That anything to do with improving life is not evil. It is those who know not who God really is that raise Vain objections. Jonah 2:8. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 01-20-03, 01:35 AM mahal Any research that can be done without harm to human or animal life is beneficial. (I'm not so sure I agree with even using lab rats in cancer expiraments and such, since this contradicts God's charge to us to take charge of the planet and care for it.)
Research that uses (and destroys) a human fetus in any stage is unthinkably evil. It is not just an abuse of human life, it puts us dangerously close to justifying the use of unwanted newborns.
01-20-03, 01:44 AM Minnesota Kat
Not being difficult here, but just where would evil be a consideration in stem cell research? I don't see the connection between the two. Nor do I see where morality would come into play. Have you come across people who bring up either evil or morality in conjunction with it?
01-20-03, 07:48 AM Elexina Stem cell research: an invaluable scientific path with limitless potential. Reasoning: results of the research may find cures for degenerative and disabling diseases, may enable people to live happier and healthier lives.
01-20-03, 09:43 AM Katanya2000
quote:Originally posted by Minnesota: _Kat_
Not being difficult here, but just where would evil be a consideration in stem cell research? I don't see the connection between the two. Nor do I see where morality would come into play. Have you come across people who bring up either evil or morality in conjunction with it?
I suppose I should have been more specific in my question. While I understand that there is research which involves tissue taken from consenting adults only, what I was referring to was the creation or use of human embryos for the research which results in their destruction.
The moral protests against this are similar to the protests against abortion. I don't really know if "evil" was the appropriate word to use in this situation, but it was late when I posted it and it's too late to take it back now!
Did I understand your question? Did I clarify for you?
01-20-03, 09:47 AM Minnesota Yep. Yep.
I'll wait and see if others find it an issue, and then go from there.
01-20-03, 10:00 AM Katanya2000 I would like to point out for those that may not know, there are two sources (that I know of) for the human embryos used in the research.
1. Pre-existing: In fertility clinics, there are often excess embryos left over from the fertilization process. These are purchased and used in the research.
2. Created: Embryos are created from the appropriate cells of human donors.
All embryos are destroyed during the research.
01-20-03, 10:28 AM Mike121 Kat,
I agree with Mahal’s second paragraph. However I believe that we aren’t all that far from finding new sources for stem cells. The moral/ethical problems with embryo use are fueling efforts to find new sources. Check out the links:
01-20-03, 11:14 AM Katanya2000 Thanks Mike! Those are some facinating links.
Imagine! Liposuction might no longer be an overly expensive act of vanity...sacrificing ones fat may become an act of selflessness for the benefit of humanity. Talk about a win win situation! One person loses a little flab, the other person gets desperately needed bone matter replaced. I love it!
Although I wouldn't recommend these links to anyone who happens to be eating at their desk. My cold cut sandwich seemed a lot less appealing when I started reading the liposuction article
01-20-03, 11:31 AM helpmate I answered in the atheism forum before I saw this thread: but I'll repeat my answer here: well, for one thing there are many types of stem cells, of many derivations: some from embryonic tissue, some from bone marrow, etc: so I assume you are specifically asking about those derived from embryonic tissue. If you can believe, say, that god reaches down and saves the lone survivor of an earthquake, or that he is in control of everything, then surely you can believe that the knowledge and quest for bettering the human condition by science is god-given as well. So might it not be that, in allowing man to find this path of inquiry, god has a plan in mind? In any case, even some of the most conservative in congress (Orin Hatch, for example) have argued that to take cells from embryos that would otherwise be destroyed is sensible. The "slippery slope" argument is used here, and everywhere. But there is no reason why regulation can't be had that would prevent the deliberate creation of embryos only for the purpose of deriving stem cells. As a field of inquiry, stem cell research, whatever the origin, has enormous promise for improving the human condition (funny, why should it be so imperfect that it needs this???): I do not see a blastocyst as a fully formed human life. But, I hope, for the sake of science being able to progress, that it's found that other stem cells can be just as useful, to keep some pro-life zealot from taking my nephew's life.
01-24-03, 04:53 PM Diarmait Minnesota asks how embryonic stem cell research could be immoral. I'm not certain of your view of morality, but I assume one of the tenets is to avoid harming others. If you believe life begins at conception, as many people do, you can see how embryonic stem cell research would clearly be harming another person, and therefore immoral.
01-24-03, 05:37 PM Minnesota Diarmait, I did NOT ask "how embryonic stem cell research could be immoral, but "where would evil be a consideration in stem cell research? Please note that that I did not say "embryonic stem cell research," nor did I use the term "immoral."
But, you do have a point. Those who insist that human life does begin at conception could reasonably be expected to view the destruction of any embryo, even if it has not yet started to differentiate, as the immoral taking of a life. Although why such an embryo, which at that point only possesses potentiality and not true form, is accorded special status, and a sperm, which also possesses potentiality and additionally has form and is a fully developed, viable organism, does not.
01-24-03, 05:50 PM juanruiz Minn,
There ARE many who subscribe to the idea that Onanism is immoral also.
01-24-03, 05:53 PM mahal
quote: Although why such an embryo, which at that point only possesses potentiality and not true form, is accorded special status, and a sperm, which also possesses potentiality and additionally has form and is a fully developed, viable organism, does not.
This is a severely understated potential. If left alone, it WILL grow into a human being with no effort on anyone else's part, unless you want to count the mother eating to survive.
This embryo has exactly ZERO potential of becoming any other kind of life form, and while in question, it's destruction is unjustifiable.
This is precisely where the question of moral and immoral enters. (Personally, I would guess that a person's standing on this issue is more a matter of their own value of their own life than anything to do with religion.)
01-24-03, 06:04 PM Diarmait Minnesota,
I actually did not re-read your original post before I replied. However, here is what you said:
quote:Nor do I see where morality would come into play. Have you come across people who bring up either evil or morality in conjunction with it?
You can see why I addressed whether stem cell research could be considered immoral.
As to non-embryonic stem cell research, I don't think any groups are calling that immoral or evil.
Juan
quote:There ARE many who subscribe to the idea that Onanism is immoral also.
Yes, but Onanism is contraception, while destruction of embryos is abortion. They are immoral for different reasons.
01-24-03, 06:08 PM juanruiz I was specifically responding to Minn's comment on sperm, not to stem cell research.
01-24-03, 06:28 PM Minnesota Diarmait and Juan
Not to beat this silly issue any more need be, but just a musing about your observation that "There ARE many who subscribe to the idea that Onanism is immoral also." Do nocturnal emissions also count against a guy?
01-24-03, 06:55 PM babthrower Minn:
If your CO, HC, NOx, and NMOG emissions are above allowable limits, it don't make a damn whether it's day or night.
01-24-03, 07:00 PM Diarmait
quoteo nocturnal emissions also count against a guy?
No, which is why I made the distinction between contraception and abortion. As Mahal said, the sperm, alone, has no ability to grow into a baby, while an embryo does have such an ability. Further, there is no intent involved with nocturnal emissions, as there is no intent with miscarriages. Thus, neither is sinful.
01-24-03, 08:55 PM Minnesota Diarmait
So masturbation is okey dokey, but coitus interruptus is immoral? OR (please lord say it isn't so)!! is masturbation also immoral?
01-24-03, 09:22 PM Diarmait By nocturnal emission I assumed you meant "wet dream." Yes, the Catholic Church also teaches masturbation is immoral.
01-25-03, 12:21 AM Minnesota "Yes, the Catholic Church also teaches masturbation is immoral."
Well, this sounded way too middle-ages, so I had to check it out for myself. Hard to believe: the Catholic Church does consider masturbation to be a sin. Live and learn. My sympathies to all millions of sinning Catholics out there tonight.
01-25-03, 01:50 AM mahal Come on, MN! Jews eat cheeseburgers don't they?
01-25-03, 10:01 AM Minnesota NO!, they do????
01-30-03, 10:58 AM VelvetVoice There is nothing in the NT that prohibits masturbation or declares it sinful. It is the thoughts of adultery that may accompany it or the wearing away of resistance to sin that is the hard part. I would think that God would approve of it if done in the proper context.
01-30-03, 12:52 PM juanruiz
quote:Originally posted by VelvetVoice: There is nothing in the NT that prohibits masturbation or declares it sinful. It is the thoughts of adultery that may accompany it or the wearing away of resistance to sin that is the hard part. I would think that God would approve of it if done in the proper context.
Although Judaism interprets Onan's punishment as only referring to him, Roman Catholicism has extrapolated it to all men.
01-30-03, 03:01 PM Diarmait Juan,
I am by no means an expert on Judaism. However, I did a quick search on Google (the hidden key to the mysteries) and found the following:
Jewish law clearly prohibits male masturbation. This law is derived from the story of Onan (Gen. 38:8-10), who practiced coitus interruptus as a means of birth control to avoid fathering a child for his deceased brother. G-d killed Onan for this sin. Although Onan's act was not truly masturbation, Jewish law takes a very broad view of the acts prohibited by this passage, and forbids any act of ha-sh'cha'tat zerah (destruction of the seed), that is, ejaculation outside of the vagina. In fact, the prohibition is so strict that one passage in the Talmud states, "in the case of a man, the hand that reaches below the navel should be chopped off." (Niddah 13a)
The issue is somewhat less clear for women. Obviously, spilling the seed is not going to happen in female masturbation, and there is no explicit Torah prohibition against female masturbation. Nevertheless, Judaism generally frowns upon female masturbation as "impure thoughts."
Another source contains the following opinion by a Rabbi:
Q: Is masturbation a sin? . . .
A: Regarding masturbation, although in traditional halacha, it is forbidden on the basis of hashchatat zera, destroying sperm, in my opinion this reason is not compelling, and masturbation is permitted. The traditional basis to forbid it has been the story in Genesis chapter 38 of Judah's son Onan, who was struck down by God for "spilling his seed" on the ground. But a closer examination of the story shows that he was killed not because he was masturbating and wasting sperm, but rather because he refused to fulfill the mitzvah of levirite marriage and conceive a child with Tamar for his older brother Er, her first husband, who had died without having children.
According to these two sources, Onanism seems to form the basis for the traditional Jewish condemnation of masturbation.
01-30-03, 03:12 PM juanruiz Don't mean to split hairs, but I said the "punishment", i.e., death. Which goes pretty far to show what a loving God he is. But beyond that, my info did come from a rabbi, one I have known for 36 years.
01-30-03, 08:23 PM DvdGStwrt
quote:Originally posted by Katanya2000: Stem Cell Research:
Evil or morally justified?
Please explain the reasoning behind your answer.
Depends on what one plans on doing with that knowledge.
I am reluctant to accept change, and when it comes to something which could lead to Hitler's dream of a Master Race.... Well I think we should just leave it alone, good or not, the potential for harm lies there.
Oppenheimer the father of the Atomic Bomb saw his work and kind of lost it, he was never right in the head after the test day. He knew that Atomic Energy has much great potential for good, but he also knew that it had potential for evil.
The First act of the Nuclear age was to fight a nuclear war - dropping two small atomic bombs on Japan.
I can only hope that the stem cell research doesn't get used for bad things. It will, because mankind has never invented a thing and hasn't used it to maim, kill, or harm.
Such is life.
David
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 1780 | Location: Kingsford, MI USA | Registered: 06-13-02
As far as the maim, kill, or harm part is concerned, some people consider destroying developing embryos for research to be harm. Is that what you mean?
Posts: 1015 | Location: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: 06-04-02
o nocturnal emissions also count against a guy?
