Is Stem Cell Research Morally Acceptable? UG's Mad
Current mood: geeky
Views: 498 Comments: 8
Human embryonic stem cells are blank cells that are formed in the initial stages of development. These cells are usually found in a cluster of 70 – 100 cells known as the blastocyst. However, stem cells are also found in aborted foetuses, placental blood and umbilical cord blood. The importance of stem cells in medical research is one of the greatest discoveries of the 21st century and herald a new age of medical technology. Human embryonic stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any cell structure in the human body, which means debilitating diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis can be reversed (adult stem cells are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells). In fact, in New Scientist, an article was published recently that has shown that stem cells have reversed the effects of MS and stopped every patient in the clinic trial from going into remission. The fact of the matter is, there are no moral or ethical problems in regards to using human derived embryonic stem cells for medical research, which has the potential to save millions of lives, unless you are religious to the point of ignorance. There is no nice way of saying this. Religion impedes human technological advancements by breeding ignorance within its following. Why are religious groups (mainly Catholics and evangelicals) opposed to stem cell research? The answer is complex, however it stems from ignorance. Religion suffers from moral superiority complex. However, its absolute morals are misplaced and misguided to the extent that scientific advancement is hindered greatly. In The US, stem cell research was banned because of religious lobbyists. This caused research to be practically halted. Only old lines of stem cells were allowed to be used, and these usually yielded poor results. The moral issue for religion is that life starts at conception, and that by removing stem cells from the blastocyst, you are destroying a life. This is a fallacy because life does not start at conception. Life is an ongoing process that started 4 billion years ago. The issue is of senescence. For the senescence to be destroyed, the embryo must be self aware, and this cannot happen before the brain is fully developed, usually within the first 3 – 6 months, at which point, the embryo is actually a developing foetus and not an embryo. The distinction is clear in biology. An embryo is no more alive than the skin cells in your skin. A foetus is as much alive as you are. Individual cells do not function as a whole organism, and an embryo, or a blastocyst is not a fully functioning organism. These are blank slates that later through developmental stages differentiate into other cells to form the organism. However, there is a legal limit of 14 days for viability of an embryo, which means that after 14 days, the embryo is classed as living, even though it has no specific cell differentiation to class it as a living organism. A brain hasn’t even developed at this point and therefore is not self aware and therefore should not be classed as a senescent being.
Religious moral superiority claims that without religion there would be no morals in society. Without a moral code, it is true society would break down. However, according to eminent biologists such as Richard Dawkins et al, morals are derived from altruistic traits. Altruism is essential for the functioning of a society or a population of animals. Altruism has been observed in thousands of animal species and as such primitive moralistic behaviours are observed. Social and pack animals do not kill members of their own groups or tribe. This is because for a social system to work, members within a group need to work together. Killing members of your group is detrimental and therefore altruistic behaviours beneficial. Murder within the social group is deemed wrong and punished. However, murder between groups is observed in social animals simply because of competition. It’s ok to kill your enemy, but not your brethren. Parallels are observed in the human social structure too. The conclusion is therefore that morals are not absolute. They are relative. Put two groups of people on an island with enough food for only one group and then tell me murder is wrong. Pretty soon all hell will break loose and the dominant group will kill for survival. Altruism evolved because it is a beneficial survival trait for social and pack animals. Any moral act performed within a group or within a population has evolved because it is beneficial to the survival of the species and to the point that any moral action is beneficial to the survival of the members of the individual groups. The point is, religion did not spawn these morals, so for religious groups to take the moral high ground is rooted in ignorance and is in fact, immoral. Morals are an evolved trait, beneficial to the survival of the human race or to the survival of any social species. Now, the use of stem cells for medical research is a moral act purely because the act saves lives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If a small amount of aborted foetuses are used for stem cell research and help save lives, isn’t this more moral than allowing people to suffer. You could be mistaken for thinking religion want people to suffer by lobbying for stem cell research to be outlawed. The fact is if stem cell research is saving lives, the religious fundamentalists need to shut their mouths and read some science because all they are doing is spewing dogmatic ignorance brought on by blind faith. In a case of blinding ignorance from the religious elite, we have the example of IVF. The Catholic Church spent years fighting IVF as an immoral act since children born from IVF would lack a soul. Science found that IVF children are no different to children conceived via natural sex. The Vaticant then had to apologise for this.
Due to religious fundamentalism and the ignorance as the effect of it, animal-human hybrid stem cells have been produced to try and combat religious moral objections to using fully human embryos. In the February edition of New Scientist, it has been found that human-animal hybrids are pretty much useless for stem cell research. Pretty much meaning completely and utterly of no use at all because the stem cells produced are low in quality and number and, subject to rejection. Full human embryonic stem cells are not prone to rejection because they can be made from the actual persons own cells, which the MS study mentioned earlier, did. Since the religious fundamentalists have a problem with stem cell research, Dr Lanza and his team (Nature 2006) found a way to preserves human embryos when stem cells are extracted. This is new advancement which brings me back to my earlier point. There are NO moral or ethical issues in regards to using human embryonic stem cells for medical research. The only objections on moral grounds are rooted in religious indoctrinated ignorance and dogmatic assertions that are logical fallacies. Even the use of aborted foetuses cannot be objected to on moral grounds purely because it is morally wrong for an aborted foetus to be discarded as medical waste rather than used for medical research. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It may sound heartless but I would rather aborted foetuses stem cells be used for medical research than just being discarded as medical waste. At the end of the day it is an inescapable fact that abortions occur, so instead of discarding potential life saving cells, we should utilise them for medical research, which will save millions of lives. People need to stop humanising every aspect of modern life and look objectively at every situation, morally or otherwise. If stem cell research can save lives, and it has been shown to, we should pursue the research to the fullest extent of moral objectivity, and it should not be clouded by pointless religious dogmatic rhetoric or absolute religious morality. Religious morality is non-existent. Morals are an altruistic evolved trait in social species, and therefore, are subjective. Science and religion should be completely separate entities for one reason: Religion breeds ignorance where as science breeds knowledge. Where science helps to expand human knowledge, religious belief holds it back if you are fundamental enough about it. By replacing an unknown with a supernatural explanation, you are in adding another unknown that cannot be explained, therefore you are committing intellectual suicide. Science fills the unknowns with explanations based on evidence and therefore expands knowledge.
The greatest moral objectivity comes from knowledge, not from dogmatic religious assertions of absolutes. Why would I follow a god who has a place full of fire, burning, suffering and torture and torment where I will go for all eternity to suffer and burn, who at the same time... Loves me and hates to see me suffer? Religion is full of such contradictions. If you read the bible, god says thou shalt not kill, but he has no problems wiping out sinners, such as homosexuals etc. Yes, completely objective absolute morals right there!? An all loving god, who creates us in his own image, will torture and kill us if we sin. It makes no sense if you think about it. Remember, its the religious fundamentalists who believe this crap. It’s the religious fundamentalists who are ignorant and will do just about anything to stop scientific process because their imaginary friend said so. The most morally objective stance one can take on stem cell research is the following: Stem cell research has the potential to save millions of lives. If a few aborted foetuses have to be sacrificed, or a few blastocysts have to be sacrificed, then morally, the research must be pursued to end the suffering and potential suffering of human beings. It is morally unjust to withhold genuine medical research on religious grounds because what you are in effect doing is promoting suffering. Due to the fact that embryonic human stem cells are able to differentiate into any tissue, this gives them far greater medical applications than current adult stem cells, where the research is 30 years ahead of embryonic stem cell research.
End note: I use religious fundamentalists in this argument purely because fundamentalists are the ones attacking the scientific establishment. I have no problem with moderate Christians, and this blog was written with fundamentalists in mind, not your moderate run of the mill Christian. Although I disagree with your religious beliefs, I will never attack them if you are a moderate. If you are a fundamentalist, then this blog was written with the intent of instigating a debate, whilst in turn satirically mocking you. The views expressed here are extreme, purely because fundamentalists are extreme. Also, if you feel I haven’t attack the Jewish and Muslim faiths, this is because I have spoken to my Jewish and Muslim friends and have found that there is very limited opposition to stem cell research in this context when compared to the evangelical and Catholic fundamentalists.
In what context though? If it is taking stem cells from the embryo, as stated in my blog, Dr Lanza published in Nature in 2006 a method of extracting stem cells from an embryo without killing it. Therefore, we are not killing babies... Unless you count abortions, but thats a whole other kettle of fish.
I agree entirely, I think dipping in and out of explaining religious morality somewhat detracts from the title, however it does need explaining, perhaps modify the title to include 'And Why Those Opposing It Do So/Are Wrong'
That's maybe just me being a bit pedantic
Otherwise a very sound blog, well worded, well thought out and structured, a compelling argument (not that I needed one), thank you very much for taking the time to post it
I agree with all of with all of what you've said, (not that I needed convincing) but I would say that there's enough material for two blogs here; one about stem cell research and one about the fallacies in religious morality. Keeping the two seperate would have made two more easily readable, digestible and focussed blogs. Still, good blog, though your preaching massively to the congregation at me, being a godless science worshipping millitant atheist!
"If you read the bible, god says thou shalt not kill, but he has no problems wiping out sinners, such as homosexuals etc."
Originally, it was 'Thou shalt not kill a fellow Jew'. Just adding some more evidence to your argument. I think Religion, as a whole, is just a sophisticated and glorified form of xenophobia, "you and your fellow believers do fine but whoever doesn't agree with you burns in Hell."
| My Profile
Is Stem Cell Research Morally Acceptable? UG's Mad blog
