Human Cloning
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: puppies are cute and cockroaches are not Have you ever tried to cuddle a cockroach? It's most awkward. Jeremy Falcon wrote: vegetarians consider it ok to eat plants but not animals despite both of them are living organisms Have you ever tried to cuddle a plant? Jeremy Falcon wrote: hey, what color underwear is best to not see fart stains with Black, I guess, but I'm not sure what a fart stain is (local dialect?).
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
David Wulff wrote: but I'm not sure what a fart stain is (local dialect?). BTW, I don't know if a fart can make a stain, it was just me trying to make light of the situation. Maybe I should change it to shit stains? :) Jeremy Falcon
-
John Theal wrote: Ridiculous assertion. Would you have us remain in the dark ages? Nope, but I would like humans to respect human life first and foremost. With the way we are headed with technology human life will become less valuable and not more valuable. If you fail to see, then it is not I who is ridiculous. [edit] Note, I didn't say that disregard for human life is two years down the road. I said it's only the beginning. And, please people vote me down and don't reply -- that's a great way to get some intelligent conversation going. [/edit] John Theal wrote: You give me frightening recollections of the days in which the church controlled/dictated what people could study and the conclusions they could draw from their observations. I'm an atheist and not religious; I just scrutinize. Jeremy Falcon
[Message Deleted]
-
Have you ever wondered why people say puppies are cute and cockroaches are not? Or, why do vegetarians consider it ok to eat plants but not animals despite both of them are living organisms? If you know the answers to these questions then you should see where I’m going with this. Oh, and once again I expect people to vote me down without replying simply because they are morons with no real means of upholding a conversation outside of "hey, what color underwear is best to not see fart stains with." Jeremy Falcon
You are not looking at the problem the right way. Your arguments are underdeveloped and illogical. They are transparently based on personal opinion and lack objectivity. This is why opinions such as yours are not included in the debate. You believe we should not experiment with human genetic material simply because humans are "special"? I think you are the type of person who says "cancer is a terrible disease, lets raise money for a cure just as long as that type of cure doesn't include research on this or that particular area, but hey! Look at me! I'm doing good work raising money and awareness!" When in fact you support contradictory opinions and do nothing to stop the thousands that die monthly from this horrible affliction. But then, according to you, saving human life is first and foremost, so it only makes sense that we should not sacrifice one life to save thousands...
modified on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:52 AM
-
:laugh: [edit] All jokes aside, your answer does revolve around the reasons. Good insight -- whether intentional or not! [/edit] Jeremy Falcon
-
I agree in part at least with Jheremy's comment. The development of many things have helped the human race, electricity, computers, flight any number of technologies. However, mankind has also developed the ability to destroy itself using nuclear weapons or biological weapons. The problem doesn't lie within the technology, but within its use. Things like genetic engineering of crops or people have the possibility of undesired consequences, what if due to a lack of testing a genetically engineered drop did serious damage to our ecosystems? The EU severely limits the use of these things while here in the US they are allowed much more latitude. As for human cloning, what about the long term consequences to the clones? Are they people? Do they have rights if they are cloned, or are they just organ donors? I don't see that the human race has done a very good job of making what could be called good moral decisions. If its OK to clone a human why not use IVF and then harvest the organs from the resulting child, what's the difference? Does the fact a baby came out of a vagina make it different? I don't see the technologies as bad in themselves I just question the wisdom in using some of them. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
I reread the article very carefully for a second time in order that I could be very specific with my reply. The important part of the text is here: Doug Goulden wrote: Prof Wilmut now plans to take the DNA from the skin or blood of a person with motor neurone disease and implant it into a human egg from which the genetic material has been removed. The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Scientists will then remove cells from it and destroy the embryo. The nerve cells will then be studied in a way which is said to be impossible in a living patient, because the key cells are in the central nervous system of sufferers and cannot be removed and analysed. Which, unless I have read wrongly, is very different than allowing the clone to develop into a complete human being. Consequently, the value of the results of such a study are of extremely high importance. This is no different than some of the testing that has been carried out upon animals in the name of science. Furthermore, animal results can rarely be extended to humans and the value of such animal based studies is highly questionable. This technique, on the other hand, has the possibility of translating into very significant results and avoiding many lengthy delays in getting therapy to patients that typically occur after animal studies. I am particularly interested in this approach, because I have conducted research on cancer therapies and animal studies are of limited value at best. The question you have to ask yourself is this: is it better to complete a multitude of very limited studies on animals, the results of which may or may not be extendable to humans, or to carry out research using this approach. The value of which is very apparent. You have to remember that in this case time is measured in lives.
-
[Message Deleted]
John Theal wrote: Human life is no more precious than any other form of life on this planet. This is subjective and not really pertaining to the topic at hand. We are not talking about humans being more important than grasshoppers. We are talking about cloning and the adverse effects of it (i.e.; human on human). John Theal wrote: The nature of our existence depends very strongly upon that of the existence of other forms of life. True, but would you be ok with dying in the jungle knowing that your body is feeding a lion and his family? John Theal wrote: Therefore, testing on animals or fertilized human eggs is equivalent despite what anyone says. There is no correlation in what you just said outside of the fact you believe that human life is no more important than that of an ant. I happen to not agree with this for many reasons. John Theal wrote: Furthermore at the stage of development of the cells the researchers intend to use there is no presence of intelligent life. This is by definition. A definition of a subjective subject is still subjective. So, how do you define "intelligent life" -- being self aware, being able to do math? What makes intelligent life more important than non-intelligent life? You say ants are just as important as humans? So, you base your distinctions of importance of life on the mere presence of intelligence as defined by this context? Ok, let's assume that you think being self-aware is the meaning of intelligent life and therefore non-expendable. But, here's a thought. Life exists in many fashions, why it is ok to kill the living organisms that you can't identify with as a living, self-aware human being? You may not consider humans more important, but you consider self-awares more important than non-self-awares if you honestly believe what you just said. John Theal wrote: It cannot be argued that this is a greater crime than testing on a fully developed animal. A human child is not a fully developed animal either. John Theal wrote: At this point in time the environmental condition of the earth demands that more importance be put on other forms of life rather than human. If you fail to see, then it is not I who is ridiculous. This is unrelated unless you are talking about the taking of human life to preserve the environment. Since you feel that way, I vote that we experiment
-
You are not looking at the problem the right way. Your arguments are underdeveloped and illogical. They are transparently based on personal opinion and lack objectivity. This is why opinions such as yours are not included in the debate. You believe we should not experiment with human genetic material simply because humans are "special"? I think you are the type of person who says "cancer is a terrible disease, lets raise money for a cure just as long as that type of cure doesn't include research on this or that particular area, but hey! Look at me! I'm doing good work raising money and awareness!" When in fact you support contradictory opinions and do nothing to stop the thousands that die monthly from this horrible affliction. But then, according to you, saving human life is first and foremost, so it only makes sense that we should not sacrifice one life to save thousands...
modified on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:52 AM
John Theal wrote: Your arguments are underdeveloped and illogical. They are transparently based on personal opinion and lack objectivity. This is why opinions such as yours are not included in the debate. What a blanket statement that is. You do realize everything you just said is of your opinion? And yet, that's what you claim to debunk my side with -- on the basis of opinion. At least grace me with specifics. John Theal wrote: You believe we should not experiment with human genetic material simply because humans are "special"? Even given the opportunity, I'd believe that it would be wrong for dogs to experiment with doggy DNA at the expense of a doggy embryo. But, we'll never have to face that situation until dogs learn to communicate better (long story that one is). John Theal wrote: When in fact you support contradictory opinions and do nothing to stop the thousands that die monthly from this horrible affliction. But then, according to you, saving human life is first and foremost, so it only makes sense that we should not sacrifice one life to save thousands... Your right, I don't think it's ok to take life for life [edit] in this context [/edit]. But, there are two fundamental differences here. If someone can make a conscious choice they want to sacrifice of themselves for a cause, then so be it. Embryos aren't given that choice. Also, there are alternative ways -- maybe we don't know them all today. In the case of cancer, I could argue that you don't care about the millions of lost lives just as much if you don't actively promote a healthy lifestyle with exercise (whether you personally do or not is not the point). Most common cancers wouldn't claim nearly as many of lives as they do if people would be healthier. Jeremy Falcon
-
John Theal wrote: Human life is no more precious than any other form of life on this planet. This is subjective and not really pertaining to the topic at hand. We are not talking about humans being more important than grasshoppers. We are talking about cloning and the adverse effects of it (i.e.; human on human). John Theal wrote: The nature of our existence depends very strongly upon that of the existence of other forms of life. True, but would you be ok with dying in the jungle knowing that your body is feeding a lion and his family? John Theal wrote: Therefore, testing on animals or fertilized human eggs is equivalent despite what anyone says. There is no correlation in what you just said outside of the fact you believe that human life is no more important than that of an ant. I happen to not agree with this for many reasons. John Theal wrote: Furthermore at the stage of development of the cells the researchers intend to use there is no presence of intelligent life. This is by definition. A definition of a subjective subject is still subjective. So, how do you define "intelligent life" -- being self aware, being able to do math? What makes intelligent life more important than non-intelligent life? You say ants are just as important as humans? So, you base your distinctions of importance of life on the mere presence of intelligence as defined by this context? Ok, let's assume that you think being self-aware is the meaning of intelligent life and therefore non-expendable. But, here's a thought. Life exists in many fashions, why it is ok to kill the living organisms that you can't identify with as a living, self-aware human being? You may not consider humans more important, but you consider self-awares more important than non-self-awares if you honestly believe what you just said. John Theal wrote: It cannot be argued that this is a greater crime than testing on a fully developed animal. A human child is not a fully developed animal either. John Theal wrote: At this point in time the environmental condition of the earth demands that more importance be put on other forms of life rather than human. If you fail to see, then it is not I who is ridiculous. This is unrelated unless you are talking about the taking of human life to preserve the environment. Since you feel that way, I vote that we experiment
[Message Deleted]
-
John Theal wrote: Your arguments are underdeveloped and illogical. They are transparently based on personal opinion and lack objectivity. This is why opinions such as yours are not included in the debate. What a blanket statement that is. You do realize everything you just said is of your opinion? And yet, that's what you claim to debunk my side with -- on the basis of opinion. At least grace me with specifics. John Theal wrote: You believe we should not experiment with human genetic material simply because humans are "special"? Even given the opportunity, I'd believe that it would be wrong for dogs to experiment with doggy DNA at the expense of a doggy embryo. But, we'll never have to face that situation until dogs learn to communicate better (long story that one is). John Theal wrote: When in fact you support contradictory opinions and do nothing to stop the thousands that die monthly from this horrible affliction. But then, according to you, saving human life is first and foremost, so it only makes sense that we should not sacrifice one life to save thousands... Your right, I don't think it's ok to take life for life [edit] in this context [/edit]. But, there are two fundamental differences here. If someone can make a conscious choice they want to sacrifice of themselves for a cause, then so be it. Embryos aren't given that choice. Also, there are alternative ways -- maybe we don't know them all today. In the case of cancer, I could argue that you don't care about the millions of lost lives just as much if you don't actively promote a healthy lifestyle with exercise (whether you personally do or not is not the point). Most common cancers wouldn't claim nearly as many of lives as they do if people would be healthier. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: What a blanket statement that is. You do realize everything you just said is of your opinion? And yet, that's what you claim to debunk my side with -- on the basis of opinion. At least grace me with specifics. Not at all. Your argument opposing human cloning has consisted solely of your personal opinion that human life should be valued first and foremost. Yet you admittedly do not have a concrete definition of what life is. How do you propose to participate in such a discussion when you are not even prepared for the debate? Life is a very ill-defined concept. Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, yet women are not held responsible for their care, nor do they fall under the current laws of our society and culture. By that token, we can examine the procedure described in the article: Prof Wilmut now plans to take the DNA from the skin or blood of a person with motor neurone disease and implant it into a human egg from which the genetic material has been removed. The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Scientists will then remove cells from it and destroy the embryo. This is no different than a woman losing an egg during ovulation. During menstruation, if a woman is not fertilized one of her (finite supply) eggs is lost and a life is not created. Is this considered a horrific act? In this case an egg is removed and the genetic material is replaced with that of the patient under study, presumably with their consent. The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. Unfortunately the method of stimulation is not described. It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. Although life, I will for your sake state that it is not viable human life. Jeremy Falcon wrote: In the case of cancer, I could argue that you don't care about the millions of lost lives just as much if you don't actively promote a healthy lifestyle with exercise (whether you personally do or not is not the point). Most common cancers wouldn't claim nearly as many of lives as they do if people would be healthier. Why do you think this? I am not responsible for the way people live their life. Cancer research aims to provide treatment for the il
-
[Message Deleted]
John Theal wrote: Yes, but is was you who raised the point that human life should be respected first and foremost. I did, but you were veering off onto an unrelated topic about the environment. I said what I said to keep the conversation on track. And, my statement revolved around the fact that we as humans should put human needs first, not if humans are more important than ants. John Theal wrote: Thus my statement regarding animal vs. human was highly relevant. I didn't say it was irrelevant; I said it was subjective. And, it's wrong. :) John Theal wrote: You are free to believe this, however were the entire population of the world's ants to be eliminated tomorrow I would not like to witness the implications on the food chain. I never said wiping out the entire population of ants was a wise idea. You're missing my point entirely. I'm talking about life and choosing what's expendable and what's not. You said non-intelligent life is expendable. I say, define what you mean by intelligent life. If you take that to mean I think killing ecosystems is a good thing, then you're just fishing for reasons to argue. John Theal wrote: With a bit of thought you will see that entire ecosystems and thus humanity's survival depends on species like this. Well duh. But, I'm still under the belief that the consequences to the planet would be more catastrophic if humans were wiped out than were ants. But, that's a whole different story. John Theal wrote: Ah, but I said nothing of the sort and now you are setting up a strawman. No I'm not. I'm asking to you fully explain the contradictions that arise out of your beliefs, and I am giving examples along the way. John Theal wrote: I merely used ants as an example, but the same could be said regarding algae, grass, trees... I realize that, but you're missing the point. I'm not referring so much to the different kinds of life, but rather what makes you so comfortable with being judgmental enough to say what goes and what stays. I know my reasoning. Do you know yours? John Theal wrote: Unlike some others, I do not distinguish between types of life. Yes you do. You already said non-intelligent life is expendable. That's a disguishing characteristic. John Theal wrote: This is what makes me human and keeps me alive an
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: What a blanket statement that is. You do realize everything you just said is of your opinion? And yet, that's what you claim to debunk my side with -- on the basis of opinion. At least grace me with specifics. Not at all. Your argument opposing human cloning has consisted solely of your personal opinion that human life should be valued first and foremost. Yet you admittedly do not have a concrete definition of what life is. How do you propose to participate in such a discussion when you are not even prepared for the debate? Life is a very ill-defined concept. Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, yet women are not held responsible for their care, nor do they fall under the current laws of our society and culture. By that token, we can examine the procedure described in the article: Prof Wilmut now plans to take the DNA from the skin or blood of a person with motor neurone disease and implant it into a human egg from which the genetic material has been removed. The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Scientists will then remove cells from it and destroy the embryo. This is no different than a woman losing an egg during ovulation. During menstruation, if a woman is not fertilized one of her (finite supply) eggs is lost and a life is not created. Is this considered a horrific act? In this case an egg is removed and the genetic material is replaced with that of the patient under study, presumably with their consent. The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. Unfortunately the method of stimulation is not described. It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. Although life, I will for your sake state that it is not viable human life. Jeremy Falcon wrote: In the case of cancer, I could argue that you don't care about the millions of lost lives just as much if you don't actively promote a healthy lifestyle with exercise (whether you personally do or not is not the point). Most common cancers wouldn't claim nearly as many of lives as they do if people would be healthier. Why do you think this? I am not responsible for the way people live their life. Cancer research aims to provide treatment for the il
John Theal wrote: Yet you admittedly do not have a concrete definition of what life is. When did I admit this? I do believe this is the second stage of human life with a zygote being the first. Now, this may be "non-intelligent" as of yet, but I don't believe that should be the determining factor when screwing around with human life. John Theal wrote: How do you propose to participate in such a discussion when you are not even prepared for the debate? What a load of subjective crap. Points man -- stick to them. John Theal wrote: Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Cickety[^] By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. John Theal wrote: The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. And just how do you think that process comes about -- magic? John Theal wrote: It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. You don't know what you're talking about. Stem call research isn't the same thing as reproductive cloning. It's for producing stem cells to make tissues and what not from embryonic cells. http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#14a[^] And yes, embryos are fertilized already for the second time. John Theal wrote: Not telling people how to live their life in a healthy manner has nothing to do with saving the lives of those suffering from cancer. Why not? If you help somebody have a better life after they get to cancer that will help them fight it or at least allow them to enjoy the rest of their days better, why is this not a concern to you? John Theal wrote: There is a very important delineation. Lives are not lost until the person is ill. What about the people
-
I reread the article very carefully for a second time in order that I could be very specific with my reply. The important part of the text is here: Doug Goulden wrote: Prof Wilmut now plans to take the DNA from the skin or blood of a person with motor neurone disease and implant it into a human egg from which the genetic material has been removed. The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Scientists will then remove cells from it and destroy the embryo. The nerve cells will then be studied in a way which is said to be impossible in a living patient, because the key cells are in the central nervous system of sufferers and cannot be removed and analysed. Which, unless I have read wrongly, is very different than allowing the clone to develop into a complete human being. Consequently, the value of the results of such a study are of extremely high importance. This is no different than some of the testing that has been carried out upon animals in the name of science. Furthermore, animal results can rarely be extended to humans and the value of such animal based studies is highly questionable. This technique, on the other hand, has the possibility of translating into very significant results and avoiding many lengthy delays in getting therapy to patients that typically occur after animal studies. I am particularly interested in this approach, because I have conducted research on cancer therapies and animal studies are of limited value at best. The question you have to ask yourself is this: is it better to complete a multitude of very limited studies on animals, the results of which may or may not be extendable to humans, or to carry out research using this approach. The value of which is very apparent. You have to remember that in this case time is measured in lives.
John Theal wrote: The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Now, does anyone mind telling me how you stimulate an egg into an embryo without fertilizing it? I'm curious to know. Jeremy Falcon
-
I reread the article very carefully for a second time in order that I could be very specific with my reply. The important part of the text is here: Doug Goulden wrote: Prof Wilmut now plans to take the DNA from the skin or blood of a person with motor neurone disease and implant it into a human egg from which the genetic material has been removed. The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Scientists will then remove cells from it and destroy the embryo. The nerve cells will then be studied in a way which is said to be impossible in a living patient, because the key cells are in the central nervous system of sufferers and cannot be removed and analysed. Which, unless I have read wrongly, is very different than allowing the clone to develop into a complete human being. Consequently, the value of the results of such a study are of extremely high importance. This is no different than some of the testing that has been carried out upon animals in the name of science. Furthermore, animal results can rarely be extended to humans and the value of such animal based studies is highly questionable. This technique, on the other hand, has the possibility of translating into very significant results and avoiding many lengthy delays in getting therapy to patients that typically occur after animal studies. I am particularly interested in this approach, because I have conducted research on cancer therapies and animal studies are of limited value at best. The question you have to ask yourself is this: is it better to complete a multitude of very limited studies on animals, the results of which may or may not be extendable to humans, or to carry out research using this approach. The value of which is very apparent. You have to remember that in this case time is measured in lives.
My comments were made within the context of whether someone being concerned with a technology's effect is equivalent to wanting to prevent technological advance. In the article mentioned, the dangers involved are minimal, but I drew in the possible effects of progressing beyond this. Genetic engineering of our food supply or of our offspring might have devestating effects, beyond what might be immediately recognized in initial testing. Jeremey made the point that we might be planting the seeds of our eventual destruction, I agreed. In one of your posts you mention the potential catastrophic effect of eliminating the population of all the ants in the world. What if a genetically enhanced bacteria that was designed to eat oil spills inadvertantely caused this kind of destruction? Or look at the effects of large scale fertilizer usage on the ocean's chemistry. The introduction of large quantities of fertilizer to increase crop yields (and make greener golf courses) has created vast areas where ocean life cannot sustain itself. My point was that we cannot forsee many of the effects of what our technologies might cause. When we created fire or developed electricity we may have started on a road to destruction, but with our current technologies we stand at a brink. As a "Physicist at Large" surely you recognize the potential dangers of some of the things Mankind can do to itself now that it couldn't do 100 years ago. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
John Theal wrote: The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Now, does anyone mind telling me how you stimulate an egg into an embryo without fertilizing it? I'm curious to know. Jeremy Falcon
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/parthenogenesis.html[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/parthenogenesis.html[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Interesting link. This is my favorite part... "Considerable research is also underway to clone stem cells derived from non-embryonic tissue." Still this kinda getting off base with what you and my original points were. The process whether or not deemed ethical will still have the side effects down the road. Either way, I learned something today. I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it though. Jeremy Falcon
-
My comments were made within the context of whether someone being concerned with a technology's effect is equivalent to wanting to prevent technological advance. In the article mentioned, the dangers involved are minimal, but I drew in the possible effects of progressing beyond this. Genetic engineering of our food supply or of our offspring might have devestating effects, beyond what might be immediately recognized in initial testing. Jeremey made the point that we might be planting the seeds of our eventual destruction, I agreed. In one of your posts you mention the potential catastrophic effect of eliminating the population of all the ants in the world. What if a genetically enhanced bacteria that was designed to eat oil spills inadvertantely caused this kind of destruction? Or look at the effects of large scale fertilizer usage on the ocean's chemistry. The introduction of large quantities of fertilizer to increase crop yields (and make greener golf courses) has created vast areas where ocean life cannot sustain itself. My point was that we cannot forsee many of the effects of what our technologies might cause. When we created fire or developed electricity we may have started on a road to destruction, but with our current technologies we stand at a brink. As a "Physicist at Large" surely you recognize the potential dangers of some of the things Mankind can do to itself now that it couldn't do 100 years ago. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: but I drew in the possible effects of progressing beyond this. Ditto. Doug Goulden wrote: Genetic engineering of our food supply or of our offspring might have devastating effects, beyond what might be immediately recognized in initial testing. Totally agree. I guess my whole point comes down to when is enough, enough? At what point do we cross the line? I mean, one mistake could destroy the entire human race for all we know. [edit] Oh, that and human life must be valued. But that argument was based on the concept of fertilized embryos. From what I understand, that's how it started but not the direction they want to go. Either way, I don't think people are giving this enough thought IMO. [/edit] Doug Goulden wrote: My point was that we cannot forsee many of the effects of what our technologies might cause. When we created fire or developed electricity we may have started on a road to destruction, but with our current technologies we stand at a brink. Well said. Jeremy Falcon
-
John Theal wrote: Yet you admittedly do not have a concrete definition of what life is. When did I admit this? I do believe this is the second stage of human life with a zygote being the first. Now, this may be "non-intelligent" as of yet, but I don't believe that should be the determining factor when screwing around with human life. John Theal wrote: How do you propose to participate in such a discussion when you are not even prepared for the debate? What a load of subjective crap. Points man -- stick to them. John Theal wrote: Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Cickety[^] By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. John Theal wrote: The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. And just how do you think that process comes about -- magic? John Theal wrote: It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. You don't know what you're talking about. Stem call research isn't the same thing as reproductive cloning. It's for producing stem cells to make tissues and what not from embryonic cells. http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#14a[^] And yes, embryos are fertilized already for the second time. John Theal wrote: Not telling people how to live their life in a healthy manner has nothing to do with saving the lives of those suffering from cancer. Why not? If you help somebody have a better life after they get to cancer that will help them fight it or at least allow them to enjoy the rest of their days better, why is this not a concern to you? John Theal wrote: There is a very important delineation. Lives are not lost until the person is ill. What about the people
Okay. I see that misunderstanding things is a pattern with you. Consequently, this will be my last post on this thread as I don't have time to introduce you to the basics of scientific research. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Then what is this? an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Oh but wait, I guess human egg cells cannot grow, react to stimuli or reproduce, right? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon wrote: By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. Me educate myself? :laugh: Maybe YOU should educate YOURSELF: Unfertilized embryo[^] An excerpt from the article (which happens to appear in a peer-reviewed journal)... Researchers develop primate stem cells from unfertilized embryo Researchers from Wake Forest University School of Medicine and Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worcester, Mass. report in today's Science that they have developed a large variety of specialized cell types -- including heart and brain cells -- from embryonic monkey stem cells through a process called parthenogenesis. Like I said, you have trouble grasping concepts. Jeremy Falcon wrote: wrote: Once they are ill, that is when treatment impacts whether they live or die. Wrong again, studies have shown that after AIDs set in, people with a positive attitude in general tend to live longer. Apparently, there are other factors involved here. Like I said before, you attempt to setup strawman arguments. The context of my statement was clearly applied to the topic of cancer which, it so happens, treatment impacts whether they live or die. :rolleyes:
-
Okay. I see that misunderstanding things is a pattern with you. Consequently, this will be my last post on this thread as I don't have time to introduce you to the basics of scientific research. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Then what is this? an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Oh but wait, I guess human egg cells cannot grow, react to stimuli or reproduce, right? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon wrote: By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. Me educate myself? :laugh: Maybe YOU should educate YOURSELF: Unfertilized embryo[^] An excerpt from the article (which happens to appear in a peer-reviewed journal)... Researchers develop primate stem cells from unfertilized embryo Researchers from Wake Forest University School of Medicine and Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worcester, Mass. report in today's Science that they have developed a large variety of specialized cell types -- including heart and brain cells -- from embryonic monkey stem cells through a process called parthenogenesis. Like I said, you have trouble grasping concepts. Jeremy Falcon wrote: wrote: Once they are ill, that is when treatment impacts whether they live or die. Wrong again, studies have shown that after AIDs set in, people with a positive attitude in general tend to live longer. Apparently, there are other factors involved here. Like I said before, you attempt to setup strawman arguments. The context of my statement was clearly applied to the topic of cancer which, it so happens, treatment impacts whether they live or die. :rolleyes:
John Theal wrote: Okay. I see that misunderstanding things is a pattern with you. Consequently, this will be my last post on this thread as I don't have time to introduce you to the basics of scientific research. My understanding of how they created the embryo has little to do with my first point which created this whole mess in the first place. And, I've already stated that I was corrected about the fertilization process in another thread. I would that would be in line with scientific principles than being pigheaded. However, my original point still stands. This is opening up a can worms. In fact they started with normal, fertilized embryos. That's should be a clue that regard for human life ain't what it used to be. Be, go ahead and refuse to listen to what I'm saying. John Theal wrote: Oh but wait, I guess human egg cells cannot grow, react to stimuli or reproduce, right? At the time I said that I was under the impression eggs had to be fertilized to grow. Apparently, that's not the case. Either way, by your definition you call it life, so the point is moot. John Theal wrote: Maybe YOU should educate YOURSELF: Fine, I'll take that. John Theal wrote: But I guess that's why I have a Ph.D. and you don't. Well, if that is not one of the dumbest, most insecure statements I ever heard. Are you really that insecure you have to rely on a piece of paper to feel important? That's pathetic you big baby. John Theal wrote: Like I said, you have trouble grasping concepts. Apparently you do too, since my original point wasn't about fertilization. But, you sidetracked and I followed. John Theal wrote: The context of my statement was clearly applied to the topic of cancer which, it so happens, Oh really? The topic in hand was not cancer. Cancer was used as an example. Just as I used AIDs as an example. Regardless, the point still stands, even with cancer being healthy will allow them to enjoy the rest of their days better and it'll help them fight it off better. John Theal wrote: treatment impacts whether they live or die. So does being healthy, and on two different levels. One, prevention, and two, helping them get over it. I never said treatment wasn't effective, I said there are alternatives. I guess you're too busy wanting to believe you're always right to actually listen.
-
My comments were made within the context of whether someone being concerned with a technology's effect is equivalent to wanting to prevent technological advance. In the article mentioned, the dangers involved are minimal, but I drew in the possible effects of progressing beyond this. Genetic engineering of our food supply or of our offspring might have devestating effects, beyond what might be immediately recognized in initial testing. Jeremey made the point that we might be planting the seeds of our eventual destruction, I agreed. In one of your posts you mention the potential catastrophic effect of eliminating the population of all the ants in the world. What if a genetically enhanced bacteria that was designed to eat oil spills inadvertantely caused this kind of destruction? Or look at the effects of large scale fertilizer usage on the ocean's chemistry. The introduction of large quantities of fertilizer to increase crop yields (and make greener golf courses) has created vast areas where ocean life cannot sustain itself. My point was that we cannot forsee many of the effects of what our technologies might cause. When we created fire or developed electricity we may have started on a road to destruction, but with our current technologies we stand at a brink. As a "Physicist at Large" surely you recognize the potential dangers of some of the things Mankind can do to itself now that it couldn't do 100 years ago. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Isn't it interesting? In this post, all I did was agree with you and I get downvoted and you don't. Makes me wonder about them voters. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
John Theal wrote: Okay. I see that misunderstanding things is a pattern with you. Consequently, this will be my last post on this thread as I don't have time to introduce you to the basics of scientific research. My understanding of how they created the embryo has little to do with my first point which created this whole mess in the first place. And, I've already stated that I was corrected about the fertilization process in another thread. I would that would be in line with scientific principles than being pigheaded. However, my original point still stands. This is opening up a can worms. In fact they started with normal, fertilized embryos. That's should be a clue that regard for human life ain't what it used to be. Be, go ahead and refuse to listen to what I'm saying. John Theal wrote: Oh but wait, I guess human egg cells cannot grow, react to stimuli or reproduce, right? At the time I said that I was under the impression eggs had to be fertilized to grow. Apparently, that's not the case. Either way, by your definition you call it life, so the point is moot. John Theal wrote: Maybe YOU should educate YOURSELF: Fine, I'll take that. John Theal wrote: But I guess that's why I have a Ph.D. and you don't. Well, if that is not one of the dumbest, most insecure statements I ever heard. Are you really that insecure you have to rely on a piece of paper to feel important? That's pathetic you big baby. John Theal wrote: Like I said, you have trouble grasping concepts. Apparently you do too, since my original point wasn't about fertilization. But, you sidetracked and I followed. John Theal wrote: The context of my statement was clearly applied to the topic of cancer which, it so happens, Oh really? The topic in hand was not cancer. Cancer was used as an example. Just as I used AIDs as an example. Regardless, the point still stands, even with cancer being healthy will allow them to enjoy the rest of their days better and it'll help them fight it off better. John Theal wrote: treatment impacts whether they live or die. So does being healthy, and on two different levels. One, prevention, and two, helping them get over it. I never said treatment wasn't effective, I said there are alternatives. I guess you're too busy wanting to believe you're always right to actually listen.
I'm only going to respond to one point here, because I don't care about the rest. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Well, if that is not one of the dumbest, most insecure statements I ever heard. Are you really that insecure you have to rely on a piece of paper to feel important? That's pathetic you big baby. -------------------- So let's follow the conversation here and see if we can come up with the events that caused you to say the above quote. John Theal wrote: Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Cickety[^] By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. John Theal wrote: The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. Jeremy Falcon wrote: And just how do you think that process comes about -- magic? John Theal wrote: It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. Jeremy Falcon wrote: You don't know what you're talking about. Stem call research isn't the same thing as reproductive cloning. It's for producing stem cells to make tissues and what not from embryonic cells. http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#14a\[^\] And yes, embryos are fertilized already for the second time. ----------------------- So you attack his intelligence twice (while asserting a point that isn't even correct) by saying he needs to educate himself, and he responds back that he is indeed a hell of a lot more educated than you are, and you call him a baby for it? Wow, it sounds like you're the fucking baby. Quit crying about it, he obviously knows a lot more about this than you or I do, and when you brought out the insults he called your ignorant bluff and proved conclusively that you are an idiot. Simple as that. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2