stem cell

[dennis99ss]

A little bit of catholic discussion, as well as general discussion.

Why is it a sin to use embryo stem cells, but not a sin to make them, and freeze them, with little to no intention of use.

Why is it a mortal sin to vote for someone who supports abortion, but it is not a sin to vote for someone who supports the death penalty.

Why is it not a sin if you support someone who engages in a preemptive war, without justification, and that action injures and kills innocent people.

Why is it against the morals of the president to fund embryonic stem cell research with govt. funds, but there is no governmental outcry against private funded research.

Why is it that gay marriage is such an important issue, that we need a constitutional ammendment, but, then the President says he supports Gay Civil Unions and does not agree with the Republican platform in that regard.

Does anyone else see a bit of hypocrisy here. Bush always says Kerry flip flops, Doesn't Bush do the same. I think he does.

 

[bubba's mom]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
A little bit of catholic discussion, as well as general discussion.

Why is it a sin ........

Does anyone else see a bit of hypocrisy here. Bush always says Kerry flip flops, Doesn't Bush do the same. I think he does.

I was raised Catholic and now that I'm older, I do not believe all the Catholic values. Don't get me wrong, I believe in most of what I was taught, but I have issues with the religion. It is one messed up faith ( IMHO).

My DH and I have seen the hypocrisy here and wonder why Bush supporters DON'T see it!?

 

[Nancy]

I'm going to tell you my points on stem cell research. I believe cloning human cells for the purpose of experimentation only is wrong. I also don't feel that if they are doing IVF they should fertilize numerous cells to increse the odds of conception....and then destroy the others. Just wrong in my book. I did have problems conceiving my children..it took surgery and fertiltiy drugs and tests and more surgery. I was lucky that found my problem and corrected it, but at no time would I have done IVF..because I could not have condoned destroying my babies. Yep..to me that little group of cells becomes a life at that point. I would have gone the adoption route if I wasn't able to have children. AND I don't think the government should be funding it.

As for abortion..to me it's not just cut and dried. While I am against it, I just don't want it made illegal again...not because of the it's my body, my choice...but because if it is made illegal then there will be unscrupulous people performing them and possibly hurting or killing the person having them..and I don't want that to happen. Does it make sense in light of when I feel life begins..no...but that's how I feel.

The death penalty I used to be 100 % for. I felt if you committed the crime and were caught and confessed to it then the death penalty should have been handed out. Now I realize (as I get older) that everything isn't as easy to be for or against. I still feel the dealth penalty should be used...just not all the time (for murderers) like I used to.

Declaring war has NEVER been a sin. When you join the military you run that risk of being sent to war. No one has been forced to join the the military in recent times. And one of the questions on the US citizen test is (probably not phrasing it the exact way) Who can declare war?..The answer is not the President..it is congress...so the President didn't send our troops into war, congress did. They voted for war based on the intelligence reports at the time, including John Kerry....remeber he voted for war before he voted against it!

 

[bubba's mom]

Originally posted by Nancy
I'm going to tell you my points on stem cell research. I believe cloning human cells for the purpose of experimentation only is wrong.

This ties in to your thoughts on when life begins. Some believe at the first cell division, some believe at first beat of the heart, some believe when a child can survive out of utero..... I am all for stem cell research that could cure somebody. Who knows? Maybe that person they save could be my child? My grandchild? If there is a possiblitly of a cure, we need to find it.

As for abortion..to me it's not just cut and dried. While I am against it, I just don't want it made illegal again...not because of the it's my body, my choice...but because if it is made illegal then there will be unscrupulous people performing them and possibly hurting or killing the person having them..and I don't want that to happen.

I like my theory on abortion.....I am pro-choice, not necessarily pro-abortion. If it at least stays legal, many more people will be safer.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
A little bit of catholic discussion, as well as general discussion.

Why is it a sin to use embryo stem cells, but not a sin to make them, and freeze them, with little to no intention of use.

Why is it a mortal sin to vote for someone who supports abortion, but it is not a sin to vote for someone who supports the death penalty.

Why is it not a sin if you support someone who engages in a preemptive war, without justification, and that action injures and kills innocent people.

Why is it against the morals of the president to fund embryonic stem cell research with govt. funds, but there is no governmental outcry against private funded research.

Why is it that gay marriage is such an important issue, that we need a constitutional ammendment, but, then the President says he supports Gay Civil Unions and does not agree with the Republican platform in that regard.

Does anyone else see a bit of hypocrisy here. Bush always says Kerry flip flops, Doesn't Bush do the same. I think he does.

Bush isn't Catholicl, so what's your point?

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I don't get the jist about Bushie and the Catholics but I would like to state my opinion as far as Stem Cell Research and being a Democratic Catholic....

It freakin' SUCKS! I cannot go against science, EVER (with-in reason of course).

My dd may need the technology of stem cell research to keep her alive someday. I might need it, for goodness sakes.

My take on this is that the Catholic Church is DEAD WRONG. What was JESUS...a HEALER of the SICK!!!! To me this is a no brainer.

While I do not agree with abortion on a personal level, I do not think abolishing or making it illegal is the way to go either. That is up for the unending debate that I don't have an answer for.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
A little bit of catholic discussion, as well as general discussion.

Why is it a sin to use embryo stem cells, but not a sin to make them, and freeze them, with little to no intention of use.

Dunno. Ask the Pope

Why is it a mortal sin to vote for someone who supports abortion, but it is not a sin to vote for someone who supports the death penalty.

Dunno. Ask the Pope

Why is it not a sin if you support someone who engages in a preemptive war, without justification, and that action injures and kills innocent people.

Read the Bible. War is not a sin. The commandment literally translated, means thou shalt not Murder. There is a difference

Why is it against the morals of the president to fund embryonic stem cell research with govt. funds, but there is no governmental outcry against private funded research.

I don't think it's a moral issue, it's more of a is this the right use of tax dollars issue. At least in my mind. Ask yourself this: Why is there very little VC funding going towards embryonic stem cell research vs adult stem cell research. Could it be there is more promise in adult stem cell research? Embryonic stem cell reasearch has not yielding anything today when compared to adult stem cell research. Fund what is showing promise.

Why is it that gay marriage is such an important issue, that we need a constitutional ammendment, but, then the President says he supports Gay Civil Unions and does not agree with the Republican platform in that regard.

Because there is a societal difference between marriage and civil unions. I'll ask why civil unions, if they can be obtained without legal costs, not the solution for gays, provided it affords them the same BENEFITS of marriage?

 

[dennis99ss]

I meant no connection between Bush and catholics. In fact, I believe that, to some extent, Bush is actually anti-catholic by being extremely pro-christian right. Of course, another debate for another time.

But, the catholic stance on stem cells simply morphed into the Bush position on them, and they are similar in a couple of ways. They are both short sighted, in my opinion, and are noth made fopr political gain, without being based on a logical foundation. How can the cardinals be so opposed to one form of death, and not have the same vigor for another form. How can Bush be morally outraged at one form of death, i.e govt. funded embryonic stem cell research, and not as to privately funded research.

The abortion statement was not for an abortion debate as to if it right or wrong. I personally believe it is wrong. However, it was made for the illustration that, while Bush, and to the extent that catholic cardinals have spoken on the abortion issue in this election, come out and declare that the killing in abortion is one of the greatest form of evil, while at the same time, pursuing programs that encourage the death penalty, reeks of being hypocritical.

With regards to the war comment, i was refering to the recent letter from the Vatican that dodged the current US discussions regarding sin, while at the same time questioning the moral right for the US to become engaged in Iraq. Again, from the Church, and from Bush's, perspective, how can you be steadfast agaisnt one form of killing the innocent, and complacent, or, even encouraging, another.

I am a catholic, but believe the catholic cardinal/bishops' entrance into the political arena is very il conceived, and further, that this entrance into the political arena has caused it to take positions which are inconsistent with its teachings, and that this inconsistency can be compared to the inconsistencies within the Bush administration on the same issues.

 

[Bichon Barb]

Quote: "I don't think it's a moral issue, it's more of a is this the right use of tax dollars issue. At least in my mind. Ask yourself this: Why is there very little VC funding going towards embryonic stem cell research vs adult stem cell research. Could it be there is more promise in adult stem cell research? Embryonic stem cell reasearch has not yielding anything today when compared to adult stem cell research. Fund what is showing promise. "


Are you sure about that?

Cystic fibrosis stem cells made

By Paul Rincon
BBC News Online science staff, at the BA festival



The team was the first to grow human embryonic stem cells in the UK
The first human stem cell line with the mutation for cystic fibrosis (CF) has been developed by UK researchers.
The cells could help the development of treatments for the disease, which affects more than 7,000 British people.

Dr Stephen Minger of King's College London said the cell lines would be useful because animal models for CF had not proved applicable.

Three people a week die from CF in the UK. The research was presented at the BA Festival of Science in Exeter.

The disease causes an abnormally thick, sticky mucus to be produced in the body, causing chronic inflammation of the lungs leading to life-threatening infections.

"I think if you can take embryonic stem cells and you can differentiate them into epithelium [lung tissue] then you have a cell type which will be physiologically relevant," Dr Minger told the British Association's annual meeting.

"People have been trying to make animal models of CF for years and they haven't been very good. So my hope is that these would be useful."

No access

The King's team cultured cell lines homozygous - possessing two identical forms (alleles) of a specific gene - for the delta-508 mutation, the most common genetic mutation associated with cystic fibrosis.

We've had a couple of researchers from the US who have wanted to gain access to these cell lines, but they have been told by their universities: 'under no circumstances'

Dr Stephen Minger
This is a three-base pair deletion, when a part of a chromosome or DNA code is missing, which means a protein does not fold properly and does not make it through the membranes of cells.

"Despite that they seem to be analogous to all our other stem cell lines in their behaviour and phenotype," said Dr Minger.

"We've had a couple of researchers from the US who have wanted to gain access to these cell lines, but they have been told by their universities: 'under no circumstances'."

 

[Bichon Barb]

BTW, full article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3639126.stm

 

[FloraFauna]

I am Catholic and as far as I know, the church is not for IVF.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

I am non-religious and I don't care at all about this issue one way or the other. There's nothing either candidate could do with this issue that would mean anything to me.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
A little bit of catholic discussion, as well as general discussion.

Why is it a sin to use embryo stem cells, but not a sin to make them, and freeze them, with little to no intention of use.

The Church is against IVF also.

Why is it a mortal sin to vote for someone who supports abortion, but it is not a sin to vote for someone who supports the death penalty.

The Church is against the death penalty also.

Why is it not a sin if you support someone who engages in a preemptive war, without justification, and that action injures and kills innocent people.

Why is it against the morals of the president to fund embryonic stem cell research with govt. funds, but there is no governmental outcry against private funded research.

Why is it that gay marriage is such an important issue, that we need a constitutional ammendment, but, then the President says he supports Gay Civil Unions and does not agree with the Republican platform in that regard.

Does anyone else see a bit of hypocrisy here. Bush always says Kerry flip flops, Doesn't Bush do the same. I think he does.

As to these issues, they aren't Catholic issues. (Not a sin to start a war, the president isn't Catholic, etc.)

 

[dennis99ss]

There is a big difference between the church being against something, and the church coming out and stating that it is a mortal sin to vote for a candidate who is for a certain issue. The issue is the hypocrisy that the church has shown on this issue. It is a mortal sin to vote for kerry, who will not vote against abortion, but it is not a mortal sin to vote for Bush, who starts a preemptive action, possible kills 100,000 people, and supports the death penalty. If the church is going to come out and publicly state that it is a sin to vote for someone based upon his stance on a church teaching, the similar teachings, i.e death penalty, innocent death, etc. should be treated the same. Regarding IVF, why does the church not come out against Bush's dtance on the 71 lines that he allows use with? If you believe it is killing, why is one killing deserving of greater rights than another.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Regarding IVF, why does the church not come out against Bush's dtance on the 71 lines that he allows use with? If you believe it is killing, why is one killing deserving of greater rights than another.

I am pretty sure that the Pope has spoken out about this.

There is a big difference between the church being against something, and the church coming out and stating that it is a mortal sin to vote for a candidate who is for a certain issue. The issue is the hypocrisy that the church has shown on this issue. It is a mortal sin to vote for kerry, who will not vote against abortion, but it is not a mortal sin to vote for Bush, who starts a preemptive action, possible kills 100,000 people, and supports the death penalty. If the church is going to come out and publicly state that it is a sin to vote for someone based upon his stance on a church teaching, the similar teachings, i.e death penalty, innocent death, etc. should be treated the same.

There are differences with the Church on Death penalty and abortion. The Church is against the death penalty, however recognizes the fact that it, in rare circumstances, is a necesity. (Can probably find the exacts in the Catechism).

Abortion, on the other hand, is never justifiable, hence the reason to vote for a candidate that supports that would be a sin. So, I don't see the hypocrisy. (are we still talking about Bush or is this more a debate about Catholic theology now?? )

 

[BuckNaked]

Just to clarify something, there is federal funding for stem cell research. Not as much as you would like perhaps, but there is funding. Also, the President may be against additional federal funding, but he realizes that what people do with their own money, so long as they aren't breaking the law, is none of the federal government's business.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
A little bit of catholic discussion, as well as general discussion.

Why is it a sin to use embryo stem cells, but not a sin to make them, and freeze them, with little to no intention of use.

Why is it a mortal sin to vote for someone who supports abortion, but it is not a sin to vote for someone who supports the death penalty.

Why is it not a sin if you support someone who engages in a preemptive war, without justification, and that action injures and kills innocent people.

Why is it against the morals of the president to fund embryonic stem cell research with govt. funds, but there is no governmental outcry against private funded research.

Why is it that gay marriage is such an important issue, that we need a constitutional ammendment, but, then the President says he supports Gay Civil Unions and does not agree with the Republican platform in that regard.

Does anyone else see a bit of hypocrisy here. Bush always says Kerry flip flops, Doesn't Bush do the same. I think he does.

Why won't a Jehovah's Witness take a blood transfusion even to save their life?

Why won't a Christian Scientist use a Docotor to save the life of their child, only prayer?

Why won't (I think it's the Dutch Reformed Church) buy insurance?

Why will a Muslim goto hell if they touch a pig, even accidentially?

It's called faith, either you've got it or you don't.

I believe a fertilized embryo is life, whether in-vitro or in-vivo. So I believe it deserves alot more 'respect' than a line of cell cultures, or a white mouse.

And all of you who believe Stem Cell research is the holy grail (and it MAY be) don't forget other recent holy grails:

Laetrle (spelled wrong), Interferon, HIV medication cocktail was supposed to be a cure, it lowered viral loads below detection (atleast back then) Fetal cell transfer (Failed misserably for parkinsonism). So you're better off hoping for Kerry to lay hands on you for healing.

And if you accept Stem Cell Research, then what about cloning, grow a new kidney for yourself, new corneas, or a bone marrow transplant for your child, and then what, grind the leftovers into cattle feed?

I don't have the answers either, but beware the hype, Stem Cells may not be the final solution.

-Tony

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Originally posted by snarfer1

I don't have the answers either, but beware the hype, Stem Cells may not be the final solution.

-Tony

Who said anything about final solutions. I sure didn't. But I do know that science must move forward. We have to explore and continue to evolve. It is human nature.

 

[dennis99ss]

There are two things here...Not the fact that these practices are against Church teaching. It is the way the church (or, better said, certain members of the US Church, namely, Denver,St. Louis) has highlighted a specific practice as being a greater evil than others, when there are other equal evils in existence. Even if the Church condones the death penalty at times, it does not condone the death penalty as it is used in the US. As a result, why is it not a mortal sin to vote for a candidate with views on the death penatly as opposeed to abortion. If it is a sin to kill, and it is a sin to vote for those who support abortion, then it should necessarily be a sin to vote for those who are for any kind of stem cell research, death pebnalty beyond what the church says is ok, etc. The minority have not taken this stance, because to do so would mean they would necessarily have to come out against Bush.

You are right, the Pope has spoken on it. Why is it not a sin to vote for the man (either candidate) who is in support of it.

 

[ellyn2000]

We can either abstain from voting altogether or search our own hearts and minds and vote for the candidate that most represents our convictions. That means my personal convictions. I have only one vote and one opinion, so I question everything and make the best choice I can. Although I may disagree with someone about a political issue, if they are serious about their opinion, I totally respect that. I'm responsible for my single vote. If I disagree with my denomination - that's something I'll take responsiblilty for and cast my vote with my convictions. That I can live with.