128 replies to this topic

[SteveT]

The picture, Alak, the picture.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

That's why I support legislation that would require the woman to wait at least a week and be informed of all options.

I personally though have not meet any fellow woman that has either taken it litely or not regreted it.

By then the blastocyst will no longer be and the ES Cells would have differentiated, rendering them useless to ES Cell Research.

Also, the biological definition of a parasite is:

 
Parasite:

• Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Organism:

Biology. An organized being; a living body, either vegetable or animal, compozed of different organs or parts with functions which are separate, but mutually dependent, and essential to the life of the individual.

Source: http://dictionary.re...q=parasite&r=67
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=organism

So in fact, you were right about the fetus not being a parasite (but for the wrong reason). The actual reason is that the fetus contributes to the survival of a host by being the host's attempt to ensure the survival of its own genetic material.

And in response to this comment:

So what are you saying? Since there's a significant chance it'll die anyway, we may as well help it along?

No, I'm not saying we help it along. I'm saying since there is a large, significant chance it will die anyway, there's a significant chance of there being no ethical problem with extracting the ES cells. If it's gonna die anyway, why not extract the cells and use them?

It's like organ donation. If a guy's dead, why not extract his organs and use them to help someone who needs them?

Granted, in the case of organ donation the guy at least gets to live, but if the chances of the potential fetus surviving are next to nil does it really matter?

Yes, we should always look for alternatives just in case and some company called TriStem is claiming that it has managed to revert cells back to their stem cell stage through antibody treatment. People are being sceptical at the moment, because what TriStem proposed is actually biological heresy, but I'm interested in seeing how it develops.

Now I told you before, destroying a blastocyst to get at the ES Cells does not mean death. The Cells are still alive. And here is the thing. Since the cells can become anything, literally anything, if the environment is right you could turn them into anything.

So, the blastocyst only has the potential for human life. It will not necessarily become human life. All of it depends on the environment. The future human being, if extracted for use, will always live on as maybe an organ or neurones or whatever, but they will never be a human being.

I don't think this is a debate about killing a human being. It isn't. I think it should be a debate about what constitutes a human being. Any one of those ES cells could become an organ. Is an organ a human being? Are cells human beings?

Science currently believes the answer to be no and I suppose the public does too. A ball of cells cannot be a human being, even if they are human cells, just as your blood cells cannot be called human beings.

[Alakhriveion]

As for your quote, I guess I would have to say I’m morally opposed to throwing away embryos, which are - biologically speaking - very young homo sapien sapiens.

No, they're not. Fetuses have potential to become humans, but as yet, they aren't.

I’d rather see embryos be adopted by mothers who are having trouble having kids of their own.

You do realise that's impossible, right? The embryos we're talking about are extracted. They, unlike those still in a uterus, cannot become human beings.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research want to use embryos (destroying them in the process – which is the "evil" means being employed) in order to find cures for some of today’s diseases (a good intention, along with a good end, that of curing disease).

Destroying? What destroying? Unless you object to the very concept of it for a religious reason, the embruos in question are not and never will be human beings. If it IS for a religious reason, good for you, keep it out of the law.
On a more technical note, these are disorders, not diseases.

By the way, I totally agree with you on adult stem cell research (which can be taken from umbilical cords). They’re making a lot of progress through that type of SCR, while there’s been very limited progress on ECS research to date (as far as I know). I can’t say I know for sure, but I don’t think President Bush would be at all opposed to adult stem cell research. He is – along with myself – concerned about the ethical problems of ECS research.

The difference being that Embryonic stem-cells can be used to cure things like diabetes, and have even greater applications in the future, and other really can't do s**t in comparison.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

um, did you mean to quote me, cause the responce doesn't really pertain to what I was talking about in my post. I was only saying a woman should have to wait awhile to have an abortion.

Yes I did. You advocated women having to wait a while to have an abortion. Well, if they wait too long then there won't be any ES Cells left to extract and then destroying that fetus really would be a waste of potential life. I think a week, as you suggested, is too long (although now I'm not quite sure).

SoutpawLink, nice to see you back again. To summarise a few of my points which are in essence, rebuttals of your argument:

ES Cells are usually best extracted from the blastocyst stage when the fertilised egg becomes a ball of cells. In this stage, you cannot call the blastocyst a human being, just as you cannot call your liver a human being. It is a ball of living cells that may or may not become a human being, depending on the expressed genes.

Once fertilised, these "eggs" have a 40% chance of survival. 60% of the time they spontaneously abort, hence meaning that not all of them have the potential to become human beings.

Stating that a ball of cells is a homo sapien is a large presumption. How can you say that? Do you have proof that the blastocyst is a human being? Yes, it is human in the sense that your blood cells are human blood cells. But does that make it a human being? If you are a man, are your testicles individual human beings because they can give rise to life too. If you are a woman, are your ovaries individual human beings?

To say that the embryo is a separate human being because it has different genetic material to its mother is not a very good argument either. In the world, there are such people who are chimeras (people who have mosaicism or in other words, who have patches of cells that have different "genomes" to the other cells).

Chimeras are thought to be more common than originall thought, because not all mosaicism is expressed as obviously as the sort that gives people two different eye colours or the sort that gives cats two different coat colours.

Are chimeras in a sense, two people? No, they are one person. They just happen to have been created from the fusing of two zygotes.

Which brings up another question of a spiritual nature. Does the fusing of two zygotes mean that one of the potential human beings die (not really, because they live on in the new human being)? Does it mean chimeras have two souls?

[Hero of Winds]

No, they're not. Fetuses have potential to become humans, but as yet, they aren't.

Do you realize you just gave a response that you believe to be the end-all, be-all solution to a problem that has, morally and religiously, plagued America for years?

And like Tanaka said, humans are, essentailly, just balls of cells. More developed, sure, but still the same regardless.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Well they could always use the frozen ovum. Usually abortion is rather an abrasive procedure and I wouldn't think the zygote/embryo/fetus (whatever it is at the time of abortion) would really survive in one piece anyway.

Well, that's the point. You want to get at the ES cells inside and they survive pretty well, despite being very fragile and fickle.

Also by the time a woman actually knows she’s pregnant it might be long past the first stage. I say to wait a week because that's how long it usually takes me to make a big decision. You can never be too hasty with these kinds of things.

That is a sad truth, really. All those ES cells going to waste coz the woman doesn't get the abortion in time. Now that kind of abortion really is a waste of life, coz none of the destroyed fetal material can be used for anything.

[Chikara Nadir]

I can't understand in the least why scientists would use an aborted fetus for experimentation- by that time it has developed enough for pro-life advocates to say it's obviously a life, and frankly the thing is no longer just an EGG by that time. Anyone who knows anything about the science of pregnancy understands that it has grown several million times since being just an egg within the first few days. Taking an aborted fetus, even if the woman sincerely wanted nothing to do with pregnancy, might still feel like a piece of herself is being used for purposes that she will have no part in deciding.

Women have so many damned eggs in them already that will never be fertilized that I don't see the reason to use a fetus which, as said before my post, might be well and dead by then. But I'm all for ripe unfertilized eggs and stem cells being used...and frankly I don't think that any MAN in Washington should be the one to decide what the women of the nation choose to do with their bodies.

[SteveT]

The problem is that by some definitions, there are two bodies in question. Plus the father tends to get locked out of the decision making process, which isn't entirely fair.

[Oberon Storm]

Because it's daddy's damn kid, too. Personally, I'd would support what ever the mother of the kid I hope to not have decides to do. But I would like to kept in the loop about that kid I hope to no thave.

[Alakhriveion]

Do you realize you just gave a response that you believe to be the end-all, be-all solution to a problem that has, morally and religiously, plagued America for years?

I think that's what the president calls "resolute."

[Ditto McCloaker]

By Jove, you're learning. You're wrong, but we're finally getting past this 'moral ambiguity' nonsense. *holds hand out to Alak*

[Ditto McCloaker]

Sorry SL, but you get a trophy.

*gives you gold trophy*

[Alakhriveion]

Unfortunately, flawed.

No, fetuses are human beings. The word "fetus" is Latin, and it literally means, "young one." Saying that a fetus has the potential to become a human being is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one (or are you talking about statistical probabilities?).

It should be biology, not linguistics, that determine this, thanks.

I don’t believe religion is needed to form a stance against either abortion or embryonic stem cell research. I believe that the scientific data supports my claims.

No, it does not. You seek to prove that an unthinking, unliving blob can be murdered. That cannot be supported scientifically.

People hope that embryonic stem cells can be used to cure diseases, but so far there are none.

Actually, the reasearch has been done, and tests have been run, albeit on animals. In China, the method for preforming the initial cloning with human cells has been tested.

Furthermore, I don’t think that science can be or should be allowed to be morally neutral (there are already ethical principles in place regulating what kind of scientific experiments can be done; similar principles can be found in psychological experiments). The embryos are destroyed when the stem cells are taken out. It is at this point that they stop living. Surely you agree that they are living organisms, correct?

By sentances:
I agree, but it's irrelevant.
True, so?
Not quite.
No, I do not.

[SteveT]

You seek to prove that an unthinking, unliving blob can be murdered.

And you seek to prove that a group of reproducing, fully funtional, energy-prossessing human cells aren't alive.

[Alakhriveion]

And you seek to prove that a group of reproducing, fully funtional, energy-prossessing human cells aren't alive.

No, I'm seeking to prove they can't be murdered.

[Hero of Winds]

No, I'm seeking to prove they can't be murdered.

Are you then conceding to the notion that they are alive? Because if you are, keep in mind that any living thing can be killed. That's how life works.

[Alakhriveion]

Their cells are alive, that is true. They are not independant life-forms, and they are not people. If non-independant cells can be held to be "alive," then our society need to stop oppressing our poor, helpless internal organs, and remove all of those trapped inour torso prisons.

[Hero of Winds]

Their cells are alive, that is true. They are not independant life-forms, and they are not people. If non-independant cells can be held to be "alive," then our society need to stop oppressing our poor, helpless internal organs, and remove all of those trapped inour torso prisons.

I'm sure there's a difference. A fetus is an actual person, in the beginning stages of life. An organ, like a heart or a kidney, is simply a part of a living being. Considering hearts don't live, and can't function on their own, I don't think organs constitute for "living things".

[Alakhriveion]

Niether do fetuses! They can't function on their own, they're intimately connected to their host (like a liver or kidney, except less vital), and they're not persons, because they do not think.

[SteveT]

The difference is, the liver or kidney is an organ. A fetus is an organism. the liver or kidney is an organ.