Hello Someday,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someday
I should not have lumped some of them together the way I did, it led to a lot of confusion that seems to have made this conversation a bit confused. I should have stopped at an earlier point and became more aware of where this conversation became us talking about different things. I must admit, you did point out my mistakes but I thought you were talking about something else, and responded to what I thought you were saying. This led to further confusion. In that respect, you are correct, the errors in the flow of this conversation were originally mine.
|
No problems whatsoever. Contrary to the 'Gods immorality' slugging match where I at one stage ruined the debating atmosphere, this one has been argued vigorously, but without turning really nasty. Nothing wrong with strong debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someday
Let me summarize what I am saying. The Vatican is in favor of genetic manipulation in at least the following areas:
1. Chord blood stem cell research
2. Human skin stem cell research
3. Adult stem cell research in general
4. Genetically altered food.
|
While your latest post would seem the natural handle to wind down this thread, I'm afraid I still disagree with much of your list of 4 examples. Not #4 of course. But of the others I still don't think so. I list the urls you included about various forms of research below.
Post 10 pointed to the page about the grant to adult stem cell and cord blood research at Novussanguis. That doesn't involve research with DNA from skin cells. The article also doesn't say that the cord blood and adult stem cell research involves any genetic manipulation.
Post 12 contains the links to the Wired article. That certainly referred to research involving genetic manipulation that has Vatican support. Let me get back to the 2005 date of that piece lateron.
Post 12 also contained the link to support for adult stem cell research during the Clinton administration, but that doesn't mention research involving genetic manipulation. No mentioning of skin cells either.
Finally post 12 contained the link to amniotic stem cell research. Again, supported by the RC church but no mentioning of genetic manipulation being part of that research or of skin cells.
Post 17 had another link to the same thing as the Wired article.
Post 22 had two links showing examples of skin cell research involving genetic manipulation. But nowhere any mentioning of the Vatican supporting this research.
Finally post 25 linked to a pdf about research at Novussanguis. Again, clearly they have the support, but again not mentioning skin cells or genetic manipulation.
Finally post 25 linked to the review article about UCB derived stem cells. What was the purpose of that one? In one of the earlier posts I criticised you for apparently thinking that stem cell research and genetic manipulation are the same. Was the article intended to promote the idea that stem cell research always involves genetic manipulation? If so, that is wrong. The article singles out the few groups that have done stem cell research involving genetic manipulation for special attention near the end. The researchers of Novussanguis (McGuckin, Lazzari, Janik, etc) are not among the references so work at Novussanguis apparently is in the majority of stem cell research that does not involve genetic manipulation.
What does all this mean then? It leaves your points 1 and 2 without any foundation.
In the case of skin cell research it clearly involves genetic manipulation but none of the links you posted showed the Vatican supporting it. The only Catholic view on that research that came up in this thread was the UK cabinet ministers and MPs strongly opposing it.
As far as UCB research is concerned, the Vatican certainly supports it, but it doesn't appear to involve genetic manipulation.
That leaves one three year old piece and one decade old piece about support for adult stem cell research involving genetic manipulation. While I don't think these are much good in light of what the Vatican bishop said very recently, we'll probably have to agree to disagree about the relevance of these older statements.
So again the GM food issue is the only one I'm persuaded by. While you may cling to the 2005 or Clinto-era statements, I think you have to agree with me on at least two out the three points that I reject. So sorry to be rejecting most what you say in a reconciliatory sounding post. But post 25 merely added to my impression of you as a chrsitian being desperate to try to show that a particular flavour of organised religion is supportive of rather than opposed to scientific progress. And from my point of view, mostly failing to do so, and further damaging your credibility with the latest installment.
Sorry if it all sounds harsh. And if you think I have it wrong then please point out any errors in my post.
greets,
Peter