Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Fonz]

As much as I enjoyed third Grade PaleRider, I don't want to repeat it. So I'm going to ignore most your childishness above.

Heres the Issue. First, it is undeniable that a human embryo is "human life" in the biological sense that it is living rather than dead, and human rather than, say a cow. But this biological fact does not establish that the blastocyst is a human being, or a person. Any living human cell (a skin cell, for example) is "human life" in the sense of being human rather than a cow and living rather than dead. But no one would consider a skin cell a person. Showing that a blastocyst is a human being, or a person, requires further argument, something that palerider has failed to do.

Consider an analogy: although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree knocked over by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees differ. So do human embryos and human beings, and in the same way. Just as acorns are potential oaks, human embryos are potential human beings.

The distinction between a potential person and an actual one makes a moral difference, which allthough palerider wont acknowledge, is where our laws derive from. Sentient creatures make claims on us that nonsentient ones do not; beings capable of experience and consciousness make higher claims still. Human life develops by degrees.

If harvesting stem cells from a blastocyst were truly on a par with harvesting organs from living human beings, then its obvious that it should be completely banned. But its not. Not even the President is calling for a ban. Just a ban on federal funding. In fact, if Palerider was correct, then embryonic stem cell research would be tantamount to infanticide, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder and subject scientists who performed it to criminal punishment.

We Don't do any of those things.

Furthermore, it makes no rational sense to oppose stem cell research. We are talking about Embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways.

When a woman goes in for an IVF treatment, excess embryos are produced as part of the process anyways. Once the IVF treatment is completed, the remaining embryos are frozen until the person notifys the clinic that they no longer want them, at which point they are discarded as medical waste. Why the hell would any sane person oppose the use of these embryos and instead insist that they be destroyed, thereby serving no purpose whatsoever?

And while I firmly believe that the current methods of creating stem cell lines should be used, it's also good to see that scientists are working on alternative methods that, whether intentionally or not, attempt to sidestep these so-called "moral dilemmas." As reported on MSNBC:

[Dr. Robert] Lanza's method, employed on mouse cells last year by his company, is derivative of a diagnostic technique used in in vitro fertilization known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In order to test embryos thought to be at risk for serious genetic defects, PGD removes a single cell, or blastomere, from a couple's embryo and examines it in a lab for irregularities. If determined to be healthy, the embryo can then, in many cases, be implanted into a woman's uterus and is able to regenerate the lost cell and continue developing. In practice, Lanza's technique would take a blastomere from an embryo donated for PGD, allow it to divide, and use the new cells to create stem-cell lines while sending one of the cells off for genetic diagnosis.​

 

[palerider]

As much as I enjoyed third Grade PaleRider, I don't want to repeat it. So I'm going to ignore most your childishness above.

Dodge. Shuck & Jive.

Heres the Issue. First, it is undeniable that a human embryo is "human life" in the biological sense that it is living rather than dead, and human rather than, say a cow. But this biological fact does not establish that the blastocyst is a human being, or a person. Any living human cell (a skin cell, for example) is "human life" in the sense of being human rather than a cow and living rather than dead. But no one would consider a skin cell a person. Showing that a blastocyst is a human being, or a person, requires further argument, something that palerider has failed to do.

A skin cell is a skin cell and a living skin cell is a living skin cell. Keep it alive and it simply replicates into more skin cells. An unborn at any stage of development, however, is a human being. Let it live and it will live a human life.

Once more for your benefit. Zygote, toddler, morula, infant, blastula, adolsecent, teenager, blastosphere, adult, embryo, old geezer etc., etc., etc., are all terms we use to describe a human being at the various stages of his or her life.

Rather than more argument, what is required is for you to show some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. I have asked repeatedly and you simply haven't delivered. We both know you haven't and you won't because there is no such credible science...anywhere.

Consider an analogy: although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree knocked over by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees differ. So do human embryos and human beings, and in the same way. Just as acorns are potential oaks, human embryos are potential human beings.

Ahhh. The old seed analogy. I wondered how long it would be before you drug that looser out. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know even the basics with regard to embryology or developmental biology. Your analogy is not valid because it ignores the facts of develomental biology. If you had a grasp of the science, you would realize that within the seed, there is, in fact, an oak tree. Immature, but an oak tree none the less.

Observe. This is a photomicrograph of a disected wheat seed. As you can see, it is not "just a seed". The root, leaves, and stem are present. Acorns and all other seeds are the same. Clearly, acorns are not potential oaks, acorns are immature oaks. In oak trees (and other plants), pollen and male and female haploid and polar nuclei represent potential oak trees. Once they are combined, however, their potential is realized and the next generation has been created.

In human beings, sperm and eggs represent the potential for a new human being. Once they get together and fertilization is complete, their potential is also realized. When fertilization is complete, what you have is a potential baseball player, or engineer, or dancer, or doctor. Not a potential human being as that potential has already been realized.

The distinction between a potential person and an actual one makes a moral difference, which allthough palerider wont acknowledge, is where our laws derive from. Sentient creatures make claims on us that nonsentient ones do not; beings capable of experience and consciousness make higher claims still. Human life develops by degrees.

Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about. You made that abundantly clear with your oak tree analogy. You can make all the claims that you like, but they don't change the biological facts. Your argument sounds very much like the arguments made in the 1800's by people arguing that blacks weren't human beings. All sorts of moral arguments and legal wrangling took place, but none of it changed the fact that blacks were indeed human beings no matter what sort of argument was made. It is true that a gross miscarriage of the law was the result of the moralizing and legal wrangling but it is not true that any of it made blacks into anything other than human beings. The same is true for unborns.

If harvesting stem cells from a blastocyst were truly on a par with harvesting organs from living human beings, then its obvious that it should be completely banned. But its not. Not even the President is calling for a ban. Just a ban on federal funding. In fact, if Palerider was correct, then embryonic stem cell research would be tantamount to infanticide, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder and subject scientists who performed it to criminal punishment.

Blastocysts are living human beings. Your use of the term in an attempt to dehumanize them is no different than using words like ni^^er and coon in an attempt to dehumanize a black person. If you want to be accurate, then say human blastocyst and understand that what you are describing is an immature human being. Much like saying human child. Blastocyst simply describes a level of development just like infant, toddler, and adult.

Embryonic stem cell research, and abortion are tantamount to infantacide. One is killing a living human being for no better reason than convenience, and the other is killing living human beings for the purpose of medical research. Exactly the same sort of research could have been performed on blacks when "the law" determined that they were not, in fact, human beings. Their owners could do with them as they pleased.

We Don't do any of those things.

And there was no punishment for people who killed blacks when the law said that they were not human beings either. Clearly, the law was wrong and a terrible miscarriage of justice took place. It has happened again.

Furthermore, it makes no rational sense to oppose stem cell research. We are talking about Embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways.

Do you support harvesting organs from criminals who have recieved life sentences?

When a woman goes in for an IVF treatment, excess embryos are produced as part of the process anyways. Once the IVF treatment is completed, the remaining embryos are frozen until the person notifys the clinic that they no longer want them, at which point they are discarded as medical waste. Why the hell would any sane person oppose the use of these embryos and instead insist that they be destroyed, thereby serving no purpose whatsoever?

That is another problem. When a woman goes in for IVF treatment, the medical team should be required to fertilize and implant one egg at a time. That way, there would be no "left overs". If the woman couldn't afford the expense of the one at a time method, she could always adopt.

And while I firmly believe that the current methods of creating stem cell lines should be used, it's also good to see that scientists are working on alternative methods that, whether intentionally or not, attempt to sidestep these so-called "moral dilemmas." As reported on MSNBC:

[Dr. Robert] Lanza's method, employed on mouse cells last year by his company, is derivative of a diagnostic technique used in in vitro fertilization known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In order to test embryos thought to be at risk for serious genetic defects, PGD removes a single cell, or blastomere, from a couple's embryo and examines it in a lab for irregularities. If determined to be healthy, the embryo can then, in many cases, be implanted into a woman's uterus and is able to regenerate the lost cell and continue developing. In practice, Lanza's technique would take a blastomere from an embryo donated for PGD, allow it to divide, and use the new cells to create stem-cell lines while sending one of the cells off for genetic diagnosis.​

The fact is that not one single medical treatment has resulted from embryonic stem cell research while the list of successful treatments using adult and cord blood stem cells is already quite impressive and is growing monthly. Embryonic stem cell research is a dead end that has been gloamed onto by the pro choice industry in hopes of revitalizing their flagging support.

 

[Fonz]

Dodge. Shuck & Jive.

Third Grade?

A skin cell is a skin cell and a living skin cell is a living skin cell. Keep it alive and it simply replicates into more skin cells. An unborn at any stage of development, however, is a human being. Let it live and it will live a human life.

Once more for your benefit. Zygote, toddler, morula, infant, blastula, adolsecent, teenager, blastosphere, adult, embryo, old geezer etc., etc., etc., are all terms we use to describe a human being at the various stages of his or her life.

Rather than more argument, what is required is for you to show some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. I have asked repeatedly and you simply haven't delivered. We both know you haven't and you won't because there is no such credible science...anywhere.

Science dictates that the first vestige of humanity does not reveal itself until at least day 12 -14. The fact is that the human embryos used (usually 5-7 days after fertilisation) are not humans, they are human cells. Cells make up humans. But the embryo is no more a human (that is, a human being or person) than a skin cell is.

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990).

Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

Proponents of this view often propose the following hypothetical situation: Suppose that an egg is fertilized. At that moment a new life begins; the zygote gains a "soul," in the Catholic line of thought, or "personhood" in a secular line of thought. Then suppose that the zygote splits to form twins. Does the soul of the zygote split as well? No, this is impossible. Yet no one would argue that twins share the same "soul" or the same "personhood." Thus, supporters of this view maintain that the quality of "soul" or "personhood" must be conferred after there is no longer any potential for twinning. (Shannon and Wolter 1990)

The argument that human life begins at the moment that chromosomes of the sperm meet the chromosomes of the egg to form a genetically unique individual is also endangered by the twinning argument because genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life. "Genetic uniqueness" can be shared by multiple individuals, particularly indentical twins. Thus, this argument continues, the moment at which a unique individual human forms is the not the moment when its genetic code is determined, but rather the moment when the zygote can no longer split into multiple individuals.

In addition to twinning, there are other complexities that further confound the idea of the moment of conception. Just as it is possible for a zygote to form two or more individuals before it is implanted in the uterus, it is also possible for it to not continue to develop at all, but rather just become a part of the placenta. (Shannon and Wolter 1990).

It is estimated that more than 50% of fertilized eggs abort spontaneously and never become children (Gilbert 2002). Or, if the zygote splits into multiple zygotes, it is also possible for these to recombine before implantation. All of these possibilities are examples of the ways in which the individuation of the zygote is incomplete until it has been implanted in the uterus.

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.
One of the most popular positions among philosophers is the perspective that life begins at the point of gastrulation — that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals. Gastrulation commences at the beginning of the third week of pregnancy, when the zygote, now known as an embryo, is implanted into the uterus of the mother. The cells are now differentiated into three categories that will give rise to the different types of body tissue. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). After gastrulation the zygote is destined to form no more than one human being.

The philosophers who support this position argue that there exists a difference between a human individual and a human person. A zygote is both human and numerically single and thus a human individual. However, because individuality is not certain until implantation is complete, and because individuality is a necessary condition of personhood, the zygote is not yet a human person. (Ford 1988; Shannon and Wolter 1990; McCormick 1991). Catholic scholars Shannon and Wolter (1990) describe this eloquently saying, "An individual is not an individual, and therefore not a person, until the process of restriction is complete and determination of particular cells has occurred. Then, and only then, it is clear that another individual cannot come from the cells of this embryo."

Some supporters of the fertilization position find fault in this argument by claiming that the potential of twinning is a technicality and not strong enough to support the claim that human life does not begin until gastrulation. Alan Holland puts forth the view that just because a zygote has the possibility to divide into multiple individuals does not mean that it is not an individual before it divides. As an analogy, he presents the case of the worm that is clearly a single individual worm until it is cut into two when it becomes two individual worms. (Holland 1990).

Some would also argue that in the discussion of when human life begins the question of whether a zygote will eventually become one individual or multiple individuals is irrelevant. The key point is that at least one human life may begin as the result of the zygote, and thus human life began at the creation of the zygote, fourteen days before gastrulation.

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.
​

 

[Coyote]

From the law.com dictionary:

person - n. 1) a human being.

From the findlaw.com legal dictionary:

person - 1: "natural person"

I can continue, but wherever one looks, one finds the definition of person is a human being so person and human being are one in the same in the eyes of the law. In the Roe decision itself, Justice Blackmund stated that if a case for personhood were ever established for unborns, the case for Roe would collapse as unborns would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. Precedent has already been established that unborns are human beings and in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being in order to be a person.



There need not be a "legal" definition for human being any more than there need be a "legal" definition for elephant. They are what they are. There certainly is some hair splitting going on here, but it is not me who is doing the splitting.

All of the examples you gave are indeed persons and all are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. I find it somewhat interesting that pro choicers always get around to comparing perfectly healthy unborns to people who are so badly damaged or diseased that they will never recover. Talk about splitting hairs in an attempt to make a case.

If there is a legal definition for "person" then there needs to be a legal definition for "human being" other wise a trophoblastic tumor could easily meet the definition of a human being. It contains all the genetic material, and is the embryonic product of an ovum and sperm.

 

[Fonz]

Do you support harvesting organs from criminals who have recieved life sentences?

Are all criminals going to die in a few days?

Though technically we already do do that. We already harvest organs from humans once they die.

The fact is that not one single medical treatment has resulted from embryonic stem cell research while the list of successful treatments using adult and cord blood stem cells is already quite impressive and is growing monthly. Embryonic stem cell research is a dead end that has been gloamed onto by the pro choice industry in hopes of revitalizing their flagging support.

The first first human embryonic stem cell line was only reported in 1998. It generally takes a while for treatments to be worked out. But you should know that, since you claim to hold degrees in the "hard sciences".

 

[Fonz]

That is another problem. When a woman goes in for IVF treatment, the medical team should be required to fertilize and implant one egg at a time. That way, there would be no "left overs". If the woman couldn't afford the expense of the one at a time method, she could always adopt.

Many IVF users want the embryos they still have in storage to be used in stem cell research, as it would be more meaningful for them to be used for research than to have them defrost and die on a laboratory bench.

 

[Coyote]

Dodge. Shuck & Jive.


And there was no punishment for people who killed blacks when the law said that they were not human beings either. Clearly, the law was wrong and a terrible miscarriage of justice took place. It has happened again.

Right here...you say it. The law wasn't wrong - at the time. But the definition of what is a "human being" changes and is constantly being redefined.

Is a blastocyst a human being or is it not? I don't think the answer to that is clear cut.

 

[9sublime]

They are not protected by the 14th amendment of the constitution. If an appeal to emotion is the best argument that you can put forward at this point, you have already lost.

But what if the constitution... shocking yes I know... could be wrong, or changed, or outdated.

If another kind of animal is more intelligent that an unborn foetus, should it be killed? If an animal is more intelligent than a severely disabled individual, should the animals rights be taken into consideration?

What makes a person better than an animal? It's ability to have a greater knowlegde of thinking, feeling, and knowing what is going on around it? That's what I would say.

 

[palerider]

Third Grade?

Observation.

Science dictates that the first vestige of humanity does not reveal itself until at least day 12 -14. The fact is that the human embryos used (usually 5-7 days after fertilisation) are not humans, they are human cells. Cells make up humans. But the embryo is no more a human (that is, a human being or person) than a skin cell is.

You are aware that you posted a philosophy lesson and not the "dictates" of any science don't you? That page was designed to foster discussion, not to educate. You have posted no facts here, you have only posted topics for discussion. Once again, I have provided credible science that states that we are human beings from the moment of fertilization and the best you can do is provide a page from a text that is designed specifically to foster a discussion before any actual education begins. Further more, the book you cite is no more than a companion book, it isn't even the text book.

If there is a legal definition for "person" then there needs to be a legal definition for "human being" other wise a trophoblastic tumor could easily meet the definition of a human being. It contains all the genetic material, and is the embryonic product of an ovum and sperm.

Maybe there does need to be a legal definition for human being. Of course, that definition will be based on our best understanding of the science of human development and the more we learn, the more we know that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. If you are arguing that we should call trophoblastic tumor's human beings, fine. We only need wait a couple of weeks to determine whether it will continue during the normal human developmental cycle, or remain a tumor.

It is telling that in order to even give your argument an appearance of credibility you must compare healthy human beings to plants, and to tumors, and to various parasites. You keep flitting from topic to topic, throwing crap against the wall in the hopes that something sticks. It won't. The science is clear and well established and your "topic for discussion" doesn't constitute science.

Are all criminals going to die in a few days?

Though technically we already do do that. We already harvest organs from humans once they die.

So you favor killing perfectly healthy, innocent human beings for medical research, but not convicted criminals destined to spend life in prison. Your position becomes more and more defined, and more and more indefensible.

The first first human embryonic stem cell line was only reported in 1998. It generally takes a while for treatments to be worked out. But you should know that, since you claim to hold degrees in the "hard sciences".

Research into treatments using adult stem cells is not that much older. True research into adult stem cells (as opposed to somatic cell research which isn't true stem cell research) has only been going on since the 1980's. Since that time, the ground has been broken for stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell researchers aren't having to develop new science,they are just looking for applications for embryonic stem cells.

Here is an incomplete list of diseases that have been successfully treated with adult stem cells:

Brain Cancer - Retinoblastoma -Ovarian Cancer - Merkel Cell Carcinoma -Testicular Cancer - Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma -Hodgkin’s Lymphoma - Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia -Acute Myelogenous Leukemia -Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia - Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia - Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy -Multiple Myeloma -
Myelodysplasia -Breast Cancer -Neuroblastoma -Renal Cell Carcinoma -Various Solid Tumors -Soft Tissue Sarcoma -Ewing’s Sarcoma -Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia -Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis -POEMS syndrome -Myelofibrosis -Systemic Lupus -Sjogren’s Syndrome -Myasthenia -Autoimmune Cytopenia -Scleromyxedema -Scleroderma -Crohn’s Disease -Behcet’s Disease -Rheumatoid Arthritis -Juvenile Arthritis -Multiple Sclerosis -Polychondritis -Systemic Vasculitis -Alopecia Universalis -Buerger’s Disease -Acute Heart Damage -Chronic Coronary Artery Disease -Corneal regeneration -Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome -X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome -X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome -Parkinson’s Disease -Spinal Cord Injury -Stroke Damage -Sickle Cell Anemia -Sideroblastic Anemia -Aplastic Anemia -red Cell Aplasia Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia -Thalassemia -Primary Amyloidosis -Diamond Blackfan Anemia -Fanconi’s Anemia -Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection -Limb Gangrene -Surface Wound Healing -Jawbone Replacement -Skull Bone Repair -Hurler’s Syndrome -Osteogenesis Imperfecta -Krabbe Leukodystrophy -Osteopetrosis -Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy -Chronic Liver Failure -Liver Cirrhosis -End-Stage Bladder Disease

Here is the entire list of diseases that have even had limited success with embryonic stem cells:

chirp...chirp...chirp....

Arguing that "it takes time" would only be an effective (and honest) argument if adult stem cell research had not already broken the ground and had such fantastic results even since the EARLIEST DAYS OF ITS RESEARCH. Embryonic stem cell research is a dead end that is only being pursued because the pro choice industry needs to bolster its flagging support.

Many IVF users want the embryos they still have in storage to be used in stem cell research, as it would be more meaningful for them to be used for research than to have them defrost and die on a laboratory bench.

I am sure that you could find parents who would let science experiment on their children as well but that doesn't make it OK. The fact that there are parents who are willing to see human beings killed for scentific research doesn't make the practice any more justifiable.

At this point, you really should walk away from this discussion. You are not going to be able to make the case that unborns are not human beings, and you have made it clear that the only humans you are willing to see killed in the name of scientific research are the most innocent and helpless among us. Your postion is clear even though you can't bring yourself to articulate it. If I held a postion that I was unwilling to simply speak out loud, I would reexamine my postion.

 

[palerider]

Right here...you say it. The law wasn't wrong - at the time. But the definition of what is a "human being" changes and is constantly being redefined.

Of course the law was wrong. Blacks didn't start being human beings when the law finally admitted it, they were human beings just like whites. The judges who decided that blacks weren't human beings made a terrible mistake. Even back then, there was credible science that stated that blacks were human beings but the "law" chose not to err on the side of caution and as a result a terrible miscarriage of justice ocurred.

It has happened again.

Is a blastocyst a human being or is it not? I don't think the answer to that is clear cut.

Why? Because it isn't fully developed? None of us are fully developed until we reach our mid to late 20's. If that is the nature of your argument, then you could just as effectively argue that infants aren't human beings, or toddlers aren't human beings or even teens and young adults aren't human beings because they are still immature. If you are going to conceed that it is possible to be a human being and not yet be fully developed, you can't really make an effective argument that any immature human being is not a human being.

If you favor killing human beings for no better reason than convenience, or killing the most helpless human beings to harvest their parts in medical experiments, then simply say so. If you can't bring yourself to actually state your postion, then there is a problem with your position. If you have to tell yourself stories to make your position more palatable to yourself, go ahead, but don't try to tell them to be because I am well aware of the facts of developmental biology and your story doesn't jibe with the facts.

 

[palerider]

But what if the constitution... shocking yes I know... could be wrong, or changed, or outdated.

Then change it. The nature of our legal system is such that before a human being can be denied his right to live, law must exist that specifically enumerates which human being (or group) is having his right to live denied, why that human being (or group) is having his right to live denied. Enact law that states specifically that human beings that are as yet unborn are denied their right to live.

If another kind of animal is more intelligent that an unborn foetus, should it be killed? If an animal is more intelligent than a severely disabled individual, should the animals rights be taken into consideration?

Fight to ammend the constitution to protect the lives of intelligent animals if you like. Presently their lives are not protected. An appeal to emotion has no place in this discussion.

What makes a person better than an animal? It's ability to have a greater knowlegde of thinking, feeling, and knowing what is going on around it? That's what I would say.

Again, your argument is no more than an appeal to emotion. The fact is that the lives of human beings are protected by the constitution and the lives of animals are not. If you have a problem with that, then start a thread arguing to ammend the constitution to protect the lives of animals.

 

[Fonz]

You are aware that you posted a philosophy lesson and not the "dictates" of any science don't you? That page was designed to foster discussion, not to educate. You have posted no facts here, you have only posted topics for discussion. Once again, I have provided credible science that states that we are human beings from the moment of fertilization and the best you can do is provide a page from a text that is designed specifically to foster a discussion before any actual education begins. Further more, the book you cite is no more than a companion book, it isn't even the text book.

This, is a philosophy book?

http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=2500

The Eighth Edition of Developmental Biology expands its coverage of the mechanisms of development, the roles that environmental factors play in development, the medical applications of our knowledge of development, and the roles that development plays in evolution, highlighting all the incredible advances that have been made in the last three years. Written primarily for undergraduate biology majors, it also serves to introduce graduate students and medical students to developmental biology.
​

Its amazing how you always without fail, dismiss any evidence that completely destroys your outdated point of view. Tell me did you even read what was posted this time? usually you don't.

So you favor killing perfectly healthy, innocent human beings for medical research, but not convicted criminals destined to spend life in prison. Your position becomes more and more defined, and more and more indefensible.

Its telling that you have to create strawmen to argue.

Research into treatments using adult stem cells is not that much older. True research into adult stem cells (as opposed to somatic cell research which isn't true stem cell research) has only been going on since the 1980's. Since that time, the ground has been broken for stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell researchers aren't having to develop new science,they are just looking for applications for embryonic stem cells.

Arguing that "it takes time" would only be an effective (and honest) argument if adult stem cell research had not already broken the ground and had such fantastic results even since the EARLIEST DAYS OF ITS RESEARCH. Embryonic stem cell research is a dead end that is only being pursued because the pro choice industry needs to bolster its flagging support.

Well there have been a lot more obstacles in the way of Embryonic Stem Cell research as well, from people like you and of course the religious right.

Adult stem cells don't have the same potential for the wide range of tissue growth that embryonic stem cells have, so they aren't an acceptable substitute.

I am sure that you could find parents who would let science experiment on their children as well but that doesn't make it OK. The fact that there are parents who are willing to see human beings killed for scentific research doesn't make the practice any more justifiable.

The fact that blastocysts are not human beings has something to do with it.

At this point, you really should walk away from this discussion. You are not going to be able to make the case that unborns are not human beings, and you have made it clear that the only humans you are willing to see killed in the name of scientific research are the most innocent and helpless among us. Your postion is clear even though you can't bring yourself to articulate it. If I held a postion that I was unwilling to simply speak out loud, I would reexamine my postion.

Actually, I already have made the case that blastocysts are not human beings. You've failed to make the case that they are human beings. I don't really expect a liar like you to admit it however.

 

[palerider]

This, is a philosophy book?

http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=2500

The Eighth Edition of Developmental Biology expands its coverage of the mechanisms of development, the roles that environmental factors play in development, the medical applications of our knowledge of development, and the roles that development plays in evolution, highlighting all the incredible advances that have been made in the last three years. Written primarily for undergraduate biology majors, it also serves to introduce graduate students and medical students to developmental biology.
​

No. Developmental Biology is not a philosophy book. You didn't cite Developmental Biology, you cited the companion book to it. Perhaps you should make yourself more aware of the books you reference. Your reference also said:

"The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. "

Your companion book was offering up topics for discussion, not teaching the hard science.

Its amazing how you always without fail, dismiss any evidence that completely destroys your outdated point of view. Tell me did you even read what was posted this time? usually you don't.

You didn't present any evidence. You presented topics for discussion from a companion book to a developmental biology text. Bring forward some credible science (which doesn't include topics for discussion in a companion book) that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Yes, I have read the entire book and have read the actual biology textbook which does not support the idea that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being as that would be rediculous.

Well there have been a lot more obstacles in the way of Embryonic Stem Cell research as well, from people like you and of course the religious right.

Face it, they have not been breaking ground in stem cell research, they simply can't find a disease in which embryonic stem cells offer a reasonable hope for a cure, and they have tried without succes on many. The only obstacle to ESR has been public money but then most of the succes from adult stem cell research has not been the result of publicly funded research which further dents your position.

Adult stem cells don't have the same potential for the wide range of tissue growth that embryonic stem cells have, so they aren't an acceptable substitute.

Should I list again the list of diseases that have been successfully treated with adult, and cord blood stem cells and the non list of successful treatments with embryonic stem cells. The fact is that adult, and cord blood stem cells have exactly the same range of growth potential that embryonic stem cells have and their behavior after implantation is much more predictable.

The fact that blastocysts are not human beings has something to do with it.

Still waiting for some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. Topics for discussion hardly rise to the level of credible science. Thus far, I have provided reference to at least 5 medical text books that have been used in medical schools around the world. There are more.

Actually, I already have made the case that blastocysts are not human beings. You've failed to make the case that they are human beings. I don't really expect a liar like you to admit it however.

You have provided topics for discussion from a companion book to a medical text. Nothing from the medical text itself as opposed to the information I have referenced which states quite clearly that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete.

Your topic for discussion was not even honest in that. It fell back to a very old idea that fertilization happens instantly. Modern textbooks say that from the time fertilization is complete, we are human beings. Tell me what you think that this means?

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Note the date of this book. 1968. Note that even back then, it doesn't say, as your topics for discussion suggests, that fertilization happens all at once.

And this:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Note that this, nor any of the references that I bring here are "companion" books. They are actual textbooks for teaching fact, not for fostering discussion.

Perhaps you aren't aware that we are zygotes before we are blastocysts. If we are human beings when we are zygotes, we are human beings when we are blastocysts. Once again, is blastocyst the only scientific term you know?

And this:

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

Which part of this, or any of the other references that I have provided are you saying don't support my position. Because they don't say blastocyst and your knowledge is limited to the word blastocyst? Are you arguing that when fertilization is complete that the zygote is a human being but when it divides for a few days and becomes a blastocyst that it stops being a human being for X hours and then becomes a human being again when it is no longer a blastocyst? These books, and there are plenty of others say that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. Which part of that do you believe doesn't support my argument? And which part do you beleve does support yours. This is the science. It is what it is and it supports one side or the other. Tell me how it supports your position.



And speaking of liars, when you brought the text from the topics for discussion, you deliberately left out the views that contradict the point that you are trying to make. A lie of omission is a lie and you certainly omitted the information that damaged your argument.

 

[9sublime]

Again, your argument is no more than an appeal to emotion. The fact is that the lives of human beings are protected by the constitution and the lives of animals are not. If you have a problem with that, then start a thread arguing to ammend the constitution to protect the lives of animals.

No, what I'm saying is that your basis for no abortion seems to be that the child is a living thing with emotions, senses and a character. That is why it should not be killed in an abortion. Well, if this protects a childs right to be born and live, then it should protect something equally intelligent to the least intelligent human lifeforms.

 

[Fonz]

No. Developmental Biology is not a philosophy book. You didn't cite Developmental Biology, you cited the companion book to it. Perhaps you should make yourself more aware of the books you reference. Your reference also said:

"The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. "

Read Further, the next paragraph actually:

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it.
​

It then goes on to list some of the scientific discoveries that contradict it.

Your companion book was offering up topics for discussion, not teaching the hard science.

That doesnt mean that it was devoid of facts. As portrayed in the large number of footnotes.

You didn't present any evidence. You presented topics for discussion from a companion book to a developmental biology text. Bring forward some credible science (which doesn't include topics for discussion in a companion book) that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

I've just provided evidence.

Face it, they have not been breaking ground in stem cell research, they simply can't find a disease in which embryonic stem cells offer a reasonable hope for a cure, and they have tried without succes on many. The only obstacle to ESR has been public money but then most of the succes from adult stem cell research has not been the result of publicly funded research which further dents your position.

Should I list again the list of diseases that have been successfully treated with adult, and cord blood stem cells and the non list of successful treatments with embryonic stem cells. The fact is that adult, and cord blood stem cells have exactly the same range of growth potential that embryonic stem cells have and their behavior after implantation is much more predictable.

It takes time. Adult human stem cell research has been around since the early 1900's. The first human embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998. You are comparing almost a century of research with almost a decade of research. It takes many years to go from cell and molecular models, to mice, to higher animals and then to actual attempts on people and then to observe and follow those people. Typically, "success" is measured in baby steps that are of little to no interest to the media except for "potential" and that potential is a long ways away. Sometimes the successes may not even be in the form of direct medical treatments but rather in understanding cell biology that can in turn lead to new treatments independent of the stemcells. Maybe there will be no successes in terms of treatment, but it's too early to tell. Look at how long it took to develop cancer treatments, or understand nuclear energy.

You have provided topics for discussion from a companion book to a medical text. Nothing from the medical text itself as opposed to the information I have referenced which states quite clearly that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete.

Plenty of scientific facts were provided in it.

Your topic for discussion was not even honest in that. It fell back to a very old idea that fertilization happens instantly. Modern textbooks say that from the time fertilization is complete, we are human beings.

And speaking of liars, when you brought the text from the topics for discussion, you deliberately left out the views that contradict the point that you are trying to make. A lie of omission is a lie and you certainly omitted the information that damaged your argument.

Well I just posted an excerpt, I didnt even post all of the views for, but yes there were some of the views against, you really should try reading whats posted.

"Understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."


Wether you want to admit it or not PaleRider, this is also a philosophical and moral/ethical discussion. Science alone can'not answer this question, as shown by the varying viewpoints, depending on which aspect of science you look at . That of course doesnt mean that in the future science wont have a definite answer, but right now, it doesn't. The difference is between what is human life, and what is a human being. As much as you try, you simply can'not give the same moral status to a blastocyst that you give to an adult human being.

Your refusal to even acknowledge the other arguments that contradict yours is intellectually dishonest. Your not searching for the truth, just trying to gain some sort of victory on an internet message board to fuel your arrogance.