Pro-stem-cell-research yet pro-Christianity?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If you're against embryonic stem cell research... I get it. I don't agree with you, but I get it. And I wish to put that aside until stem cell as an issue in and of itself is the central issue of another thread, and/or it comes up in mainstream politics again... whichever comes first. But there's something I'm not as sure I get.

Of all the things religion has led to people opposing, most would otherwise have been tough dilemmas anyway. But I cannot think of a more clear-cut case of Christianity being in the wrong than embryonic stem cell research. You have cloned embryos; and/or embryos from in-vitro fertilizations; the latter of which people support anyway; being used to potentially save millions of lives. In the 2004 US election, the most religious states were the states who voted to re-elect the President who kind of made a show of his opposition to this stuff. The least-religious states were the ones who voted for his most mainstream rival. Whether that's an A causes B pattern, a B causes A pattern, or a C causes A and B pattern, it's still a pattern.

If you're in favour of both embryonic stem cell research and Christianity; which statistically at least some people have to be; how do you reconcile the two? How do you look at a religion that has so severely distorted people's sense of right and wrong and not immediately want it cut off at the source?

Quite frankly, I look at that and think, "well, what else could Christianity be distorting people's sense of right and wrong about"?

[Pangurstan]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

Not quite the same one. There's more support for embryonic stem cell research than for fetal tissue research. This suggests some opposition to abortion is motivated by other things... desire to force an increase in birthrate, envy at those getting laid, superficial "but fetuses LOOK like babies" reactions that don't apply to the zygotes used in ESCR, etc... take your pick, it's all equally arbitrary and unverifiable what IS motivating anti-abortion types, all this tells us is what ISN'T motivating them, and what ISN'T motivating them is the "life begins at conception" platitude.

Thank goodness. "Life begins at conception" was especially absurd and was missing the point of the common use of the word "life" and the reason people are so indignant at actual murders. But that still leaves behind the question of why anti-abortion types PRETEND to agree with the "life begins at conception" platitude in the first place.

[Nuroblav]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

I'm pretty sure there are pro-choice Christians out there (I think there's one on this site as well who's on the forums a lot).

[United Muscovite Nations]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

Not quite the same one. There's more support for embryonic stem cell research than for fetal tissue research. This suggests some opposition to abortion is motivated by other things... desire to force an increase in birthrate, envy at those getting laid, superficial "but fetuses LOOK like babies" reactions that don't apply to the zygotes used in ESCR, etc... take your pick, it's all equally arbitrary and unverifiable what IS motivating anti-abortion types, all this tells us is what ISN'T motivating them, and what ISN'T motivating them is the "life begins at conception" platitude.

Thank goodness. "Life begins at conception" was especially absurd and was missing the point of the common use of the word "life" and the reason people are so indignant at actual murders. But that still leaves behind the question of why anti-abortion types PRETEND to agree with the "life begins at conception" platitude in the first place.

No it isn't. It's motivated by thinking that the fetus is a person. It's why we're against IVF too. People shouldn't necessarily try to psychoanalyze views of people they don't understand.

[Antityranicals]

I've no problem with harvesting stem cells from adult body tissue, but to harvest them from embryos is, quite simply, murder.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Not quite the same one. There's more support for embryonic stem cell research than for fetal tissue research. This suggests some opposition to abortion is motivated by other things... desire to force an increase in birthrate, envy at those getting laid, superficial "but fetuses LOOK like babies" reactions that don't apply to the zygotes used in ESCR, etc... take your pick, it's all equally arbitrary and unverifiable what IS motivating anti-abortion types, all this tells us is what ISN'T motivating them, and what ISN'T motivating them is the "life begins at conception" platitude.

Thank goodness. "Life begins at conception" was especially absurd and was missing the point of the common use of the word "life" and the reason people are so indignant at actual murders. But that still leaves behind the question of why anti-abortion types PRETEND to agree with the "life begins at conception" platitude in the first place.

No it isn't. It's motivated by thinking that the fetus is a person. It's why we're against IVF too. People shouldn't necessarily try to psychoanalyze views of people they don't understand.

More people are in favour of IVF than abortion. Or at least claim to be. Even if they're faking it, that suggests conformity to some perceived outside observer who theoretically has some reason to support one and not the other. Either way that raises the question as to what that reason is.

EDIT: Used wrong link last time, please disregard previous link.

[Antityranicals]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

Not quite the same one. There's more support for embryonic stem cell research than for fetal tissue research. This suggests some opposition to abortion is motivated by other things... desire to force an increase in birthrate, envy at those getting laid, superficial "but fetuses LOOK like babies" reactions that don't apply to the zygotes used in ESCR, etc... take your pick, it's all equally arbitrary and unverifiable what IS motivating anti-abortion types, all this tells us is what ISN'T motivating them, and what ISN'T motivating them is the "life begins at conception" platitude.

Thank goodness. "Life begins at conception" was especially absurd and was missing the point of the common use of the word "life" and the reason people are so indignant at actual murders. But that still leaves behind the question of why anti-abortion types PRETEND to agree with the "life begins at conception" platitude in the first place.

Wait a minute, so you're willing to buy that life doesn't begin at conception? That's just stupid. You could try to make the argument that while life begins at conception, it just doesn't matter until a certain point, but believing that life doesn't begin at conception is about as nonsensical as believing the earth is flat.

[Nuroblav]

I've no problem with harvesting stem cells from adult body tissue, but to harvest them from embryos is, quite simply, murder.

I mean we could do, but the process is more painful and as far as I know the cells there can't differentiate into as much.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Not quite the same one. There's more support for embryonic stem cell research than for fetal tissue research. This suggests some opposition to abortion is motivated by other things... desire to force an increase in birthrate, envy at those getting laid, superficial "but fetuses LOOK like babies" reactions that don't apply to the zygotes used in ESCR, etc... take your pick, it's all equally arbitrary and unverifiable what IS motivating anti-abortion types, all this tells us is what ISN'T motivating them, and what ISN'T motivating them is the "life begins at conception" platitude.

Thank goodness. "Life begins at conception" was especially absurd and was missing the point of the common use of the word "life" and the reason people are so indignant at actual murders. But that still leaves behind the question of why anti-abortion types PRETEND to agree with the "life begins at conception" platitude in the first place.

Wait a minute, so you're willing to buy that life doesn't begin at conception? That's just stupid. You could try to make the argument that while life begins at conception, it just doesn't matter until a certain point, but believing that life doesn't begin at conception is about as nonsensical as believing the earth is flat.

If you're against embryonic stem cell research... I get it. I don't agree with you, but I get it. And I wish to put that aside until stem cell as an issue in and of itself is the central issue of another thread, and/or it comes up in mainstream politics again... whichever comes first. But there's something I'm not as sure I get.

Of all the things religion has led to people opposing, most would otherwise have been tough dilemmas anyway. But I cannot think of a more clear-cut case of Christianity being in the wrong than embryonic stem cell research. You have cloned embryos; and/or embryos from in-vitro fertilizations; the latter of which people support anyway; being used to potentially save millions of lives. In the 2004 US election, the most religious states were the states who voted to re-elect the President who kind of made a show of his opposition to this stuff. The least-religious states were the ones who voted for his most mainstream rival. Whether that's an A causes B pattern, a B causes A pattern, or a C causes A and B pattern, it's still a pattern.

If you're in favour of both embryonic stem cell research and Christianity; which statistically at least some people have to be; how do you reconcile the two? How do you look at a religion that has so severely distorted people's sense of right and wrong and not immediately want it cut off at the source?

Quite frankly, I look at that and think, "well, what else could Christianity be distorting people's sense of right and wrong about"?

Emphasis mine. Let's save this tangent for another thread, and try to stay on topic for now.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No it isn't. It's motivated by thinking that the fetus is a person. It's why we're against IVF too. People shouldn't necessarily try to psychoanalyze views of people they don't understand.

More people are in favour of IVF than abortion. Or at least claim to be. Even if they're faking it, that suggests conformity to some perceived outside observer who theoretically has some reason to support one and not the other. Either way that raises the question as to what that reason is.

EDIT: Used wrong link last time, please disregard previous link.

That's because people don't know about the process of IVF. Church documents and positions are clear, however, that IVF is illicit and cannot be obtained without excommunication, both in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

More people are in favour of IVF than abortion. Or at least claim to be. Even if they're faking it, that suggests conformity to some perceived outside observer who theoretically has some reason to support one and not the other. Either way that raises the question as to what that reason is.

EDIT: Used wrong link last time, please disregard previous link.

That's because people don't know about the process of IVF. Church documents and positions are clear, however, that IVF is illicit and cannot be obtained without excommunication, both in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

...?

There's an infinite number of possible reasons one can support IVF while opposing abortion. Why do you arbitrarily choose "ignorance" as the first and foremost reason?

[Antityranicals]

Wait a minute, so you're willing to buy that life doesn't begin at conception? That's just stupid. You could try to make the argument that while life begins at conception, it just doesn't matter until a certain point, but believing that life doesn't begin at conception is about as nonsensical as believing the earth is flat.

If you're against embryonic stem cell research... I get it. I don't agree with you, but I get it. And I wish to put that aside until stem cell as an issue in and of itself is the central issue of another thread, and/or it comes up in mainstream politics again... whichever comes first. But there's something I'm not as sure I get.

Of all the things religion has led to people opposing, most would otherwise have been tough dilemmas anyway. But I cannot think of a more clear-cut case of Christianity being in the wrong than embryonic stem cell research. You have cloned embryos; and/or embryos from in-vitro fertilizations; the latter of which people support anyway; being used to potentially save millions of lives. In the 2004 US election, the most religious states were the states who voted to re-elect the President who kind of made a show of his opposition to this stuff. The least-religious states were the ones who voted for his most mainstream rival. Whether that's an A causes B pattern, a B causes A pattern, or a C causes A and B pattern, it's still a pattern.

If you're in favour of both embryonic stem cell research and Christianity; which statistically at least some people have to be; how do you reconcile the two? How do you look at a religion that has so severely distorted people's sense of right and wrong and not immediately want it cut off at the source?

Quite frankly, I look at that and think, "well, what else could Christianity be distorting people's sense of right and wrong about"?

Emphasis mine. Let's save this tangent for another thread, and try to stay on topic for now.

Fair point.

I don't have a problem with research on stem cells from adults at all. I think it has a lot of potential to save people's lives, and being against it is rather like being against kidney transplants. There's nothing anti-Christian about stem cell research.

[Page]

There isn't even a biblical basis for opposition to abortion and stem cell research. Anti-abortion Christians always point to the same verse, in which Yahweh says that he knew Job when he was formed in the womb, and to apply that to mean fetuses shouldn't be aborted is a reach. The more plausible context is to speak of Yahweh's omniscience, that he knows everyone who will ever exist since the beginning of time.

However, we do know that Yahweh believes that if a fetus is conceived by adultery that the woman should be subjected to a ritual in which a priest has her drink bitter water so that the bastard fetus will wither up and die. Ironic since "the baby shouldn't be punished for your mistake" is such a common line among the pro-life.

[Antityranicals]

That's because people don't know about the process of IVF. Church documents and positions are clear, however, that IVF is illicit and cannot be obtained without excommunication, both in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

...?

There's an infinite number of possible reasons one can support IVF while opposing abortion. Why do you arbitrarily choose "ignorance" as the first and foremost reason?

From a Catholic point of view, IVF is without a doubt a lesser sin than abortion, as abortion is held to be murder, while IVF, for all of its moral issues, is certainly not murder. As such, I believe IVF should be legal, even if it is morally wrong, while I hold that abortion should be illegal.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

[quote="Page";p="36617348"]There isn't even a biblical basis for opposition to abortion and stem cell research.[/quote}
I'm judging Christianity by its effects, not by its internally-contradictory holy book.

[Isaris]

More people are in favour of IVF than abortion. Or at least claim to be. Even if they're faking it, that suggests conformity to some perceived outside observer who theoretically has some reason to support one and not the other. Either way that raises the question as to what that reason is.

EDIT: Used wrong link last time, please disregard previous link.

That's because people don't know about the process of IVF. Church documents and positions are clear, however, that IVF is illicit and cannot be obtained without excommunication, both in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

That is full-blown stupid. IVF helps make babies. Why would Christians be against it?

[Antityranicals]

There isn't even a biblical basis for opposition to abortion and stem cell research. Anti-abortion Christians always point to the same verse, in which Yahweh says that he knew Job when he was formed in the womb, and to apply that to mean fetuses shouldn't be aborted is a reach. The more plausible context is to speak of Yahweh's omniscience, that he knows everyone who will ever exist since the beginning of time.

However, we do know that Yahweh believes that if a fetus is conceived by adultery that the woman should be subjected to a ritual in which a priest has her drink bitter water so that the bastard fetus will wither up and die. Ironic since "the baby shouldn't be punished for your mistake" is such a common line among the pro-life.

Forget about the Bible, we're talking morality. Only idiots believe the whole Bible is literal.

[United Muscovite Nations]

...?

There's an infinite number of possible reasons one can support IVF while opposing abortion. Why do you arbitrarily choose "ignorance" as the first and foremost reason?

From a Catholic point of view, IVF is without a doubt a lesser sin than abortion, as abortion is held to be murder, while IVF, for all of its moral issues, is certainly not murder. As such, I believe IVF should be legal, even if it is morally wrong, while I hold that abortion should be illegal.

That's not true, it involves the destruction of embryos, it is absolutely murder.

[Antityranicals]

From a Catholic point of view, IVF is without a doubt a lesser sin than abortion, as abortion is held to be murder, while IVF, for all of its moral issues, is certainly not murder. As such, I believe IVF should be legal, even if it is morally wrong, while I hold that abortion should be illegal.

That's not true, it involves the destruction of embryos, it is absolutely murder.

Many methods do, but it is possible to accomplish IVF without the destruction of embryos, and therefore without murder. I'll admit I misunderstood the process, which is why I said that it is certainly not murder, but after some research, I still believe it is possible to accomplish without murder, by only creating one embryo, and by attempting to implant that embryo, and no others.

[Antityranicals]

That's because people don't know about the process of IVF. Church documents and positions are clear, however, that IVF is illicit and cannot be obtained without excommunication, both in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

That is full-blown stupid. IVF helps make babies. Why would Christians be against it?

Catholicism isn't just "More babies good." Catholic teaching is that marriage, sex, and procreation ought not be separated from each other. Under your ludicrous argument, you'd have us in favor of rape...

[Kowani]

I've no problem with harvesting stem cells from adult body tissue, but to harvest them from embryos is, quite simply, murder.

Murder requires legality. Try again.

[Rojava Free State]

I've no problem with harvesting stem cells from adult body tissue, but to harvest them from embryos is, quite simply, murder.

Murder requires legality. Try again.

Murder is legal in much of Somalia but it's still murder

[Outer Sparta]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

There are Christians who are pro-choice. Not sure the proportion of Christians that are pro-life/pro-choice though.

[Samadhi]

Murder requires legality. Try again.

Murder is legal in much of Somalia but it's still murder

That's killing.