The topic at hand is one that we all can relate to, especially in our modern world where religion is squared off with differing political perspectives.
The cartoon deals with the controversy surrounding stem cells- quite a few religious groups pertain to the belief that with the present types of technology available, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line demands the destruction of a human embryo. Pro-life supporters have been keen critics of stem cell research as they believe that this young embryo has rights despite not yet being a fully formed human; it has the potential to become a human being and destructing it violates the sanctity of life and is akin to murder.
Modern thinkers, on the other hand, have a more scientific approach and feel that these young embryos aren’t humans at all- they may have the potential to become ones but at the present moment, they simply are not. Instead, through stem cell research, differentiating cells are able to be created and be used to treat all kinds of disease, thus providing more people with the chance to live and recover from their illnesses.
I personally believe that stem cell research is of high importance; from burn victims to people in need of a bone marrow transplant, there are multiple types of diseases and illnesses that can be cured with the simplistic introduction of stem cells. I do not think that the embryo is a human at such an early stage- it certainly has the potential to become one but it doesn’t have a beating heart or brain activity occurring, both being essential human characteristics.
More human beings are benefitting from the implementation of stem cells and I simply don't think that the research surrounding them should be hindered any further.
I agree with Ayla in that there are two very different controversial perspectives when it comes to Stem Cell research. However, I don't think it is as clear cut as either having a religious view or a modern view towards the matter.
When doing quick research into Stem Cells and genetic modification, I came across a video (although I don't remember the name unfortunately) that discussed the arguments for and against stem cell research. In this video, what really stood out to me was that there was one research scientist who was heavily involved on the frontier of stem cell research and who was a Catholic, and there are many other scientists today who are religious. Personally, I disagree with the image, as I believe that religion and politics/science can coexist, and no separation needs to occur to allow this research to continue. However, I agree with the graph that the scientist in the cartoon is pointing to, as it shows how often at times politics and religions are separate (many times it is needed to be), and it shows an overlap between the two topics. Although some science may rebut the existence of a higher power, I find it hard to believe every aspect of science and religion need to be separated.
The main argument against stem cell research is that which coincides with Aquinas' natural law- what is natural must be good. Although many people think that it unethical because a higher power deemed unnatural things to be unethical/perhaps evil, the argument that stem cell research is unethical also is supported by those who are non religious, as some may think of it as unhealthy. This is why I believe that we cannot classify people as either religious or non religious when it comes to dealing with 'taking sides' on the matter of stem cell research.
I feel as though I don't have enough knowledge on stem cell research to make a fully informed opinion on the matter, but I think that autonomy is an extremely important (if not the most important) factor when it comes to making ethical decisions, and if this research is to better the lives of many out there, then it shouldn't be hindered due to it being unnatural in nature.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
I think that both Ayla & Ellie have made valuable contribution regarding the issue of stem cell research- but I'd like to touch upon a more broad idea that I've picked up on from this particular prompt. The issue of religion and politics intertwining, and not being kept separate from one another. This highly debated issue is also known as the "separation of church and state."
My personal viewpoint on the issue is that church and state should be kept separate by all means necessary. Faith is often very subjective and a personal belief, that varies drastically from person to person. The idea of a state government is that they rule and protect over a melting pot of society, not simply serving to protect one religious group. If one religious group were put into a position of power over another, it's very possible that a majority will force a minority to conform to their beliefs simply because they believe that their religious views are more valid and will benefit those who do not practice it immensely. When, actually all beliefs and religious viewpoints are equally valuable to the individual- but since we all believe different things, it's important that our state is run by people who are able to objectively make fair decisions that benefit the maximum amount of people without being swayed by something as personal as their own religious beliefs.
Yes, Zack, you've made an important point. There is so much unspoken conflict between the church and state--just as part of the mindset (maybe even unconscious) of the people involved in the debate. The issue is not so much between religions, but between religion (sanctity of life) and secularism (not religious, focus on quality of life in most cases). The advancements in science for example are secular issues but elements of this progress steps on religious toes, so to speak. Even where church and state separation is written into the law, the reality is that people don't find it easy to ignore their religious/cultural traditions even when they are aware they should.
The topic at hand is one that we all can relate to, especially in our modern world where religion is squared off with differing political perspectives.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon deals with the controversy surrounding stem cells- quite a few religious groups pertain to the belief that with the present types of technology available, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line demands the destruction of a human embryo. Pro-life supporters have been keen critics of stem cell research as they believe that this young embryo has rights despite not yet being a fully formed human; it has the potential to become a human being and destructing it violates the sanctity of life and is akin to murder.
Modern thinkers, on the other hand, have a more scientific approach and feel that these young embryos aren’t humans at all- they may have the potential to become ones but at the present moment, they simply are not. Instead, through stem cell research, differentiating cells are able to be created and be used to treat all kinds of disease, thus providing more people with the chance to live and recover from their illnesses.
I personally believe that stem cell research is of high importance; from burn victims to people in need of a bone marrow transplant, there are multiple types of diseases and illnesses that can be cured with the simplistic introduction of stem cells. I do not think that the embryo is a human at such an early stage- it certainly has the potential to become one but it doesn’t have a beating heart or brain activity occurring, both being essential human characteristics.
More human beings are benefitting from the implementation of stem cells and I simply don't think that the research surrounding them should be hindered any further.
I agree with Ayla in that there are two very different controversial perspectives when it comes to Stem Cell research. However, I don't think it is as clear cut as either having a religious view or a modern view towards the matter.
DeleteWhen doing quick research into Stem Cells and genetic modification, I came across a video (although I don't remember the name unfortunately) that discussed the arguments for and against stem cell research. In this video, what really stood out to me was that there was one research scientist who was heavily involved on the frontier of stem cell research and who was a Catholic, and there are many other scientists today who are religious.
Personally, I disagree with the image, as I believe that religion and politics/science can coexist, and no separation needs to occur to allow this research to continue. However, I agree with the graph that the scientist in the cartoon is pointing to, as it shows how often at times politics and religions are separate (many times it is needed to be), and it shows an overlap between the two topics. Although some science may rebut the existence of a higher power, I find it hard to believe every aspect of science and religion need to be separated.
The main argument against stem cell research is that which coincides with Aquinas' natural law- what is natural must be good. Although many people think that it unethical because a higher power deemed unnatural things to be unethical/perhaps evil, the argument that stem cell research is unethical also is supported by those who are non religious, as some may think of it as unhealthy. This is why I believe that we cannot classify people as either religious or non religious when it comes to dealing with 'taking sides' on the matter of stem cell research.
I feel as though I don't have enough knowledge on stem cell research to make a fully informed opinion on the matter, but I think that autonomy is an extremely important (if not the most important) factor when it comes to making ethical decisions, and if this research is to better the lives of many out there, then it shouldn't be hindered due to it being unnatural in nature.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
I think that both Ayla & Ellie have made valuable contribution regarding the issue of stem cell research- but I'd like to touch upon a more broad idea that I've picked up on from this particular prompt. The issue of religion and politics intertwining, and not being kept separate from one another. This highly debated issue is also known as the "separation of church and state."
DeleteMy personal viewpoint on the issue is that church and state should be kept separate by all means necessary. Faith is often very subjective and a personal belief, that varies drastically from person to person. The idea of a state government is that they rule and protect over a melting pot of society, not simply serving to protect one religious group. If one religious group were put into a position of power over another, it's very possible that a majority will force a minority to conform to their beliefs simply because they believe that their religious views are more valid and will benefit those who do not practice it immensely. When, actually all beliefs and religious viewpoints are equally valuable to the individual- but since we all believe different things, it's important that our state is run by people who are able to objectively make fair decisions that benefit the maximum amount of people without being swayed by something as personal as their own religious beliefs.
Yes, Zack, you've made an important point. There is so much unspoken conflict between the church and state--just as part of the mindset (maybe even unconscious) of the people involved in the debate. The issue is not so much between religions, but between religion (sanctity of life) and secularism (not religious, focus on quality of life in most cases). The advancements in science for example are secular issues but elements of this progress steps on religious toes, so to speak. Even where church and state separation is written into the law, the reality is that people don't find it easy to ignore their religious/cultural traditions even when they are aware they should.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete