Stem cell decision divides god botherers
10 March 2009 by Stardust
Well, it’s no surprise, we knew the right-to-lifers would react this way. While they fight for the life of a frozen embryo that will never be used and would otherwise be tossed into the trash heap, my bet is that if many god botherers would be faced with a disease that threatens their life or the life of their child, like multiple myeloma, for example, they would be running to science and the doctors for a cure since they understand that faith is not enough.
LINK: Stem cell decision exposes religious divides
The embryonic stem cell research debate is steeped with religious arguments, with some faith traditions convinced the research amounts to killing innocent life, others citing the moral imperative to alleviate suffering, and plenty of religious believers caught somewhere in between.
President Barack Obama’s order Monday opening the door for federal taxpayer dollars to fund expanded embryonic stem cell research again brings those often colliding interests to the fore.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called Obama’s move “a sad victory of politics over science and ethics.”
“Sad victory of politics over science and ethics”? What is sad is to stop science from finding a cure for terminal illnesses and paralysis all in order to save the life of frozen embryos which would otherwise end up being destroyed. How can it be a sad thing when these embryos that would otherwise be destroyed would be used to help save the life of others. Isn’t it better to use what the embryos can give to others?
“This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested,” Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, said in a statement.
These “innocent lives” are already being destroyed. What is going to happen if they are not used for medical research? My question to them is why are they so concerned about this “innocent life” that is not implanted where that life can be sustained? Take it out of the freezer and it dies quickly.
Some groups and faiths are divided on the issue. Muslims disagree over — among other things — whether an embryo in the early stage of development has a soul. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church, has not taken a position.
If embryos that would otherwise be destroyed not be allowed for stem cell research, then other lives are lost in addition to the life of the embryo all because of some people’s superstitious beliefs about embryos having a “soul”. Well, they also believe that everyone has a soul. What about the soul of the already living person who was carried to term and born into this world? If they believe that it is “God’s will” to allow that person’s “soul” to “fly up to heaven” then why do they have a problem with the soul of an embryo going to a place they believe they are eventually going anyway? God believers contradict themselves on this afterlife business all the time.
Fortunately, despite their delusional beliefs, there are believers on the side of common sense who look at this stem cell decision in a positive way (and that includes our new president).
On the other side is the Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a United Church of Christ minister and a professor at Chicago Theological Seminary.
“There is an ethical imperative to relieve suffering and promote healing,” she said. “This is good policy for a religiously pluralistic society that cares about human suffering and the relief of human suffering.”
Obama alluded to religion in announcing the changes, saying, “As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”
As people of faith and non-faith, we are all supposed to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. Obama failed to make that point, implying that only those of faith care about such things.
Some religious traditions teach that because life begins at conception, any research that destroys a human embryo, as this research does, is tantamount to murder and is never justified. The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention are among those that oppose the research.
How can it be murder when the embryo is outside of its mothers womb and unable to sustain itself on its own? Keeping it in a freezer forever also will kill it. They are only good for so long. Then they are disposed of. These folks should be fighting for the lives of those who were born into this world and who are in need of help them live as long as they can. These two denominations mentioned above are more focused on death and afterlife than they are the here and now so they should be jumping for joy when all these little embryos get their wings and fly up to heaven.
Other more liberal traditions, including mainline Protestant and Jewish institutions, believe the promise to relieve suffering is paramount. In 2004, the governing body of the Episcopal Church said it would favor the research as long as it used embryos that otherwise would have been destroyed, that embryos were not created for research purposes, or were not bought and sold.
This is where I draw the line, also. I think that it would be unethical to create embryos to be harvested specifically for research purposes. They should not be bought or sold, but I can see where that would happen anyway. There are those who will create their own little embryo businesses for profit, and that in my opinions is just wrong. However, the embryos that are frozen and never used will be destroyed anyway, and I think that using them for scientific research would be something good that comes from them ever being conceived.
The good news is:
Polls show some believers are willing to buck their leaders on the issue. Fifty-nine percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics and 58 percent of white mainline Protestants favor embryonic stem cell research, according to a poll released in July 2008 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
But most evangelical Christians still have a problem with it:
Only 31 percent of white evangelical Protestants, however, favored the research.
Many of those other 60% of evangelicals against stem cell research would be changing their minds if they or their child came down with a terminal illness or paralysis and they see prayers don’t work. Just like they run to medical science now to cure them when they are sick or injured instead of waiting for their god to heal them.
10 March 2009, on 12:03 pm
I’m not surprised that evangelicals have trouble with the issue. For them, anything of individual moral significance takes place after death. The hereafter always trumps the here and now – unless it’s the suffering in the here and now that fuels their faith in the hereafter. Their utter dependence on the will of their hateful (and hate-filled) ghost in the sky renders them incapable of taking responsibility for anything. Everything in life is, for them, a consequence of the will of god. Apparently the only thing they can take into their own hands is the judgement of those who do not believe as they do. So very sad. So many sheeple.
10 March 2009, on 12:46 pm
Stardust
Good job You beat me to it. LOL. Here are a few vids on StemCells.
A short stem cell film. What is a stem cell. Specificly Embryonic Stem Cell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUcE1Y_bOQE
A boy with Cerebral Palsy has a stem cell treatment using Cord blood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DjIZhL0rtc&feature=related
If you’ve watched the first film then you may conclude that NO life has been taken.
And the second film is about therapy already being done. The people who claim ESC’s are harvested by killing humans are just plain wrong. While stem cell research is going forward it is imperative that we also know what the full range of ESCs can do and what it takes to change adult stem cells into the pluripotent variety that are derived from ESCs. ESCs are the gold standard for this research. We are only in our first few short years in this research and already they have discovered so many good therapies that I am in awe.
The religious would have us stuck in the past and would deny people a good healthy life because of their superstitions and selfishness. They are anti science and should not have any say in how research is carried out in the labs. The real win yesterday when Obama signed the EO to allow ESC research with Federal dollars was the win for science and a turning away from the anti-science ignorance.
10 March 2009, on 1:07 pm
Arguing with a Christian is like watching Nascar. They keep going around in circles.
10 March 2009, on 1:24 pm
Good article from Forbes online
What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For You
10 March 2009, on 1:33 pm
Let’s not forget the Republican/Rightwing practise of REAL Science here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQaF4YXCXsc
Stardust
I have a comment waiting approval.
10 March 2009, on 1:40 pm
I was moderating a panel on stem cell research way back, and we had three people give their schtick: a researcher, a priest, and a rabbi. The researcher was incredibly informative, and the rabbi was completely reasonable and collected.
The priest, however, was pissed off and a complete asshole about the whole thing.
If I was forced to choose, and at least in this country, give me a Jew over a xian any day…
10 March 2009, on 1:56 pm
I’m so happy Obama came through on this. Too late for my parents, maybe too late for me, but for my son and his (future) children? Possibilities! I love this stuff!
As for the religious nutjobs, I am reminded of George Carlin’s remark… “If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re pre-school, you’re fucked.” I think we’ve been fucked enough.
10 March 2009, on 2:04 pm
“If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re pre-school, you’re fucked.”
Sad, but so true.
10 March 2009, on 2:46 pm
If one starts with the assumptions:
-the existence of a meddlesome god,
-the existence of an eternal soul in every human being,
-the existence of eternal reward or punishment for those souls.
And assumes,
-the nanosecond a human sperm hits a human egg, this god pops a new soul in,
-only this god can separate a soul from a body,
-and this god gets so pissed at anyone who prematurely separates a soul from a body, he will send the perpetrator to eternal damnation, and in his wrath he may punish even innocent people who are standing nearby.
Any subsequent opinion on ethics is highly suspect.
10 March 2009, on 8:27 pm
I couldn’t care less about embryos. Serve ‘em up to my fantasy lab on a silver platter; I’ll create and sacrifice as many of them as is necessary to develop new treatments for degenerative nerve diseases, genetic conditions, spinal injuries, etc. To help those who are already alive and conscious.
I hate how people allow their hypocritical concerns over clumps of undifferentiated cells to get in the way of promising medical research. Pardon my offensiveness, but it’s flat out stupid. There shouldn’t be ethical concerns regarding the treatment of balls of cells. The spider you killed or the chicken you ate for supper had way more sentience than a 32-celled human embryo.
THEY ARE CELLS. NO MORE, NO LESS.
11 March 2009, on 5:28 pm
Well said cat
To me this sounds like a lucrative opportunity