Separation of Politics from Science or Separation of Science from Morals?

stem-cellsPresident Obama purports to separate Politics from Science. Is that what the reinstatement of using embryonic stem cells does? Despite the objection of many, which objection is based on moral values rather than politics, Mr. Obama has overturned the ban of the previous administration. Others object to the ban as they believe it’s based on Roman Catholic teachings and state that Catholics want to have babies implanted but not have the leftover embryos thrown away.

Not so fast. Catholic teaching promotes abstinence outside of marriage, prohibits artificial birth control and abortion, including chemically-induced abortions stemming from the so-called “morning after” pill, and also prohibits pregnancy from artificial means. That’s right. Catholics should not be using lab-created embryos as science is involved at that point, not God. Catholics are to “be open” to pregnancy, not to achieve it at all costs.

Embryonic stem cells are from embryos. Contrary to the belief of Mr. Bill Clinton, embryos have been fertilised and are future babies. Creating embryos for scientific use, or shifting embryos created in order to have babies, to experimental use, puts us squarely in the evil territory of Dr. Mengele. Incidentally, why should the government fund this sort of research? If it was viable wouldn’t others be putting up their money?

While the current objective is perceived as benign, we don’t know to what lengths people will go to get the stem cells they need; in many cases, in order to cure an existing child, couples have conceived a second child for use of its umbilical cord. Imagine for a moment that you’re the second child. How would you feel, knowing that you weren’t conceived because your parents wanted another child, but rather that they wanted a cure for your sibling? Would you truly feel loved?

These days, clinics are advertising designer babies, where you get to choose the attributes of your future child (though thankfully stopped offering this due to outrage), which, while not using stem cells, seems a bit creepy. It leads us down the slippery slope of playing God. Some countries outlaw use of abortion for the purpose of choosing a babies gender; this is popular in India, though illegal.

These sorts of choices, lead us down the road to having a skewed population; take a look at any country that values a boy child over a girl child, to the extent that in population-controlled China, girls are regularly neglected, given up for adoption to other countries or outright killed. They lack the value of a boy. While you might not believe it could be possible in the US, even here, girls are aborted because parents prefer to have a boy.

Mr. Obama has put no constraints on the use of embryonic stem cells. That’s frightening and some states are introducing legislation to limit stem cell research because of it.

About these ads

29 Responses to Separation of Politics from Science or Separation of Science from Morals?

  1. de Vos says:

    Destruction of embryos for stem cells is no longer a problem:
    Because of the discovery of yamanaka factors we can now take a patch of skin a millimeter thin and turn those skin cells into stem cells for that particular person

  2. Reply says:

    Really, how?
    Such a statement usually requires proof, or an explanation? Please, explain.

    • de Vos says:

      i went to a genetic update conference and above is pretty much what was said
      try searching “yamanaka factors” along with stem cells and you’ll probably find a few things like articles from Nature magazine or at least some mention on wikipedia

      stem cells become other types of cells when different “factors” are introduced
      Shinya Yamanaka discovered 4 factors(called yamanaka factors) that reprogrammed somatic cells into an embryonic stem cell state
      this was discovered around nov-dec 2008 i believe

  3. Emmanuel Benjamin says:

    How broad can these cells be expanciated that is be explained and excorted by proofs.

  4. Dylan says:

    embryonic stems cell help people here nothing wrong with using them

  5. thefrenchchick says:

    Dylan, there’s a big difference in stem cells from a patch of skin and stem cells from an unborn human baby.

    Using embryos as a crop of stem cells is wrong. Those babies might have been the one(s) who would help make the world a better place.

    If you don’t think one individual matters, please watch the movie “It’s A Wonderful Life”. It illustrates very well the effect one person has on society. We each affect our little corner of the world and the effects of our actions sometimes reach farther than we know.

    • de Vos says:

      that is is an issue of abortion not use of embryonic stem cells

      if the fetus is going to be destroyed anyways due to someone else’s choice why not take the stems cells that could help find a cure for any number of diseases including CANCER

      im not saying that abortion is necessarily right im just saying that you might as well take the stem cells that would die normally

      and YES stem cells from skin are the same as from embryos they can both become ANY number of cells when indroduced to the right factors

      • de Vos says:

        also if some gets pregnant just to have an abortion to donate stem cells that an a whole other issue unto itself

      • thefrenchchick says:

        De Vos,

        Where do you think embryonic stem cells come from? They come from embryos, ie: preborn babies, babies that would have developed and been born had their lives not been terminated.

  6. thefrenchchick says:

    The end does not justify the means. Abortion is wrong and harvesting those cells would also be wrong because the abortion could have been prevented with proper couseling for the expectant mother.

    I agree that someone who gets pregnant just to donate stem cells is a whole issue unto itself. It would be one that requires a lot more counseling of the individual about the true gift of life.

  7. Joel says:

    We should not consider the mother the doner of embrionic stem cells. The true doner is the unborn child, who has no choice in the matter. It is duplicitous of liberals to push for double murder charges when someone kills a pregnant woman while still supporting “a woman’s right to choose.”

    Jews and Catholics have Always considered conception as the beginning of life and divine revelation backs us up on that. Unbelievers are wasting their breath if they think Catholics will ever change their position on this issue.

  8. bob says:

    Like deVos says, embryonic stem cells are no longer an issue; scientifically, they’re almost the same as getting a donor organ as they’d have to be compatible to the recipient, so that’s why there’s no future for them. as for abortion being morally wrong, in most cases, i’d agree with you, but when i think of babies being thrown away after birth, i feel that it might be better in the long run to allow it. but in the case of india, now they’re all paying for it as the number of women is much less than men, so women have now become an asset, and many men find that women are pickier when chooseing husbands, so they’re left out.

    • bob says:

      yeah, i was pretty surprised myself… was actually looking for pictures for an essay on stem cell therapy, when i stubled across this website… this is a pretty nice figure, but not up to date… but anyway, i think its really easy for all of us to sit here and discuss the evils of embryonic stem cell research, since we’re healthy people not in dire need for cures, but who’s to say we wouldn’t feel different about it if we were suffering from some incurable lethal disease and needed a new organ…
      not taking sides, just trying to be fair to all. =)

  9. Phil says:

    Let’s see: the Science President is for fetal/embryonic stem cell research, which doesn’t work, abortion as being healthy, though it isn’t, for manmade global warming, which is the sun acting up (even the non right-wing conservative Coast to Coast and guests seem to believe that), and for lousy healthcare he and other elites don’t have to use. On top of that, Obama cuts funding to the NASA space program, setting us back in another real science, national pride and defense.

    • de Vos says:

      stem cell research has allowed us to find a chemical that KILLS BREAST CANCER
      abortions rarely harm the potential mother
      global warming is REAL and not just because of dumb ol al gore – its because our emmissions HAVE increased CO2 levels and that HAS caused a large increase in overall global temperature
      in fact, global warming isnt caused by any changes in the sun at all
      give me EVIDENCE of how this “acting up” has anything to do with global warming and my liberal, elite, a** opinion may waver

  10. remistevens says:

    You can’t have a baby for the baby’s sake. Its always for someone else’s benifit. It has to be, you cannot decide to do something for the benifit of a person who does not yet exist.

    You have a second child to be your first child’s companion- no love is lost. You have a child to carry on your family business- no love is lost. Sure, if the second child was discarded purely as a vessel to provide health for the first that’s terrible and immoral.
    Abortion debate aside, I would be proud if i was conceived for the purposes of saving my sibling (provided i recieved the same care and support of course).

    • de Vos says:

      i absolutely agree remi

      also its somewhat hypocritical that the religious rite is against contraceptives and condoms yet is also against abortions

      if they dont want people to consider abortions an option why not avert the whole pregnancy issue with…

      birth control
      condoms
      plan b

      yaaaay
      all are almost 99.9% likely to prevent abortion by PREVENTING PREGNANCY!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. de Vos says:

    the pill when taken correctly works 99.9% of the time (out of 1000 people 1 pregnacy may occur)
    if women aren’t taking the pill consistently then it isnt the pills fault, it’s the user’s
    breast cancer has a slight increase in occurrence but is less advanced if birth contol was taken
    ovarian and endometrial cancer chances are REDUCED
    may increase risk of cervical cancer but 99% of cases are caused by HPV (human papillomavirus) not birth control

    once again your argument against condoms ist the condoms fault its people’s (who NATURALLY gain a disire for sex during puberty and onward)

    Plan B is NOT an abortion
    if taken up to three days after unprotected sex, the levonorgestral can prevent the sperm from fertilizing an egg (sperm live 72 hrs while ovum live 24 hrs. if plan b used before an ovum is released fertilization can be prevented)
    if you consider this an abortion then male masturbation and the female period can also be considerred abortions
    While plan b prevents fertilization it does not harm the zygote if it has already formed

    • de Vos says:

      btw sorry if the march 15 comment wasn’t descriptive enough
      i didnt know a comment had to be a research paper

  12. research guy says:

    Going on and on about religous conontations is moot. However, saying Fetal cells and embryonic stem cells are in the same category in the religious view is false. Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk states that fetal cells from miscarriages along with cells retrieved from umbilical cords or placenta, and bone marrow are all supported by the Catholic church.
    Embryonic Stem Cells are retrieved from 4-5 day old cast away embryos that the cells inside have no identifying factors whatsoever out of Fertilization facilities. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

    • Anonymous says:

      the only thing i said (if you are accusing me) concerning religious views is that the religious rite is against contraceptives and abortions.
      im not sure where this “going on and on” bit is coming from. i thought it was a single sentence

      stem cell from abortion = stem cell from misscarriage = stem cell from skin
      why throw away what can help save lives

      could you please comment back and explain the following sentence. i dont quite understand it since it seems to be a run-on sentence

      “Embryonic Stem Cells are retrieved from 4-5 day old cast away embryos that the cells inside have no identifying factors whatsoever out of Fertilization facilities. “

  13. Myself says:

    De Vos
    You are wrong pal. Religion it is not the way for the human being to advance.
    PLlease in the human being and not in heavens or else.
    Rgds
    G.

    • de Vos says:

      I believe religion IS the way for society to advance it just depends on what religion

      for me atheism works fine

      for others they are content to ignore the scientific method

      they come up with a conclusion and THEN attempt to prove it instead of being willing to abandon your hypothesis when evidence contradicts it

      • bfhu says:

        de Vos,

        There is NO WAY to use the scientific method to prove atheism or theism. Anyone who thinks atheisim is scientific has been deceived. It is a philosophy

        What hypothesis theorizes atheism and can then be submitted to the scientific method of proof or falsification?

      • de Vos says:

        my main problem with the way religion uses the scientific method concerns creationism and their general nonacceptance of physics discoveries thoughout history

        using creationism as an example
        hypothesis: god created all creatures
        research: fossils and bones of past creatures that bare then carbon dated to show a timeline of change
        conclusion: creatures were originally similar but differentiated depending on setting

        many religions dismiss this HUGE amount of evidence contrary to their hypothesis and are unwilling to change it

        I agree no evidence has been shown to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of any god or gods but the IDEAS of theism and a gods involvement in the universe have continually been shot down and disproven via the scientific method
        many theists like fundementalist christians revoke evidence contrary to their beliefs

        my philosophy is that something does not exist or is not true unless there is evidence to support its existence or factuality

  14. Rachel says:

    I love what I just read I will make sure to include this in my project. Its very interesting and informative.

  15. Rachel says:

    This comment is directed to the person who called them self ‘My self’. Who ever you are next time you post a comment like that remember to say your name. If you feel your comment is so ‘strong’ try saying who you are no one is afraid of you! Stop hiding your identity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers

%d bloggers like this: