Abbott & Conservative Scare Tactics
Tony Abbott has taken the progress made toward Intelligent Design behind the garden shed, and shot it between the eyes. The openly Catholic MP has said scientists are "peddling" hopes of medical breakthroughs without convincing evidence that expanding stem cell research will deliver. "People are asking us to cross a very serious ethical bridge for no good reason because there is no strong evidence that this kind of research is actually going to produce the massive breakthroughs that people are claiming," Mr Abbott told ABC television."I think what we are seeing at the moment is a lot of peddling of hope, but no great evidence that these new and radical research techniques are actually going to produce the breakthroughs that some of the more evangelical scientists are claiming for them."
News In Briefs tried to contact stem cell advocate Christopher Reeve for comment, but he was dead.
posted by Steve @ Sunday, August 20, 2006
36 Comments:
I was under the impression that it was no longer necessary to harvest stem cells from future un loved children? I heard it was possible to get them from the nose or gall bladder(?).
(Seriously. However, I might be wrong about the body part)
Stem cells. Now there's an interesting situation. Do you know the difference between adult stemm cells and embryonic ones? No? Some pointers...
1. Adult stem cells are type specific, in that the ones in your nose will make a new nose, and the ones in you liver will make a new liver, but the ones in your nose can't make a new liver.
2. Embryonic stem cells are non-type specific, so your nose could make your liver, theoretically. However, it seems that embryonic stem cells decide what to make by being surrounded by other stem cells making the same thing. But no one knows where that first one comes from, or how to make it do it again.
3. Adult stemm cells can be harvested with no detrimental effects to the harvest-ee.
4. Embryonic stem cell harvesting kills the embryo - which, in case you had forgotten, is a teeny tiny baby. And don't anyone dare say "it's just a clump of cells." I'm a clump of cells - so are you.
5. All of the advances made in stem cell research have been made using adult stem cells. Why? Because so far most people are too ethical to kill babies because they can, and besides, those who aren't haven't figured out how to make embryonic stem cells do what they want them to.
6. Some peole seem to think that using unwanted IVF embryos - which would otherwise be frozen for eternity - is letting them sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Heroic, you might say. Heroes are people who see a challenge, rise up to meet it, and sometimes choose to do things which may hurt or kill them to save the lives of lots of other people. Spock fixing the Enterprise in "The Wrath of Khan": 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one' springs to mind. Why is this different? Spock was a grown up. He was fully aware of what he was doing. He chose to give up his life so that others might live. Embryos cannot do this. They are totally vulnerable. Completely at the mercy of their parents, and the person who pays the electricty bill that keeps their freezer operating, but I won't get started on IVF right now. They didn't choose to be conceived that way, and I'm sure that they wouldn't choose to die that way either. How would you feel if tomorrow you woke up, and instead of being you, you were mostly dead, and the bit of you that was left was someone's liver? Not good I am sure.
In case I haven't made myself perfectly clear, embryonic stemm cell research is a BAD idea, and anyone who says otherwise has obviously never been inside their mother's womb.
Sorry about the "stemm" typos. It's late.
Can't cells be harvested from already deceased embryos? Of course this is a tastless subject, but miscarriages and abortions do occur, can't we use this?
I am curious as to how embryonic stem cell research is expected to forward the cause of intelligent design?
Also in my opinion, embryo's are just as human as anyone at any stage of life. You wouldn't let a scientist harvest a babies arm to further research and that wouldn't even necessarily kill the baby
No, anonymous, they can't. Once you are dead your cells are dead too.
And what's wrong with using real alive grown up stem cells anyway???
first of all bernie, if that IS your real name, i'm refering to the tenuous credibility that science from Christians has. it's frowned upon to start with, and then this goon starts attacking mainstream science. ludacris!
secondly, when do we achieve sentience, and does a foetus have a soul? mmm... thought provoking. if the sacrifice of a few excess embryos could cure all sorts of ailments and disabilities, what are we waiting for?
so you pose a question.
"when do we achieve sentience, and does a foetus have a soul?"
Shouldn't the fact that you have to ask be enough. If you might be killing someone isn't that enough reason to stop?
In regards to the first point I guess i misunderstood the meaning of your title. However I'm a little offended that you don't believe Christians can be good scientists. Science that has seeks to prove a pre-chosen idea in my opinion can be dubious and that is the impression i get of intelligent design. That doesn't mean that a Christian cannot folloe the scientific process and be as objective as any non-Christian
"that has seeks to prove"
go me.
what i meant to say was
"that seeks to prove"
Muddfx - Of course the unborn have souls. If you didn't have a soul you wouldn't be alive, and if you weren't alive nasty scientists wouldn't be trying to take your stem cells before they killed you.
What has sentience got to do with it?
Are you suggesting that old people with dementia aren't human?
We're waiting because we don't need them. Adult stem cells will do the job. No loss of life needs to be inflicted.
just a small comment.
One of the major reasons why people want to use embryonic stem cells is that there is a belief that they are more plastic, that is, they are more prone to do what we want them to do. This may be true since as of yet they are not type specific (as Khat pointed out). However, if we can't get them to do what we want them to do then why should we try to develop a method when we have got a perfectly good one from adult stem cells.
But, if it is an issue of plasticity, then why don't we explore the issue of stem cells harvested from the placenta of a new born baby? Did you know that you can get stem cells from there? And apparently, they are as plastic as embryonic stem cells, with the added advantage that no-one is killed (or "potentially killed" if we're not sure). I'm sure that if I had a baby I'd be more than happy to donate the placenta to medical research, especially if it meant that the lives of many babies would be saved.
And it seems to me that there is no reason to develop a new, controversial, technology if there is a current equally viable one...
And regarding Christopher Reeve, the timing of his death occurred when if embryonic stem cell research had been approved, he would still be dead. The scientists would still be trying to work out how they were going to work with them.
The female "cash and prizes" as it were is specifically designed to, among other things, massacre spermies (little half babies?). My point being, when is a human a human (rhetorical! don't answer. I said DON'T). Because we could say birth, conception, sperm and egg, or perhaps the protein in the chicken schnitzel I'm about to eat will filter to my testes and becomes sperm that I may impregnated my wife with...so am I eating human flesh?
The rabbit whole goes waaaaay deeper than any of us here can see. I'm not content that healthy and well-informed debate will produce a concrete answer on this one, but I think calling the scientists "nasty" is fruitless behaviour. Their hearts are in the right place; perhaps this could be a common ground between them and those dogmatically against cell harvesting; perhaps even enough to stimulate an honest and fruitful dialog.
Also, Spock was only half human. Did God love him? Or does he classify as a soulless animal? Or has he a soul albeit created by another God, and if so, are we merely pieces in a game of divine monopoly? Does our God have Mayfair?
"if humanoids eat chicken, then obviously they'd eat their own species. Otherwise they'd just be picking on the chickens." - Kryten, Red Dwarf
I am a Christian and I study science at uni, including (in my biology stream) the latest published research on embryos and embryonic stem cells. I can understand the scientists who want to find out all they can about the capability of embryonic stem cells, it's an exciting area.
But I think there are lines we shouldn't cross, and killing a human is one of them. In my opinion, the Scientists wanting to do the study are not the best people to decide whether embryos are humans. The Scientists of Nazi Germany killed Jews in their research and early colonial Scientists didn't believe Aboriginees were human. Is it possible that Scientists today innocently don't realise that embryos are human?
We need someone with a wider perspective of the world, not biased by material investment in the outcome, and who can make unchanging moral judgements with authority to make these decisions. Thank God for His Church!
We know that humans have souls. So to find out if an embryo is human we must find out if it has a human soul. My soul is what makes me move and breathe and think and grow. It is what makes me alive. I know my soul is a human soul because it has human attributes eg free will and it will not die when my body does. When I put some of the attributes away, I do not cease to be human. When I am asleep I don't exercise my free will, but I am still human. We know that God breathes a soul into us when we are conceived because that's when we start to be alive (see Gen2:7).
I only add further that at the moment of conception we can see where the child's head will be and where it's feet will be. We know where mouth and stomach will be and we know which is it's right and which is it's left side. That's pretty amazing.
Ahh. Sans Pantalones, im not sure if I read you correctly, but are you suggesting that because there is no way of knowing if you are killing a human, then its ok to do it if your heart is in the right place?
I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. Surely the same could apply to someone firing a rifle into the bushes when they can't be sure whether the movement in there is their hunting buddy or a deer. Any sane person would hold off until they can be sure they are not murdering someone.
well Mr No Pants,
"My point being, when is a human a human (rhetorical! don't answer. I said DON'T). Because we could say birth, conception, sperm and egg, or perhaps the protein in the chicken schnitzel I'm about to eat..."
I know you said don't, but you're being silly. In purely biologial terms, sperm and egg on their own are just that. Sperm cells and eggs cells. However, when one lucky spem meets up with an egg, theye cease to be two separete cells from two differnt people, and fuse to make a whole new person.
Using your argument your chicken shnitzel is similarly your skin, your blood and your stomach lining. Did you do Year 8 biology?
"but I think calling the scientists "nasty" is fruitless behaviour."
I take your point, I try not to go for pointless name-calling, but this is just a pattern of my speech. I used nasty in the same way you might say big bad wolf. It's not a reflection on the wolf, just a turn of phrase.
"those dogmatically against cell harvesting"
I have no problem with adult stem cell research and harvesting. No whatsoever. I don't like embryonic stem cell research because it generally involves killing embryos. 'Ah ha!' you say. 'What about the US scientists who've found a way to get the stem cells without killing the embryo?' I have some questions:
1. How many babies did they kill to discover this?
2. What happens if they make a mistake?
3. Do they know that messing around with babies who are only 6-8 cells big isn't going to set the child up for a lifetime of health problems?
4. What are their parents thinking to allow scientists to conduct experiemtns on thier tiny tiny children anyway?
"Also, Spock was only half human."
OK, bad example. He was the first instance of self-sacrfice that popped into my head. Overlooking the alien invented character bit, he was still a sentient being who chose to make a sacrifice. That was the point I was trying to make.
In other news, are people aware that any therapies that result from embryonic stemm cell research will require a additional one of two things:
1. the person being treated with embryonic stem cells will have to take anti-rejection drugs (like you get when you have a heart transplant) for the rest of their lives, or
2. they will have to be cloned and be treated with embryonic stem cells from their clone.
Sounds like fun... take lots of drugs or kill your[other]self.
Well Clare, I'm sure a few people have read your post and thought "I'm not touchin' that one" but here goes.
From a scientific point of view your argument lacks a solid basis. You said "We know that humans have souls". Do we? I think that scientific proof of a human soul would make the news, although that may have been the day Brad and Angelina split, so who knows.
"My soul is what makes me move and breathe and think and grow." Well I don't know what they are teaching in Biology at Uni these days, but I'm almost sure that your muscles make you move and breathe, neural networks allow you to form thoughts and cell division allows you to grow.
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with people believing whatever they like, we all have that right, and that's great. However, there is an undeniable conflict of interests between science and religion, which makes any religious argument in science seem ridiculous. Maybe we do have a soul, but without observable proof it is not science its religion.
I absolutely agree that we need a unbiased party to aid in settling confusing moral debates such as this one, but you wont find me waiting for God to come down from heaven and start smiting people, we will have to do this ourselves. This debate will be settled the same way every other moral debate in history has been settled, by necessity. Once people perceive stem cell research to be a necessity, it will become acceptable to the public.
Okie dokie, let the flaming commence.
hey eddie, dick cheney fired at a rustling bush, shot his friend. Pity he missed Bush. ANYHOO... Khat has stumbled on a great new market: self-cloning. All those Emos out there who want to kill themselves can, AND they'll still be alive. marvelous. you could leave your clone's body for someone to find, and see if they're distraught at your death. then step out of the closet and reveal you're okay. brilliant!
and Matty, high five for balls. big old voight balls.
on the issue of 'souls', there is a pleasing explanation for scientists and theologists. Freud scribled down something on the 'super-ego', self-identification. if i am me, and no-one else is me, then my identity is unique to myself. it's not my brain, nor is it my heart, or my colon for that matter. some strange thing that weighs 21 grams. me. i. such self-identification could be called a soul, which could then come into relationship with other souls, both human and divine. the Gospel of Matthew refers to loving God with "your mind, body and soul." If the bible discerns between mind and soul, and science seems unable to find a corelation between the brain and the super-ego, then perhaps the soul is the answer.
so at what point do embryos identify themselves as individuals?
Hume, Kant, Spinoza, Aristotle, Plato...
Ever wonder if the question 'what is life' has been discussed before?
Ever wonder what bearing philisophy has on big questions?
There are frameworks beyond the neive 'isnt it just staring at your belly button?' approach to philisophy, which deal with forming coherent arguments about these 'big questions'. May be of some interest to some people...
Otherwise you just kind of get...ill will, and insulted people...and no resolution.
Yeah isn't it stupendous that we have all these great figures throughout history like Hume, Kant, Spinoza, Aristotle and Plato who's formal argument paradigm has offered humanity so much resolution to the 'big' questions.
Oh wait...
Yep thats right Matty, its better to to bandy around half researched, scraps of ideas, with no structure or effort to meet any kind of standard of formal reason, turning, ultimately into this kind of kingergarton style "I know more then you because I say so, and because...my dads bigger then your dad" nonsense argument, then to *try* to understand the topic and argue it withing some kind of framework.
I thought for a second adults were kind of more...sensible and less...emotionally volitile and downright petty they I continually discover on blogs like this..
and then I thought...
thats right...
nb -- your ignorance of what they offer *isnt* the same thing as them not offering any solutions. In fact...there may be a whole world of things you are ignorant of. Your not American are you?
Matty,
I agree with you that religious argument in science is ridiculous. The part of my post to which you refer was not meant as a scientific argument, it is a theological one. The role of science is to put forward testable hypotheses and then to either disprove or support those hypotheses with data. Whether or not humans have souls is not a testable hypothesis and does not fall into the school of science.
There are some truths for which veracity cannot be tested. These are often moral truths eg. it is right to love your child. Science can have nothing to say on this subject because it is not a testable hypothesis. But it is still a truth.
The human soul is one such issue which science cannot touch. (I believe that I am something which is not just made up of legs and arms. There is a 'me' who uses my muscles to move and who uses my neural networks to make decisions. If I were not there to do it, my body could not do it on its own. I am more than just the sum of my parts, I have a soul.)
Science is not interested in the human soul, and we can't use science to find out if embryos are humans with souls. The only group with any authority in this area is the Church. I agree that 'Once people perceive stem cell research to be a necessity, it will become acceptable to the public.'. (Obviously you mean embryonic stem cells because I've never heard anyone to have an objection to the use of adult stem cells.) I think that this will probably happen. But 'acceptable' is not the same as 'right'. Torture, rape, slavery and war have all been acceptable to society, that doesn't make them right.
To clarify, a final time before I make my second exit from this ridiculous arena let me say this.
My initial comment was merely intended to highlight that in 'arguments' like this, there can by nature be no resolution. Clearly no one writing is an expert. And even if they were, *clearly* most people here dont have any intention of holding an opinion as malleable, pending the opinion or well reasoned argument of another person. And if thats the initial position of anyone commenting (like yourself matty) then you do nothing but contribute to the cacophany of poorly reasoned, opinionated, emotionally charged dribble, an attitude and action which is the detriment of modern life.
My point is, why not listen to other people? Why not accept lacks in your own knowledge base and call on others to supplement your own? Why not hear a well reasoned argument and say 'Yeah...that does sound reasonable...maybe I will re think what I had in mind" rather then...well....the last 20 odd comments.
Headway has been made in the ability to structure argument and understand things like the nature of truth, reality, life, death, spirituality. This is evidence by...you know...all those people who were around *before* you were, who thought things, and wrote things, and tried to better humanity by their achievements. Something which you feel is worth discarding?
Yep, thats ignorance. I concede that they dont offer "all the answers" (even though that is not what I wrote/suggested), what I wont concede is that they contributed *something*. To deny that, is to presume a level of arrogance that...
well...seems to be what blogs bring out in people.
muddfx,
'so at what point do embryos identify themselves as individuals?'
Is it important for the individual to be able to identify herself as such? A new born or a two year old are not capable of this and yet they still have souls (or 'self' as psychoanalysts put it).
Up until very recently all Christians have regarded the unborn as having a soul. As soon as Christ was conceived in Mary's womb she is described as being 'with child', she was not 'with fetal tissue that would one day become a child when he reached self actualisation'.
Without the absolute moral guidelines provided by God then ethics don't have any justification. i do what i fell is right for me. that's why torture is used in Abu Ghraib. if we take the line that what is ethical is what is good for society, then embryonic stem cell research is not only ethical, but it would be unethical to prevent it.
And i don't know where rape has EVER been acceptable. Oh, wait, you mean with harem girls and concubines and all that rot. King's privilege, etc. Whoever owns the army is right, that's why the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Andy, you know that Americans are always right, it's just silly to assume they aren't.
Now Clare, IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME, i hope you're not comparing God to humans. really. your point seems to imply that you thought the baby Jesus was nothing special, rather than the "Word, who was God, and was with God, nothing was made that was not made through Him, and all things were made through Him." The Jesus was stated that "before Abraham was, I AM." So, you see, you can't use Jesus as an example. I have a feeling that if you look a little closer you'll find one though.
BUT more importantly, is Tony Abbott an ASS for claiming that scientists make unreasonable claims WITHOUT evidence while in the next breath espousing faith claims that ALSO have no scientific evidence?
Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine. But I'm happy to find another example. When Mary visited Elizabeth the babe in her womb lept with joy. John was a human with a soul, and even recognised the presence of his saviour. Some other scriptures are Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, Exodus 21:22-23. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 27:25 says 'Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person'. Embryos are as innocent as you can get, even the reward of medical gain does not prohibit this curse.
I don't know if I understood the first part of your post but it seems like you are saying that those things are right when they're socially acceptable. I believe God has given us absolute moral guidelines on this issue. Right is right and wrong is wrong. God's Kingdom is not a democracy where the people decide the truth.
Finally, faith claims do not require scientific evidence. That would disqualify them from Faith.
Muddfx, If whoever has the power is right, then I assume that means you would not attempt to save a woman from being raped by a stronger man? Would you then consider it right to change the law so that men can rape a weaker woman without consequence?
OR...
Muddfx, If whoever has the power is right, then I assume that means you would not attempt to save an embryo/human from being killed by a stronger man? Would you then consider it right to change the law so that men can kill a weaker embryo/human without consequence?
CONGRATULATIONS, you found the lucky embryo! unfortunately, if embryos have souls, then they are fallen due to original sin. D'OH! guess that line of argument is at fault. in fact, the only human to be sinless at all times was Jesus, which is what Deuteronomy was refering to; judas betrayed Jesus, and was cursed for receiving payment. Thanks for playing!
as far as right versus wrong, the scientifically unreasonable faith claim that God exists is okay, but we're talking about atheistic science. Atheism when taken to it's logical conclusion cannot allow morals or some greater 'good' because it doesn't fit. familiar with someones razor?
and Eddie, see above. we're talking about a science WITHOUT God. no ultimate right or wrong, relativism demands... relativism. what's good for me, what do i want? and yes, it doesn't make sense! how can a society without God hope to lay hold of justice when ultimately there is none?
and that's what this argument comes back to. is there a God? if so, ultimate justice is a fact, truth exists, and killing embryos is wrong simply because that's the way it is. IF there is no God, then relativism rules, and who cares? take it easy, do what you will, and hope you don't come across a stronger man.
wait for it...
wait for it...
okay, begin!
So muddfx, which side of this debate are you taking?
Also, Deuteronomy is not a prophetic book, it is a book of Law. Taken in context, vs 25 is a restatement of the ten commandments.
Andy says "Why not hear a well reasoned argument and say 'Yeah...that does sound reasonable...maybe I will re think what I had in mind"
I'm sorry - I don't think killing people is reasonable, so I'm not changing my mind, and I can't speak for the people on the other side, but currently they are denying an embryo's humanity, so...
"Headway has been made....by all those people who were around *before* you were, who thought things, and wrote things, and tried to better humanity by their achievements..."
Andy - you're the philosophy major, decrying our ignorance, and yet you don't see fit to enlighten us with a pithy quote or two from your favourite thinker. This makes you as bad as you say we are. If there are super wonderful arguments you can present to us about this, by all means go ahead. If you're going to sit smugly at your computer and *only* say we're all ignorant, you may as well save the pixels and talk to someone called Bruce instead.
muddfx,
You're tossing out one liners like they are going out of fashion, and then heading off on some weird tangents of your own. Is this to avoid talking about this? Are you trying to confuse us pro-lifers into leaving you alone? Do you just like making smartarse comments and deflecting any serious ideas that may come your way? What's it all about?
I make a serious (not to mention true) point about therapeutic cloning (you know, make a new you, and then kill you2 for your stem cells, instead of just taking your adult stem cells. Seems like a whole lot of extra work to me...) and you raise the idea of Emos freaking out their friends. Did you know that fact? How do you feel about it? Would you do it yourself?
Now we're talking about relativism, eh? I find that relativist people can make thier lives work really well in theory, but when it comes to everyday interactions it all falls apart. I wonder why that could be?
Leaving religion out of the picutre, one can still use the "reasonable man" test, something enshrined in the Australian legal system, as anyone who did Mock Trial in high school will be able to tell you.
Is it reasonable to kill people? No.
Is it reasonable to assume that babies in-utero (or petri-dish as the case may be) are humans, and not refrigerators? Yes.
If you don't believe in souls ('cos they can't be scientifically proven) is it reasonable to assume that humans are humans from when they are concived, because they can't be refrigerators?
If you do believe in souls, when is it more likely that you would get one - when you are concieved or when you are born? And is that when your head is out, your body is out or they cut the umbillical cord? Or is it some time during pregnancy - say about 24 weeks when the chances of a baby surviving outside the womb are about 30%. But wait, would this mean that only 30% of babies would get their souls at 24 weeks, and the other have to wait until 25, 26 27 or whatever? I think conception is a reasonable time for souls to start doing their thing.
Therefore, if it is unreasonable to kill humans, and embryos are humans because they are either a) not refigerators at conception or b) have souls from conception, then it must be unreasonable to kill embryos.
Clare: "Embryos are as innocent as you can get"
muddfx "If embryos have souls, then they are fallen due to original sin."
Sigh. They are second-most-innocent then.
They are doing a whole lot better than you and me. Yes, muddfx - you and I have been baptised, therefore having our original sin washed away, but we remain fallen humans. Since our baptisms we have sinned again. We have consciously chosen to decide that we know better than God and will do things our way.
Embryos, on the other hand, have never sinned. They are waiting for the life of Grace to come into their souls, but that is not their fault. The only people more sinless that unborn children are newborn children who have been baptised - like Anna, my four month old daughter. But God loves them just the same. And, as taking your lead from the Creator of the Universe sounds like a plan, so should we.
"IF there is no God, then relativism rules, and who cares? take it easy, do what you will, and hope you don't come across a stronger man."
If relativism took over the world, we would die out in a generation, because childbirth doesn't feel good, and neither does waking up several times a night, or changing pooey nappies. People would throw their babies over cliffs (like the Spartans) so they could keep partying, and then 50 years later would be complaining becasue there was no one to look after them in their liver-failing old age.
So find a new argument - that one is crap.
Andy,
I can't help but notice every time you have a problem with one of my arguments you resort to petty name calling, please try to do better.
And as far as ignorance goes, there is no doubt in my mind that I still have much to learn about the world that I live in, but I look forward to experiencing as much of it as I can in the short time I am here. So here I am discussing an issue that I am not an expert on, trying to learn more, not only about the issue at hand, but about other people as well. I might be ignorant, but I'll take ignorance over arrogance any day.
For the record Andy my beliefs on those issues raised here are as follows,
I have no use for religion, but I respect the right of people to believe what they want, just don’t preach to me (Logical arguments are fine, but no preaching)
If scientists want to harvest embryonic stem cells from an embryo, I don’t have a problem if the parents were going to have an abortion anyway. We might as well do something good with it if we can. However, I'm not sure I agree with growing an embryo with the intention of killing it later, I'm still reviewing the evidence.
I don’t believe humans have souls, I think the idea of a soul helps people believe they have a higher purpose than to procreate and die.
Those are my beliefs. I stand ready to change them should anyone present me with a valid reason to do so.
Next,
I don't believe I ever said philosophy has offered humanity nothing, simply that it has not offered us resolution. Since the dawn of humanity, people have wondered where this all came from and what the purpose behind it all is (I wasn’t there, but lets assume). And here we are thousands of years later still with no answers, despite the best efforts of the great minds throughout history.
Clare,
Kudos on taking the high road, you responded with grace and courtesy while still making your point.
I cant help but laugh this morning as I read through this.
For my part, I am sorry to anyone reading, for...entering into this, and obviosuly insulting or annoying some people. I have not represented myself well, and for that I am sorry.
Its a big issue. One that deserves thought, prayer and consideration, but one that (I think) will be defeated in a slump of ill-feeling and ill-will and negativity. Oh and alarming sharp retorts from Matty like 'Dont call me names!' Pure gold. No surprises that you dont think you have a soul. Whats that escaping from your nose when you sneeze then? eh? EH?
oh right. Thats snot.
To you Matty, i do apologise. im not sure why I at any point cared about your opinion enough to comment, but I am sorry that I did.
...oh and khat, I would never presume to offer a solution on this issue. In fact I havent even offered an opinion. Just trying to suggest that when in around 1500 clever people decided to look into the past to discover how to approach the future, that may not have been a bad idea. I have no emotional investment in this issue, and no reason to speculate without knowing just a whole lot more about it, then maybe, with consideration and prayer I might be able to offer a well formed opinion as to why i think what i do about it. Otherwise...my opinion would simply incite the kind of responses we see here. Which are not constructive, not said in love or with open minds. And maybe thats something for Steve to consider.
I try as hard as possible to serve a greater power. I get it wrong a lot. And for that I apologise....and will remember after this *never* to offer and opinion or...write anything on a blog site like this again.
Clare, Christ fulfilled the law AND the prophets. Khat, you KNOW where I stand, you're just being argumentative. So here's the go:
The concept of embryonic stem cell research is one that lots of people don't want to think about, because it raises too many questions. I started us off with a cheap shot at an MP on an issue that I knew to be divisive, and we've wound up at issues of theology, cathology, and idiology.
Andy is right, we're being childish and calling people names, and while some of his points can come off as a little aloof, they're fairly well grounded.
Matty has done wonders in shooting everyone down in a fairly American style, and his point of view certainly reinforces my version of the Atheistic position.
Clare, you have managed to put forward a reasoned argument. While it may not always be entirely correct, you've withheld from name calling, and that's nothing short of marvellous in this forum.
Eddie, please stop and think before you comment again. And everyone please read the following carefully before you comment.
It looks like there are a couple of fundamental questions that should be resolved in the minds of people before they argue this topic. What is life? What is a soul? When do we transition from a collection of cells to humans? And bigger questions like is there a God, and if so, who is He? How does He feel about us, and about this issue? And do we care what He thinks anyway?
Now, these questions can't be answered simply. And before anyone takes an arrogant religious position, I can justify that claim. If there have been thousands of very clever people thinking about these issues in the past and they didn't come up with an answer, how can we presume to be smarter with weaker arguments? Seriously. One of the fundamental defences for Christianity is that no-one has DISproved it in the last couple millennia. In the same way, no-one has conclusively answered "what is life". And maybe that question can't be answered, and I’m cool with that.
It would be easy for everyone to weigh in their two cents worth, but ultimately it's worth only that. If my ideas and opinions are rigid and unyielding, then no amount of reasoning can dissuade me. They then sink to the bottom of the sea of thought, weighted by my ignorance and fundamental stupidity. On the other hand, if our ideas ebb and flow, changing as we build a rational position as a community of thinkers, then our thoughts become so much more than two cents worth. We may hope to finally arrive at some sort of breakthrough for all mankind, a revolution in thought that will positively impact the world. You need to remember that democracy didn't always exist. Neither did universal suffrage. Groups of people conceived these ideas and argued them within a framework. And we take these things for granted as the world dumbs down and slips into entropy and decay.
Now keeping all that in mind, we now turn back to the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Are human embryos human? I’m not sure. If they're not, is killing them for research okay? I... suppose... so... again, I’m not sure. In fact, the entirety of what I don't know far outweighs what I do. The great thing about discussing an issue is that we can illuminate thought we didn't know existed. On this topic though, I’m hardly qualified to say one way or the other. Let me set out what I 'feel' (it's far more emotional than intellectual in the darkness of ignorance) and then you can pick that apart.
An embryo at the point of conception carries in it the potential for human life. It may not be human, but if we don't interrupt anything it will be in nine months time. That’s pretty cool. I’m not sure I agree with terminating the potential for life, if that's what it is. I suppose that if it's human, it has a soul. And if it does, then God would care whether it was killed or not. Anyone with a cursory understanding of the Christian bible would agree even if they disagreed with the faith. So, it feels wrong to me, but so does sitting on our hands while we could be working towards curing cancer. Thomas Edison said "it has been my experience that there is no problem which God created for which He did not also create a solution." Edison spent his whole life looking for answers he knew to be there, and found lots of them. Cancer is just another problem, one which looks like it could be solved by embryonic stem cell research. Only the truly ignorant would deny the potential that seems to exist in the ability to clone cells, organs, or whole bodies. Sure, there'd be ethical issues to consider, but no-one really believes we'll have armies of Jango fettas or several Spider-men to deal with. I’m excited at the prospect of being able to end cancer, MS, cystic fibrosis, paraplegia, quadriplegia, blindness, deafness, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and others. Probably in the same way that the guys who cured polio were excited.
I realize that none of this is scientific, or factual, but simply my thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Worth nothing to anyone outside of myself if it doesn't contribute to a larger idea.
And I do believe we're in trouble as a society. Not only have we traded our liberty for security, but we haven't called our leaders on it. The government has been given licence to lie to us, to cheat us, to do whatever they want. And we've adopted the mindset of "I think, therefore I am right" without pausing to consider the consequences of our position. I made the point about relativism and atheism to highlight what a truly absurd worldview it is. And yet, we seem to have embraced that absurdity in the pursuit of political correctness.
So what's the answer to this question? Tony Abbott is an ASS because I say so.
While the prospect of cures to terrible diseases is definately exciting, I maintain that the end does not justify the means. Especially when other means are available for the same end. Siubhan makes a good point about stem cells taken from the placenta. Stem cells from the plactenta are just as plastic as embryonic stem cells. They therefore hold just as much promise for future cures, and there are no ethical drawbacks. Also, adult stem cells have been used to do amazing things in medicine recently. Using other stem cells means that we are not 'sitting on our hands' but that we are not killing anyone either.
I admire Tony Abbott for standing up for his beliefs as a Christian on this isssue. The Catholic Church is the biggest church in Australia and in the world. It's only fair to have Catholic opinion represented in parliament.
Muddfx 'Christ fulfilled the law AND the prophets'. This is true. It means that what was said in the prophetic books is true of Jesus, and what was said in Law should be true of us.
Thanks Matty! I have really enjoyed our little discussion. I think it is a good thing for us all to take an interest in (and to try to find out more about) issues like this.
ps. What does any of this have to do with Intelligent Design? Isn't it a good thing if it is taken out and shot? Surely religion should not be taught as science in schools. Religion is religion and science is science.
...
Post a Comment
<< Home