Stem Cell Research – Front Page News (again)

[rimrock]

Front page in The Oregonian today (4/27) pointing towards a national ethics board to provide a forum for issues as embryonic stem cell research continues and “to ensure” the established guidelines are meet and reviewed.

What I found most disconcerting was the “flagged” list of activities that are to be off limits:

“The panel flagged several activities as off limits to researchers under any circumstances. Scientists may not pursue reproductive cloning or allow human embryos to grow in the lab long enough for the body axis and central nervous system to begin to form, a process that takes about 14 days.”

…about 14 days – that’s what struck me. It’s a bit arbitrary and quite subjective isn’t it? So let me see prior to “about 14 days” it’s acceptable to create life for the sole purpose of harvesting cells in order to further medical science? Why not 12 days, or 2, or 1, or 3 weeks…does it really matter with this line of thinking? Why is it so hard to understand the practice of creating an embryo for harvest is wrong period?

Is this type of science in the best interest of our Nation? Sorry had to vent...

[OceanBlue]

I understand why this might be hard to swallow for some.

However, we create life only to kill and eat it. Real, viable beings. Not just a fertilized egg.

Just another viewpoint to consider.

There was a very interesting episode of NOVA on OPB about this. It really opened my eyes and shed light on some things I didn't understand about the process and the goals of this research.

You might consider trying to catch that, just to gain some new perspective.

[DanS]

It sounds like a realistic and ethically sound compromise.

Therefore, the fringes of both sides should be upset.

As an adult insulin-dependent diabetic, I'd like to think my life has more significance than a fertilized egg. Does an egg have a family? Women's bodies fail to implant fertilized eggs all the time, so I don't think this is pushing the ethical boundaries of research.

We can either set up an ethics panel, pass rules acceptable to both sides, and lead the game in gentic research........or we can get left behind, or operate with no rules at all like we have been. The prior sounds better to me.

[BrianMaguire]

Is this type of science in the best interest of our Nation? Sorry had to vent...

Yes, the same arguments were used about test tube babies since many fertilized eggs are destroyed or not used.

[rimrock]

I appreciate the reference and I’m sure the NOVA episode is quite interesting and possibly full of honest promising claims of significant medical break throughs – didn’t see the episode, but others like it.

Even if there are “guarantees” of incredible cures for cancer, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, diabetes… it is still, respectfully, an immoral thing to do. I realize in this post-modern age there’s this acceptance that one man’s immorality is another’s morality – we should live by what each sees to be right in their own eyes depending on our circumstances. I would kindly say that’s a deception we have fallen for. When it comes to morality there is a black and white division a set line that is not to be crossed.

Fertilized eggs, embryos, are people. Just because they are small, level of development is less, or their located in a test tube doesn’t change that. My daughter is smaller, less physically developed, and is total dependent on me and others for her survival – why are her rights protected and not the embryo’s?

The sole purpose of embryonic stem cell research is to create this life to harvest the individual cells period. I found it interesting that “about 14 days” the embryo is developed enough that we define it to be too human to kill.

The problem with blurring the line of morality is eventually it gets so blurred it eventually gets erased. Then possibly, just possibly, we won’t need these incredible medical cures because we’ll just eliminate the ones who are sick. Wild stretch – who knows?

[Nuttinbutnet]

Once again, we come to an issue of morals. I disagree that the line gets blurred. I believe that the line is always sharp. The question now becomes, Who's Line? I appreciate your candor as you discribe where your line is. That does not mean that everyone has, or should have, the same line. You might believe that others should have the same, but, that would be your opinion. You know what they say about opinions. Would you use a stem cell generated cure to save your childs life? I would! I believe that that moral line gets pushed back and forth even within ourselves. It just depends on what is at stake. Peace

[dlgobeavs]

Rimrock:

Your "line" per your statment, is when an egg becomes fertilized. But, assuming everyone else agrees with that view is a concept best left for the Anglers Chapel. I say that primarily because if I were to elaborate on my more leftist view, I would quickly be told that we don't discuss politics on ifish. The only politics allowed are in the Anglers Chapel... and only there because everyone sits around patting each other on the back agreeing that they are ones who are morally correct.

[lost_sailor]

... and only there because everyone sits around patting each other on the back agreeing that they are ones who are morally correct.

[OceanBlue]

Not all stem cell research is embryonic. Are you objecting to one type and not the other? Or all stem cell research?

[rimrock]

Not sure if I’d agree that it’s a right vs. left politics (effectively I’d agree it’s become that) or a view of religion, but one of situational ethics/morality. I’ll even use Webster’s definition: Situation ethics – a system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles. The key is the word “instead”.

This like other life issues rarely is about the actually principle, but the judgment of what is most beneficial to an individual or group for their ends. Protection of a life, including that of an embryo, is a principle not a judgment. Why? Because these are the categories of judgments used:

1. Size: Judgment of macro or micro scale. Embryos are really little.
2. Level of Development: Embryos are not as “complex” or formed as an adult.
3. Location: Judgment of what environment the embryo is in – test tubes for example.
4. Dependency: The embryo cannot survive independently without care.

The above list is not a list of principles, but that of judgment, the judgment of value of life where as the principle is life. Our post-modern culture has confused the two – we have blurred the line.

Not all stem cell research is embryonic. Are you objecting to one type and not the other? Or all stem cell research?

For example, adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research is argued to hold the same promises as that of embryonic stem cell research. The huge difference, as you may know, is adult stem cell research and the like does not take life. So no there is absolutely no objection and it could produce great advancements in medical science. Fully support it.

[OceanBlue]

Thanks for the clarification.

Just curious, do you feel there is any difference between eating an unfertilized chicken egg and a fertilized one?

[Silver Hilton]

Not sure if I’d agree that it’s a right vs. left politics (effectively I’d agree it’s become that) or a view of religion, but one of situational ethics/morality. I’ll even use Webster’s definition: Situation ethics – a system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles. The key is the word “instead”.

Sorry, but I don't buy the 'situational ethics' label. That's being used as a perjorative term to label my ethical constructs as 'bad' and some other set, usually based on an archaic and chaotically interpreted compilation of mis-recorded history and myth, as 'good'. Another commonly used perjorative term is 'utilitarianism'. Sorry, morals are relative, period. They emanate from a specific culture and context. There is no absolute, unless you refer to a question of faith. And that is inherently subjective.

In the question of embryonic stem cells, and for me, abortion, society is deciding the question of whether a potential life trumps a current one. With stem cells and embryoes, my thoughts are clear - go for it, society will benefit. The question is muddier with fetuses, philosophically. Personally, based on how my kids have been acting up recently, I'd be fine with abortion retroactive to the age of 18. :grin: Seriously, my thinking on this issue is around consciousness. I believe that without consciousness, you are dealing with life, but not with humanity. Lots will disagree with me on that, but that's how I draw the line. And I'm fully aware of how that extends after birth, thank you.

[rimrock]

SH –

I understood your logic of utilitarianism, and your point of morals always being relative due to the differences in culture, time and context, but I see this more in agreement with the point of situational morals/ethics rather than a set principle of ethics. Sounds circular in logic I realize. If there are not black and white ethics which transcend time and culture, than this ultimately concludes there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. Over time, culture or context we can change anything – possibly kill our child in the delivery room because we don’t like something about them, maybe their hair color. Extreme yes, but it often takes extreme points to drive home the basic understanding of even the existence of moral absolutes. If no such thing as moral absolutes then anything goes give the “right” condition, time, culture, or…….situation……it becomes acceptable.

Your point of utilitarianism I think is trying to say who makes the call on moral absolutes? It would take far too long to address that…but is it so hard to know what is absolute? I’m not saying if we DO them, but what ARE they. There’s a difference.

Is it ever morally acceptable to create HUMAN life for the SOLE purpose of killing that life so we can harvest that persons cells to better ourselves? Or is there a lack of understanding that embryo is actually alive? When does life begin magically at “about 14 days” or at the very beginning? These are honest question, but are never answered even by those here.

Just curious, do you feel there is any difference between eating an unfertilized chicken egg and a fertilized one?

Definitely not…I appreciate your question and I believe you are pointing to the value of life in general which is right…all life is of value, but human life is of far, far greater value over all other life. If you have a child is that child of greater worth to you then a chicken; of course, but why? We don’t even need to get into religion to answer that one, but if all things are actually morally relative in the end…who knows.

[Silver Hilton]

SH –

I understood your logic of utilitarianism, and your point of morals always being relative due to the differences in culture, time and context, <snip>

Your point of utilitarianism I think is trying to say who makes the call on moral absolutes? It would take far too long to address that…but is it so hard to know what is absolute? I’m not saying if we DO them, but what ARE they. There’s a difference.

Now you see, there's my point. You don't understand that what you are saying might exist as an absolute would only be your subjective realization of the question. As is mine. There is NO objective realization. We can hypothesize about a third party (God) interpreting the realization, but that's only a part of the believer's subjective realization of the question. There are no absolutes that we as humans do not invent.

Therefore, as adults, we can think and decide what the best absolutes should be. Contextual ethics does not imply no ethics. We can figure out when it is right to kill, or not. If God exists, it is because he gave us this ability. If not, well then, we still have this ability.

[rimrock]

Yep, I understand but respectfully disagree. Reminds me of college with professors saying, “There is absolutely no such thing as absolute truth”, which by the way is an absolute self-contradicting statement.

The world of relativism; it may be the most dangerous idea of all. It’s probably the reason why few if any ever answer the questions posed, because it’s all relative.

Is it ever morally acceptable to create HUMAN life for the SOLE purpose of killing that life so we can harvest that persons cells to better ourselves? Or is there a lack of understanding that embryo is actually alive? When does life begin magically at “about 14 days” or at the very beginning? These are honest question, but are never answered even by those here.

I wonder if I’m alive? I guess it depends, it’s all relative anyway.

[DanS]

If you have a child is that child of greater worth to you then a chicken; of course, but why? We don’t even need to get into religion to answer that one, but if all things are actually morally relative in the end…who knows.

And along the same lines, if you have a husband or wife or child with a disease that will kill them, isn't their life worth more than an egg? It may be a fertilized egg, but even a fertilized egg isn't really alive until it's implanted in it's mother's womb. Either that, or we're holding millions of people hostage in fertility clinics around the country. And why throw away these excess eggs, for lack of a better term, than try to save people's lives who are already here.......with families and loved ones ?

Like I said before, a fertilized egg isn't a person. At the stages that they'd be used for research, the cells aren't even differentiated. There's no brain, no heart, no nervous system, not even cardiac cells or neurons, just a cell that has divided numerous times. That's why the 14-day line was drawn in the sand. Beyond that point, I guess the ethical concerns begin to weight too heavily for the majority of people who constructed this policy.

I think your opinion might be differnt if your son or daughter or other loved one had a life threatening disease that could potentially be cured by this research. Maybe not, but of course you can't know if that's not your own situation.

I think it's a good compromise.

[Silver Hilton]

It’s probably the reason why few if any ever answer the questions posed, because it’s all relative.

<snip>

I wonder if I’m alive? I guess it depends, it’s all relative anyway.

No, whether you are really alive is a subjective question, at least from your standpoint.

I would be curious to see what you think the unanswered questions are. It's entirely possible to come up with a consistent moral system that has relative components; indeed, your own moral system almost certainly has relative concepts. For example, do you believe that it is morally acceptable to kill an enemy soldier that is actively trying to kill you in the heat of battle? How about a little old lady on the sidewalk in front of you in cold blood? That's relativism.

To talk of moral relativism as if it is a fault is simplistic. There are few people who would condemn a mother who violated the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal", who stole food or medicine to save her dying child.

Winston Churchill is reputed to have asked a lady if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. She said "probably". He then asked, "how about for one pound?"

"Why, certainly not", she replied. "What do you think I am, a prostitute?"

"We've already established that, madam." Churchill replied. "All we are doing now is haggling over the price."

And so it is about relativism. I defy you to find me one person in this country who does not possess a wide variety of so-called relativistic beliefs.

So to decry any belief set as being morally relativistic at the very least is a weak criticism, and is more likely a red herring obscuring a lack of a defense to the core argument.

[OwyheeKIller]

I watched the Nova episode on stem cell research and I think too many of us are confusing embryo's for people. The example given was this:

"What if you and your son were sitting in the front lobby of a fertility clinic and the building caught on fire. Do you save your son or do you save 100 embryos?"

[OceanBlue]

Definitely not…I appreciate your question and I believe you are pointing to the value of life in general which is right…all life is of value, but human life is of far, far greater value over all other life. If you have a child is that child of greater worth to you then a chicken; of course, but why? We don’t even need to get into religion to answer that one, but if all things are actually morally relative in the end…who knows.

Yes, of course, my child's life is worth more than a chicken. But a fertilized chicken egg and a fertilized human egg hold no difference to me. When they're still at the cellular level, that's all they are. An egg. Both with potential for life, but with no chance of living outside of their pre-natal environment.

[Nuttinbutnet]

I can see that there are a few of you that use way more brain cells than me! No one responded to my question, so, I will ask it again- Would you use a cure developed through Stem Cell research to save your child?
Simple question, yes or no?

[OceanBlue]

It's a no-brainer for me (pun intended)

Absolutely yes.

[TheRogue]

I'll use the "other side's" answer.....

If there's no research of that sort being allowed, there won't be a cure like you're describing, therefore I won't have to make that choice, putting me in an ethical entrapment.



For me....not just yes, but hell yes!!

TR

[rimrock]

No, whether you are really alive is a subjective question, at least from your standpoint.

Subject to what? Not sure what to do with that one?

I liked the Churchill story – he differently had a singular wit about him. As for your example of an enemy soldier vs. the little old lady; this is an antiquated point that always becomes up as an attempt to defend the relative mindset. But it only shows a difference in principle – killing or murder. People who will not discriminately think will say that it’s just semantics, but really there is a HUGE difference. I won’t go into lengths as to why, because anyone who is so relativistic cannot accept even the idea of set principles, let alone define what they are – they get trapped in their own circular logic.

If you want me to answer or defend my own questions I will, kind of a strange thing to do, but it may at least educate. I think the best way to answer is to see if there is a “real” difference between me, my 3 year old daughter and the embryo for the matter of human life.

Size: Macro vs. Micro scale. I’m much large than my daughter, and my daughter is much larger than the embryo – does this make a difference to define human life?

Level of Development: I’m much more grown then my daughter, physically, mentally and emotionally. There are things I can do that she is incapable of. She’s not physically developed – for example she’s incapable of having a child. If she were mentally disadvantaged or born without a limb or had bipolar disorder this too would demonstrate a difference in development. So since the embryo is less developed, does this define human life?

Location or Environment: Now moments before my daughter was born, she was still within her mother and not in the “real world”. Did her location or the environment she inhabited before birth make her more or less human? Since the embryo is located in a “test tube” and not within a woman, does this define human life?

Developmental Dependency: This would be dependency on others to survive. My daughter is completely dependent on me, her mother, and others in order to develop and survive. The fact that she is utterly dependent on others to provide her basic necessities, does this make her more or less human? Since embryos have no independency of their own, does this define human life?

A rather brief summary, but to be fair I believe it points to the fact that there is no difference in the definition or principle of life. We use relativism to distinguish the differences in an attempt to redefine life to make it fit what is most suitable for our purposes to meet the ends for our benefit. The principle is I, my daughter, and the embryos cannot be in principle defined differently as alive. Again you can throw relativism at it to say it’s not the same, but the principle remains. If ethics is to be governed by relativism then we’ll just start eliminating people who don’t met the new and changing definitions of life based on their size, level of development, location, or dependency.

[rimrock]

Would you use a cure developed through Stem Cell research to save your child?

Sorry missed that question the first go around.

I’ll be fair and answer your question: Stem cell research – YES of course. Embryonic stem cell research – no.

If this makes anyone upset, then would you use a cure developed by the ***** experimenting on people in concentration camps to save your child?

If you say it’s not the same thing then you are going to need to explain how size, level of development, location, and developmental dependency matter when it comes to the definition of human life. Because if it doesn’t matter then we can use anyone for test subjects.

[Nuttinbutnet]

Hey rimrock, answer THE QUESTION!

[Nuttinbutnet]

Sorry, I guess we were typing at the same time. Since we were talking about embrionic stem cell research, that is how I should have asked my question. You seem very sure in your convictions , but, how do you explain this to the dying daughter, and, does she have a say in her own survival?

[Nuttinbutnet]

And, to answer your question, I would do anything that was within the law to save my child. And, if it was against the law, I would move my child to somewhere that it wasn't! I would also take into account what their wishes are.

I might not make the same decision for myself that I would make for my child or my wife. In my life there is a major distinction between my beliefs and my responsibilities. I might not always be able to practice my beliefs when making decisions for others, I accept that fact. What I will not accept is not making the best decision for someone because of my beliefs.

[OceanBlue]

If this makes anyone upset, then would you use a cure developed by the ***** experimenting on people in concentration camps to save your child?

If you say it’s not the same thing then you are going to need to explain how size, level of development, location, and developmental dependency matter when it comes to the definition of human life. Because if it doesn’t matter then we can use anyone for test subjects.

Holy cow. Yes, I'd use a cure developed by the ***** to save my own child. Does that mean I supported what they did? NO. Does that mean I'd support that kind of 'experimentation' today? NO. Is embryonic stem cell research the same as what the ****'s did? Not even close.

Let me ask you this Rimrock, do your individual cells feel pain? Seems to me, you need to have a fully developed nervous system to sense pain. Do your individual cells have emotions? Mine don't. How you can draw a comparison between **** concentration camps and embryonic stem cell research, I haven't a clue.

Your argument that these tiny cells are somehow a comparison to your living, breathing daughter are absurd. You've alluded to her being somehow less-abled than the rest of us. I don't think anyone else would compare her to a cell. Or even a relatively small group of cells.

I'm begining to wonder what you're trying to accomplish with this discussion. Those of us who disagree with you aren't going to be swayed. No more than I'd agree with your apparent assessment that I'm "amoral."

I completely disagree with your standing on this subject. However, I honor your position. Anyone who could refuse the opportunity to keep their child from suffering on the basis of the origin of the cure or treatment is someone who stands firm on their principles. Good for you.

P.S. You might want to check on the origin of many of your household products and pharmaceuticals you use. And then check into the history of the companies that produced them. Or not. It might upset your sense of morality.

[Silver Hilton]

Subject to what? Not sure what to do with that one?

I liked the Churchill story – he differently had a singular wit about him. As for your example of an enemy soldier vs. the little old lady; this is an antiquated point that always becomes up as an attempt to defend the relative mindset. But it only shows a difference in principle – killing or murder. People who will not discriminately think will say that it’s just semantics, but really there is a HUGE difference. I won’t go into lengths as to why, because anyone who is so relativistic cannot accept even the idea of set principles, let alone define what they are – they get trapped in their own circular logic.

That just shows that you are missing the logical point.

First, I'm not 'defending' the relative mindset, I am demonstrating that there is no other kind of mindset. Your semantic distinction of killing vs murder is a relativistic judgement that we as society make, depending on the context of the death. To decry the argument as archaic does not refute it's precise strength as an argument. If it is sometimes OK to kill, then it's sometimes OK to kill. We are just negotiating as to when. I for one think it's perverse to say that it's OK to kill fathers, brothers, sons who are known and loved, and not say that it's OK to sacrifice embryoes who are not yet conscious, known, or loved that others may live. We all believe in some greater good. We're just dickering over how to get there.

I can accept the idea of 'set principles'. I just don't think that they exist. To accept such a notion posits an objective reality, a third party judge who determines what the 'real' principle is. Fine, introduce us, and we can have a chat about what the principles are. Until then, just as Einstein showed was true for space-time, it is equally as true in moral judgements that there are only subjective interpretations held by each of us, which are irremovable from our cultural context.

The position of 'set principles' would like to believe that there are right and wrong principles that are as immutable as the law of gravity, and that just doesn't make sense. We look to the bible for guidance on these topics, holding the bible as immutable. For simple examples of how the morality of the world has changed in the judeo-christian world, simply read what the bible has to say about slavery. The bible does not condemn slavery - shall we bring it back? Or do we acknowledge that our thinking about right and wrong changes with time, and that we as men and women have the responsibility and capability to think through what should be labeled as right and wrong?

BTW, Leviticus 11:10 prohibits eating shellfish, so can I have all your crab and clams?

[rimrock]

Ready, set, send…Kinda of funny. I appreciate and respect your dedication and care for your child, Nuttinbutnet.

I’m not attempting to force any decision for anyone, which I appreciate you realize, thanks for that understanding. My goal is to just cause some thought on the matter, maybe cause people to think about it a little differently than before. Because I really don’t understand for one thing the dogma from some individuals in the medical fields who solely promote embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, let alone the practice itself.

I believe there are 16 ESC lines in existence today; present law in the U.S. (and only within the U.S. to my knowledge) doesn’t allow development of any new lines only research on the existing lines. An interesting issue is medically there has been NO proof adult stem cell, or stem cells from blood taken from umbilical cords after a child is born are in any way different. The ongoing research on the existing 16 lines hasn’t been shown to be ANY different, just unsubstantiated bold assertions that they are better. This is done by deception, false claims, but no hard proof. So why this sole relentless pursuit via ESC research alone? Is this just blind prejudice? Is there a separate addenda being pursued? I really don’t know or understand it’s terribly confusing and hard to shallow. The ESC research alone is leading the public down a garden path and counts on a lack of knowledge and uninformed trust by us.

In my humble opinion to live without convictions is to live with little appreciation for what we have or concern for the future. Good law is based on solid ethical principles. If the principle of ethics finally dies and we only live by what is relevant what is right in our own eyes, then much more will die along with ethics.

After all if they are just “fertilized eggs” and life is only relative, maybe the day will come when we go into orphanages use the children or their parts to advance medical science. Why is this absurd? For the most part they are also unwanted. A society based on relativism or the idea of we should all live according to our own beliefs is capable of evolving into ANYTHING.

[rimrock]

Let me ask you this Rimrock, do your individual cells feel pain? Seems to me, you need to have a fully developed nervous system to sense pain. Do your individual cells have emotions? Mine don't. How you can draw a comparison between **** concentration camps and embryonic stem cell research, I haven't a clue.

Your argument that these tiny cells are somehow a comparison to your living, breathing daughter are absurd. You've alluded to her being somehow less-abled than the rest of us. I don't think anyone else would compare her to a cell. Or even a relatively small group of cells.

This is one of the four categories I addressed: Level of Development. The embryo is merely in a different life stage. No more genetic information is required for the embryo to become an adult the embryo is in the early stages of growing up (life); no more genetic information is required for my daughter to become an adult she is in a later stage of life but also in the process of growing up. You are in affect saying level of development matters when it comes to human life? What stage of life counts as life? If we start using this relative definition then any life stage can be singled out in the end if they are not of some benefit to the rest of us. Or does the fact the embryo doesn’t experience pain, the definition of human life?

You see it’s the principle of life vs. the relative stage of life. Maybe we can even say your life stage is not relevant.

[Tanner]

we won’t need these incredible medical cures because we’ll just eliminate the ones who are sick.

It's not a stretch at all. It just happened a couple of weeks ago in Florida. :depressed:

[DanS]

we won’t need these incredible medical cures because we’ll just eliminate the ones who are sick.

Yeah. We'll eliminate them by not finding a cure, and just letting them die instead.

And then some will say we're moral for doing it.

[OceanBlue]

This is one of the four categories I addressed: Level of Development. The embryo is merely in a different life stage. No more genetic information is required for the embryo to become an adult the embryo is in the early stages of growing up (life); no more genetic information is required for my daughter to become an adult she is in a later stage of life but also in the process of growing up. You are in affect saying level of development matters when it comes to human life? What stage of life counts as life? If we start using this relative definition then any life stage can be singled out in the end if they are not of some benefit to the rest of us. Or does the fact the embryo doesn’t experience pain, the definition of human life?

You see it’s the principle of life vs. the relative stage of life. Maybe we can even say your life stage is not relevant.

Yes, all the information is there. I dispute that information = life. Information is the basis for potential - makes potential possible. But it doesn't guarantee life. WAY more has to happen before it becomes life.

Rim, I think my point has been misunderstood. You're comparing stem cell research to the holocaust. I'm saying you cannot compare it. It would be easier to compare the holocaust with what the food (and other) industry is doing.

And you are so correct. In the grand scheme of things my life stage is irrelevant. However if you were to end my life today, I would know it. I would feel it. I would have emotions about it. Why? Because I am alive, not just a potential for a life.

and for the record, no, I don't see that it is the principle of life vs. the relative stage of life.

Have a nice weekend. In the meantime, check your cupboards. do some research on the food you eat every day. Check out some of those chemical companies. You might be shocked. You are the unwitting participant in "human experiments" every moment of every day. And guess what? The results of those experiments aren't expected to save any lives...

[rimrock]

Thanks for your time OceanBlue and I appreciate you sharing your views. For me the “about 14 days” was painful for reasons already described, I know not all will see life as I do. Human life to me needs to be protected at any stage it’s precious. I know we both see life as valuable, but in a different way. Maybe that can be our common ground.

Most people I encounter are in the “grey” with no opinion on issues like this, and after my initial post I thought I’d attempt to give a view that typically isn’t promoted in main stream media. It’s not that anyone is required to accept it, but I hope people take an honest look at it. Thanks again.

[rimrock]

Hey SH, I’ve always respected your view and that you take the time to be informed. Our views mix about like oil and water :smile:, but that’s just fine because we discuss with courtesy.

I understand history has proved and most likely will continue to demonstrate there is no such thing as set principles only relative views of changing principles. That assessment I completely agree with, but its practice doesn’t make it right (it’s kind of like the ideology of pragmatism in reverse). I know moral relativism is what humanity lives by because that is what the evidence has shown it to be and even my Christian convicts that you pointed out say it will continue to be true because of the fallen nature of humanity. Humanity will always choose what best serves itself and therefore no moral principle exists – like I said I agree with that because it’s the reality of our world, but it also brings me grief since it only leads to more problems and brokenness. Relativism leads only to more relativism and the least, last and little of society are always the first victims.

[BrianMaguire]

It's not a stretch at all. It just happened a couple of weeks ago in Florida. :depressed:

Ohh please, she had a nerf football sized hole filled with fluid in the middle of her brain. She had less mental capacity than an insect and you would have her husband suffer for another 15 years?

[TheKing]

The tought that these will yeild incredible medical cures is way before premature. Medical science can cure very few things. Science strokes the ego of man by hinting at imortality. Some see medical science as the great equalizer in an unfair life. Reality always rears it's ugly head however. If business where allowed to presell futures like medicine is allowed we would all be screaming fraud and demanding jail time.

[Hogmaster]

OK, I have been doing the old

:lurk: :lurk: :lurk:

dance on this one now, for several days.

rimrock, to quote;

A society based on relativism or the idea of we should all live according to our own beliefs is capable of evolving into ANYTHING.

Quite true. And as long as the discussion is so rhetorical, suppose any society prior to the one we live in today - pick your culture and timeframe - had the "opportunity" to see if using embryonic stem cells to "potentially" save lives or improve the chronically ill, what decision would be made?

Rather than some who feel the moral fabric of our society is being torn, frazzled and disintegrating, because of what rights are taken from the individual, I just happen to believe that we, as a people, are TOO concerned about individualistic rights, and not concerned enough about the survival of the species.

Any living species on our planet has the inherent need to maintain and grow the species. That is done by survival #1 of the individual, #2 of the individual's offspring and #3 the society.

Yes, I, like Dan S, am a type I diabetic. So is my daughter. The discovery of insulin has allowed us to survive. Further scientific discovery might prevent complications. That may seem selfish to you, but it is good for society.

Brave new world order? An embryo has little say. Your daughter, and mine, have more. The line will always be different in the eye of the beholder...

And as far as the argument as to what life is, or isn't, or what is OK to destroy or not, is it murder that the female sluffs fertilized embryos on occasion? Tragic accident, or could more be done? When you drive a car, you pollute the air. That pollution contributes to unhealthful living conditions. Some will die from the contribution to pollution. Are we morally as bad as embryonic stem cell researchers? After all, it is a matter of degree, as you have pointed out.

[baltz526]

I’ll be fair and answer your question: Stem cell research – YES of course. Embryonic stem cell research – no.

i have no ethical problem with using embryonic stem cells for research in the labratory with no growth time limit as long as the research is directed at desease,genetic disorders,spinal injury,brain disorders, ect. but to clone humans or grow embyoes in the lab for implantation, these start to make me nervous. embryonic stem cell material when grown in a lab, no matter it's appearance is still just a bunch of cells.morally there is no difference between embryonic stem cell research and geneticly altering corn to resist a pest or desease.

[rimrock]

The tought that these will yeild incredible medical cures is way before premature. Medical science can cure very few things. Science strokes the ego of man by hinting at imortality. Some see medical science as the great equalizer in an unfair life. Reality always rears it's ugly head however. If business where allowed to presell futures like medicine is allowed we would all be screaming fraud and demanding jail time.

A lot more truth in that statement than most would care to realize. I also agree entirely that all stem cell researcher’s medical claims are extremely premature…could be another “fountain of youth” quest that will never produce anything. And fair to say it’s more about money then “improving” the quality of life.


Hogmaster, as with DanS I appreciate your views because you both are coming at this from more than philosophy, but a genuine health concern. I have no firsthand experience with type I diabetes, I image it’s a challenge to say the yet. I respect your convictions.

To address your rhetorical question of an assumed society and the opportunity of this research to I’ll even add “guarantee” cures, what decision would be made? Using history as a barometer I’d say quite confidently they would embrace the science with open arms. History is littered with the ideology of the ends justifying the means.

Is there a difference in embryos dieing of “natural means” as murder being equalivant to research? (I think it was very thoughtful that you tried to word this as nicely as you could). There is a major difference – it focuses on intent. One is out of our control a natural process, but the other is our willful choice. Science is creating embryos during this research for the SOLE purpose of harvesting their cells. That’s quite different than death by natural means.

I also don’t think you are being selfish at all. We all desire life; it’s a created part of our being in no way is that at all selfish. My understanding even though we may disagree is that valuing human life in all its stages honors life most of all. This is not meant as a guilt statement or an attitude of superiority. I’ll try and explain. Placing value on each stage of life says that life is important because it’s life, whereas making choices of what stages are to be valued and which aren’t to be valued is subjective and places one life over another. I realize people may be shaking their head and saying “it’s not alive”; again that is the argument of level of development. It’s an attempt to rationalize life’s value on a sliding scale. What’s not developed enough to warrant their death?

[rimrock]

i have no ethical problem with using embryonic stem cells for research in the labratory with no growth time limit as long as the research is directed at desease,genetic disorders,spinal injury,brain disorders, ect. but to clone humans or grow embyoes in the lab for implantation, these start to make me nervous. embryonic stem cell material when grown in a lab, no matter it's appearance is still just a bunch of cells.morally there is no difference between embryonic stem cell research and geneticly altering corn to resist a pest or desease

Hello baltz526. I think you are correct in linking this research for the potential of human cloning, by the way addressed in the original article as a restriction along with the “about 14 day” limit. I cannot predict the future but this would be the next logical step in medical science. Why? Because as researchers have already addressed transplants from a clone in theory would produce much less likelihood for rejection of harvested tissue since it is genetically identical. This could also be used to repair nerve damage in patients with spinal cord injuries and on it goes.

Now with all things being relative in a post-modern society and the habit of the ends justifying the means…why wouldn’t future generations say this is good for society? The same arguments used in favor of embryonic stem cell research can be directly applied here as well. That’s the problem with relativism we just keep moving the bar and we don’t know where it will stop. Once this is truly opened up there most likely will be no way to stop it, because after all there is no set standard or limitation in relativism.

[Tilla]

As a Diabetic who is seeing the effects in my life and a degreed biologist who understands kilocalories and entropy I will take a baseball bat to these morals...oops! don't stand too close.

[Uglygreen]

Most of the discussion on this thread is about "life" in terms of biology alone. Is there more to "life" than the biological process? What about the spirit? When is the soul born?

If "life" is only about biology, I say go ahead - do whatever is necessary to prolong the biology.

I choose to believe that there is more to "life" than biology, chemistry, physics, etc... I see every day that the human expirence is far greater than the sum of those things that we can see, feel, touch, and explain. From a spiritual perspective, research like this makes me very uncomfortable. For me it would make little sense to kill the spirit to save the body.

Brad

[Tilla]

Well let's say we do a little experiment. Let's make it real. I'll let my opinion stand between you and life.
See how you feel....goodbye wife ...goodbye kids....goodbye fishing.
You don't matter because someone has an opinion. Thanks.

At least the Biology is truth.

[Uglygreen]

Show me one real person that stem cell research has ever saved. Until that happens its just an "opinion" that it might someday do so. And at the very least, that opinion stands between real life becoming someone real. For me personally, I have more questions than answers.

Brad

Show me one real person that stem cell research has ever saved. Until that happens its just an "opinion" that it might someday do so. And at the very least, that opinion stands between real life becoming someone real. For me personally, I have more questions than answers.

Brad

Good thing Jonas Salk did not feel that way about polio research huh?

[Uglygreen]

Not the same thing. Polio was wiped out by a vaccine to prevent infection based on dead Polio virus particles.

Brad

Not the same thing. Polio was wiped out by a vaccine to prevent infection based on dead Polio virus particles.

Brad

and embryonic stem cell research is based on using formless fertilized eggs that are created for the sole purpose of research. We are not talking first tri-mester fetuses here
It would be real easy to say "I would let my son/daughter die before using stem cells" but I would be willing to wager if that choice were to actually occur the story would be different.
This seems to me to be yet another "cram my idea of morality down your throat" debate

[rimrock]

This seems to me to be yet another "cram my idea of morality down your throat" debate

The funny thing about the opinion of the “open-minded” is if you disagree with the “open-minded” one they rudely label you as the one being intolerant. The irony never escapes me. Please at least attempt to be polite as so many others here did with well thought out convictions which I truly respect especially when they differed from mine. It’s not hard if “your generally a modest man”.

[baltz526]

Not the same thing. Polio was wiped out by a vaccine to prevent infection based on dead Polio virus particles.

medical research created the polio virus vaccine,medical research created all the antibiotic drugs,and hopefully embryotic stem cell research will create treatments to cure pancreatic desease,spinal cord injury and a host of other human maladys. some progress has been made in some areas but if people keep fighting the use of this type of research everyone may be put at risk. in the future we do not know what new desease or plague my attack humanity and if the use of human embryonic cells gives us a head start in fighting these also what is the larger moral issue, research that creates a new wave of medical miracles like penicillin,or research being suppressed by unaware herd type thinkers reacting to what their leaders tell them.

The funny thing about the opinion of the “open-minded” is if you disagree with the “open-minded” one they rudely label you as the one being intolerant. The irony never escapes me. Please at least attempt to be polite as so many others here did with well thought out convictions which I truly respect especially when they differed from mine. It’s not hard if “your generally a modest man”.

Please
I have followed your tone in this whole thread and after all who was it that felt the need to start this thread in the first place?
If you are not trying to foist your beliefs on the rest of us by bringing this up then what are you trying to do? :whazzup:

[rimrock]

what is the larger moral issue, research that creates a new wave of medical miracles like penicillin,or research being suppressed by unaware herd type thinkers reacting to what their leaders tell them.

Are you sure that label couldn’t go both ways…Just a thought.

I don’t think there is any argument against medical research which has resulted in vaccines as you said, even today the FDA has rules on how that research is conducted and developed. Pharmaceutical companies cannot go to open trails until a lot of control is passed; so research in not a problem, control in not new and I assume not to be a problem. It’s just the definition of when life begins. That may be a better way of putting it. Since all of us here at one time where embryos, what level of development counts as life?

That’s kind of the question. Basically I have asked that many times and no one has produced another answer. Since I value life at all stages I then to be consistent must say it begins at conception. So how about others views? When has a human developed enough to be called a human?

[baltz526]

It’s just the definition of when life begins. That may be a better way of putting it. Since all of us here at one time where embryos, what level of development counts as life?

you asked so i will give you my opinion, life begins when the child sucks in the first breath of air outside the womb.but this is not what the issue is about human embryonic research done in a labratory setting, is growing cells not human beings. human beings are grown in the womb of human women. an embryo grown in a lab is not alive in any human sense except at a genetic level.and these base genetic human cells is what is being researched to find out if they will be able to save living human beings,born of human woman wombs.

[rimrock]

I have followed your tone in this whole thread and after all who was it that felt the need to start this thread in the first place?

Not sure what "tone" I have taken. I guess if I disagree with you it's a "tone" and those with your matching opinion are the only ones allowed to post; not exactly a tolerant position.

If this is somehow upsetting you then please don’t feel you need to continue to read the thread – it’s nothing to get anger over. If you wish to take the position of modesty and open-mindedness then there is no need to be impolite. If you have an honest question and would like to hear another view point then just ask, no need for the “Oh please” that’s kind of a superior attitude. I’m not saying anyone must comply with my view, just ask an open-mind to it. I’ve appreciate others opposing views they have help my overall understanding.

[duckboy]

Having an argument with an idiot is not a worthy expenditure of ones time.. (this is not intended for any specific individual unless it is applicable to them)

I'm not angry at all but you lost credibility when you used this argument to try to make your point.

If this makes anyone upset, then would you use a cure developed by the ***** experimenting on people in concentration camps to save your child?

There is no comparison between the two!
What the ***** did was an atrocity and a crime against humanity. Are you calling embryonic stem cell research the same?
Is embryonic stem cell research going to, in your opinion, compromise the moral integrity of this country?

[duckboy]

The tought that these will yeild incredible medical cures is way before premature. Medical science can cure very few things.

Tell that to Jona Saulk and edward jenner

[Striper Club]

As far as my opinion on stem cell research.... MS sufferers, such as my father, may be cured due to the potential of the research. That is enough for me.

As far as my opinion on stem cell research.... MS sufferers, such as my father, may be cured due to the potential of the research. That is enough for me.

Amen to that!