Religious Stance on Stem Cell Research

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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

They are not aborted fetuses so you should probaby stop referring to them as such. I don't know if you are intentionally trying to skew the argument by using this dramatic language or not, but you are wrong to call them aborted fetuses.

They are not harvested from a womb, a baby, a fetus or anything else. They are cells in a laboratory. They will go into the garbage if they are not used for stem cell research.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

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?

That's pure speculation. I'm sure that stem-cell research could provide some useful tools, but at what cost?

I would not be against stem-cell research if, let's say, aborted babies were used, but harvesting cells to use in experiments doesn't sit right with me.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

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?

He's only 18 folks.

And you're absolutly right.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

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?

Take a chill-pill and count to ten.

Read the number of posts where I said life begins when a woman is pregnant.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Take a chill-pill and count to ten.

Read the number of posts where I said life begins when a woman is pregnant.

If life begins with when a woman is pregnant, then how is using a collection of 150 cells tampering with life?!

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

They are not aborted fetuses so you should probaby stop referring to them as such. I don't know if you are intentionally trying to skew the argument by using this dramatic language or not, but you are wrong to call them aborted fetuses.

They are not harvested from a womb, a baby, a fetus or anything else. They are cells in a laboratory. They will go into the garbage if they are not used for stem cell research.

So, what is seperating them from being an aborted fetus? Time? The way they were created?

So, you would feel better testing on a 7 year old child than a 13 year old child?

Or since they were created in a test-tube, they are lesser of a human? So, maybe you should tell that to the millions of people that rely/relied in artificial insemination to have a child, I'm sure they feel diferently.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

If life begins with when a woman is pregnant, then how is using a collection of 150 cells tampering with life?!

So, I guess human beings start as a sperm and an egg and miraculously become a human baby without any development in the middle?

How is the time in development relevant? If you do not think that 150 cells (which is 75 more times the amount of cells when a baby is first created) is life, then when is it?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

He's only 18 folks.

And you're absolutly right.

Yeah, but he's only a collection of 18 years.
If he was more, he'ld be considered more human...

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

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.

It is no more "sad" than the fact that a ROCK will never swim, see a Flames game, or kiss a girl. You have empathy for what these cells *might* become, not for what they are. I don't know if you fit in this category, but it scares me that some people have more concern for the potential of a glob of cells than for the dead chickens they eat and the cows they wear.

I have empathy for things that suffer. On the other hand, I don't waste my time crying about the little genius that *could* have been born, if only that poor fertility-challenged couple had chosen to implant a different blastocyst. And I don't see any difference between that and intentionally creating these things for scientific research. In fact, it's a bloody miracle that humans have become smart enough to do these things.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Yeah, but he's only a collection of 18 years.
If he was more, he'ld be considered more human...

Are you serious?

You said it yourself that life begins at pregnancy. A blastocyst, a glob of cells, is not life by your definition.

They may have the potential to become life, but that doesn't mean THEY ARE life. A sperm has the potential to develop into a human life, an egg does too. Menstruation releases eggs regularily that wont get fertilized, must we save these eggs? What about every sperm ever ejaculated? Surely as they have the potentialy to develop into a human, we must save them and ensure they do so!

Stick to an argument.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So, what is seperating them from being an aborted fetus? Time? The way they were created?

So, you would feel better testing on a 7 year old child than a 13 year old child?

Or since they were created in a test-tube, they are lesser of a human? So, maybe you should tell that to the millions of people that rely/relied in artificial insemination to have a child, I'm sure they feel diferently.

Are you going to volunteer to have one of them implanted in you? If you feel so strongly about this I must assume the answer is yes. That is the only way to "save" them after all.

You don't seem to be getting this. These bundles of cells are not going to become human beings unless they are implanted into a woman. They will go into the garbage or stay in a freezer forever. Is that straightforward enough for you?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

It is no more "sad" than the fact that a ROCK will never swim, see a Flames game, or kiss a girl. You have empathy for what these cells *might* become, not for what they are. I don't know if you fit in this category, but it scares me that some people have more concern for the potential of a glob of cells than for the dead chickens they eat and the cows they wear.

I have empathy for things that suffer. On the other hand, I don't waste my time crying about the little genius that *could* have been born, if only that poor fertility-challenged couple had chosen to implant a different blastocyst. And I don't see any difference between that and intentionally creating these things for scientific research. In fact, it's a bloody miracle that humans have become smart enough to do these things.

Well, I guess that's where we differ: you compare a "glob of cells" that if harvested correctly will become a full-human-being to a rock. I, personally, can not do that. Good for you.

I am a vegetarian, so your argument doesn't work there...

As well, if you can't see the difference between insemination and creating a blastocyst for scientific research, I guess that's another place where we differ.

It is a bloody miracle what humans can do through science. But, what if these people's parents didn't consider them, at 150 cells, to be worth it, and got rid of them? I am all in favour of modern medicine, myself and others close to me have relied on scientific breakthroughs to survive and better our lives. But when science risks my morals, that's when I have to be against it.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

But when science risks my morals, that's when I have to be against it.

You clearly don't understand the issue here.

Usually, stem cells come from blastocysts that are left over after couples go through in vitro fertilization processes.

Eggs are harvested, then fertilized by sperm in a dish in the clinic.

The eggs that are successfully fertilized divide for 3-5 days, forming the tiny sphere of 150 or so cells called blastocysts.

When ready, a few of these are implanted in the womb.

After the couple has conceived, they decide what to do with the left over blastocysts. Some pay to keep their remaining blastocysts frozen, but most left over blastocysts are simply discarded! These discarded blastocysts, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, could be used to derive stem cells.

And those are just the embryonic stem cells.

There are adult and umbilical cord stem cells too.

It really is quite simple. Opposing stem cell research is selfish, ignorant, and so asinine, its offensive.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Are you serious?.

Yes... I'm absolutely serious... I do not consider you a human...

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

You said it yourself that life begins at pregnancy. A blastocyst, a glob of cells, is not life by your definition..

Please quote me where I said a blastocyst, a glob of cells is not life by my definition. Oh wait, I didn't...

So, since we are putting words in each other's mouths... I don't have any idea why you think Edmonton is better than Calgary or why you got a tatoo of the name "Roloson" and a heart around it...

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

They may have the potential to become life, but that doesn't mean THEY ARE life. A sperm has the potential to develop into a human life, an egg does too. Menstruation releases eggs regularily that wont get fertilized, must we save these eggs? What about every sperm ever ejaculated? Surely as they have the potentialy to develop into a human, we must save them and ensure they do so!.

This is the fifth time I've said this: I believe human life begins once a woman becomes pregnant. Okay?

Once a woman becomes pregnant.

That's not before or after, but once a woman gets pregnant.

Just so the people in the back hear, that's when a woman is pregnant.

If those 150 cells were in a woman's uterus, then, obviously, she would be pregnant. I, personally, and I believe that there are others that feel differently, believe that once an entity grows 75 times as when first created, that is life, and has the potential to become a full-sized human being. I am still waiting for your exact moment that a life becomes a life, because apparently a sperm and an egg meet, and then nothing happens until after a baby is born... at exactly what period in development does life start, in your opinion?

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Stick to an argument.

Chill out. You're not going to make my opinion change whatsoever, and I expect the same from you. If you want to have a mature conversation about this, I suggest you keep the personal out of it. Take a breath and calm down.

[Cube Inmate]

Well there you have it RMS... your morals are your morals. That's clearly not something that can be changed by debate, so we're done here. We'll let the previous posts speak for themselves for any other interested readers.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Please quote me where I said a blastocyst, a glob of cells is not life by my definition. Oh wait, I didn't...

RIGHT HERE:

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

This is the fifth time I've said this: I believe human life begins once a woman becomes pregnant. Okay?

Once a woman becomes pregnant.

As you say it yourself, life begins at pregnancy. So how can a blastocyst, outside of the womb be considered a life form, and therefore not allowed to be harvested?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I am still waiting for your exact moment that a life becomes a life, because apparently a sperm and an egg meet, and then nothing happens until after a baby is born... at exactly what period in development does life start, in your opinion?

You're the only one putting words in other's mouthes here.

I'd say once implantation occurs, which is AFTER a blastocyst has been formed, life occurs.

Blastocyst does not equal pregnancy.

As RougeUnderoos put it so well:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

They are not harvested from a womb, a baby, a fetus or anything else. They are cells in a laboratory. They will go into the garbage if they are not used for stem cell research.

No where did I say that a sperm and egg meet and then nothing happens.
Stop it, you're embarassing yourself here.

I'm done arguing with you, as you clearly don't understand any aspect of this issue.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Yeah, but he's only a collection of 18 years.
If he was more, he'ld be considered more human...

hahahaha... what a joke

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Are you going to volunteer to have one of them implanted in you? If you feel so strongly about this I must assume the answer is yes. That is the only way to "save" them after all.

You don't seem to be getting this. These bundles of cells are not going to become human beings unless they are implanted into a woman. They will go into the garbage or stay in a freezer forever. Is that straightforward enough for you?

If I didn't "get this" I wouldn't be talking about it. Please stop de-valueing my opinion because it is not the same as your own. These "bundles of cells" have the potential to become human beings... why don't you seem to be getting this? Because our opinions differ, not because you don't seem to get it. I personally have a problem with these cells being used as science experiments and being tossed into the garbage. Is that straightforward enough for you?

Look at it like this: Energy. Potential and kinetic energy. As a blastocyst, it has the potential (potential energy) to become a human (kinetic energy). So, while a stone at the top of the hill isn't moving, it has the potential to move greatly if pushed down that hill... Just like in this situation... Geeky, I know...

As I've said twice already, I would not have any problem with aborted fetused, or blastocysts that were scraped out of a woman's uterus at the doctor's office to be used in stem-cell research, just like I have no problem with people donating their bodies to research once they die, but I do have a problem with harvesting cells in a test-tube that will be discarded after being tested on. It just seems wrong to me.

I don't know if I am going to volunteer to have one of "them" (if it isn't a human, don't you think you should be considering it as an it, istead of a them?), I don't think there should even be a situation where they look for a woman to implant the cells into in the first place.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

hahahaha... what a joke

Hey, why do you have a red square?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Well there you have it RMS... your morals are your morals. That's clearly not something that can be changed by debate, so we're done here. We'll let the previous posts speak for themselves for any other interested readers.

Well, if the whole point of posting is to change others' morals... I guess we are done here. I like to see other's opinions and their rationales, and if I'm lucky, get people to think of something from outside of their usual box.

I guess I just have a problem with people disregarding this like it's not a big deal. But, for a second, consider the possibility of being those 150 cells - because at one point you were.

I think that this issue is a personal crusade of my own because a lot of the time it gets categorized as a right-wing or religious issue, but neither of those apply to me. I have other rationales that do not fall under those categories, but my own personal reasonings.