Stem cells were God’s will, says first recipient of treatment

D

DigitalSoldier

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
10,180
Reaction score
11
Location
South Africa.
Farking hypocrites!!

First they condemn stem cell research and now its god's will :sick: :mad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...t-of-treatment/2011/04/14/AFxgKIjD_story.html

“I was just pouring blood,” said Atchison, 21, who said he recoiled in pain when he tried to drag himself through a window of the wrecked Pontiac, a high-school graduation gift. “I didn’t know if I was going to bleed to death or not.”

Then, Atchison said, he realized that his legs felt strangely huge — and completely numb. He was paralyzed from the chest down.

“I was just praying — asking for forgiveness and thanking God for keeping me alive,” said Atchison, who was trapped for at least an hour before rescuers freed him. “I said, ‘From here on out, I’m going to live for you and nothing else.’ I never got down after that. I figure that’s what must have kept me up — God keeping me up.”

That sense of destiny propelled Atchison when he faced another shock just seven days later: Doctors asked him to volunteer to be the first person to have an experimental drug made from human embryonic stem cells injected into his body.

“We were just stunned,” said Atchison, who was with his mother and grandfather when researchers approached him. “We were like, ‘Whoa, really?’ We were all just kind of in awe.”

Atchison, known to friends and family as T.J., described the events during an interview Tuesday with The Washington Post — his first detailed account since disclosing his carefully guarded identity to The Post. Atchison’s story reveals provocative insights into one of the most closely watched medical experiments, including what some might see as irony: that a treatment condemned on moral and religious grounds is viewed by the first person to pioneer the therapy, and by his family, as part of God’s plan.

“It wasn’t just luck or chance,” said Atchison, who, six months after the treatment, thinks he might be feeling the first signs that the cells are helping him.

“It was meant to be.”
Click to expand...
 
Religious nuts would prefer to keep us in the dark ages. I think anyone who believes in God should then accept that He gave us atoms right? We manipulated them and thus was born nuclear power, radiology and a host of other incredible technologies etc

The human body is no different, it's a machine, it can be manipulated, added to and removed, improved and built on. We are headed towards improving what we've been given with other machines and research, who knows perhaps one day we can extend the human life by hundreds of years! :)
 
Last edited:
I am all for stem cell research. It's going to save lives, and really, the idiots that are against stem cell research don't understand what's involved. Watched a few things on the subject and coming from an informed position, there really is no bases for opposition to the research on ethical grounds. Actually, condemning someone to a slow painful death because of a supposed sanctity of a foetus, that is dead anyway, is the most unethical thing I've ever heard of.
 
I'm all for stem-cell research as well, but...
Like any other business, once big money (greed) gets involved, it goes pear-shaped very quickly (similar to prostitution - I'm not against it, but human trafficking is one of the worst sins against humanity in my book)

Stem-cell harvesting just opens so many doors on Pandora's box to be exploited...
 
Dixie said:
I'm all for stem-cell research as well, but...
Like any other business, once big money (greed) gets involved, it goes pear-shaped very quickly (similar to prostitution - I'm not against it, but human trafficking is one of the worst sins against humanity in my book)

Stem-cell harvesting just opens so many doors on Pandora's box to be exploited...
Click to expand...

Like what?
 
Dixie said:
(similar to prostitution - I'm not against it, but human trafficking is one of the worst sins against humanity in my book)
Click to expand...

If prostitution was legalised a lot of the associated evils would disappear. Human traffickers should be exterminated on the spot though.

Selling organs is illegal but several local doctors and hospitals have been busted despite it being illegal. Laws don't stop criminals.
 
Funny we talking about this, was just watching Extraordinary Measures with Harrison Ford a few days ago. Just to add to what you said Dixie, although they don't mentioned str directly in the movie (political reasons I think) it is strongly implied and yeah it can be a slippery slope.
 
Nothxkbi said:
Funny we talking about this, was just watching Extraordinary Measures with Harrison Ford a few days ago. Just to add to what you said Dixie, although they don't mentioned str directly in the movie (political reasons I think) it is strongly implied and yeah it can be a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I have not given it any detailed thought *shudders*, but my imagination can go pretty loopy...
 
ponder said:
If prostitution was legalised a lot of the associated evils would disappear. Human traffickers should be exterminated on the spot though.

Selling organs is illegal but several local doctors and hospitals have been busted despite it being illegal. Laws don't stop criminals.
Click to expand...

Let's not even go there...I've watched some disturbing stuff...
 
I thought they were able to overcome the use of embryonic stem cells harvested from Foetuses?

So surely this should be a non issue now?
 
Dixie said:
I'm all for stem-cell research as well, but...
Like any other business, once big money (greed) gets involved, it goes pear-shaped very quickly (similar to prostitution - I'm not against it, but human trafficking is one of the worst sins against humanity in my book)

Stem-cell harvesting just opens so many doors on Pandora's box to be exploited...
Click to expand...
Very well said
 
Dixie said:
It's still the easiest, and cheapest way, as I understand it...
Click to expand...

I'm sure production costs will come down soon enough. The cost of technology usually gos down as demand gos up.
 
If you're going to use this issue to point how uninformed religious people are, at least get informed yourself. No church or religious person I know objects to stem cell research or therapy.

The controversy arises on how one sources stem cells.

There are two main lines of research:
(1) embryonic stem cells (morally proplematic) and
(2) adult stem cells - absolutely no problem whatsoever, not in the past, not now.

What I (and my church) and many other religious people object to is the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos or murdered unborn babies.

Our basic objections are:
- sourcing stem cells from embryonic lines specifically cultured for that purpose (or any other part) always involves the destruction of that embryo and therefore of an innocent human, and is therefore always immoral,
- it is immoral to treat the human person as a mere commodity, harvesting their parts without their consent as one would any farm or animal. In all cases, embryonic stem cell harvesting involves this kind of 'agricultural' use. Note that this is very different from organ donation, which is morally fine and indeed ancouraged. Donation of organs or parts always requires the consent of the donor. Pope Benedict has been a registered organ donor for over 40 years, for example.

The church welcomes, encourages and has always supported adult stem cell research - which is so far the only line of stem cell research that has produced any advances or therapies. To date, not a single therapy, cure or development has been made by using embryonic stem cells. From a purely medical point of view, adult stem cells have proved to be by far the most promising.

I haven't checked, by I assume the stem cells used in the case reported at the top of the thread are ADULT STEM CELLS. so there's absolutely no moral problem whatsoever, and the person is being perfectly consistent with their faith. If that's the case, then the joke's on the journalst.
 
Arthur said:
If you're going to use this issue to point how uninformed religious people are, at least get informed yourself. No church or religious person I know objects to stem cell research or therapy.

The controversy arises on how one sources stem cells.

There are two main lines of research:
(1) embryonic stem cells (morally proplematic) and
(2) adult stem cells - absolutely no problem whatsoever, not in the past, not now.

What I (and my church) and many other religious people object to is the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos or murdered unborn babies.

Our basic objections are:
- sourcing stem cells from embryonic lines specifically cultured for that purpose (or any other part) always involves the destruction of that embryo and therefore of an innocent human, and is therefore always immoral,
- it is immoral to treat the human person as a mere commodity, harvesting their parts without their consent as one would any farm or animal. In all cases, embryonic stem cell harvesting involves this kind of 'agricultural' use. Note that this is very different from organ donation, which is morally fine and indeed ancouraged. Donation of organs or parts always requires the consent of the donor. Pope Benedict has been a registered organ donor for over 40 years, for example.

The church welcomes, encourages and has always supported adult stem cell research - which is so far the only line of stem cell research that has produced any advances or therapies. To date, not a single therapy, cure or development has been made by using embryonic stem cells. From a purely medical point of view, adult stem cells have proved to be by far the most promising.

I haven't checked, by I assume the stem cells used in the case reported at the top of the thread are ADULT STEM CELLS. so there's absolutely no moral problem whatsoever, and the person is being perfectly consistent with their faith. If that's the case, then the joke's on the journalst.
Click to expand...

Except that I feel that the church is taking a moral high ground where there isn't one. The whole premise that harvesting stem cells from a foetus is evil on the grounds of abortions specifically performed for stem cell research is a false one. Abortions occur for social reasons, not to specifically harvest cells. These foetus's are then throw in what amounts to trash cans ad quite frankly, end up in rubbish dumps. And while many people are against abortion, no one seems to care what happens to the foetus after the abortion, but the moment the foetus can be used to further medical science and save lives it all of a sudden becomes sacrosanct. Yes, I understand the feelings against abortion itself, feelings I share, but abortions occur nevertheless ad despite the outrage towards it. Therefore foetus's are available, not because abortions are being specifically performed for cell harvesting, but then thrown away. It's a little bit hypercritical to my way of thinking, the holding of already dead foetus's as sacrosanct over the lives of people that could be cured from illnesses that are life threatening.
 
Ronjay said:
Except that I feel that the church is taking a moral high ground where there isn't one. The whole premise that harvesting stem cells from a foetus is evil on the grounds of abortions specifically performed for stem cell research is a false one. Abortions occur for social reasons, not to specifically harvest cells. These foetus's are then throw in what amounts to trash cans ad quite frankly, end up in rubbish dumps. And while many people are against abortion, no one seems to care what happens to the foetus after the abortion, but the moment the foetus can be used to further medical science and save lives it all of a sudden becomes sacrosanct. Yes, I understand the feelings against abortion itself, feelings I share, but abortions occur nevertheless ad despite the outrage towards it. Therefore foetus's are available, not because abortions are being specifically performed for cell harvesting, but then thrown away. It's a little bit hypercritical to my way of thinking, the holding of already dead foetus's as sacrosanct over the lives of people that could be cured from illnesses that are life threatening.
Click to expand...
Stem cells harvested from aborted children (abortion is an unspeakable horror and a moral outrage) are not as desirable as embryonic stem cells, and therefore they are seldom if ever used in most western countries. Embryonic stem cells, some believe, offer greater potential. There are two main sources of embryonic stem cells: embryos prepared for IVF, and stem cell lines from embryos killed years ago but whose stem cell cultures remain today. For people who are deeply troubled by this -- and by no means are they only religious people, there are several very prominent atheists who also oppose embryonic stem cell harvesting/research -- there is no significant moral distinction between these two sources of embryonic stem cells.

Although not really relevant to stem cell harvesting, your argument that since the babies have already been aborted for other 'social' reasons, it's OK to use their body parts since they're dead anyway: you still do not not escape the horror of commoditising human bodies. Human concupiscence is such that once you take a utilitarian view of the value of human life, you open the door to horror.

You are very wrong to say that people opposed to abortion have little or no regard for what happens to the bodies of aborted children but get all wobbly when it comes to embryonic stem cells. It is a great evil to destroy any innocent human life. I can think of nothing more horrific than the ripping apart of little babies in their mothers' wombs in SA's abortion mills. This is an unspeakable crime against humanity and the greatest moral issue of our time - the abortion holocaust far exceeds the death toll of all the wars and horrors of history. Throwing away their dismembered bodies as "medical waste" is an outrage.

Lastly, you said "hypercritical" (as in "extremely or overly critical), and yes, the hyper-horror of abortion or indeed human harvesting deserves a hyper-criticism, and I gladly accept your evaluation. But perhaps you mean "hypocritical"? Hypocrisy is when you preach a value to others and judge them for failing to adhere to it, yet you make an exception for yourself and do the very thing you condemn others for doing. Perhaps you mean I am morally inconsistent or selective, or inconsiderate? Hwoever, I am not holding others to a standard that I am unwilling to apply to myself. I would absolutely refuse a therapy that was made possible by the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X