Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

kickycan wrote:

Interesting. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Let's go with social justice. What is the irrational basis of the concept of social justice, in your opinion?

The basis is a belief that everyone deserves an equal chance of leading a prosperous, productive, and civilized life. This belief underlies legislation like the homestead act, which gave everyone a right to work a plot of land, then keep it pretty much for the asking. Public schooling, the Civil Rights Acts since the 1860s, as well as other government initiatives, have also been grounded in this belief.

As it happens, I share that belief for the most part. Nevertheless, entire societies of civilized people have chosen not to share it. In fact, from Plato to Louis XIV, most influential schools of thought rejected this belief. Given this, my claim is that you cannot decide whether people have equal rights on the basis of reason alone. You either believe your position on this issues viscerally, or you don't believe it at all. On both sides of the issue, you have nothing but faith to go on whether you decide if slaves deserve rights equal to free men, or if unpropertied men deserve rights equal to propertied men, or if women deserve rights equal to men, or if children deserve rights equal to grown-ups.

Therefore I assert that it reveals a double standard to say that there is no rational basis for ascribing personhood to embryos, but there is one for the concept of social justice.

Momma Angel\

Were it not for the religious community there would be no controversy regarding stem cell research it would be going on full bore. And possibly the cure or at least relief from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases among others would be in sight.
Can you deny that religion and the religious community is in the forefront of the fight against embryonic stem cell research?

But aren't your non-religious views just as much a part of your reasoning process as perhaps my religious views are a part of my reasoning process?

Momma
What would you have done with the excess of embryos in the fertility clinics?

au1929 wrote:

Momma
What would you have done with the excess of embryos in the fertility clinics?

I know this was not addressed to me, but I would have the fertility clinics shut down.

Would you also outlaw condoms??

echi

Isn't there something about not casting your seed upon the ground in the bible?

OK. So you are not religious. An odd ball among the religious who believe as you do. The fact remains and is indisputable that the fight against Embryonic stem cell research is primarily a religious one.

Anon-Voter wrote:

OK, OK! Tell me what your issue is (other than social and moral hangups you may have), and I'll do your homework and handfeed you a link!

I have a better idea. You tell me what your issue was when you took exception with the following post of mine.

Thomas wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:

To answer your question more directly, I can guarantee you nothing. I can't guarantee you success, I can't guarantee you unlimited availability. Does that mean that we don't use the 450,000 we have freezing to death, literally! Does that mean we do nothing because we may not have supply that means demand? I'm not sure why you ask the question in reality, because it seems to me like a slam dunk that we use what we can for the people that are here now.

I am asking the question because I'm not buying the argument that 'they're just leftovers anyway

That's a problem of yours, not mine. If you have a different number, show it to me.

If therapeutic cloning becomes a success, it will generate serious pressure to create new embryos specifically for the purpose of cloning -- and many people have a problem with that.

Not my problem. I don't have those hangups.

Also, while I can see that the already-created embryos are useful for research, I don't see how they would be "used for the people that are here and now".

Does that mean that we don't use the 450,000 we have freezing to death, literally! Does that mean we do nothing? You won't know if you don't try. Failure to me is never a reason not try. Does that mean we do nothing because we may not have supply that means demand?

To use stem cells for growing new organs, don't you need cells that are genetically identical to the body they're supposed to be implanted in? If so, the existing embryos would be of no practical therapeutic use.

I'm not sure why you ask the question in reality, because it seems to me like a slam dunk that we use what we can for the people that are here now. Does that mean that we don't use the 450,000 we have freezing to death, literally?? You don't know if compatability will be a problem or not. I think there is already success with injecting stem cells and them becoming what is required. I have to go review the links I have on the subject

You are the one who responded to this post by suggesting that I do my homework, so it's your job to substantiate that I didn't. So far, you have given me no reason to take your allegations seriously.

Hi Anon,

The point was discussed a bit earlier that the differences between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research were often IMO intentionally ignored by those who want to accuse pro-life folks of being against ALL stem cell research (untrue) or those who want funding for embryonic stem cell research by riding on the coattails of successful adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cell research has a long track record of successes and it does not require the destruction of a living human being.

For those who doubt that an embryo with 150 cells is a living human being, I ask, how many cells does it require to be a living human being?

For me, it requires birth. I don't do unborn cells.

Think about it . And when you have your number, then subtract 1. Is he no longer human if he is below your imaginary boundary? Ok subtract 2. Is he still human? Subtract 3......................You get the idea.

I think I can answer most of your "questions" in with my post that you quoted. Yep, I went back and basically used my post to answer your questions!

Anon-Voter--

So, then there's the old question that if life begins at birth, do you think it's fine to abort a nine month old fetus? Is it the same as aborting one at nine weeks, or do you draw a line somewhere?

echi wrote:

Anon-Voter--

So, then there's the old question that if life begins at birth, do you think it's fine to abort a nine month old fetus? Is it the same as aborting one at nine weeks, or do you draw a line somewhere?

I do draw a line ... when it starts breathing on it's own. I suggest you direct your efforts to those that are here and quit worrying about blobs of cells.

Anon