Embryonic stem cell research.

(1/4) > >>

BoogieMonster (August 24, 2010, 16:32:04 PM):
A slashdot summary:

Quote from: slashdot.org
"A US district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue. The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos. Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos. '(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,' Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling."


Article here

We are frequently accused of being utter immoral douchebags by our opponents. In this case, there's one thing in which they are right. Under certain conditions, I condone killing fetuses. But the whole thing about skeptics is that we differ in opinions, and feel fine with that. So, what do you guys think about Embryonic stem cell research? Is it for the good of all mankind to grow some human cells in a test-tube and kill it. Or is it simply baby-murder?
GCG (August 24, 2010, 16:46:02 PM):
it's very debateable as to when, exactly, the fetus start 'feeling', considering that each cell in our bodies react to stimuli to a degree. so untill they can establish when the fetus starts feeling pain, experiencing its environment, etc.
i had an abortion at 4 weeks, and i dont feel guilty. since i know, at that point, its a bundle of cells to tiny, i cant even see it with the naked eye. my family, of course platsed.
do condone stem cell research? hell yes. the manner of tissues they work with, hardly reaches the stage of even remotely looking like a fetus. i think they call that an oocyte? i might be wrong.
one could then argue, too, that scientists who practice in vitro, where only the strongest fertilized egg is chosen, is murdering a potential number of babies.
i donated my eggs, and if they used my eggs to do research, well power to them.
i would say, reserach needs to stop before there is a heartbeat, simply cause in my opinion, that is when the bundle of cells stop being cells, and become a living thing. i may be grossly ignorant, but that's a laymans view in any case.

i'm just wondering, with thousands of abortions being performed daily, are they not able to get stemcells from the aborted foetuses? i havent the foggiest as to how they grow these cells, or the environment surrounding the harvesting.

on the flipside, do i really want the human race to live longer, healthier lives? so that people can spend more time killing each other off, and destroying our planet?
and inevitably, the rich will have access to the medicine, and the poor will still die in drones.
Teleological (August 24, 2010, 17:01:01 PM):
I've been involved in a few mouse embryonic studies. After a 12-15 day pregnancy, the mice are sacrificed (yes that is the terminology used) and the embryos are harvested (about 2-8). The embryos, some of which the tails are quite visible, are chopped/minced and grown in vitro in order to use the mouse embryonic fibroblasts to test all kinds of compounds/substances. Of course there are ethical dilemmas with these studies.
1) Are the mice treated in such a way that they do not experience no pain.
2) To what end is the data going to be used?
3) Are the cells going to be implanted back in vivo again?
4) how are you going to modify the cells?
etc.

You might ask if we do it to mice, why can't we do it to humans? From a purely materialistic-cum-naturalistic-cum-mechanistic view of reality, I see no reason why logically and rationally you can not do it.

Perhaps some naturalists and/or materialists could try and argue (from their view of reality) why they think it should not be applied to humans IN PRINCIPLE from a logical and rational point of view. Why do they think there is an ethical and moral dilemma?

Hermes (August 24, 2010, 20:55:00 PM):
Considering that there is no debate on the ethics of putting out Rattex for rodents, which causes an extended painful death, concerns about the possibility of them suffering in embryonic state would be somewhat rich. The progression of human life from conception to adulthood does not have any significant cutoff point, not even birth. Murder and torture are clearly unacceptable, but banning embryonic stem cell research on primitive life would amount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, which is also somewhat undesirable.
Peter Grant (August 24, 2010, 21:44:40 PM):
You might ask if we do it to mice, why can't we do it to humans? From a purely materialistic-cum-naturalistic-cum-mechanistic view of reality, I see no reason why logically and rationally you can not do it.

Perhaps some naturalists and/or materialists could try and argue (from their view of reality) why they think it should not be applied to humans IN PRINCIPLE from a logical and rational point of view. Why do they think there is an ethical and moral dilemma?

No my reasons aren't logical or rational, I just know that it is morally wrong kill pregnant women and harvest their embryos. This is a belief I feel no need to justify to you or anyone else.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page