Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

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?

squinney wrote:

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?

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.

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:

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?

Embryonic stem cell research has little or no positive results to show.

Since research dollars are, by the very nature of things, limited --- doesn't it make sense to put them where they have shown remarkable progress? That would be in adult stem cell research.

Is there a reason why you apparently are unwilling to acknowledge and discuss the difference?

kickycan wrote:

squinney wrote:

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?

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.

I find it ironic that you rail against the 'religious' for supposedly impeding progress that would in turn cause folks to suffer and die; but then chimed in with hearty agreement (or so it seemed) with Squinney's contention that 'you can't save everyone and maybe we shouldn't even try' .

Her argument for allowing people to suffer and die was apparently ok with you because it had no religious component (in fact the very opposite) ---- but your imaginary scenario (there are no pro-life folks advocating the suspension of all stem cell research, thus causing suffering and death) caused you to go apoplectic.

It's beginning to sound as if you simply want an excuse to parade your distaste for religion -- and that alleviating suffering and saving lives was a smokescreen in your quest to do so.

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.

I don't know if it's the same as a human life. I don't know all the evidence. But if its nature is to grow up to be a person, then yeah, that's what it is.

Maybe the reason that not much progress has been made using embryonic stem cells, as opposed to adult cells, is that the research has, so far, been relatively limited. (Just a guess.)
That said, I am still on the fence on this one, although I lean very heavily towards opposing it, altogether. Based on my understanding, these cells have the potential to become grown-up people just like all of us. If that is the case (IF), then I can't see how I could possibly support it.

Embryonic stem cell research has little or no positive results to show.

Since research dollars are, by the very nature of things, limited --- doesn't it make sense to put them where they have shown remarkable progress? That would be in adult stem cell research.

Pluripotent embryonic stem cells DO NOT have the ability to grow into a fetus, and the embryos they are derived from are fertility clinic leftovers that would NEVER have been implanted. If not given immortality by being used in research, they would have been washed down a drain (or whatever alternative disposal method the parents choose).

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.

Momma Angel wrote:

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.

You'd rather see them destroyed and flushed down the toilet as they are now with In Vitro reproduction?

Anon

Your contention is correct. Why do you think it is illegal there?

I still think that in the USA, it's because of irrational religious dogma, for the most part.

real life wrote:

kickycan wrote:

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?

Embryonic stem cell research has little or no positive results to show.

Since research dollars are, by the very nature of things, limited --- doesn't it make sense to put them where they have shown remarkable progress? That would be in adult stem cell research.

Is there a reason why you apparently are unwilling to acknowledge and discuss the difference?

You saying it has no positive results doesn't mean squat to me. Show me some evidence of your statement.

real life wrote:

kickycan wrote:

squinney wrote:

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?

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.

I find it ironic that you rail against the 'religious' for supposedly impeding progress that would in turn cause folks to suffer and die; but then chimed in with hearty agreement (or so it seemed) with Squinney's contention that 'you can't save everyone and maybe we shouldn't even try' .

Her argument for allowing people to suffer and die was apparently ok with you because it had no religious component (in fact the very opposite) ---- but your imaginary scenario (there are no pro-life folks advocating the suspension of all stem cell research, thus causing suffering and death) caused you to go apoplectic.

It's beginning to sound as if you simply want an excuse to parade your distaste for religion -- and that alleviating suffering and saving lives was a smokescreen in your quest to do so.

You are wrong in your assumption. The only thing I agreed with was that she had apparently put some thought into her opinion on the matter. Plus, I was just about to go out, so I didn't really have time to go into it with her, but actually, the minute after I left for my party, I thought about her points, and decided that they were all pretty much total bullshit, in my opinion.

How's that grab ya?

Good point. You cannot get results without first funding the research.

Pluripotent embryonic stem cells DO NOT have the ability to grow into a fetus, and the embryos they are derived from are fertility clinic leftovers that would NEVER have been implanted.