Hypocricy of Christianity in regard to stem cells

The BBQ Pit
61

Actually, Ultrafilter, I live in Orange County, California. It is a very conservative area. Luckily, by visiting these boards, I was able to see that I am getting a distorted view from the people I am surrounded by in my community. Granted, I have met many open minded individuals here, they just GENERALLY haven’t been very religious.

I would ask those of you that are more enlightened to speak out in favor of stem cell research. It seems to hold wonderful promise. It’s a shame that Bush has stated that his mind is made up and therefore he will not put anymore thought into this and will veto any attempts to extend this research beyond the narrow parameters he has imposed. Is that really what the american people want? I hope not.

62

Sauron,

No objection to the prayer. I appreciate the thought. And thanks for the comments, I can appreciate criticism. I do TRY to keep an open mind, even though I would be hard pressed to prove it from this thread. I’m sorry you think my apology was “half-assed” That wasn’t my intention.

63

<<Second, you are all the first Christians that I have ever met that don’t believe the bible literally. >>>
Man, you REALLY need to get out more.

64

Huh. I have never met anyone IRL that takes the Bible literally-I really don’t KNOW any extremists. Weird, eh?

65

Well panzermanpanzerman, I actually do get out a lot. :slight_smile:

Perhaps, it is just that the extremists are more outspoken whereas the more moderate Christians are content in just living their life and don’t see a need to try to force their ideas on people with different views.

66

I think it’s that moderate Christians actually follow the example of Christ in that we love others as we would have them love us, and choose to lead and inspire by example rather than preaching and condemning everyone we meet :slight_smile:

People are usually surprised to discover that I’m a Christian, but they always say “you’re so nice and friendly and you treat everyone with respect”. It comes as a shock to them.

jarbaby

67

I agree musicguy, and I admire your moderating of your statements.

Here’s the thing–I believe in stem cell research. I simply do not believe that human embryos should be either created or destroyed for it. Personally, I think it’s bad science to make the jump so quickly from using adult, placental, and umbilical cord stem cells to using embryonic stem cells when the science has not yet caught up and when so many advances have already been made using experimentation that first does no harm.

You say Christians should not force their beliefs on others. Fair enough. However, as a Catholic I am appalled and saddened that my tax money will be used to fund experimentation on what I believe are human lives that were destroyed simply so that they might be studied. Those who do not believe that these are human lives being destroyed are forcing their beliefs on me and what’s more, expecting me to help fund them.

All I ask is that you try to see the other side, just as you expect us to do for you. Put aside any preconceived notions you might have about people of faith and accept that just as there are vegans out there who don’t consume or use animal products because they abhor the loss of life that entails, that there are those of us who honor the sacredness of human life from its conception until its natural death and simply don’t want what we see as human beings to have to die for the benefit of others. Again, it’s not out of a desire to see people who have already been born sicken and die, for everyone I know who opposes embryonic stem cell research is in favor of umbilical cord, placental, and adult stem cell research. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we should do something, and for a number of us that means that the end of helping people does not justify the means of lessening the value of human life and experimenting on human embryos.

68

I think they are equivalent in a way. Correct me if I err, but the fertility industry produces a steady stream of “extra” embryos, which, as such, are fully conceived human beings. Yet many of these are never used and will ultimately be discarded. I don’t think one can fairly condone the gratuitous production of extra embryos that are ultimately going to be thrown away, and in the same breath condemn the use of such embryos in research.

It does seem like conservative religions and sects have a special fondness for supersize families, since they are symbolic of the traditional family values that characterized simpler, agrarian times. And as it happens, fertility treatments often result in multiple births. I can’t help but notice this fact.

69

Palendine,

That was an insightful post. I don’t agree with some of your beliefs but I understand (and will try to respect) your position. My understanding is that these cells are basically leftover from the artificial fertilization process. They can either be used or discarded. I would prefer that some good was done with them. Maybe this is a stretch, but to me there is a similarity to organ donation. If the material is available that can used for good, lets use it. We shouldn’t kill people for their organs and perhaps we shouldn’t mass produce stem cells either but to not use everything that would be discarded anyway, is IMHO, a tragic waste of resources.

70

You have to use your own conscience, as do I, which is why I have a problem with the government forcing taxpayers to contribute, no matter how little, to a practice that some find abhorrent. FWIW, my faith is opposed to artificial insemination and always has been for this reason as well as others. I hope this situation, as well as the situation with the McCaughey (sp?) septuplets a few years back, causes a reconsideration of current IVF practices. Mrs. McCaughey was pro-life and did not want any of her embryos to be destroyed, nor did she wish to undergo “selective reduction,” so she ended up bearing 7 children at once, something women just weren’t meant to do.

These scientific advances require deep thought and much care. I fear that in the very real and positive human desire to make progress and help the sick that serious ethical questions and genuine beliefs about the sanctity of life are either being swept under the rug or derided with the “every sperm is sacred” rejoinder. We think very diligently about the way we treat animals that are being experimented on in search of medical advances. We should think even more deeply about the way we treat human lives. Most of all, I hope that experimentation continues on adult, placental, and umbilical stem cells and is so successful that embryonic cells are not seen as necessary at all. That would be the best possible result.

71

Palendine,

I understand that you are against artificial insemination but it is a reality that we are faced with. You can voice your opinion to put an end to IVF, but until that happens, these cells could either be studied or discarded, no other options. Of those two choices, it would seem that it would be in everyones best interest to put them to good use.

72

Actually, they can also be adopted and implanted by childless couples who wish to have a child. I wish that option was more publicized and was exercised more often. I wish fewer embryos were created for IVF, if IVF is to be used at all. And again, it is my fervent hope that adult, placental, and umbilical cord stem cell research achieves its full promise and makes experimentation on human embryos a moot point.

Again, you have a right to your beliefs. I’m just asking you to see the other side without the easy characterization of “fundies” (I’m pretty sure as a Catholic that fundamentalist Protestants would want nothing to do with me besides saving my Mary-worshipping, Pope-loving, death-cookie-eating soul) or “rabid pro-lifers.” It is acceptable and admirable in this society to have strong ethical and moral beliefs against animal testing or the consuming of animal products, but it seems that those who revere human life from conception to natural death are derided as nutjobs and put in the same camp as those moral deficients who kill abortion doctorsm in the mname of “pro-life”.

The term “slippery slope” is sooo overused, but for me it applies here. I’m sickened by the thought that China executes people and then harvests their organs for transplantation. True, lives may be saved, but it strikes me as being opposed to the human dignity of the person. It’s the same thing here (and keep in mind that I believe life begins at conception)–well, these lives may or may not ever get implanted in the womb of a mother, so we might as well be DOING something with them. Human life is sacred because of what it is, not because of what it can provide others. What this research is doing is sacrificing some human lives in the service of others. Surely you can see why some would have great moral difficulty with that.

73

only if the sperm/egg donors both agree to that, and, as we are seeing, that’s not reality.

74

Don’t worry, I got the message concerning stereotyping :slight_smile:

I have no problem with using these cells to help couples who cannot have a child of their own. That is putting them to good use. I just feel that this research does the same thing. My guess is that every one of them would not go towards a childless couple even if this use were better publicized. Do we throw away the unused ones? Because, like I said earlier, like it or not, they do exist.

75

Thanks, musicguy, and I guess after this we can agree to disagree. That’s the thing with issues like this–I don’t think anyone has EVER convinced another to change his or her mind. To sidetrack to a slightly related topic, even back when I was pro-choice (and I was pro-choice for a good 7 or 8 years of my 30) I KNEW in my heart and from my knowledge of science that a human life began at conception and was ended with abortion, I knew I could never do it to any child in my own womb, I just didn’t think that was my decision to make for anyone else. If I had believed differently, had believed that life began at some arbitrary other point, I probably never would have become pro-life. No one changed my mind–I merely realized my moral stand was inconsistent with my moral beliefs. It’s the same thing here–you’re never going to convince me that my tax dollars are going to anything other than the taking of some human lives for the benefits of some others, a pratice I find opposed to my deepest spiritual beliefs. My first response to you was to that statement of yours that reasonable people should consider (embryonic) stem cell research (and again, I repeat, I am for aggressive research on adult, placenta, and umbilical cord stem cells and am thrilled with the advances already made). Furthermore, I’m never going to be able to convince you that these fertilized eggs are little human lives that are precious and deserving of protection in their own right and not because of any wonder cures that can be gained by extracting and culturing their cells.

Still, thank you for your polite and reasoned responses. It’s a relief after “fundie” this, “baby-killing” that…

76

Palandine,

I thank you for the debate as well. I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. I would expect that to be the conclusion in this type of debate and I admire your conviction.

Having said that, my only question that has still yet to be answered is: What do we do with the cells that will remain after IVF? If we can’t find them a new home for a childless couple, what do we do. Are you saying that throwing them away is BETTER than using them for research? If so, please justify that.

I respect that your feelings are that they should never be available in the first place and we should use other ways (umbilical, adult cells, etc…) But the reality is that they do exist and will be discarded.

77

My moral beliefs do not allow me the luxury of doing evil for the sake of doing good. That is, my conscience does not allow me to be in favor of experimenting on human lives and destroying some human lives to help others just because they would be discarded otherwise. I could give further reasons, but it would be coming close to Godwin’s Law. In the same way that you could say to a vegan “Hey, if the cow’s already dead, why not use its hide for leather and eat its flesh?” and that person would react with horror, I don’t feel like I can say “well, if that unique and precious human life is just going to be thrown away anyway, we might as well destroy it and use it for experimentation.” I don’t think that throwing away an embryo is better than using it for research; dead is dead. I think in either case a human life is destroyed, and I can’t justify either one. The only thing I can say germane to this case is that my tax dollars are not being used to discard human embryos, but I will be asked to contribute in some small way to experimentation on destroyed human beings, an act that makes me a participant in an act that is contrary to deeply held principles.

78

An episode of the show L.A. Law spun the following story:

A researcher gets a grant from a non-profit foundation established and chaired by very religious and Orthodox Jews. The foundation’s stated purpose is to contribute to medical research that will save lives and enhance human existence.

The researcher is studying hypothermia, and, as her project progresses, the foundation’s trustees discover that her baseline data for human reaction to extreme cold is the Nazi data developed by human experimentation on Jews at Dachau. The human subjects were tortured by repeatedly throwing them into ice water for measured periods of time, then testing various ways of reviving them.

In the show, the foundation goes to court to force the researcher to return their money; they are scandalized that they are funding a project that is, in some way, using Nazi data derived from experimentation and torture of Jewish captives. The researcher says that, in essence, the experiments are a thing of the past, the data exists, and if it can do some good now, the origin of it is irrelevant.

The impasse faced by the parties in that television show is similar to what we’re discussing here, I think. One side feels that the close association with a practice they deem horrible and anti-human life should preclude the use of embryonic stem cells. The other side points out that the embryos will exists even absent the research, and that the only question is what use, if any, will be made of them now.

There is no absolute answer. We, as a society, are either ing to accept the proximity of destroyed embryos to the issue of stem cell research - or we’re not.

Congress is supposed to reflect the will of the people, and they may pass legislation that will moot President Bush’s decision in either direction - that is, Congress may, if it wishes, criminalize all embryonic stem cell research, deny all federal funding for same, or mandate federal funds for unfettered research - or anything in between. If the President is opposed, Congress may have to express its wishes by 2/3 majority, but it may do so.

Neither side of this debate has the luxury of absolute right.

  • Rick
79

Very True, although as someone who is not religious, I tend to not be comfortable when decisions made by our president are influenced by the Pope. Having said that, I understand that many people are religious and they have a right to be represented in the process. (yeah, I know this contradicts my initial posts but who says we can’t learn a thing or two here)

80

Well, to be a little more accurate, Mr. Bush’s decisions were influenced by American Catholics–and the desire for their votes–rather than the Pope directly.

Which kinda makes sense when one remembers the Bob Jones debacle.