Embryonic stem cell research
-
ahz wrote:
It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
-
thealj wrote:
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
No it's not. It's only half the equation. That's my point. You're making strawman arguements.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
It's not a strawman, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am simply stating that an unfertilized egg also has the potential to become human as well. I was trying to get you to realize that it is important to be specific in arguments such as these. The key issue is not the "potential" part, rather it is the moment of fertilization that sets into motion a chain of significant events. It is the potential of the fertilized egg that is important. While the moment of fertilization is not "magical" in itself, so to speak, what it does is initiate a long-term and complicated biological process whose end result is the creation of a human.
-
ahz wrote:
It's a PERSON-IN-POTENTIAL.
So is an unfertilized egg. What's your point?
Potential is not the right word. You are correct than an unfertalized egg, or a sperm have the potential to become human. But that is only a statistical probability. A fertilized egg is the moment of beginning, of creation. The process of an actual human life has begun. It is underway. It is on the road. It has set sail. It has taken off. Its good to go. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
I agree with most of what you said until this last paragraph. Our president does not have the authority to close abortion clinics, nor should he. He does have the power of veto which he is within his rights to use, though I believe this is the first time Bush has done so. Congress can override his veto if they get enough votes (2/3?). He has placed (or tried to place) justices on the supreme court that may, some day, have the opportunity to reverse the roe v. wade decision, but Bush really can't do anything else. It is all part of our checks and balances system, which actually works pretty well. (It might be argued that it would work even better when someone smarter than a stalk of celery is at the helm, but Bush has actually demonstrated how even a complete buffoon cannot destroy this country, even though he has tried his hardest. Yes, I will now run away after my pot shot.)
Okay, I accept your argument.
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Funny. The same people that ban the law for the sake of life are the same people justifying killing thousands of people in Iraq for whatever reason. All rubbish. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Vygotsky in his studies into cognitive development established fact that newborn babies already possess certain mental functions, thus a measurable degree of consciousness.
What is a "degree of consciousness"? A dog has that as well. Is killing a baby therefore equivalent to killing a cow or pig (as their level of consciousness is undoubtedly similar)?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nature definition shows that the base meaning in terms of childhood (not just humankind but any creature) indicates a state of in-built actions and re-actions of an abstract kind.
I don't understand. Can you reword this? If you're stating that babies act and react, the same could be applied to early fetuses.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nurture is the cultivation of the life-form from where Nature apparently concludes. In order for a child of some life-form to become a worthwhile and valuable member of that life-form's society, the influences of Nature is insufficient. Caring for and instruction of the child by parents and perhaps others of that species is necessary. This not just ensures that the child of such species conforms to expectations but to become a candidate for the promulgation of their kind.
I don't understand this either. Are you saying that life begins once "nature" hands off to "nurture"? This still does not clarify any particular point of development, since many 3rd trimester babies are capable of living outside the womb, but remain to complete development. And does the mother not nurture the fetus during development (by eating properly and not drinking, for example)? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Nature/Nurture debate - yes it is still on-going. Consciousness is subjective. It has different meanings according to who you read. And yes, technically, this is correct, though our morals would never allow - your question - Is killing a baby therefore equivalent to killing a cow or pig (as their level of consciousness is undoubtedly similar) My partner is doing a college course in Early Years, and the following references are some of the many of the resources she has has available as I write. 1. http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~pgermann/projects/Sci.\_Inquiry/Epistemology/epistemology.html 2. http://edpsychserver.ed.vt.edu/workshops/tohe1999/text/doo2.pdf 3. Richard Gross 'Psychology - The Science of Mind and Behaviour' 3rd Edition, ISBN 0 340 64762 0 published 1996 Hodder & Stoughton 4. Penny Tassoni 'BTEC National Early Years' 2nd Edition, ISBN 0 435 46372 1. Heinemann 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_neuroscience accessed 6. http://www.azinet.com/ 7. http://www.leemsilver.net/SilverArticles/02SilverEvolution.pdf 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=gnd.TOC&depth=10
-
thealj wrote:
Exactly.
Thanks for agreeing that it is stupid to compare a human at any stage of development to a bacteria. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thanks for agreeing that it is stupid to compare a human at any stage of development to a bacteria.
:laugh: Is that all you wanted? Then fine. I agree it's silly. I used the comparison deliberately only to illustrate a point.
-
It's not a strawman, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am simply stating that an unfertilized egg also has the potential to become human as well. I was trying to get you to realize that it is important to be specific in arguments such as these. The key issue is not the "potential" part, rather it is the moment of fertilization that sets into motion a chain of significant events. It is the potential of the fertilized egg that is important. While the moment of fertilization is not "magical" in itself, so to speak, what it does is initiate a long-term and complicated biological process whose end result is the creation of a human.
You brought up the unfertilized egg(s) being "wasted" every month in a woman's menstrual cycle. And then mention that this egg is also a potential human. I disagree. You don't have a potential human until you have a fertilized human egg. It seems you are trying to show that other forms of "potential humans" are being "killed", which leads me to wonder if you are you trying to use this as some form of justification for abortion. Again you can't compare the two. A potential human is a fertilized human egg, nothing else is --- IMMHO.:)
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Nature/Nurture debate - yes it is still on-going. Consciousness is subjective. It has different meanings according to who you read. And yes, technically, this is correct, though our morals would never allow - your question - Is killing a baby therefore equivalent to killing a cow or pig (as their level of consciousness is undoubtedly similar) My partner is doing a college course in Early Years, and the following references are some of the many of the resources she has has available as I write. 1. http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~pgermann/projects/Sci.\_Inquiry/Epistemology/epistemology.html 2. http://edpsychserver.ed.vt.edu/workshops/tohe1999/text/doo2.pdf 3. Richard Gross 'Psychology - The Science of Mind and Behaviour' 3rd Edition, ISBN 0 340 64762 0 published 1996 Hodder & Stoughton 4. Penny Tassoni 'BTEC National Early Years' 2nd Edition, ISBN 0 435 46372 1. Heinemann 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_neuroscience accessed 6. http://www.azinet.com/ 7. http://www.leemsilver.net/SilverArticles/02SilverEvolution.pdf 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=gnd.TOC&depth=10
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
though our morals would never allow
That's an important point because while I frame the matter almost exclusively as a moral one, you're trying to frame it as a biological one. So while I want to restrict the destruction of human life in very broad terms, you want to specifically define what constitutes human life. I contend that your approach is not possible because we do not see eachother as biological entities but rather as friend, family, and dirty liberal hippies. I choose a very early definition for the creation of human life because that is the most moral approach. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
For testtube babies (IVT) I believe several egg-sperm fusions are done (I may not be using the correct technical words) and some of them die - if you think life begins at conception (union of egg and sperm), then during IVT, a few lives are killed. I understand what you are saying, but it may be best to fix the beginning of human life more accurately - perhaps when the embryo is 90 days old. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
but it may be best to fix the beginning of human life more accurately - perhaps when the embryo is 90 days old.
So if your wife gets pregnant, you'd be ok with giving up a 30 day old embryo in the name of science? I doubt it. I bet you any amount of money you'll see it then. And you could see it now if you allow yourself. Jeremy Falcon
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And people get killed every day in car wrecks also, so why not just arbitrarily kill adult humans?
huh? WTF are talking about? You're comparing things that aren't comparable, Mr. Strawman.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
No they are related, but I'll let espeir Stan [edit] Don't ask, I'm getting old. [/edit] do the explaining. It's not difficult to see really. Jeremy Falcon
-
A virus is never going to develope into a human being. Thats a pretty encompassing minimum definition. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
What? I was talking about a minimum description that fits all living things. Not equating a virus with an embryo, though they are both alive. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
What? I was talking about a minimum description that fits all living things. Not equating a virus with an embryo, though they are both alive. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I was talking about a minimum description that fits all living things.
We're not talking about living things. We're talking about living humans. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
If
Huge word there... "if". You have no idea what you would do in a situation you do not face. None of us do. What if your wife or child faced such a situation? What about a grandchild? Do some serious research on the topic before you apply your "morals". "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
I do know what I would do. I just told you. If my wife or child faced such a situation, it would not be only my decision.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Do some serious research on the topic before you apply your "morals".
What makes you think I haven't researched the topic? Our morals guide us in every decision, whether you like to admit it or not. My morals say not to do it. Period.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
espeir wrote:
And adult stem cells can do the same thing (per the same link).
Again, according to the article, one of the advantages of embryonic stem cells is that they are: "Flexible: They have the potential to make any body cell." This is not true of adult stem cells, and is one of the reasons research should proceed on both fronts. The mere fact that the advantages differ at all would seem to indicate as much. Again, you ignore the fact that embryonic stem cell research is supported by a majority of the scientific community, consensus within the biomed field, the American public (by a 2:1 margin), and congressional vote, instead choosing to cite a single researcher interviewed on right-wing radio, couple that with your own biased speculation, and turn it into yet another pointless rant against the left. It's not "the left" that supports it. It's the majority. The majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
That's tyranny! "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Because more research is required. Advances do not occur overnight.
Research in embryonic stem cells has been continuing for over 5 years with zero results while adult stem cells have yielded about 65 successful clinical trials in that time. Results may progress slowly but should progress if there is truly any promise.
dennisd45 wrote:
And who is your fearless leader of the monolithic right?
I don't have one. Republicans voted for this bill and I part with them because I'm not blind.
dennisd45 wrote:
There is no evidence that that is true. Research is in it's infancy, and to say, at this early date, that it is a dead end, is way to permature.
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
dennisd45 wrote:
That is ridiculous. Many people, on the left and right, support research because of the potential to cure many diseases. Nancy Reagan support the research.
Many people support it, but the left specifically uses rhetoric that now equates abortion to life. I consider their position anti-science. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
And since you heard this expert on right wing talk radio, do think there just might be the smallest chance that they shopped for an opinion they liked? That he would agree to be part of such a forum makes him highly suspect. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I was talking about a minimum description that fits all living things.
We're not talking about living things. We're talking about living humans. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
..By the criterias biologists call something alive
Not in the nearest ancestor mate. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
led mike wrote:
And of course there are no innocent people in the Middle East.
Actually I said Lebanon. Don't misquote me, moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Stop misquoting me, moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
And since you heard this expert on right wing talk radio, do think there just might be the smallest chance that they shopped for an opinion they liked? That he would agree to be part of such a forum makes him highly suspect. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Tim Craig wrote:
That he would agree to be part of such a forum makes him highly suspect.
Why? Are scientists supposed to discriminate against conservatives now? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy