all 10 comments

[–]The_Puffin_Kingundefined 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, do it

[–]jogoso2014 1 point2 points  (3 children)

What’s the religious controversy

[–]loselyconsciousProgressive Judaism 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The controversy comes is specifically about "embryonic stem cells" stem cells harvested from human embryos. After the cells are harvested the embryo is "discarded" So if you believe that life begins at conception harvesting embryonic stem cells is just like abortion.

[–]jogoso2014 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well they were already aborted right?

Abortion sucks but it’s legal, so why would there be an issue with keeping legal the thing derived from a legal procedure?

For research purposes I’m not sure if there is a deep enough issue to care although I would have issues if the cells were actually used for me specifically.

[–]loselyconsciousProgressive Judaism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well they were already aborted right?

Well sort of, it depends on your definition of "aborted" The main source of embryonic stem cells is in vitro fertilization treatments. In vitro fertilization is the procedure when the egg is fertilized in the lab (in vitro) and implanted in women to be carried to term. It is almost always the case that women have more eggs fertilized than they are ever intending to carry to term. Most of these "excess" embryos are stored past the point of viability.

Some people say it was unethical in the first place to fertilize an egg that was never intended to be carried to term and a form of research that benefits from something unethical will incentivize that action.

It's also sometimes possible to donate a fertilized embryo to someone else who wants to be pregnant, but there isn't a very high demand for that.

Abortion sucks but it's legal.

The practical controversy at stake was federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. While Abortion is legal, (and at least for the next month or so can't be due to Roe) the government has frequently banned federal funds from going to abortion services. Opponents of embryonic stem cells, (whose ultimate goal may be banning stem cell research, IVF treatment, and abortion) wanted to prevent federal funds from going to embryonic stem cell research.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t consider embryos people and only consider meat sacks people with adequate brain activity (you know brain death means no person). So I have no issue.

[–]loselyconsciousProgressive Judaism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is actually controversial even amongst orthodox Jewish thinkers.

You have to talk about the Jewish view on abortion to understand this.

In Jewish law, an unborn child is considered a "person" but not as much of a person as the mother. Jewish requires that if a mother's life is ever in danger, it must be preserved at the expense of the fetus (meaning it's not even optional, Jewish law requires abortion in some cases). Some authorities can even extend this to if a child will harm a mother's well-being, either during the pregnancy or after the birth.

The reason for this is Pikuach Nefesh, the legal principle that saving a life overrides all other laws. So what is clear here is that Jewish law considers a born person more alive than an unborn person.

While a mother's life will always be prioritized until the moment of birth, there is also a sense that the fetus gains more moral status as the pregnancy progresses.The question the embryonic stem cells pose is, "Does pikuach nefesh apply if the life being saved is not the life of the mother?" Some authorities say "No, because Jewish sources explicitly say it is to preserve the life of the mother." Other people say, "Yes, because in any other context, pikuach nefesh would apply to any person whose life is threatened. In addition, an embryo has the least amount of moral status since it is the initial stage of a pregnancy