Slashdot Mirror
Cells From Liposuction Function As Stem Cells?
texchanchan writes "Plastic surgeon Peter Fodor MD filtered stem cells out of fat sucked from people's oversized body parts, then cultured them into 'bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle and nerve cells.' At the rate of 10,000 stem cells per cm3 that's a lot of stem cells. Combine that with this and you might be on the road to regeneration. And, you can have your stem cells banked for later disasters after your liposuction."
And all this time I have been using it to make plastic explosives. Stupid Brad Pitt.
The cells that come out of fat are unwanted anyway, so why not just use them. The right really shouldn't have a problem, as long as they don't use it to grow babies for research, otherwise, they'll be howling to the moon, although they probably will anyway..
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
I'm not fat, I'm merely continually regenerating.
FatPhil
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
So does this mean the fatter I get, the more stem cells I'll have to repair my body later in life? Quick, somebody hand me that tub of Ben & Jerry's!
10,000 per every 100cc is the rate I saw on the article. But even at 100 per cc that's still a lot of stem cells. So even with the total costs you're talking about a nice bank of totally rejection proof stem cells at under 20k. That's almost 1/10 of the price I've seen quoted as a "reasonable estimate" in the last few articles. "attention Kmart shoppers, stem cells kits are now on blue light special!"
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions ;)
Yes. I don't believe in killing embryos and I'm thankful that we are still looking for alternatives. I only hope that these initial results pan out. (Those who are biased against the religious sometimes seem to take a particular glee when something like this doesn't pan out.)
The religious accuse the embryonic stem cell people of murder. On the other hand, those who could help people with embryonic stem cell research lay a similar charge back at the religious. The real problem is the people who try to pretend this is a clear cut issue and call you stupid if you don't take their side.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
having a fat ass will lead you to the road of health.
Being fat is an evolutionary advantage.
I'm a Biology major currently, so I'm right in there with the cloning stuff. I'm rather curious as to how the anti-cloning people are going to react to this; seeing as how the major argument AGAINST stem cell research is the usage of embryos, the use of fat-based stem cells should THEORETICALLY be OK. At least there's a nigh-endless source of fat cells, so we won't have any problem getting raw materials.
Personally, I'm just waiting for some religious nut to condemn this on the grounds that fat cells have souls. I dunno...if my fat were sentient, I think I'd have a lot more to worry about than just stem cell research.
"It never got weird enough for me." - HST (RIP)
Is this why everyone was so mad at the right? Because of a misunderstanding?
We don't oppose stem cell research. We oppose the destruction of embryos. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that embryos are people and deserve protection. The other side should admit that that claim at least has merit, even if they don't agree. (Meaning it's a respectable, legitimate opinion; not just being hard to get along with or obstructionist.)
I don't think you'll find anyone on the right (at least, anyone who fully understands the issues) who will oppose stem cell research that does not involve killing embryoes. Hopefully the distinction is very clear to everyone.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
In related news: Through selling their fat to science, millions of fat, ugly, poor people became slender, beautiful, rich people, tusly throwing off the delicate natural balance where 90% of the population is unfit (Darwinally speaking) to breed, leading to a previously unimaginable population boom as people proceed to "get it on", which causes widespread overpopulation (although skinny people do admittedly take up significantly less room than their beefier counter-parts), mass starvation (which in a poetic justice sort of way leads to more skinny people, sex, and babies, rinse, lather, repeat), and ultimately the demise of Western Civilization. But what a way to go ;)
Yes. See my posts on this thread so far. I'm not insisting I'm right, but I would like people to understand and consider the reasons for my beliefs before dismissing them and calling me names.
I always say I don't deserve to object to someone's opinions until I'm capable of explaining the reasons behind those opinions as well as he is. Some issues just are not clear-cut, and it's the people who try to insist things are simple that usually cause most of the fighting.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Some of us who consider ourselves right of center on many matters (fiscal matters, matters of law and authority, individual freedoms) may not be part of the "right-to-life" crowd. Please let us try to keep that in mind! I acknowledge the right of the "right-to-life" crowd to characterize an embryo as a "human being" and thus decide that any work on embryos (or destruction of same) isn't acceptable to them, but that doesn't mean that everyone on the "right" of the political spectrum agrees!
I agree that it would be a good thing (because of the stand some people have on embryonic work) to have an alternative. I too hope this pans out.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
BTW, can you get stem cells to divide in the laboratory and remain stem cells? If so, it seems that the quantity extracted shouldn't matter. This really does sound like a convenient source, though.
Liposuction fee = $2049
Stem cell processing = $1200
Stem cell storage = $100/yr
The self-storage option begins to look attractive!
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
This is very hopeful! Be your own best friend.... lose some weight via liposuction (get healthier, if the surgery doesn't kill you) and at the same time create a pool of stem cells that can be used to help regenerate yourself and other people (potentially, if everything works out). Now, I'm assuming your own stem cells are most likely more compatible with your own body chemistry, so they'd be the most use in healing you.
:) Thin and healthy in one (slightly complex) step....
Gee, I hope this pans out....
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
the fact that thin people are 4.8 times more likely to develope ALS and I've got to confess that I'm somewhat glad that I haven't kept any of my new years resolutions.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Why is it so creepy to say I don't believe in killing embryoes? I realize many people are not going to agree with me, but why is that opinion "creepy"? It's like some people think there's absolutely no basis in the world for the belief.
There's a lot of opinions I don't hold, but I still respect them because they are backed up by legitimate points. Isn't it legitimate to say, "Hey, I think killing an embryo is wrong?"
I'm so grateful there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells appearing on the horizon, and I hope these efforts produce spectacular results that will really benefit humanity. Hopefully some day work like this will lead to a solution that will satisfy everyone.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
"Plastic surgeon Peter Fodor MD filtered stem cells out of fat sucked from people's oversized body parts..." "Combine that with this and you might be on the road to regeneration."
Yeah... I knew that... I'm not fat, I'm saving up body parts in case I need them.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Actually I think the parent poster was probably saying that the killing of embryos was creepy, rather than the conservatives' stand against it.
Gotta love ambiguous grammatical constructs. . . ;)
Re-read what he said. I took it to mean that research on embryonic cells is creepy, not that disliking such research is creepy. I think you've gone into "Auto-defensive" mode :-)
;-)
-YARWN (Yet another right-wing nut
"You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions" And in the same vein, you should respect the beliefs of the people who are in favor of stem cell research. Unfortunately, YOUR side is the one who is trying to force your opinion on everyone else. I find your concept of "respect" as a one way street to be the root of the entire problem. After all, noone is forcing YOU to participate, right? What gives you the right to force others NOT to participate? Nothing does. :-)
Murphy was an optimist.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
The problem is, that if someone believes an embryo is a human being worthy of protection, then it's incumbent upon them to protect it, no matter who it belongs to.
I'm sure you don't have a problem if someone intervenes in child abuse case, after all. A parent may have quite a bit of latitude in how to raise a child, but intervention to prevent that parent from injuring or killing that child is entirely justified.
If you believe, then, that embryos deserve the same rights as a child, what else can you do but "force your beliefs" on those who are killing them?
So anyway, in this particular case, it's great that they can isolate such large quantities of stem cells safely from an adult human, but it's still rather limiting. All those cells will ever be able to form is bone, cartilage, and whatever else that particular type of multipotent cell can give rise to. This is why it's still important to many biologists to be able to collect less-differentiated stem cells. With only that type of cell, we may not be able to learn much about diseases that aren't specifically related to that limited set of tissues. (Though of course there's still a lot left to be learned about even a specific type of multipotent stem cell.)
Steven N. Severinghaus
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
Next time I have to fill out a driver's license application, I can put "fat ass" down in the organ donor questionnaire part and be completely serious about it.
The fact that it may be possible to have an enormous potential supply of stem cells from this source makes the conservative stand against using embryonic stem cells (which is admittedly creepy) look much more reasonable.
FWIW, nobody is saying that embryos are the only source of stem cells; many of these same conservatives have long been calling for the use of adult stem cells in research. What the research community is saying is that embryonic stem cells are more scientifically valuable and hold more promise than their adult counterparts. None of that has been changed by this discovery. IANAMD, but you can bet the farm that many will use this as an excuse to claim that embryonic stem cell research is no longer needed, but that is not the case, and we should not let such claims go unchallenged.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
The only time when the phrase "I pulled it out of my ass" is not sarcasm.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
I hereby offer my vast stores of lipids for the benefit of humanity.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
You're right, I went into auto-defensive mode. I reread it and realized it didn't mean what I thought.
Just so used to people jumping on me and dismissing me as a nut, it's hard to notice when they aren't. :)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Cloning theoretically makes men unnecessary.
Once human cloning has been perfected, and once women figure out how to change the oil in their own cars (*), men are toast.
(*) Not that all men do; but if you look at the gender breakdown of your average Jiffy Lube you'll know what I mean.
Better that than the assassination attempt that President Carter fended off from a bunny rabbit swimming in a river. We all know about those KGB trained attack rabbits of the mid-seventies.
Also, at least President Bush can spell pretzel . Can't say that about his critics. Enough said.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
As I said, I sure hope this becomes an acceptable source of stem cells, but I realize sometimes these things don't pan out.
From what I'm reading here, it seems there is indeed a problem. Embryonic stem cells are "pluripotent" stem cells, which is a step above the "multipotent" stem cells available from this procedure. Apparently the multipotent stem cells cannot produce as many types of tissues as the pluripotent type. So unfortunately, this may not be an adequate solution.
But the results still remain to be seen; I earnestly hope we will find ways to fill this need without having to take more embryoes.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Looks like Ed Norton & Brad Pitt's soap making business is going to go bankrupt.
Guess the cloning issue is moot now with more evidence that adult stem cells do the same as aborted fetus cells.
/. summary): ... then cultured them into bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle and nerve cells.
C'mon read the article (or even just the
Peter Fodor
Only these four types of cells were produced from the fat cells. Researchers have known for some time that fat cells were "multipotent", i.e. able to produce cells of many other types. However, they also know that embryonic stem cells are "totipotent", i.e. able to produce cells of all other types. So, research into other sources of totipotent stem cells is still highly desirable.
Also, the banned stem cell research in question involves the use of embryonic stem cells (i.e. cells cultured in a Petri dish for the purposes of in vitro fertilization), not "cells from aborted fetuses", since they aren't stem cells anyway.
Regardless of that, the ban on the use of embryonic stem cells doesn't even make sense from an ethical perspective: why should it be somehow nobler to take the embryonic stem cells produced for IVF and throw them away , instead of doing life-saving research on them?
The standard response to this is that people will somehow "justify" obtaining an abortion on the grounds that the cells will go to some use, but as I just said, those cells come from IVF, which couples only use as an absolute last resort anyway (it's very expensive - over $20,000 per attempt; very painful; and still only about 20% successful.)
Finally, do you really think Bush came up with that idea on his own? He said himself that it was the result of long, intense debate with lots of people.
So, I'm not about to peel off my "Bush Is A Stupid Idiot" bumper sticker any time soon. (Just kidding. The only bumper sticker I have says "Nader/LaDuke.")
Perhaps the parent poster was referring to the collection of umbilical cord blood. Or perhaps, even more likely, the parent was simply referring to the continuing search for other sources of totipotent stems cells within the adult human body. Your huge leap to the conclusion that the post was somehow an apologism for abortion was utterly unjustified and off-topic. How on earth did anybody get the idea that people were going around inducing abortions to collect the stem cells??
I'd say "Godwin" is definitely appropriate. (Was that just a typo on your part, or is "Godwin" a verb now?)
Let's say that "Bob" gets mad at "Bill" for some minor reason (e.g. Bill looked at Bob's wife the wrong way). Bob then kills Bill. Everyone else forces their belief that it was wrong to kill Bill on Bob, either in the form of inprisoning him or executing him.
"Joe" steals "Nancy's" car. The community forces their belief on Joe that he should not have stolen Nancy's car by taking it away from him and then putting him in prison for several years.
These are all examples of a group of people forcing their beliefs on another. If you think that this is incorrect, and people who think that stealing is wrong should just tell thieves their "point of view" and leave it at that, well, then, please tell me what your address is, as I could use a new car.
More directly, why is it that people who believe that killing a fetus is murder only get to force their views on murder on that subset of murderers who happen to have killed people who had been born?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
The whole human race is diagnosed with severe cardiovascular disease and colesteral intolerance not to mention 89% of the pulation being obese and the remaining 11% are overweight.
Why?
Seams that an overabundance of those weight-gain genes were distributed in the early 2000 years to fight cancer.
:-)
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
And those who are opposed to a certain point of view oftentimes point to bogus science to bolster their positions. What worries me is that even if this doesn't really pan out, the anti-stem-cell research lobby will still point to it as though scientists are 'deliberately' murdering embryos in the face of a viable alternative.
It's the inverse of your statement. The public has so learned to distrust anyone who takes a controversial stand as though they're driven by some sort of ideological purpose, that we sometimes view scientists as so motivated (though they may not be.)
So precisely how does the magical transformation from fetus into human occur? Where is the hard science which supports the irrational claim that people are more important than non-human animals, and that a fetus is a non-human animal which somehow turns into a human animal?
And what is the scientific name for a fetus, anyhow? I presume that a fetus is some sort of monkey until it comes out of the womb, so surely it has a different scientific name than the animals (people) that they turn into at that magical moment.
Look, unless you're calling the belief in law a superstition, you're just being ridiculous claiming that somehow "science" is against the pro-life stance. I've never yet heard of some significant biological distinction between a chicken and a fertilized chicken egg which make them different species, so why is a human and a fertilized human egg a different species? Or are you going to advance the position that a fetus isn't alive?
Why can't everyone just call a spade a spade and admit that the pro-choice stance is the very reasonable position that human life is cheap and convenient murder is unfortunate but not a big deal? Much like "collateral damage" in war, killing a fetus is killing a person, but noone is going to argue when they're dead so why bother with it?
That is a very reasonable position, and it really is the pro-choice position if you examine the matter. The alternative is mostly the supersition that every human life really is valuable and precious. You can argue that really the fact that the rich get more protection than the poor is just fine as there's no rational argument against that. You can argue that killing people isn't a big deal if there aren't going to be major consequences. That's fine. It works out.
But if you really want to disagree with all superstition, including the superstition that human life is in fact valuable, don't do it based on the supersitition that ignorance is bad or the supersition that that wisdom or knowledge is 'good'. After all, there's no actual factual evidence to show that people who know more are in any way superior or better than those who don't.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I know what you're saying, and you have a valid point. My question is, do those who don't consider an embryo a person concede they might be mistaken? If so, then we ought not to kill them until absolutely sure.
Your points are good, and need to be expressed. I thought you were pretty clear, esp. considering what a complex issue this is.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Yeah, and billions of people will die in the future that killing everyone who has HIV now would prevent. However, no sane person would advocate killing everyone who tests positive for HIV. The simple fact that there are people who might be saved by whatever it is that you want to do doesn't inherently make it right.
Do you believe that pro-life people don't care about the sick? Hell, they're the people with the position that all human life is important. Do you think that pro-life people don't think about the sick, or care about them?
I believe that most people in the pro-life camp think that those in the pro-choice camp believe that killing is bad but sanctioneable. Not that killing is good.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I believe that most people in the pro-life camp think that those in the pro-choice camp believe that killing is bad but sanctioneable. Not that killing is good.
No, they are wrong. Many of us actually believe that conciousness is worth preserving. Not a lump of cells.
Thus we do not value a the early stages of an embryo as much as a more mature embryo.
I personaly view an embryo as a potential person. And, yes, taking that potential away is unfortunate.
But billions of eggs and sperms are wasted every day, and every one of them holds this potential (to a lesser degree), who mourns them?
Fact is, not all potential humans can get a shot at existance, so we better make sure that those who do get a good shot at it!
And that is one of the reasons I am pro-choice.
If you are to young and pregnant, have an abortion. You may waste that potential but you can have another baby later, when you are ready, and give that potential human (who wouldn't get the chance otherwise, people doesn't make infinite number of babys) a better start in life.
Just my 0.02 kr
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
The parent post had discussed why it is still important to collect totipotent stem cells. The only current source being embryos, it was thus proposing exactly what I argued against.
Actually, this is not true.
At least two groups claim otherwise.
- Racists who think that black/white/whatever people are not fully human, or at least "not equally equal" to the rest of humanity.
- Then, you have (more interestingly) those who don't make a distinction between human life and other suficciently advanced life (usually mamal).
I hate the guts of the first group, but the other one has a point, well, sort of...I don't think there is any "objective" reason to value human life higher than, say a horse.
I do however value human life higher than other lifeforms, but that is a completely subjective stance to take. I value mankind higher because they are my species!
And I value my friends and family higher than the rest of mankind, because I know them.
I mean, if you ask any (non religious) human what makes a life more valuable than another they would answer intelligence (naturally, because it places us on top).
If you could ask the horse however, I think you would get a completely different answer that would classify horses as the most valuable life form.
Values are completely subjective, and depend entirely on who you ask.
If this wasn't true, there would for example be no war. A large part of training for war is objectification of the enemy.
(It's hard to kill an actual person, since most people value human life.)
For example, the enemy is often given a nickname to isolate them from the rest of mankind in the troops eyes. Some american examples are Fritz (German), Charlie/Gooks (Vietnamese), Skinnies (Somalian), Chrunchies/Towel Heads (Iraki).
This has been done by all armies in all times.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
What worries me is that even if this doesn't really pan out, the anti-stem-cell research lobby will still point to it as though scientists are 'deliberately' murdering embryos in the face of a viable alternative.
I won't. Note my other post today where I summarize reasons peoplle are giving that this might not work. I will however maintain that I believe the embryo is a person and should be protected from having its rights violated no matter what.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
There are moral arguments to IVF in general, but a) they're off-topic and b) I've no real formed opinion on them.
If the egg is never fertilized, we're okay. But then, you don't have an embryo, you have an egg.
I'm sure different people's opinions vary, and this is still rather vague, but where I draw the line is how many cromosomes does it have, and is it genetically a human being.
Of course, if you rip out the contents of an egg and put a cloned person in there, you're not really talking about an unfertilized egg anymore. Kind of like people born by C-section: were they really born?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
"A hang-nail is human. A tumor is human."
No, a hang nail and a tumor are a part of a person. A fetus is an entire person, but one cell from it is just a cell from a person. Are you really so dumb that you don't see the distinction? Hell, if we don't hold funerals if I remove a hang-nail from you, would you mind if I removed your hand? Noone hold's funerals for hands. Or maybe the equivalent amount of cells from your spine? Noone would hold a funeral for a hang-nail's worth of spine cells, would they? Hey, how about if I just took a pound of flesh from you. Say, your heart? A fetus who ways a pound can be aborted, and it's just a lump of cells. Isn't your heart just a lump of cells? So if it's just a lump of cells, who cares what you do with it, right?
"We don't hold funerals for hang-nails, or for the billions of early abortions performed by God that go unnoticed by us."
That's because we don't notice them. We do hold funerals for the billions of late abortions performed by God (usually just called death, but I don't see why we shouldn't call an old man dying of cancer an abortion, since his life is being aborted), but that's because we notice them.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I fully respect your positions, and your right to have your positions.
Therefore, I will not conduct research on you or anyone in your household.
If there are willing volunteers, what natural[1] right gives you the power to tell them they can't volunteer?
[1] - Almost said "God-given" but then that answers the question. With a loop, but the question is answered.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Keep up that sitting and snacking.
Well actually, _if_ fat cell stem cells could be engineered to be not merely multipotent, but totipotent, they could be used to make whole new people, genetically identical to the parent. So killing them would be unethical, if abortion is unethical.
Which of course brings us back to the other debate. Personally I don't believe that abortion is unethical, because it's a matter of personal choice to bring a new life into the world. If the fetus/whatever is not capable of being born into the world and kept alive outside of its mother's body, even with the best of modern medical care, then it is a part and parcel of the mother's body and her concern.
It is no more murder to not bring the baby to term than it is murder to refuse to have as many pregnancies as is humanly possible from as soon as it becomes possible on the grounds that any less would be to prevent a new life and thus a murder.
We need population control. We also need choice in how to run our own lives. Get over it.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
You dismiss the surplus of fertile cells produced by most of us as merely a potential.
Yet you advocate saving a 'potential' life by accepting the suffering of those who need stem cell therapy. Isn't there a slight hypocrisy here?
In the same argument, I could be judged a multiple murderer by having lived to the age of 21 and having made no moves to have children as yet. Don't I know that I have had the potential to have children and bring new life into the world for years?!! Oh my God, lock me up now!!!
Spelling out that 'The act of fertilization provides the potential to become a human being' may be accurate but at the same time misses the point. Most of us make a daily choice not to go out and get ovae fertilised, and in doing so, allow them to die. Yet they contained within themselves the potential to be a new life. Which is where the entire 'potential' argument breaks down.
To my mind, for as long as a growing embryo/fetus/whatever is entirely dependent upon its mother to be brought to term, it's her business to choose what happens to it. It's a part of her, despite only sharing half her DNA. Why should she be a slave to it?
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
...than we thought.
Not only do THEY last forever, but they might even make you last forever.
(I suppose we'll see the undertakers filing suit against Hostess any day now...)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
What is commonly called "liberalism" in the US is in fact usually something closer to socialism or marxism. True liberals are people like Thomas Jefferson, who was not exactly anti-religion. A true liberal nowadays is usually referred to as a libertarian.
As far as religion goes, the funny thing is, most "liberals" are in fact very religious. They believe in an entity that they believe should be all knowing, all powerful, in control of everything, and of course always benevolent. I am of course not talking about God but about Government. Nature abhors a vacuum. Liberals are generally athiests (or at least secular and not religious) and so they've simply chosen government as the "higher power" they believe in.
I've always said that religion stops a thinking mind. Well I'm coming to the conclusion that it is not religion that is stopping anyone from thinking but that there are people out there who cannot or will not think for themselves and that religions is simply one of many crutches that are used by the mentally incompetent to avoid having to deal with reality. Any ideology can be used as such a crutch. The most you can hope for is that the idiots choose an ideology that keeps them out of everyone's hair.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
When your line of reasoning can produce such bogus results, don't you think that it might have some flaws?
No. Because, at one point in time it was very commonly accepted that having blacks as slaves was perfectly legit, and anyone opposing it was a "radical" and would have fallen into this category.
Here's my point. I don't necessarily agree with the religious right. However, they have a reasonable argument and it behooves them to lobby/fight for the morals that they believe in, jsut as much as we have the right to defend our right to research. This is not about a "crazy" moral standard, like your extreme example of using "toddlers as fertilizer". Even if it was, who is to critisize them for fighting for even a ludicrous law? It should never be "wrong" for someone to assert their moral beliefs, regardless of how crazy it is. If it's silly or stupid and obviously bogus, then it doesn't get taken seriously and won't ever make it into the newspaper, let alone supreme court.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
There's a chance you might not agree with me, but I'll tell you what's in my mind so you can understand my thinking about this issue. I believe that throwing embryos away is murder. I recognize that that brings up a lot of unanswerable questions, such as, "What are we supposed to do with all those embryos? It would be impossible to bring all of them to maturity and have them born!" I have no answer for this, or probably any other questions this line of thinking brings up. I can only tell you how I see it at the moment.
All of my beliefs on this subject stem from my acceptance of an embryo as a human being. That is based on the embryos genetic identity as a human being. I am addressing how we should construct our laws as an honorable people, not religious questions of how should we live to please God and so on. Someone else on this thread posted a great link yesterday that makes an entirely non-religious case for accepting embryos as persons before the law, Libertarians for Life. I read parts of it today and found that it said a lot of things I already believed.
There are a lot of hard questions about this. The fact that we cannot answer all of these questions, or that some of the answers may be unpleasant, should not guide us as we make decisions that are right for everyone. I ask that we prove the embryo to not be a person beyond a shadow of a doubt before we deprive him of his rights before the law.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I wanted to wait till I had time to sufficiently comment on this. You've made some great points, and if you'll have the patience to read through this, I'll try to show you more of my point.
Wait long enough. That's exactly the point. The side I'm on says, "Wait." You haven't proved that embryo is not a person. How can you take its life unless you are certain you are not depriving a person of his or her life? You wouldn't drop poison in a water supply hoping you don't kill anyone; you avoid taking the potentially harmful action because it is wrong to put people at risk that way.
Here's two possible facts, with two possible responses on our part, for a total of four hypothetical situations:
Assume an embryo is a person, and assume we grant an embryo the same protections under the law that we grant to all other human beings. If this is the situation, we have taken no wrong actions. (One might say it's wrong to not use the embryo's stem cells to save lives, but we don't find any other case where it's considered wrong to not take a life to cure someone else's problem. I might donate my liver upon my death, but I'd like to keep it while I'm alive, and I'm not a criminal for doing so.)
#2: Assume an embryo is a person and we deny embryos the same protections under the law that we guarantee to other people. In this case we have done something wrong: we are killing people (embryos) without just cause. (In general, it is unjust to act as an aggressor against someone else who has been non-aggressive toward you.)
#3: Assume an embryo is not a person and we do not grant the rights to embryos that we grant to people under the law. In this case we have done nothing wrong because we have not taken the lives of people.
#4: Assume an embryo is not a person, but we grant embryos the rights that people have under the law. In this case, while our decision was groundless, we have done nothing wrong. Even though in this case the embryo is not a person, we are still not taking any lives.
Now, as you said, we cannot prove which of the possible facts is true: the embryo is or is not a person. We cannot control the facts, we can only control our actions. We must choose the action that guarantees we are doing nothing wrong. We must make sure we take no action that might result in the loss of life of a person.
The fact that some people think that an embryo is not a person is not a reason to declare the embryo not to be so. If the embryo is a person, then it is not a dispute between the two sides of this issue; it is a dispute between the defenseless, nonaggressive unborn person and the aggressors who would deprive this person of his life and rights under the law. As long as a chance remains that that embryo is a person, nobody can justly say that the law should not treat the embryo as a person. The majority should not be able to vote rights away from a minority, especially a defenseless and nonaggressive minority.
When we execute a criminal our law insists that the criminal must be proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well, I say that if we are going to end the life of an embryo, we must prove it to be a non-person beyond a shadow of a doubt. The jury is the entire country, and we have not come to a unanimous verdict declaring the embryo to be a non-person. Thus, there can be no legal authority for depriving that person or possible person of its life.
Phew! Did you read all that? My thanks if you did. I'm not interested in forcing my belief system upon anyone (although as you can see, I sure like talking about it :) ). I am interested in making sure my government guarantees my rights and the rights of all those around me, including those who cannot speak for themselves.
Thanks for the talk. I've been just enraptured the last 24 hours or so as I've seen so many intelligent, civil discussions in this thread between people on both sides. Of course, I browse at 4+, so there's probably some less civil stuff down there I missed! :) Thanks for helping to keep it nice.
A great link someone else gave out was Libertarians for Life, which made an entirely non-religious case for protecting the unborn, much as I hope I have done here. I found the site echoed a lot of my thinking about how the law should work on this issue. I am not interested in using the government to force my beliefs on people, so my opinion on the legality of taking an embryo's life is not directly based on my religious beliefs. There are plenty of things I think are wrong that I would never ask the government to outlaw. In a nutshell my legal stance is based only on my belief of what a government should do, which is, that it should guarantee my rights extend as far as possible but stop at you.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Someone may have mentioned this, but you read too much into what they guy said. He basically just said (in the original post) that these stem cells may not provide all the information that embryonic stem cells do. I believe what he was saying was, "Unfortunately, it looks likely that this great discovery is still not the great discovery that will allow us to research stem cells in a way that everyone agrees is right."
Mostly he was just letting us know that we may not have the solution we're looking for, yet. He said it was still important to collect totipotent and pluripotent stem cells, but he did not say whether it was important enough to justify the taking of an unborn human's life. I think he did a good job of acknowledging both sides in making his statement. (He recognizes why it is important to many people to protect the lives of embryos, although he unfortunately may not personally agree with that.)
Before you repond, check my posting history. I'm very definitely on the same side of this as you are. The sides here aren't really us and them, though; it's them and the unborn. We're just tbe people behind the government that's supposed to step in and preserve the rights of the nonaggressive unborn. My main point is that we can't just say, "Well, most of us think embryos aren't people, so let's legalize ending their lives and using them for any purpose." A majority cannot vote to take away the rights of the minority. (Well, as we've seen in history, they can, but I mean it's not right to do it.) You have to prove a murderer guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt before executing him; we should have to prove an embryo to be a non-person beyond a shadow of a doubt before depriving him of his life and other rights of personhood. And there's more than just a shadow of a doubt here! :) The jury is the entire citizenry, and we haven't come to a unanimous verdict. Without a unanimous verdict, there hasn't been due process, and we can't just declare the embryos to be non-people and deprive them of their lives. We have to take the only course of action that guaratees we don't make a mistake and unjustly take a life.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Heh - 'punised'. Personally, I do always wear a rubber. But can you say 'split condom?' No contraceptive is 100% guaranteed. And why sacrifice yourself to bring an unwanted child into the world? Every baby should be a wanted baby, otherwise the straightforward in-the-family care network is bound to get a little strained.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie