dangin

Actually the more interesting question for the person opposed to stem cell research on religious grounds is "why did god make them"?

God is the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful dude, or el duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. He made stem cells, he knew what they could be used for. He knows every in and out, every little secret of science, he knows about splitting atoms, he knows how to break the speed of light, he knows it all. He also knows that we would figure it out. Any denial of the above points places limits on god.

Also god could have made us so that we develop without stem cells, or he could have made stem cells useless for the purposes we are learing to use them for. Denying this places limits on god.

God wants us to use stem cells for therapeutic work, god wants christopher reeve to walk again, god wants a cure for MS, and parkinsons, and all organ failures. He set it up this way.

Oh wait, I mean this is the way it is, yay nature, let's get Bush out of the white house, and start saving some people.

dk

A right to life rests upon a deontological (as opposed to teleological) view of metaethics. In particular embryonic stem cells (ESC) experiments are rationally designed to artificially -- 1) harvest, 2) fertilize 3) wantonly destroy a human life 4) to benefit a third party -- which fundamentally violates one life to benefit another.

There are 3 basic facts that make ESC research apprehensible. <ol type="1">[*] human life begins at conception.[*] reason orders the value of human life above rational incursions.[*] human life contains an endowment that couples being with potential to determine self as “the means to its own ends”.[/list=a]

Since ESC are innately pluripotent I don’t see how the issue of cloning can be considered independent. Naturally when people discover the benefits of destorying human life then human life becomes an exploitable commodity.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

double post sorry

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

brighid

ESC experiments do harvest stem cells (not human beings even if the cells come from human subjects), I am not sure what role fertilization plays in ESC experiments but neither have any moral implication. However, to suggest that the motive for research is the merciless, inhumane, malicious or having no JUST foundation is categorically false! Perhaps you could provide some evidence to the motives of scientists and citizens who have a vested interest in seeing this research move forward.

It seems to me the desire to attempt to cure disease like cancer, diabetes, paralysis, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other debilitating and life-threatening illnesses through this promising research is anything but a wanton disregard or destruction of human life. If anything those who “morally” oppose this research based on the idea that human life begins at conception show a wanton disregard for human life by damning millions of people to suffer and die needlessly when a cure may very well be found. I think the LIVING and not the potential human being (as found in stem cells) that will through the very natural course of nature (such as never being fertilized or being naturally aborted) never actually becomes HUMAN, take precedence in ALL cases.

If you would also care to provide scientific evidence that supports your theory (certainly not a FACT) that the moment a sperm and egg become united that this multicelled organism is fully human, and therefore deserving of protection (that not even your God seems to give since miscarriage is so prevalent.)

I really have no idea what 2 and 3 are suppose to mean, more or less imply. Unless of course you are able to prove that a 16 or 60-celled organism that possesses human DNA is capable of determining anything, but most specifically “self as the means to its own end.”

How can morally upright people overlook the suffer of real living, breathing, feeling, human beings and place more “value” on human cells frozen in a laboratory that will never actually become fully human?

Brighid

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

dk

I have no idea what god you're talking about. Obviously free will gives people the ability to participate in their destiny, and people are created with free will. If ESC (embryonic stem cell) research is unethical, then it violates the sanctity of human life. The sceintific evidence says a embryonic stem cells are human life. If a zygote or blastula isn't a human life then what is it?

dangin

I'm talking about any god that exists. The alleged god. If he created the game, he created each game piece, and knew how they could be manipulated.

And your entire "metaethics" psychobabble stems from a "humans" are special view of the world.

Otherwise it would be "unethical" for the lioness to bring down the wildebeast.

Special creation aside, which it must be because it is foolishness, if it can be done it can be done. There is no ought, there is only what is.

brighid

They are living organisms encoded with human DNA. They are alive, but they are not a HUMAN LIFE. You are living human, the millions of men, women and children suffering the terrible ravages of disease that ESC Research could eliminate are living, human beings but stems cells, zygotes and blastocysts are no more human then a tumor, skin cells or other conglomeration of cells that have human DNA.

Brighid

Frivolous

Well its close enough to the mark to still make my points valid. They are finding out what makes these cells differentiate in the way that they do, and this is regulated by gene expression. Once they find out what controls gene expression what are they going to do? Cure cancer hopefully, and then?

My thoughts on the matter are that they won't stop at curing disease, they'll continue with a more profitable goal in mind.

brighid

Then address the later concern without restricting the valuable research that will take place in the mean time. Anything can be abused, that is what regulation is for but it seems irresponsible and immoral to restrict research that could very well eliminate the worst diseases in order to possibly prevent profit when those concerns can be logically addressed.

Brighid

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

dangin

You mean like scripture?