Appeal to faiths just complicates embryos issue
Bishop Tartaglia (Letters, May 14) argues that religious faith is well-equipped to shed light on scientific and moral matters surrounding the use of embryos. But which faith?
In the Jewish Chronicle in March, Jewish leaders from across the religious spectrum united in their support of the Embryology Bill, with rabbis from all shades of Judaism, from Liberal to Orthodox and Reform, dis-agreeing vehemently with the position put forward by Cardinal O'Brien.
Baroness Rabbi Julia Neuberger, who was on the scrutiny committee for the bill, said that Jews had a different view on when life begins to the Catholic view, while from a Reform perspective, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead synagogue said the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for medical research was not to be condemned as "Frankenstein science", but to be welcomed as a life-saving development "that uses our God-given skills in the noblest of causes. It is irresponsible to hold back the progress that could benefit so many lives".
No doubt the bishop disagrees with the Jewish perspective. It is clear, however, that an appeal to religious faith to resolve moral questions merely complicates the problem, rather than presenting a definitive solution. Whose "faith" position should we trust - the Catholic or the Jewish?
Alistair McBay,
National Secular Society,
5 Atholl Crescent,
Edinburgh.
Bishop Tartaglia suggests that a greater focus on the moral status of the embryo is needed. Perhaps he could answer a few simple questions from his position as a faith leader:
Why is it wrong to create, experiment on and destroy embryos if this will not hurt them and the alternative is that they never exist at all?
Given that most embryos "die" in the womb, do their souls go to heaven?
If there were a scientific breakthrough and a cure for Parkinson's was found that relied on embryo research, would the bishop change his position?
Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.
Dr David Shaw,
Lecturer in Ethics,
University of Glasgow.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Hugh V McLachlan, Elderslie on 11:20pm Wed 14 May 08
'Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.'
Quite right. I agree completely. The sources of people's views are irrelevant. The point is: are they substantiated? Are they reasonable? Are they true?
'Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.'
Quite right. I agree completely. The sources of people's views are irrelevant. The point is: are they substantiated? Are they reasonable? Are they true?
Posted by: brian, glasgow on 11:21pm Wed 14 May 08
Some of the letters that get published are just 'silly' whether you agree or not with their point of view. They always seem to be drawn to make schoolboy points instead of dealing with issues and facts, and the authors are often guilty of taking quotes out of context to suit their own agendas. The interesting thing is that they never respond to points made by contributors who seem to know what they are talking about like the contribution of 'Julie' yesterday.
Some of the letters that get published are just 'silly' whether you agree or not with their point of view. They always seem to be drawn to make schoolboy points instead of dealing with issues and facts, and the authors are often guilty of taking quotes out of context to suit their own agendas. The interesting thing is that they never respond to points made by contributors who seem to know what they are talking about like the contribution of 'Julie' yesterday.
Posted by: Big Stu on 12:37am Thu 15 May 08
Dr. Shaw
[quote]Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.[/quote]
I agree.
I would urge you if you have not already done so and if you have time to please read the comments posted after yesterday's letter headed "Society must address the moral status of embryos".
There aren't too many. I would draw your attention in particular to comments made by people who oppose the bill.
I am assuming, given the post you hold, that you are aware of Bishop Tartaglia's recent letter (c. 10th April) on the subject.
My own opinion is that the contents of the Bishop's letter and the comments made yesterday by people expressing opposition to the bill under discussion are virtually all reasonably argued and factual. Based on this I conclude that your conditions quoted above have been met.
I would be very interested to know if you disagree with this conclusion.
Thanks
Dr. Shaw
Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.
I agree.
I would urge you if you have not already done so and if you have time to please read the comments posted after yesterday's letter headed "Society must address the moral status of embryos".
There aren't too many. I would draw your attention in particular to comments made by people who oppose the bill.
I am assuming, given the post you hold, that you are aware of Bishop Tartaglia's recent letter (c. 10th April) on the subject.
My own opinion is that the contents of the Bishop's letter and the comments made yesterday by people expressing opposition to the bill under discussion are virtually all reasonably argued and factual. Based on this I conclude that your conditions quoted above have been met.
I would be very interested to know if you disagree with this conclusion.
Thanks
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 1:51am Thu 15 May 08
[quote]Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.[/quote] -Dr David Shaw
How about these (I do not necessarily support all or any of them but I do recognise them as "reasons" or "arguments"):
[quote]1.There must be a moral issue to using human life as a means to an end.[/quote]
[quote]2. Legality is rarely a good substitute for morality.[/quote]
[quote]3. The debate within the scientific and medical community shows that the appeal to possible cures for serious medical conditions as a justification for embryo research is as premature as it is manipulative.[/quote]
[quote]4. experimentation on human embryos has produced zero results for medical science in more than 10 years,[/quote]
[quote]5. scientists, researchers and clinicians are themselves divided on the scientific and medical value of embryo-destructive research.[/quote]
[quote]6. it is tempting for many to classify the debate as one between religion and science. This is a lazy option.[/quote]
[quote]7. The debate is much more about the good use of science and the bad use of science, which is first of all a matter of right reason[/quote]
There are arguably more than these seven. How did Dr Shaw miss them? Is it because he read only the 56 word concluding paragraph of the Bishop's 329 word letter? For that small peroration is the only part of the Bishop's letter that Dr Shaw addresses in his own 343 word contribution.
Is this good scholarly procedure -or is it propaganda?
Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.
-Dr David Shaw
How about these (I do not necessarily support all or any of them but I do recognise them as "reasons" or "arguments"):
1.There must be a moral issue to using human life as a means to an end.
2. Legality is rarely a good substitute for morality.
3. The debate within the scientific and medical community shows that the appeal to possible cures for serious medical conditions as a justification for embryo research is as premature as it is manipulative.
4. experimentation on human embryos has produced zero results for medical science in more than 10 years,
5. scientists, researchers and clinicians are themselves divided on the scientific and medical value of embryo-destructive research.
6. it is tempting for many to classify the debate as one between religion and science. This is a lazy option.
7. The debate is much more about the good use of science and the bad use of science, which is first of all a matter of right reason
There are arguably more than these seven. How did Dr Shaw miss them? Is it because he read only the 56 word concluding paragraph of the Bishop's 329 word letter? For that small peroration is the only part of the Bishop's letter that Dr Shaw addresses in his own 343 word contribution.
Is this good scholarly procedure -or is it propaganda?
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 2:01am Thu 15 May 08
CORRIGENDUM: The penultimate sentence in my post on 1:51am today should read [quote]For that small peroration is the only part of the Bishop's letter that Dr Shaw addresses in his own 129 word contribution.[/quote]
CORRIGENDUM: The penultimate sentence in my post on 1:51am today should read
For that small peroration is the only part of the Bishop's letter that Dr Shaw addresses in his own 129 word contribution.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 2:11am Thu 15 May 08
[quote]Whose "faith" position should we trust - the Catholic or the Jewish?[/quote] -Alistair McBay, National Secular Society
Alistair manages to trump Dr Shaw by taking 206 words to say nothing about the Bishop's case, instead choosing to present us with his latest straw man. They grow increasingly elaborate. Carry on like this Alistair and you will erect a Wicker Man and endear yourself to New Age cultists -not a very happy fate for a clean-living Secular boy.
Whose "faith" position should we trust - the Catholic or the Jewish?
-Alistair McBay, National Secular Society
Alistair manages to trump Dr Shaw by taking 206 words to say nothing about the Bishop's case, instead choosing to present us with his latest straw man. They grow increasingly elaborate. Carry on like this Alistair and you will erect a Wicker Man and endear yourself to New Age cultists -not a very happy fate for a clean-living Secular boy.
Posted by: ColinE, Dundee on 8:45am Thu 15 May 08
How can such confusion bteween FACT and FAITH exist in the minds of you cult followers? Prof McLachlan and Dr Shaw and other experts have to be congratulated on their persistence in trying to make the blind see the bleedin' obvious but I fear they are doomed to failure in trying to convince these "Flat Earthers" that their positions are illogical.
How can such confusion bteween FACT and FAITH exist in the minds of you cult followers? Prof McLachlan and Dr Shaw and other experts have to be congratulated on their persistence in trying to make the blind see the bleedin' obvious but I fear they are doomed to failure in trying to convince these "Flat Earthers" that their positions are illogical.
Posted by: Liam, Glasgow on 9:11am Thu 15 May 08
Brian - this is the second time I've read you post about how Julie seems to know what shes talking about. She certainly writes confidently, and argues a position based on her moral reading of the issue as is her right to do so. However, the second half of her post where she describes a horror scenario based on animal diseases crossing the species barrier has no basis in fact. If she seems to know what shes talking about it has more to do with her skill as a writer, and your desire to believe her than with her knowledge of Biology.
Brian - this is the second time I've read you post about how Julie seems to know what shes talking about. She certainly writes confidently, and argues a position based on her moral reading of the issue as is her right to do so. However, the second half of her post where she describes a horror scenario based on animal diseases crossing the species barrier has no basis in fact. If she seems to know what shes talking about it has more to do with her skill as a writer, and your desire to believe her than with her knowledge of Biology.
Posted by: Alistair, Edinburgh on 9:12am Thu 15 May 08
Hello again, Cynicus. Long time no argue!
I have indeed answered the Bishop's case, or at least he part of it I chose to challenge and as much as can be contained in a letter for publication. I do think you need to consider your posts more carefully.
Part of the bishop's case in his letter is that faith is "well-equipped" to resolve moral matters thrown up by science. But I disagree with this, and simply suggested it wasn't that clear-cut, and I backed my counter-claim up with evidence (remember that word). Depending on which faith you laid claim to, you could argue as in the embryology case, that a) there is a real moral dilemma (the Catholic's view) or b) there is no moral dilemma at all (the Jewish view). So which "faith" position is right and which is wrong? Which of the two resolves a moral dilemma, as the Bishop claims, if indeed there is a dilemma at all? No straw man there.
Perhaps the Jewish argument is correct? After all, without its Mosaic foundations, the Bishop's faith evaporates.
So I have put this counter argument to the Bishop in his letter. That you can't see it or don't like it is beside the point. You seem to labour under the belief, as usual, that if a priest says something, it must be right and no-one should have the cheek to disagree.
I would be happy though to change my view on the Bishop's position if he can, to my satisfaction, prove to me three things: first, that his god exists and everybody else's god or gods doesn't; and second, that his god communicates with human beings in the manner in which the Bishop believes (ie revelations. miracles, talking snakes, burning bushes, etc); and third, that his god backs the Bishop's position on embryology and not the Rabbis'.
Dr Shaw is right. The real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not. Sadly for the Bishop, he can offer no evidence to support his claim and no other argument than he believes it. I on the other hand have provided evidence for my counter claim that faith doesn't help.
Hello again, Cynicus. Long time no argue!
I have indeed answered the Bishop's case, or at least he part of it I chose to challenge and as much as can be contained in a letter for publication. I do think you need to consider your posts more carefully.
Part of the bishop's case in his letter is that faith is "well-equipped" to resolve moral matters thrown up by science. But I disagree with this, and simply suggested it wasn't that clear-cut, and I backed my counter-claim up with evidence (remember that word). Depending on which faith you laid claim to, you could argue as in the embryology case, that a) there is a real moral dilemma (the Catholic's view) or b) there is no moral dilemma at all (the Jewish view). So which "faith" position is right and which is wrong? Which of the two resolves a moral dilemma, as the Bishop claims, if indeed there is a dilemma at all? No straw man there.
Perhaps the Jewish argument is correct? After all, without its Mosaic foundations, the Bishop's faith evaporates.
So I have put this counter argument to the Bishop in his letter. That you can't see it or don't like it is beside the point. You seem to labour under the belief, as usual, that if a priest says something, it must be right and no-one should have the cheek to disagree.
I would be happy though to change my view on the Bishop's position if he can, to my satisfaction, prove to me three things: first, that his god exists and everybody else's god or gods doesn't; and second, that his god communicates with human beings in the manner in which the Bishop believes (ie revelations. miracles, talking snakes, burning bushes, etc); and third, that his god backs the Bishop's position on embryology and not the Rabbis'.
Dr Shaw is right. The real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not. Sadly for the Bishop, he can offer no evidence to support his claim and no other argument than he believes it. I on the other hand have provided evidence for my counter claim that faith doesn't help.
Posted by: Big Stu on 10:33am Thu 15 May 08
Alistair
Taking Bishop Tartaglia's letter of yesterday (Society must address the moral status of embryos) and his open letter on the subject which presents a fuller picture of his case and leaving aside any matters of faith or religion therein (which you have addressed) could I ask you - does the Bishop make a fact-based and reasoned case against the bill? Does this case deserve consideration?
Alistair
Taking Bishop Tartaglia's letter of yesterday (Society must address the moral status of embryos) and his open letter on the subject which presents a fuller picture of his case and leaving aside any matters of faith or religion therein (which you have addressed) could I ask you - does the Bishop make a fact-based and reasoned case against the bill? Does this case deserve consideration?
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:35am Thu 15 May 08
''There must be a moral issue in using human life as a means to an end''.
When the bishop can put up an argument, based on reason, that what is proposed is using ''human life'' I will take his words more seriously.
''There must be a moral issue in using human life as a means to an end''.
When the bishop can put up an argument, based on reason, that what is proposed is using ''human life'' I will take his words more seriously.
Posted by: Big Stu on 11:08am Thu 15 May 08
Alistair
[quote]Whose "faith" position should we trust - the Catholic or the Jewish?[/quote]
I would suggest we listen to the factual and reasoned arguments put forward by both and make a decision based on that.
Alistair
Whose "faith" position should we trust - the Catholic or the Jewish?
I would suggest we listen to the factual and reasoned arguments put forward by both and make a decision based on that.
Posted by: Alistair, Edinburgh on 11:15am Thu 15 May 08
Big Stu asks:
"Does the Bishop make a fact-based and reasoned case against the bill? Does this case deserve consideration?"
The Bishop is clearly making a faith-based case against the bill, in that he argues that religious faith is "well equipped" to tackle the moral issues. This was the point in his letter I chose to contest. In that sense, therefore:
a) a faith-based argument is not a fact-based one. It is merely what the bishop believes. We all have beliefs, but as Dr Shaw points out, what separates one belief from another is the basis on which it is founded. If the Bishop's case is founded on his beliefs, but he is not able to present any supporting evidence for them, then is he making a fact-based, reasoned case or a fiction-based, irrational case?
b) while the Bishop sees a moral dilemma, the Rabbis see no dilemma at all. The matter of one's religious faith has been used therefore to resolve simultaneously that a) there IS a moral dilemma and b) there ISN'T a moral dilemma. Has 'faith' provided a solution as the Bishop claims, or has it just led us up a cul-de-sac? How do we decide which is right - do we toss a coin, or perhaps conclude that faith is not well-equipped and indeed is no help at all?
We are all busy discussing this bill and the ethics surrounding it. The imminent Commons debate has prompted the Bishop to revive his and his church's political interference on an issue that those of another religious faith see as no issue at all. My argument against the Bishop is simply that appealing to "faith" is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Of course the Bishop can state his case like anybody else, but he is on dodgy ground if he appeals to "fact", "reason" and "evidence" to support his position.
Big Stu asks:
"Does the Bishop make a fact-based and reasoned case against the bill? Does this case deserve consideration?"
The Bishop is clearly making a faith-based case against the bill, in that he argues that religious faith is "well equipped" to tackle the moral issues. This was the point in his letter I chose to contest. In that sense, therefore:
a) a faith-based argument is not a fact-based one. It is merely what the bishop believes. We all have beliefs, but as Dr Shaw points out, what separates one belief from another is the basis on which it is founded. If the Bishop's case is founded on his beliefs, but he is not able to present any supporting evidence for them, then is he making a fact-based, reasoned case or a fiction-based, irrational case?
b) while the Bishop sees a moral dilemma, the Rabbis see no dilemma at all. The matter of one's religious faith has been used therefore to resolve simultaneously that a) there IS a moral dilemma and b) there ISN'T a moral dilemma. Has 'faith' provided a solution as the Bishop claims, or has it just led us up a cul-de-sac? How do we decide which is right - do we toss a coin, or perhaps conclude that faith is not well-equipped and indeed is no help at all?
We are all busy discussing this bill and the ethics surrounding it. The imminent Commons debate has prompted the Bishop to revive his and his church's political interference on an issue that those of another religious faith see as no issue at all. My argument against the Bishop is simply that appealing to "faith" is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Of course the Bishop can state his case like anybody else, but he is on dodgy ground if he appeals to "fact", "reason" and "evidence" to support his position.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 11:26am Thu 15 May 08
This from BBC website – rather different to the pro-Rangers guff on The Herald site.
Uefa violence 'stretches' police
Police in Manchester who came under violent attack from Rangers fans in the city for the Uefa Cup final admitted they were "stretched" by events.
Assistant Chief Constable Justine Curran said the influx of 150,000 Scottish fans was "unprecendented".
She said officers came under attack and riot police were deployed after a city centre big screen failed, adding: "I had 15 officers injured last night."
This from BBC website – rather different to the pro-Rangers guff on The Herald site.
Uefa violence 'stretches' police
Police in Manchester who came under violent attack from Rangers fans in the city for the Uefa Cup final admitted they were "stretched" by events.
Assistant Chief Constable Justine Curran said the influx of 150,000 Scottish fans was "unprecendented".
She said officers came under attack and riot police were deployed after a city centre big screen failed, adding: "I had 15 officers injured last night."
Posted by: Big Stu on 11:28am Thu 15 May 08
Hi Observer
[quote]When the bishop can put up an argument, based on reason, that what is proposed is using ''human life'' I will take his words more seriously.[/quote]
From the Catholic Church's position in relation to embryos (paraphrased)...
[quote]We cannot scientifically say with any certainty when, along the continuum from conception to birth a fertilised egg becomes human, we must therefore give it human status from the beginning.[/quote]
This is a reasoned and fact-based argument. Since it is part of the Church's position it is likely to be part of Bishop Tartaglia's position.
Based on this are you mor ewilling to view his case seriously?
Hi Observer
When the bishop can put up an argument, based on reason, that what is proposed is using ''human life'' I will take his words more seriously.
From the Catholic Church's position in relation to embryos (paraphrased)...
We cannot scientifically say with any certainty when, along the continuum from conception to birth a fertilised egg becomes human, we must therefore give it human status from the beginning.
This is a reasoned and fact-based argument. Since it is part of the Church's position it is likely to be part of Bishop Tartaglia's position.
Based on this are you mor ewilling to view his case seriously?
Posted by: Liam, Glasgow on 11:38am Thu 15 May 08
Observer, I think you get to the heart of the issue in your comment. The disagreement is fundamentaly because the bishop is arguing from a position where a 14 day ball of cells is considered to be a human life. I think that the current law strikes a decent balance between preventing immoral experiments and allowing research, but hey it all comes down to that word moral again - what I believe is moral is not what the bishop does.
He rightly identifies that there have been no cures produced from 10 years of medical research, but he misleading represents this as meaning that there have been "0 results". If by results he means cures then yes he's right, for now, in the headline grabbing "cure for cancer" style treatment of science that is portrayed in the media.
But of course we are talking about a massively complex process and the real results of massive numbers of studies are adding to our knowledge. The knowledge we do have of embryonic stem cells suggests therapeutic potential, but before clinical application can be considered we need to have the ability to predict the behaviour of human embryonic stem cells over a long period in culture. I am heartened by the fact that, despite the fuss created by those who claim there faith guided moral compass is the true one, many talented people are labouring at this task right now.
Observer, I think you get to the heart of the issue in your comment. The disagreement is fundamentaly because the bishop is arguing from a position where a 14 day ball of cells is considered to be a human life. I think that the current law strikes a decent balance between preventing immoral experiments and allowing research, but hey it all comes down to that word moral again - what I believe is moral is not what the bishop does.
He rightly identifies that there have been no cures produced from 10 years of medical research, but he misleading represents this as meaning that there have been "0 results". If by results he means cures then yes he's right, for now, in the headline grabbing "cure for cancer" style treatment of science that is portrayed in the media.
But of course we are talking about a massively complex process and the real results of massive numbers of studies are adding to our knowledge. The knowledge we do have of embryonic stem cells suggests therapeutic potential, but before clinical application can be considered we need to have the ability to predict the behaviour of human embryonic stem cells over a long period in culture. I am heartened by the fact that, despite the fuss created by those who claim there faith guided moral compass is the true one, many talented people are labouring at this task right now.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 11:55am Thu 15 May 08
I said most of this yesterday but I think it worth repeating here.
I don't give a scooby about how many RC MPs there are. But even if they formed a majority, they have no business to oppose the Embryo Bill based on their religious convictions unless they could find reasons other than religious convictions on which to base that opposition. Laws must as far as possible be made in the interests, far wider than matters of faith, of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views.
As legislators, MPs and governments must consider the consequences of the measures before them, how they will probably affect society and whether they will do more good than harm. It is the role of legislators to be consequentialists. They should not ask "What does my religion teach about this measure?" but "Will society benefit from it in the emprical world?".
Thanks Alistair, Observer and now Liam for keeping our attention focused on that empirical world. It's not a world that your average Bishop or Cardinal seems to inhabit.
I said most of this yesterday but I think it worth repeating here.
I don't give a scooby about how many RC MPs there are. But even if they formed a majority, they have no business to oppose the Embryo Bill based on their religious convictions unless they could find reasons other than religious convictions on which to base that opposition. Laws must as far as possible be made in the interests, far wider than matters of faith, of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views.
As legislators, MPs and governments must consider the consequences of the measures before them, how they will probably affect society and whether they will do more good than harm. It is the role of legislators to be consequentialists. They should not ask "What does my religion teach about this measure?" but "Will society benefit from it in the emprical world?".
Thanks Alistair, Observer and now Liam for keeping our attention focused on that empirical world. It's not a world that your average Bishop or Cardinal seems to inhabit.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 12:17pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Carnwarth[/bold] wrote:
This from BBC website – rather different to the pro-Rangers guff on The Herald site. Uefa violence 'stretches' police Police in Manchester who came under violent attack from Rangers fans in the city for the Uefa Cup final admitted they were "stretched" by events. Assistant Chief Constable Justine Curran said the influx of 150,000 Scottish fans was "unprecendented". She said officers came under attack and riot police were deployed after a city centre big screen failed, adding: "I had 15 officers injured last night." [/quote] And pray tell, what has this to do with the thread?
Carnwarth wrote:
This from BBC website – rather different to the pro-Rangers guff on The Herald site. Uefa violence 'stretches' police Police in Manchester who came under violent attack from Rangers fans in the city for the Uefa Cup final admitted they were "stretched" by events. Assistant Chief Constable Justine Curran said the influx of 150,000 Scottish fans was "unprecendented". She said officers came under attack and riot police were deployed after a city centre big screen failed, adding: "I had 15 officers injured last night."
And pray tell, what has this to do with the thread?
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 12:38pm Thu 15 May 08
With respect Chris, I think that the Bishops HAVE a right to express an opinion and express a faith based opinion, although this, as you rightly point out, must be based on evidence - for me faith is a question of belief based on a certain amount of undisputable evidence, the rest is trust. I would argue that while the bishops have must put forward their case as far as possible based on medical evidence, the rest must be an appeal to faith, and if not to humanity. This is not to say that those who are for the bill are not thoroughly decent people, but merely to say that if it goes ahead, what we are IN FACT allowing is experimation on human life, and that any planned safeguards are therefore worthless.
Another reason I would argue that the bishops have a right to express a faith based opinion is this. I used to work in a shop. It is amazing and frightening some of the conversations you overhear at a checkout. BLOCKEM would be rubbing his hands with glee. Some of them are shocking, others less so. But in many cases where punters argue against concessions to Muslim traditions, the reason given is that "this is a Christian country, and 'they' have a duty to adapt to our customs". I do not wish to get into a debate about that here, but merely to say that if this is the logic, then if we do regard ourselves as a Christian country, then the bishops have not only a right but a duty to speak out from a faith point of view.
But as I and others have said, faith and science are not mutually exclusive.
Can't stop now. Will try to catch up later, just so you don't think I'm being rude.
Kind regards as ever.
With respect Chris, I think that the Bishops HAVE a right to express an opinion and express a faith based opinion, although this, as you rightly point out, must be based on evidence - for me faith is a question of belief based on a certain amount of undisputable evidence, the rest is trust. I would argue that while the bishops have must put forward their case as far as possible based on medical evidence, the rest must be an appeal to faith, and if not to humanity. This is not to say that those who are for the bill are not thoroughly decent people, but merely to say that if it goes ahead, what we are IN FACT allowing is experimation on human life, and that any planned safeguards are therefore worthless.
Another reason I would argue that the bishops have a right to express a faith based opinion is this. I used to work in a shop. It is amazing and frightening some of the conversations you overhear at a checkout. BLOCKEM would be rubbing his hands with glee. Some of them are shocking, others less so. But in many cases where punters argue against concessions to Muslim traditions, the reason given is that "this is a Christian country, and 'they' have a duty to adapt to our customs". I do not wish to get into a debate about that here, but merely to say that if this is the logic, then if we do regard ourselves as a Christian country, then the bishops have not only a right but a duty to speak out from a faith point of view.
But as I and others have said, faith and science are not mutually exclusive.
Can't stop now. Will try to catch up later, just so you don't think I'm being rude.
Kind regards as ever.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 12:42pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Big Stu[/bold] wrote:
Hi Observer [quote]When the bishop can put up an argument, based on reason, that what is proposed is using ''human life'' I will take his words more seriously.[/quote] From the Catholic Church's position in relation to embryos (paraphrased)... [quote]We cannot scientifically say with any certainty when, along the continuum from conception to birth a fertilised egg becomes human, we must therefore give it human status from the beginning.[/quote] This is a reasoned and fact-based argument. Since it is part of the Church's position it is likely to be part of Bishop Tartaglia's position. Based on this are you mor ewilling to view his case seriously? [/quote] Big Stu,
[quote]This is a reasoned and fact-based argument.[/quote]
Sorry Stu I don't think it is, I fail to see the facts, if it is religous faith based "facts" show me them,
From the time I spent being religous, or being told to be religous, and since I cannot remember any proven facts of a religous nature.
Therefore
[quote]Based on this are you mor ewilling to view his case seriously?[/quote]
That'll be a "NO" then.
Big Stu wrote:
Hi Observer When the bishop can put up an argument, based on reason, that what is proposed is using ''human life'' I will take his words more seriously.
From the Catholic Church's position in relation to embryos (paraphrased)... We cannot scientifically say with any certainty when, along the continuum from conception to birth a fertilised egg becomes human, we must therefore give it human status from the beginning.
This is a reasoned and fact-based argument. Since it is part of the Church's position it is likely to be part of Bishop Tartaglia's position. Based on this are you mor ewilling to view his case seriously?
Big Stu,
This is a reasoned and fact-based argument.
Sorry Stu I don't think it is, I fail to see the facts, if it is religous faith based "facts" show me them,
From the time I spent being religous, or being told to be religous, and since I cannot remember any proven facts of a religous nature.
Therefore
Based on this are you mor ewilling to view his case seriously?
That'll be a "NO" then.
Posted by: Big Stu on 12:52pm Thu 15 May 08
Dr Shaw
[quote]Why is it wrong to create, experiment on and destroy embryos if this will not hurt them and the alternative is that they never exist at all?
Given that most embryos "die" in the womb, do their souls go to heaven?
If there were a scientific breakthrough and a cure for Parkinson's was found that relied on embryo research, would the bishop change his position?[/quote]
Based on these hypothetical questions (sorry, make that one moral and two hypothetical) you have put to Bishop Tartaglia I would like to put a hypothetical question to you.
If you had a daughter who had become infertile who had one fertilised egg which represented her only chance for Motherhood and your only chance to be a Grandfather.
If you were involved in research which required this particular fertilised egg to be destroyed.
If your daughter was standing by your side pleading for the egg to be spared.
Would you destroy the egg?
Dr Shaw
Why is it wrong to create, experiment on and destroy embryos if this will not hurt them and the alternative is that they never exist at all?
Given that most embryos "die" in the womb, do their souls go to heaven?
If there were a scientific breakthrough and a cure for Parkinson's was found that relied on embryo research, would the bishop change his position?
Based on these hypothetical questions (sorry, make that one moral and two hypothetical) you have put to Bishop Tartaglia I would like to put a hypothetical question to you.
If you had a daughter who had become infertile who had one fertilised egg which represented her only chance for Motherhood and your only chance to be a Grandfather.
If you were involved in research which required this particular fertilised egg to be destroyed.
If your daughter was standing by your side pleading for the egg to be spared.
Would you destroy the egg?
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 1:01pm Thu 15 May 08
''We cannot scientifically say with any certainty when, along the continuum from conception to birth a fertilised egg becomes human, we must therefore give it human status from the beginning.''
That is an article of belief. It is a statement of faith. It is not a scientific fact, or even a common sense observation. Sorry Stu as much as I respect your right to your opinion, that is what is, it an opinion.
It is not an opinion that I share over the abortion issue. How much less then do I share it when it comes to 14 day old cells ?
Of course the Catholic church has a right to express an opinion upon moral and ethical issues. But they should do so on the basis that they are basing their arguments upon their theology, not empirical evidence. And if I was them I would think again about seeking to directly intervene in ongoing legislation, that is a potential minefield.
''We cannot scientifically say with any certainty when, along the continuum from conception to birth a fertilised egg becomes human, we must therefore give it human status from the beginning.''
That is an article of belief. It is a statement of faith. It is not a scientific fact, or even a common sense observation. Sorry Stu as much as I respect your right to your opinion, that is what is, it an opinion.
It is not an opinion that I share over the abortion issue. How much less then do I share it when it comes to 14 day old cells ?
Of course the Catholic church has a right to express an opinion upon moral and ethical issues. But they should do so on the basis that they are basing their arguments upon their theology, not empirical evidence. And if I was them I would think again about seeking to directly intervene in ongoing legislation, that is a potential minefield.
Posted by: Vronsky, Scotland on 1:02pm Thu 15 May 08
As Orwell somewhere remarks, some things are true no matter who says them. The cardinal's observation that no cures have emerged in 10 years of research is relevant. Mostly what is going on here is genetic research, funded by large corporations with an interest in future lucrative patent rights.
Talk of a 'cure for cancer' is very similar in tone to corporate PR claims of an end to malnutrition in the Third World through the introduction of GM crops. Surely we should all wish for miraculous therapies and well-fed children? It's an attempt to deflect criticism of a highly dangerous activity.
We can avoid all these tricky ethical discussions if we simply focus on the Precautionary Principle: we cannot control or predict the effects of genetic meddling, whether with runner beans or people, and we should refrain until we can.
As Orwell somewhere remarks, some things are true no matter who says them. The cardinal's observation that no cures have emerged in 10 years of research is relevant. Mostly what is going on here is genetic research, funded by large corporations with an interest in future lucrative patent rights.
Talk of a 'cure for cancer' is very similar in tone to corporate PR claims of an end to malnutrition in the Third World through the introduction of GM crops. Surely we should all wish for miraculous therapies and well-fed children? It's an attempt to deflect criticism of a highly dangerous activity.
We can avoid all these tricky ethical discussions if we simply focus on the Precautionary Principle: we cannot control or predict the effects of genetic meddling, whether with runner beans or people, and we should refrain until we can.
Posted by: Liam, Glasgow on 1:07pm Thu 15 May 08
Oh come on Big Stu, the situation you have just described has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. Do you think that nasty researchers roam the country raiding poor innocent girls wombs for eggs to conduct bizarre and unethical experiments on? Of course not, but sounds like a good plot for a cheap and cheesy movie!
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but please can you keep your fantasy hypothetical questions to yourself.
Oh come on Big Stu, the situation you have just described has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. Do you think that nasty researchers roam the country raiding poor innocent girls wombs for eggs to conduct bizarre and unethical experiments on? Of course not, but sounds like a good plot for a cheap and cheesy movie!
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but please can you keep your fantasy hypothetical questions to yourself.
Posted by: Liam, Glasgow on 1:21pm Thu 15 May 08
Vronsky, you raise some interesting points when you highlight that we are essential entrusting the future of our genes and environment to companies whos fundamental interests are in making money.
Still, the precautionary principle doesnt mean doing nothing, it just means making sure that no action is taken until sure (or as sure as you can be - now thats a thorny topic) that it's safe. That is essentially why 10 years on there are no therapies available from human embryonic stem cells, we need to understand more first. As far as I can see that fits in with what you are arguing for - more study until we can predict the effects. Or do you simply suggest no study, case closed, lets all forget about it?
Vronsky, you raise some interesting points when you highlight that we are essential entrusting the future of our genes and environment to companies whos fundamental interests are in making money.
Still, the precautionary principle doesnt mean doing nothing, it just means making sure that no action is taken until sure (or as sure as you can be - now thats a thorny topic) that it's safe. That is essentially why 10 years on there are no therapies available from human embryonic stem cells, we need to understand more first. As far as I can see that fits in with what you are arguing for - more study until we can predict the effects. Or do you simply suggest no study, case closed, lets all forget about it?
Posted by: Big Stu on 1:35pm Thu 15 May 08
Liam
Should Dr Shaw keep his fantasy, hypothetical questions to himself too?
I agree that these hypothetical questions can appear silly and the one I asked is way, way out at the end of the probability curve but sometimes these thought experiments can shed a little light here and there. You never know.
Liam
Should Dr Shaw keep his fantasy, hypothetical questions to himself too?
I agree that these hypothetical questions can appear silly and the one I asked is way, way out at the end of the probability curve but sometimes these thought experiments can shed a little light here and there. You never know.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 1:36pm Thu 15 May 08
Vronsky
Hi
I'd be very chary of invoking Orwell in these matters. I quote him more than anybody does, at least that I can identify on these threads. He influenced me more than any other writer at least in my formative years. I still quote heavily from Bernard Crick's perceptive biography as well as his essays. Orwell was the most "anti-Catholic thinker" of the 20th century and on rather firm grounds, you know. (Before I receive the usual fusillade of abuse, Orwell's conceptual infrastructure had nothing to do with west of Scotland sectarianism.) Nor was that assessment based on aesthetic or literary parameters alone. He was very much committed to clear thinking, not obscurantism nor burning bushes. I am frankly astonished, as Webster would say, by those who choose to evoke his memory never mind the arguments they wish to deploy in his name. The odd quote, "somewhere remarked" or otherwise, just about sums it up. It does not do you justice because you usually argue very cogently.
Vronsky
Hi
I'd be very chary of invoking Orwell in these matters. I quote him more than anybody does, at least that I can identify on these threads. He influenced me more than any other writer at least in my formative years. I still quote heavily from Bernard Crick's perceptive biography as well as his essays. Orwell was the most "anti-Catholic thinker" of the 20th century and on rather firm grounds, you know. (Before I receive the usual fusillade of abuse, Orwell's conceptual infrastructure had nothing to do with west of Scotland sectarianism.) Nor was that assessment based on aesthetic or literary parameters alone. He was very much committed to clear thinking, not obscurantism nor burning bushes. I am frankly astonished, as Webster would say, by those who choose to evoke his memory never mind the arguments they wish to deploy in his name. The odd quote, "somewhere remarked" or otherwise, just about sums it up. It does not do you justice because you usually argue very cogently.
Posted by: julie, glasgow on 1:37pm Thu 15 May 08
Hi Liam,
I'm afraid that the risk of animal disease crossing the species barrier is all too real with this technology.
To explain; the risk of disease is going to come from the stem cell lines derived from these embryos, which is what will be used for treatments, not from the implantation of the embryos into a womb (as this has been banned for the time being. We are probably going to be most at risk from bovine diseases; Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind. There is also the possibility that viruses that lie dormant in other animals, may not lie dormant in us and we could be faced with dealing with diseases that we have no prior knowledge of. I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom. This is because their transplants are from pigs who harbour what are known as retro-viruses in their cells. They don't affect the pig, but could affect humans. These stem cell lines will affect us at the most fundamental level as it involves manipulation of DNA.
I take your point that I am a person with faith and that this influences my position on this technology, and that you are free to disregard this influence. I hope however, that you appreciate that the arguments that I am using are based on science and a broad base of ethics which seeks to protect life. The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited and certainly not worth crossing the species barrier and risking a pandemic for . And if I didn't have any faith, I still would be against this type of research.
Hi Liam,
I'm afraid that the risk of animal disease crossing the species barrier is all too real with this technology.
To explain; the risk of disease is going to come from the stem cell lines derived from these embryos, which is what will be used for treatments, not from the implantation of the embryos into a womb (as this has been banned for the time being. We are probably going to be most at risk from bovine diseases; Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind. There is also the possibility that viruses that lie dormant in other animals, may not lie dormant in us and we could be faced with dealing with diseases that we have no prior knowledge of. I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom. This is because their transplants are from pigs who harbour what are known as retro-viruses in their cells. They don't affect the pig, but could affect humans. These stem cell lines will affect us at the most fundamental level as it involves manipulation of DNA.
I take your point that I am a person with faith and that this influences my position on this technology, and that you are free to disregard this influence. I hope however, that you appreciate that the arguments that I am using are based on science and a broad base of ethics which seeks to protect life. The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited and certainly not worth crossing the species barrier and risking a pandemic for . And if I didn't have any faith, I still would be against this type of research.
Posted by: Big Stu on 1:40pm Thu 15 May 08
Liam
[quote]Do you think that nasty researchers roam the country raiding poor innocent girls wombs for eggs to conduct bizarre and unethical experiments on?[/quote]
The question I asked is purlely hypothetical and says nothing about my thoughts on researchers. Since you ask I think that they are probably just as good, bad,selfish, principled, cruel, kind in other words downright human as the rest of us.
Liam
Do you think that nasty researchers roam the country raiding poor innocent girls wombs for eggs to conduct bizarre and unethical experiments on?
The question I asked is purlely hypothetical and says nothing about my thoughts on researchers. Since you ask I think that they are probably just as good, bad,selfish, principled, cruel, kind in other words downright human as the rest of us.
Posted by: David Lewis, Coylton, Ayrshire on 1:46pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote]Whose "faith" position should we trust - the Catholic or the Jewish?
Alistair McBay,[/quote]
Why have you not included the faith position of the humanist?
[quote]Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.
Dr David Shaw [/quote]
And what reasons back up your own faith position?
To both of you - how do you make the moral judgement between this speculative use of finance and skilled resources which will most likely benefit the wealthier folk of the world against the more certain and greater benefits that would accrue from using these resources to save life and enhance life quality in third world countries?
Whose "faith" position should we trust - the Catholic or the Jewish?
Alistair McBay,
Why have you not included the faith position of the humanist?
Faith positions cannot be described as wise unless they are backed up by reasons; the real debate is between those who offer arguments in support of their views and those who do not.
Dr David Shaw
And what reasons back up your own faith position?
To both of you - how do you make the moral judgement between this speculative use of finance and skilled resources which will most likely benefit the wealthier folk of the world against the more certain and greater benefits that would accrue from using these resources to save life and enhance life quality in third world countries?
Posted by: Vronsky, Scotland on 1:49pm Thu 15 May 08
Liam:
'sounds like a good plot for a cheap and cheesy movie! '
You're a prophet. Read [italic]Next[/italic] , by Michael Crichton. The plot is indeed just this. Not a movie yet.....
'Or do you simply suggest no study, case closed, lets all forget about it?'
Pretty much (didn't expect me to say that, did you). Read 'Don't Worry, it's safe to eat' by Andy Rowell (Guardian environmental journalist). This is pretty much his conclusion in the last chapter (sorry, no on-line version to link to, but there's a book review at tinyurl.com/2q6r8o).
Liam:
'sounds like a good plot for a cheap and cheesy movie! '
You're a prophet. Read
Next , by Michael Crichton. The plot is indeed just this. Not a movie yet.....
'Or do you simply suggest no study, case closed, lets all forget about it?'
Pretty much (didn't expect me to say that, did you). Read 'Don't Worry, it's safe to eat' by Andy Rowell (Guardian environmental journalist). This is pretty much his conclusion in the last chapter (sorry, no on-line version to link to, but there's a book review at tinyurl.com/2q6r8o).
Posted by: Big Stu on 2:00pm Thu 15 May 08
Hi Sam
Sorry I missed your post earlier - just saw it.
[quote]We cannot scientifically say with any certainty when, along the continuum from conception to birth a fertilised egg becomes human,[/quote]
Whichever way I look at this I see it as a fact, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Hi Sam
Sorry I missed your post earlier - just saw it.
We cannot scientifically say with any certainty when, along the continuum from conception to birth a fertilised egg becomes human,
Whichever way I look at this I see it as a fact, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Posted by: Liam, Glasgow on 2:14pm Thu 15 May 08
Julie - throughout history many diseases have crossed the species barrier: small pox from cattle, AIDS from primates etc. In fact most human epidemic diseases are as a result of the adoption of agriculture and closer living with animals. Your concern is whether this research will increase the future chances of other diseases doing the same. Given that these cytoplasmic hybrid cell lines are for laboratory study only - the answer is no, there is completely 0 chance of any diseases crossign the species barrier. No-one is suggesting that these cells are to be used in therapy. The example you give of Creutzfeldt-Jacobs is way off - it is a protein prion disease and not a virus. If you dont know why that makes it an invalid example then I have to assume that you dont know what you are talking about.
I accept that you disagree with me on ethical grounds, but your arguments from a scientific standpoint are not sound. That was essentially my point in the first place, by arguing confidently you managed to make it seem that you knew what you were talking about, but you dont.
Julie - throughout history many diseases have crossed the species barrier: small pox from cattle, AIDS from primates etc. In fact most human epidemic diseases are as a result of the adoption of agriculture and closer living with animals. Your concern is whether this research will increase the future chances of other diseases doing the same. Given that these cytoplasmic hybrid cell lines are for laboratory study only - the answer is no, there is completely 0 chance of any diseases crossign the species barrier. No-one is suggesting that these cells are to be used in therapy. The example you give of Creutzfeldt-Jacobs is way off - it is a protein prion disease and not a virus. If you dont know why that makes it an invalid example then I have to assume that you dont know what you are talking about.
I accept that you disagree with me on ethical grounds, but your arguments from a scientific standpoint are not sound. That was essentially my point in the first place, by arguing confidently you managed to make it seem that you knew what you were talking about, but you dont.
Posted by: Big Stu on 2:15pm Thu 15 May 08
Alister
[quote]Of course the Bishop can state his case like anybody else[/quote]
Thanks for clarifying your view on this.
I'm very interested in your comment ..
[quote]he is on dodgy ground if he appeals to "fact", "reason" and "evidence" to support his position.[/quote]
Forgive me pressing you on this, but I think it's germane to the discussion we are having - could you say why you think this please?
Alister
Of course the Bishop can state his case like anybody else
Thanks for clarifying your view on this.
I'm very interested in your comment ..
he is on dodgy ground if he appeals to "fact", "reason" and "evidence" to support his position.
Forgive me pressing you on this, but I think it's germane to the discussion we are having - could you say why you think this please?
Posted by: Liam, Glasgow on 2:20pm Thu 15 May 08
Vronsky - I might just read it, it sounds interesting. I get the impression that I would probably agree with your take on GM food, but I've never really thought about the implications of that with regards to human gene therapies.
Vronsky - I might just read it, it sounds interesting. I get the impression that I would probably agree with your take on GM food, but I've never really thought about the implications of that with regards to human gene therapies.
Posted by: Awaab Raja, EDINBURGH on 2:29pm Thu 15 May 08
The Catholic Church in Scotland, like the Church of England now believe that Islamic law will be incorporated into Scots and English law.
When Islamic law is incorporated into Scots law will Alistair McBay of the National Secular Society and his members obey the Islamic parts of Scots law ?
A simple yes or no will suffice.[italic]italic[/italic]
The Catholic Church in Scotland, like the Church of England now believe that Islamic law will be incorporated into Scots and English law.
When Islamic law is incorporated into Scots law will Alistair McBay of the National Secular Society and his members obey the Islamic parts of Scots law ?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Posted by: bill, Glasgow on 2:33pm Thu 15 May 08
Cynicus, as you are so quick to point out the failings of others (often incorrectly) here is the basic, fundamental flaw in your 1:51am post.
All the things you list are assertions NOT reasoned argument. This comes as no surprise to me given that you have never demonstrated any ability to distinguish between the two. It is a blind spot caused by religionitis. I recommend a good dose of reality as a cure >: )
Cynicus, as you are so quick to point out the failings of others (often incorrectly) here is the basic, fundamental flaw in your 1:51am post.
All the things you list are assertions NOT reasoned argument. This comes as no surprise to me given that you have never demonstrated any ability to distinguish between the two. It is a blind spot caused by religionitis. I recommend a good dose of reality as a cure >: )
Posted by: Liam, Glasgow on 2:34pm Thu 15 May 08
Do they? News to me. I'm afraid a simple yes or no probably wont suffice, perhaps you would first like to expand on what proposals exist to incorporate Islamic law into Scots, and what parts of Islamic law will be involved.
Do they? News to me. I'm afraid a simple yes or no probably wont suffice, perhaps you would first like to expand on what proposals exist to incorporate Islamic law into Scots, and what parts of Islamic law will be involved.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 3:34pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote]Hello again, Cynicus. Long time no argue![/quote] -Alistair, Edinburgh on 9:12am today
Yes, we must try harder. Incidentally, a word of congratulations: yours was the first post in a thread started off on 23rd April ("How can society provide for those who do not believe in God?") at
http://www.theherald
.co.uk/features/lett
ers/display.var.2220
982.0.0.php
It still goes strong 364 posts later, with Hugh V., David Lewis and at least one other present on this thread. The atheist and secularist Usconbuts is reduced to having Cynicus (still on the case) as his strongest ally.
[quote]You seem to labour under the belief, as usual, that if a priest says something.[/quote] Godd grief! I thought you knew me better than that! Change "must" to "may" and you've got me. A priest once condemned the Iraq War unequivocally and I thought he was right. That was the late Pope John Paul II, although there were many other examples closer to home. However, I disagreed with him on many more things.
[quote]I have indeed answered the Bishop's case, or at least he part of it I chose to challenge[/quote]
Well, flipping screens, I can see the Bishop's letter as I type these words. You have ignored entirely the arguments he advances and his reasons -which could have made for a good, objective (or at least inter-subjective) and substantial debate here. You have tackled him on NONE of the seven points I listed above in the wee sma' hoors. Instead, you have bypassed them and focused on his subjective opinion as expressed in the opening of his final paragraph: [quote]As a believer, I would argue religious faith is well-equipped to shed light on these matters.[/quote] . Not only that, but you have created a straw man argument about the disagreements prominent Jews have with the Bishop's approach. Confused readers of your letter might be excused for wondering, "Is Alistair going to be circumcised?" Why the straw man when there is plenty of meat on the bone of the Bishop's argument for you to get stuck into? I am genuinely baffled.
Your qualification on space restrictions -"and as much as can be contained in a letter for publication" - deserves to be taken seriously.
However, it might be received more sympathetically had you used one of your subsequent posts(either to mine or in reply to Big Stu at 11.15 PM) to address to address the matters of real substance in Bishop Tartaglia's letter. For example, the SEVEN points listed by me above (1:51am today). What are you afraid of?
Hello again, Cynicus. Long time no argue!
-Alistair, Edinburgh on 9:12am today
Yes, we must try harder. Incidentally, a word of congratulations: yours was the first post in a thread started off on 23rd April ("How can society provide for those who do not believe in God?") at
http://www.theherald
.co.uk/features/lett
ers/display.var.2220
982.0.0.php
It still goes strong 364 posts later, with Hugh V., David Lewis and at least one other present on this thread. The atheist and secularist Usconbuts is reduced to having Cynicus (still on the case) as his strongest ally.
You seem to labour under the belief, as usual, that if a priest says something.
Godd grief! I thought you knew me better than that! Change "must" to "may" and you've got me. A priest once condemned the Iraq War unequivocally and I thought he was right. That was the late Pope John Paul II, although there were many other examples closer to home. However, I disagreed with him on many more things.
I have indeed answered the Bishop's case, or at least he part of it I chose to challenge
Well, flipping screens, I can see the Bishop's letter as I type these words. You have ignored entirely the arguments he advances and his reasons -which could have made for a good, objective (or at least inter-subjective) and substantial debate here. You have tackled him on NONE of the seven points I listed above in the wee sma' hoors. Instead, you have bypassed them and focused on his subjective opinion as expressed in the opening of his final paragraph:
As a believer, I would argue religious faith is well-equipped to shed light on these matters.
. Not only that, but you have created a straw man argument about the disagreements prominent Jews have with the Bishop's approach. Confused readers of your letter might be excused for wondering, "Is Alistair going to be circumcised?" Why the straw man when there is plenty of meat on the bone of the Bishop's argument for you to get stuck into? I am genuinely baffled.
Your qualification on space restrictions -"and as much as can be contained in a letter for publication" - deserves to be taken seriously.
However, it might be received more sympathetically had you used one of your subsequent posts(either to mine or in reply to Big Stu at 11.15 PM) to address to address the matters of real substance in Bishop Tartaglia's letter. For example, the SEVEN points listed by me above (1:51am today). What are you afraid of?
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:35pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Big Stu[/bold] wrote:
Dr Shaw [quote]Why is it wrong to create, experiment on and destroy embryos if this will not hurt them and the alternative is that they never exist at all? Given that most embryos "die" in the womb, do their souls go to heaven? If there were a scientific breakthrough and a cure for Parkinson's was found that relied on embryo research, would the bishop change his position?[/quote] Based on these hypothetical questions (sorry, make that one moral and two hypothetical) you have put to Bishop Tartaglia I would like to put a hypothetical question to you. If you had a daughter who had become infertile who had one fertilised egg which represented her only chance for Motherhood and your only chance to be a Grandfather. If you were involved in research which required this particular fertilised egg to be destroyed. If your daughter was standing by your side pleading for the egg to be spared. Would you destroy the egg?[/quote] Stu,
What would it be if your daughter were the one that could be saved by the research?
Big Stu wrote:
Dr Shaw Why is it wrong to create, experiment on and destroy embryos if this will not hurt them and the alternative is that they never exist at all? Given that most embryos "die" in the womb, do their souls go to heaven? If there were a scientific breakthrough and a cure for Parkinson's was found that relied on embryo research, would the bishop change his position?
Based on these hypothetical questions (sorry, make that one moral and two hypothetical) you have put to Bishop Tartaglia I would like to put a hypothetical question to you. If you had a daughter who had become infertile who had one fertilised egg which represented her only chance for Motherhood and your only chance to be a Grandfather. If you were involved in research which required this particular fertilised egg to be destroyed. If your daughter was standing by your side pleading for the egg to be spared. Would you destroy the egg?
Stu,
What would it be if your daughter were the one that could be saved by the research?
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 3:40pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote]You seem to labour under the belief, as usual, that if a priest says something, it must be right[/quote]- -Alistair, Edinburgh on 9:12am today
Apologies for the truncation of this quotation from Alistair's post above. My subsequent comment makes sense only to Sherlock Holmes addicts.
You seem to labour under the belief, as usual, that if a priest says something, it must be right
- -Alistair, Edinburgh on 9:12am today
Apologies for the truncation of this quotation from Alistair's post above. My subsequent comment makes sense only to Sherlock Holmes addicts.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:44pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]julie[/bold] wrote:
Hi Liam, I'm afraid that the risk of animal disease crossing the species barrier is all too real with this technology. To explain; the risk of disease is going to come from the stem cell lines derived from these embryos, which is what will be used for treatments, not from the implantation of the embryos into a womb (as this has been banned for the time being. We are probably going to be most at risk from bovine diseases; Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind. There is also the possibility that viruses that lie dormant in other animals, may not lie dormant in us and we could be faced with dealing with diseases that we have no prior knowledge of. I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom. This is because their transplants are from pigs who harbour what are known as retro-viruses in their cells. They don't affect the pig, but could affect humans. These stem cell lines will affect us at the most fundamental level as it involves manipulation of DNA. I take your point that I am a person with faith and that this influences my position on this technology, and that you are free to disregard this influence. I hope however, that you appreciate that the arguments that I am using are based on science and a broad base of ethics which seeks to protect life. The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited and certainly not worth crossing the species barrier and risking a pandemic for . And if I didn't have any faith, I still would be against this type of research.[/quote] [quote]Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind[/quote]
This has absolutely nothing to do with the embryo bill or anything that said bill contains.
Off at a tangent or just scrambling for something that makes a good soundbite even if it is irrelevant?
[quote]I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom.[/quote]
So are a wide variety of people, like people who have been in malaria areas, aren't allowed to give blood, or people who have STDs, again another soundbite.
[quote]The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited[/quote]
That is why they want to do research!
[quote]risking a pandemic for[/quote]
Scaremongering with no evidence whatsoever
julie wrote:
Hi Liam, I'm afraid that the risk of animal disease crossing the species barrier is all too real with this technology. To explain; the risk of disease is going to come from the stem cell lines derived from these embryos, which is what will be used for treatments, not from the implantation of the embryos into a womb (as this has been banned for the time being. We are probably going to be most at risk from bovine diseases; Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind. There is also the possibility that viruses that lie dormant in other animals, may not lie dormant in us and we could be faced with dealing with diseases that we have no prior knowledge of. I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom. This is because their transplants are from pigs who harbour what are known as retro-viruses in their cells. They don't affect the pig, but could affect humans. These stem cell lines will affect us at the most fundamental level as it involves manipulation of DNA. I take your point that I am a person with faith and that this influences my position on this technology, and that you are free to disregard this influence. I hope however, that you appreciate that the arguments that I am using are based on science and a broad base of ethics which seeks to protect life. The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited and certainly not worth crossing the species barrier and risking a pandemic for . And if I didn't have any faith, I still would be against this type of research.
Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind
This has absolutely nothing to do with the embryo bill or anything that said bill contains.
Off at a tangent or just scrambling for something that makes a good soundbite even if it is irrelevant?
I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom.
So are a wide variety of people, like people who have been in malaria areas, aren't allowed to give blood, or people who have STDs, again another soundbite.
The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited
That is why they want to do research!
risking a pandemic for
Scaremongering with no evidence whatsoever
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:45pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]julie[/bold] wrote:
Hi Liam, I'm afraid that the risk of animal disease crossing the species barrier is all too real with this technology. To explain; the risk of disease is going to come from the stem cell lines derived from these embryos, which is what will be used for treatments, not from the implantation of the embryos into a womb (as this has been banned for the time being. We are probably going to be most at risk from bovine diseases; Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind. There is also the possibility that viruses that lie dormant in other animals, may not lie dormant in us and we could be faced with dealing with diseases that we have no prior knowledge of. I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom. This is because their transplants are from pigs who harbour what are known as retro-viruses in their cells. They don't affect the pig, but could affect humans. These stem cell lines will affect us at the most fundamental level as it involves manipulation of DNA. I take your point that I am a person with faith and that this influences my position on this technology, and that you are free to disregard this influence. I hope however, that you appreciate that the arguments that I am using are based on science and a broad base of ethics which seeks to protect life. The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited and certainly not worth crossing the species barrier and risking a pandemic for . And if I didn't have any faith, I still would be against this type of research.[/quote] [quote]Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind[/quote]
This has absolutely nothing to do with the embryo bill or anything that said bill contains.
Off at a tangent or just scrambling for something that makes a good soundbite even if it is irrelevant?
[quote]I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom.[/quote]
So are a wide variety of people, like people who have been in malaria areas, aren't allowed to give blood, or people who have STDs, again another soundbite.
[quote]The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited[/quote]
That is why they want to do research!
[quote]risking a pandemic for[/quote]
Scaremongering with no evidence whatsoever
julie wrote:
Hi Liam, I'm afraid that the risk of animal disease crossing the species barrier is all too real with this technology. To explain; the risk of disease is going to come from the stem cell lines derived from these embryos, which is what will be used for treatments, not from the implantation of the embryos into a womb (as this has been banned for the time being. We are probably going to be most at risk from bovine diseases; Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind. There is also the possibility that viruses that lie dormant in other animals, may not lie dormant in us and we could be faced with dealing with diseases that we have no prior knowledge of. I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom. This is because their transplants are from pigs who harbour what are known as retro-viruses in their cells. They don't affect the pig, but could affect humans. These stem cell lines will affect us at the most fundamental level as it involves manipulation of DNA. I take your point that I am a person with faith and that this influences my position on this technology, and that you are free to disregard this influence. I hope however, that you appreciate that the arguments that I am using are based on science and a broad base of ethics which seeks to protect life. The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited and certainly not worth crossing the species barrier and risking a pandemic for . And if I didn't have any faith, I still would be against this type of research.
Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind
This has absolutely nothing to do with the embryo bill or anything that said bill contains.
Off at a tangent or just scrambling for something that makes a good soundbite even if it is irrelevant?
I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom.
So are a wide variety of people, like people who have been in malaria areas, aren't allowed to give blood, or people who have STDs, again another soundbite.
The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited
That is why they want to do research!
risking a pandemic for
Scaremongering with no evidence whatsoever
Posted by: sam, greenock on 3:45pm Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]julie[/bold] wrote:
Hi Liam, I'm afraid that the risk of animal disease crossing the species barrier is all too real with this technology. To explain; the risk of disease is going to come from the stem cell lines derived from these embryos, which is what will be used for treatments, not from the implantation of the embryos into a womb (as this has been banned for the time being. We are probably going to be most at risk from bovine diseases; Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind. There is also the possibility that viruses that lie dormant in other animals, may not lie dormant in us and we could be faced with dealing with diseases that we have no prior knowledge of. I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on those who receive animal neural cell transplants; they are not allowed to give blood transfusions and have to practise safe sex using a condom. This is because their transplants are from pigs who harbour what are known as retro-viruses in their cells. They don't affect the pig, but could affect humans. These stem cell lines will affect us at the most fundamental level as it involves manipulation of DNA. I take your point that I am a person with faith and that this influences my position on this technology, and that you are free to disregard this influence. I hope however, that you appreciate that the arguments that I am using are based on science and a broad base of ethics which seeks to protect life. The uses of this technology in terms of curing disease are very limited and certainly not worth crossing the species barrier and risking a pandemic for . And if I didn't have any faith, I still would be against this type of research.[/quote] [quote]Creutzfeldt Jakobs is one that springs to mind[/quote]
This has absolutely nothing to do with the embryo bill or anything that said bill contains.
Off at a tangent or just scrambling for something that makes a good soundbite even if it is irrelevant?
[quote]I did mention in a previous post the restrictions placed on t
Search This Site
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (80)
