Killing Humans For Scientific Research

[add]

[url="http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp048145"] link[/url]

Is embryonic stem-cell research were tantamount to infanticide?

Edited September 15, 2010 by apparently

[add]

[quote name='apparently' timestamp='1284522512' post='2173340']
[url="http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp048145"] link[/url]

Is embryonic stem-cell research were tantamount to infanticide?
[/quote]

a clear no brain'er" human embryo's are alive.

[MIKolbe]

you may not do evil so good may come from it.

[sixpence]

I'm not sure the question is in English....

No I don't think embryonic stem cell research is ok... I think we need to keep trying to work out the kinks in adult stem cells as much as possible

[jmjtina]

From [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org"]Priests for Life[/url]:
[quote]
Obviously, pro-lifers want to encourage legitimate medical research. However, we are creating situations and asking questions for which there are no answers. For example, doctors in Mexico claimed to have found a treatment for Parkinson's Disease, using brain cells from spontaneously miscarried babies. We would, obviously, not object to that per se.

However, in the report by one of the doctors, he said better results could be obtained by using brain cells from babies from late-term induced abortions. He said that it was probable to get even better results using brain cells from fetuses who had not endured the normal abortion procedures because it destroyed many useful parts. He was alluding to removing the infant intact and alive to harvest the desired parts. How far are we willing to carry that kind of thinking?

It's also been suggested that the closer the biological match between donor and recipient, the better the results. So why couldn't a woman be artificially inseminated with her father's sperm, to create a fetus to be aborted, and the fetal brain cells implanted in the father to treat his Parkinson's Disease? Clearly, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, there is nothing wrong with this scenario.

And that is precisely the point. Once we accept that living human beings can be cut up for parts because they will die soon anyway, where do we draw the line?

[/quote]

Edited September 16, 2010 by jmjtina

[add]

practices, such as
embryo farms, cloned babies,
the use of fetuses for spare
parts, and the commodification
of human life are sure to happen
in time

[add]

The Federal Court found that the guidelines issued by the Obama Administration violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment which provides that no Federal funds shall be used for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed on fetuses in utero" under Federal Law.

In the Courts words "having concluded that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is unambiguous, the question before the Court is whether ESC (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) is research in which a human embryo is destroyed. The Court concludes that it is." In another section of the opinion the judge made it even clearer: "The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed.

"Thus, if ESC research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the Guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. ESC research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed. To conduct ESC research, ESCs must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo."

[MithLuin]

I think that it is wrong to create human embryos in the lab in the first place. Destroying them to do research simply compounds the problem.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1284549925' post='2173394']
you may not do evil so good may come from it.
[/quote]
Quite true as in..
[quote]However, in the report by one of the doctors, he said better results could be obtained by using brain cells from babies from late-term induced abortions.
[/quote]
It would be a sin to sacrifice a life to save another, unless it's your own life being laid down so that another may live.
But the problem is, a foetus in a lab cannot become a life . Does God give a soul to something that has no potential for life? We don't know and I suppose if in doubt we should not do it. This is a poll I don't think any human can really answer. Ask God! He may give an answer.

[add]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1284846417' post='2174343']
Quite true as in..

It would be a sin to sacrifice a life to save another, unless it's your own life being laid down so that another may live.
But the problem is, a foetus in a lab cannot become a life . Does God give a soul to something that has no potential for life? We don't know and I suppose if in doubt we should not do it. This is a poll I don't think any human can really answer. Ask God! He may give an answer.
[/quote]

and if this foetus [url="http://www.google.com/images?q=foetus&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=IW6VTM_nMYL-8AbE--yMDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CE4QsAQwBg&biw=1280&bih=571"] link [/url] was derived from your own body and soul, would you feel the same way, would you have doubt ?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='apparently' timestamp='1284861888' post='2174441']
and if this foetus [url="http://www.google.com/images?q=foetus&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=IW6VTM_nMYL-8AbE--yMDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CE4QsAQwBg&biw=1280&bih=571"] link [/url] was derived from your own body and soul, would you feel the same way, would you have doubt ?
[/quote]

I must concede that I crashed with that post and would like to retract it. I was commenting on something without sufficient knowledge or thought and comparing it to something else. That is, having done volunteer work in East Timor, a militant Catholic country with a large child population and one of the poorest in the world. I was asked what I thought about the Catholic Churches view on birth control? My reply was that I did not consider it my vocation to tell people that God wants them to have lots of children and watch them die from malnutrition, polluted water and tropical diseases. Nor did I consider it my vocation to tell people that they must live a life of abstinence. My duty was to contribute to the breakfast program and to supply materials and education and to show them Jesus love. And leave the higher decisions to those entrusted with the duty to do so.
With the foetal stem cell question, I should really have said that I would not like to be in the position of telling someone that they must watch a loved one die a horrible death because it is not ethical to do research in this way and that's what God wants for you. My first thought was that if life can't continue naturally, is it life any different than say a blood cell. But you may be right it would be sinful to begin life knowing it cannot continue to it's normal conclusion. It's a kind of abortion in advance! So if I was in that position then I would no doubt conclude that there must be a better way. Mikolbe is therefore correct, it would be sinning for the purpose of good.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1284936778' post='2174719']
I must concede that I crashed with that post and would like to retract it. I was commenting on something without sufficient knowledge or thought and comparing it to something else. That is, having done volunteer work in East Timor, a militant Catholic country with a large child population and one of the poorest in the world. I was asked what I thought about the Catholic Churches view on birth control? My reply was that I did not consider it my vocation to tell people that God wants them to have lots of children and watch them die from malnutrition, polluted water and tropical diseases. Nor did I consider it my vocation to tell people that they must live a life of abstinence. My duty was to contribute to the breakfast program and to supply materials and education and to show them Jesus love. And leave the higher decisions to those entrusted with the duty to do so.
With the foetal stem cell question, I should really have said that I would not like to be in the position of telling someone that they must watch a loved one die a horrible death because it is not ethical to do research in this way and that's what God wants for you. My first thought was that if life can't continue naturally, is it life any different than say a blood cell. But you may be right it would be sinful to begin life knowing it cannot continue to it's normal conclusion. It's a kind of abortion in advance! So if I was in that position then I would no doubt conclude that there must be a better way. Mikolbe is therefore correct, it would be sinning for the purpose of good.
[/quote]


I can not grasp a situation where one could begin a life knowing it would not be able to continue naturally. Even in the case of a baby tested and found to have a deadly disease during the gestation, to say the child could not "continue naturally" is hogwash. First off making such a determination totally negates the will of God, maybe the will of God is to heal this child or that the childs shortened life may inspire another. If and when that child dies, unless it were to be killed as in aborted/murdered or murdered after birth, then as sad as it may be the child would have died naturally. One thing that is certain is we are all going to die naturally from old age or disease if we do not succomb to an accident or murder or take our own lives through drugs or booze or the many other ways we can hurt our health with the choices we make through our gift of freewill, that said at least we are responsible for our demise.

ed

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1285214970' post='2175417']
I can not grasp a situation where one could begin a life knowing it would not be able to continue naturally. Even in the case of a baby tested and found to have a deadly disease during the gestation, to say the child could not "continue naturally" is hogwash. First off making such a determination totally negates the will of God, maybe the will of God is to heal this child or that the childs shortened life may inspire another. If and when that child dies, unless it were to be killed as in aborted/murdered or murdered after birth, then as sad as it may be the child would have died naturally. One thing that is certain is we are all going to die naturally from old age or disease if we do not succomb to an accident or murder or take our own lives through drugs or booze or the many other ways we can hurt our health with the choices we make through our gift of freewill, that said at least we are responsible for our demise.

ed
[/quote]
I think you misunderstood. I was saying that to phertilise a female egg with a sperm cell in a Petri dish denies it teh requirement to continue to it's natural conclusion. That is to live and die as [b]God sees fit.[/b] Because as far as I know it is not possible for a foetus to continue to birth development outside of a womb. If it could, then it would be the responsibility of the scientist to continue to provide the best possible conditions to enable it to develop to maturity instead of disposing of it, or interference such as removing cells. When a foetus is aborted, it is done so by denying it the requirement that it needs to proceed. If we know that a woman is carrying a deformed or diseased child, it is still our duty to nurture and continue to provide the conditions to sustain life because God has intentions for such children. [b]We are all born with disabilities [/b]and do not have the right to say who should live or die.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[yoda]

no one should be killed, thats that!

[jkaands]

Most people don't equate embryos with post-birth humans. The embryos used in stem-cell research are from IV fertilization adn would be destroyed anyway.

If the US doesn't continue with stem cell research, other countries will, including England, Europe (including many Catholic countries) , Asia--in Singapore, Hong Kong, China, India, Australia, Canada, and probably Mexico. Rich Americans will travel abroad to take advantage of stem cell technology. This has already begun. The poor will stay at home. The rich will receive treatments for dementia, Parkinson's and a variety of diseases, including cancer, linked to genetics. The poor won't. The US will lag farther and farther behind in basic science which will develop out of this technology.

It is said that the Catholic Church protects you before you're born. After that--forget it.