Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Coyote]

They are in constant chemical communication with their mothers from the time fertilization is complete directing her body to provide the environment that they require. That is far more control than we have over any environment that we might find ourselves in

They do not regulate their own internal environment. The mother does that - including, if resources are scarce, stress is high or the fetus itself is severely deformed- reabsorption.

They are growing and maturing to adapt to an environment that they haven't even been exposed to and have no knowledge of. How much more adaptable can one be?

They are growing - that is not changing over a period of time in response to the environment. That is simply following cellular directives to grow.

 

[ArmChair General]

PaleRider, why do you place the value of a Human Being above the value of any other sentient creature on Earth?

 

[Coyote]

But you said that you weren't willing to see any human beings killed in order to find a cure for any given disease.

If you aren't sure whether or not they are human beings, and you aren't willing to see human beings killed for medical research purposes, how do you justify your position?

Because I don't yet consider them individual human beings or human lives. I agree - they are human species.

Let me ask another question: much of this stemcell research is done with leftover embryos from invitro fertilization trials. Normally, many of the embryos are not viable - hence, the large number needed to be produced. They are often destroyed afterwards.

How do you justify that? How do you justify the entire invitro fertilization model when it produces far potential "human lives" in excess of what can be born and cared for? What do you do with all those damaged or non-viable embryos? Ethically, should they all be implanted and given a chance even if it means a severely handicapped child?

 

[palerider]

They do not regulate their own internal environment. The mother does that - including, if resources are scarce, stress is high or the fetus itself is severely deformed- reabsorption.

Actually they do. An unborn, from the time it is a zygote has a different temperature than its mother.

They are growing - that is not changing over a period of time in response to the environment. That is simply following cellular directives to grow.

Your own criteria stated that adaptation was determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances. The growth from zygote to adult and beyond is most certainly determined by heredity and the child's growth is a result of metabolized substances. In the case of the unborn, growth is adaptation.

It is a bit difficult to beleive that you would argue that unborns are not alive. Even the most rabit pro choicers don't make that argument any more.

 

[palerider]

Because I don't yet consider them individual human beings or human lives. I agree - they are human species.

Then explain the logic of holding a position that could very concieveably put you in a place where you have advocated a thing that you simply can not accept.

Let me ask another question: much of this stemcell research is done with leftover embryos from invitro fertilization trials. Normally, many of the embryos are not viable - hence, the large number needed to be produced. They are often destroyed afterwards.

Does it really matter whether a human being is a "left over"? How many "left over" human beings are you prepared see killed for a treatment for any given disease? For that matter, how many "left over" human beings would you want to see as the result of IVF?

How do you justify that? How do you justify the entire invitro fertilization model when it produces far potential "human lives" in excess of what can be born and cared for? What do you do with all those damaged or non-viable embryos? Ethically, should they all be implanted and given a chance even if it means a severely handicapped child?

I don't justify it. I think that it is a terrible mistake. Ethically, I believe that IVF clinics should fertilize one egg and implant it at a time. It would be far more expensive, but if a couple couldn't afford the expense, they could always adopt. I don't believe human beings shoud be frozen indefinately or thawed out and killed for medical research.

My sister in law was severly handicapped. She was in a wheelchair all her life. I knew her for 30 years and never heard her suggest that she would rather not have been born or never existed.

 

[Coyote]

Actually they do. An unborn, from the time it is a zygote has a different temperature than its mother.

Different parts of the body have different core temperatures don't they?

Your own criteria stated that adaptation was determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances. The growth from zygote to adult and beyond is most certainly determined by heredity and the child's growth is a result of metabolized substances. In the case of the unborn, growth is adaptation.

It is a bit difficult to beleive that you would argue that unborns are not alive. Even the most rabit pro choicers don't make that argument any more.

I am arguing a human life seperate from the mother. It isn't - it's part of the mother. Also - my criteria stated: changing over time in response to the environment. There is no evidence of that.

 

[palerider]

PaleRider, why do you place the value of a Human Being above the value of any other sentient creature on Earth?

Because I am at the top of the food chain. We are the only creatures on earth that place any value on life at all so it stands to reason that we would place a higher value on our own. Go sit down with a hungry tiger and talk to him about how much he values your life. Or how much you value his for that matter.

 

[Coyote]

Then explain the logic of holding a position that could very concieveably put you in a place where you have advocated a thing that you simply can not accept.



Does it really matter whether a human being is a "left over"? How many "left over" human beings are you prepared see killed for a treatment for any given disease? For that matter, how many "left over" human beings would you want to see as the result of IVF?




I don't justify it. I think that it is a terrible mistake. Ethically, I believe that IVF clinics should fertilize one egg and implant it at a time. It would be far more expensive, but if a couple couldn't afford the expense, they could always adopt. I don't believe human beings shoud be frozen indefinately or thawed out and killed for medical research.

My sister in law was severly handicapped. She was in a wheelchair all her life. I knew her for 30 years and never heard her suggest that she would rather not have been born or never existed.

Actually, in regards to IVF, I am in agreement with you. My brother is also disabled so I know what that is like.

Unfortunately, I have to run, so I will think about this debate some more.

 

[ArmChair General]

Because I am at the top of the food chain. We are the only creatures on earth that place any value on life at all so it stands to reason that we would place a higher value on our own. Go sit down with a hungry tiger and talk to him about how much he values your life. Or how much you value his for that matter.

Thats not true. Other animals mourn their dead, and protect their young. Even monkeys will go out of their way to avoid harming a member of their own species.

But thats not really answering the question. Being at the top of the food chain isn't a reason. Why do you give more value to a human life than to any other animals life?

 

[palerider]

Different parts of the body have different core temperatures don't they?

They vary, but typically, the temperature of the fetus is higher than that of the amneotic fluid surrounding it.

I am arguing a human life seperate from the mother. It isn't - it's part of the mother. Also - my criteria stated: changing over time in response to the environment. There is no evidence of that.

It absolutely is separate. Dependant, but separate. It has its own metabolism, in many cases a different blood type, half the time, a different sex. And since its environment doesn't change, why would you expect for it to adapt to a non changing environment? The fact that it doesn't is no indication that it can't.

Tell me, how much has your body adapted to your environment (beyond normal growth) since you were born. How is your body different today than it would have been had you lived on the west coast vs the east coast or in the northern hemisphere vs the southern hemisphere?

Unborns who are born at high altitudes have higher red blood cell counts than unborns at lower altitudes even though their blood supply is entirely separate from their mothers. The same is true for you and I. If you are living at a high altitude, you most certainly have a higher red cell count than I do here at a low altitude. The difference is to facilitate the smaller oxygen supply at high altitudes. That is the only real adaptation that I can think of that an individual human being might experience.

 

[palerider]

Thats not true. Other animals mourn their dead, and protect their young. Even monkeys will go out of their way to avoid harming a member of their own species.

But thats not really answering the question. Being at the top of the food chain isn't a reason. Why do you give more value to a human life than to any other animals life?

I gave you an answer. Your unwillingness to accept it is not my problem.

 

[ArmChair General]

I gave you an answer. Your unwillingness to accept it is not my problem.

haha..dodge shuck and jive...allright.

 

[palerider]

haha..dodge shuck and jive...allright.

What? You want me to make up another answer? You want me to lie in order to give you an answer that you like? I didn't dodge anything. I answered your question. Sorry you didn't like it.

 

[ArmChair General]

What? You want me to make up another answer? You want me to lie in order to give you an answer that you like? I didn't dodge anything. I answered your question. Sorry you didn't like it.

Dodge...Shuck...and Jaa Jaa ja Jive!

 

[9sublime]

Being at the top of the food chain isn't a reason. Why do you give more value to a human life than to any other animals life?

Its called specism Palerider. Look it up. It may not be the name of the thread, but people are still debating it.