|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 am
as you all may or may not know. im a huge science buff (or at least i like to think i am) but i wanted to know what you guys stand on this particular issue. what do you u all think about stem cell research and genetic engieering. yes yes, i want all points of view, so no matter at what level of judaism ur at, let me know ur stance. i'll start off giving you all this link: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.htmlits a great site really. i would highly recommend you guys take the time to read it, and let me know what u personally think about the article and then what u conclude. personally i really dont know if this is halachaly correct, but, i think there is a window in which this could be acceptable, as this paragraph states: "But a fence that prevents the cure of fatal diseases must not be erected, for then the loss is greater than the benefit. In the Judeo-biblical legislative tradition, a fence that causes pain and suffering is dismantled. Even biblical law is superseded by the duty to save lives, except for the three cardinal sins of adultery, idolatry, and murder. . . Life saving abortion is a categorical imperative in Jewish biblical law. Mastery of nature for the benefit of those suffering from vital organ failure is an obligation. Human embryonic stem cell research holds that promise..."
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:31 pm
The problem is this:
You may not create life for the purpose of destroying it. However, if life is destined to be destroyed, and you have a choice of making it happen in a beneficial way vs. making it happen in a useless (purely harmful) way, you should choose the way that might lead to saving the lives of others.
That is to say: 'al pi halakha, you probably couldn't create embryos for the purpose of breaking them apart as blastulae. But you could use the left-over ones from IVF for their stem cells, or even break apart aborted fetuses for their useful tissues (which have been used successfully to treat poison-induced parkinsonism. Look up "MPTP").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:02 pm
As a Type I Diabetic, I can tell you that I am for stem cell research. We have literally thousands of embryos all over which are going to do nothing else but sit in a freezer. Why not put them to good use?
As for genetic research, I am for that as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be breeding super babies or anything of the sort, but to be able to prevent genetic diseases would be wonderful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:28 pm
it really depends how you go about it. i think i'll ask my rabbi.
but honestly, sometimes prolonging life is cruel. think of all those old poeple in homes, and hospitles, suffering from any range of diseases that make daily life either constant agony or a routine pill cycle. according to halacha, stem cell research is at best a mitzvah al b'aveira, from sin. no matter how humane you make it, it is at best trading one life for another. this is unacceptable.
of course, as jews, it is not our duty, and in fact it is our duty not, to impose our laws and beliefs on non-jews. so to a certain extent this entire thread is a moot point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:27 pm
ZonkotheSane of course, as jews, it is not our duty, and in fact it is our duty not, to impose our laws and beliefs on non-jews. so to a certain extent this entire thread is a moot point. no of course, we shouldnt impose our laws and beliefs on to non-jews. of course. but thats not the issue. the issue is what would you do, comming from a jewish perspective, how would you stand. this thread isnt about a non-jewish persepective. let me know what your rabbi, thinks though. in the end i really think its not a true black/white issue. there are alot of grey areas in which im sure most rabbi's havent proposed a solid answer to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:44 pm
elisheva86 ZonkotheSane of course, as jews, it is not our duty, and in fact it is our duty not, to impose our laws and beliefs on non-jews. so to a certain extent this entire thread is a moot point. no of course, we shouldnt impose our laws and beliefs on to non-jews. of course. but thats not the issue. the issue is what would you do, comming from a jewish perspective, how would you stand. this thread isnt about a non-jewish persepective. let me know what your rabbi, thinks though. in the end i really think its not a true black/white issue. there are alot of grey areas in which im sure most rabbi's havent proposed a solid answer to. my rabbi is not most rabbis, i assure you that. no, of course there are grey areas. perhaps reverting a normal body cell to a stem cell state would be plausibly acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:47 pm
ZonkotheSane perhaps reverting a normal body cell to a stem cell state would be plausibly acceptable. im not sure if you could revert back. but hey if you could, that would solve the issue, right away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:23 pm
elisheva86 ZonkotheSane perhaps reverting a normal body cell to a stem cell state would be plausibly acceptable. im not sure if you could revert back. but hey if you could, that would solve the issue, right away. theres also the matter that once achieving that level of genetic manipulation, the stem cell approach may become obsolete. that is, assuming, genetic manipulation is used at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:02 am
I've heard that they're working on that, actually. Stem cells from bone marrow, which would be used for the same thing as embryonic stem cells. If that method is perfected, then we won't have to worry about this at all, and hopefully stem cells will be used to save many lives.
Personally, I support using those 'leftover' embryos for stem cell research, with the consent of the owners of the embryos. What else are they going to be used for? It's a promising medical technology, andit could save many lives. So let's go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:12 pm
Kiashana I've heard that they're working on that, actually. Stem cells from bone marrow, which would be used for the same thing as embryonic stem cells. If that method is perfected, then we won't have to worry about this at all, and hopefully stem cells will be used to save many lives. Personally, I support using those 'leftover' embryos for stem cell research, with the consent of the owners of the embryos. What else are they going to be used for? It's a promising medical technology, andit could save many lives. So let's go for it. i agree. i mean its a fact that millions of women abort their babies on their own. why not turn such a negative action with a emensenly positive one, and use those, (which are going to go in the dumpster anyway) for stem cell research? i guess some think, that if that were legal, then ppl would abort JUST FOR stem cells... i think thats one of those 'logical falacies' presenting a slipery slope idea. use a negative action for the benefit of the whole... hm.. i dont see anything wrong with that. what ya'll think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:06 pm
elisheva86 Kiashana I've heard that they're working on that, actually. Stem cells from bone marrow, which would be used for the same thing as embryonic stem cells. If that method is perfected, then we won't have to worry about this at all, and hopefully stem cells will be used to save many lives. Personally, I support using those 'leftover' embryos for stem cell research, with the consent of the owners of the embryos. What else are they going to be used for? It's a promising medical technology, andit could save many lives. So let's go for it. i agree. i mean its a fact that millions of women abort their babies on their own. why not turn such a negative action with a emensenly positive one, and use those, (which are going to go in the dumpster anyway) for stem cell research? i guess some think, that if that were legal, then ppl would abort JUST FOR stem cells... i think thats one of those 'logical falacies' presenting a slipery slope idea. use a negative action for the benefit of the whole... hm.. i dont see anything wrong with that. what ya'll think? heh, the goyim can do what they want. what kia mentioned is ok i think. abortion is flat out wrong for jews to do, but like i said, the goyim can do what they want. about "logical falacies"..... hospitals are bad for your health. after all, lots of poeple die there every day, and everyone is either sick or hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:52 pm
A Jewish woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy has not only the ability, 'al pi halakha, but the obligation to save her life above any concerns for the welfare of her unborn child.
Ever noticed that if a child dies before 30 days of age, you don't have shiv'a and you don't say kaddish? That's because its life is so tenuous, before 30 days it's not considered quite real yet. And before it's actually taken its first breath, it is not considered to be a human being.
By halakha, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:23 pm
Shaviv A Jewish woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy has not only the ability, 'al pi halakha, but the obligation to save her life above any concerns for the welfare of her unborn child. Ever noticed that if a child dies before 30 days of age, you don't have shiv'a and you don't say kaddish? That's because its life is so tenuous, before 30 days it's not considered quite real yet. And before it's actually taken its first breath, it is not considered to be a human being. By halakha, anyway. i honestly hadn't thought of that. nevertheless, its an extreme case, similar to eating trief and desecrating shabbos. then again, alot of poeple don't care too much about those either. rolleyes the reason you don't sit shivah for a <30 day old infant is certainly not that "it's not considered quite real yet". according to halakha, a fetus is alive from the moment of conception. the reason not to mourn is that there wasn't really much to mourn. perhaps it is considered stillborn. i'm not completely sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:13 am
I don't mean that it wasn't real in the physical sense, but its life was so tenuous that, as you said, if it leaves, it is as if it was never there at all - stillborn, as you put it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:34 am
ZonkotheSane Shaviv A Jewish woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy has not only the ability, 'al pi halakha, but the obligation to save her life above any concerns for the welfare of her unborn child. Ever noticed that if a child dies before 30 days of age, you don't have shiv'a and you don't say kaddish? That's because its life is so tenuous, before 30 days it's not considered quite real yet. And before it's actually taken its first breath, it is not considered to be a human being. By halakha, anyway. i honestly hadn't thought of that. nevertheless, its an extreme case, similar to eating trief and desecrating shabbos. then again, alot of poeple don't care too much about those either. rolleyes the reason you don't sit shivah for a <30 day old infant is certainly not that "it's not considered quite real yet". according to halakha, a fetus is alive from the moment of conception. the reason not to mourn is that there wasn't really much to mourn. perhaps it is considered stillborn. i'm not completely sure. deff ask your rabbi on that one. i didnt know about the <30 day rule of not doing kaddish. thats a very good point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
