Stem Cell Research, Genetic Engineering (1 Viewer)

[katie_tully]

Those who dismiss stem cell research vehemently, do not do so because of the percieved risks.
Many believe that 'embryos' are 'potential' human lives, and that stem cell research kills 'embryos'.

 

[sam04u]

I never argued the idea of reconstructing bones, or nerves and such through stem cell research.
(and nobody should... however this research should be done "slowly" and not be seen as the best possible solution.)

 

[katie_tully]

What then, do you suggest, is a better alternative option?
Do we wait another 20,30 or 50 years waiting to see if there is one?

 

[wheredanton]

Hollywood told me that cloning is evil. See 'The Island'.

 

[katie_tully]

I fail to see how two Ewan McGreggors is a bad thing.

 

[wheredanton]

I fail to see how two Ewan McGreggors is a bad thing.

I thought it was funny that they made his owner a parady of Austin Powers.

 

[katie_tully]

Really though, the Island just showed that it's bad to clone humans, let them live for a few years, and then kill them for the harvest.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The idea is we don't want to make man "weak" and thinking we can construct more efficient humans!? IS STUPID STUPID STUPID... we are perfectly engineered for our environment...

Perfectly engineered? This is such a silly statement... I mean, you do realise that the reason humans have so many back problems is because of 'faulty design' don't you?

To the imbeciles who argue;
"This is playing God";
If god didn't want us to do it he would have said so; or made it impossible.

Your God probably did say so, he said alot of shit.

So, In a sense... this research is reversing the billions of years of evolution...

We've been replacing organs with machinery for years, this is just the natural progression. Humans are also at a unique evolutionary stage as it would appear evolution has granted us the ability to decide our own evolutionary fate... what we do therefore can't go against evolution unless you believe humans are not 'natural' creatures.

remember god created everything , including all the cures, everything. we humans havent found them all....

He also made all the diseases.

 

[katie_tully]

We are merely doing it at a more advanced level.

People have been trying to create 'better' humans well before us. A primitive example is when humans used to choose mates who had desirable physical/mental qualities.

 

[The_highwayman]

technically taking anti-biotics is also playing God
going to chemotherapy when you have cancer is playing God
getting a heart transplant from a doner is playing God
anything that helps you body recover from any sickness that was not presently available in your system is playing God
anything scientific or medical is playing God
You psycho extreme Abbot loving Christians and your inconsistancies.

The issue of saving lives is a different issue to creating and endng them.
As a result, those examples arent really examples of playing God.

It is where the first issue of saving lives and the second issue of creating/ending life start to overlap that this sort of argument occurs.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What are you talking about? Saving lives is intervening with the 'natural' process, generally what 'playing god' refers to? Either way - no one here supports killing anyone.

 

[The_highwayman]

OK, well if it's a matter of definition:
I define 'playing God' as humans choosing when to create and destroy life. That is a reflection of my belief that these are purely God's responisibilty and that responsibiity for everything inbetween was transfered to humans to allow them to fruitfully benefit from what God had given them. If God endows us with life, humans are allowed to attempt to lengthen it through medicine under this definition.

Obviously you define "playing God" in a different way, and that's fine. But at least u can see (hopefully) where i am coming from in reference to my previous post.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea but technically... I mean if you wanna conclude that god created humans (even tho we know they were created by their mother/father, a natural process), why does it not extend to other natural things? I mean surely if life is gods domain, even tho we have a natural process, than death has to be too?

Obviously you define "playing God" in a different way, and that's fine. But at least u can see (hopefully) where i am coming from in reference to my previous post.

I can see where you're comming from, but I don't know why you'd bring it up? Everyone here has already said they're not for cloning people and killing them. The problem is, some people believe stem cells are 'people' and that killing them to create organs is as unethical as cloning a human and killing them.

 

[davin]

OK, well if it's a matter of definition:
I define 'playing God' as humans choosing when to create and destroy life. That is a reflection of my belief that these are purely God's responisibilty and that responsibiity for everything inbetween was transfered to humans to allow them to fruitfully benefit from what God had given them. If God endows us with life, humans are allowed to attempt to lengthen it through medicine under this definition.

Obviously you define "playing God" in a different way, and that's fine. But at least u can see (hopefully) where i am coming from in reference to my previous post.

so, does that mean choosing to have sex is playing god because that creates life?
if God also endowed us with a brain, aren't we allowed to see what we can accomplish with it?

 

[The_highwayman]

\I can see where you're comming from, but I don't know why you'd bring it up?

probably because i didnt read all the posts between the one i quoted and where i posted mine.

so, does that mean choosing to have sex is playing god because that creates life?

To religious, it is sacred. hence the catholic church's complete opposition to contraception. I'm not saying i agree with this particular p.o.v of contraception, so dont argue about that as it isnt important to this topic, however, it does support the 'sex as sacred' thing.
I didnt wanna quote the bible, as so few people here value it as an important text, due to it's lack of relevance in their own context however:
"God blessed them and told them, "Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals." [Genesis:1:28]
using this, one could argue that the act of procreating is part of "God's plan" and as a result, he is still fulfilling his role as creator of life through us.

if God also endowed us with a brain, aren't we allowed to see what we can accomplish with it?

Yes as long as we dont cross our boundaries by creating life or destroying it. If u read my post properly you would have been able answer this yourself using my definition.

 

[davin]

yeah, but with sex, clearly you have some control over creation of life, just not all of it.
similarly, there are no certainties with medical techniques, even though usually they are highly reliable. there's still some uncertainty that a procedure won't work.

now, given the view on contraception, thats saying taht you also can't PREVENT life from being created on god's basis. in that same vein, isn't all of medicine having a similar effect on death. contraception prevents life at a given time, medicine prevents death at a given time

 

[transcendent]

eh, not reading the rest. essentially i'm pro-genetic modification within reasonable ethical boundaries. it's not religion, but the socio-econo-cultural context of biotechnology. there are issues of whether individuals really want to know about their life before hand. sure it may be good to know you have bad genes and when mixed with another person's you get a defective human with a disease but we are human because of our defects. you could ruin someone's life by telling them they will die when they are 30 because of a bad gene. do you really want that? people like living in a relative state of ignorance. also there may be a shift towards humans, normal ones with defects, and suprehumans who had paid to 'create' the perfect child thereby creating a new culture of supremists with perfect genes and they less fortunate defect normal people. i feel that as long as biotechnology rids the world of harmful disease whilst observing people's rights, it should be allow.

 

[The_highwayman]

yeah, but with sex, clearly you have some control over creation of life, just not all of it.
similarly, there are no certainties with medical techniques, even though usually they are highly reliable. there's still some uncertainty that a procedure won't work.

See below...

now, given the view on contraception, thats saying taht you also can't PREVENT life from being created on god's basis.

Actually, i didnt say that at all. I simply used the contraception debate as an example for how sex is seen as sacred; the fulfilment of God's wishes as it is the means through which life is created.

in that same vein, isn't all of medicine having a similar effect on death. contraception prevents life at a given time, medicine prevents death at a given time

Like a said before, Using my definition, The creation and ending of life is the responsibility of God. At the same time, everything inbetween is the responsibility of humans. Humans can choose to prolong life through medicine as they are fruitfully benefiting from what God has created. However, Our efforts do not always result how we would like them to because God still has the 'final say' as it were. That is, ONLY God can choose to cause death or create life, we can do whatever we want as long as we do not do take over these two roles of God. Sex for the purpose of procreation is not seen as taking responsibility for the 'creation of life' as it is the wish and plan of God that we do so. therefore, he is still in charge of this aspect.

If u understand my definition mentioned previously you will be able to answer any of the questions you have asked me.

 

[katie_tully]

Like a said before, Using my definition, The creation and ending of life is the responsibility of God. At the same time, everything inbetween is the responsibility of humans. Humans can choose to prolong life through medicine as they are fruitfully benefiting from what God has created. However, Our efforts do not always result how we would like them to because God still has the 'final say' as it were. That is, ONLY God can choose to cause death or create life, we can do whatever we want as long as we do not do take over these two roles of God. Sex for the purpose of procreation is not seen as taking responsibility for the 'creation of life' as it is the wish and plan of God that we do so. therefore, he is still in charge of this aspect.

Well according to your definition, stem cell research and genetic engineering must be 'above god', because they are effectively allowing us as humans to have control over our deaths. Also, considering you're doing science, I was wondering how you can still believe that god 'creates' life, when I think we all know how that happens.

 

[The_highwayman]

Stem cell research and genetic engineering, in relation to prolonging life, is accepted under this definition as it is included under "fruitfully benefiting from what God has given us". Just like any other medicine. however, it is when stem cell research involves 'embryonic stem cells' (if an embryo is classed as living) rather than adult stem cells from, say, the bone marrow or Genetic engineering results in the creation or destruction of a life that these is forbidden.

And i'm not insisting that every time conception occurs that God goes in and says yay or nay as to allow it to life. Far from it. What i guess i mean by "God creating life" is "God creating the conditions from which life can flourish". Scientists dont have to be non-religious. For example, i agree whole heartedly with the concept of evolution, thus discountng the adam and eve story, however, i do believe that there was some external influence (in my belief, by God) that guided the conditions for life to flourish and spread, kicking off the whole process.

You may not agree, and i have nothing against that. Religion does not have to be the 'natural enemy' of science. As Einstein once said:
"Science without Religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."
Combining both religion and science, to me, is the best solution.