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

[Vascottozer]

We could just create a new thread on what counts as murder at this rate: D

But I'm sure that there are Christians who support stem cell research.

[Salandriagado]

Why can’t you just take skin cells and revert them to stem cells...

Because it cannot be done. Stem cells, by definition, are the only cells with the ability to differentiate (become different types of cells). We do not have a mechanism for dedifferentiating skin cells into stem cells.

[Greater Catarapania]

If you define murder as "the unlawful killing of a person", then it isn't murder.

If you're a natural law theorist, you adopt the "individual substance of a rational nature" definition of "person," and recognize that all organisms are "substances" in the relevant philosophical sense (as are most concrete objects referred to using nouns), then abortion is murder. It's the killing of an innocent human organism, and since killing of the innocent is unlawful on natural law theory, and since humans are of a rational nature, abortion is unlawful - and thus murder.

Unless you believe that all laws are merely conventional, and there's no objective standard by which one set of laws can be said to be better than others (and if you do take that position, there's something called Sharia you might be interested in learning about), you have to admit that the sense of "lawful" includes far more than the local legal definitions of some particular country.

Why can’t you just take skin cells and revert them to stem cells...

Because it cannot be done. Stem cells, by definition, are the only cells with the ability to differentiate (become different types of cells). We do not have a mechanism for dedifferentiating skin cells into stem cells.

You haven't heard of induced pluripotency, then.

[Joohan]

Yeah, stem cell research could help save lives. As Christians though, we're not willing to sacrifice innocent lives to do so. If we could some how do the research without ending life in the process, we'd be more amiable towards the idea.

[Kowani]

mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Murder is not exclusively a legal term. If the state ceased to exist, there would still be instances of humans killing other humans that would rightfully called murder. The word has meaning outside the law.

No, those would be called killings. Maybe assassinations or massacres, depending on the context. They would not be murder.

To deny great benefits that stem cell research provides to society is similar to denying the great benefits that vaccines provide to society. If one opposes to either one religious reasons, then don't receive them self therapy or vaccines then.

It is absolutely immoral and degenerate to deny people a prosperous and long life because one believes that an embryo has a soul. Stem cell research and vaccines such as Varicella (chickenpox), rubella (the “R” in the MMR vaccine), hepatitis A, and one preparation of rabies vaccine have prolonged life for humans in ways we haven’t seen before and have improve the quality of life beyond a reasonable doubt. The so-called pro-life position in this instance is not about prolonging life but about the idea that an embryo has a soul.

They're not similar at all. Vaccines are a safe, proven treatment with absolutely no ethical considerations related to their production. Most if not all medical benefits derived from stem cell research have been made using adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.

Because the latter have been legally attacked and culturally opposed by many people.

Not to mention your line of reasoning is pretty dangerous as it essentially argues the ends justify the means;

Yep, they do.

at what point does it become unacceptable to sacrifice human life to ensure others a "prosperous and long life" under your definition?

When the embryo reaches awareness, then it actually becomes a relevant question in the first place.

You could certainly justify any number of things far beyond embryonic stem cell research by that line of reasoning.

You don’t say.

[Salandriagado]

If you define murder as "the unlawful killing of a person", then it isn't murder.

If you're a natural law theorist, you adopt the "individual substance of a rational nature" definition of "person," and recognize that all organisms are "substances" in the relevant philosophical sense (as are most concrete objects referred to using nouns), then abortion is murder. It's the killing of an innocent human organism, and since killing of the innocent is unlawful on natural law theory, and since humans are of a rational nature, abortion is unlawful - and thus murder.

Unless you believe that all laws are merely conventional, and there's no objective standard by which one set of laws can be said to be better than others (and if you do take that position, there's something called Sharia you might be interested in learning about), you have to admit that the sense of "lawful" includes far more than the local legal definitions of some particular country.

Because it cannot be done. Stem cells, by definition, are the only cells with the ability to differentiate (become different types of cells). We do not have a mechanism for dedifferentiating skin cells into stem cells.

You haven't heard of induced pluripotency, then.

That lets you give cell some pluripotency. It does not let you make arbitrary cell types, and it does not dedifferentiate cells into stem cells.

[Page]

Murder is not exclusively a legal term. If the state ceased to exist, there would still be instances of humans killing other humans that would rightfully called murder. The word has meaning outside the law.

No, those would be called killings. Maybe assassinations or massacres, depending on the context. They would not be murder.

They're not similar at all. Vaccines are a safe, proven treatment with absolutely no ethical considerations related to their production. Most if not all medical benefits derived from stem cell research have been made using adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.

Because the latter have been legally attacked and culturally opposed by many people.

Not to mention your line of reasoning is pretty dangerous as it essentially argues the ends justify the means;

Yep, they do.

at what point does it become unacceptable to sacrifice human life to ensure others a "prosperous and long life" under your definition?

When the embryo reaches awareness, then it actually becomes a relevant question in the first place.

You could certainly justify any number of things far beyond embryonic stem cell research by that line of reasoning.

You don’t say.

The concept of murder and having a word for it predate laws.

[Greater Catarapania]

If you're a natural law theorist, you adopt the "individual substance of a rational nature" definition of "person," and recognize that all organisms are "substances" in the relevant philosophical sense (as are most concrete objects referred to using nouns), then abortion is murder. It's the killing of an innocent human organism, and since killing of the innocent is unlawful on natural law theory, and since humans are of a rational nature, abortion is unlawful - and thus murder.

Unless you believe that all laws are merely conventional, and there's no objective standard by which one set of laws can be said to be better than others (and if you do take that position, there's something called Sharia you might be interested in learning about), you have to admit that the sense of "lawful" includes far more than the local legal definitions of some particular country.


You haven't heard of induced pluripotency, then.

That lets you give cell some pluripotency. It does not let you make arbitrary cell types, and it does not dedifferentiate cells into stem cells.

Unless you're planning on rebuilding an entire human, the ability to "make arbitrary cell types" is overkill. From the link provided:

Using iPSC technology our faculty have reprogrammed skin cells into active motor neurons, egg and sperm precursors, liver cells, bone precursors, and blood cells. In addition, patients with untreatable diseases such as, ALS, Rett Syndrome, Lesch-Nyhan Disease, and Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy donate skin cells to BSCRC scientists for iPSC reprogramming research. The generous participation of patients and their families in this research enables BSCRC scientists to study these diseases in the laboratory in the hope of developing new treatment technologies.

So what, exactly, do you need the embryos for?

[Kowani]

No, those would be called killings. Maybe assassinations or massacres, depending on the context. They would not be murder.

Because the latter have been legally attacked and culturally opposed by many people.
Yep, they do.
When the embryo reaches awareness, then it actually becomes a relevant question in the first place.
You don’t say.

The concept of murder and having a word for it predate laws.

The concept of wrongful killings, sure. Murder is a legal term.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

That lets you give cell some pluripotency. It does not let you make arbitrary cell types, and it does not dedifferentiate cells into stem cells.

Unless you're planning on rebuilding an entire human, the ability to "make arbitrary cell types" is overkill. From the link provided:

Using iPSC technology our faculty have reprogrammed skin cells into active motor neurons, egg and sperm precursors, liver cells, bone precursors, and blood cells. In addition, patients with untreatable diseases such as, ALS, Rett Syndrome, Lesch-Nyhan Disease, and Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy donate skin cells to BSCRC scientists for iPSC reprogramming research. The generous participation of patients and their families in this research enables BSCRC scientists to study these diseases in the laboratory in the hope of developing new treatment technologies.

So what, exactly, do you need the embryos for?

What about type 1 diabetes? It doesn't say anything about insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells.

As well, there are those who object to this research on other grounds than the assertion that it's "not necessary." So long as even PART of the objection is religion-based, does this still not lead back to, you know, the original topic of this thread?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The concept of murder and having a word for it predate laws.

The concept of wrongful killings, sure. Murder is a legal term.

Considering the word murder predates legal scholarship, I'm inclined to doubt that.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The concept of wrongful killings, sure. Murder is a legal term.

Considering the word murder predates legal scholarship, I'm inclined to doubt that.

There's already a thread for definitions and the supposed subjectivity thereof. Please do not derail this one any further.

[Brusia]

That lets you give cell some pluripotency. It does not let you make arbitrary cell types, and it does not dedifferentiate cells into stem cells.

Unless you're planning on rebuilding an entire human, the ability to "make arbitrary cell types" is overkill. From the link provided:

Using iPSC technology our faculty have reprogrammed skin cells into active motor neurons, egg and sperm precursors, liver cells, bone precursors, and blood cells. In addition, patients with untreatable diseases such as, ALS, Rett Syndrome, Lesch-Nyhan Disease, and Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy donate skin cells to BSCRC scientists for iPSC reprogramming research. The generous participation of patients and their families in this research enables BSCRC scientists to study these diseases in the laboratory in the hope of developing new treatment technologies.

So what, exactly, do you need the embryos for?

This. Debating ES cell research is really pretty moot at this point, as iPS cells are effectively functionally equivalent and have much greater potential medical value, as inducing pluripotency in an individual's own stem cells produces an autograft that doesn't carry the rejection risk inherent in the allografts produced from ES cells.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

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?

Because I'm smart enough to know better than to equate the ignorance of certain overly-zealous individuals with the morals and belief system of a 2,000 year old religion?

[Greater Catarapania]

Unless you're planning on rebuilding an entire human, the ability to "make arbitrary cell types" is overkill. From the link provided:



So what, exactly, do you need the embryos for?

What about type 1 diabetes? It doesn't say anything about insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells.

Did you even click on the link?

First friggin' paragraph.

Here, I'll even post it for you again.

https://stemcell.ucla.edu/induced-pluri ... stem-cells

As well, there are those who object to this research on other grounds than the assertion that it's "not necessary." So long as even PART of the objection is religion-based, does this still not lead back to, you know, the original topic of this thread?

My primary objection is based on philosophy, not religion. I define "person" as "an individual substance (think "thing" or "object," rather than "kind of stuff") of a rational nature," and I believe in the existence of a "natural law," conformity to which is the standard by which human laws may be judged to be "better" or "worse." Since I believe that the killing of an innocent person is contrary to this natural law, since humans are "of a rational nature," since all "organisms" are "substances" in the relevant sense, and since embryos are innocent human organisms, I consider the destruction of an embryo to be "murder" - the unlawful killing of a person - by default.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Unless you're planning on rebuilding an entire human, the ability to "make arbitrary cell types" is overkill. From the link provided:



So what, exactly, do you need the embryos for?

This. Debating ES cell research is really pretty moot at this point, as iPS cells are effectively functionally equivalent and have much greater potential medical value, as inducing pluripotency in an individual's own stem cells produces an autograft that doesn't carry the rejection risk inherent in the allografts produced from ES cells.

>Cross in avatar
>Dismissing ESCR as obsolete

Do I detect a hint of bias?

I don't claim to know who to believe on pluripotency, but people were objecting to embryonic stem cell research long before they had any reason to even anticipate such supposed obsolescence. Even while still believing ESCR would irreplaceably save lives, (or at least pretending to) they objected to ESCR anyway. So that still raises the question of why those who supported embryonic stem cell research continue to support Christianity.

While I'm at it this creates a new question. Why, if it's supposedly obsolete, is it still so popular?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

So that still raises the question of why those who supported embryonic stem cell research continue to support Christianity.

Because despite what you may believe they are not incompatible.

[Greater Catarapania]

This. Debating ES cell research is really pretty moot at this point, as iPS cells are effectively functionally equivalent and have much greater potential medical value, as inducing pluripotency in an individual's own stem cells produces an autograft that doesn't carry the rejection risk inherent in the allografts produced from ES cells.

>Cross in avatar
>Dismissing ESCR as obsolete

Do I detect a hint of bias?

You can take your Bulverism, and stick it where the sun don't shine. It won't fly here.

I don't claim to know who to believe on pluripotency,

University of California, Los Angeles not good enough for you? Too conservative for your tastes? Perhaps you'd like me to fight a similar source from a communist nation?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

>Cross in avatar
>Dismissing ESCR as obsolete

Do I detect a hint of bias?

You can take your Bulverism, and stick it where the sun don't shine. It won't fly here.

I don't claim to know who to believe on pluripotency,

University of California, Los Angeles not good enough for you? Too conservative for your tastes? Perhaps you'd like me to fight a similar source from a communist nation?

Don't put words in my mouth. The excerpt you previously cited, from the source you previously cited, did not say anything about pancreatic beta cells, which I recalled hearing of as a commonly cited example of what embryonic stem cell research in particular is especially good for. Next time you expect the rest of us to read (or more realistically listen to text-to-audio of) the whole article, say so outright.

I'll get to that article when I can, and get back to you. In the meantime, bear in mind what I said above.

[Page]

What about type 1 diabetes? It doesn't say anything about insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells.

Did you even click on the link?

First friggin' paragraph.

Here, I'll even post it for you again.

https://stemcell.ucla.edu/induced-pluri ... stem-cells

As well, there are those who object to this research on other grounds than the assertion that it's "not necessary." So long as even PART of the objection is religion-based, does this still not lead back to, you know, the original topic of this thread?

My primary objection is based on philosophy, not religion. I define "person" as "an individual substance (think "thing" or "object," rather than "kind of stuff") of a rational nature," and I believe in the existence of a "natural law," conformity to which is the standard by which human laws may be judged to be "better" or "worse." Since I believe that the killing of an innocent person is contrary to this natural law, since humans are "of a rational nature," since all "organisms" are "substances" in the relevant sense, and since embryos are innocent human organisms, I consider the destruction of an embryo to be "murder" - the unlawful killing of a person - by default.

An embryo does not have a rational nature. In fact, not only can it not think, it has no subjective experience whatsoever. A chicken is not sentient or sapient but it does feel. Until around the start of the third trimester, a fetus does not feel.

It seems absurd to me to afford any moral consideration to something with no subjective experience. First trimester abortions and harvesting embryonic stem cells are not morally justifiable acts, they are amoral acts. It is no different than gathering samples of lunar soil.

I do think that with the third trimester, morality begins to apply. The fetus is still not a person but since it now has subjective experience as a chicken does, terminating that fetus becomes a moral question, but not before.

I also dislike this constant use of the word "innocent" to describe fetuses. The word innocence implies a capacity for guilt and vice versa. Is a brick innocent?

[Greater Catarapania]

You can take your Bulverism, and stick it where the sun don't shine. It won't fly here.


University of California, Los Angeles not good enough for you? Too conservative for your tastes? Perhaps you'd like me to fight a similar source from a communist nation?

Don't put words in my mouth. The excerpt you previously cited, from the source you previously cited, did not say anything about pancreatic beta cells, which I recalled hearing of as a commonly cited example of what embryonic stem cell research in particular is especially good for. Next time you expect the rest of us to read (or more realistically listen to text-to-audio of) the whole article, say so outright.

Here, I'll reproduce the first paragraph for you too:

iPSC are derived from skin or blood cells that have been reprogrammed back into an embryonic-like pluripotent state that enables the development of an unlimited source of any type of human cell needed for therapeutic purposes. For example, iPSC can be prodded into becoming beta islet cells to treat diabetes, blood cells to create new blood free of cancer cells for a leukemia patient, or neurons to treat neurological disorders.

I've never really understood why it's so hard for so many of my fellow millennials to buckle down and read a few consecutive paragraphs.

[Brusia]

This. Debating ES cell research is really pretty moot at this point, as iPS cells are effectively functionally equivalent and have much greater potential medical value, as inducing pluripotency in an individual's own stem cells produces an autograft that doesn't carry the rejection risk inherent in the allografts produced from ES cells.

>Cross in avatar
>Dismissing ESCR as obsolete

Do I detect a hint of bias?

I don't claim to know who to believe on pluripotency, but people were objecting to embryonic stem cell research long before they had any reason to even anticipate such supposed obsolescence. Even while still believing ESCR would irreplaceably save lives, (or at least pretending to) they objected to ESCR anyway. So that still raises the question of why those who supported embryonic stem cell research continue to support Christianity.

While I'm at it this creates a new question. Why, if it's supposedly obsolete, is it still so popular?

Insofar as I'm biased towards funding more promising research over less promising, yes, you probably do detect some bias. As to why ES cells are still popular, I suspect it's simply because researchers have been working with them longer and are more familiar with them compared to the much more recently discovered ability to induce pluripotency (much like how some older physicians still prescribe digoxin for SVT even though there are newer, better drugs on the market simply because they've been using it for years). And I can't recall having ever seen ES cell research described as being "irreplaceable" in saving lives; to the best of my knowledge, the problem of graft rejection from allogenic grafts grown by them has been an issue from the start.

[Vetalia]

Because the latter have been legally attacked and culturally opposed by many people.

There's a big difference, though, their opposition is based on ignorance and is not a legitimate ethical debate regarding the nature of human personhood that has existed for millenia. It would be different if their opposition was based on legitimate ethical concerns regarding the source of the vaccine, e.g. as if in the case of stem cells the vaccine was produced using human embryos.

at When the embryo reaches awareness, then it actually becomes a relevant question in the first place.

How would you define that for these purposes, though? Even after birth it takes another 18 months or so for them to be able to pass the mirror test that demonstrates external self-awareness.

You don’t say.

Sure, eugenics, abortion of children projected to have a developmental disability, forcible euthanasia...the "end justifies the means" is a terrible position to take in regards to issues impacting human lives.

It's much different to conclude that based on our understanding of human development and the facts and circumstances surrounding the use of these embryos, it is permitted to use them to save and improve the lives of others as they would otherwise be wasted, but to say it's fine to sacrifice embryos because the soul doesn't exist and therefore it's worthwhile to sacrifice them to improve the lives of others is a way different, dehumanizing line of reasoning.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Don't put words in my mouth. The excerpt you previously cited, from the source you previously cited, did not say anything about pancreatic beta cells, which I recalled hearing of as a commonly cited example of what embryonic stem cell research in particular is especially good for. Next time you expect the rest of us to read (or more realistically listen to text-to-audio of) the whole article, say so outright.

Here, I'll reproduce the first paragraph for you too:

iPSC are derived from skin or blood cells that have been reprogrammed back into an embryonic-like pluripotent state that enables the development of an unlimited source of any type of human cell needed for therapeutic purposes. For example, iPSC can be prodded into becoming beta islet cells to treat diabetes, blood cells to create new blood free of cancer cells for a leukemia patient, or neurons to treat neurological disorders.

I've never really understood why it's so hard for so many of my fellow millennials to buckle down and read a few consecutive paragraphs.

Actually, what's harder is to believe that someone who considers the whole article relevant would cite only a specific excerpt and not ask anyone to read the whole article the first time.

I've since listened to the article twice. It very specifically says "for therapeutic purposes." It doesn't say anything about other kinds of research, such as into what causes cells to differentiate in what ways under what circumstances in the first place. Just because it has similar effects for specific purposes doesn't mean it's made ALL of them obsolete. You would think all the people in 2004 making a big show of how much they were against the research would be making just as big a show how (or more) about how vindicated they were if it did. Instead this whole issue has fallen by the wayside in mainstream politics recent years.

[Greater Catarapania]

Did you even click on the link?

First friggin' paragraph.

Here, I'll even post it for you again.

https://stemcell.ucla.edu/induced-pluri ... stem-cells


My primary objection is based on philosophy, not religion. I define "person" as "an individual substance (think "thing" or "object," rather than "kind of stuff") of a rational nature," and I believe in the existence of a "natural law," conformity to which is the standard by which human laws may be judged to be "better" or "worse." Since I believe that the killing of an innocent person is contrary to this natural law, since humans are "of a rational nature," since all "organisms" are "substances" in the relevant sense, and since embryos are innocent human organisms, I consider the destruction of an embryo to be "murder" - the unlawful killing of a person - by default.

An embryo does not have a rational nature.

I beg to differ. "Nature" has to do with the kind of thing an entity is, not with its particular properties at this or that specific point in time. The two are often closely linked, as the former puts limits on what the latter may be, but they aren't the same thing.

If the property "sentience at time t" were relevant to the moral worth of an individual, people in slow-wave sleep would be fair game.

I also dislike this constant use of the word "innocent" to describe fetuses. The word innocence implies a capacity for guilt and vice versa. Is a brick innocent?

A brick doesn't have a rational nature. It isn't the right kind of thing to be innocent. Being human, the fetus has a rational nature, and thus "guilt" and "innocence" may be fittingly ascribed to it.