Media and Stem Cell Research

Liz, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you on the reference you were talking about Golem. You are right- I used an illustration from literature that was a moral story that inspired Mary Shelly to write Frankenstein. It is a connection that I felt was to reach an understanding of why we should not play with God's design and play by his rules. Our best intentions may seem like the way to go- but there are things that we should rememeber- what are the ramifications and the consequences for playing God? As we may be able to learn from fables and literature we may also be able to learn from history. What can we learn from the fall of Rome? What can we learn from Nazi Germany? They took it on themselves to decide who lives and who dies- and they imploded. That's why I used a story from Folklore that warned against "our progress" at another's cost.

Dear Liz, "The problem with discussing such issues as ethics in faith based arenas is that faith based arenas are based on opinion not scientific facts." There are no "scientific facts" in embryonic stem cell research, only hypothesis and at best theory. One fact that all the ditractors on this article seem to be ignoring is how many eggs are needed and where they will come from. That is a scientific dilemma that approaches either slave conditions and at best "womens rights violations." So not only do you compromise life or potential life, you create a market (like abortion is- study planned parenthood) in violating ethical and civil rights of women. I know that is not "scientific" but as a society how do we plan for this? Don't you see- it is the faith-based people who are thinking this out. for ex. your attempt to end embryonic stem cell research based on a myth from a mystical book written a long time ago. An which book are you speaking of? The most reliable

Yikes Stormy, you cut me to the quick! I was not quoting Dobson, I was quoting bio-ethics experts such as Carrie Earll, Dr. Fuzz Ranah. Yes Stormy, transparent is right- they all are very. Most scientists and bio-ethics experts are. You take God out of science - all you have is test tube dust! I have no problem with good science- I'm against actors as spokespeople who play on their diseases to destroy someone else who holds a lower "sophisticated" card. I don't hold much hope for the "sophisticated"- Adolph Hitler went that route too. His justification for the "Master Race" was something you might want to look up yourself.

The problem with discussing such issues as ethics in faith based arenas is that faith based arenas are based on opinion not scientific facts, for ex. your attempt to end embryonic stem cell research based on a myth from a mystical book written a long time ago. Furthermore, the problem with umbilical and adult stem cell research is the cells they will become in the future is already determined and limited to the cells the body only needs to reproduce once the body is completely formed. You can not get brain cells and other cells for body parts which do not continously reproduce once the organ is formed. Your conclusion is misguided.

You are shallow in your thought and illogical in your conclusions. Look up sophistry in the dictionary. Also, do not suppose that you speak for God merely because you can quote talking points from the transparent James Dobson.

The question here is - why would you want to destroy one life to alleviate suffering? The gifting is in the other forms of stem cell research. Umbilical cord and adult stem cell research do not compromise other lives and are plentiful. This has nothing to do with "religion" and should not be a political football either. It should reflect right and wrong and our culture's ability to discern it. Religious dogma is not where I come from. Ethics in science is paramount in relationship to any worldview. It's funny that I didn't write about religious dogma in the article, I only explored ethical considerations. God in history is not fable He is the author of it. Respectfully, denial of that fact is what is distorted thinking and unscientific.

I am so tired of trying to get opponents of ESCR to stop LYING about adult stem cells treating Parkinson's disease. I have Parkinson's disease and this is not true. Why would I decline a treatment unless it was unsuccessful or non-existent? Do you think 1.5 million people enjoy suffering? Such lies destroy the credibility of ESCR opponents who have religious motives for blocking this research.

Jeff - Science and what you call "religion" are not two mutually exclusive entities. Just ask Dr. Ben Carson, a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon who believes in the Lord and witnesses His miracles daily in the field of medicine that he practices. Science and mores and ethics and politics will always be inexorably linked, no matter how much folks like you try to segregate them!

Two things I have to take issue with...first, the political arena is the proper place for discussion of thoughts and ideas, that's what it is for. What does not have a place in sound political discourse is religious dogma. The statement you write "how far our culture is going in the direction of presenting god's truth as fable and scientific hyposthesis as knowledge" illustrates my point. Relgious dogmas have to be treated as fable when in the public arena. In the battle between science and religious traditions, science has ALWAYS been right..byt the way, the earth is not the center of the universe-and it is not flat either!