Bush vetoes Stem Cell Research

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't understand why the embryo is so important. It is a collection of a few cells. An insect is much larger, more complex, and much more intelligent than embryos, yet does anyone care when an insect dies? And what about farms? Animals far superior to embryos in size, complexity, intelligence, etc. are raised for the sole purpose of being killed and then eaten. At least with embryos we use them before they have consciousness. In fact some of the rhetoric used has been describing it as an 'embryo farm.' Yet does anyone here have problems with animal-farms? The only argument is "Well they are animals and we are humans." But what makes humans superior? Complexity? Intelligence? If we use those factors, embryos and fetuses aren't valuable. And are those even good factors in themselves? Does that mean that stupid people are less valuable than smart people?

Very good question.

For starters, the big difference with the embyo is that they have the capacity to grow and develop as a person, a capacity that none of the other animals have even when fully developed. All of us were once an embryo, we had to pass through that stage before we were born.

By all this above reasoning we should also conclude that a one year old dog is far superior to infants, given the different rates of development. Yet we obviously don't and so that brings up the question as to why is human life so valuable.

It seems pretty simple to me. We can't cut away at the value of unborn children without also cutting away at the value of all human persons, if we believe people are valuable then we cannot cut some out and include others. The same right that protects all of us protects the children too.

[Elok]

Uh, BK, WRT the first bit you quoted, I was referring to the people who would die as a result of diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, and the like while the scientific community took time to actually understand how stem cells work before testing them on humans. Rushing directly to the test stage based on a rudimentary knowledge results in quicker research but at the price of some of the trials probably going very badly, plus certain side effects going undiscovered until they've effected a lot of people. That is a price which I believe society is not willing to pay. I think people expect a fast application of the theory in trials that never go wrong, which isn't going to happen.

I wasn't referring to adult vs. embryonic stem cells at all. This would be a concern regardless of which type is used. From a pro-life perspective I consider it moot because understanding how they work would probably be accelerated by comparing adult stem cells to embryonic ones, and in the process probably destroying many of both.

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok:

Apologies, but I didn't mean to distort your statement which is true.

We shouldn't be rushing ahead and testing adult cells on people before we can be better sure of the effects.

We shouldn't be considering experimentation with embryonic stem cells at all.

BTW, Question for BK, if ensoulment occurs at conception then do identical twins share a single soul?

Nope. Both are present just not visible before the split.

[Odin]

"Potential" to become human means didly squat, Ben. Quit parroting Aquinas's BS.

[Elok]

Aquinas had a position on fetal rights?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Elok
Aquinas had a position on fetal rights?

Of course he did...

"All the efforts of the human mind cannot exhaust the essence of a single fly. Embryos don't any essence at all, however, so feel free to do with them as you will." - Saint Thomas Aquinas

Quoted from Stuff Aquinas Said - 4th ed.

[Drake Tungsten]

Aquinas has all kinds of interesting quotes...

"By nature all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments. And I assure you that my endowment is larger than most." - Saint Thomas Aquinas

[Drake Tungsten]

"Well-ordered self-love is right and natural." - Saint Thomas Aquinas

[Terra Nullius]

Sorry, don't have time to read the latest replies.

I promised to find a reference. Haven't had a chance to check the veracity of this site, but it looks like a legitimate document.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/donumvitae.htm

This is a bit long. But it's about as short as I can make it, while preserving some sense of the original document.

Excerpts from ...

DONUM VITAE
The gift of Life

Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation


The human being must be respected as a person -- from the very first instant of his existence.

If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be respected just like any other human person; experimentation on embryos which is not directly therapeutic is illicit.

The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings.

Every human being is always to be accepted as a gift and blessing of God. However, from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation vis-a-vis the unborn child must be the fruit of marriage.

Heterologous Artificial Insemination
... fertilization of a married woman with the sperm of a donor different from her husband and fertilization with the husband's sperm of an ovum not coming from his wife are morally illicit.
Furthermore, the artificial fertilization of a woman who is unmarried or a widow, whoever the donor may be, cannot be morally justified.

Homologous in Vitro Fertilization
... the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous in vitro fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

... the child has the right, as already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents;

By comparison with the transmission of other forms of life in the universe, the transmission of human life has a special character of its own, which derives from the special nature of the human person.

In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings.

... attempts or plans for fertilization between human and animal gametes and the gestation of human embryos in the uterus of animals, or the hypothesis or project of constructing artificial uteruses for the human embryo. These procedures are contrary to the human dignity proper to the embryo, and at the same time they are contrary to the right of every person to be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage. Also, attempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through "twin fission," cloning or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law,

... cryopreservation -- constitutes an offense against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity, and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offenses and manipulation are possible

... the moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation must accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.

Legislation must also prohibit, by virtue of the support which is due to the family, embryo banks, post mortem insemination and "surrogate motherhood."

Conclusion
... In the light of the truth about the gift of human life and in the light of the moral principles which flow from that truth, everyone is invited to act in the area of responsibility proper to each and, like the good Samaritan, to recognize as a neighbor even the littlest among the children of men (cf. Lk. 10:29-37). Here Christ's words find a new and particular echo: "What you do to one of the least of my brethren, you do unto me' (Mt. 25:40).

During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect after the plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II, approved this instruction and ordered it to be published.

Given at Rome, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 1987, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, the Apostle.

JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect

ALBERTO BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
For starters, the big difference with the embyo is that they have the capacity to grow and develop as a person, a capacity that none of the other animals have even when fully developed. All of us were once an embryo, we had to pass through that stage before we were born.

We have been through this a zillon times. No, it doesn't work.

Your argument can easily be extended to include every single cell in a person, because every cell in a person has the potential to develop into a separate person.

[Elok]

Yes, if you zap it with chemicals or something to stimulate it to become a zygote itself. At which point BK's reasoning would presumptively apply. Otherwise you could extend it even further and argue that all organic matter is sacrosanct, since it can be arranged into the molecules which form the cells which can be stimulated to become embryonic...oh, and energy too, since energy can at least theoretically be converted into matter which can yadda yadda yadda.

And unless you're arguing that scientists actually should turn normal body cells into zygotes and grow them into people on a regular basis, your argument strikes me as null and void anyway. BK's talking about a process which happens of its own accord, all the time. "I can theoretically give squirrels cybernetic implants allowing them to run at 80 mph. Therefore, a squirrel is faster than a cheetah."

Note that I don't agree with the terminology of "potential persons." I just think your argument against it is total crap, is all.

[Proteus_MST]

Sounds like the arguments of the GEZ to get TV fees even from defective TV sets and even for TV sets which stand in a shop and are intended to be sold.
They could theoretically be repaired (i.e. the defective TV sets) or unpacked and connected to a power supply and an antenna (the TV sets located within shops) and therefore you have to pay TV fees for them.
(the sad thing is that this argumentaion seems to be valid, even in the eyes of german courts, meaning that the GEZ with the above mentioned reasoning de facto can demand money for defective TV sets or TVs intended for sale)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, if you zap it with chemicals or something to stimulate it to become a zygote itself. At which point BK's reasoning would presumptively apply. Otherwise you could extend it even further and argue that all organic matter is sacrosanct, since it can be arranged into the molecules which form the cells which can be stimulated to become embryonic...oh, and energy too, since energy can at least theoretically be converted into matter which can yadda yadda yadda.

There is no biological difference between a body cell and a fertilised egg.

Originally posted by Elok
BK's talking about a process which happens of its own accord, all the time.

Not so fast. A human zygote could not develop without external help, so it's not happening on its own accord.

See, here's the sticking point. The pro-life camp likes to gloss over it.

Originally posted by Elok
Note that I don't agree with the terminology of "potential persons." I just think your argument against it is total crap, is all.

Try again, shall we?

[Flip McWho]

The main argument of virtually all the people who oppose stem cell research falls back to this:

Every human being is always to be accepted as a gift and blessing of God

Which is true assuming God exists.

Doner's should have the right to choose if they wanna give the necessary things to the research people and the government should give the money considering the promise that this arena of research shows.

Isn't faith supposed to be a personal thing nowadays?

[johncmcleod]

It seems to me that many people from the religious right believe that from the moment of conception on, the embryo has a soul, making the embryos in the eyes of these people more than just a blob of cells, but instead technically speaking a human, who still lacks organs, a brain and some other things.

Believe me, I know the theology behind it. However, this has to be under the condition that only humans have souls, which would be proposterous if there was such thing as a soul. The only evidence for this 'soul' are religious documents, which aren't something to base a government off of.

As for the infant argument, I obviously don't believe it, I was using it to point out the flaws in using size, complexity, intelligence, etc. to determine worth, which are the criteria people use to argue why humans deserve to be protected over animals.

And I find the whole 'potential' argument problematic. A sperm or an egg have the potential to be humans, yet they are destroyed all of the time even without our intention. In fact, it is impossible to go without destroying eggs or sperm. If there was a God, and he believed that anything with the potential to be human must be protected, wouldn't he create us so we wouldn't lose our sperm or eggs? And why would he create males so that only one sperm fertilizes the egg and the rest die? And you could take it back further and say the food we eat has to potential to be life to. I just think that saying something has the potential to live is a bad reason to protect it.

There is a difference between an embryo, fetus, and infant. An infants body operates on it own and survives on its own (obviously it needs food and water like all living beings, but it physically survives on its own, it doesn't need biological help). This is why it should be considered a life and should be protected. However, the fetus and embryo are different. The embryo is not worth protecting for reasons stated above, and it is just a collection of a few cells. It has human DNA, but it isn't even recognizably human. It has none of the human characteristics or traits.

I think the fetus part gets problematic. I am pro-choice for legal reasons, ie I think the pro-choice policy is more beneficial to our country. But from a moral standpoint, I am not sure. It depends on when you say life starts, and I don't know where I'd draw that line. At first I'd say an infant, because it survives on its own. However, what about an 8 month old fetus? I wouldn't feel comfortable with that getting aborted, because it is fairly well developed and can even feel sensation. But then is that a good criterion for determining whether something is a life and should be protected or not? I don't really know how I'd go about making such a moral decision, especially when I am unsure of my metaphysical beliefs.

But when it comes down to it, there is a major flaw with the religious right's position. Their whole position is based on the principle that when the sperm and the egg meet, a soul naturally becomes attached to this cell and stays with this entity until death. This then means that this entity must be protected.

And this belief is founded on religious principles that not everyone shares. You can't force a nation to follow your own metaphysical beliefs.