Embryology bill defeated

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hi Someday,

Originally Posted by Someday

Have you followed the debate about creating cybrids closely enough to see that the Catholic Church supports adult stem cell research? Isn't that evidence that they are certainly not against all genetic manipulation, as you claim, but against specific kinds that result in dead human embryos?

You seem to be treating stem cell research and genetic manipulation as synonyms. That's not so. Not all stem cell research involves genetic manipulation. The article doesn't contain the words gene, genetic, DNA, manipulation. The group they funded promotes 'responsible research on cord blood and adult stem cells.'. Do you know if that includes any research involving genetic manipulation (I can't tell for sure, but 'responsible research' sound to me as if it may not be the case)?

Originally Posted by Someday

And they do not care if you kill rat embryos, or dogs, or chimps. They are quite specific. They are against killing what they consider a human in order to learn from it,

Wrong, see the BBC article. That mentioned the example of taking DNA from a human skin cell and implanting it into a cow egg. No human embryo involved at any stage in that research. Yet Catholic cabinet ministers and MPs led the charge to kill off that research.

Originally Posted by Someday

and they are against mixing human genes with animal genes.

No. There was the example where 99.9% of the DNA is implanted human DNA, any remnant of cow DNA doesn't play any part in mitosis and is discarded. You yourself pointed out that in some research there is no real mixing of human and animal DNA. Yet leave it up to the Catholics in the House of Commons and they'll end that research.

Apart from those issues, I would ask who the ministers and MPs are following when they are acting on their Catholic convictions. 'The Catholic church is not against all genetic manipulation' you say. Who speaks out on behalf of the Catholic church with the greatest authority, a cardinal speaking for the Vatican, or cardinals representing the UK and Irish RC church (if the latter ever spoke out in favour of allowing genetic manipulation in some cases, which doesn't follow from the article you linked to)? I'd say the former. The MPs voting to kill research are certainly acting more in line with the position of blanket condemnation pronounced by the Vatican.

And finally, the donation to stem cell research seemed mostly a propaganda exercise to me (and at £25000 a pretty cheap one). They bang on about why certain lines of research should be abandoned in favour of others. While researchers say the ones they want killed are so promising. So with their modest cheque in their hands, they tell the journalists present 'No no, we're not trying to impede scientific progress. Look here, our contribution to stem cell research.'. And then take the time to tell everyone exactly why the range of research options must be limited, why promising ones must be abandoned. Who do these cheap hypocrites think they are kidding? Perhaps you. Certainly not me.

greets,
Peter

[Someday]

You seem to be treating stem cell research and genetic manipulation as synonyms. That's not so. Not all stem cell research involves genetic manipulation.

Would it be better if I used another story that absolutely involves the Vatican's involvement in genetic manipulation? In fact, they are considering this alternative human embryonic stem cell research as a more moral approach. It is definitely genetic manipulation.

Wrong, see the BBC article. That mentioned the example of taking DNA from a human skin cell and implanting it into a cow egg.

This is still mixing human DNA with animals. The Vatican is clear it does not advocate mixing humans and animals at all. The Vatican is not against manipulating animal embryos, as long as it does not cause a negative reaction. For example, creating super mice with high intelligence is ok as long as they are not allowed out of the lab. Imagine these pests escaping and invading your home? Now we have a serious problem. Imagine someone doing this on purpose? That would be very wrong, don't you agree?

No. There was the example where 99.9% of the DNA is implanted human DNA, any remnant of cow DNA doesn't play any part in mitosis and is discarded.

This will create a cybrid 100% of the time. Keep in mind, the Vatican is always against the killing of viable human embryos, so even if it is a fully human embryo, they will be against it. No one wants to allow these to live beyond 14 days. Why not? What would happen if they did? Why is the 14 day limit of such high ethical importance? Would you ever consider implanting one of these cybrids in a human female?
The answer is obvious, isn't it? They are cybrids and no one knows what monster may result from a viable cybrid human fetus.

And finally, the donation to stem cell research seemed mostly a propaganda exercise to me (and at £25000 a pretty cheap one).

Yes, it is likely some sort of propaganda. But to be fair, as you can see from this article, the Vatican approved of adult stem cell research while Clinton was still President. It isn't a new development at all. And they have been funding it for years, this isn't the first time they made donations in support of it. They have also come out in support of another way to harvest stem cells through amniotic stem cell research.

Just for the record on the Vaticans support of genetic manipulation, it may interest you to know that the Vatican has come out in favor of something the European community thinks is unethical genetic research. The Pope has come out in favor of genetic manipulation to create more food. This is genetic manipulation.

I hope perhaps this clears the mud a little about this strange belief forwarded by the press that the Vatican is against all scientific progress. It's simply not true.

[The servant]

Originally Posted by friendly hardline atheist

The anti-science brigade was in action at the UKs House of Commons today, trying to ban research involving hybrid embryos. This is viable research, UK scientists have already created and studied a few hybrid embryos. The efforts to kill that research were led by Catholic MPs, acting on the Vatican party line that the soul enters the body at conception and that using such early embryos for research (especially mixing it with animal embryo matter) is unethical. Despite their best efforts, they were routed.

A first bill had been introduced to ban all research on hybrid embryos. It was easily defeated (336-176). A second vote on the same subject, merely limiting the types of hybrids that could be created, was defeated by a smaller margin.

Researchers say hybrid embryos are a very promising avenue for learning about, and finding cures for, various diseases.

Any hybrid embryo is only allowed to develop a few days, it never grows bigger than a pin head. Letting it grow further or inserting it into a womans womb is not allowed.

I'm happy to see scientific research not being further restricted. Well done UK Parliament.

greets,
Peter

The spirit / soul enters the body at approximately half way through the woman in questions pregnancy, this is noticed by the first movements of the unborn child, also when the child own blood starts to flow, the spirit forms the blood.

Regards Peter

[Gray]

Originally Posted by The servant

The spirit / soul enters the body at approximately half way through the woman in questions pregnancy, this is noticed by the first movements of the unborn child, also when the child own blood starts to flow, the spirit forms the blood.

Then you should be okay with any research, and even an abortion, anywhere up until that point, right?

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday.

Originally Posted by Someday

Would it be better if I used another story that absolutely involves the Vatican's involvement in genetic manipulation? In fact, they are considering this alternative human embryonic stem cell research as a more moral approach. It is definitely genetic manipulation.

This doesn't do anything. That article is from 2005. How is a three year old article supposed to make me abandon my criticism against a position the Vatican adopted in 2008?

Originally Posted by Someday

Yes, it is likely some sort of propaganda. But to be fair, as you can see from this article, the Vatican approved of adult stem cell research while Clinton was still President. It isn't a new development at all. And they have been funding it for years, this isn't the first time they made donations in support of it. They have also come out in support of another way to harvest stem cells through amniotic stem cell research.

This came up earlier so let me repeat what I said there. If there are benefits from alternative methods, then by all means use them. But that is no argument for abandoning other research lines that offer prospects the alternative methods don't offer. Hawking the pro adult stem cell research position of the Vatican doesn't make them less of an impediment to science as far as embryonic stem cell research is concerned. It's merely diverting the attention from the area where they are an impediment, and you seem to be buying into it.

Originally Posted by Someday

This is still mixing human DNA with animals. The Vatican is clear it does not advocate mixing humans and animals at all. The Vatican is not against manipulating animal embryos, as long as it does not cause a negative reaction. For example, creating super mice with high intelligence is ok as long as they are not allowed out of the lab. Imagine these pests escaping and invading your home? Now we have a serious problem. Imagine someone doing this on purpose? That would be very wrong, don't you agree?

Now you're moving the goal posts. First you said the Catholic position was against mixing animal and human DNA. That wouldn't explain opposition to inserting human DNA into a cow cell from which the cow DNA has been removed. So now it's changed to mixing any human and animal issue. What's it going to be next time?
And you throw in some irrelevant scare hyping for a bit extra. I'm not impressed.

Originally Posted by Someday

This will create a cybrid 100% of the time. Keep in mind, the Vatican is always against the killing of viable human embryos, so even if it is a fully human embryo, they will be against it.

This referred to putting DNA from a human skin cell into a cow egg. And you know that that will always result in viable human embryo? You must be on your way to a Nobel prize then. Care to give us some greater insight into this breakthrough discovery?

Originally Posted by Someday

Just for the record on the Vaticans support of genetic manipulation, it may interest you to know that the Vatican has come out in favor of something the European community thinks is unethical genetic research. The Pope has come out in favor of genetic manipulation to create more food. This is genetic manipulation.

That is the only bit I found at least partly persuasive in your post. It doesn't take away the words of bishop Gianfranco Girotti condemning genetic manipulation without reservation. But contradictory statements by the Vatican are preferable to only a blanket condemnation of all genetic manipulation. I do appreciate that.

greets,
Peter

[The servant]

Originally Posted by Gray

Then you should be okay with any research, and even an abortion, anywhere up until that point, right?

I do not agree with abortion at all!

Regards Peter

[Someday]

This doesn't do anything. That article is from 2005. How is a three year old article supposed to make me abandon my criticism against a position the Vatican adopted in 2008?

This is to this day officially accepted for further research by the Vatican. It has never seen it's endorsement retracted.
CBHD: Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming
If you have information about this that I do not have, I would welcome you to share it with me.

Now you're moving the goal posts. First you said the Catholic position was against mixing animal and human DNA. That wouldn't explain opposition to inserting human DNA into a cow cell from which the cow DNA has been removed. So now it's changed to mixing any human and animal issue.

I believed we were discussing mixing the DNA in regards to creating embryos, not other uses in medicine. Few in the modern world are against doing this for vaccines for example.

his referred to putting DNA from a human skin cell into a cow egg. And you know that that will always result in viable human embryo? You must be on your way to a Nobel prize then. Care to give us some greater insight into this breakthrough discovery?

I never said that.

That is the only bit I found at least partly persuasive in your post. It doesn't take away the words of bishop Gianfranco Girotti condemning genetic manipulation without reservation.

I'm sure you are aware that this is a media created event? Since when are Vatican pronouncements issued by archbishops in an interview about confession? Essentially, the media latched onto the thoughts of one man during a convention of clergy where the purpose was confession. The media's behavior reminds me of this joke. Sensationalism sells.

What is the Vatican's take on this? You can read it here.

Essentially, I believe you to be a free thinker. I have shown you that there is reason to doubt that the Vatican is against all genetic manipulation. I wonder why the blanket statement against drug use isn't equally attacked by the medical industry? From the comments made by this archbishop, one could easily infer that any medical use of drugs is a deadly sin. Yet......no one has jumped on that part at all. Why do you believe this is the case? There is little difference between the two after all. He did not calrify EXACTLY what was bad drug use and what was good drug use. We must infer that any and all use of drugs must be stopped. Do you see the parallel?

Seek truth, make up your own mind. Don't base your opinion on media sensationalism and Dawkins.net style misinformation, but on facts. If you want to know what Catholics think about genetics, talk to catholics, read their material, not what others tell you they think.

I'm not Catholic. I do not follow the Pope. I would not personally be involved in embryonic stem cell research even if the mass of Religious leaders came out in favor of it. I would not be involved in the creation of cybrid embryos either. That is my official position. You do what your morals and sense of right and wrong tell you to do in this regard. Don't expect my support in that decision financially or emotionally. Don't expect me to condemn you for it either.

Blessings

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by The servant

I do not agree with abortion at all!

Regards Peter

Why not? According to your own beliefs that you put up on this thread, an embyro hasn't got a soul until 18 weeks into pregnacy. Surely before that time you are just killing a souless piece of meat, according to your own beliefs.

[The servant]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

Why not? According to your own beliefs that you put up on this thread, an embyro hasn't got a soul until 18 weeks into pregnacy. Surely before that time you are just killing a souless piece of meat, according to your own beliefs.

What you say is a soulless way of looking at things, a piece of meat, a perfect example of the cold calculating intellect!
Reminds me of the inquisition.

It goes way beyond the incarnation of the spirit that is only one part of the process, prior to birth, for a person to know the full implications and then to terminate a pregnancy would be their choice and the automatic acceptance of the returning threads that go with the deed of a termination.

I believe as I have said many times, it is like a jig saw, and many form an image with having only one piece, and because they think it and that is all they can see they believe it.

Things do go beyond the vision of the earthly senses that many do not accept.
But their ignorance and refusal to believe or accept does not nullify the implications, or the returning threads!


Peter

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday,

Originally Posted by Someday

This is to this day officially accepted for further research by the Vatican. It has never seen it's endorsement retracted.
CBHD: Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming
If you have information about this that I do not have, I would welcome you to share it with me.

The new info is in what the Vatican newspaper reported from bishop Girotti. I was unpersuaded by the 3 year old Wired article, I am equally unpersuaded by another link about the same thing that again predates the new 7 sins statement by 3 years.
If you had something about OAR that, like the GM food link, dates from after the announcement of the 7 new deadly sins, that would help persuade me further that they are not against all genetic manipulation.

Originally Posted by Someday

I believed we were discussing mixing the DNA in regards to creating embryos, not other uses in medicine. Few in the modern world are against doing this for vaccines for example.

I think you'd do better to stop wriggling on this one, as you do not appear to be doing yourself any favours. I think you went wrong when you said 'They are against killing what they consider a human in order to learn from it, and they are against mixing human genes with animal genes.'. The example of human DNA from skin cells being implanted into a cow egg doesn't involve mixing DNA as you yourself said, bringing up the mixing of other human-animal tissue was moving the goal posts from your original position, and then bringing in viable human embryos out of nowhere an erroneous diversion, as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by Someday

I'm sure you are aware that this is a media created event? Since when are Vatican pronouncements issued by archbishops in an interview about confession? Essentially, the media latched onto the thoughts of one man during a convention of clergy where the purpose was confession. The media's behavior reminds me of this joke. Sensationalism sells.

What is the Vatican's take on this? You can read it here.

Earlier on you linked to an article about what three UK and Irish bishops had said to the press as indication that the RC church is not against all genetic manipulation (when your article was actually not about genetic manipulation at all, but adult stem cell research). So it is ok to use what UK bishops tell reporters to determine the Catholic position, but not to go by an interview with a Vatican bishop reported in the Vatican newspaper? In what appears to be a repeat of those different criteria, again involving the UK, who exactly was speaking at that episcopal conference of England and Wales that is mentioned in your new link? An official representative of the Vatican? Or was it perhaps some of the same UK bishops who had already tried to limit the damage with their £25000 pr stunt? I can't tell from the Zenit article.

Originally Posted by Someday

Essentially, I believe you to be a free thinker. I have shown you that there is reason to doubt that the Vatican is against all genetic manipulation. I wonder why the blanket statement against drug use isn't equally attacked by the medical industry? From the comments made by this archbishop, one could easily infer that any medical use of drugs is a deadly sin. Yet......no one has jumped on that part at all. Why do you believe this is the case? There is little difference between the two after all. He did not calrify EXACTLY what was bad drug use and what was good drug use. We must infer that any and all use of drugs must be stopped. Do you see the parallel?

Oh please. Yes, with that GM food article you have persuaded me a bit that the Vatican position on genetic manipulation is not 100% opposed. You're not growing that appreciation with the drug analogy, which I think is a bit silly. Everyone knows what the bishop meant when he mentioned drugs. The same is not true if you mention genetic manipulation to people (I'd say some of the points where you were struggling in this thread are a good demonstration of how that issue is less clear).

Originally Posted by Someday

Seek truth, make up your own mind. Don't base your opinion on media sensationalism and Dawkins.net style misinformation, but on facts. If you want to know what Catholics think about genetics, talk to catholics, read their material, not what others tell you they think.

Sorry?! In all your posts in this thread I've come across exactly one bit that I found persuasive. Next to what I would say is a number of errors. With that in mind, I do not accept your criticism that I should get my facts sorted out.

Oh, and I talk to some Catholics by the way. Like my family, who are mostly Catholics. And some collegues from Ireland at work. That's not a huge number of them. But of those few of whom I know their position, they profess to a 'That is interfering in nature' stance. Some of them (that is unfortunately, some of the Catholics in my family) I wouldn't class as extremely bright. While you state you are not a Catholic, you'd be well ahead of them in terms of knowing the issues surrounding stem cell research, genetic manipulation etc from a Catholic party line point of view. They don't look up articles etc to immerse themselves in it even just a tiny bit deeper. They would probably not even object to me portraying things black-white if I criticized the Vatican for being opposed to all genetic manipulation. Instead they would staunchly defend what they also think represents the party line. It almost makes the fine details of the Vatican position irrelevant, as the damage is done. Fortunately, the damage is limited. If you knew them, you'd probably agree with me that they will not be particularly effective in persuading others of their views or ever influencing decision making any further than that they vote for a Dutch christian party.

greets,
Peter