Redefining Morality

[christian_soldier]

Redefining Morality

S.5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, passed the House with a vote of 247 to 176, and will be sent to the President for his signature.

The purpose of the bill is to allow the use of federal tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research.

President Bush has already vetoed similar recent legislation and has stated he will veto any such measures crossing his desk.

The following are excerpts from statements by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, as reported in an article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070607/pl_usnw/pelosi__with_stem_cell_legislation__
we_have_the_opportunity_to_save_lives__find_cures__and_give_hope

"Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure and that is the embryonic stem cell research.â€Â

"As the Episcopal Church writes in their letter in support of this legislation, 'As stewards of creation, we are called to help mend and renew the world in many ways ... Medical research expands our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer ... 'â€Â

“If we have a scientific opportunity to treat and cure disease, we have a moral responsibility to support it.â€Â

Let us take a closer look at these statements:

“Science is a gift of God to all of usâ€Â

I can agree with this statement, as the Word of God affirms that all things come from God. (1 Corinthians 11:12, Acts 14:15)

However, Pelosi’s conclusion that “science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure and that is the embryonic stem cell research†is totally and completely refuted by the Word of God, despite her blatant contention that it is “biblicalâ€Â.

Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20: 13)

It is impossible to pursue the science of researching embryonic stem cells without killing the very source of the stem cells – the human embryo – the earliest stage of the life of an unborn baby.

"As the Episcopal Church writes in their letter in support of this legislationâ€Â

I am extremely perplexed and saddened that any Christian denomination would step forward in support of the destruction of human life in the name of cures. In a related aside, let me point out that Sen. John Danforth of Missouri was prominent among the proponents of the Stem Cell Initiative, an amendment to the Missouri constitution which embedded the right to clone and kill human embryos for stem cells. The parallel here is that Danforth is an Episcopalian minister. Lest we think that Episcopalians are the only culpable parties, Reverend Emanuel Cleaver III, pastor of the Centennial United Methodist Church (and son of Missouri Congressman and former Kansas City mayor, Emanuel Cleaver II ) also endorsed the Stem Cell Initiative. What motives can turn Godly men into dealers in the death of the most innocent members of society?

“If we have a scientific opportunity to treat and cure disease, we have a moral responsibility to support it.â€Â

:o

The above statement is an excellent example of the perverse logic implemented by relativists.
MORE

 

[Quath]

I see a lot of bad arguments floating around about stem cell research.

One common one is that it is about killing embryos. The debates on legislation is unrelated to that. The embryos are scheduled to die. The question is whether they are used for research or just trashed.

 

[christian_soldier]

I see a lot of bad arguments floating around about stem cell research.

One common one is that it is about killing embryos. The debates on legislation is unrelated to that. The embryos are scheduled to die. The question is whether they are used for research or just trashed.

How very short sighted of you, Quath.

There are NO good arguments for destroying innocent life in the so-called name of cures. Are you so naive to believe embryonic stem cell research is about anything other than PROFITS???

Does it not occur to you that there is a third alternative?

Rather than slicing and dicing for research OR trashing them, how about giving them full term life?

Adoption's New Frontier
'Snowflake' Babies Adopted For Personal, Political Reasons

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/ ... 2541.shtml

In the time since that story aired, there have been more Snowflake babies born and the trend continues.

 

[Quath]

How very short sighted of you, Quath.

There are NO good arguments for destroying innocent life in the so-called name of cures. Are you so naive to believe embryonic stem cell research is about anything other than PROFITS???

Does it not occur to you that there is a third alternative?

Rather than slicing and dicing for research OR trashing them, how about giving them full term life?

The point is that the bills Bush has blocked has not saved a single embryo. They are just thrown away. It sounds like you have a problem with fertality clinics instead of stem cells.

The problem with a lot of the anti-stem cell stances are people are trying to say that cells that will act like cancer or a growth that will never resemble a human should be treated as human. Showing a cell growth culture in a petri dish and saying that is a human turns a lot of people away.

 

[christian_soldier]

The problem with a lot of the anti-stem cell stances are people are trying to say that cells that will act like cancer or a growth that will never resemble a human should be treated as human. Showing a cell growth culture in a petri dish and saying that is a human turns a lot of people away.

What the heck are you talking about? Certainly not human embryos.

 

[Quath]

What the heck are you talking about? Certainly not human embryos.

At the time the fertality clinic is ready to throw away the cells, they do not look anything human.

 

[christian_soldier]

At the time the fertality clinic is ready to throw away the cells, they do not look anything human.

Hold on. That is NOT what you were saying.

You said:

people are trying to say that cells that will act like cancer or a growth that will never resemble a human should be treated as human. Showing a cell growth culture in a petri dish and saying that is a human turns a lot of people away.

Especially cells that will act like cancer or a growth that will never resemble a human

That does NOT describe the frozen embryos that may eventually be discarded if they are not adopted and implanted and allowed to grow full term.

Again, what the heck are you talking about?

NOTE: Baby killing abortionists and their supporters foisted that same "blob of tissue", "does not look human" crap off on the public to justify their murders, too.

 

[Quath]

The stem cells that come from fertility treatments are a collection of 50 to 150 cells in a small cluster. They are put into a culture dish and just continue to grow.

What people opposing the stem cell bills like Bush desire is just throwing all of this away.

 

[christian_soldier]

The stem cells that come from fertility treatments are a collection of 50 to 150 cells in a small cluster. They are put into a culture dish and just continue to grow.

What people opposing the stem cell bills like Bush desire is just throwing all of this away.

Embryonic stem cells do not come from fertility treatments. Human embryos come from fertility treatments. The stem cells are an inherent part of the embryo and can only be harvested at the expense of the life of the human embryo.

You seem extremely confused on the issue. The cancerous growth you refer to is what occurs when embryonic stem cells (obtained by destroying human embryos) are attempted to be used in cures. Success so far? ZERO.

Adult stem cells (harvested from human adults) and umbilical cord or placental stem cells, on the other hand have been used successfully in treating a number of illnesses.

There is no reason whatsoever to experiment with embryonic stem cells other than that research labs are able to make huge sums of money from doing so. Its not about cures, Quath, its about money.

And, again, the embryos you insist will "just be thrown away" do not have to be and should not be.

They are being adopted, implanted, and brought to term as real, live babies.

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Quath]

Embryonic stem cells do not come from fertility treatments. Human embryos come from fertility treatments. The stem cells are an inherent part of the embryo and can only be harvested at the expense of the life of the human embryo.

The embryo is dead either way.

You seem extremely confused on the issue. The cancerous growth you refer to is what occurs when embryonic stem cells (obtained by destroying human embryos) are attempted to be used in cures. Success so far? ZERO.

A lot of stem cell research is still in the research phase. There are a lot of possiblities. We have to figure out how to coax cells to form the tissue we want. This is a huge challenge, but when we can do it, it can open up many new medical options.

Adult stem cells (harvested from human adults) and umbilical cord or placental stem cells, on the other hand have been used successfully in treating a number of illnesses.

True like bone marrow transplant. However, these techniques are highly specialized.

There is no reason whatsoever to experiment with embryonic stem cells other than that research labs are able to make huge sums of money from doing so. Its not about cures, Quath, its about money.

It is both. For lawmakers and voters, it is more about the cure. For drug labs, it is more about the money. But drug labs takes lots of risks and do not always recover the cost of research. For example, they may develop a drug to fight weight gain and then have to remove the drug from the market due to heart problem side effects. All the research money will have to be recovered from selling another drug. But they have a short time to recoup this money because generic drugs come onto the market at a smaller price (they didn't pay for research).

And, again, the embryos you insist will "just be thrown away" do not have to be and should not be.

I don't think that is a great argument for a couple of reasons. One is that people over fertalize eggs so they get a few viable ones. Trying to birth all of them at once is hazardous to them.

There is no harm in throwing them away. If there is then God causes harm when he allows for miscarriage.

 

[christian_soldier]

Quath, are you an atheist or just "not a Christian".

 

[Rick W]

In general morality is being over-shadowed by man's science or more accurately man himself is redefining morality by using science to support what man wants morality to be.
Science is a tool. It can be used for good or not. Science is the God-given gift to man to stand in ever-increasing awe and praise of God, His creation, glory and power. But instead man has used science in an attempt to disprove the existence of whom the gift came from in the first place.

Many see the word "science" and automatically believe it's truth without question. In many instances this may be the case however there is also "scientific conclusion" in other areas made solely by the scientist... a conclusion not yet provable by "science" but a conclusion based solely on the interpretation of data by the scientist himself. It's this "scientific conclusion" that man puts forth as evidence to change the morality of social beliefs and standards.

Science is not a christian enemy.... never was intended to be as such. One will find evidence for what one seeks to support. Depends on what one is looking for.


Forensics is science yet both the prosecutor and defense attorney use that same science to argue their case.




http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."

A note:
But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

Consensus:
majority of opinion

opinion is the key word.

 

[Quath]

Quath, are you an atheist or just "not a Christian".

Just an atheist.

 

[WiLdAtHeArT]

As far as stem cell research goes - there is no BAN on embryonic stem cell research. The issue is whether or not the government should pony up some cash to help with the research. If people want to fund embryonic stem cell research, let them.

Just don't increase my taxes or take money away from other government programs to do it.

 

[christian_soldier]

Just an atheist.

If there is then God causes harm when he allows for miscarriage.

In that case, please stop talking out of both sides of your face.

 

[Quath]

In that case, please stop talking out of both sides of your face.

When seeking agreement, sometimes it is helpful to assume the asumptions of the person you are talking to and see where they lead.

So far, you seem more interested in attacking the messenger than the message.

 

[christian_soldier]

When seeking agreement, sometimes it is helpful to assume the asumptions of the person you are talking to and see where they lead.

So far, you seem more interested in attacking the messenger than the message.

I'm just trying to make sense out of your disjointed posts.

No attack intended.

 

[Rick W]

Miscarriage?
Abortion is intentional.
So by blaming God that's an excuse for abortion?
God causes miscarriage? Or He simply allows what may to happen? Remember, man rebeled through pride in the Garden as Satan had done in heaven and what happens after that is God's fault?
Blame it on God. Adam did.

 

[Rick W]

In that case, please stop talking out of both sides of your face.

Please try to keep it civil ok?

 

[christian_soldier]

Please try to keep it civil ok?

I am trying.