Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

And like I said, do you expect a President to ignore his religious values and beliefs to perform his job?

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.

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.

I have been trying to stay out of this, since kickycan's subject for this thread specifies religious beliefs as the main opposition to embryonic stem cell research.
But I'm not convinced that just because the opposition is represented, most visibly, by the religious right, that necessarily means their reasons are religiously based (even though, I agree, that would be the obvious assumption).
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen in this thread where anyone has based their argument on the vision they had of Jesus, last night.
I see over and over that those in support of this research refuse to argue the facts by claiming that the Christians are simply trying to impose their religion.

The resounding victory of California's $3 billion ballot initiative for embryonic stem cell studies may have the unintended consequence of slowing research on the national level and creating a backlash from religious conservatives who feel emboldened by President Bush's reelection, say activists on both sides of the issue.

With the support of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Californians approved the bond proposal 59 percent to 41 percent, paving the way for a 10-year project that aims to make the state a global leader in the controversial new field.

Already, the initiative is upending the biomedical industry, prompting some entrepreneurial scientists to relocate from other states and several California universities to draw up blueprints for new laboratories. But the measure has reinvigorated a battle in Washington over the government's role in science, the meaning of this year's election results and the question of when life begins.

I don't agree with the work done by fertility clinics, so this reasoning does not change my opinion about embryonic stem cell research, at all.

Terry wrote:

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

Depends on who "you" is in that sentence. If stem cell research holds as much promise as its advocates contend, someone can make a profit by funding it. Therefore I don't see why "you" cannot get results without funding from the federal government.

Terry wrote:

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.

That may well be true today, when only researchers use those stem cells. But would this still be true if the advocates of stem cell research were proven right, and therapeutic cloning went into mass production? This is not a rhetorical question -- I truly don't know.
...
I asked this question to Terry, and I'll ask it to you: Do you know for a fact that once therapeutic cloning goes into mass production, the demand for stem cells can still be met with 'leftovers'? It is one thing to supply a few hundred researchers, quite another to supply a nation of 300 millions.

Momma Angel wrote:

And like I said, do you expect a President to ignore his religious values and beliefs to perform his job?

ABSOLUTELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

real life wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:

I am not the only one that believes what I do. I do consider blind faith ignorance of sorts. Like I say Momma, preach and pray all you want ... just as long as you don't let it go beyond that. If that floats your boat, sail on! When you want to start affecting others with your superstitions and dogma, then it's time to call it what it is. When you want to start making it the law of the land, that's when I get testy. Don't make me live by your silly superstitions. Go shake your tambourine somewhere that you're not damaging the rest of us.

Anon

So you need to pillage also? I guess like minds and all that. OK, you may also have permission to pillage my posts for the same reasons as I stipulated for MOAN. Knock youself out!

Don't make others live by your illogical ramblings either.

I'm not ... feel free NOT to use the benefits of stem cell research! Nobody is saying that you must take advantage of the advances that are made!

Go shake your rattling head somewhere that you're not damaging anyone else.

Did my head rattle? I thought that was your mouth floppin'!!

When you want to make killing an innocent life the law of the land that's when I get just as testy.

Not taking innocent lifes, just using that which is doomed to destruction anyway! Rather see it used that be discarded as biohazard waste.

Now, we can zing these back and forth all day and night, or you can try to come up with a reason why it's ok for you to decide whether an innocent party lives or dies.

Not taking innocent lifes, just using that which is doomed to destruction anyway! Rather see it used that be discarded as biohazard waste.
By the way, just to correct you incorrect statement, I did not say I would make the decision about abortion. I let the woman carrying the child MAKE THE DECISION, something you are unwilling to do!!

If you want to sacrifice your OWN body and give it's stem cells to researchers, that's fine by me. But when you take another's body to the blender and sell the remaining pieces to the lab, it's wrong. Comprende?

Not taking innocent lifes, just using that which is doomed to destruction anyway! Rather see it used that be discarded as biohazard waste.
By the way, just to correct you incorrect statement, I did not say I would make the decision about abortion. I let the woman carrying the child MAKE THE DECISION, something you are unwilling to do!!

You've seen sick folks suffer? So have I. The solution is not to kill someone else to try to fix it.

Not taking innocent lifes, just using that which is doomed to destruction anyway! Rather see it used that be discarded as biohazard waste.
By the way, just to correct you incorrect statement, I did not say I would make the decision about abortion. I let the woman carrying the child MAKE THE DECISION, something you are unwilling to do!!


You've got a blind faith of your own, you just can't see it.

I have blind faith in nothing. I said earlier that I cannot guarantee success, but that I think we should try. Only a loser doesn't try because they fear failing. Winners are defined by their failures!!

Anon

Main Entry: 1pil·lage
Pronunciation: 'pi-lij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from piller to plunder, abuse
1 : the act of looting or plundering especially in war
2 : something taken as booty

Not taking innocent (lives), just using that which is doomed to destruction anyway! Rather see it used (than) be discarded as biohazard waste.

real life wrote:

kickycan wrote:

real life wrote:

kickycan wrote:

First of all, let's dispense with this ridiculous bit.

real life wrote:

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?

First of all, thanks for making my point. If not for god, you would never bring up such an inane argument like this. Your religious belief is impeding your ability to think rationally, and therefore is a roadblock to the kind of real ethical debate that might be able to take place on this issue otherwise.

Oh, and to answer your question, here's a simple test. If you can squash the f*cking thing into nothingness using less than your thumb, it's not a living human being. I know this because it says so in my bible.

Nice dodge. So how many cells DOES it require to be a living human being?

kickycan wrote:

real life wrote:

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.

And the reason you keep bringing up adult stem cell research is not totally based on the fact that you believe, on an irrational religious basis, that they are, in fact, a living human being?

I could care less how much more successful adult stem cell research has been thus far. The point is that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to be even more valuable[/u], but because of all the white noise coming from the religious world, there can't even be a real reasoned debate about the ethics of it.

That is my point, which you have so nicely helped me clarify. Thanks.

(emphasis mine)

Again you hype your product but provide no proof. I hope you don't try to make a living in the sales profession.

And yeah, it is being debated. You just don't like the results of the debate. Unless your opposition rolls over and plays dead, you kick and scream and shout 'unfair unfair'.

You want to join the debate? Prove your assertion that embryonic stem cell research has greater potential than adult stem cell research without simply parroting someone else's assertion that it is so.

You want to join the debate? Prove your assertion that the embryo is not a living human being by telling us at what point he becomes one. How many cells does it require to achieve the status of 'living human being' in your world, Kickycan?

Again you miss my point.

Faith clouds the issue so that a reasoned debate can't be had.

It doesn't matter much what I think about when a human life becomes a human life. For purposes of this argument, I could care less whether a human life begins at the point of conception, or whether it is at the point of the first heartbeat, or whether it is when the doctor slaps it's gooey little ass in the delivery room. The point is, we should determine this stuff without the mumbo jumbo of religion muddying up the waters.

The point you started the thread with was that 150 cells did not constitute a human life.

That was the whole foundation of your argument.

So, tell us, how many cells DOES it require to be a living human being?

I already answered your question. The thumb-squash test is just fine with me. So what?

And what is YOUR answer to this question?

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.

November 20, 2005

STANFORD, Calif. --Two government biologists heavily recruited by Stanford University have decided to work in Singapore instead, saying they will face fewer restrictions on stem cell research overseas.

Breaking News Alerts
Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, geneticists for the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Md., said they were concerned about delays in the allocation of $3 billion set aside by a California ballot measure approved in 2004.

"If there were any way we could come to Stanford, we would do this in a heartbeat," the married couple wrote in an e-mail to the San Jose Mercury News.

A president is representing a country. It is his responsibility in accepting the mantle to not perform his duty within the context of religion. His duty is to serve the people, no matter what their religions are. If he advocates his religious beliefs, he has broken the separation of church and state that ensures the people's freedom from religious intolerance.

If his moral standards are based upon his religious beliefs how do you expect him to ignore them?

The issue ( in case you missed it): Is it right for someone else to sacrifice another person's life and sell their body parts to the lab for experimentation?

Stem cell research is going ahead at a fast pace and enjoying great success using adult stem cells.

Personally i find consciousness a natural requirement for personhood.

Einherjar wrote:

Personally i find consciousness a natural requirement for personhood.

Exactly. And consciousness is simply not possible before 24 weeks gestation because the fetal brain takes that long to develop to the point that brainwaves show regular patterns. IMO, personhood also requires the ability to interact with other human beings, and despite reports of fetuses reacting to sounds while in the womb, true interaction cannot occur before birth. Groups of undifferentiated cells and embryos are not persons by any stretch of the imagination. Third trimester fetuses may be persons, but we do not know if they are able to think or feel emotions in any meaningful way.

In any case, the embryos that might used for stem cell research have zero chance of ever becoming persons. They are not miniature human beings. They are just CELLS.

Wolf, good point. While the original embryo would eventually degrade to non-viability (if it was not flushed long before), the unique DNA preserved in a stem cell line is essentially immortal. I expect that honest foreign researchers will eventually find a way to successfully clone human beings from any cell, and the potential human being embodied in that unwanted embryo may finally get its only real chance at life when someone, someday clones a baby from its genetic stem cell line.