Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Religion, Stem Cells, Stem Cell Research, Faith
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Stem cell research utilizes cells from a blastocyst, which is a cluster of up to 150 embryonic cells, that could potentially be of use in the treatment of spinal cord injuries, cancer, blindness, heart and muscle damage, among others.

It is my contention that the only reason the U.S. government has not already jumped at the chance to fund research in this area is because of belief in the invisible man in the sky, and the thought that this cluster of 150 cells--smaller than the tip of your eyelash, this little bundle of cells--is a little person. Blind faith, once again getting in the way of science and possible advances that might save thousands of lives. Blind faith, rearing it's ugly head and once again f*cking up our world.

How many people will die this year alone, because of this stunting of progress by those who follow blindly the ridiculous tenets of their religious foolishness?

150 cells is a human life. Gimme a f*cking break.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 16,915 • Replies: 336

No top replies

Theoretically, a sample of these cells can be retained and grown into another human being. The original human life need never theoretically die. It could theoretically donate some ES cells and be done with it. Still, that's all theoretical.

I find it ironic though, that in becoming a human embryonic stem cell line, this potential human being in effect becomes immortal and technically lives forever.

0 Replies

To add to what Mr. Can says: it's okay to let thousands of poor people be coralled, abandoned, left to die after Katrina, but when it comes to stem cell research those opposing it have the gauge on what respect for human life means.

Happy New Year.

0 Replies

Let's be very clear here.

There are several types of stem cells, hence several types of stem cell research.

There are EMBRYONIC[/u] stem cells, which are obtained from a fertilized human egg, i.e. a human being in one of the earliest stages of development----

----and there are ADULT[/u] stem cells, which are NOT[/u] obtained by destroying an embryo. The use of ADULT[/u] stem cells is something which ALMOST NO ONE[/u] opposes.

ADULT[/u] stem cell research has shown great promise and several notable achievements. EMBRYONIC[/u] stem cell research HAS NOT[/u] shown nearly the potential, nor the solid results of ADULT[/u] stem cell research.

So in discusing this issue, a differentiation needs to be made in verbiage in each case or misunderstanding is inevitable. (In some cases, I think it has been intentional, to try to paint pro-life opponents of EMBRYONIC[/u] stem cell research as if they opposed ALL stem cell research. Such is not at all the case.)

So whenever you hear someone discussing his opinion on 'stem cell research' without qualifying terms to make clear WHICH TYPE[/u] of stem cell research he is referring to --- just remember that at best the speaker is careless in his usage of terms, or he could possibly be intentionally deceptive.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

EMBRYONIC[/u] stem cell research HAS NOT[/u] shown nearly the potential.

So what? How much is "nearly" in your book? If it shows any potential at all, and someone's blind faith holds back any chance to use that potential, how do you justify that?

Do you justify it?

0 Replies

kickycan,

I can understand your feelings with this. I really can. But, it seems an awful like like growing human beings for parts to me. I realize that's oversimplification but that's the way I see it.

kickycan, I wish you could understand that it is God's word that we adhere to. Yes, we have faith that it is His word. I imagine it's hard for you to understand because you don't seem to share that belief.

Faith can never be a scientifically proven thing. If it were all about proof, what good would it be? Don't you think that even if there were scientific proof of faith there would still be those that don't believe? Look at the Evolution thread. They seem to know that stuff pretty good but they disagree on so many points. And isn't that science they are talking about? They can't even get that proof to 100% can they. They can't get everyone to agree to it.

0 Replies

Surely the 'blind faith' folks are doing something worthy. They are keeping the overzealous progress-in-the-name-of-science-and-saving-lives at least a little toned down.

One extreme is just as ridiculous as the other.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Surely the 'blind faith' folks are doing something worthy. They are keeping the overzealous progress-in-the-name-of-science-and-saving-lives at least a little toned down.

One extreme is just as ridiculous as the other.

I'm afraid that one went over my head. How is slowing down progress and preventing the saving of lives "something worthy", and why do you find the "extreme" of favouring progress ridiculous?

0 Replies

kickycan,

Guess you missed the part where I stated I realized that was an oversimplification?

Happy New Year kickycan!

Dogmatic knee-jerk stupidity, stupid objections, moral objections...that are rational?

Hmmmm, does that mean you are right and all of us that think differently are wrong?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Hmmmm, does that mean you are right and all of us that think differently are wrong?

No, but you certainly are.

0 Replies

Ok, can you elaborate on that? Please.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Hmmmm, does that mean you are right and all of us that think differently are wrong?

I've been reading this a lot in your posts today MA, and I'm getting the feeling that there is a story behind it. Care to fill me in?

0 Replies

Okay.

I feel that science should be unimpeded by such stupidity.

You seem to feel that anyone with any belief can stop the progress of science in the name of being tolerant of others' beliefs.

i.e., ergo, therefore, thus 'n' such, ipso facto, you are wrong.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Okay.

I feel that science should be unimpeded by such stupidity.

You seem to feel that anyone with any belief can stop the progress of science in the name of being tolerant of others' beliefs.

i.e., ergo, therefore, thus 'n' such, ipso facto, you are wrong.

kickyan,

First of all, it is stupidity to you, not to me or millions of others that hold the same belief. Just as anyone that has a belief system might think someone stupid who does not hold a belief system. I just don't prefer to think people are stupid because they are believers or not.

I do not feel that anyone with any belief can stop the progress of science in the name of being tolerant of others' beliefs. That is not what I am saying at all.

I am merely telling you how I view this particular topic. I'm not out on the streetcorners with signs screaming at people to stop Stem Cell Research, Stop Abortions, anything.

kickycan, the extent of my involvement is I discuss it in here and I may talk to friends about it. When I have the opportunity to vote my conscience, I do so.

So, I'm just exercising my rights just as you are exercising yours. I don't think you are stupid for believing the way you do, kickycan. Those believes, views, opinions, etc. are obviously important to you.

It's just a matter of differing opinions and views. Just like with any issue, topic, etc. There will be those for it, those against it, and those sitting on the fence. That's pretty much the way life is. :wink:

0 Replies

Since you decided to go off on some unrelated tangent, I'll post it again, just to see if you can actually say something specifically about what I have posted here, or if you will again go on an unrelated spiel about how it's all just a matter of opinion.

kickycan wrote:

Okay.

I feel that science should be unimpeded by such stupidity.

You seem to feel that anyone with any belief can stop the progress of science in the name of being tolerant of others' beliefs.

i.e., ergo, therefore, thus 'n' such, ipso facto, you are wrong.

Now, do you disagree with anything specifically in the above quote?

0 Replies

Re: Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

kickycan wrote:

It is my contention that the only reason the U.S. government has not already jumped at the chance to fund research in this area is because of belief in the invisible man in the sky, and the thought that this cluster of 150 cells--smaller than the tip of your eyelash, this little bundle of cells--is a little person. Blind faith, once again getting in the way of science and possible advances that might save thousands of lives. Blind faith, rearing it's ugly head and once again f*cking up our world..

It is MY contention that there is more to it than that. Religion may be one reason, but probably just as important is the belief that we can't / shouldn't save everyone. Imagine this planet if everyone lived happy and healthy to a very ripe old age. Do we have a duty to save everyone? Fix everyone? Do we destroy an embryo to save an alcoholic? Who decides who gets saved? If there is no choice, just save everyone, what do we do with the alcoholic after we grow him a new liver?

kickycan wrote:

How many people will die this year alone, because of this stunting of progress by those who follow blindly the ridiculous tenets of their religious foolishness?

I don't know, but do we have the resources to sustain an extra thousand people? Ten thousand people? One hundred thousand people per year? What happens to the balance of the planet when we start making all of this "progress?"

I think it's more than just "Hey, that 150 cells is a cute little baby so keep your dirty hands off!"

0 Replies

Re: Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

squinney wrote:

kickycan wrote:
It is my contention that the only reason the U.S. government has not already jumped at the chance to fund research in this area is because of belief in the invisible man in the sky, and the thought that this cluster of 150 cells--smaller than the tip of your eyelash, this little bundle of cells--is a little person. Blind faith, once again getting in the way of science and possible advances that might save thousands of lives. Blind faith, rearing it's ugly head and once again f*cking up our world..

It is MY contention that there is more to it than that. Religion may be one reason, but probably just as important is the belief that we can't / shouldn't save everyone. Imagine this planet if everyone lived happy and healthy to a very ripe old age. Do we have a duty to save everyone? Fix everyone? Do we destroy an embryo to save an alcoholic? Who decides who gets saved? If there is no choice, just save everyone, what do we do with the alcoholic after we grow him a new liver?

kickycan wrote:
How many people will die this year alone, because of this stunting of progress by those who follow blindly the ridiculous tenets of their religious foolishness?

I don't know, but do we have the resources to sustain an extra thousand people? Ten thousand people? One hundred thousand people per year? What happens to the balance of the planet when we start making all of this "progress?"

I think it's more than just "Hey, that 150 cells is a cute little baby so keep your dirty hands off!"

You see? Now THIS is a post with some good old fashioned rational thought behind it. I agree with you Squinney, that there may be other reasons not to go ahead with stem cell research, and those should also be discussed.

My point though, is that all these half-baked religious "reasons" are cluttering the debate, and if we didn't have to tolerate them, scientists might actually be able to get to a discussion of those real moral dilemmas without having to step back and humor irrational ideas.

Now I have to go to a party, so I will just say, Happy New Year, and enjoy.

0 Replies

Have fun, Kicky. And Happy New Year to you, too.

(Um, whatta ya mean you "have to go to a party?" What kinda party-pooper 'tude is that? Here, take this pointy paper hat. You'll have more fun.)

0 Replies

Re: Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

kickycan wrote:

It is my contention that the only reason the U.S. government has not already jumped at the chance to fund research in this area is because of belief in the invisible man in the sky, and the thought that this cluster of 150 cells--smaller than the tip of your eyelash, this little bundle of cells--is a little person.

In that case it is my contention that you never bothered to check which countries fund stem cell research, which don't, and how that corresponds with any reasonable measure of religious fervor in those countries. Germany, for instance, has a much smaller percentage of church-goers than America. Yet stem-cell research isn't merely unsubsidized here -- most kinds of it are illegal. Compared with other industrialized countries, America is rather on the permissive side on this issue.

0 Replies

kickycan,

I'm going to bow out of this conversation. I didn't mean to get off on any spiel or anything. I was addressing comments you made to me.

I feel I have already answered your questions. You obviously don't feel I have.

You were the one that started this thread and you were the one that brought up the religious aspect of it, remember? :wink:

Have a wonderful time at the party and please stay safe!

0 Replies

Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know