Stem-cell research

[Spiderman]

Is it okay to destroy human embryos for research? If your answer is no, please explain

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Harvest embryos to study them, learn about their amazing ability to become whatever cells, and cure things such as paralysis, blindness, Alzheimer's, grow compatible organs, and many, many other diseases.
I see no reason it shouldn't be supported.

 

[Spiderman]

Harvest embryos to study them, learn about their amazing ability to become whatever cells, and cure things such as paralysis, blindness, Alzheimer's, grow compatible organs, and many, many other diseases.
I see no reason it shouldn't be supported.

I couldn't see reason to not support it either. was hoping people might give some reasons

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I couldn't see reason to not support it either. was hoping people might give some reasons

I think what those against it are failing to realize is the cells they use are, in a manner of speaking, "blank cells." They haven't developed long enough yet to become liver cells, or skin cells, or brain cells, or whatever. There is no consciousness being ended, no pain and suffering being administered, but the potential to push us far into a new era of medicine.

 

[Spiderman]

em·bry·o
ˈembrēˌō/
noun

1. 1.
   an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus).

 

[Spiderman]

If the embryo doesn't suffer, I don't give a ****! I must be morally bankrupt.

But where do we draw the line?

 

[Augustus]

If the embryo doesn't suffer, I don't give a ****! I must be morally bankrupt.

But where do we draw the line?

They are produced in a lab from an embryo that has no chance of becoming a foetus because it is not inside a womb.

To be ethically against stem cell research you would really have to be against IVF as well.

 

[Skwim]

So far there seems to be little opposition to it here, so FYI . . . . .

Catholicism
The Catholic Church opposes human embryonic stem cell research calling it "an absolutely unacceptable act." The Church supports research that involves stem cells from adult tissues and the umbilical cord, as it "involves no harm to human beings at any state of development."


Baptists
The Southern Baptist Convention opposes human embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that "Bible teaches that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27; 9:6) and protectable human life begins at fertilization." However, it supports adult stem cell research as it does "not require the destruction of embryos."


Methodism
The United Methodist Church opposes human embryonic stem cell research, saying, "a human embryo, even at its earliest stages, commands our reverence." However, it supports adult stem cell research, stating that there are "few moral questions" raised by this issue.


Pentecostalism
The Assemblies of God opposes human embryonic stem cell research, saying, it "perpetuates the evil of abortion and should be prohibited."
Source: Wikipedia​

.

 

[Nietzsche]

I want anyone who is against stem cell research to plead their case to those who've lost the ability to use their legs, or anything below their neck, so on and so forth. Directly. Them specifically. If you can do that, you can continue holding your anti-science, anti-human, anti-progress, anti-medicine and pro-suffering view.

 

[Laika]

Is it okay to destroy human embryos for research? If your answer is no, please explain

Voted "Yes", but I would have chosen "maybe".

Without understanding the science, there is obviously something deeply problematic in viewing the progress of science as intrinsically moral. The accumulation of scientific knowledge leads to the growth of our technological power. Without a clear morality, science can become the amoral pursuit of knowledge and power without responsibility. The atom bomb being the most obvious instance where the individual curiousity and ambition of scientists made them "the destroyer of worlds" as Oppenheimer put it. For lack of a better alternative, we are drawn to using a religious morality that is often outdated by hundreds or thousands of years and a hindrance to scientific discoveries by attacking the very concept of science as a source of knowledge. There are the ingredients for a scientific and moral revolution in how man has gone from being subordinate to nature, to its scientific and technological master- with the mans mastery giving us the power of life and death, of creation and destruction. Religions have tried for thousands of years but these aren't simple or easy questions. Should we really expect it to be any different now just because we are more powerful from the benifits of science and think that our power is a measure of how right, virtuous and good we are? Or is it to some extent vanity? How safe is it to play god?

I think I can sympathise with those who would vote "no" in so far as there has to be a line drawn as to what qualifies as "personhood". For the same reason I can sympathise with someone who opposes abortion even though I'd support it. Without some clear line between human and non-human life, there is a choas and arbitrariness over human rights. Identifying the embyro as "human" has the implication of granting it "rights" that belong to all other humans including the "right to life". Saying that an embroyo is "non-human" as a form of "animal life" risks a creeping definition in which certian categories of humans are infact animals who do not have rights. The definition risks becomes a subjective choice dependent on context and utility rather than intrinsic worth of human individuals.

Depending how you draw the line can determine whether stem cell research may be morally equivalent to human medical experimentation of adults, along with the various bioethical problems associated with eugenics and whether some humans are "life unfit for life". In China there is currently a scandal over forced organ harvesting by political prisoners as the government doesn't believe these groups have "rights" to consent or to self-ownership over their own organs. They're medical ethics are "out of sync" with western standards- but is that objectively wrong? How would we know? Is it a question of right or wrong, or simply power?

So I support stem cell research given its possible medical breakthroughs (admittedly without much understanding of the science). The arbitariness of the distinction between human and non-human is unsettling however so I can see why there are religious and moral objections.

 

[Lirille]

Note: Not all stem cell research involves embryos.

As for destroying any embryos for research (human or otherwise), I believe it is to be avoided. The reason is my belief that a new soul starts attaching itself to a body soon after fecundation. It's not as bad a killing a fully developed fetus, but it is still to be avoided.

Just like my stance on abortion, I have nothing against the people that have abortions or are involved in stem cell research, because I believe they do what they do out of ignorance. It is a matter of belief - I don't have any secular arguments to offer against either.

 

[Kemosloby]

Not sure, but since I don't know I'm technically not in favor of it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I supported George Bush's ban if that's what you are referring to.

But I'm not sure anyone opposes stem cell research in all it's forms

 

[Father Heathen]

If those embryos are going to be lost anyway, wouldn't it be more 'evil' to let their 'life' go to waste rather than for them for serve the good of humankind?

 

[Lirille]

If those embryos are going to be lost anyway, wouldn't it be more 'evil' to let their 'life' go to waste rather than for them for serve the good of humankind?

1) Which embryos? As far as I know, embryos in general don't spontaneously emerge out of nowhere. You have to cause two gametes to come together.

2) There's no such thing as "evil".

3) I don't think is very ethical to sacrifice any living being without their consent "for the good of mankind".

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Stem cell research is legal in most countries.
It rarely involves embryos these days.
Stem cells can even be collected from adult tissue.
Americans interested in the research simply move to other countries including the UK.
A lot of American money is invested in foreign research projects.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If the embryo doesn't suffer, I don't give a ****! I must be morally bankrupt.

But where do we draw the line?

To me, it is morally bankrupt to not harness stem cell research to help and cure people who are here, who are developed, and who are conscious and aware.

3) I don't think is very ethical to sacrifice any living being without their consent "for the good of mankind".

That position holds it is unethical to harvest a blob of cells with no mind, awareness, brain, or consciousness but yet permissible that those who are here with a mind, brain, awareness, and consciousness continue to suffer with ailments that stem cell research shows great promise in curing.

 

[Lirille]

blob of cells with no mind, awareness, brain, or consciousness

If you're talking about embryos, I don't agree with this premise. But, as a I said, it is a matter of belief. I don't expect you to agree with me.

 

[Father Heathen]

1) Which embryos? As far as I know, embryos in general don't spontaneously emerge out of nowhere. You have to cause two gametes to come together.

Obviously those developed for laboratory use. You didn't think that they would eventually became viable in a petri dish, did you?

2) There's no such thing as "evil".

But those who oppose stem cell research on religious grounds, which is clearly who I'm addressing, believe that there is.

3) I don't think is very ethical to sacrifice any living being without their consent "for the good of mankind".

So you do believe in "evil" (i.e. unethical), you're just playing a semantics game. Btw, did your food consent to your consumption of it?

 

[Lirille]

Obviously those developed for laboratory use. You didn't think that they would eventually became viable in a petri dish, did you?

See, my problem starts with the developing embryos part.

So you do believe in "evil" (i.e. unethical), you're just playing a semantics game.

Semantics is important. "Evil", to me, implies an absolute truth, while "unethical", implies something inherently attached to our times and culture.

Btw, did your food consent to your consumption of it?

I don't believe plants have individual, fully-functioning souls, so it shouldn't matter as much.