In the wake of the President’s veto and after seeing that the topic itself hasn’t been addressed on this forum (or if it has please let me know where) I was curious to hear peoples thoughts on the subject. Although my current opinion and reasoning would follow with where I stand on the abortion debate (life begins at conception) I know that there is quite a bit more science involving Stem Cells research and therefore many things I am still ignorant about. I would be interested to hear anyone with a balanced view of the subject and how we may interpret it biblically.
Erich <><
Stem Cell Controversy
Stem Cell Controversy
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Erich,
As I'm not a scientist, nor have I read the technical specifics of embryonic stem cell research, I ask some of the same questions as you do.
However, here's what I understand and it helps guide my decision for now.
1) There is no better point in time in the life a human to determine when life begins than at conception. All the other points in time offered (viability, first movment, birth) seem terribly subjective. Therefore, life begins at conception unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary. Embryonic stem cells are extracted after conception and their extraction causes the destruction of the zygote/fetus. If there weren't any other reasons, this would be enough.
2) Embryonic stem cell research is the least promising, least productive and most volatile thread of research. Research on other stem cells, such as extracted from adults where the adult is not harmed or destroyed, show more stability and promise. Even if number 1 wasn't true, we should focus on research that shows promise and stability.
My apologies if I repeat information that you already know.
Dave
As I'm not a scientist, nor have I read the technical specifics of embryonic stem cell research, I ask some of the same questions as you do.
However, here's what I understand and it helps guide my decision for now.
1) There is no better point in time in the life a human to determine when life begins than at conception. All the other points in time offered (viability, first movment, birth) seem terribly subjective. Therefore, life begins at conception unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary. Embryonic stem cells are extracted after conception and their extraction causes the destruction of the zygote/fetus. If there weren't any other reasons, this would be enough.
2) Embryonic stem cell research is the least promising, least productive and most volatile thread of research. Research on other stem cells, such as extracted from adults where the adult is not harmed or destroyed, show more stability and promise. Even if number 1 wasn't true, we should focus on research that shows promise and stability.
My apologies if I repeat information that you already know.
Dave
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Actually human life begins long before conception. In fact, human life began with Adam and Eve. After that it was simply passed down through their progeny to human life in our day.
Now I know you may think I'm side-stepping the issue. No doubt you will ask me when an individual human life begins. There is no doubt that a human zygote is a human life. But is a zygote conscious? Is it aware? Does it feel pain? If someone united a human sperm with a human egg in a test tube, and later threw away the resulting zygote, did he commit murder? Erich, I'd like your thoughts about this. I am searching for answers, too.
Now I know you may think I'm side-stepping the issue. No doubt you will ask me when an individual human life begins. There is no doubt that a human zygote is a human life. But is a zygote conscious? Is it aware? Does it feel pain? If someone united a human sperm with a human egg in a test tube, and later threw away the resulting zygote, did he commit murder? Erich, I'd like your thoughts about this. I am searching for answers, too.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Does a person's consciousness, awareness or the ability to feel pain have any determining impact on their value? I ask this question rhetorically as my answer to all 3 is emphatically no. Often, the (apparent) lack of these properties are used to justify the destruction of a life when in utero, but are not used when applied post-utero. For example, we all experience some level of unconsciousness when we sleep. Are we not a person during our naps? Is it OK to kill a leper because they cannot feel pain? The attempted application of these properties to life in utero is not consistent nor tenable.Paidion wrote:But is a zygote conscious? Is it aware? Does it feel pain?
1) Human Life begins at conception (a premise with which you state that you agree)If someone united a human sperm with a human egg in a test tube, and later threw away the resulting zygote, did he commit murder?
2) A human zygote is post-conception
3) Therefore, the destruction of a human zygote is the same as the destruction of a human life
If it is wrong for the scientists to use already-born humans for any reason against their will with their destruction as the result, why wouldn't it be wrong to use pre-born humans in the same manner?
Am I missing something?
Dave
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
(the following was written after Dave's first message but before Paidion's although it seems I may have inadvertently touched on and agreed with Dave on some thoughts brought up by Paidion)
Thanks Dave for the response. I too agree with your line of thinking. With what little research I have done I find it interesting if not very troubling at how those who support Embryonic Stem Cell research seem to differ on at what point a fertilized egg truly becomes a human. With deciding whether or not something is a living human being or not in order to determine whether it’s okay to destroy it and use it for research you would think would be an important line for science to draw. Maybe they have but it seems like many who support this line of research have differing views which means someone could be wrong in which case being wrong would result in having a hundred percent mortality rate versus potentially finding a cure for a much smaller percentage. And if in fact we are killing humans then why not kill and use the elderly or terminally ill in the name of science? Who knows maybe one of the embryos they destroy could have grown up to find the cure that alludes science today.
Erich <><
Thanks Dave for the response. I too agree with your line of thinking. With what little research I have done I find it interesting if not very troubling at how those who support Embryonic Stem Cell research seem to differ on at what point a fertilized egg truly becomes a human. With deciding whether or not something is a living human being or not in order to determine whether it’s okay to destroy it and use it for research you would think would be an important line for science to draw. Maybe they have but it seems like many who support this line of research have differing views which means someone could be wrong in which case being wrong would result in having a hundred percent mortality rate versus potentially finding a cure for a much smaller percentage. And if in fact we are killing humans then why not kill and use the elderly or terminally ill in the name of science? Who knows maybe one of the embryos they destroy could have grown up to find the cure that alludes science today.
Erich <><
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
What about joy?Paidion wrote:But is a zygote conscious? Is it aware? Does it feel pain?
Luk 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Perry:
A zygote and a babe in the womb are dramatically different.
I am not disputing the immorality of destroying the pre-born for the sake of research. In case there is any misunderstanding, I want you to know that I have been involved in many pro-life marches, including participation in a march around a hospital in which abortions were performed. My first wife (now deceased) was the leader of the local pro-life association, and was active in promoting pro-life concepts to the public. I was totally supportive of her in these efforts.
All that I have written in my previous post, was written with the purpose of catalyzing deeper thinking on the matter.
So many pro-life persons believe that taking a human life at any stage is equally immoral. I do not believe so. There is obviously a spectrum of human development from a zygote to a fully developed baby. The worst form of "abortion" in my opinion, is that which occurs in the so-called "partial birth abortions", now outlawed, I think, in most of United States, but still taking place in Canada. Just prior to birth, the baby is turned around and brought out feet first until only the head remains inside.
The head then has its brains crushed.
The reason I placed quotations marks around "abortion" is that this is clearly not abortion but infanticide. By defining abortion as the killing of the child before complete birth, this horrible procedure has been "justified".
Tell me, does the killing of a zygote seem to you to be just as wrong as the killing of a child by "partial birth abortion"?
That is one of the reasons I asked whether killing a zygote is murder? I don't think anyone's definition of "murder" would include zytoges.
In my opinion, there is a spectrum of wrongness that goes along with the spectrum of pre-birth human development --- except that that spectrum is not fully gradual. There is a greater wrong done to a foetus after it begins to experience pain. For causing pain as well as killing, is worse that killing alone (even in the case of the killing of adult human beings).
What about joy?
Quote:
Luk 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
A zygote and a babe in the womb are dramatically different.
That, in fact, is done far more often that we realize! But I don't want to side-step the issue. There is a great deal of difference between a zygote and a fully developed human being.And if in fact we are killing humans then why not kill and use the elderly or terminally ill in the name of science?
My purpose in bringing up the fact of a zygote feeling no pain was not to suggest that they have no value, but to give just one of the jillion obvious ways they differ from a fully developed human being (or, for that matter, a partly developed human being --- a foetus.)Does a person's consciousness, awareness or the ability to feel pain have any determining impact on their value?
Well, if you read my comments carefully, you won't find that I stated such. I stated that human life began with Adam and Eve. I also stated that there is no doubt that a zygote is human life. Indeed, a sperm is human life ---- not a form of human life that can develop, of course, unless it is implanted in a human egg (another form of human life).1) Human Life begins at conception (a premise with which you state that you agree)
I am surprised that you used the phrase "the same as". I am sure that you meant, "The destruction of a human zygote is the destruction of a human life. I fully agree with this stronger statement. Anyone who understood biology would also agree. Statements made by abortionists that the foetus is not human life but mere tissue ---- a part of a woman's body with which she has a right to do what she wants ----- is ludicrous.2) A human zygote is post-conception
3) Therefore, the destruction of a human zygote is the same as the destruction of a human life
If it is wrong for the scientists to use already-born humans for any reason against their will with their destruction as the result, why wouldn't it be wrong to use pre-born humans in the same manner?
I am not disputing the immorality of destroying the pre-born for the sake of research. In case there is any misunderstanding, I want you to know that I have been involved in many pro-life marches, including participation in a march around a hospital in which abortions were performed. My first wife (now deceased) was the leader of the local pro-life association, and was active in promoting pro-life concepts to the public. I was totally supportive of her in these efforts.
All that I have written in my previous post, was written with the purpose of catalyzing deeper thinking on the matter.
So many pro-life persons believe that taking a human life at any stage is equally immoral. I do not believe so. There is obviously a spectrum of human development from a zygote to a fully developed baby. The worst form of "abortion" in my opinion, is that which occurs in the so-called "partial birth abortions", now outlawed, I think, in most of United States, but still taking place in Canada. Just prior to birth, the baby is turned around and brought out feet first until only the head remains inside.
The head then has its brains crushed.
The reason I placed quotations marks around "abortion" is that this is clearly not abortion but infanticide. By defining abortion as the killing of the child before complete birth, this horrible procedure has been "justified".
Tell me, does the killing of a zygote seem to you to be just as wrong as the killing of a child by "partial birth abortion"?
That is one of the reasons I asked whether killing a zygote is murder? I don't think anyone's definition of "murder" would include zytoges.
In my opinion, there is a spectrum of wrongness that goes along with the spectrum of pre-birth human development --- except that that spectrum is not fully gradual. There is a greater wrong done to a foetus after it begins to experience pain. For causing pain as well as killing, is worse that killing alone (even in the case of the killing of adult human beings).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hello Paidon,
You have some interesting points.
Killing human life at any stage is evil. Are there degrees of evil? Sure.
But when Christians start waffling as to what is worse, killing a zygote, a three-month gestational fetus or a nine-month gestational fetus, we open the door for pro-abortion arguments and actually give them ammunition.
We make it easier for them to justify the killing of non-viable babies. Hey, if the pro-lifers devalue or place lower value on the earliest human forms of life, the Culture of Death people can certainly follow!
If I follow this logic, then some adult who is comatose or non-responsive could be killed as well, since they would conceivable sense no pain.
Also, I think saying that sperm is "human life" is misleading, and again, gives the pro-aborts ammunition. Why? It's a kooky statement!
Sperm has no separate DNA, has not its own heart, and by itself cannot form a human being. Is sperm alive? Yes, and I think that this is a clearer statement than saying it is human life. It is alive and moving for a purpose that God created, but that unique purpose does not include forming a human life by itself, which you did mention.
God bless,
Liseux
You have some interesting points.
Killing human life at any stage is evil. Are there degrees of evil? Sure.
But when Christians start waffling as to what is worse, killing a zygote, a three-month gestational fetus or a nine-month gestational fetus, we open the door for pro-abortion arguments and actually give them ammunition.
We make it easier for them to justify the killing of non-viable babies. Hey, if the pro-lifers devalue or place lower value on the earliest human forms of life, the Culture of Death people can certainly follow!
If I follow this logic, then some adult who is comatose or non-responsive could be killed as well, since they would conceivable sense no pain.
Also, I think saying that sperm is "human life" is misleading, and again, gives the pro-aborts ammunition. Why? It's a kooky statement!
Sperm has no separate DNA, has not its own heart, and by itself cannot form a human being. Is sperm alive? Yes, and I think that this is a clearer statement than saying it is human life. It is alive and moving for a purpose that God created, but that unique purpose does not include forming a human life by itself, which you did mention.
God bless,
Liseux
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Human life" is, by definition, that which is human and is alive.Also, I think saying that sperm is "human life" is misleading, and again, gives the pro-aborts ammunition. Why? It's a kooky statement!
A living human sperm, therefore, is, by definition "human life".
Nothing kooky about that!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Paidon, when you state that "a sperm is human life," it's misleading.
Is it a separate life from the man? If it was, it would have it's own DNA. If it's a PART of a man's body, it will have the same DNA as the man.
If sperm is a human life, then my arm is a human life too!
My foot is a human life, and so forth, but I am only one person.
Sperm, arms, and feet are not human lives, but parts of a living human being, or for that matter, a dead one. DNA supports this.
Is it a separate life from the man? If it was, it would have it's own DNA. If it's a PART of a man's body, it will have the same DNA as the man.
If sperm is a human life, then my arm is a human life too!
My foot is a human life, and so forth, but I am only one person.
Sperm, arms, and feet are not human lives, but parts of a living human being, or for that matter, a dead one. DNA supports this.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: