I hate the "debate" over embryonic stem cells!

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's the problem, Fundies like Cyclo consider that to be when the two cells get together.

Save the Cells!!!

I'm not a fundy. If you even knew what a fundy was, you would probably realize this. Unfortunately, you're just an ignorant bigot.

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
The very first definition of the term "person" on dictionary.com is....

1. A living human.

Now, the term "living" is very ambiguous. The term "life" has over 15 meanings.

Person
Life

One of them happens to be:

The interval of time between birth and death

As you said, dictionary.com's definition is ambiguous, which is why I rely now on http://www.merriam-webster.com - a much more definitive and accepted source for definitions.

human: 1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
- hu·man·ness /-m&n-n&s/ noun

person: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

No, dictionary.com's definition is not ambiguous. There is simply many meanings of the word. The word itself is ambiguous. Anyways... you are still avoiding my point. We kill all forms of life that is not aware... so please anwser me this. Is a fetus aware? If you don't anwser this question then I will ignore you completely. And if you think you have anwsered, but haven't, then I will tell you haven't and wont reply to anything else you have to say until you anwser it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
No, dictionary.com's definition is not ambiguous. There is simply many meanings of the word. The word itself is ambiguous. Anyways... you are still avoiding my point. We kill all forms of life that is not aware... so please anwser me this. Is a fetus aware? If you don't anwser this question then I will ignore you completely. And if you think you have anwsered, but haven't, then I will tell you haven't and wont reply to anything else you have to say until you anwser it.

Your entire premise is flawed. We do not kill all life that is not aware. You have continually refused to address my premise - that humanity is sufficient for rights. As for the actual awareness of a fetus, how can you quantify it? I believe there is a reasonable expectation of a fetus being aware, though I cannot quantify this. Do you think awareness suddenly begins the millisecond its head pokes through the birth canal, or when the umbilocal cord is cut?

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
No, dictionary.com's definition is not ambiguous. There is simply many meanings of the word. The word itself is ambiguous. Anyways... you are still avoiding my point. We kill all forms of life that is not aware... so please anwser me this. Is a fetus aware? If you don't anwser this question then I will ignore you completely. And if you think you have anwsered, but haven't, then I will tell you haven't and wont reply to anything else you have to say until you anwser it.

Your entire premise is flawed. We do not kill all life that is not aware. You have continually refused to address my premise - that humanity is sufficient for rights. As for the actual awareness of a fetus, how can you quantify it? I believe there is a reasonable expectation of a fetus being aware, though I cannot quantify this. Do you think awareness suddenly begins the millisecond its head pokes through the birth canal, or when the umbilocal cord is cut?

Life
Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
We kill those living organisms all the time... (Had any rice or chicken recently?)

Humanity, as you define it (anything that has human DNA, i.e. embryonic stem-cell, fetus), is not sufficient for rights. Awareness in this situation is not meausered by it's quantity but it's quality.

Aware -> Having knowledge or cognizance: aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware of faint sound.

A fetus is not aware, a baby that has just been born is aware.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Life
Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
We kill those living organisms all the time... (Had any rice or chicken recently?)

Humanity, as you define it (anything that has human DNA, i.e. embryonic stem-cell, fetus), is not sufficient for rights. Awareness in this situation is not meausered by it's quantity but it's quality.

Aware -> Having knowledge or cognizance: aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware of faint sound.

A fetus is not aware, a baby that has just been born is aware.

You continue to state your opinion as fact. Moreover, you don't even say WHY we shoudl accept your opinions, just that they should be accepted. Case in point: "Humanity, as you define it (anything that has human DNA, i.e. embryonic stem-cell, fetus), is not sufficient for rights. Awareness in this situation is not meausered by it's quantity but it's quality. " Who are you to judge one's quality of consciousness? How can we bestow rights based on this arbitrary criterion? And, finally, I'll ask again: how do you know that a fetus is not aware? I would very much think that it is.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
humanity is sufficient for granting personhood.

I'll ask again, since you refused to respond. At what point does the extraembryonic tissues, like the placenta, become non-human? Or if you wish, are extraembryonic tissues human, and deserve rights on par with the embryo? If this is the case, then for the 6 billion people currently on this Earth, there were 6 billion murders. Thus, I figure you are going to define the extraembryonic tissues as non-human. Then how? I ask this because the placenta and the extraembryonic tissues are separate from the embryo, only connected by a structure grown from the inner cell mass, the allantois. At blastocyst formation, the trophectroderm and the inner cell mass are only bundles of cells that have their lineages set.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: abj13
I'll ask again, since you refused to respond. At what point does the extraembryonic tissues, like the placenta, become non-human? Or if you wish, are extraembryonic tissues human, and deserve rights on par with the embryo? If this is the case, then for the 6 billion people currently on this Earth, there were 6 billion murders. Thus, I figure you are going to define the extraembryonic tissues as non-human. Then how? I ask this because the placenta and the extraembryonic tissues are separate from the embryo, only connected by a structure grown from the inner cell mass, the allantois. At blastocyst formation, the trophectroderm and the inner cell mass are only bundles of cells that have their lineages set.

These things are part and parcel of the embryo. If you kill them, you kill the embryo. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here unless you're somehow assuming that the placenta is separate from the embryo.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

These things are part and parcel of the embryo. If you kill them, you kill the embryo. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here unless you're somehow assuming that the placenta is separate from the embryo.

That's specious reasoning. If you kill the mother, you kill the embryo. Are you then suggesting the mother and the embryo are together? I know you posted that the mother and the embryo are distinct, so what binds the trophectoderm derived and ICM cells together as the "parcel?" Is it because their genomes are the same?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: abj13
That's specious reasoning. If you kill the mother, you kill the embryo. Are you then suggesting the mother and the embryo are together? I know you posted that the mother and the embryo are distinct, so what binds the trophectoderm derived and ICM cells together as the "parcel?" Is it because their genomes are the same?

They are genetically identical (I believe, but please correct me if I'm wrong), obviating the fact that they are the same entity. The placenta dies as a natural part of development, just as your skin cells die as you age.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

They are genetically identical (I believe, but please correct me if I'm wrong), obviating the fact that they are the same entity. The placenta dies as a natural part of development, just as your skin cells die as you age.

Genetically, one can argue they are not. Most of the cells of the choronic disk are either multi-nucleated (meaning they have more than one nucleus, therefore more than the 2n copies of the genome) or polyploid (meaning they have multiple copies of the chromosomes).

Still, if genetical identity confers they are one and the same, then are identical twins really just one human? How do you differentiate identical twins as two humans, if your protocol requires they are genetically different??

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Life
Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
We kill those living organisms all the time... (Had any rice or chicken recently?)

Humanity, as you define it (anything that has human DNA, i.e. embryonic stem-cell, fetus), is not sufficient for rights. Awareness in this situation is not meausered by it's quantity but it's quality.

Aware -> Having knowledge or cognizance: aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware of faint sound.

A fetus is not aware, a baby that has just been born is aware.

You continue to state your opinion as fact. Moreover, you don't even say WHY we shoudl accept your opinions, just that they should be accepted. Case in point: "Humanity, as you define it (anything that has human DNA, i.e. embryonic stem-cell, fetus), is not sufficient for rights. Awareness in this situation is not meausered by it's quantity but it's quality. " Who are you to judge one's quality of consciousness? How can we bestow rights based on this arbitrary criterion? And, finally, I'll ask again: how do you know that a fetus is not aware? I would very much think that it is.

Do you know that it is aware? I, of course, do not know for sure. I have only heard that it isn't. Their is a raging debate within the scientific community on this point. What I can say is, the fetus is not seperate from the mother. I believe that there is a point when awareness is forced, i.e when the child takes his or her first breath. Further research is needed (on my and your part).

 

[Rayden]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
God Damnit.... Literally. Why can't people take their heads out of their asses when it comes to this, and many other, issue(s)?

Can people grow up and stop believing in silly fantasies about God and the Soul?

You preach about wanting to have intelligent, productive debate about an issue, yet in the same breath, declare the deeply-entrenched philosophical beliefs shared by a vast majority of the world's population to be nothing more than an immature "silly fantasy."

Perhaps you're the one with his head firmly lodged in his rectum?

Yay! My hero!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: abj13
Genetically, one can argue they are not. Most of the cells of the choronic disk are either multi-nucleated (meaning they have more than one nucleus, therefore more than the 2n copies of the genome) or polyploid (meaning they have multiple copies of the chromosomes).

Still, if genetical identity confers they are one and the same, then are identical twins really just one human? How do you differentiate identical twins as two humans, if your protocol requires they are genetically different??

By my argument, they need only be human to have rights, not different humans. I think I see where you're going now though, and it's a good point - that by my criterion, one twin should be perfectly ok killing the other since they are not genetically distinct. Again I will suggest that the failing is in our ability to distinguish between the two rather than there actually being no difference between the two. I am in no way trying to claim that the genetic argument is definitive, only that until we can come up with a more complete rational on which rights should be granted (or, in this case, for simplifying the discussion), this will have to do. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the biology of embryos and such to know what such possible distinctions could exist, only that genetics obviates the difference between the zygote and the mother.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Do you know that it is aware? I, of course, do not know for sure. I have only heard that it isn't. Their is a raging debate within the scientific community on this point. What I can say is, the fetus is not seperate from the mother. I believe that there is a point when awareness is forced, i.e when the child takes his or her first breath. Further research is needed (on my and your part).

Isn't the fact that there is debate on this issue sufficient cause for the exercise of caution, rather than wanton destruction of an entity that could very well be aware for all we know?

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

By my argument, they need only be human to have rights, not different humans.

That is why I asked how would a human structure (extraembryonic tissue), separate from the embryo, be defined in your argument. Your argument doesn't stand because your definitions of "human" cannot explain the placenta, supplimented by the problem of defining twins.

Therefore, one must reject your argument, since it fails to define two of the major events that occurs in-uteri. Humanity is not sufficient for personhood and rights.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: abj13
That is why I asked how would a human structure (extraembryonic tissue), separate from the embryo, be defined in your argument. Your argument doesn't stand because your definitions of "human" cannot explain the placenta, supplimented by the problem of defining twins.

Therefore, one must reject your argument, since it fails to define two of the major events that occurs in-uteri. Humanity is not sufficient for personhood and rights.

OK, maybe I need to rephrase that. The point was that genetic distinction must be sufficient for personhood. Admittedly, I didn't phrase it very well. However, you're confusing sufficiency with necessity. Genetic distinction is not necessary for personhood. I believe this clears up the case of twins at least. I'm still not clear enough on the biology of the placenta to determine one way or the other.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Do you know that it is aware? I, of course, do not know for sure. I have only heard that it isn't. Their is a raging debate within the scientific community on this point. What I can say is, the fetus is not seperate from the mother. I believe that there is a point when awareness is forced, i.e when the child takes his or her first breath. Further research is needed (on my and your part).

Isn't the fact that there is debate on this issue sufficient cause for the exercise of caution, rather than wanton destruction of an entity that could very well be aware for all we know?

What we have done here, is turned the debate on Embryonic Stem Cell Reseach into a debate on Abortion. These two could not be further apart from eachother. From my understanding, ESCs that are used in any sort of scientific research are only a single cell.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
What we have done here, is turned the debate on Embryonic Stem Cell Reseach in a debate on Abortion. These two could not be further apart from eachother. From my understanding, ESCs that are used in any scientific research are only a few hundred to a few thousand cells in composition. ESCs, by any strech of the imagination, are not large enough to form any sort of being that is aware.

The central issue in these two debates are the same: when does a zygote/embryo/fetus become a person? Thus, you need to tell me how you can possibly quantify the awareness of something in utero.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
What we have done here, is turned the debate on Embryonic Stem Cell Reseach in a debate on Abortion. These two could not be further apart from eachother. From my understanding, ESCs that are used in any scientific research are only a few hundred to a few thousand cells in composition. ESCs, by any strech of the imagination, are not large enough to form any sort of being that is aware.

The central issue in these two debates are the same: when does a zygote/embryo/fetus become a person? Thus, you need to tell me how you can possibly quantify the awareness of something in utero.

Any sort of awareness requires A LOT of neurons. ESCs don't have any neurons, and even if they did it would be no where near the amount required for awareness of any sort.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Any sort of awareness requires A LOT of neurons. ESCs don't have any neurons, and even if they did it would be no where near the amount required for awareness of any sort.

How do you know that awareness requires a lot of neurons? Personally, I think you're confusing sentience with awareness, as kogase pointed out earlier. Are you arguing that something need only be aware to be a person? If so, many animals are very much aware of their surroundings. Sentience is a much more likely criterion.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The point was that genetic distinction must be sufficient for personhood.

Ok. You really need to rephrase that, since all I need to find is a "genetic distinction" that does not lead to personhood. The counterexample is simple, a bacteria and a fungus are genetically distinct, but that does not lead to personhood. The condition needs somehow a definition of humanity in it again.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: abj13
Ok. You really need to rephrase that, since all I need to find is a "genetic distinction" that does not lead to personhood. The counterexample is simple, a bacteria and a fungus are genetically distinct, but that does not lead to personhood. The condition needs somehow a definition of humanity in it again.

Why don't you put forth your criteria?

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Any sort of awareness requires A LOT of neurons. ESCs don't have any neurons, and even if they did it would be no where near the amount required for awareness of any sort.

How do you know that awareness requires a lot of neurons? Personally, I think you're confusing sentience with awareness, as kogase pointed out earlier. Are you arguing that something need only be aware to be a person? If so, many animals are very much aware of their surroundings. Sentience is a much more likely criterion.

Aware
Having knowledge or cognizance: aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware of faint sound.

Having knowledge or cognizance.

Knowledge
The state or fact of knowing.

Cognizance
Conscious knowledge or recognition; awareness

Conscious
Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

Thought
To have or formulate in the mind.

Sensation
A perception associated with stimulation of a sense organ or with a specific body condition: the sensation of heat; a visual sensation.

Perception
The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.

Perceive
1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.
2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend.


:Edit:

Mind
The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Why don't you put forth your criteria?

Well, I don't have a simplified condition like yours, yet. I haven't sat down to make one out. However, I can say that from conception to ~14 dpc, the zygote/blastocyst does not have human rights, as it has not "made" up its mind yet whether it will be 1, 2, or more individuals. This throws conception out of the window as the starting point. Maybe I'm suggesting individuality is sufficient for personhood, but I have yet to define what is individual. Maybe its the switch from being totipotent to pluripotent? After 14-20 days, whenever one wants to define gastrulation, it becomes exceedingly difificult to classifly objectively when the embryo has rights. Somewhere between 14 days and 6 months, the embryo/fetus receives rights (as IMO, 6 months the fetus defintely has rights), although most arguments will be subjective where this change over is.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Aware

Having knowledge or cognizance: aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware of faint sound.

Having knowledge or cognizance.

Knowledge
The state or fact of knowing.

Cognizance
Conscious knowledge or recognition; awareness

Conscious
Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

Thought
To have or formulate in the mind

So, obviously, any animal is aware, making this an unsuitable criterion for bestowing rights.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Rayden

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
God Damnit.... Literally. Why can't people take their heads out of their asses when it comes to this, and many other, issue(s)?

Can people grow up and stop believing in silly fantasies about God and the Soul?

You preach about wanting to have intelligent, productive debate about an issue, yet in the same breath, declare the deeply-entrenched philosophical beliefs shared by a vast majority of the world's population to be nothing more than an immature "silly fantasy."

Perhaps you're the one with his head firmly lodged in his rectum?

Yay! My hero!

A belief in something that has not been proven to exist is a Delusion