Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

[Tubal-Cain]

Is there more to man than is physically seen?

Yes.

If you answer yes, then your entire defense unravels as you are basing it solely on what is seen and not on man's spirit.

I don't see how basing ethics on the physical world makes it unravel.

[apothanein kerdos]

Is there more to man than is physically seen?

Yes.

If you answer yes, then your entire defense unravels as you are basing it solely on what is seen and not on man's spirit.

I don't see how basing ethics on the physical world makes it unravel.

If there is more to man than his physicality then basing ethics on just the physical aspect of man is ignoring the spiritual aspect of man. You kill the body AND the spirit when you kill an embryo...thus you have killed human life. You can't believe it's okay to kill an embryo or a young baby and turn around and believe in a soul. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

[Hypathia]

Is there more to man than is physically seen?

Yes.

If you answer yes, then your entire defense unravels as you are basing it solely on what is seen and not on man's spirit.

I don't see how basing ethics on the physical world makes it unravel.

If there is more to man than his physicality then basing ethics on just the physical aspect of man is ignoring the spiritual aspect of man. You kill the body AND the spirit when you kill an embryo...thus you have killed human life. You can't believe it's okay to kill an embryo or a young baby and turn around and believe in a soul. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

You kill the spirit and the body of REAL people when you stand in the way of research that could help them. Scientifically, ethically, biologically and BIBLICALLY there is no reason to stand against embryonic stem-cell research. If you believe in the Bible and you believe in the soul then the Bible should be your reference guide. It's obvious from scripture that "ensoulment" does not occur at the moment of conception.

It seems to me that this issue is one of those where science and scripture are in sync with each other; people should stop creating conflicts where none exists and let the scientists get on with their job of saving lives, saving live; babies, children and adults. Those who are attempting to prevent this are part of a "death-cult" despite the political speak.

Wake up people.

[papasangel]

you know this topic is a very touchy topic. I cannot give you the verses in the bible that specifically prohibits this issue but do have an opinion.

Jesus said (paraphrased) "That those would would harm a child would be held accountable to Him" In my opinion this includes those children concieved and waiting to be born. I believe that life begins at conception even before the body is "formed" in the womb. As to wether or not that little human being has a soul we really don't know do we. It cannot be proven either way althought personally I believe it does have a "soul". So taking that into account those who kill the embryo (read unborn child) commits murder with the excuse of using that child's body to help "cure" many devestating diseases. The fact that non-embryonic cells have made great progress seems to be ignored by those who have not qualms in murdering another human being for the good of society. If embryonic cells are so vital are those same cells not found in cord blood? Why not use cord blood in their research. It's the same source isn't it?

In the OT God gave Moses the Ten commandments. One commandment read "Thou shall not murder". This was a command that God specifically gave us to follow. I know there are those that say Jesus did away with the "old" laws but even Jesus did not condone murder. In fact He gave us a comission to care for our children and nurture them and teach them the way to God.

This is just some thoughts I personally hold. It is not necessarily endorsed by anyone else here but still it gives us food for thought. The question we should be asking is "Is the sacrifice of one innocent life worth the enhancement of society health issues?" We are all going to die in our current forms. It is inevitable. Only God can heal us when we recieve new bodies in heaven. I have several of thoe health issues that have been addresed for the embryonic stem cell research argument. My reply is that I would rather live with the parameters that God has given me then benifit from the murder of an innocent child.

[papasangel]

Because a fetus with a working brain has thoughts and desires while a fetus without a working brain does not have thoughts or desires. Beings with thoughts and desires deserve moral consideration because they can value things (e.g., those things that fulfill their desires are good for them while those things that thwart their desires are bad for them). Such a delineation easily explains why humans and "higher" animals deserve moral consideration while "lower" animals, plants, and inanimate objects do not deserve moral consideration (except to the extent that they effect humans and "higher" animals).

It is already established by science that a "fetus" can feel pain during an abortion. If you watch them on the videos you will see them react to that pain as they are torn limb from limb and piece by piect apart. How can you justify that pain to an innocent being just because they don't have a "working brain"?

[Kansasdad]

Is there more to man than is physically seen?

Yes.

If you answer yes, then your entire defense unravels as you are basing it solely on what is seen and not on man's spirit.

I don't see how basing ethics on the physical world makes it unravel.

If there is more to man than his physicality then basing ethics on just the physical aspect of man is ignoring the spiritual aspect of man. You kill the body AND the spirit when you kill an embryo...thus you have killed human life. You can't believe it's okay to kill an embryo or a young baby and turn around and believe in a soul. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

You kill the spirit and the body of REAL people when you stand in the way of research that could help them. Scientifically, ethically, biologically and BIBLICALLY there is no reason to stand against embryonic stem-cell research. If you believe in the Bible and you believe in the soul then the Bible should be your reference guide. It's obvious from scripture that "ensoulment" does not occur at the moment of conception.

It seems to me that this issue is one of those where science and scripture are in sync with each other; people should stop creating conflicts where none exists and let the scientists get on with their job of saving lives, saving live; babies, children and adults. Those who are attempting to prevent this are part of a "death-cult" despite the political speak.

Wake up people.

There in lies your misunderstanding. You are correct in that the underlying issue is not the physical state of the human but the spiritual state. Where you have gone astray is trying to interpret the verses on breath into a statement that the soul is imbued when the human takes a breath. There are two areas where you are taking the word out of context. First the Bible talks about Gods breath giving life. This has nothing to do with the human breathing. Human breath and Gods breath are vastly different, you can not equate the two as being the same. Second is you are not taking the phrase "when the breath leaves the body" in historical context. You must understand what the writer means at the time it was written. To hold to your interpretation that the soul arrives when the human takes a breath you must take every verse completely out of context. This is a dangerous thing to do. One that in this case leads people into justifying the murder of innocent humans that indeed have a soul given to them by God.

In your statement above you reference "Real" people, implying that the developing pre-born human is not a real person. Many atrocities have happened because some group of people have decided that another group were not "real " humans. This line of thinking leads to unthinkable evil.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

[Hypathia]

Is there more to man than is physically seen?

Yes.

If you answer yes, then your entire defense unravels as you are basing it solely on what is seen and not on man's spirit.

I don't see how basing ethics on the physical world makes it unravel.

If there is more to man than his physicality then basing ethics on just the physical aspect of man is ignoring the spiritual aspect of man. You kill the body AND the spirit when you kill an embryo...thus you have killed human life. You can't believe it's okay to kill an embryo or a young baby and turn around and believe in a soul. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

You kill the spirit and the body of REAL people when you stand in the way of research that could help them. Scientifically, ethically, biologically and BIBLICALLY there is no reason to stand against embryonic stem-cell research. If you believe in the Bible and you believe in the soul then the Bible should be your reference guide. It's obvious from scripture that "ensoulment" does not occur at the moment of conception.

It seems to me that this issue is one of those where science and scripture are in sync with each other; people should stop creating conflicts where none exists and let the scientists get on with their job of saving lives, saving live; babies, children and adults. Those who are attempting to prevent this are part of a "death-cult" despite the political speak.

Wake up people.

There in lies your misunderstanding. You are correct in that the underlying issue is not the physical state of the human but the spiritual state. Where you have gone astray is trying to interpret the verses on breath into a statement that the soul is imbued when the human takes a breath. There are two areas where you are taking the word out of context. First the Bible talks about Gods breath giving life. This has nothing to do with the human breathing. Human breath and Gods breath are vastly different, you can not equate the two as being the same. Second is you are not taking the phrase "when the breath leaves the body" in historical context. You must understand what the writer means at the time it was written. To hold to your interpretation that the soul arrives when the human takes a breath you must take every verse completely out of context. This is a dangerous thing to do. One that in this case leads people into justifying the murder of innocent humans that indeed have a soul given to them by God.

In your statement above you reference "Real" people, implying that the developing pre-born human is not a real person. Many atrocities have happened because some group of people have decided that another group were not "real " humans. This line of thinking leads to unthinkable evil.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

You are the one who has been lead astray KansasDad. The atrocity here is that real people are suffering and dying and it is primarily due to the unthinkable evil of people like the Pope and James Dobson who do indeed twist the scriptures or omit them altogether to gain support for their "warped" personal wants.

I only have a moment here.

More articles from another perspective but you always have the Bible to rely on.

Jew On First - Many articles on stem-cell research

This is a matter of life and death people; please ponder and most of all PRAY!

Also this:

Jesus said (paraphrased) "That those would would harm a child would be held accountable to Him"

Most definitely keep that in mind. In context, Jesus was specifically talking about CHILDREN, those who he had around him as the example. The ancients knew what Children were, Jesus knew what Children were.......Jesus never mentioned the "unborn"....especially those that never made it to a womb which was specifically pointed out in scripture as part of the "life" process. The rest was your opinion.

If you prevent this research you are harming children and you will be held accountable to HIM. Think about it.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Hypathia

[Kansasdad]

Is there more to man than is physically seen?

Yes.

If you answer yes, then your entire defense unravels as you are basing it solely on what is seen and not on man's spirit.

I don't see how basing ethics on the physical world makes it unravel.

If there is more to man than his physicality then basing ethics on just the physical aspect of man is ignoring the spiritual aspect of man. You kill the body AND the spirit when you kill an embryo...thus you have killed human life. You can't believe it's okay to kill an embryo or a young baby and turn around and believe in a soul. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

You kill the spirit and the body of REAL people when you stand in the way of research that could help them. Scientifically, ethically, biologically and BIBLICALLY there is no reason to stand against embryonic stem-cell research. If you believe in the Bible and you believe in the soul then the Bible should be your reference guide. It's obvious from scripture that "ensoulment" does not occur at the moment of conception.

It seems to me that this issue is one of those where science and scripture are in sync with each other; people should stop creating conflicts where none exists and let the scientists get on with their job of saving lives, saving live; babies, children and adults. Those who are attempting to prevent this are part of a "death-cult" despite the political speak.

Wake up people.

There in lies your misunderstanding. You are correct in that the underlying issue is not the physical state of the human but the spiritual state. Where you have gone astray is trying to interpret the verses on breath into a statement that the soul is imbued when the human takes a breath. There are two areas where you are taking the word out of context. First the Bible talks about Gods breath giving life. This has nothing to do with the human breathing. Human breath and Gods breath are vastly different, you can not equate the two as being the same. Second is you are not taking the phrase "when the breath leaves the body" in historical context. You must understand what the writer means at the time it was written. To hold to your interpretation that the soul arrives when the human takes a breath you must take every verse completely out of context. This is a dangerous thing to do. One that in this case leads people into justifying the murder of innocent humans that indeed have a soul given to them by God.

In your statement above you reference "Real" people, implying that the developing pre-born human is not a real person. Many atrocities have happened because some group of people have decided that another group were not "real " humans. This line of thinking leads to unthinkable evil.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

You are the one who has been lead astray KansasDad. The atrocity here is that real people are suffering and dying and it is primarily due to the unthinkable evil of people like the Pope and James Dobson who do indeed twist the scriptures or omit them altogether to gain support for their "warped" personal wants.

I only have a moment here.

More articles from another perspective but you always have the Bible to rely on.

Jew On First - Many articles on stem-cell research

This is a matter of life and death people; please ponder and most of all PRAY!

Also this:

Jesus said (paraphrased) "That those would would harm a child would be held accountable to Him"

Most definitely keep that in mind. In context, Jesus was specifically talking about CHILDREN, those who he had around him as the example. The ancients knew what Children were, Jesus knew what Children were.......Jesus never mentioned the "unborn"....especially those that never made it to a womb which was specifically pointed out in scripture as part of the "life" process. The rest was your opinion.

If you prevent this research you are harming children and you will be held accountable to HIM. Think about it.

Maybe because we should not be playing God and trying to start life outside of the Womb in the first place.

[Hypathia]

Maybe because we should not be playing God and trying to start life outside of the Womb in the first place.

While that would be more consistent where this particular issue is concerned it also opens up a "can of worms" in other areas.

Are we "playing God" when we get open-heart surgery? When we get a flu shot; chemotherapy, immunizations, etc? Is it "playing God" when we treat any illness or injuries; OR is it "immulating God"?

I think immulating God in order to help people live longer and healthier lives is a good thing. Perhaps when people are beyond help yet we try to preseve a "living corpse" is when we cross the line both spiritually and ethically and it turns into "playing God"; jmho.

[apothanein kerdos]

You kill the spirit and the body of REAL people when you stand in the way of research that could help them.

Have you studied the Bible and theology? I ask because you apparently haven't heard about this thing called the Fall of man. With the Fall of man came death and disease as our punishment.

Regardless, you're saying these little humans, even when just fertilized, aren't real people. How do you qualify what a real person is. I already showed how the verses you use lack any exegetical support for the conclusion you want to make, so how can you even begin to justify it?

If you believe in the Bible and you believe in the soul then the Bible should be your reference guide. It's obvious from scripture that "ensoulment" does not occur at the moment of conception.

LOL

Are you crazy? Where in scripture does it even come close to saying this?

"And ye shalt knoweith that the soul only entereth the body in the third trimester."

It seems to me that this issue is one of those where science and scripture are in sync with each other;

This issue isn't a scientific one but a philosophical one. Thus, it's a matter of the Bible versus worldly philosophies. Just because science can do it doesn't mean it is ethical. Instead, philosophers dictate this issue on debating when human life truly occurs. As Christians, because we believe in the soul and a sovereign God, we know that it begins at conception properly, with God knowing each person before they are even conceived.

You, of course, have not studied this issue at all. I have raised multiple objections against your points and you have ignored them...all for emotional appeal. Again, it's all based on faulty logic...and yes, Nazi ideology.

As for "playing God," it is a great misnomer. None of us can "play God" because we can't actually cure anything. Though we can give flu shots and the like, there is pain involved in the healing process. With all healing processes made by man, there is a risk involved, thus it is not "playing God" at all. Instead, we are using our minds for good. At the same time, when this research and cure comes at the cost of another human life (that did not willingly offer up his or her life) then we have stepped into unethical realms.

What if we deemed "human" to be those with full cognitive thought, free of major mental disabilities? That is, they can live and function on their own without medication. This, of course, is a "legitimate" view of when humanity truly occurs (and is held to by Peter Singer). If we hold to this view then we must admit that it's okay to kill people who are so severely disabled that they cannot help themselves, so long as its for scientific research. Think about it, helping these people costs money and we could use their deformities for study, to see how to prevent or cure further deformities. What a wonderful thing!

You may say, "But that's not what I'm arguing." You're right, however, your philosophical stance has no "stop button." That is to say, if you argue that life doesn't begin at conception, you lose Biblical ground to say when life begins. In the Bible, the punishment for hitting a woman, thus causing her to have a miscarriage was death...just hitting a pregnant woman would cause you to have to pay a penalty that the husband saw fit. The Bible has seen life beginning from conception. If you say it doesn't, then you have to tell us when life begins...and it has to fit with all of scripture (which, any other definition outside of "conception" will not be able to do this).