I hate the "debate" over embryonic stem cells!

[Atropine]

Interesting abj13................!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: abj13
As always, there is usually a lack of scientific basis in the stem cell debate. Much of the problem stems from people's inability to understand the steps from fertilization to the blastocyst stage, gastrulation, and then finally to fetal growth and parturition.

Probably the one fact that does not well understood is the totipotency of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo. The simplest question to ask, is where do Identical Twins come from? Most people can at least identify that identical twins are the same, but what they don't identify with is how are they derived.

Identical twins are obtained from one fertilized egg. That means, with some people's beliefs with conception, that one individual somehow divided and became two separate individuals. In fact, if I took the two cells from the two cell stage in which the blastomeres separated and put them into two cultures, nobody would be able to identify which blastomere was the "dorsal" (for the lack of a better word) blastomere and which was the "ventral" blastomere.

And the quesiton remains, how can the zygote/blastocyst be classified as an individual, when it hasn't even made up its mind if it is going to be 1, 2, 3 or more individuals?

Very nice but you forgot one critical thing.

The ones making up the rules and the ones that support them do not believe in "Science".

 

[Moonbeam]

Would you, if you were conscious in a Petri dish knowing that you would never be born, donate your stem cells to the proposition that they might save other human life?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
A embryo is a bunch of cells? There isn't anything significant of a brain.

If you're still on your crusade that life starts at conception, have fun.

Life starts at conception. I doubt any biologists will argue. I could argue that 'there isn't anything significant of a brain' in you, but since you have yet to even try to argue why a brain is necessary for personhood, it is irrelevant.

Okay, granted. Life starts at conception, but I don't believe humanity does. I care little for human life on a technicality. I care for the loss of a life infused with humanity, meaning a person. Of course, we've argued over this in other threads, and we're not going to get anywhere with it today.

Even if you agree with me, you can simply say that you believe humanity starts with conception, and I've got to respect your opinion because I can't prove you wrong... and vice versa. It's a black hole at this point in time.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you, if you were conscious in a Petri dish knowing that you would never be born, donate your stem cells to the proposition that they might save other human life?

If I was in that situation I would probably be filled with so much hatred towards myself and the circumstances that put me there that I would wish nothing but misery and ill fortune on the rest of the world.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you, if you were conscious in a Petri dish knowing that you would never be born, donate your stem cells to the proposition that they might save other human life?

If I was in that situation I would probably be filled with so much hatred towards myself and the circumstances that put me there that I would wish nothing but misery and ill fortune on the rest of the world.

Well doubtless you would, but I did specify an entity that was conscious.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you, if you were conscious in a Petri dish knowing that you would never be born, donate your stem cells to the proposition that they might save other human life?

If I was in that situation I would probably be filled with so much hatred towards myself and the circumstances that put me there that I would wish nothing but misery and ill fortune on the rest of the world.

Well doubtless you would, but I did specify an entity that was conscious.

Okay... what?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you, if you were conscious in a Petri dish knowing that you would never be born, donate your stem cells to the proposition that they might save other human life?

If I was in that situation I would probably be filled with so much hatred towards myself and the circumstances that put me there that I would wish nothing but misery and ill fortune on the rest of the world.

Well doubtless you would, but I did specify an entity that was conscious.

Okay... what?

OK....what, what? What is your question. I was unable to guess.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: joshw10
Not really, abortion is done on developing fetuses, not embryos.

How does this in any way contradict what I said? If an embryo/fetus is a person, then embryonic stem cell research/abortion is identically murder. This isn't rocket science here.

A embryo is a bunch of cells? There isn't anything significant of a brain.

If you're still on your crusade that life starts at conception, have fun.

The thing is Tabb, no one really can definitively say when life begins. No one knows when God gives a person his soul. Christians choose to err on the side of caution, and to impose an age where one "becomes" human is not their goal, but rather to prevent the intentional destruction of that life which is most precious.

I can't tell you that a baby is aware of itself, but I can tell you that the ending of that babies life is not something I am morally comfortable with. I'm not saying you are, either. My point is that without definitive knowledge, caution and humility is most advisable.

There is no god... there is no soul.... get over it. The baby is only human if it is aware. Awareness happens after birth. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present a LINK to it... or cite an article or the alike.

Are Alzheimer's syndrome sufferers not human because they may not be aware?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
There is no god... there is no soul.... get over it. The baby is only human if it is aware. Awareness happens after birth. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present a LINK to it... or cite an article or the alike.

You, sir, are as arrogant as you are ignorant. You didn't start this discussion in good faith. You started it to belittle those who have faith or religion. For that, you deserve a .

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you, if you were conscious in a Petri dish knowing that you would never be born, donate your stem cells to the proposition that they might save other human life?

How many would enjoy being forced into this servitude not given the choice? Many would willingly sacrifice, but the choice is not given in this instance.

Originally posted by: kogase
Okay, granted. Life starts at conception, but I don't believe humanity does. I care little for human life on a technicality. I care for the loss of a life infused with humanity, meaning a person. Of course, we've argued over this in other threads, and we're not going to get anywhere with it today.

Even if you agree with me, you can simply say that you believe humanity starts with conception, and I've got to respect your opinion because I can't prove you wrong... and vice versa. It's a black hole at this point in time.

Yes, this is exactly correct. So why are we destroying that which may very well constitute a person? This is exactly my problem with this research and abortion. To destroy life knowing that it may be a person is to be willing to destroy it if it is a person. The lacking is in our ability to make this determination, not necessarily in their lack of humanity.

 

[Moonbeam]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you, if you were conscious in a Petri dish knowing that you would never be born, donate your stem cells to the proposition that they might save other human life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------
How many would enjoy being forced into this servitude not given the choice? Many would willingly sacrifice, but the choice is not given in this instance.
---------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but who cares about people unwilling to sacrifice a life they will not have for ones that exist, right? Just desserts, no?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yeah, but who cares about people unwilling to sacrifice a life they will not have for ones that exist, right? Just desserts, no?

How willing would you be to sacrifice your life for the possibility of improving mine?

Now, what if I came and sacrificed you without asking the above question?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yeah, but who cares about people unwilling to sacrifice a life they will not have for ones that exist, right? Just desserts, no?

How willing would you be to sacrifice your life for the possibility of improving mine?

Now, what if I came and sacrificed you without asking the above question?

Well if I were the typical zygote I wouldn't know if you asked or not and so wouldn't care either that you did or didn't any more than I would care if you sacrificed me. And if I were conscious and didn't want to give up the life I would never have for somebody who really had one, I would not be worth any consideration anyway, right? What kind of an A-hole wouldn't let go of nothing for something? 🙂

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: joshw10
Not really, abortion is done on developing fetuses, not embryos.

How does this in any way contradict what I said? If an embryo/fetus is a person, then embryonic stem cell research/abortion is identically murder. This isn't rocket science here.

A embryo is a bunch of cells? There isn't anything significant of a brain.

If you're still on your crusade that life starts at conception, have fun.

The thing is Tabb, no one really can definitively say when life begins. No one knows when God gives a person his soul. Christians choose to err on the side of caution, and to impose an age where one "becomes" human is not their goal, but rather to prevent the intentional destruction of that life which is most precious.

I can't tell you that a baby is aware of itself, but I can tell you that the ending of that babies life is not something I am morally comfortable with. I'm not saying you are, either. My point is that without definitive knowledge, caution and humility is most advisable.

You're right there is no answer for when life of a Human begins. You're also bringing your undefined and un-proven beilefes into a natural agrueement. They have no place here. Since you're a christian I'd like you to make aware that creators of christianity beileve that souls only developed after 60 days I believe.

 

[Tab]

We are unable to prove where an organism becomes fully human and then gains the full rights of a human; while many choose to err on the side of caution and assume this point is at conception that is the choice of the individual to be made based on their experiences and their own personal morality and not a sweeping decision to be made by the government for all people at once. You may disagree with abortion, you may feel it is murder and may even hate those who have had one, that is your right, but it is not your right to tell someone how they must feel about something (even something as morally charged as abortion) and with such an unsure basis to set a law banning abortion on it is best left legal and at the discretion of each person. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to like it or use it, but it means you don't get the right to tell someone else what to do.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: joshw10
Not really, abortion is done on developing fetuses, not embryos.

How does this in any way contradict what I said? If an embryo/fetus is a person, then embryonic stem cell research/abortion is identically murder. This isn't rocket science here.

A embryo is a bunch of cells? There isn't anything significant of a brain.

If you're still on your crusade that life starts at conception, have fun.

The thing is Tabb, no one really can definitively say when life begins. No one knows when God gives a person his soul. Christians choose to err on the side of caution, and to impose an age where one "becomes" human is not their goal, but rather to prevent the intentional destruction of that life which is most precious.

I can't tell you that a baby is aware of itself, but I can tell you that the ending of that babies life is not something I am morally comfortable with. I'm not saying you are, either. My point is that without definitive knowledge, caution and humility is most advisable.

There is no god... there is no soul.... get over it. The baby is only human if it is aware. Awareness happens after birth. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present a LINK to it... or cite an article or the alike.

I'd like to see the same as well.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if I were the typical zygote I wouldn't know if you asked or not and so wouldn't care either that you did or didn't any more than I would care if you sacrificed me. And if I were conscious and didn't want to give up the life I would never have for somebody who really had one, I would not be worth any consideration anyway, right? What kind of an A-hole wouldn't let go of nothing for something? 🙂

Ah, but your original question was 'assuming that you're conscious...' Now you're assuming that it's not.

The real question, as you posed it, is analagous to this. If I were in a position to donate my organs at the cost of my own life, why wouldn't I give up my organs to help someone else? On the other hand, why shouldn't I be able to come and harvest your organs against your will? After all, though the embryo might be willing, you're not giving them the option.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
We are unable to prove where an organism becomes fully human and then gains the full rights of a human; while many choose to err on the side of caution and assume this point is at conception that is the choice of the individual to be made based on their experiences and their own personal morality and not a sweeping decision to be made by the government for all people at once. You may disagree with abortion, you may feel it is murder and may even hate those who have had one, that is your right, but it is not your right to tell someone how they must feel about something (even something as morally charged as abortion) and with such an unsure basis to set a law banning abortion on it is best left legal and at the discretion of each person. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to like it or use it, but it means you don't get the right to tell someone else what to do.

No, this is absolutely wrong. It is a completely moral relativist argument that does not stand up to cursory logical inspection. The problem with your analysis is that the embryo either is a person or it isn't. There is no middle ground. Simply because we can't define personhood properly does not imply a middle ground. So, the possibilities are:

1. The embryo is not a person. Abortion and embryonic stem cell research should be allowed.
2. The fetus is a person. Abortion and embryonic stem cell research are identically murder.

You cannot have any other possible outcomes in this debate.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
We are unable to prove where an organism becomes fully human and then gains the full rights of a human; while many choose to err on the side of caution and assume this point is at conception that is the choice of the individual to be made based on their experiences and their own personal morality and not a sweeping decision to be made by the government for all people at once. You may disagree with abortion, you may feel it is murder and may even hate those who have had one, that is your right, but it is not your right to tell someone how they must feel about something (even something as morally charged as abortion) and with such an unsure basis to set a law banning abortion on it is best left legal and at the discretion of each person. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to like it or use it, but it means you don't get the right to tell someone else what to do.

No, this is absolutely wrong. It is a completely moral relativist argument that does not stand up to cursory logical inspection. The problem with your analysis is that the embryo either is a person or it isn't. There is no middle ground. Simply because we can't define personhood properly does not imply a middle ground. So, the possibilities are:

1. The embryo is not a person. Abortion and embryonic stem cell research should be allowed.
2. The fetus is a person. Abortion and embryonic stem cell research are identically murder.

You cannot have any other possible outcomes in this debate.

Why not?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Why not?

Read the post you quoted, asshat. It's either a person or it isn't. Your own inability to define 'person' in a logically tenable manner is not the fault of the embryo. It simply demonstrates your own inabilities, not its lack of personhood.

 

[Tab]

:roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if I were the typical zygote I wouldn't know if you asked or not and so wouldn't care either that you did or didn't any more than I would care if you sacrificed me. And if I were conscious and didn't want to give up the life I would never have for somebody who really had one, I would not be worth any consideration anyway, right? What kind of an A-hole wouldn't let go of nothing for something? 🙂

Ah, but your original question was 'assuming that you're conscious...' Now you're assuming that it's not.

The real question, as you posed it, is analagous to this. If I were in a position to donate my organs at the cost of my own life, why wouldn't I give up my organs to help someone else? On the other hand, why shouldn't I be able to come and harvest your organs against your will? After all, though the embryo might be willing, you're not giving them the option.

Excuse me? I clearly covered both the unconscious and CONSCIOUS options. And the analogy is to a person with fatal injuries refusing to donate his or her organs.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Excuse me? I clearly covered both the unconscious and CONSCIOUS options. And the analogy is to a person with fatal injuries refusing to donate his or her organs.

No, because the person with fatal injuries will die regardless of interventions. The embryo may still live. Programs have begun where women have 'adopted' embryos and had them implanted as in in vitro fertilization, for which these embryos were originally created. Thus, they do have a chance to survive.

 

[Darkhawk28]

I'll answer my own question since no one seems to want to address it (or at least I haven't seen).

The embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, so the question remains:

Why aren't the "pro-lifers" debating whether or not those embryos should be created in the first place?

According to their complaints and arguments, they're perfectly ok with the embryos being kept in frozen stasis indefinitely.

 

[raildogg]

Democrats are right on this issue. We need to support any stem-cell research which can advance humanity. The Bush administration is totally wrong on this and so are the other so-called pro-lifers. Don't you people realize that this could potentially save countless lives and help people who are living in misery?

We need to fund embryonic stem cell research much further. I realize that chances of curing Alzheimer's with this research are kind of slim, but there is much more potential and we need not limit our scope. We could still learn a lot more about Alzheimer's with embryonic stem cell research down the road which could lead to treatments. People who dismiss stem cell research are missing the bigger picture. This research will lead to something great in the not so distant future and will ultimately save lives and make people less aged.

Most Americans do favor this research and realize the bigger picture.

People in the old times even said heart transplants were immoral, or other kinds of surgeries. But we moved on. We need to advance science here and put our ideology aside. Ron Reagan and Nancy Reagan are for this kind of research.

We need to open up the research playing field of scientists on a federal level. The Bush administration has severly limited the way they can conduct research. Its a shame.

So basically any stem lines from after August of 2001 is not available to the scientists. The scientists had to resort to using older stem lines which are not truly useful on humans.