Religious people changing views on morality of stem-cell research

[question everything]

Religious people changing views on morality of stem-cell research

By G. Jeffrey MacDonald
RELIGION NEWS SERVICE

June 1, 2005

Peggy Willocks describes herself as "a conservative, pro-life Christian in the heart of the Bible Belt," Johnson City, Tenn. So when she considered embryonic stem cell research two years ago, she found it morally repulsive.

That view changed, as it has for other religious Americans. This religious support, or lack of it, could be instrumental as Congress and President Bush grapple with a bill that would expand federal funding of medically promising embryonic stem cell research.

(snip)

She watched a friend and a fellow Parkinson's sufferer get to where she could move only her eyes for two months before dying. Willocks then went back to her Bible, recalled God's compassion for the living and determined that cells in a petri dish aren't sacred because Scripture informs her that "life begins in the womb," she said.


(snip)

In explaining the discrepancy, observers point to American pragmatism. Americans tingle at the prospect of curing previously deadly diseases, they say, and that potential to save lives has a way of making the protection of embryos a concern of lesser importance.

(snip)

Polling done by Pew shows the greatest surge in support among Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants, especially those who said they didn't know what to think on the issue two years ago.

More..


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050601/news_1n1stem.html

[applegrove]

1. That is the problem with religious laws. They are based on customary

law and not present day knowledge. We should be taking the great truths religions all spoke of - and ignore the customary law.

[prodigal_green]

2. OK, here's the difference between blastocyst and an "unborn"

baby:

A blastocyst in a petri dish will NEVER turn into a fetus or a baby. It must be implanted in a human female's womb. You can leave it in that petri dish 'til kingdom come, it will not become a baby. One can argue that a fetilized egg in a woman's body will one day become a person, but one cannot make the same argument about the cells in a petri dish.

So, either you oppose and/or outlaw IVF (the Catholic Church's position) or you forcibly implant the cells into women. Even forcing women to accept implanted blastocysts would result in MOST of the implanted blastocysts "dying."

This is what the argument is about:

[flamin lib]

3. Good to hear someone using the correct terminology.

The stem cell research uses a blastocyst. It is a cell with all necessary genetic material before attaching to the womb. After it implants and divides it becomes an embryo.

Why do we play to their vocabulary?

[seafan]

7. A minor point of clarification....

The blastocyst has already undergone further cell division from the zygote(fertilized ovum); therefore, it is not a one-celled structure.

The fertilized egg(zygote) is then called an embryo at that point on, and it undergoes several stages of cell division (morula, blastocyst stages), until the time approximately 5-6 days later when it implants into the lining of the uterus.


egg=ovum

fertilized ovum=zygote

zygote=begins the embryonic stage of development

Embryo begins cellular division while moving down Fallopian tube towards the uterus (morula stage=a solid ball of cells; blastocyst stage=a hollow ball of cells).

Young embryo reaches uterus about 5-6 days after fertilization and implants itself into the uterine lining.

After 7-8 weeks of further development, the fetal stage begins.



Not to pick on your description.... just wanted to pass along more detail for clarity of terminology.

:)

[prodigal_green]

8. Thanks for the info! The cells are cryogenically preserved

at the blastocyst stage according to the fertility clinic site from which I harvested the photo.

Drives me crazy to hear people talking about dismembering fetus' to retrieve stem cells.

[flamin lib]

9. Thanks for the clarification. It is much appreciated.

Still it is good to hear some one using terms other than those that play to the right's point of view.

[SnowGoose]

4. Oh, he's a cutie - I think he has his mom's eyes.

How could you condone destroying this human being... can't you see he's suffering? I saw a video where he obviously responds to voices.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. Did the blastocyst result spontaneously?

It is a very significant moral issue, defining when human life begins. People are as uncomfortable with this as they were about the whole concept of a 'test tube' baby. The tension on the subject is good in that it pressures the reproductive technology field to find more efficient ways to promote successful pregnancies. The future ideal would be that one egg is harvested, fertilized, and implanted as the norm. Likewise, stem cell research using donated embryos should be viewed as a bridge to eventual therapeutic manipulation of a person's own DNA or similar approach.

I am still surprised that people who claim a moral exception to stem cell harvesting have embraced IVF and other assistive reproductive technologies. At least the Roman Catholic church is fairly consistent in its stance on reproductive issues.

[MojoXN]

6. The best thing that could happen...

Would be for Bush to keep his hardline stance against federal funding. Most Americans support using government money to support stem-cell research. If shrub keeps pandering to the religious right, eventually he's going to piss off everyone else. Don't forget, * and those of his ilk are a distinct minority of Americans. When average people start to realize that * really is out of touch with the mainstream, and that he really is unwilling to compromise, the Bushy's house of cards will fall. People are going to wake up to the fact that it is just plain wrong to impede research into the greatest medical advancement since antibiotics, simply for political purposes. Impeachment in '06!

MojoXN