stem cell

[Pax]

So do you oppose in vitro fertilization or just embryonic stem-cell research?  Or do you oppose both?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the process of in vitro fertilization fertilized eggs are destroyed, so yes I oppose both practices.

[Guest charlie]

A "gold star" to you for being consistent. It drive me nuts when people condemn embryonic stem-cell research but approve of in vitro fertilization; totally hypocritical and selfish imo. - If you take stem-cell research totally out of the picture, the fertilized eggs still end up being destroyed. The method of destruction is just different.

[Joe@actsii]

This is an articles from www.str.org

In Vitro Fertilization: Is It Wrong to Discard Embryos?

Steve Wagner, Stand to Reason

Summary

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a common treatment option for many couples seeking relief from infertility. Conception takes place in a laboratory and the resulting embryo is implanted in the woman

[Guest charlie]

Interesting article but is he saying "don't do it (in vitro)"?

It seems to me that those who oppose any kind of destruction of the egg (whether it be just out and out disposal of the fertilized eggs, perpetual freeze of the fertilized eggs, or stem-cell research on the fertilized eggs) have only one option: no in vitro under any circumstances.

I think for the most part where embryonic stem-cell research is concerned the church wants to "have it's cake and eat it too"; so they talk it to death or talk around it by saying the cleverly worded, "We oppose the creation of life in order to destroy life". Translation: we approve of the creation of life in order to destroy life if our members can get one healthy baby from it; we oppose the creation of life in order to destroy life if it leads to research that could possibly save or improve the lives of the sick or disabled.

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

I have commented on this before, but for you that are new here, I give you my perspective.

A couple years ago I began to question "when life began" and what the Bible had to say about it. I was interested in cloning, stem cell research and invitro fertilization. The latter because my daughter-in-law, a nurse, but also a Christian had miscarried and then it was found out she had developed breast cancer due to the hormones that her body had produced prior to the miscarriage. Well, my son and his wife wanted a baby, and they prayed about it and I and others prayed about it. I researched the topic and what the Bible had to say about it. Here are my conclusions:

I got to the point in my research that I needed a Word from God as to exactly when "life" began and as I was heading to church one day, I was contemplating this and all of a sudden God spoke to me. I knew it was Him, as I have had a few other similar experiences. He said: "Life is in the blood", and with His Words came understanding, as I had been studying all around this subject, but never quite "getting it", but now it became clear.

God has never said "I knew you in the petri dish". Of course, the technology did not exist at the time of the writing of the Bible, but now we have a much expanded knowledge of the "process" of the development of life.

There is no "blood" involved in the fertilization of the egg. In fact there is no blood intrinsic to the fertilized egg UNTIL the stem cells direct the heart cells to form. This can never occur UNTIL the blastocyst is attached to the uterine cavity and starts receiving nutriments from the host mother. The heart cells are the first to form within the blastocyst and this does not occur until about day 21.

Now all the verses that refer to God "knowing us in the womb", may very well apply to that 21st day of conception when LIFE begins.

So am I for or against the use of embryonic cell research? As already stated, only adult stem cells have proven so far to be beneficial, yet we must keep in mind that stem cells in their pristine condition, if understood properly could have very great and far reaching possibilities, yet, I strongly suspect that God will not allow us to get that far before His return.

We are instructed TWICE, once with Adam, and then with Noah to "fill the earth" with our progeny. This is a command we should all be aware of. We also know that children are a blessings from the Lord. If these commands are obeyed then of course, we must also consider any form of contraception that might inhibit the production of children. But that is a different topic. I believe it is disobedience to God IF we don't have in mind the possibility of progeny everytime intercourse is engaged in. So for those who might practice contraception, they are disobedient. But as I said, I digress.

My Son and daughter-in-law, through invitro fertilization with their own sperm and egg, were able to have a great little girl, as my d-i-l's sister volunteered to carry the baby. This was indeed a blessing from God. This cannot be denied. If there were remaining fertilized eggs, I would have no problem with them being used for research.

Another consideration is that pregnancy is really a rarity. Most often, or at least often enough, fertilized eggs are flushed from the mother's body before implantation into the uterine wall. A woman would never know that she was pregnant, that she was carrying "life as defined by many Christians" in her body. Yet these were destined to be destroyed. Do you think that all those fertilized eggs are now in heaven? I don't think so. LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[Kabowd]

Hi , i am doing a research paper on stem cell research.  Can someone help me , by giving me some of the many negatives of stem cell research.  Thank you very much. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you might need to distinguish between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells first. I'm opposed to embryonic stem cell research as it destroys life...however adult stem cells can be harvested without causing harm to anyone (as well as cord blood cells) and have already proven to be successful in treating like 70 something diseases.

[Guest charlie]

Dad Ernie CONGRADULATIONS! I think that is just wonderful. You bring up several things in that post that are very relevent to this issue and things that I wish the church and the National Right to Life would acknowledge. My wife had a miscarriage and my mother had 5....anyway. - I've never thought about "the blood" until now after reading your post; it makes sense....but of course it would considering Who pointed it out to you!

I for one am in favor of both in vitro and embryonic stem-cell research. I think you get a good thing with a birth, and maybe even more good things if cures can be found thru research. Like I said, it's the double standard, the hypocrisy of so many that annoy me.

This morning I was looking at the topics on another forum and came across this editorial. Evidently I'm not the only one who has noticed the hypocrisy but the author also touches on several things that you mention in that post. Now the editorial focuses on the President but I think it applies across the board for evangelicals/fundamentalists:

-----------------------

Commentary: Bush's Contradiction on Stem Cell Research

Bush's rigidity and hypocrisy on stem cell research may placate the religious right, but it's consigning America to second class status as a scientific superpower.

By Scott D. O'Reilly

A compassionate conservative is someone who has the courage of his contradictions. George Bush, for instance, displayed a whole lot of chutzpa in a recent photo-op, having his photo taken with

Edited July 1, 2005 by charlie

[Kabowd]

We are instructed TWICE, once with Adam, and then with Noah to "fill the earth" with our progeny. This is a command we should all be aware of. We also know that children are a blessings from the Lord. If these commands are obeyed then of course, we must also consider any form of contraception that might inhibit the production of children. But that is a different topic. I believe it is disobedience to God IF we don't have in mind the possibility of progeny everytime intercourse is engaged in. So for those who might practice contraception, they are disobedient. But as I said, I digress.

Yes, this is a different topic, but I wanted to address it since you brought it up. How can you say "we" are instructed, when it was a command given only to Adam and Noah and not given on a broad spectrum? In fact, nowhere in the New Testament is this command given. The command to reproduce physically is replaced with the emphasis to reproduce spiritually under the New Covenant.

Yes, children are a blessing from the Lord. But using this verse and the commands given to Noah and Adam as "proof" that God is anti-contraception is to twist and misapply Scripture.

But I guess that's all for another topic huh?

[Dad Ernie]

Yes, this is a different topic, but I wanted to address it since you brought it up. How can you say "we" are instructed, when it was a command given only to Adam and Noah and not given on a broad spectrum? In fact, nowhere in the New Testament is this command given. The command to reproduce physically is replaced with the emphasis to reproduce spiritually under the New Covenant.

Yes, children are a blessing from the Lord. But using this verse and the commands given to Noah and Adam as "proof" that God is anti-contraception is to twist and misapply Scripture.

Greetings Tess,

You may want to consider the Noahic Covenant in Genesis 9. Which part of the "COVENANT" DOES NOT apply to us today? The rainbow? Capitol Punishment? The governance of all the earth and animals therein?

If these remain, what makes you think that the command to "fill the earth" DOES NOT remain?

Blessings,

Dad Ernie