A Scientific Advance, a Political Question Mark

Tell me again, how does it require creating a human embryo to understand how embryos work?

Again? Whatever that means, you have to take something apart to analyze it, like a cadaver.

But we can (and have) studied embryos which were not human. The mechanisms are very similar in all mammals.

Very similar, but not congruent. Human anatomy was not mapped out until a few people donated their bodies to science and its the same with cells.

The difference is, a few people donated there bodies to science, and that was once they died. The same cannot be said for the embryos.

They sure can - the embryoes were donated. To be useful for research they have to be totally undifferentiated.

To be useful for research they have to be totally undifferentiated.

I didn't understand this statement, could you please clarify?

The cells harvested come from blastocysts at a specific stage of their development. If the cells have any differentiation into nerve tissue, heart tissue, bone tissue, or anything else, it's no longer suitable for research purposes. I don't understand how personhood can be bestowed upon something like that.

They used and destroyed embryonic stem cells in this reasearch! How else could they have learned to mimic them? This is exactly the kind of discovery that the Bush Administration has fought tooth and nail, and now they want a piece of the credit for standing (aka HIDING) behind principles.

Do you know that these developments were not done from research provided by President Bush's funding? As is typically left out President Bush did authorize funding on existing stem cell lines.

The cells harvested come from blastocysts at a specific stage of their development. If the cells have any differentiation into nerve tissue, heart tissue, bone tissue, or anything else, it's no longer suitable for research purposes. I don't understand how personhood can be bestowed upon something like that.

Well without going into the birds and the bees blastocysts come from the union of 23 chromosomes in a male sperm and 23 a chromosomes a female egg. If allowed to continue development they have a high probability to become a fetus, then a baby, then a kid, then a teenager, then an adult, then a senior citizen, then food for the ecosystem. Now we know that our physical structure is contained in those 46 chromosome. It is argueable at the very least the template for our personalities is also in those 46 chromosomes. At what point do you argue that we are not a human life once 46 chromosomes form a unique DNA structure.

It has been arugued that the true crime of murder is by robbing the world of all the possible creations and good the murdered may have done in the world. For this arguement is has argued this why the death penalty is wrong because you rob the world of the possibility they may change and do some good. Now if we know that a blastocyst has a high possibility of living a normal (or even abnormal) human life and we interfere in that development - aren't you robbing the world of those same possibilities.

It has been arugued that the true crime of murder is by robbing the world of all the possible creations and good the murdered may have done in the world.

This is a fairly absurd argument, and the way to see this is to simply turn it around: How many murders have been prevented by abortion? How many horrible criminals have we prevented from coming into this world? Would it have been better for the world if Hitler had been aborted? How many Hitlers have we prevented?

And now I've gone and Godwin'd this thread but good.

Plus the fact that the research is only prelimary. It shows enormous potential, but it is years away. In the interim, however, we still have millions of people suffering from conditions that could be alleviated years earlier than without the dogmatic opposition to it.

I am always rather surprised at the capacity for people to clearly see the future.

How do you know that creating and experimenting on human embryos can provide medical interventions which could not be obtained in other ways? How do you know that experimenting on human embryos will accelerate the process of knowledge?

It should be noted that actual therapies have all come from adult stem cells, none from embryonic stem cells.

that could be alleviated years earlier

While the potential of stem cell research has promise for cures to many ailments, it has not, so far come through on any of those promises.

They are indeed human embryos, they are not however self-aware, nor even remotely approaching a developed human's capacities. Comparing the destruction of embryos to the abject suffering of a conscious individual who may one day be cured of their ailment through stem cell research, I feel is reprehensible.

This research is a step in the right direction, but the cells produced aren't yet proving to be equivalent of those harvested from embryos. While we all wait and see, embryonic research will continue on. If nothing ever comes of it, oh well. The potential alone for medical advances is what validates the research to my mind.

Exactly, Jimster. It is incongruous to be against embryonic stem cell research while being for the process that creates embryos that will eventually be trash. I can't think of any in-vitro procedure that uses just the embryos created, with no extras frozen.

What are the (reasonable) chances that the embryos will be impregnated? Is it manslaughter if the embryos don't attach and grow?

Yes, Jimster. I do find the creation of disposable embryos unnecessary and repugnant.

There are lots of problems associated with in-vitro fertilization aside from the creation of disposable embryos, but the wholesale creation of embryos for no purpose is one of them.

So you don't think having a baby is a reason for creation?

Didn't say that at all. Said the creation of embryos not used or intended for the production of a baby is repugnant.

The very act of in-vitro requires making additional embryos since there is no guarantee on how many or which sperm/egg pairings will "work" and also due to the expense of each in-vitro cycle.

Yes, yes. It is cheaper and easier to produce disposable embryos.

When you are going about creating embryos knowing only say 25% will fertilize and it is $10,000+ a cycle, you have to do what will create the best odds. Are you against those who choose this route to parenthood?

The only thing that bothers me is in-vitro couples who thank God for their baby--it was a docs and the lab techs who created it and allowed the pregnancy, God made the family infertile through "natural" means.

What I am against is presidential candidates who stand up and say "We must overturn Roe vs. Wade" but never mention fertility treatment that does exactly the same thing. There is very little that is more hypocritical.

Ok, how about this.

The "pro-lifers" can throw away the unused embryos by gently laying on top of thrash heap. Then walk away feeling morally intact. A few moments later the people seeking to cure diseases and save lives can walk by and gently pick them up and get on with helping humanity.

Perfect

Of course, Jimster. It is all about feeling good.

It couldn't ever be about right/wrong, good/bad, principles, etc.

You wanna save cells. I wanna save lives.

This isen't about just feeling good. (although millions of lives saved make me feel good) There are potentailly many millions of people who's lives may be saved, or vastly improved, by pursuing that research. Why do you only care for embryos? Do you care so little for the suffers of disease that you'd rather throw their hopes in the trash than help them? You are not the compassionate, moral person you pretend to be.

...about right/wrong, good/bad, principles

It's exactly about that my friend. And there are many now working hard to save lives via stem cell research.

You, and those like you, are nothing new. There have always been people who find moral drums to beat in order to prop up their sense of self. Go ahead, beat the drum. The rest of us will pursue paths that improve life on Earth. There are many things enjoyed by you and your crowd now that I'm sure in the past you would have opposed.

Meanwhile we'll move ahead without you.

You wanna save cells.

I would prefer you not put words in my mouth. I have no desire to save cells.

You want to save embryos from unnecessary destruction, am I right? Because the two are roughly equal.

Not at all. I want to prevent the unnecessary creation of embryos. Those having been created unnecessarily should be destroyed.

Creating human embryos for medical research is wrong.

Creating them for no purpose is wrong.

Creating them for no purpose and then deciding that they can be used for medical research is still wrong.

Oh, ok.

Not much to be done about the entrenched belief, so see you around.

Creating human embryos for medical research is wrong.

This is not happening now and is against the law. So stop worrying about it.

Creating them for no purpose is wrong.

This isn't happening either. They are being created so couples can have children. The extra embryos are a necessary part of that procedure.

Creating them for no purpose and then deciding that they can be used for medical research is still wrong.

Strike three! This is not happening. The only research being done is on existing stem cell lines, per Bush's ruling.

Rest assured however that I will work for that ruling to be repealed.

Actually, President Bush's executive order only applies to federal funding. There is private and state funded research being done as well on cell line that were not approved for federal funding.

Contrary to popular perception there is quite a bit of funding for stem cell research without the Feds. And like it or not - it is President Bush has provided federal funding even in a limited manner.

FD- You're right. I my haste, I failed to make that point.

Thanks for the link.

Indeed there is a lot of movement on the state and private funding horizon. All good. I am proud to have helped vote in the California program.

All of this could be in jeopardy however if activists mount a drive to outlaw it altogether. JPark strikes me as one who would join such a drive (my guess).

That's why it's important to get people educated as to what it actually is, what it's potential benefits are and how this could potentially have huge positive implications for the world.

Potential benefits are insufficient reason to do something.

We might expect large potential benefits, for example, by using prisoners as guinea pigs instead of real guinea pigs, rats or simians. We could infect them with various incurable diseases and try different medications and therapies. No doubt we would learn a lot.

We won't do that because it is immoral -- and we shouldn't do it despite the potential benefits.

Potential benefits are insufficient reason to do something.

Wow. What the hell kinda thinking is that? How do we get anything done? Sheesh. Thats pretty much why any thing, human or animal, does anything.

Oh, and by the way, we have done numerous experiments on various animals to test the viability of stem cells as potential cures, but at some point you have to experiment on human embryos.

Your continued comparison of a blastocyst of fifteen or twenty cells to a fully grown human being is patiently ridiculous. There is no brain, nerves or organs. No human form at all. Just cells destaned for the trash.

What they do have is potential. They are not yet, but can become, humans. They are much like germinated seeds, with the potential of becoming a tree. Your argument holds that it is the same to destroy a germinated seed as a 2000 year old Redwood tree.

There are many pro-lifers who support this research. Orrin Hatch and Nancy Reagan come to mind. To not persue this avenue is immoral, as Orrin and Nancy have come to believe as well..