Wow...what a discussion. I have read each and every post to this thread. I am a Catholic-born, raised and practicing.

"Life" --1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction (the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual).

If embryonic cells are produced in petrie dishes solely for the purpose of research, is that considered a life? Life starts with reproduction. Speaking from a Christian point of view, reproduction takes a MAN and a WOMAN. Not a scientist and petrie dish. God spoke to Adam and eve and told them to go forth and populate the world-by biblically reproducing. My own beliefs do not see the production of embryonic cells in a lab as reproduction. Not even where IVF is concerned. Yes beautiful and loved children are born from IVF, but they are not biblicallly reproduced. But that is beside the point.

Those who oppose ESCR argue about the potential for human life from these embryos, and that using them for research & cures is not moral. If that is true, then the potential for human life could arise in anything from a test tube to the chicken producing your eggs for breakfast, or the cow from which your steak comes. I know that sounds so silly, but every aspect of our world is constantly evolving. It is up to the people on this planet to "temper" the evolutionary process and to use our God given talents and intellect to make things better. Sometimes the good is diluted with bad...much like chemotherapy, which destroys not only cancer cells but the good cells, too. What about surgery, of any kind? Surgery is not an uncomplicated thing. A person is put to sleep with some pretty powerful drugs & gases and rendered helpless while someone-hopefully a well practiced surgeon-cuts away or adds foreign bodies to someone. Sometimes the surgery is life saving, sometimes it just makes life less painful. But either way, medications, gases, loss of organs or the addition of an organ, like a new heart...EVERY surgery has the potential to take life. Does this make surgery immoral?
I believe I have the potential to start REALLY rambling, which has gotten me into some good debates over the years.....anyhoo...just my thoughts.

Hi Empty Nest,

So are you saying that you are a Christian in favor of ESCR because the cells are artificially joined? I want to make sure I understood you. THANKS FOR POSTING.

Paula

Hi Paula,
I am in favor of ESCR. Yes, partly because of the artificial joining of sperm and egg. Partly because it would be a sin to not follow a path that could save so many. Partly because embryonic stem cells are not yet embryos.
It's an honor, being able to participate in this discussion, thanks.
Steph

Let me understand this. You state you are a practicing Catholic and beleive stem cell research is moral? Has the pope changed his view? It is was my understanding the only Catholics and Lutherans (Missouri) have banded together to protect human life.



Vick
y
PS
"Those who oppose ESCR argue about the potential for human life from these embryos, and that using them for research & cures is not moral. If that is true, then the potential for human life could arise in anything from a test tube to the chicken producing your eggs for breakfast, or the cow from which your steak comes. I know that sounds so silly, but every aspect of our world is constantly evolving. It is up to the people on this planet to "temper" the evolutionary process and to use our God given talents and intellect to make things better.

The bastocyst will become human life if given the chance. It requires, at the least, a woman's egg which makes it live human tissue. I am also against "petrie dish" babies and a woman's right to destroy human life. Man has the right to choose God's law over sience to keep God's law or overrule it by making it man's law. One way is truth and protecting the sanctity of life, one way is denial of God's command for the sake of man. God never gave man the right to choose. Man took it against his command. Man is stuck with it now because the sins of the fathers are borne by the children. Man can choose to protect human life or disrespect it and excuse it by pretending to know better than God what is good and what isn't good.

Even so, when Eve succumbed to the serpant's temptation, and man was sent from God's prescense, he never stopped loving us. He sent his only son, born of the divine and woman and devended his son to sacrifice himself to wipe our sins clean. Jesus said "go, and sin no more," knowing man was incapable of fulfilling his command. If we try, we show wa have accepted God's law as truth, if we don't we show we are still in the Devil's grip. {I refer to the Devil as a real entity and not to anyone who disobeys God's law as being the devil, only giving in to the temptation of the Devil.) Jesus, in his grace, will no doubt forgive you, but if you do it knowing it is against God's law he may not. I know God's word is the hard way but it is also the right way and I am sticking to it.
edited to Add more in as respectful a wording as I know how

Thanks for changing it Vicky

paula

Is this the same Vicky who said she wasn't going to post any more?

Yep.

Isn't there a "commandment" about that sort of thing -- saying one thing and then doing another?

Be that as it may -- I welcome you back to the conversation -- but you still haven't answered my central question to you. Why aren't you vehemently protesting IVF? What do YOU think should be the law regarding the leftover blastocysts? Do you think that they should just fertilize one at a time, insert them one at a time and that way if a pregnancy doesn't result, a "life" isn't lost? You've never really answered that.

Don't lurk for a couple of days and see what you miss!! I have very much enjoyed reading this thread. It's wonderful to see so many smart people thinking and rethinking an issue. Even if we don't all agree, It's great to see that Parkinson's doesn't have to take the "fire" out of you.

Cheers!

We all know here that when a person is fervent and totally committed to any belief it is not possible to argue the subject. So why do it. I think just allow what is said to be and if you don't like it then don't respond. There is no need to bait for you in all probability know what comes next.

We don't need arguements just information. Believe or don't just don't say all the facts weren't given out.

She has a side that is very large in this fight for the cure and while I know she wants it as bad as we all do there is a different way for her to go.

Remember to know all sides is half the fight.

Listen to all and be prepared for who ever you talk or write to next.

Listening to all of this and know from where you speak is a great weapon.

Ok, i believe you but there are guidelines we can't decide . We're such well behaved little pwp but you know there is no winning (meaning continuing) with some people. It's not my call is what i am saying i guess.

paula

Part of having a "discussion" is the very real possibility that people are not going to agree with your opinion. The way to proceed in a "discussion" is to present your side and then respond when questioned. If you believe strongly about something, then you should be able to defend that POV. It is not "baiting" to ask a person who has expressed strong opinions to explain the reasoning for those opinions or to clarify why he or she feels that way.

I restate my question. Why do I never hear the people who oppose ESCR on religious or "moral" grounds explain what SHOULD be done with the leftover blastocysts? They're full of ideas about what should NOT be done with them. I think it's a legitimate question -- what SHOULD be done with them?

And I'll take it a step further, if I may.

To me, it's not "moral" to allow human suffering to continue when the Good Lord has given mankind the knowledge to DO something about it.

I don't recall which of you asked it, but it was very apt. "If you had a choice to save either a wheelchair bound person or a petrie dish of blastocysts in a burning room, which would you save?"