Sadly, the findings were not as good as they we were first lead to believe. Remember when I said, "CNN reports that a new method has been introduced that would not hurt the embryo in the process!"?...
It seems that the scientists who published this study were not as clear as they could be on how they made this discovery. The researchers republished their work not long after they originally posted it but the news feeds had already picked up on the story and ran with it.
The theory was that they could use a process that takes one cell from an embryo and use it to make stem cells without killing the embryo. What they failed to mention was that they were not sure if it would work so they actually took five or six cells from the embryo for the tests which ended the life of the child.
So the question becomes whether or not we want to condone continued research in this fashion to allow an end result that would be morally acceptable. Will we allow the sin of killing the innocent continue if it will mean that we won't have to kill them anymore?
That is a very tough question to try to answer. I'm not sure I can answer the question. Its a simple equation on the outside. Part of me says we should just say no to this process but then the potential for more deaths increases. On the otherhand if we agree to the process the killings would hopefully be minimal but our hands would be stained with the lives of the innocent.
What is your thoughts on the subject? Is there a twist to the story I missed? Comment on this post to let me know.
Links
-----------------
Error Sparks Stem Cell Debate Confusion
Error Sparks Stem Cell Debate Confusion(2)
2 comments:
I can't figure out why this is such an issue myself. As far as I understand it, great advances are being made using adult stem cells, but absolutely zero has been accomplished using embryonic stem cells. The question is often posed as "Don't you want to save lives?", but there hasn't been any saved lives from embryonic stem cell research.
Even if there are, I have to ask "At what cost?" Do we kill babies so adults can live? Is it okay to, for instance, pluck out the eyes of infants if it will help blind people to see? Is it okay to remove the spines of toddlers if it enables a quadraplegic to walk? Joseph Mengele would have argued that we do. Humanism would support it. Are we sure that's the side we want to take?
Wow, Stan, more right words have never been spoken. I agree. So would my wife. The only reason they do not use embylical stem cells and other forms post birth is because those currently don't yield the quantities that companies are willing to pay for. If we were to put all our time and money into those types of processes I think they would find that the results they want could be accomplished - ethically.
Post a Comment