| catqueen 13.07.2011 16:17 |
I just had an argument with someone about stem cell research (as mentioned in random thoughts). What are your thoughts about it? Personally, I'm against using humans in any form for scientific research, although i can see why people argue for it. I'm also pro-life, although I think its probably better to have legal abortions (currently its not legal in Ireland) then to have coat hanger jobs in back alleys. And I read a story (well it was read to me in college) relating to it, about a girl who was attacked, raped, invaded and kidnapped by beings who demanded the use of her body for 9 months before putting her into extreme pain and then not releasing her for 21 years from their servitude. It did make me look at the issue differently. Having said i'm pro-life, I wouldn't condemn someone who has had an abortion, as it is not an easily reached decision, and its extremely painful and not a path most people would choose if they didn't feel forced into it. BUT anyway-- what are your views on stem cell research? Do the ends justify the means? Or do you not think a 0 - 5 day old embryo is human? If not, how come 5 days? Why not 5 days and 12 hours, or 4 and a half days? One argument i read said that while you can argue against it on a pro-life basis, most of the embryos come from fertility clinics, are used with permission, and it would have been deep-freeze (indefinately), destruction or research, therefore no lives are saved by preventiing the research, and that its a purely symbolic stand. Thoughts? |
| emrabt 13.07.2011 16:26 |
Don't confuse embryonic stem cells, which appear to be a waste of time because no real break throughs have ever been made with them, and adult stem cells which have had some fantastic results, including reconstructing part of a windpipe (made from the Patients own cells of course.), meaning there will be no need for a lifetime of anti rejection drugs as there would be in a normal transplant. So my answer would be that you are very uniformed, But embryonic stem cells are not the way forward, Adult stem cells have already been proven an more time and research should be ploughed into it. |
| -fatty- 2850 13.07.2011 19:07 |
I am in favour of human experimenation. Even if there's nothing to be scientifically gained from it, it would still be great fun. I also believe that the re-introduction of slavery would solve the world's economic problems so my opinions are probably best kept to myself. fatty. |
| YourValentine 14.07.2011 06:31 |
Stem cell research does not mean that "humans" are used for medical experimentation. First of all, there are adult stem cells and secondly even embryonal stem cells are not "humans", they are just cells. In the discussion about the ethical implications of stem cell research we are often given the impression that small cute embryos are killed brutally for research purpose but that is just propaganda, it's just a small cell lump that was created in the tube. All the "life starts with conception" is propaganda as well in my humble opinion. If you have a 3rd month miscarriage in a Catholic hospital they won't give the embryo an emergency baptism and bury it on a Christian cemetery - they will throw it into the biohazard trash can. Only if a woman demands she wants to decide about her body herself the 3 month embryo is sacred life all of a sudden. I only mentioned Catholic hospitals because the Catholic church is leading the "pro life" campaigns - other hospitals do the same, of course. |
| FriedChicken 14.07.2011 06:42 |
Exactly what Barbara said! |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.07.2011 08:58 |
-fatty- wrote: I am in favour of human experimenation. Even if there's nothing to be scientifically gained from it, it would still be great fun. I also believe that the re-introduction of slavery would solve the world's economic problems so my opinions are probably best kept to myself. fatty. ===== In the words of my wise and cynical professor of Economic History, Peer Vries: "Slavery is a system marred by one major disadvantage: slaves require regular feeding." |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.07.2011 10:31 |
Let me be the second to second YV's comments in their entirety. |
| The Real Wizard 14.07.2011 12:24 |
YV for the win ! |
| Micrówave 14.07.2011 13:53 |
" If you have a 3rd month miscarriage in a Catholic hospital they won't give the embryo an emergency baptism and bury it on a Christian cemetery - they will throw it into the biohazard trash can" Your source for this? Or is this just a slight case of slander? (I'm sure this will go unanswered.) |
| catqueen 14.07.2011 17:11 |
emrabt wrote: Don't confuse embryonic stem cells, which appear to be a waste of time because no real break throughs have ever been made with them, and adult stem cells which have had some fantastic results, including reconstructing part of a windpipe (made from the Patients own cells of course.), meaning there will be no need for a lifetime of anti rejection drugs as there would be in a normal transplant. So my answer would be that you are very uniformed, But embryonic stem cells are not the way forward, Adult stem cells have already been proven an more time and research should be ploughed into it. Yeah, after thinking and reading a bit more about it, I think i was confusing it a bit with fetal tissue transplants, etc. In my teens i went through a rabid pro-life phase and read tonnes of stuff about the pro-life movement, and i know a lot of that is propaganda -- but now my problem is trying to sort through the vast amount of vaguely remembered information that's in my head and try to figure out what is true and what is emotive hype. I do think breeding embryos for research is wrong, and I think too much genetic experimentation is wrong -- HAVING SAID THAT, i'm sure if i actually read up about it, i might find that it is looking to promote anti-cancer genes and stuff like that rather then genetically encouraging blonde hair. I also realised yesterday while thinking about this that the statistics i had heard (which i don't remember) about the number of babies in the USA which are aborted based on things like hair and eye colour cannot be true. Maybe there have been abortions over stuff like that (maybe -- but can they even tell hair colour) but more likely it was a paternity issue (maybe the baby would have come out with brown skin and black hair, instead of white skin and blue eyes -- the hair colour is different, but not the actual issue). And yes, as you said, a huge amount of stem cell research is done on ADULT stem cells.... so yes, my rant was a bit random. Also they can get stem cells from umbilical cords, placenta, etc, not necessarily from embryos. So i was jumping the gun a bit. BUT, i'm glad i asked it, cos typing it out (and arguing with my friend) made me think about it, and that has to be good. :) |
| catqueen 14.07.2011 17:11 |
-fatty- wrote: I am in favour of human experimenation. Even if there's nothing to be scientifically gained from it, it would still be great fun. I also believe that the re-introduction of slavery would solve the world's economic problems so my opinions are probably best kept to myself. fatty. rofl |
| catqueen 14.07.2011 17:13 |
YourValentine wrote:All the "life starts with conception" is propaganda as well in my humble opinion. If you have a 3rd month miscarriage in a Catholic hospital they won't give the embryo an emergency baptism and bury it on a Christian cemetery - they will throw it into the biohazard trash can. Only if a woman demands she wants to decide about her body herself the 3 month embryo is sacred life all of a sudden. I only mentioned Catholic hospitals because the Catholic church is leading the "pro life" campaigns - other hospitals do the same, of course. Dont they? Is that an issue of sanctity of life or of trying to minimise the pain to the mother or of practicality (it would be pretty tiny). I actually didn't realise they do emergency baptisms on miscarriages at all. |
| YourValentine 15.07.2011 00:38 |
No, they don't :-) It's only an example about how "life" is differently defined: when you have a miscarriage, it is not considered human life because it is not treated like a human body (my source is my lifelong experience and that of my fellow citizens, microwave). About the abortion of babies because of hair or skin colour: I think that is a big, fat lie. I do not think it is even possible to determine eye colour or skin coulour with stem cell research. We had the same discussion when preimplantation diagnostics were legalised. Opponents of the law argued that people would select embryos according to gender and hair colour but experts testified in parliament that that is not even possible. I understand the ethical problems many people have with issues like stem cell research, preimplantation diagnostics and abortion but the discussion should be honest. Horror stories about evil parents who want their designer babies are not helpful - maybe there are such rare cases but they are not the normal issue. |
| catqueen 15.07.2011 03:37 |
YourValentine wrote: No, they don't :-) It's only an example about how "life" is differently defined: when you have a miscarriage, it is not considered human life because it is not treated like a human body (my source is my lifelong experience and that of my fellow citizens, microwave). About the abortion of babies because of hair or skin colour: I think that is a big, fat lie. I do not think it is even possible to determine eye colour or skin coulour with stem cell research. We had the same discussion when preimplantation diagnostics were legalised. Opponents of the law argued that people would select embryos according to gender and hair colour but experts testified in parliament that that is not even possible. I understand the ethical problems many people have with issues like stem cell research, preimplantation diagnostics and abortion but the discussion should be honest. Horror stories about evil parents who want their designer babies are not helpful - maybe there are such rare cases but they are not the normal issue. Yeah, what you said about designer babies is exactly what i meant -- i was a lot less discerning about what i read and its source when i was in my teens, and if it came from a christian source i was a lot less critical/questioning about their claims, hence i now have some fairly strong attitudes and i'm not 100% certain of the validity of the information they are based on! *when i said about skin colour, i meant that perhaps the 'women have abortions because of hair colour' claim may have been based on cases where women had abortions because they knew damn well that the baby was not their partner's and that it would come out looking significantly different to their partner, making it impossible to hide (from him) that he wasn't the dad. Or maybe that hazily remembered issue was based on someone saying that PROBABLY this will be the situation, or MAYBE people would want this, etc -- just hype and propaganda. And i agree, it would make things a lot clearer if people would use straightforward, logical and ACCURATE arguments. |
| FriedChicken 15.07.2011 09:29 |
I don't understand why religious people think doing stem cell research is meddling with their gods plan. While removing a tumour, that was able to grow there because of their gods blueprints, isn't. |
| The Real Wizard 15.07.2011 09:56 |
Micrówave wrote: "If you have a 3rd month miscarriage in a Catholic hospital they won't give the embryo an emergency baptism and bury it on a Christian cemetery - they will throw it into the biohazard trash can" Your source for this? Or is this just a slight case of slander? (I'm sure this will go unanswered.) ==================================== Do you know anyone who had a burial for a fetus in the first trimester? It's not slander - it's the truth. It is standard practice to safely dispose of the fetus after an abortion. It's really amazing that the people who are anti-abortion are usually also pro-war. It's ok to send someone off to death, as long as they're over 16. But if they're in the womb, suddenly it's a crime. |
| catqueen 15.07.2011 11:05 |
FriedChicken wrote: I don't understand why religious people think doing stem cell research is meddling with their gods plan. While removing a tumour, that was able to grow there because of their gods blueprints, isn't. I didn't mean stem cell research specifically is playing God, but i do think making designer babies is. In my (un-educated) opinion, it risks ending up with a race of engineered 'perfect' humans with enhanced traits and 'normal' humans which will be the duds. I don't think seeking healing is an ethical issue as we have an instinctive will to live, and promoting life is kind of highlighted in the Bible. |
| catqueen 15.07.2011 11:07 |
Sir GH wrote: It's really amazing that the people who are anti-abortion are usually also pro-war. It's ok to send someone off to death, as long as they're over 16. But if they're in the womb, suddenly it's a crime. Yeah, i never got this either. *I'm also anti-war. Well, at least... I am in theory, but please don't ask me what i think people should have done about Hitler, because i really don't have an anti-war way around that. |
| GratefulFan 15.07.2011 11:44 |
Sir GH wrote: Do you know anyone who had a burial for a fetus in the first trimester? It's not slander - it's the truth. It is standard practice to safely dispose of the fetus after an abortion. It's really amazing that the people who are anti-abortion are usually also pro-war. It's ok to send someone off to death, as long as they're over 16. But if they're in the womb, suddenly it's a crime. ========================================= While slander isn't the word I'd have chosen it's certainly not 'the truth' either. Miscarried children at any stage who are no longer alive are not baptized because baptism is a sacrament for the living, not because the remains are not valued as human life. Canonical law actually lays out procedures for this situation and permits anyone to perform the rite of baptism in an emergency where cessation of life is suspected to be imminent in a miscarriage. If there is doubt as to whether the child is alive a conditional baptism may be performed. Catholic hospitals no longer bury miscarried remains on their grounds (they used to) because modern civil practices separate the roles and rituals around death, and thus tissue from a miscarriage can be handed off to funeral homes and then cemeteries where the family wishes it. Similarly, families may absolutely request a mass and attendant rituals. They aren't required to do any of this, and it wouldn't be very merciful if they were given the very personal nature of that loss and grief. Either way, whether the lost child is buried or handled by the hospital it's irrelevant to the underlying principle of life beginning at conception or the dignity and value that believers accord it. I find this miscasting of the facts rather ironic. If the Catholic Church deserves criticism around right to life and related issues it certainly isn't because of the loose or hypocritical application of them. It's because of a too encompassing and too rigid application as seen through things like church policy on birth control, life saving condom use, and abortion under no circumstances. |
| YourValentine 16.07.2011 02:56 |
I have to disagree, Gratefulfan. First of all in my area of life aborted fetuses were never buried by hospitals anywhere . It is forbidden to bury anybody anywhere except for the designated cemeteries - you cannot even bury your cat in your garden. Secondly, neither the Catholic church nor any other hospital ever considered an aborted fetus as human life - fetuses have always been treated like a part of the mother's body like for example a removed appendix and not like a human being that deserves respect. I mentioned it because for me it always showed that there was no social consensus about "life beginning with conception". An aborted fetus is in fact a part of the mother's body and unable to live outside the mother's body - that is a very important difference between a still born child and a lost fetus. The still born child will be blessed by the church and buried in sacred ground (or on a cemetery in civil society). Only when it comes to legal abortion churches and other anti-abortionists all of a sudden claim that there is a social consensus about human life beginning with conception. In my opinion that is not the case at all. Most people- even a vast majority of Catholics - believe that the rights of the pregnant woman to decide about her own body must be recognised and appreciated by laws considering legal abortion. I think that the discussion about ethically complicated issues like stem cell research , pre-implantation diagnostics, abortion laws, IVF etc must be honest and should not be burdened with ideological dogmas. If there were a clear, ethical opinion which is valid for everybody we would not have so many different laws. For example in many European countries preimplantation diagnostics is allowed while it was forbidden in Germany until just a few weeks ago. Surrogate mothers are allowed in the USA but forbidden in many other countries, Germany also forbids the implantation of another woman's fertilized egg while the use of other men's semen is allowed - there is a very strange legislation struggling to catch up with scientific progress. Lawful limitations of what is scientifically possible are definitely necessary but the discussion should be calm and not hysterical with all the horror stories about designer babies and Frankenstein test tubes. |
| catqueen 16.07.2011 05:42 |
YourValentine wrote: the discussion should be calm and not hysterical with all the horror stories about designer babies and Frankenstein test tubes. Do you think it will ever be possible that we will get to that point? I have friends who read the most emotive, dramatic, horror-story filled and not very well backed up articles to say that they shouldn't vaccinate, i have friends who follow really far oout conspiracy theories, and i just wonder will we ever get to where society CAN discuss without half-educated people screaming out their un-founded beliefs as scientific fact. With regard to the anti-vaccination article, i tried to explain to them that when someone has to use lots of exclamation marks, bold print, and call on their 'many years of experience' as a doctor without actually using scientific research, or anything that can be quantified or checked by another person, then perhaps we should be a little cautious about their claims. But apparantly my aversion to hyped up badly written articles by obscure doctors who claim specialist knowledge without any evidence to back it up was a sign that I'm indoctrinated by the culture, closed minded and not able to see 'outside the box' or understand any article which goes against popular opinion. Or something like that. I hope someday we will be able to have calm discussions about big issues, but i really don't see that day coming any time soon. |
| GratefulFan 17.07.2011 00:08 |
This is one that doesn't rest on your opinion or mine YV. There is copious independent and explicit documentation relating to the Church's view of miscarried children and their status as human beings. The subject has been the focus of Catholic theologians many times over the years and has produced evolution in canon law, the development of catechism to provide comfort to grieving families, the conditional extension of Catholic funeral and burial rights to the unbaptized remains if the parents intended to baptize the child, and an amended funeral mass for a child, among other things. Google the relevant terms and you'll find any number of accounts of families who have had some combination of funerals/burials/blessings/ceremonies for the remains of early miscarriages. That families don't have to do any of this and can just allow the hospital to treat the loss as medical waste doesn't subtract from the fact that the Church is fully prepared in policy and in practice to provide a funeral and burial in these situations where the family desires it, nor does it subtract from the fact that the Church views the child at any stage of development as a human being regardless of the way the remains are dealt with. Effectively arguing that a burial and an impossible baptism should be the standard for being credibly adjudged human is no less arbitrary than deciding that humanity happens at conception. This article from the newspaper of the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago illustrates one family's experience and the way the hospital and cemetery and other supporting agencies work together in that region: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2009/0705/1.aspx With regard to the larger questions in the thread, I think the best word for abortions and the destruction of embryos for research and similar issues is the word consequential. 'Consequential' does not say anything about whether an action should or shouldn't take place, but it reminds us that there is a cost, and that the cost of one path in any given situation regarding potential human life is the other one. I of course don't want to live in a world where women cannot control their own bodies or where religion strangles science, but neither do I ever want to lose sight of the consequences of human progress on any front. Virtually all the pressure in our society is forward and upward, and we've learned that vigilance is necessary. We know that tech companies for example can lose sight of our privacy in the hunt for rapid development and an edge, and so we push back and demand caution and accountability. In the same way, scientific advancement and progressivism need their own governor in the form of ethics Scientists push forward and other voices push back. Whether those voices come from some religious organization, or from the men's reproductive rights side, or some other secular interest is less important to me than the simple fact that they are there. To me, it's a significant part of what gives me the privilege of liberal thought at all. |
| YourValentine 17.07.2011 03:07 |
The link you posted describes a situation which may be routine in US Catholic churches but not in Europe. We have no "unmarked common graves" in which remains are buried for which there is no legal provision - with or without the consent of the woman who had the miscarriage. I totally resent the way in which the Catholic doctors and nurses in the article equal miscarried and stillborn children like there is no difference when there is the huge difference that the stillborn child could have lived outside the mother's body had it not died during or before birth. This ignores the whole moral dilemma of women who choose abortion: that the embryo is not an individual but also an integral part of a woman's body and therefore the mother is the only one who can decide if she wants the pregnancy to continue or not. Of course there must be discussion and of course there must be legal limitation of the scientifically possible. The discussion should not be dominated by money interests on the one side and the strive for ethical domination ot the other side. In my experience most people have some sort of a moral compass and although the laws are not always what everybody wished for we often come to compromises with which most people can live. After all nobody is ever forced to have an abortion, pre-implantation diagnostics or medical treatment based on stem cell research. If there were a public resentment against stem cell research (for example) it would not prevail, just like animal experiments in the cosmetics industry which are less these days because people just do not want it. |
| YourValentine 17.07.2011 03:30 |
catqueen wrote: YourValentine wrote: the discussion should be calm and not hysterical with all the horror stories about designer babies and Frankenstein test tubes. Do you think it will ever be possible that we will get to that point? I have friends who read the most emotive, dramatic, horror-story filled and not very well backed up articles to say that they shouldn't vaccinate, i have friends who follow really far oout conspiracy theories, and i just wonder will we ever get to where society CAN discuss without half-educated people screaming out their un-founded beliefs as scientific fact. With regard to the anti-vaccination article, i tried to explain to them that when someone has to use lots of exclamation marks, bold print, and call on their 'many years of experience' as a doctor without actually using scientific research, or anything that can be quantified or checked by another person, then perhaps we should be a little cautious about their claims. But apparantly my aversion to hyped up badly written articles by obscure doctors who claim specialist knowledge without any evidence to back it up was a sign that I'm indoctrinated by the culture, closed minded and not able to see 'outside the box' or understand any article which goes against popular opinion. Or something like that. I hope someday we will be able to have calm discussions about big issues, but i really don't see that day coming any time soon. Of course we can have such discussions :-) Luckily, the people who scream the loudest are usually not in a position to make decisions for other people. Luckily, you still need a minimum of education to get in a position in which you have any influence, so the bloggers may make a lot of noise but they do not make a lot of impact. When you look back into our history you can see that the progress we made as a civilized society in the last 70 years is simply breath taking. 100 years ago the death penalty was very common in Europe - today no European country still has it. Only 50 years ago homosexual men were thrown into jail - today we have gay marriages and gay men are ministers or famous rock stars with children. Only 100 years ago women were second class citizens with no voting rights. Today women are presidents, chancellors, CEOs and have equal rights in every field of life (although we still earn less!). We do have an open, liberal and democratic discourse and everybody can voice their opinion and nobody must go to church on Sunday in order to be respected by their fellow citizens. No minority can terrorize the public with views that are only meant to exercise power over the faithful, the uneducated, the women, the poor, the racial minority or the gays. We can achieve a lot as a society when we do not take our achievements for granted and take part in the discourse instead of leaving it to the bloggers to scream and shout :-) |
| catqueen 17.07.2011 07:24 |
YourValentine wrote: catqueen wrote: YourValentine wrote: the discussion should be calm and not hysterical with all the horror stories about designer babies and Frankenstein test tubes. Do you think it will ever be possible that we will get to that point? I have friends who read the most emotive, dramatic, horror-story filled and not very well backed up articles to say that they shouldn't vaccinate, i have friends who follow really far oout conspiracy theories, and i just wonder will we ever get to where society CAN discuss without half-educated people screaming out their un-founded beliefs as scientific fact. With regard to the anti-vaccination article, i tried to explain to them that when someone has to use lots of exclamation marks, bold print, and call on their 'many years of experience' as a doctor without actually using scientific research, or anything that can be quantified or checked by another person, then perhaps we should be a little cautious about their claims. But apparantly my aversion to hyped up badly written articles by obscure doctors who claim specialist knowledge without any evidence to back it up was a sign that I'm indoctrinated by the culture, closed minded and not able to see 'outside the box' or understand any article which goes against popular opinion. Or something like that. I hope someday we will be able to have calm discussions about big issues, but i really don't see that day coming any time soon. Of course we can have such discussions :-) Luckily, the people who scream the loudest are usually not in a position to make decisions for other people. Luckily, you still need a minimum of education to get in a position in which you have any influence, so the bloggers may make a lot of noise but they do not make a lot of impact. When you look back into our history you can see that the progress we made as a civilized society in the last 70 years is simply breath taking. 100 years ago the death penalty was very common in Europe - today no European country still has it. Only 50 years ago homosexual men were thrown into jail - today we have gay marriages and gay men are ministers or famous rock stars with children. Only 100 years ago women were second class citizens with no voting rights. Today women are presidents, chancellors, CEOs and have equal rights in every field of life (although we still earn less!). We do have an open, liberal and democratic discourse and everybody can voice their opinion and nobody must go to church on Sunday in order to be respected by their fellow citizens. No minority can terrorize the public with views that are only meant to exercise power over the faithful, the uneducated, the women, the poor, the racial minority or the gays. We can achieve a lot as a society when we do not take our achievements for granted and take part in the discourse instead of leaving it to the bloggers to scream and shout :-) Thanks, i needed to hear that. :) I was going to say i really hope you're right, but I guess as you pointed out, history does show that we are changing. I just hope that with the sheer volume of opinions out there that the discourse doesn't get drowned out. |