|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Aug 22, 2004 11:38:31 GMT -6
Pope Thinks. Whoopie Doo!  I have an opinion on everything too.  Pope Condemns Unethical Science, Cloning
Associated Press
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy - Pope John Paul II warned in a statement released Sunday that humanity's speedy progress in science and technology risks overlooking moral values, citing with particular concern experiments in human cloning. The pontiff - in a message written Aug. 6 but released Sunday for the start of a Church-organized meeting on the theme of progress - insisted that advanced research must not become an end in itself. "The results achieved in various fields of science and technology are considered and defended by many as a priori acceptable," he said. "In this way, one ends up expecting that what is technically possible is in itself also ethically good." The pontiff continued: "There is no one who does not see the dramatic and distressing consequences of such pragmatism, which perceives truth and justice as something modeled around the work of man himself. It is sufficient, as one example among others, to consider man's attempt to appropriate the sources of life through experiments in human cloning." John Paul cited this as an example of "the violence with which man tries to appropriate the truth and the just, reducing them to values that he can dispose of freely, that is, without recognizing limits of any kind if not those fixed and continually overcome by technological possibility." The pope has issued condemnations of cloning in the past. At his visit a week ago to the French shrine of Lourdes, he urged that life be "respected from conception to its natural end." Fresh debate over cloning was sparked Aug. 11 when Britain granted its first license for human cloning for stem cell research. The license went to researchers who hope eventually to create insulin-producing cells that could be transplanted into diabetics. Many scientists believe stem cells hold vast promise for treating an array of diseases. Stem cells can potentially grow into any type of human tissue and scientists hope to be able to direct the blank cells to grow into specific cell types needed for transplant Irene |
|
|
|
Post by Extra Man on Aug 22, 2004 17:55:48 GMT -6
Who cares what the Pope says. In his condition he'll be meeting St Peter soon. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Aug 23, 2004 8:48:07 GMT -6
Who cares what the Pope says. In his condition he'll be meeting St Peter soon. ;D  Well that's debatable!  But does anyone really care what the Pope says anymore? He acts like he's some kind of authority from God. Isn't that considered "Fanatical" these days? Anyhow I think stem cell research is a good idea. And as with anything it can always get into the wrong hands but I think it's all a mute point because the knowledge is now out there how to do it. People are probably even doing it for evil purposes already now somewhere that we don't even know about as I'm sure they are already doing stem cell as well as cloning aka "clonaid". Oh well..... Irene  |
|
|
|
Post by Extra Man on Aug 23, 2004 16:13:16 GMT -6
Whats all the fuss about stem cell research? I heard that it was banned in US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Aug 24, 2004 19:13:53 GMT -6
There are actually three types of stem cell research, that I know of. One uses adult stem cells, one uses embryos within a week or two after conception, and the third extracts stem cells from placentas. People aren't opposed to adult or placenta stem cell research, but it's the embryonic stem cell research that has caused all the controversy.
In order to get enough embryonic stem cells for research (or even therapy), scientists have to fertilize eggs in a lab, much like they do in fertility clinics. Extracting the stem cells kills the embryo.
During the first two weeks after conception, it's common for the embryo to leave the woman's body during menstruation, after failing to attach itself to the womb. This is one of the reasons why proponents of embryonic stem cell research say it's ok to do such research.
To date, no one has been helped with embryonic stem cells, while many have actually been helped with adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, so it's hard to tell whether that will change.
Cloning:
As with any type of transplant, it helps if the donor has the same type of genetic makeup, which is why family members are often asked to donate a kidney, for example. This is the big argument in favor for cloning, where the embryo basically becomes a twin of the "parent."
People have been helped with their own stem cells, putting them through some process after being extracted, then injecting them back into their body. There is also a belief that beneficial stem cells can be collected from a placenta, so why create the beginnings of human life, only to destroy it?
There is a lot more information out there about this, but those are pretty much the main points.
|
|
|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Aug 25, 2004 9:14:53 GMT -6
I didn't realize there were three methods. Thanks for presenting them here.
So the embroys are the problem people have because they feel it's a baby? at three weeks?
Cloning I'm not so sure about because I don't understand if the clone has a soul? I mean I've seen the animals and they are normal and do everything all the other animals do so what do you tell a living being that they are a clone? I bet science has already cloned a person in some underground secret location. You can bet they have done it already and are watching their specimen. What a way to live a life for the poor person. Does that sound far fetched?
Irene
|
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Aug 25, 2004 16:08:08 GMT -6
You're welcome, Irene.  Clones would be just as sentient as any other living being of their species, because they would be able to think and love just like anyone else, and they would be just as aware of their existence as anyone else. I think the question is more of whether or not an embryo in that stage of development should have the right to a chance at life, regardless of whether they're a clone or not. So then we come to the neverending debate of "When does life begin?" If those opposed to cloning believe that it begins at conception, then they should also be opposed to the way they do things in fertility clinics. Excess embryos are created everyday in people's pursuit to give birth to their own child, and the "unused" embryos are either frozen for later "use," discarded/incinerated when they are no longer wanted/needed by the couple, or used for embryonic stem cell research. Using these particular embryos for stem cell research is legal, as long as it's done with the consent of the parents. People who are opposed to creating embryos specifically for the purpose of stem cell research, because they consider them a living human being, need to ask themselves if it's ok to create embryos for the purpose of having a baby — knowing that there will be excess embryos created in the process. At least with the research, the embryo's life and death might have a chance of saving someone else's life, while the discarded embryo's life is given no meaning at all. People who are opposed to the "morning after pill" or abortion before the fetus is developed should also have a problem with fertility clinics creating excess embryos for the purpose of having a baby, but I don't hear them screaming at fertility clinics. Not being able to answer the questions of "When does life begin," or, "When is life sentient," I would not allow my eggs to be used for either purpose, just like I would never get an abortion, because then I would have to live with the question of "What if..." |
|
|
|
Post by eirene on Aug 25, 2004 16:36:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by irenetheserene on Aug 25, 2004 16:49:53 GMT -6
Hi Le, Those are all interesting points. I don't feel that life begins at conception so I'm a bit more liberal in my thoughts on the whole idea including birth control. Pretty soon life will begin in the seamen and the woman's egg even before the act of intercourse because those two components are alive and therefore no one should do anything to mess with their seamen or eggs in the human body. Meaning it's wrong to even eat wrong to mess up your hormones because it will affect your eggs. Does that sound insane? Look where the pro life movement has come these past 25 years! It's gotten to ridiculous proportions. This is what I mean about the pro life movement...opposed to the right to take a morning after pill. And who is it that's making up all this? Alot of right wing males. Who thinks up all the stuff woman have to do to prevent pregnancy so that men can enjoy their sex? Men. Do you see the new commercials how women can now have their periods 3 times a year? Who thought up that brilliant damaging idea? Men. When a man and a woman want to have a baby who thinks up all these processes that creates 4 twins? Men. Who has to go to the doctor and have her butt rammed and jammed and prodded? Women. Who does it to them? Mostly men. Are they really doing a man and a woman a favor by giving them all these multiple births? I don't think so. I sure wouldn't want 4 kids all at once --not even two. They call it a miracle. I call it alot of crap and sleepless nights and irritable parents. Irene |
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Aug 25, 2004 19:06:51 GMT -6
That's a good point, Eirene. The Pope wasn't chosen by God, and God doesn't talk to him more than s/he talks to any of us; and considering the way the Catholic church has sheltered their child molestors, I don't have a lot of faith in his "leadership" or opinions. You know, some religions even go so far to say that any form of birth control is wrong, because sex should purely be for conception and nothing else, and even using a condom doesn't give life a chance. By their reasoning, abstinence should be a sin, because it doesn't give the sperm and egg a chance to meet, either.  You ain't kiddin'! |
|
But does anyone really care what the Pope says anymore? He acts like he's some kind of authority from God. Isn't that considered "Fanatical" these days? 
