Embryonic Stem Cell research

[Miracle Storm]

But also allows us to suffer in our own arrogance

Romans 1:28 And because they thought it was worthless to acknowledge God, God allowed their own immoral minds to control them. So they do these indecent things.

Ezekiel 20:25 I also allowed them to follow laws that were no good and rules by which they could not live.

Putting stock in people who categorically deny God is foolish.

Obadiah 1:3 The pride of your heart has deceived you, dwelling in the clefts of the rock; his dwelling is lofty, saying in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?

Jeremiah 49:16 Your dreadfulness has deceived you, the pride of your heart, you who live in the clefts of the rock, who hold the height of the hill. Though you should make your nest as high as the eagle, I will bring you down from there, declares Jehovah.

Jeremiah 10:14 Every man is stupid from lack of knowledge; every refiner is put to shame by the carved image. For his molten image is a lie and no breath is in them.

And one of the smartest man to have ever lived said in a speech that his greatest work was done by trying to find "the Gardner at work"

[SIZE=-1]I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things. 26[/SIZE]

Excerpted from:

Einstein and God

By Thomas Torrance

I cannot and will not trust those who seek to deny God through their work, and so neither would Einstein whom I may disagree with certain aspects of his faith, at least he was seeking God, and just understood that he would never be able to understand all there was to understand, in his humbleness he conquered the greatest stumbling block for thinkers of any era.

I respect your opinions and admire your passion for what you believe is truth or right. But honestly I have to say you have no idea of knowing if these scientist seek to deny God through their work or rather show the glory of God throuh their work.
You said it is foolishness to put your faith in anyone who denies God
"putting stock in people who catagorically deny God is foolishness."

I am pretty sure you do it pretty often...or either you deal with these people and leave your faith in God that everything will be right.
Just as my faith is in God using these researchers for a better qualty of life for so many..

Do you go to the grocery and buy food? do you know the religion of everyone who touches the food you will eat? The farmers, factory workers processing your food, stockers, cashiers? I'd say you do not, yet you buy the food having faith in God that your food will be untainted. Maybe your faith is not in all the people that have had a hand in getting that food to you, and I would suspect you don't consider it foolishness to eat it...?

Just as I know it is not faith in the scientists to bring forth cures, but God.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Just as I know it is not faith in the scientists to bring forth cures, but God.

Scientist might find a cure, but it does not mean that God is okay with the way they go about finding it. Especially in this situation when they have to create and mimic what goes on at conception and then destroy the life (I'm going to call them life regardless of others view points about this). And not only that, it doesn't even mean that God is going to bring it into fruition. We don't know if it is God's will for us to find cures for everything because the death and diseases are a part of what occurred in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. He promised us that we shall surely die. But God do know that we are a curious bunch and that uncertainty of His knowledge for us in finding cures isn't going to stop us from trying to find that cure. But we cannot think that simply because we are in a pursuit to find cures in this area of embryonic stem cell research, it means that God is pleased. He allows a lot of things to happen, doesn't mean He's okay with what is happening.

And I understand that we could make a positive spin and say that maybe God is pleased with this, but when we get into the area of destroying human life to somehow stop physical suffering and try and prolong the life of others, I would be extremely weary and cautious of what I think would please God.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Scientist might find a cure, but it does not mean that God is okay with the way they go about finding it. Especially in this situation when they have to create and mimic what goes on at conception and then destroy the life (I'm going to call them life regardless of others view points about this). And not only that, it doesn't even mean that God is going to bring it into fruition. We don't know if it is God's will for us to find cures for everything because the death and diseases are a part of what occurred in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. He promised us that we shall surely die. But God do know that we are a curious bunch and that uncertainty of His knowledge for us in finding cures isn't going to stop us from trying to find that cure. But we cannot think that simply because we are in a pursuit to find cures in this area of embryonic stem cell research, it means that God is pleased. He allows a lot of things to happen, doesn't mean He's okay with what is happening.

And I understand that we could make a positive spin and say that maybe God is pleased with this, but when we get into the area of destroying human life to somehow stop physical suffering and try and prolong the life of others, I would be extremely weary and cautious of what I think would please God.

And that is the very root of the entire arguement.
Some believe it is "human life" others believe it is embryonic "cells"
In a way it is "human life", the cells are alive and are human.
I will concede these cells have the full potential of becoming human beings, but at the point used they are nothing more than cells. And again they are not being taken out of the mother's womb, but are an egg and sperm combined in a dish.
Morally, ethically I don't know how God feels on the subject. I don't think anyone can know for certain. I do believe That God loves people and doesn't want them to suffer. I don't believe that these cells are people, but only have the potential of becoming people if they were implanted into a womb, but until the cells were given that chance they are only cells.
A seed is not a tree and cannot become a tree if never planted, watered,recieved sunlight and time to grow...it is only a seed with the potential of becoming a a tree, but certainly not....just imho.

 

[Arob]

Why don't more researchers focus on the stem cells found in the umbilical cords that are otherwise going to be thrown away?

This blood has stem cells that can be extracted and stored in a blood bank.

There is no moral stigma or ethical issue associated with that... is there?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

And that is the very root of the entire arguement.
Some believe it is "human life" others believe it is embryonic "cells"
In a way it is "human life", the cells are alive and are human.
I will concede these cells have the full potential of becoming human beings, but at the point used they are nothing more than cells. And again they are not being taken out of the mother's womb, but are an egg and sperm combined in a dish.
Morally, ethically I don't know how God feels on the subject. I don't think anyone can know for certain. I do believe That God loves people and doesn't want them to suffer. I don't believe that these cells are people, but only have the potential of becoming people if they were implanted into a womb, but until the cells were given that chance they are only cells.
A seed is not a tree and cannot become a tree if never planted, watered,recieved sunlight and time to grow...it is only a seed with the potential of becoming a a tree, but certainly not....just imho.

I don't know anywhere in scripture that says God doesn't want mankind to physically suffer. I know that He doesn't want us to suffer eternal punishment, He had His Son die on the cross because He loved us so. And He provided a way for salvation because of it, and when we believe and baptize in the blood of His Son, we have eternal life. But I do know that scripture talks about suffering as trials and tribulations that showcase God's strength when we lean on Him. I know He does not rejoice in our physical suffering but I know He does a great work through it. When Christ came to this earth, we saw Him heal the blind, the leper, the dying, the spiritually dead, whom came to Him in faith (and this is not an exhaustive list because Christ did many miracles to many different people whom came to Him in faith) but Christ did not give us a cure for the blind, leper, crippled and physical death. He gave us a cure for those whom was and are spiritually dead. And believe me, I understand the want to be relieved of physical suffering I watch my brother go through his sickle cell anemia crisis and I always prayed I could take that away from him but through his physical suffering I have seen God work through him. Scripture showcase Christ relieving people of physical suffering and if we can come up with cures for these disease that's great, but not at the expense of loosing a life.

Suffering gets a bad rap and believe me, I understand why it has that reputation, but suffering physically isn't always a bad thing. God's strength is shown throughout when we lean on Him.

1 Peter 4:19
Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.


1 Peter 5:10
But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you.

Rev 2:10 (Though this suffering is specific)
Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

They are many more passages that deal with suffering, I just wanted to post these.


And it doesn't matter if the fertilization happens outside the body of the mother's womb or a petra dish (please don't assume anything about my opinions on IVF here), an egg and a sperm will always be an egg and a sperm if it is not planted. But when the egg and the sperm come together and give rise to a unique DNA, it is planted. It's not just any other cell that is growing. You can take any one of my cells and do a DNA test and it matches up with me genetically (unless I am a chimera) but you take that particular cell that has fertilized you will get a different genetic code. And if scientist thought that any cell would do, they would use other cells.

The only way it becomes an embryonic stem cell is if the cell is fertilized and is in the process of growth. If we had embryonic stem cells in our bodies, like adult stem cells and all the scientist had to do was go inside our bodies and scrape it out, I would not have a problem with the research (unless they did something immoral) it's just the fact that the babies HAVE to die is what bothers me so much about it. God's design for the embryonic stem cells is for it to grow and nurture in the mother's wombs, forming their baby parts so they can survive here on earth and disrupting that design for our gain causes me a lot of uneasiness when it comes to God being pleased with what we are doing.


Miracle Storm I want to thank you for taking time out and reading this, and while you challenge me, you don't set my opinions aside and say "oh, that's just another conservative person speaking, her opinions don't matter", you have truly been great throughout all of this.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Why don't more researchers focus on the stem cells found in the umbilical cords that are otherwise going to be thrown away?

This blood has stem cells that can be extracted and stored in a blood bank.

There is no moral stigma or ethical issue associated with that... is there?

I totally agree, someone else brought that up in this thread. I really can't figure out why there is not more research being done on umbilical cord stem cells.
there probably is, but just not as much publicity because not as controversial..

I don't know anywhere in scripture that says God doesn't want mankind to physically suffer. I know that He doesn't want us to suffer eternal punishment, He had His Son die on the cross because He loved us so. And He provided a way for salvation because of it, and when we believe and baptize in the blood of His Son, we have eternal life. But I do know that scripture talks about suffering as trials and tribulations that showcase God's strength when we lean on Him. I know He does not rejoice in our physical suffering but I know He does a great work through it. When Christ came to this earth, we saw Him heal the blind, the leper, the dying, the spiritually dead, whom came to Him in faith (and this is not an exhaustive list because Christ did many miracles to many different people whom came to Him in faith) but Christ did not give us a cure for the blind, leper, crippled and physical death. He gave us a cure for those whom was and are spiritually dead. And believe me, I understand the want to be relieved of physical suffering I watch my brother go through his sickle cell anemia crisis and I always prayed I could take that away from him but through his physical suffering I have seen God work through him. Scripture showcase Christ relieving people of physical suffering and if we can come up with cures for these disease that's great, but not at the expense of loosing a life.

Suffering gets a bad rap and believe me, I understand why it has that reputation, but suffering physically isn't always a bad thing. God's strength is shown throughout when we lean on Him.

I can agree with part of wht you said, suffering (in my case anyways) has probably built character..
On the other hand with all the medicines we use, pain relievers such as advil to relieve headache or other pains. Antibiotics to cure illnesses such as strep throat or other infections...I choose to believe that God used people and scientist to alleviate other people's suffering and save lives.
As far as losing a life, I personally don't believe the stem cells are a "life" at least not in the way I suspect you do. I certainly understand your perspective though since I am against abortion for the most part say 99.999999 percent..

1 Peter 4:19
Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.


1 Peter 5:10
But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you.

Rev 2:10 (Though this suffering is specific)
Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

They are many more passages that deal with suffering, I just wanted to post these.


And it doesn't matter if the fertilization happens outside the body of the mother's womb or a petra dish (please don't assume anything about my opinions on IVF here), an egg and a sperm will always be an egg and a sperm if it is not planted. But when the egg and the sperm come together and give rise to a unique DNA, it is planted. It's not just any other cell that is growing. You can take any one of my cells and do a DNA test and it matches up with me genetically (unless I am a chimera) but you take that particular cell that has fertilized you will get a different genetic code. And if scientist thought that any cell would do, they would use other cells.

I didn't say the cells were not special/unique or like any other cells...if they were they wouldn't be of any use. What I said is they are just cells that have potential to be a human life, but they are not human, not people..only cells.

The only way it becomes an embryonic stem cell is if the cell is fertilized and is in the process of growth. If we had embryonic stem cells in our bodies, like adult stem cells and all the scientist had to do was go inside our bodies and scrape it out, I would not have a problem with the research (unless they did something immoral) it's just the fact that the babies HAVE to die is what bothers me so much about it. God's design for the embryonic stem cells is for it to grow and nurture in the mother's wombs, forming their baby parts so they can survive here on earth and disrupting that design for our gain causes me a lot of uneasiness when it comes to God being pleased with what we are doing.

Again I understand your POV, but I don't see the cells as a baby, just as I don't see a seed as a tree.

Miracle Storm I want to thank you for taking time out and reading this, and while you challenge me, you don't set my opinions aside and say "oh, that's just another conservative person speaking, her opinions don't matter", you have truly been great throughout all of this.

I much more appreciate a sharing of ideas, rather than arguements where either one or neither listens...there is no unity in that.

 

[rcorlew]

My point is the scientists are in the stem cell research field are implying that there are people dying to day because of a lack of funding, lack of support and a bunch of pro-lifers who would rather see Christopher Reeves and Michael J Fox die than allow a human to be created in a test tube so they can harvest stem cells from it. How many people if given this choice would take it:

"Hey lady, you are pregnant now and you want to have your baby right?" says a masked man holding a pistol to the clerk head.

"Yeah, yeah, anything, just don't hurt him, he didn't do anything" she cries out.

'So you want him to live too then, why he doesn't mean anything to you, he's just a clerk" he rants back at her. Now he takes that pistol and jabs it in her stomach and squeezes the trigger.

The moral, why did the baby have to die so the clerk who the lady did not know could go on living? Doesn't make any sense right, neither does fertilizing a human egg only to destroy it 8 days later when they can harvest stem cells from the patient to receive the treatments. A friend of mine is having that very procedure done, and she will not reject them as is the case with transplants from other people.

They will keep chasing this rabbit until they get tired of it and then find a new rabbit to chase. Those scientists are a funny lot indeed, they have to keep changing their text books because they change their theories, but my Bible hasn't changed and neither has my God. The more those scientists change their theories, the more they end up supporting my hypothesis that they really have no idea what they are talking about in the first place.

I bet they feel a lot like Elmer Fudd, be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting wabbits.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I can agree with part of wht you said, suffering (in my case anyways) has probably built character..
On the other hand with all the medicines we use, pain relievers such as advil to relieve headache or other pains. Antibiotics to cure illnesses such as strep throat or other infections...I choose to believe that God used people and scientist to alleviate other people's suffering and save lives.
As far as losing a life, I personally don't believe the stem cells are a "life" at least not in the way I suspect you do. I certainly understand your perspective though since I am against abortion for the most part say 99.999999 percent..

I don't mean that God is not okay with us finding cures, I said I don't think in the case of embryonic stem cells, because of the way an embryonic stem cell is formed, that God would be happy with us pursuit that research. Particularly that the life that embryonic stem cell is growing would have to die simply so we no longer have physical suffering.
Matthew 9:12 says "When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick."
Christ doesn't reprimand physicians and I too believe that God uses doctors for His purpose, but I don't think that physical suffering (illness) is such a bad thing that God would want others to die simply so others no longer suffer physical illnesses.

I didn't say the cells were not special/unique or like any other cells...if they were they wouldn't be of any use. What I said is they are just cells that have potential to be a human life, but they are not human, not people..only cells.

"but until the cells were given that chance they are only cells".

Those cells were given that chance, they are fertilized. They might be a cell for a few days but that cell and the way they will form is how we know that the human life began. For if they were not first those cells and then grown in the womb, which God has designed, then they would never be able to take their first breath and survive on earth. There is no other way, that we know, that life begins and grows for humans. The embryonic stem cell is the first stop...it is not "potential to be a human life", it is life and if we leave nature to take it's course, they will even look like a mini version of us when they are born.

"Again I understand your POV, but I don't see the cells as a baby, just as I don't see a seed as a tree."

This is precisely why me and you have two opposing viewpoints on this matter.

A seed and an embryonic stem cell can not even be compared. A seed that has been planted, received water and sunlight could be compared to the embryonic stem cell. If you want to compare a seed with the "potential to a human life" it would be the egg of a woman or the sperm of the male because neither have been planted and can fertilize and grow. An embryonic stem cell on the other hand has been planted in the sense that it has been fertilized now it needs the womb and nourishment to grow.

 

[Miracle Storm]

My point is the scientists are in the stem cell research field are implying that there are people dying to day because of a lack of funding, lack of support and a bunch of pro-lifers who would rather see Christopher Reeves and Michael J Fox die than allow a human to be created in a test tube so they can harvest stem cells from it. How many people if given this choice would take it:

"Hey lady, you are pregnant now and you want to have your baby right?" says a masked man holding a pistol to the clerk head.

"Yeah, yeah, anything, just don't hurt him, he didn't do anything" she cries out.

'So you want him to live too then, why he doesn't mean anything to you, he's just a clerk" he rants back at her. Now he takes that pistol and jabs it in her stomach and squeezes the trigger.

The moral, why did the baby have to die so the clerk who the lady did not know could go on living?

First off in your story this is a pregnant woman who wants the cells to develop into a baby I would assume. And depending on how far along she is, heart beating, blood flowing, fingers and toes ect it is already a human life/baby. This is not the case for embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic cells used are only going to be disposed of anyways. Plus in your story it requires another woman to be shot in the stomach.. So this is not comparable.

Doesn't make any sense right, neither does fertilizing a human egg only to destroy it 8 days later when they can harvest stem cells from the patient to receive the treatments. A friend of mine is having that very procedure done, and she will not reject them as is the case with transplants from other people.

They will keep chasing this rabbit until they get tired of it and then find a new rabbit to chase. Those scientists are a funny lot indeed, they have to keep changing their text books because they change their theories, but my Bible hasn't changed and neither has my God. The more those scientists change their theories, the more they end up supporting my hypothesis that they really have no idea what they are talking about in the first place.

I bet they feel a lot like Elmer Fudd, be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting wabbits.

They may. I am sure many felt like they were chasing their own tails even when they are on the verge of something great. Many spectaclar things have been accomplished from "chasing rabbit"

I don't mean that God is not okay with us finding cures, I said I don't think in the case of embryonic stem cells, because of the way an embryonic stem cell is formed, that God would be happy with us pursuit that research. Particularly that the life that embryonic stem cell is growing would have to die simply so we no longer have physical suffering.
Matthew 9:12 says "When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick."
Christ doesn't reprimand physicians and I too believe that God uses doctors for His purpose, but I don't think that physical suffering (illness) is such a bad thing that God would want others to die simply so others no longer suffer physical illnesses.

If there was someone who had to die I would be against it as well. But as is there is no person who dies. Embryos are human genetic material, but not yet human. You can have cloth, but still not have a dress. You can have paper, but not have a dictionary, you can have seeds, but not have flowers or trees...you can have all the ingredients for a meal combined, yet it is not cooked.
There is a process the embryo has to go through to grow into a human. These embryos will never be allowed to develop into human beings beause they will be disposed of if not used.
I know you do not want to discuss your feelings on in vitro, but it seems to me that is what you should have the real beef with because that is how the embryos are aquired when no one is going to use them except for trash

Those cells were given that chance, they are fertilized. They might be a cell for a few days but that cell and the way they will form is how we know that the human life began. For if they were not first those cells and then grown in the womb, which God has designed, then they would never be able to take their first breath and survive on earth. There is no other way, that we know, that life begins and grows for humans. The embryonic stem cell is the first stop...it is not "potential to be a human life", it is life and if we leave nature to take it's course, they will even look like a mini version of us when they are born.

Again, letting nature take its course in a dish is not going to do much of anything...except the cells will die and be of not use to anyone.
Which is how they are disposed of anyhow, the cells are defrosted.

Again I think your main beef is with the process of in vitro.

This is precisely why me and you have two opposing viewpoints on this matter.

A seed and an embryonic stem cell can not even be compared. A seed that has been planted, received water and sunlight could be compared to the embryonic stem cell. If you want to compare a seed with the "potential to a human life" it would be the egg of a woman or the sperm of the male because neither have been planted and can fertilize and grow. An embryonic stem cell on the other hand has been planted in the sense that it has been fertilized now it needs the womb and nourishment to grow.

I disagree. When it implants into the uterus it would be the equivilent of planting. When it is in the dish it can't grow as it would in the uterus and is not "planted" so to speak. It is a "seed"
A seed planted gets it's nourishment from the soil, with water and oxygen grows into whatever it has the potential to become...and as a seed it always had that potential, but it still was only a seed.

 

[rcorlew]

[/size]
Again, letting nature take its course in a dish is not going to do much of anything...except the cells will die and be of not use to anyone.
Which is how they are disposed of anyhow, the cells are defrosted.

Again I think your main beef is with the process of in vitro.

I disagree. When it implants into the uterus it would be the equivilent of planting. When it is in the dish it can't grow as it would in the uterus and is not "planted" so to speak. It is a "seed"
A seed planted gets it's nourishment from the soil, with water and oxygen grows into whatever it has the potential to become...and as a seed it always had that potential, but it still was only a seed.

I hate to state the obvious, but since binary fission is occurring it is life, and since it is a human that is growing that is human life. You may differ on when you believe that life has rights or whatever, but that does not change the fact that it is human life.

Oddly enough, that life is protected in all 50 states I do believe, as well as in the federal government also. Seems like there are two different standards even in the law itself.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Miracle Storm,
I disagree with the fact with what they are doing to begin with. I am against them mimicking life to destroy it. The scientist still have to use the same scientific process to produce that embryonic stem cell which is sperm and egg. Those two things separately will never give rise to baby but together that starts the process and that's why I'm against it. The uterus house the baby it allow it to grow and be nourished but that uterus is useless for the baby if if the cell is not a fertilized cell. We also know of babies whom have grown outside the uterus does that mean, because it is not in the uterus, it is not a child? No, the determining factor is that fertilized egg. And to say that it is not "of use to anyone" you have to remember that we are the ones whom made this with the research (scientist not us lay people), this is not nature taking it's course, this is humans mimicking God's creation.

Again, I understand that the scientist are doing all of this outside the womb, because they want a controlling environment to get to that blastocyst and they justify what they do simply because it is not in the womb, but I'm sorry they mimic what happens in the womb that is design for a life to be produced and regardless of how they do it I am against it if they have to destroy that life. And I know you do not consider the cell "a life" and that is why I am against this research.

And I should have said this earlier when you first brought up your seed analogy but I'll say it now: I am not asked, from God, to care for a plant (or it's seed) like I am asked to care for and love human beings. I already said that I believe that human life starts at conception and that is why I feel that a seed cannot be compared to a fertilized egg.

I know you do not want to discuss your feelings on in vitro, but it seems to me that is what you should have the real beef with because that is how the embryos are aquired when no one is going to use them except for trash

Unbelievable. I never knew the egg of a women and the sperm of a man could or should be considered trash simply because "know one is going to use it." God put His design in works and they do their job when it is needed...enough said.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Miracle Storm,

I disagree with the fact with what they are doing to begin with. I am against them mimicking life to destroy it. The scientist still have to use the same scientific process to produce that embryonic stem cell which is sperm and egg. Those two things separately will never give rise to baby but together that starts the process and that's why I'm against it. The uterus house the baby it allow it to grow and be nourished but that uterus is useless for the baby if if the cell is not a fertilized cell. We also know of babies whom have grown outside the uterus does that mean, because it is not in the uterus, it is not a child?

Why would it mean that? Beating heart, living body...no longer a seed. Never heard of the process personally...you mean there are really people out there with no belly buttons..

No, the determining factor is that fertilized egg. And to say that it is not "of use to anyone" you have to remember that we are the ones whom made this with the research (scientist not us lay people), this is not nature taking it's course, this is humans mimicking God's creation.

We are creative beings. To say we are mimicking God's creation..That is like saying the inventor of the lightbulb is mimicking God "let there be light"

Again, I understand that the scientist are doing all of this outside the womb, because they want a controlling environment to get to that blastocyst and they justify what they do simply because it is not in the womb, but I'm sorry they mimic what happens in the womb that is design for a life to be produced and regardless of how they do it I am against it if they have to destroy that life. And I know you do not consider the cell "a life" and that is why I am against this research.

And I should have said this earlier when you first brought up your seed analogy but I'll say it now: I am not asked, from God, to care for a plant (or it's seed) like I am asked to care for and love human beings. I already said that I believe that human life starts at conception and that is why I feel that a seed cannot be compared to a fertilized egg.

Do you consider a fertilized chicken egg a chicken or an egg?

Unbelievable. I never knew the egg of a women and the sperm of a man could or should be considered trash simply because "know one is going to use it." God put His design in works and they do their job when it is needed...enough said.

oh boy...dreamergurl it is considered "trash" because that is where it goes when disposed of if not used.
What else do you think the in vitro specialist do with the embryos once they defrost them?

 

[lux et lex]

First, something that was address a little while back about God and scientific research/discovery. How does one discern between God approved research and God disapproved research?

Also, I have to agree with Miracle Storm with regard to these petry dish embryos. If you were to leave it in the dish, i can guarantee you it will not turn into a human. And like Miracle Storm also pointed out...a lot of the "leftovers" from IVF are treated as medical waste once the donors are finished with the procedure. Isn't it better to use them for research then throw them out? I think before banning or revoking funds for embryonic stem cell research is done that extreme reform needs to be done for IVF. Like you must implant everything you take out, for example.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Why would it mean that? Beating heart, living body...no longer a seed. Never heard of the process personally...you mean there are really people out there with no belly buttons..

It's called an ectopic pregnancies and it is rare. And no, they have a belly bottom. But it was probably a bad analogy on my part because the pregnancy is severely life threatening to the mother and child and they have to perform an emergency c-section really soon. And most of the time the baby dies but there are some babies whom are really resistant and make it out alive. But then again, even the babies that don't make it out a live, they are still babies.

We are creative beings. To say we are mimicking God's creation..That is like saying the inventor of the lightbulb is mimicking God "let there be light"

I already said that my problem is the fact that it is a HUMAN being. Christ didn't die for a seed or for light He died for human beings. God put a lot of emphasis on the people and how we are supposed to love them, obviously He cares more for the human than He does the life. I am asked to value life I am not asked to value light (so I do but not in the same way as life). I don't care if scientist mimic any type of God's creation EXCEPT for humans. So in your next post you don't have to ask me if I care that scientist are making a man-man lake or pond, cloning animals or creating different types of hybrids or if I put a lot of weight on that. My consideration is for the human being.

Do you consider a fertilized chicken egg a chicken or an egg?

It is a chicken and it will produce all it's chicken parts when it continue to go through that design. And again, the same thing with plants, I am not asked to care for animals like I am asked to care for human beings. But no, I don't feel bad when I eat the egg for God said it's okay to eat animals and plants.

Genesis 9: 1-4
So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, it's blood.

oh boy...dreamergurl it is considered "trash" because that is where it goes when disposed of if not used.
What else do you think the in vitro specialist do with the embryos once they defrost them?

Boy oh boy... I laughed because I can't believe we consider the egg and sperm trash simply because it is donated and not being used, so we assume "let's use it otherwise it's going to be useless." I know you are talking about the final product which is the fertilized cell, I'm talking about the two cells that needs to come together to produce that cell (sperm and egg). I find it funny that we would consider such a thing as trash...and I can tell you what the specialist can do with the fertilized cells but that's neither the time nor the thread. And I already said that my problem is not with the sperm and egg separately, my problem is when they are combined. I said that I believe it's life at conception and that is when the sperm fertilizes the egg (either in the womb or in the dish). But I'm surprised that you call it an embryo instead of a zygote, because you keep saying that the fertilized cell is not implanted.

I understand that you regard the embryonic stem cell as only a cell and it has the potential to be life but in its state now it is a not life. I understand that you think it's okay for them to use the fertilized cell because it was donated and the scientist are not planning on putting back inside the womb so they can "potentially become a human being". I understand that you do not believe that the scientist are destroying humans because it is not in the uterus for it to grow. I understand all this...I don't agree with any of it.

 

[Miracle Storm]

It's called an ectopic pregnancies and it is rare. And no, they have a belly bottom. But it was probably a bad analogy on my part because the pregnancy is severely life threatening to the mother and child and they have to perform an emergency c-section really soon. And most of the time the baby dies but there are some babies whom are really resistant and make it out alive. But then again, even the babies that don't make it out a live, they are still babies.

baahahahaha
I thought you were saying that embryos had grown to full maturities outside the womb..I was thinking "Man this girl has been watching some sci fi stuff" Just didn't want to say anything...it must have been really late last night.
Glad to see we are both still in the realm of reality.

I have never heard of a baby reaching maturity outside of the uterus, whether in the fallopian tubes or what have you....But yeah fingers, toes, ears and nose that is a body not cells...that is where I believe there is a big difference.

I already said that my problem is the fact that it is a HUMAN being.

I am trying to understand how you see these cells as a human being..What makes the cells a human being in your view?

Christ didn't die for a seed or for light He died for human beings. God put a lot of emphasis on the people and how we are supposed to love them, obviously He cares more for the human than He does the life. I am asked to value life I am not asked to value light (so I do but not in the same way as life). I don't care if scientist mimic any type of God's creation EXCEPT for humans. So in your next post you don't have to ask me if I care that scientist are making a man-man lake or pond, cloning animals or creating different types of hybrids or if I put a lot of weight on that. My consideration is for the human being.

see previous question.

It is a chicken and it will produce all it's chicken parts when it continue to go through that design.

So you don't have scrambled eggs, you have scrambled chicken? Come on now..I have trouble believing that, but if you say so..

And again, the same thing with plants, I am not asked to care for animals like I am asked to care for human beings. But no, I don't feel bad when I eat the egg for God said it's okay to eat animals and plants.

I wasn't referencing chickens and eggs because I wondered if you were okay with eating them..
But if you seen an egg as a chicken then I guess your position makes more sense, but seems a little odd to me.

Genesis 9: 1-4
So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, it's blood.

I don't care what you eat...

Boy oh boy... I laughed because I can't believe we consider the egg and sperm trash simply because it is donated and not being used, so we assume "let's use it otherwise it's going to be useless."

Let me try this again..

I consider it trash because it goes in the trash.

I know you are talking about the final product which is the fertilized cell, I'm talking about the two cells that needs to come together to produce that cell (sperm and egg). I find it funny that we would consider such a thing as trash...and I can tell you what the specialist can do with the fertilized cells but that's neither the time nor the thread. And I already said that my problem is not with the sperm and egg separately, my problem is when they are combined. I said that I believe it's life at conception and that is when the sperm fertilizes the egg (either in the womb or in the dish). But I'm surprised that you call it an embryo instead of a zygote, because you keep saying that the fertilized cell is not implanted.

I am still suprised you call the above a chicken..

I understand that you regard the embryonic stem cell as only a cell and it has the potential to be life but in its state now it is a not life. I understand that you think it's okay for them to use the fertilized cell because it was donated and the scientist are not planning on putting back inside the womb so they can "potentially become a human being". I understand that you do not believe that the scientist are destroying humans because it is not in the uterus for it to grow. I understand all this...I don't agree with any of it.

Didn't ask you to as I don't agree with you either.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I am still suprised you call the above a chicken..

It was supposed to be a joke, though a bad one, because of what I said about the zygote. Though it might sound weird because what I said about the zygote was after the chicken egg, I actually re-edited my post and they were in reverse order and that's why I put egg there...but oh well, bad joke either way.

And I put the quote in Genesis to show why I don't value the fertilized chicken egg as much as I value the life. And again, I said I consider the baby a life at the point that the sperm fertilizes the egg cell. Also for some of the ectopic pregnancies the babies do survive, though I am not sure if all of them are in the womb for full term... I'm not quite sure how long they are in the womb.

 

[Theo Lojan]

I personally believe that stem cell research should not be outlawed in the United States, but whereas it is such a debated issue, the federal government should not provide funds into embryonic stem cell research.

 

[Miracle Storm]

It was supposed to be a joke, though a bad one, because of what I said about the zygote. Though it might sound weird because what I said about the zygote was after the chicken egg, I actually re-edited my post and they were in reverse order and that's why I put egg there...but oh well, bad joke either way.

Well I think we agree to disagree.
I have enjoyed this civil conversation with you.

I personally believe that stem cell research should not be outlawed in the United States, but whereas it is such a debated issue, the federal government should not provide funds into embryonic stem cell research.

You may be right. State to state voting probably makes more sense..
But the federal monies work out well for the researchers and the people who are hoping that there will be many medical breakthroughs..
But in a way I guess it is proabably unfair to the many people who find it unethical without a majority vote..