhaps not so much that religion is off guard, but that religion is the ultimate trump card. Specifically in regards to government and legal treatment.

I see what you are driving at, but can you think of a specific example that causes you pain? An instance where science and religion are treated unequally as far as government and legal treatment is concerned? Let's extrapolate this discussion from the general to the specific.

[SpitFire40]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Well I actually agree with what's already been posted, but to play devil's advocate...if you truly believe that this is murder and is against God's will, it's not so much selfishness as a matter of faith. God is seen as the highest authority, and it is His will, not ours which makes that decision.

Personally, I'm not particularly religious and I'm all for stem cell research. But faith is a tricky thing to argue with. You either believe or you don't. There's not much middle ground.

Sure there is... spirituality is the middle ground. I consider myself pretty spiritual but the furthest from religious, religion is picking one side and believing in a certain set of beliefs and practicing that. Being spiritual to me is believing in the earth, nature, SCIENCE, and people in general.

Now, where religion conflicts with this is the religious believie these embryos have their own spirit, and are considered beings. I don't think so, you develop a your spirit as you live life. There's no chance for these embryos to do such a thing, so why not make use of them to improve, and save other people's lives??

[FireFly]

Those of you concerned with the affects of human cloning should read Jose Saramago's The Double. Absolutely fascinating novel.

[AC]

Well tax exempt status for certain religious communities for one.

Here's a very specific example, as brought up by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion - some parts are paraphrased, most are take directly though.

On 21 February 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody has to obey, against the taking of hallucionogenic drugs.

The drug in question was dimethyltryptamine in the form of a tea they drank. They believe that they can understand God by doing so. They don't have to produce evidence, simply saying thing believed it was sufficient enough. Yet, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing chemotherapy. Yet the Supreme Court ruled in 2005, that all patients who use cannabis for medicinal purposes are vulnerable to federal prosecution (even in the minority of states where such specialist use is legalized).

Another example:
In 2005, a twelve year old in Ohio won the right in court to wear a t-shirt to school saying: "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!". The school told him not to wear the shirt, the parents sued the school and won.

The parents might have had a conscionable case if they based their argument on the First Amendment's guarantee freedom of speech. But free speech is deemed not to include 'hate speech'. But hate only has to prove it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate. So they appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by icarus

The concerns about human cloning are varied. Would they be entitled to the same human rights as we do? What about eugenics... selecting the traits you want, from hair and eye colour to resistance to disease to intelligence to physical performance? What about family relationships... what if parents choose to clone younger copies of themselves as their children (and then the children grow up and become attracted to each other or their parents)? There are also concerns about the health of human clones... mammalian clones have proven to die prematurely as compared with wild types.

Sorry but that's not really what I meant. I'm just not well-versed in the science of all this to know what role stem-cells (as specific cells in particular) play in cloning. If you are going to clone something do you have to have stem cells? It's such a basic question that I'm almost embarassed to ask it.

We heard of cloning, and that damn sheep, long before this stem-cell research flap came up but when it became a big issue (most notably at the DNC a couple years ago) it seems to me that the cloning argument came up.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Perhaps not so much that religion is off guard, but that religion is the ultimate trump card. Specifically in regards to government and legal treatment.

While I agree with your thoughts, I would like to add that this political sheild for religion that you refer to probably stems from historical events.

When you have a political party (let's call them Nazis) that actively and willingly launch a campaign to exterminate another race based on their religion (let's call them Jews)... I think it proves that there is a very good reason why governments concern themselves so greatly with protecting religious thought.

In this case, freedom of religion has once again countered scientific discovery and (IMO) human advancement.

But you know as well as I do, that the second any government or judicial body agrees to go along with such a religiously radical breakthrough, there will be a lot of lobbying, and a lot of outcry. I don't think that is right, but I just think that the government is a lot more timid to cross paths with a religious group and appear RACIST, as oppose to a group of scientists and appear CONSERVATIVE.

[yyc]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

When you consider it, we have on one side, this collection of 150 cells, and on the other, we have say; children suffering from diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancers, paralysis, full body burns, Parkinson’s disease.
.

But on the other hand if 150 cells can be thrown away for the greater good of humanity, when does the cell count stop at which we stop and say this is unethical? Are my medical problems bad enough that i ask that a metally challenged person be cut apart since me and countless others suffer? No? But its only 1 person {maybe a few trillion cells} that could save countless lives. After all, if you dont believe in God,arent we all just soulless bags of meat?

supports stem cell research, stirring the pot.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

When you have a political party (let's call them Nazis) that actively and willingly launch a campaign to exterminate another race based on their religion (let's call them Jews)... I think it proves that there is a very good reason why governments concern themselves so greatly with protecting religious thought.

This may be a silly question, but was it so much religious motivation as racial?
I mean there were as many Polish people killed at the hands of the Nazis are Jews.

I completley understand your point, but I'm not sure whether the fact that the racial group is also religious is a coincidence or the motivating factor. But the fact that Poles were persecuted too, possibly negates the religious motivation, no?