Stem Cell & Religious Right

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2006-11-16 06:07pm

I reallly do not understand the religious rights hatred for stem cell research. I have read some of the arguments but I just cannot understand it at all. I can understand the anti-abortion argument of "It is going to be a person" even though I don't agree with it. The stem cells, whatever their source, is just a bunch of cells. Can anyone realy understand it?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-11-16 06:54pm

Yeah, they think they have a soul, hence it's killing someone.

Sikon · Post by **Sikon** » 2006-11-16 07:13pm

It is a matter of believing a soul exists from the moment of conception and believing that constitutes a human being, even if one is talking about a fertilized egg cell or an embryo with no brain. Some also may believe in a slippery slope, believing that using stem cells leads to infanticide, etc.

Probably most do not really believe the preceding very strongly. Few people seem to be concerned about reducing the rate of natural miscarriages. Such is inconsistent with them truely thinking of each fertilized egg cell as a human being, since most people desire to prevent millions of human deaths even if from natural causes. Likewise, in a hypothetical scenario where they had to make the choice, few would probably really choose to save a petri dish with several fertilized egg cells instead of saving a child.

However, no strong belief is necessary to influence political views, particularly not when combined with an emotional response against "baby-killers" and "treating human beings as expendable parts." They fear "lack of respect for human life, treating humans as commodities."

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2006-11-16 07:42pm

Rye wrote:Yeah, they think they have a soul, hence it's killing someone.

But if we're talking about embryos which are no longer wanted -- which are what the researchers want to use -- then what's the argument? I suppose they might make a "slippery slope" appeal, that if we can use the available embryos we'll eventually start making new ones solely for research.

No, if we're going to not perform research using embryonic stem cells then logically we have to close down fertility clinics too. You can't argue for one without arguing for both.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2006-11-16 08:01pm

On a purely esoteric level, I get the argument about the soul. What I don't get is how it translates into political action, especially when so many people on the religious right seem hell bent on supporting the death penalty.

I guess my question is this - how much of religious devotion or spirituality can be strictly measured by adherence to doctrine? That seems to be the crux of the matter, really. It wouldn't make any fucking sense to believe that a soul comes into being from the moment of conception unless that soul could be linked directly to a physical component. That physical component would thus have to be susceptible to influences from good or evil from the very beginning I think for people to really care about it, and I think that's where the application of religious doctrine comes into play.

I'm by no means an expert or even very well-read on religious matters, but if humans have the ability to tell if someone is going to heaven or hell or paradise or whatever based on their devotion or respect of commonly held religious laws and doctrine, than I think the key would be how doctrine influences birth. I could be talking out of my ass, but it's just a line of thought I had.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-11-16 08:05pm

Another thing that befuddles me is why this has been the cause of Christian fundamentalists in particular. I mean, the gay-bashing I can understand, as it's actually in the bible, but what about stem-cell research is actually addressed in that book?

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2006-11-16 09:56pm

Religious fanatics apparently think a person can exist even without a brain.

Oddly enough, the only credible evidence as yet for this view is their own persistence in arguing that point...

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-11-17 12:30am

wolveraptor wrote:Another thing that befuddles me is why this has been the cause of Christian fundamentalists in particular. I mean, the gay-bashing I can understand, as it's actually in the bible, but what about stem-cell research is actually addressed in that book?

You're forgetting that Knowledge, or rather, humans possessing knowledge, somehow threatens or offends the Inivisible Cloud-Being. It's established in scripture as well as by the writings of theologians such as St. Augustine and Martin Luther. Man must not presume to "tamper in God's domain", as the argument runs.

But on a more basic, temporal level, there is the plain fact that science threatens religion: not only because it shows that religious claims are bunk but also because the tangible miracles wrought by science can displace the alleged biblical ones by orders of magnitude and bring about a better world in the process. As I said before in another thread —religion can only thrive in an environment of human misery and if science takes that away, it also takes away the motivation for turning to the Invisible Cloud-Being for help and guidance.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-11-17 12:42am

SCRawl wrote:No, if we're going to not perform research using embryonic stem cells then logically we have to close down fertility clinics too. You can't argue for one without arguing for both.

Careful. A lot of fundamentalist morons wouldn't have a problem with that. Some of them actually see things like fertility drugs, artificial insemination, etc. as a perversion of God's will. "God set it up to conceive through sexual intercourse between a married man and woman and thats the way its going to stay. You can't go around playing God. If you or your spouse are infertile, thats the way God wants it. You should just adopt." yadda, yadda, yadda.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2006-11-17 07:14am

To reinforce Servo's point, Dr Kast, Bush's head of the Bioethics Council, is intensely against 'unnatural' forms of reproduction.

. . .Im double checking the name, because I cant find him on wiki; however, he was mentioned in my ethics class when we were examining the naturalistic fallacy.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2006-11-17 07:17am

I hate to repost, but the edit policy hates me.

The man is Kass, and he was chairman up to the yr 2005. http://www.bioethics.gov/about/kass.html
The books he is listed to have written include "Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics" (2002); and "The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis" (2003).

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-11-17 08:06am

SCRawl wrote: But if we're talking about embryos which are no longer wanted -- which are what the researchers want to use -- then what's the argument? I suppose they might make a "slippery slope" appeal, that if we can use the available embryos we'll eventually start making new ones solely for research.

2 things:

1) The Christian Reich are ignorant of where the embryoes come from and precisely what happens to them (often this is intentional on behalf of their pastors who give them these opinions to uphold in the first place).

2) A lot of them are against the destruction of any embryoes, they think that we should keep them on ice forever.

No, if we're going to not perform research using embryonic stem cells then logically we have to close down fertility clinics too. You can't argue for one without arguing for both.

A lot of them feel that way, and by the same token are against contraception and a load of other things.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-11-17 01:29pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:I hate to repost, but the edit policy hates me.

The man is Kass, and he was chairman up to the yr 2005. http://www.bioethics.gov/about/kass.html
The books he is listed to have written include "Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics" (2002); and "The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis" (2003).

In other words, he's a creationist idiot. Oh wait, thats a redundant term. Sorry.