Religious Stance on Stem Cell Research

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Please do not try and twist the situation to one of baby killing. It's misleading and just wrong. You are turning this into an abortion issue, which is far off base of this discussion.

Right, but my opinion was asked, and I gave it. That's how I feel about it. IF someone else wants to make and kill a cluster of cells to have a baby, that doesn't affect me, better? It's not how I feel though.

This is just my curiosity, but why do you think simply throwing them out without using them to help others is better?

Because I feel like it is making and taking life and I don't want to be a part of it, or benefit from it when there are other ways for scientists to get their cells that don't involve making or taking life. (Dead things don't replicate, and those are human cells, therefore a human.) I would also be against using an aborted fetus for similar purposes for similar reasons.

This is an excellent point. But to suggest that scientists aren't spending time to figure out how to extract stem cells in a way that wont result in the destruction of the embryo just shows you haven't done any research into the topic.

There are several separate studies currently into this aspect of stem cell research. One such, is extracting single cells from 8-10-cell early human embryos.

However, when single cells are extracted, they are seveley less likely to be able to replicate and culture. One specific research into this found that, only 2 cell lines out of 91 single cells cultured. So research and advancements are slow to ccur.

But there certainly are advancements being made into extracting stem cells without destroying the embryo.

I'm not suggesting they aren't doing research into the area, as a matter of fact, I've stated previously in this thread that that's where they need to focus. If they would concentrate their efforts in this area, making it an easier, more reliable, more viable method of extracting cells instead of wasting time complaining because a lot of people think it's unethical to use cells the other way, then it would likely already be easier, more reliable, and more viable. And we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[AC]

Originally Posted by FireFly

If they would concentrate their efforts in this area, making it an easier, more reliable, more viable method of extracting cells instead of wasting time complaining because a lot of people think it's unethical to use cells the other way, then it would likely already be easier, more reliable, and more viable. And we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But thats the thing, in order to safe the embryo while still extracting cells, the results are grealty diminshed. This way will take much longer and be less effective. But they are still looking into this as well.

But in order to do so, they need to be privately funded, which is also making this much harder and much less likely to see any progress.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

The fact remains that he pulled the plug on funding for research of embryos after Aug. 9, 2001.

No he didn't. What he did was say that his administration would not support with public moneys scientist and projects which destroy embryos. You can't pull funding which didn't exist in the first place.
Since then several sources within the States and without have contributed money to wards this research. The State of California
being the largest. In all probability more is being done now than would have been if Bush would have given federal money to wards it. California
for one had political motives to give as much as they have. Federal
money still supports those few strands that had been worked with previously and also the ongoing research into adult stem cells.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No he didn't. What he did was say that his administration would not support with public moneys scientist and projects which destroy embryos. You can't pull funding which didn't exist in the first place.

There wasn't active funding, but labs which have ANY federal funding now, cannot proceed in this research.

He's limiting the number of places that can research stem cells.

No lab with ANY percentage of their funding from federal sources can really do any stem cell research. Since the vast majority of academic (non-industry) research is funded by the NIH, a federal institution, this rules out the vast majority of research labs in the country.

He may not be taking away literal dollars, but he's taking away the number of laboratories and research facilities that are able to do any stem cell research.

He's restricting the advancement of an incredibly important research field that can help billions.

[AC]

From http://www.curesforcalifornia.com

Does the federal government support stem cell research?

The government funds adult stem cell research, which has far less promise than embryonic stem cell research. However, limited federal funding is available for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush declared that federal money could only be used to study stem cell lines that existed as of August 9, 2001. There are several problems with this:

• There are only 22 lines that qualify for this and less than twelve of these are easily available to scientists.

• These cell lines are not diverse. They are derived from embryos of a certain profile of individuals (typically of similar ethnicity, educational background, income level, etc.) Diversity in the cells would help scientists better understand and treat many more diseases and individuals than they can with these limited cell lines.

• These cell lines got their nutrients from animal cells and will never be safe to use in treatments for people.

• Some of these cell lines aren't stable enough to be used

Researchers have described techniques for getting embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos. Does this end the debate over embryonic stem cell research?

Not any time soon. It is true that teams of scientists have created two new ways to produce embryonic stem cells. Yet, their experiments were done in mice and each method raises practical and ethical issues of its own. Neither is likely to be ready for use in humans for many years.

We believe that scientists should keep looking for new ways to create stem cells without destroying embryos. They must not, however, be forced to stop or slow the most proven way to get embryonic stem cells - a way that is supported by a clear majority of Americans. To do that would result in losing critical progress in the fight against diseases and injuries threatening millions of lives.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Right, but my opinion was asked, and I gave it. That's how I feel about it. IF someone else wants to make and kill a cluster of cells to have a baby, that doesn't affect me, better? It's not how I feel though.

I'm not trying to be dense--but if somebody creates and destroys a blastocyst in order to do basic scientific research, that doesn't affect you directly either. Nor does it affect you if it's medical research, except in the extremely unlikely scenario that you happen to get a disease that stem cells can treat in the future. (AFAIK, cancer isn't one of those, although I certainly could be wrong.)

In fact, the only reason it affects you at all is, as you say, the "method of procurement." Which means that it affects you because A) you believe a blastocyst is a human being and B) destroying a blastocyst is therefore murder.

If I accepted A, I would have to accept B. I don't accept A, but that's been well covered in earlier pages of this thread. We probably find each other's stances on that point equally wrong.

But it seems like you want to accept A, but not B. If A is true, then what reproductive clinics do every day is murder. In fact, they must commit murder far more often than scientists would, since you don't actually need that many stem cell lines in order to support research into embryonic stem cells. It can't be the case that one is wrong and the other is not--that just isn't logical.

Calgaryborn: Bush's stance on this is similar in a way. He basically allowed for research on existing stem cell lines regardless of what their "method of procurement" was, and disallowed research on other lines. But if the results and the research is immoral, isn't it immoral regardless of when the stem cell lines were produced? Look at it this way--if stem cells actually came from babies, then research on them would be immoral regardless of whether the stem cell lines came into existence before or after a certain date. Bush was trying to strike a middle ground, but landed himself in a thorny moral contradiction.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe that a blastocyst is a human being or you don't. Either destroying one is murder, in which case both stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization should be banned, or it isn't murder and both should be allowed. The axiom "you can't be a little bit pregnant" is kind of apt in this instance.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

AFAIK, cancer isn't one of those, although I certainly could be wrong.

There is debate over what diseases can be helped by stem cell research, but I've commonly seen cancer listed as one of them.
http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/page.php?id=126

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

There is debate over what diseases can be helped by stem cell research, but I've commonly seen cancer listed as one of them.
http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/page.php?id=126

Thanks for the correction. When I think of stem cell therapies, I generally think of brain injuries, spinal cord injuries or degenerative illnesses like Parkinson's, or MS. But I'm not a biologist, so I'm sure there are far wider applications than I can imagine.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Calgaryborn: Bush's stance on this is similar in a way. He basically allowed for research on existing stem cell lines regardless of what their "method of procurement" was, and disallowed research on other lines. But if the results and the research is immoral, isn't it immoral regardless of when the stem cell lines were produced? Look at it this way--if stem cells actually came from babies, then research on them would be immoral regardless of whether the stem cell lines came into existence before or after a certain date. Bush was trying to strike a middle ground, but landed himself in a thorny moral contradiction.

Bush choose to allow the stem cell strands already in use to continue to be used. You can't bring that embryonic life back. He was being pragmatic. I don't support China's harvesting of organs from condemned prisoner for use in transplant operations. If I could stop the practice I would. But having done that I wouldn't deny someone a life saving organ if one was still available from before the practice was outlawed.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe that a blastocyst is a human being or you don't. Either destroying one is murder, in which case both stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization should be banned, or it isn't murder and both should be allowed. The axiom "you can't be a little bit pregnant" is kind of apt in this instance.

I believe that an embryo is the beginning of a human life. It shouldn't be treated as a meaningless collection of cells. I understand the value I put on an embryo is not shared by everyone in society. That being said, I don't want my tax dollars used in support of research that destroys a viable embryo.

I honestly think even if Bush didn't hold that same view of an embryo he would have been wrong to fund something with tax dollars that a significant amount of tax payers found offensive and/or immoral.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not trying to be dense--but if somebody creates and destroys a blastocyst in order to do basic scientific research, that doesn't affect you directly either. Nor does it affect you if it's medical research, except in the extremely unlikely scenario that you happen to get a disease that stem cells can treat in the future. (AFAIK, cancer isn't one of those, although I certainly could be wrong.)

They have linked 3 kinds of cancers to their own form of 'stem cell'... which may or may not have the same sort of properties as those in human development.

In fact, the only reason it affects you at all is, as you say, the "method of procurement." Which means that it affects you because A) you believe a blastocyst is a human being and B) destroying a blastocyst is therefore murder.

You're misinterpretting. The method of procurement is the only problem I have with research, it's not the only reason it affects me. Just because it's likely I'll have a baby that has hereditary cancer doesn't mean that I won't have a baby with some other disease. I also don't believe that a blastocyst is a human being any more than I believe a fetus is a human. I believe it's part of the development of humans, and is 'human' but is not a human being. It's not whole.

If I accepted A, I would have to accept B. I don't accept A, but that's been well covered in earlier pages of this thread. We probably find each other's stances on that point equally wrong.

But it seems like you want to accept A, but not B. If A is true, then what reproductive clinics do every day is murder. In fact, they must commit murder far more often than scientists would, since you don't actually need that many stem cell lines in order to support research into embryonic stem cells. It can't be the case that one is wrong and the other is not--that just isn't logical.

Yes, yes it is. Never claimed it wasn't, but it's not 'my' murder. I didn't commission it, I don't think it's right, but it's not up to me to make that decision for others. Just like I would never abort a baby but I'm not going to tell someone else they can't. Doesn't mean I don't think it's murder. Again, I never said it isn't, just that it doesn't affect me.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe that a blastocyst is a human being or you don't. Either destroying one is murder, in which case both stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization should be banned, or it isn't murder and both should be allowed. The axiom "you can't be a little bit pregnant" is kind of apt in this instance.

You're right, you can't. Or can you? I'm of the opinion that abortion is murder, but it still exists. I believe it's a woman's right to choose. However, don't force me to choose... When it comes to your own blastocycts, that's your decision. But don't force me to accept it when cience, who claims to be doing this for all of humanity, does what I equate to murder, in my name. After all, I am part of humanity, and I think it's unethical to make and take a life.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Bush choose to allow the stem cell strands already in use to continue to be used. You can't bring that embryonic life back. He was being pragmatic. I don't support China's harvesting of organs from condemned prisoner for use in transplant operations. If I could stop the practice I would. But having done that I wouldn't deny someone a life saving organ if one was still available from before the practice was outlawed.



I believe that an embryo is the beginning of a human life. It shouldn't be treated as a meaningless collection of cells. I understand the value I put on an embryo is not shared by everyone in society. That being said, I don't want my tax dollars used in support of research that destroys a viable embryo.

I honestly think even if Bush didn't hold that same view of an embryo he would have been wrong to fund something with tax dollars that a significant amount of tax payers found offensive and/or immoral.

A "significant amount of tax payers" think that eating meat is "offensive and/or immoral. A significant amount of tax payers also think war is immoral. Just saying. Government's job is to show leadership, not be the toadies of the noisiest special interest group.

I respect your opinion regarding an embryo. However, that isn't what we're talking about. In fact, an actual embryo would be useless for harvesting stem cells--because cells have begun to differentiate. What we're talking about is a collection of undifferentiated cells. If you choose to see that as a human being, fine. I happen to disagree, but I do at least agree that it can be a matter of opinion.

I just think that if a blastocyst really is a person, then mass murder is being committed daily at fertility clinics across the nation. Whether it's federally funded is political doublespeak, and utterly beside the point. Do we allow murder as long as it's not "federally funded"? Or, to put it another way, as long as it doesn't affect us directly? Clearly, even those opposed to stem cell research don't see it as being in the same moral category as murder. The level of outrage just doesn't match.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I just think that if a blastocyst really is a person, then mass murder is being committed daily at fertility clinics across the nation. Whether it's federally funded is political doublespeak, and utterly beside the point. Do we allow murder as long as it's not "federally funded"? Or, to put it another way, as long as it doesn't affect us directly? Clearly, even those opposed to stem cell research don't see it as being in the same moral category as murder. The level of outrage just doesn't match.

How many people do you suppose have test tube babies? And what point is there to having outrage? Has it helped in the abortion debate?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

A "significant amount of tax payers" think that eating meat is "offensive and/or immoral. A significant amount of tax payers also think war is immoral. Just saying. Government's job is to show leadership, not be the toadies of the noisiest special interest group.

First of all, Bush agrees with those millions of voters. That is something he didn't hide until he was elected either. He was honest about his position on stem cell research. I want our leaders guided by their consciences.

Secondly, The USA doesn't fund slaughter houses or hunters. They do fund wars but again that is a matter of conscience. There is/has been a political price to pay for war as well. Also, there would be very few Americans who would advocate the abolition of the military. The issue revolves around what outside actions justify a use of force.

I honestly believe that Bush took the less expedient road. He wouldn't have lost many conservative votes by ignoring the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research. Especially with the Democrats stand on same sex marriage and abortion. Bush did lose support from centralists because of his stand on stem cells. As I've repeatedly said: this issue has legs because the left sees it as a win issue for them.