Slashdot Mirror
Embryonic Stem Cells Emit Healing Molecules
gim_alelen writes "The Associated Press (found here on Salon.com) is reporting that a new study finds that embryonic stem cells, even if they may not grow new limbs and organs may have other healing properties. The study reports that embryonic stem cells emitted molecules that reversed a lethal birth defect in mice."
Mice and humans are different. Would this be easily extended to human embryonic stem cells? And could they emit other molecules to reverse other diseases? If so, this is a great step in the right direction.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
If we could allowocate all the money going to embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells, bam, problem solved and no ethic problems with lots of people.
They found out you can extract adult stemcells from fat recently, and god knows we have plenty of that in America.
the Political Inquirer
I'm an atheist (well, agnostic to be precise, but the end effect is pretty much the same) and a zygote is not a person to me. In fact, DNA really doesn't figure into my definition of a person. (What about clones? They have the same DNA as someone else, but they are persons in their own right.)
To me, a person at the very least needs to be capable of independent cognitive processing of some sort. Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes independent cognitive processing is something that I don't have a clear answer on yet, but it's something that a zygote, being only a single cell, isn't yet capable of, while an advanced foetus is.
Why not leave it up to the individual to decide? According to your argument any cell capable of growing into an autonomous human being is designated as a seperate life. How do you differentiate this from lost blood from a cut finger, I'm sure that each of these cells could be used to create a new life (albeit a cloned life). Why does the DNA Sequence necessarily have to be different in order to qualify a cell as a seperate life?
This whole area elicits so much controversy, I really doubt it will ever be possible to find a a solution that will keep everyone happy.
Personally I feel that as an adult and a responsible individual the choices I make regarding my bio-chemistry should be mine and mine alone. It should be my decision as to what I do with my Biology and the Biology of any potentially autonomous lifeforms I may be responsible for, and when there is a decision concerning a second person, then a consensus should be reached with this person.
The key to this type of decision making for individuals lies in education and rationalism. These are the types of choices that need to be taught in schools. If people want to make a moral choice for themselves based on these viewpoints, that's fine. But their ideas should not be forced upon others.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
Why not leave it up to the individual to decide? According to your argument any cell capable of growing into an autonomous human being is designated as a seperate life. How do you differentiate this from lost blood from a cut finger, I'm sure that each of these cells could be used to create a new life (albeit a cloned life). Why does the DNA Sequence necessarily have to be different in order to qualify a cell as a seperate life?
Actually, a blood cell cannot grow into an autonomous human - it is already differentiated, it can't grow into anything apart from a blood cell. It is possible, however, that scientists could take that cell, extract its DNA, stick it into an undifferentiated cell, and grow a genetically identical human being - but that hardly qualifies as a "cell capable of growing into an autonomous human being" does it?
The DNA sequence doesn't have to be different in order for it to be a distinct human life - I don't think you could find many people who would claim identical twins are really one entity.
It's a distinct consciousness that diferentiates two entities, but unfortunately, we haven't found a way to measure the soul yet (Feel free to insert scientific nomenclature - "locus of awareness" maybe - if you don't like soul).
Personally I feel that as an adult and a responsible individual the choices I make regarding my bio-chemistry should be mine and mine alone. It should be my decision as to what I do with my Biology and the Biology of any potentially autonomous lifeforms I may be responsible for, and when there is a decision concerning a second person, then a consensus should be reached with this person.
You say you can make decisions for the biology of any potential autonomous lifeforms you are responsible for. But when does "potential" become "actual"? That's what the whole debate hinges on. Many people believe that a foetus *is* an actual lifeform, not merely one in potential. And, as there is little evidence on either side, it is a perfectly valid belief.
It's not really a choice for the individual, any more than the decision on the morality of murder is. The morality of the situation is contingent upon one question - "Is a foetus a human being?" If the answer is yes, then it is morally equivelant to murder. If the answer is no, then it is not. So far, rationalism has yet to provide an answer to that question, which is why debate still rages.
The key to this type of decision making for individuals lies in education and rationalism. These are the types of choices that need to be taught in schools. If people want to make a moral choice for themselves based on these viewpoints, that's fine. But their ideas should not be forced upon others.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. It's fine for individuals to make decisions regarding actions which directly affect only them. But if an action would harm another, that's when law intervenes and forces its morals upon the individual. And that's as it should be.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face