How Religion does Harm

[calamity]

Other than the obvious stuff like Muslims throwing acid in the faces of young girls for having the audacity to learn to read and write, we have more subtle harmful affects of religion like this, regarding cancer therapies being squashed by America's Christian zealots.

I say “perhaps” partly because Francis has now had to lay aside a lot of his pioneering work, in order to defend his profession from a legal blockade of its most promising avenue of endeavor. Even as he and I were having those partly thrilling and partly lowering conversations, last August a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a halt to all government expenditure on embryonic stem-cell research. Judge Royce Lamberth was responding to a suit from supporters of the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, named for the Republican duo who in 1995 managed to forbid federal spending on any research that employs a human embryo. As a believing Christian, Francis is squeamish about the creation for research purposes of these nonsentient cell clumps (as, if you care, am I), but he was hoping for good work to result from the use of already existing embryos, originally created for in-vitro fertilization. These embryos are going nowhere as it is. But now religious maniacs strive to forbid even their use, which would help what the same maniacs regard as the unformed embryo’s fellow humans! The politicized sponsors of this pseudo-scientific nonsense should be ashamed to live, let alone die. If you want to take part in the “war” against cancer, and other terrible maladies too, then join the battle against their lethal stupidity.

Tumortown | Vanity Fair

 

[Goshin]

The last time I checked, there were over 72 non-embryonic stem-cell therapies in use and proven effective.

Embryonic stem cell therapies had experienced substantial complications and the latest time I checked there were 0 (zero) effective embryonic therapies in use.

I seriously doubt all of that can be blamed on a lack of Federal funding for the research... it can still be privately funded, and if it were as promising as some claim it would be.

 

[calamity]

The last time I checked, there were over 72 non-embryonic stem-cell therapies in use and proven effective.

Embryonic stem cell therapies had experienced substantial complications and the latest time I checked there were 0 (zero) effective embryonic therapies in use.

I seriously doubt all of that can be blamed on a lack of Federal funding for the research... it can still be privately funded, and if it were as promising as some claim it would be.

It still makes no sense to stop federal funding for this and other areas of cancer research simply because it causes religious people to squirm.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Interesting indeed. So laws passed by the majority of our congress critters and signed by the POTUS (Clinton in this case) should not to be upheld by the courts, or may tossed aside (overridden?) by executive orders, since you don't like the fact that those who introduced the bill are Christians?

Dickey-Wicker Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Goshin]

It still makes no sense to stop federal funding for this and other areas of cancer research simply because it causes religious people to squirm.

One can have reservations about using unborn humans in research without being religious.

 

[Ray410]

I've read the link twice now and can only conclude that the OP is another of the endless atheist attacks on the faith of others that the atheists hate so much, with no basis in reality, science, widespread observation or anything else of interest. Certainly not the very odd link.

Certainly one could just as easily conclude that the most harm we've seen in this country is from the endlessly shrieking Christian hating atheists.

 

[Fletch]

It still makes no sense to stop federal funding for this and other areas of cancer research simply because it causes religious people to squirm.

Federal funding, as you call it, is simply using cash confiscated by the government from private individuals. Perhaps you can lay out the moral case for the state taking property, by force, and using it for purposes that the victim of this theft finds morally repugnant. If you believe in this sort of thing, you fund it. If it is viable research and someone can profit from it, voluntary funding will be readily available.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just think of the great advances that could have been made in the field of biology and medicine, if Dr. Mengele had been allowed to continue his work in peace.

 

[Lukas105]

Just think of the great advances that could have been made in the field of biology and medicine, if Dr. Mengele had been allowed to continue his work in peace.

The Angel of Death. . .

 

[TiredOfLife]

The Angel of Death. . .

He did some interesting work, and everyone is scared to death to reference it.

 

[Cephus]

He did some interesting work, and everyone is scared to death to reference it.

Which is really kind of silly. The damage is already done, why not learn something from it and make those deaths mean something?

 

[TiredOfLife]

Which is really kind of silly. The damage is already done, why not learn something from it and make those deaths mean something?

True enough.

 

[Cephus]

True enough.

Just another example of unrestrained emotion getting in the way of rational inquiry.

 

[shagg]

wow, never thought this thread would go Godwin. Because a clump of cells in a petri dish is the exact same thing as jews captured and held in prison camps and then experimented on by a scientist with no morals or humanity whatsoever.

The argument against stem cell research is based on the assumption that the unwanted fertilized clump of cells has all the rights of a born, breathing human being, which is fallacious in the extreme. In the abortion debate this line has already been drawn. The religious are roadblocking this avenue of research for reasons which are laughable to the non-religious. I've yet to see an objection based on sound secular reasoning. God doesn't write our nations laws. The government has given too much ground to the pious here in my honest opinion.

 

[shagg]

Interesting indeed. So laws passed by the majority of our congress critters and signed by the POTUS (Clinton in this case) should not to be upheld by the courts, or may tossed aside (overridden?) by executive orders, since you don't like the fact that those who introduced the bill are Christians?

Dickey-Wicker Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it was a rider bill, attached to something unrelated. Its also very shortsighted. Unwanted IVF embryos remain frozen until they're no longer viable. Whats the difference between leaving them frozen until they die or using them for research that could benefit pretty much anyone and everyone? At least with research they serve a purpose and the cell death isn't meaningless.

 

[ttwtt78640]

it was a rider bill, attached to something unrelated. Its also very shortsighted. Unwanted IVF embryos remain frozen until they're no longer viable. Whats the difference between leaving them frozen until they die or using them for research that could benefit pretty much anyone and everyone? At least with research they serve a purpose and the cell death isn't meaningless.

Perhaps folks thought that setting a precedent that human embryo research is OK would, by extension, make abortion more ethically palatable - perhaps even to the point of making abortion/fertility clinics then have a market for otherwise discarded human tissue. Care to share what benefits that this embryonic stem cell research has yielded, outside the U.S., where it is legal?

 

[Logicman]

Other than the obvious stuff like Muslims throwing acid in the faces of young girls for having the audacity to learn to read and write, we have more subtle harmful affects of religion like this, regarding cancer therapies being squashed by America's Christian zealots.

The use of embryo's was the issue.

As for how religion does harm, it's not Christian principles that cause death and destruction, but the violation of those principles.

Godless heathens have brought more death and destruction to the world than anyone else. Watch out for them.

Atheist vs Christian. Whose killed more and who will survive? - San Diego Political Buzz | Examiner.com

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The argument against stem cell research is based on the assumption that the unwanted fertilized clump of cells has all the rights of a born, breathing human being, which is fallacious in the extreme. In the abortion debate this line has already been drawn. The religious are roadblocking this avenue of research for reasons which are laughable to the non-religious. I've yet to see an objection based on sound secular reasoning. God doesn't write our nations laws. The government has given too much ground to the pious here in my honest opinion.

Whatever the reason or assumptions, we have, through the appropriate mechanisms, ended government funding for this line of research. It is not only the religious but simply many who are conscious with a conscience, and the majority apparently, that do not want this funding. As aptly stated earlier, these lines of inquiry have yet to produce any results and also detailed earlier, quite reasonably, if there is no law against such research and if you and yours desire this research so madly badly, you will find a way. If it seemed rich with prospects you would/should have no problem lining up adequate private funding.

 

[shagg]

Perhaps folks thought that setting a precedent that human embryo research is OK would, by extension, make abortion more ethically palatable - perhaps even to the point of making abortion/fertility clinics then have a market for otherwise discarded human tissue. Care to share what benefits that this embryonic stem cell research has yielded, outside the U.S., where it is legal?

Abortion is legal up to 20 weeks, how would the fate of unwanted embryo's affect this debate? I can't say i'm surprised at the attempt to make abortion clinics into potential butcher shops that sell human tissue. Why would anyone pay for aborted matierial, when unwanted IVF embryos are plentiful and don't carry the moral baggage?

Stem cell laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few countries fully support research, but there's red tape or no legislation at all in most countries with some banning it outright, different laws for different aspects of the science, laws contingent on IVF leftovers, etc. Regardless, to say the limited research that has been done produced nothing so the entire package is worthless, is fallacious in the extreme. Its widely regarded as a field with tremendous potential. Most seem ok with the idea of using IVF leftovers, myself included. If its creating embryos for research purposes what bothers people, there is an easy way to avoid it using the otherwise doomed IVF leftovers.

You also didn't answer my question - Why is it better to let these IVF embryos stay frozen until they're no longer viable than to use them for research?


How do the religious opponents of stem cell research feel about Induced pluripotent stem cells? It seems to bypass most if not all moral objections by starting with normal adult somatic cells.

 

[shagg]

Whatever the reason or assumptions, we have, through the appropriate mechanisms, ended government funding for this line of research. It is not only the religious but simply many who are conscious with a conscience, and the majority apparently, that do not want this funding. As aptly stated earlier, these lines of inquiry have yet to produce any results and also detailed earlier, quite reasonably, if there is no law against such research and if you and yours desire this research so madly badly, you will find a way. If it seemed rich with prospects you would/should have no problem lining up adequate private funding.

funny how the shoe ends up on the other foot when you change topics. "It doesn't matter, the law/courts are on our side and they should be respected" church and state or abortion and you fight tooth and nail against the very same position.

 

[ChezC3]

Other than the obvious stuff like Muslims throwing acid in the faces of young girls for having the audacity to learn to read and write, we have more subtle harmful affects of religion like this, regarding cancer therapies being squashed by America's Christian zealots.

These things have nothing to do with religion. Categorizing idiots who assault women and children with legitimate ethical concerns is disingenuous. The position regarding stem cell research is one a bit more nuanced than the proponents of indiscriminate usage let on.

 

[shagg]

The use of embryo's was the issue.

As for how religion does harm, it's not Christian principles that cause death and destruction, but the violation of those principles.

Godless heathens have brought more death and destruction to the world than anyone else. Watch out for them.

Atheist vs Christian. Whose killed more and who will survive? - San Diego Political Buzz | Examiner.com

emotionally charged drivel. communism = religion = atheism? therefore all deaths at the hands of commie dictators are laid at the feet of atheism? god inspired murder doesn't begin and end with Christianity either.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Abortion is legal up to 20 weeks, how would the fate of unwanted embryo's affect this debate? I can't say i'm surprised at the attempt to make abortion clinics into potential butcher shops that sell human tissue. Why would anyone pay for aborted matierial, when unwanted IVF embryos are plentiful and don't carry the moral baggage?

Stem cell laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few countries fully support research, but there's red tape or no legislation at all in most countries with some banning it outright, different laws for different aspects of the science, laws contingent on IVF leftovers, etc. Regardless, to say the limited research that has been done produced nothing so the entire package is worthless, is fallacious in the extreme. Its widely regarded as a field with tremendous potential. Most seem ok with the idea of using IVF leftovers, myself included. If its creating embryos for research purposes what bothers people, there is an easy way to avoid it using the otherwise doomed IVF leftovers.

You also didn't answer my question - Why is it better to let these IVF embryos stay frozen until they're no longer viable than to use them for research?


How do the religious opponents of stem cell research feel about Induced pluripotent stem cells? It seems to bypass most if not all moral objections by starting with normal adult somatic cells.

That is the tail wagging the dog logic. No benefit can be shown yet we need to allow it? Your last sentence says it all, alternatives exist and are being used.

 

[calamity]

Interesting indeed. So laws passed by the majority of our congress critters and signed by the POTUS (Clinton in this case) should not to be upheld by the courts, or may tossed aside (overridden?) by executive orders, since you don't like the fact that those who introduced the bill are Christians?

Dickey-Wicker Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure. Any laws introduced by Christians is suspect...you know, since that whole Chrsitian thing itself is suspect---at least, as we know, it's not based on anything tangible. It lacks facts. So, when people make laws based on delusions, I worry.

 

[calamity]

Federal funding, as you call it, is simply using cash confiscated by the government from private individuals. Perhaps you can lay out the moral case for the state taking property, by force, and using it for purposes that the victim of this theft finds morally repugnant. If you believe in this sort of thing, you fund it. If it is viable research and someone can profit from it, voluntary funding will be readily available.

I'm not a fan of subsidizing the religions, but yet I am forced to fund it. I'm not a fan of incarcerating 2 million Americans, but yet I am forced to fund it. I'm not a fan of an over-bloated, trillion-dollar standing army, but yet I am forced to fund it. There are lots of things our government subsidizes that we are not all in agreement on.