Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhists and stem cell research
I was in my ethics class today and there was a discussion of whether or not stem cell research is ethical. My question is this: Stem cell research obviously holds many potential advances to medicine and could save uncountable lives and make countless others better (healing paralysis, etc.) The off side of it is obviously abortion, which is the murder of a life that could potentially do wonders itself. I suppose I'm wondering what the proper stance on this issue is as well as others like it. What is the correct course of action when you could potentially save many, yet make irreversible decisions that could negatively effect others?
0
Comments
I think pursuing stem cell research, especially in light of the recent advances, is fantastic; extracting stem cells at the cost of a potential human's life....I dunno.
Luckily, that issue won't be an issue for much longer. Research is showing that there are other sources of stem cells, and that the destruction of an embryo is no longer necessary. Groovy. Go life! Go science!
I think also, that the discussion will leave stem cell research and start on abortion. Abortion is a subject that everyone argues about bitterly
Is that possible? It would be pretty cool if your infertile or even Gay or Lesbian having your very own blood related child!
I think it's great embryos don't get destroyed and people's lives get saved. I honestly think it's wrong to have an abortion. If you look at a little baby do you want to be the mother who could have killed it before it even was born. Or a toddler, a growing child, every human being, everything has the right to live.
Sorry I just feel strongly about it, especially to think of people chucking a life literaly away and then there's the good kind people who want children who can't! It's very sad...
Joe
<!-- / message -->
But yes, theoretically it's possible to just use skin cells. Of course, theoretically there may be practical problems which make it unfeasible.
I guess the form of the question is, "Is it ok to do good through harm, and if so under what conditions?".
If not will it be possible in the near future? I'm looking forward to a better world...
Regarding embryonic stem cells, these are made in a test tube. They have no sense of 'self' nor does the creator have a sense of self about them. Thus suffering does not occur.
Regarding embryonic stem cells, there will be ethical problems if one holds superstitious beliefs, such as an embryo has a soul or a floating rebirth consciousness in space has decided to make its home in those elements.
For example, in Buddhism there is the term 'gandabbha', which means 'scented stem', seed or sperm. But many superstitious & unlearned Buddhists say it is a rebirth consciousness.
In Buddhism, the question of ethics revolves around intention. This also applies to abortion. There is alot of personal karma & emotion around the issue of abortion. This is why it can lead to suffering.
But if I donate my sperm to a scientist who seeks to use that sperm for an important (and ethical) medical advancement, what is the issue? How wonderful would it be of my sperm was used to find a cure for some debilitating disease or condition.
Do we suffer from pangs of conscience everytime we masturbate, have a wet dream or menstruate?
Kind regards
Perhaps you mean "I"? There's a lot of Buddhists out there...
There are a lot of cans of worms that are close by here, but it seems to me the form of the question is 90% worm free.
I feel a drawn out debate about abstract facts coming on...
In other words, you appear to have said all Buddhists have pangs of conscience when they masturbate, have a wet dream or menstruate.
The only abstractions so far appear to be what you have written.
The Buddha taught: "Karma is intention". There is nothing at all abstract here.
:rolleyesc
Maybe, it is you who does not get it?
:buck:
There are a number of gaps, assumptions or abstractions in your post that require proper definition.
"Every time" and especially "harm".
No, not all, that's why I thought "I" made more sense. I'm sure there is a (self described) Buddhist out there that believes anything you might imagine.
There are a thousand ways to comprehend the death of a somatic cell, a germ cell, a blastocyst, an embryo, a baby, a child, an adult, an old person. A thousand ways to comprehend multiplied by eight categories = 8,000 discussions, each with a thousand tangents = 80,000 pieces of information. Perhaps an engineer or a mathematician could program a computer to give me the answer, but my guess is somewhere the boolean logic would encounter "no=yes" and self destruct. Perhaps without a self the computer would see reality clearly, but would it be able to communicate that to me?
btw the numbers are just an estimation, divide by zero and you might get the real number.
:cool:
It's not my intent to take over the op.
If a human being takes medicine or eats food, generally, there is death involved there.
Are not cancers cells? Is it unethical to remove them?
:buck:
I may not understand your jargon but I gained the impression 90% worm-free means the matter is a cut and dry issue to you. Case closed. View settled. Nothing to discuss or debate.
When I said that talking about the form would be 90% worm free, what I was trying to say is that talking about the form of something can be less emotional than a specific subject that fits the form, that one may feel strongly about. Yet I left 10% worm, because people still care about the form.
It appears that no one has addressed the question yet. I am assuming, based on the posters title (Philosophizer) as well as the phrase "others like it", that Karpo22 is referring not just to the specific instance of stem cells but to a category of problem.
Although people may argue endlessly about specific instances of a type of problem, whether those instances fall under a particular class of problems, or whether those particular instances are in and of themselves 'good' or 'bad', is it not more on topic to argue endlessly about the general right way to address the category of problem?
I'm not a Buddhist and know little about Buddhism so am completely unqualified to answer the question.
I addressed the question. But because you are not a Buddhist and know little about Buddhist, you probably did not comprehend my answer.
The Buddha taught: "Karma is intention. Harm or non-harm depend on intention".
The Buddha taught four noble truths: "Suffering is attachment. The cause of suffering is (ignorant) craving. The end of suffering is the end of craving & attachment. There is a path to the end of suffering".
What are the negative effects you are referring to?
Is it what you are referring to as "abortion" or is it the potential abuse of the medical technology?
Kind regards
There is no scientifc proof around rebirth and even though I believe in it, you can't possibly say when a soul reaches the person can you?
Sperm does the almost impossible journey and in general (unless your an unidentical twin/triplet ext.) only one out of lots get there. There would be no point in a sperm having a soul. However when a baby starts growing there's a good chance It'll survive. And if have an abortion then, to something that's got a good chance, it's plain murder.:mad:
You're just saying things for the sake of argument now, and you know it!
Sometimes there 'appears' no way out, sometimes it just the best thing for something terrible.
The only way i can see it as actual murder is when girls use it as a form of contraception, or just to get rid of a mistake.
Howerver, as i said at the beginning, the stem cell topic would rapidly turn into this,
it will cause arguments forever as no-one will ever agree.
Its a bad tatse topic for this reason. Can't it be closed?
I bet most of the people reading this can see multiple contradictory perspectives as well, and I'll even give you and example.
1)A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by the mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?
Most people will flip the switch on #1.
2)A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.
Most people don't think the doctor should kill the young man in #2, even though we are talking about the same number of lives saved and killed. This suggests that the answers are highly dependent on psychological factors. It doesn't seem right that these kinds of decisions should be made based on psychological factors.
As far as abortion I can see both perspectives. If I follow the linear thought process of a pro choicer, I can't help but agree. If I follow the linear thought process of a pro lifer, I can't help but agree. This suggests to me that there is a problem with using linear thought processes!
So while from moment to moment I might get caught up in having a belief, the only one that seems to have stuck is that I don't believe in belief. But then eventually you have to do something, make a decision. If I saw the suffering before me - the crying screaming grieving hopeless pain of thousands, I would have to guess and my guess would not be a light one.
To make it clearly evil to everyone, I think I would slowly dismember a small child if it meant alleviating the pain and misery of thousands more. I doubt I would ever know if it was right or good or bad.
btw, I should give wikipedia credit for the two ethical dilemma examples
What a creepy idea - or is it meant to provoke a strong reaction ?
If you are a Buddhist and you did that, then you would be breaking the precept of not killing other beings. However you could, of course, give you own body for someone else to "slowly dismember" for the benefit of others instead ! :hair:
Rather like Jesus sacrificing himself to 'save' others maybe?
_/\_
Define "good chance."
Women have abortions for an infinite number of reasons. But it's never a decision made lightly. It's rarely for selfish reasons. It has a huge impact on women for the rest of their lives. I don't agree with it as a form of birth control, but beyond that, I think it's a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor.
The issue isn't black and white. There's no need to tell women it's "plain murder." Most feel at least some sort of similar guilt at some point themselves. Again, it's not a decision made lightly, and it's very often a decision made out of concern for the baby, in various ways.
Dhamma Dhatu,
To add to this, certain forms of birth control (i.e. the common Pill) work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting. "Embryonic stem cells... are isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts." It is blastocysts that implant, before forming into an embryo. Yet most who are against stem cell research also advocate birth control. In other words, I agree with you.
I wanted it to be clear that my example was evil, to avoid any distracting conversation over whether it was evil or not.
....and so what was your point in using that example?.. doh, you've lost me I'm afraid.:buck:
.
If "slowly dismembering a small child" (yes, the entire description is important, to "avoid distracting conversation over whether it was evil or not" - only a small child, no other, not even yourself) would "alleviate the pain and misery of thousands," would you do it, or not? Directly kill one, to save thousands? Or let one live, and indirectly but knowingly kill thousands of others?
Of course, there's no "right" answer.
What do you mean, exactly? Strictly speaking, it is a form of birth control...
I mean, when people make no effort to prevent it, and have multiple abortions throughout their lifetime as a result of pure carelessness. But, then, what do we say? Three strikes and you're out or something? :P
Edit - Yes, what Tokyo said.