Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Scientists to Clone Human Embryos
An anonymous reader writes "Harvard University scientists claim they will soon start trying to clone human embryos to create stem cells. Even with the history of controversy and fraud researchers hope they can one day use the newly created stem cells to aid in battle against many diseases. From the article: 'The privately funded work is aimed at devising treatments for such ailments as diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, sickle-cell anemia and leukemia. Harvard is only the second American university to announce its venture into the challenging, politically charged research field.'"
Aren't there any areas we should stay away from _even_ if they would help us cure diseases?
Many times, our morality is dictated by practicality. This is most likely one of those times.
Would someone PLEASE think of the childr...
No. That joke's tasteless. I won't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Even if you think cloning humans is morally acceptable, it still isn't the right time. Definitely not in the United States. I really don't think this project is going to get far before it's shot down by the government.
Whether we think it's moral or not, our current administration sure wouldn't think so.
So long as the cloned embryo never at any point becomes alive, I see no ethical problem here.
sickle-cell anemia True ... (black) people who are suffering from this dicease
probably won't be able to be the next Michael Johnson
but iirc sickle-cell anemia is a mutation that protected them against malaria
The law states that no FEDERAL FUNDING may be used on stem cell research except on the stipulated stem cell lines, some of which have been revealed to be not very useful. This project isn't using federal funding, it's using private funding, which Harvard professors can probably easily get. Therefore this research is legal. Right now, the current tide of public opinion is turning towards MORE stem cell research, not less. In fact, Nancy Reagan made a plea to Congress to expand federally funded stem cell research. I don't think the Bush government will shut it down, especially with the midterm elections coming up where Republicans need to harp on more "solid" issues such as gay marriage instead of getting bogged down in an issue where the public opinion is not clear and seems to be swinging in the opposite way of what they want.
Ever since some of us started looking into nature people have said, "you know, that's God's work, you shouldn't really been looking at it."
Just a few years ago the Pope told Steven Hawking that though the Catholic Church believed in the theory of the big bang, what happened before that was the hand of God and not to be meddled into be humans.
If we could rid ourselves of silly arbitrary superstitions great advancements in science will follow.
Oh come now, the cloned embryo will be alive no matter what the situation. The question is whether or not it will ever become a human, and that's where the debate lies.
Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Is all this technology assisting with breeding a race of second rate homo sapiens?
It definately is the right time.
Europe is getting so far ahead of the US in most areas of science the US may never catch up. It's good to see some useful research happening here.
I'm not saying that the line the government has drawn has already been crossed; you misunderstand. I'm saying once they see what's happening and that progress is being made, a line is going to be made. The government is going to have to step in one way or another, the question here is more, what side will they take? That will depend on the next election, among other things.
why can't the people who object to this just put themselves on a 'do not clone register'.
...I obey the laws of physics....
I support cloning, because that's the only way I assume I'll reproduce. :-/
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Harvard, doing its very best to ensure the guys running the Republicans have enough nonsense issues to keep control indefinitely.
I think it's important to note that what scientists, and indeed we in general, get to do in life, is not determined by what the current administration thinks is moral.
They can certainly try to pass laws constraining us to their ethical code. And we can and should break those laws if the laws are wrong.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I don't see where the big morality issue is. If you saw a man with a wife, children, friends and a job, and he was dying of some disease, as the rest of his family looks on helplessly, would you leave him to die if you had the option of saving him? Why does the life of an embryo with no family, or home, or even gurantee of survival, outweigh the life of someone who is already established in society; who loves and is loved, who has built up a life, and who would be sorely missed by many people? This is a pretty clear-cut moral decision.
The government will shut this down. Speaking as an American, and as one with a severely handicapped child, the day the United States values science that much over superstitious ignorance is the day pigs fly. For over ten years, I've only looked to other countries for scientific advancement. That's where I'm looking for the advancement of medical science, too, and I've been seeing it there.
I thought, human cloning is banned in most of countries.
So how did they arranged for this?
I assert, from conviction, not from evidence, that viruses are alive, and therefore the Salk vaccine is immoral.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
With the '06 elections coming up and the '08 elections 2 years away, I'd say this is the -perfect- time to start making some bold moves.
This is a major medical advancement and we need to elect people who are going to treat it as such.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
And even if you think cloning humans is morally acceptable, the practice of killing the "superflous" embryos (note the language! Imagine you are suddenly considered "superfluous") that are created in the process by dumping them in the bin can be equated to murder (read: intentional killing of a human being).
Some researchers/clinics freeze them, but there is no guarantee that they are allowed to live (which violates their human right to live).
Yeah... Sure. Isaac Newton spent time researching alchemy than actually working on physics. Roger Bacon came up with the scientific method. Copernicus came up with the theory of the heliocentric model of physics.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
my opinion is that it does not, since there is not such a thing. But if there is...
Elect people who are going to treat is as such? Everything discovered will have a patten placed on it. Any treatment will be so costly that the people objecting to it on it's morality will probably never be able to aford the treatments. Seriously, who is this going to benefit?
Some drug maker? Some rich doctors who will only use treatment if the price is right? Some insurance company who will make a plan specificly for this type of coverage? And what would be different if government money had been used?
I don't see why electing people who will treat this as some bold move will effect the people who will eventualy elect them. Sure some copyrighted paper somewere has more information now. Sure some doctors have the ability to do somethign else now. But for you and me, we probably won't ever need a treatment found by this type of study as well as never be able to afford it if we did.
I'm sorry if i don't share the same enthusiasm as you do. I just see this as some way to make rich companies/people richer. I Think if there is a hint of morality issues and some people don't want thier tax money participating in it, then that would be just fine. Private money can be used. after all it is private companies and people who wkill primarily benefit from it.
Govt will pull that down like its a newly developed method of cloning Terrorists! :P
Follow me..
You know, I have always had a problem with things like this. Not because I'm a religious fanatic, not because I stand behind (your) Fearless (incompetant) leader (C), but rather because I have seen science do this quite often. It says, hey now THIS is a good idea! Let's throw it out into the world and see what happens. Then, as Malcolm from Jurassic Park, says: Nature finds a way to control what is being done. SO now we cure certain problems, and new ones will arise.
Anyone ever think that some (certainly not all) diseases arise because of meddling with nature with reckless abandon.
Now I can hear the complaints: if you are going to do science, you can't just stick your head in the sand! Well, that isn't what I'm advocating, but I've seen a lot of scientists motivated by nothing more than fame, and then you see negative results that couldn't be predicted without extensive study. I'd like to see most medications tested for at least 2 generations before being released -- it wouldn't halt everything, but it might stop a reoccurance of Thalidimide...
Wtf? "They shouldn't do it because they might piss off the president." ??? What kind of reasoning is that? The president's ethical whims do not automatically become law.
Harvard seems to have totally forsaken its once-christian heritage. Maybe someone should remind them that, originally, this noble instition's main purpose was to train clergymen ? I wonder what those attending or who attentend Harvard Divinity School think about their alma mater decision to clone human embryos ? Unfortunately, it is likely that even they have no qualms about it, considering that HDS has long been a hotbed of liberal theology (so liberal that atheology might be better suited to it).
As someone who has loved ones afflicted with three of the four conditions mentioned, I'm all for it.
I'm not religious. I don't believe that an embryo is a life. It's a collection of cells with the ability to become life if allowed to develop fully.
Please don't mod this as flamebait or troll. I'm not alone. This just happens to be my point of view and I believe that if cures and treatments may be found from such research I will support it wholly until the day I die.
It's been painful watching my Uncle deteriorate by the week. He's afflicted with ALS (Lou Gehrigs). I've attended the funeral of a six-year-old girl who died of leukemia. My uncle has lost his sight due to diabetes.
Those who oppose such research based on their religion, to me, are no better than those who deny life saving treatments to their children or themselves due to religious reasons. Religion makes people do things like this.
Why is it so hard to imagine that your God gave man the ability to do such things as a means to improve our lives?
I think the law against rape is wrong. So I'm going to rape you.
Forget thinking about the children, seriously. Think about your parents. They are older than you, and you will most probably watch them die. If this can create treatments and cures that could ease the passage of my folks, I don't care how many unthinking, unfeeling, embryos they need to bin, to research this stuff. Three cheers for the thinking future. Three boos for brainless rhetoric.
identical twins been doing this for years.
even better, I can ensure my new body/face is exceptionally good looking and thus I can be a film/rock star in my second "incarnation".
the only snag is I'm too lazy to earn the money to pay for it all, but with my new patent on "body replacement therapy", I should earn it!
Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!! !!
sorry!
Even before the patents expire, this knowledge will improve our understanding of 'how things work', even if we are not free to create inventions that use this knowledge for the first seventeen years.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Don't get me wrong. When I first heard that GWB was attempting to place a ban on embryonic stem cell research, I was very upset. This would put the US behind the ball with respect to many other countries who were already so advanced in the field. Not to mention what this would do to the economies of California and (especially Cambridge) Massachusetts, who have established themselves as biotech powerhouses.
But then the research started pouring in, showing that there were alternative methods to obtaining stem cells, illustrating that the potential benefits could be reaped without all of the controversy.
Bottom line: I think stuff like this should be decided on a state-by-state basis (that's one of the reasons why we have states in the first place, or so I thought); but sometimes it's good to force the issue, 'cause them smrt people usually find another way if you force them to.
That depends on the spineless of the bootlickers in Congress.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
I dont know anyone who would save the freezer in that situation. You might think this is a contrived analogy, but its closer to reality than you might think. Every year, many hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs are created in fertility treatments. The vast majority of those blastocysts WILL be destroyed no matter what.
Meanwhile countless serious illnesses could be treated and real human lives could be saved, but you can only stand there pointing the freezer out to everyone while the building burns around you.
Did it occur to you that the benifit of releasing new drugs more rapidly out weights the risks? Take for example anti-HIV/AIDS medication. If we tested it for two generations not even the most primitive types would be available and there whould be a lot fewer people still living with HIV/AIDS. As another example consider new antibiotics - lifesavers that we can't develop fast enough, would cost a lot of lives to delay them any more (my mom is a Nurse and tells me all about it).
This story (and many others) revolve around academic stem cell research... not private research. Furthermore, we're also not talking about pharmaceuticals. We're talking about research that will probably be published for all to see.
/
We need to get rolling on this stuff with out being inhibited by politicians pandering to uniformed voters.
And even if this does lead to a private company eventually developing a procedure or medication for a serious illness, we'll can deal with pricing fixing and patent abuse if it arises. Look at AIDs medication. If you come up with something that saves a lot of lives and you make the drug unattainable - people march in the streets.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/view
I'm not saying that it's a good thing for people to be forced to do that, yet if something is important enough, people don't remain idle.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
damn... typos galore.
Oh well.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Should we close our eyes and pretend that the benefits doesn't exist? The future baby has already died. Don't let it die completely in vain.
See here you run the risk of putting a market value (possibly an incredibly high one) on the results of abortions. What happens if stem cells start to become worth thousands of dollars per sample? You will have women queueing up to supply the demand. People might start making careers out of it. That is an unethical abomination, and thats what everyone should be trying to avoid.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
yeah right
From the comments I've read it seems everyone has a poor understanding of what a "soul" is.
The English word "soul" is synonym to the Latin word "anima", which in turn is the root of words like "animated", "reanimate" etc. Its meaning is thus very simple: soul is whatever that causes something to move by itself. So, "to have a soul" means simply "to be able to move by itself". That's all.
Now, the "whatever" part is important, because it does not imply that the soul needs to be some kind of "supernatural entity". A plain textbook explanation of the inner workings of a biological body fits the concept very well. As a result, anyone that says that a embryo "has no soul" is not only missing the point, but also showing he doesn't know the meaning of the words he uses. A human embryo has a soul as much as a cat, a cat embryo, a virus, a clone, a tree, a black hole, a volcano, the Sun, the Earth, individual cells, or, for that matter, anything else that makes, generates or maintains any movement by itself.
Removing the "has/hasn't a soul" issue from the discussion is a must for any meaningful treatment of the subject. For something to have a soul is not a big deal. There's nothing "special" in having a soul. Either things move (themselves and other things), or are moved by things that move, and that's all there is to it.
So, what is the issue, then? This is it: whether embryos are or aren't persons. If they are, then the full set of rights and obligations pertaining to persons also apply to them. If they aren't, then these rights and obligations don't apply.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I never saw the ethical issue about cloning as it is in reality. A person is defined by his memories and his moral character.
Take away either one and he is a different entity. Take away both completely and permanently, and he is not human. At best he is "vegetable" that must be cared for.
Embryos are not human. Neither are sperms or eggs.
People that want every embryo to develop into a whole person and are totally against abortion should also be against all human misery and should act accordingly. Few do this. Some even hate others that provide the service of abortion, even though the abortion doctors are just trying to relieve the misery of their patients.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
It's that time of year where lots of people find themselves constantly sniffling and sneezing. I'm not a hayfever sufferer myself, but I know plenty of people who are. I was thinking just the other day that Hayfever is quite a ridiculous affliction, since it's essentially an intolerance of the outside world! Surely we should be adapted to live in the world we live in?
So while hayfever sufferers do have my sympathy at this time of year, I can't help but wonder where we went wrong that such a large number of people have bodies that are incapable of dealing with summer.
And I wonder what Easter will be like.
A sig is just a sig, unless you can shoot it. Sig Steyr, for the distinguishing CT.
Sickle cell anemia doesn't protect anybody against malaria.
Sickle cell anemia is caused by a recessive mutation in one of the genes that encodes a particular globine proteïne.
When it occurs homozygotically, the allel causes sickle cell amenia. Red blood cells are sickle shaped, and can't bind oxygen as well. Results in short breath, higher bp, and basically an earlyer death (your hart has to work harder).
When this allel occurs heterozygotically (one mutation in one chromosome, the other chromosome still caries the dominant wild-type verson of the gene), it causes more resistance to malaria. But the red blood cells (hemoglobine) still binds oxygen as it would in anybody else.
Sickle cell anemia doens't have anything to do with malaria. Increased resistance just explains its prevalance.
I do love "!" but not as much as I love "..."...
I guess some of you have a quite expicit picture in your mind, a little less developed baby, as somebody here even said baby killer. May be you should know that cloning an embryo to "produce" stem cells means, that you have a developing human, yes, but this developing human is a little sphere of cells. This aggregation of cells becomes a blastocyst and one part of it becomes the embryo. Befor this happens you want to take out these cells, as these cells are omnipotent stem cells, which means they can develop and differenciate into different tissues, hopefully and only once there a implanted there. In the future they may even develop into tissue ex vivo i.e. outside of your body, but thats far fetched.
If you say that this amount of cells are already a human being, than you have to monitor every female human, as natural failure after fertilization occurs every moment. Most women get pregnant and lose their "baby" in the first six weeks without even noticing.
Cloning human (tissue even) is certainly something one should discuss, but keep in mind that you put a very high value on one unborn human, while the same society doesn't have any problem in spending 100 times more on military (and using it) than others on medicine.
Furthermore all the implications this may have on society should be discussed; a longer life span, but less and less work for everybody (now a problem in europe and US, soon one in china and india), who will get the benefit, the one with money or everybody? In other words will we have rich 1000 year old and poor that won't reach the age of 80?
Certainly a lot to discuss, but you have to get some background knowledge, otherwise it is just "I have a strong feeling against it"...
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
I third this idea too.
..but if this technology ever does work, I'll be beside myself Badoom-tish!
...I'm cautiously optimistic. Harvard is *big* - $40 billion trust fund big. The government may not like what they're doing, but I don't think they'll be able to stop it. All the government doing is locking themselves out of the future, ensuring that "privately funded" is the mantra of science in the 21st century.
I'm not a huge Harvard fan, but it's nice to see them do something like this.
How about orphans - no family or home there either. This will always be a problematic area, because one persons ok point is waaay past someone elses moral boundary. What about the guy who has no kids and is a rotten person, maybe a pretty criminal - does he get right to this embryo. What if the embryo was to be the next Stephan Hawking? After all, he has a horrible genetic mutation and his embryo could have saved some mediocre lawyer at the RIAA who had 2.3 kids and a cute puppy, who needed heart stem cells.
Use your head man, and think about the ramifications of your actions. Given the chance to abuse something, humans will gladly jump into the void and take advantage of it.
I am in favor of stem cell research, but to avoid problems like I mentioned, I think the only way to do this is by working on cell collections that lack the potential to become a human if given the chance. I.E. grow a "fetus" that has all of its brain cells "knocked out"(deleted from its DNA) or missing its heart and lungs, etc.
..........FULL STOP.
The only difference between your use of civil disobedience and his is that you're much less likely to succeed in swaying public opinion to your cause.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Then, as Malcolm from Jurassic Park, says: Nature finds a way to control what is being done. SO now we cure certain problems, and new ones will arise.
Do you realize how arbitrary your distinction is? Are Humans not part of Nature? But hey if we are throwing around movie quotes to demonstrate some sort philosophic superiority, here:"Tyler from Fight Club says: Nothing is static, everything is evolving, everything is falling apart."
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Harvard is going to spend good money and time running around after this new alleged holy grail when huge advances and actual treatments have been made using Adult Stem Cells. The more we look the more sources of adult stem cells we find.
Maybe Embryonic Stem Cells will one day be useful but I seriously doubt we're talking in the 10-50 year time frame. They're only just starting to deal with issues about creating these cells and have to deal with the whole cloning issue if they're going to avoid the rejection problems that face the current Embryonic Stem Cells from alternative sources. Once they tackle cloning then they still have to deal with implanting this cells and triggering them and then controlling them after that.
So let's tackle the issues of triger and control with the already available Adult Stem Cells and leave cloning alone.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd hate to set the precident that humans created in the lab are less valueable than the ones that are already born.
I just wish there was a way to harvest stemcells without destroying the embryo. it has to be possible... somehow.
President Bush didn't ban embryonic stem cell research. In fact, it was the Bush administration that provided the first federal dollars towards such research. Now, hid administration certainly added a lot of conditions for those dollars to deal with the moral issues involved, but there has been no federal ban and in fact there have been federal dollars instead.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
IIUC, most of the embryo's that are used are already going to die anyway!! If that is morally reprehensible then talk about stopping that negative action (i.e. the fertility treatments, and abortions). Not the possible positive results which would prevent it from being a total waste.
Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
We do not know at what point the consciousness starts to develop in human embryo. Without knowing this, in fact without not even knowing human psyche, it is plain murder to commit such 'research'.
Read radical news here
Phase 1 : Perfect human cloning. Phase 2 : Sterylize the general population. Phase 3 : Wait Phase 4 : Declare myself supreme overloard
I think the laws should be based on some kind of consensus, or at least compromise of the whole societies morals. I also think to attain acceptable comprimises for most, the laws should allow for a lot.
Ofcourse there will always be some people for which the comprimise is unacceptable. They should try change the law via changing other peoples morals by transfer of ideas.
There will still be people for whom this is not possible, they can:
-live by the law anyway, to keep the peace
-just violate the law and risk getting cought
-violently try to change the law (by taking power)
The enforcement of the law will try to stop the 2nd and 3rd, with support of any of the people "agreeing" with the law.
(im not saying anything here about how the compromise that becomes the law is reached, nor how the law should be enforced)
If copyright laws were to apply here, would cloning and many a copy considered illegal?
yeah thats nice and all, but, when will researchers do something usefull... like clone lindsay lohan for me a couple times :P
That's the spirit. If you really believe in it, you should follow through on that. If you're committed to changing thinking about it, you should publicize it and evangelize. I don't think you'll change many minds, though. This is the path by which many of our most unjust laws have been overturned with time, though.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Aren't there any areas we should stay away from _even_ if they would help us cure diseases?
I'm not sure myself. Why don't you get back to us when you or a loved one has a terminal or highly disabilative illness.
Or just perhaps when you or a loved one have an accident and become a quadrapalegic... Once you've gone through something like that perhaps you can better answer your own question.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
If you feel that mainstream people of faith are unfairly stigmatized by non-religious people, you should direct that concern at the radical right-wing zealots that are trying to impose their views on others and attempting to infuse our government with their religion. If not for them, nobody would care about your religious views, which should be a personal matter, not one of public policy.
Cannibal:
1. A person who eats the flesh of other humans.
2. An animal that feeds on others of its own kind.
Um. yeah. Because Cannibalism is the eating of the flesh of one's own kind. That's it. There is nothing about how you acquired the flesh or why you ate it. This is a very simple definition.
I think you are trying to make some religion-based argument tying into abortion. How boring.
Blar.
Then identical twins only have half a soul each.
No. Only one of them has one... the other is the evil twin.
"Survival of the Fittest" doesn't take into account existenisal risks. As in... Meteor impacts, gamma ray bursts, or climate change.
Otherwise the dinosaurs would still be around. Once could say mammals adapted and were the fittest but if you look at humans you will realize we aren't built to survive major disastors and even cold weather. The only reason we were able to survive the past 100,000 is our brains and our tools.
Our only salvation in the future is not genetics, but our technology.
As they say... "The reason the dinosaurs died out is because they didn't have a space program."
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
That's five Michael Jordans and a coach.
Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
If we know nothing of the function of conciousness, especially when it begins, your definitive allegation of murder makes no sense. You have defeated yourself from within your own argument. Check your premises and you will find that one of them is wrong.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I'm seeing a lot of Slashdot comments suggesting that the Harvard researchers aren't going to get very far because the U.S. government is going to shut them down. There is no legislation (at the moment!) to support such an action; In the recent controversy over government regulation of stem cell research, Congress passed a law which denies federal funding to researchers who use artificially fertilized embryos to produce stem cell lines. The article specifically mentions that Harvard is doing this with private funding. They're home free; I wish 'em luck.
Let's add a check box to the IRS form. Check it if you want some of your tax dollars used to fund this kind of research, don't check it if you are opposed.
...
If you've always opposed this kind of research then you are not allowed to benefit from any of the treatments that may come about as a result of it. Let's see what these social conservatives have to say if it leads to cures or significant improvements in treating some of these horrible diseases somewhere down the line should they themselves become afflicted. Any nut job who takes things on "faith" (aka they believe absolutely in what they read in a book and/or in what they are told to believe in by others without any other outside supporting evidence) should not be allowed to make scientific and/or medical decisions for the rest of the country.
I don't hear many of these social conservatives bitching and moaning that their tax dollars are being used to fund the war in Iraq. Not a peep about their tax dollars being used to execute inmates. The whole "sanctity of life" principle as espoused by social conservatives is kind of selective thing, isn't it? How convenient
The human body often self-aborts a fetus before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. Miscarraiges are what they are called if the woman is aware she is preganant, but it is the same system. There are some built in bodily systems to determine if this embryo is viable and if NOW is a good time to carry it to term. Is miscarriage a case of manslaughter? If not, then why are autonomous bodily systems allowed to determine if an embryo lives or dies, but the human BRAIN cannot?
Blar.
> Harvard Scientists to Clone Human Embryos
Ebionites to clone Harvard scientists?
It may not be murder, but it may be manslaughter. It is like firing in a rustling bush not knowing whether it is a deer or another hunter. It is irresponsible to do so. If we don't know, then we err on the side of caution. We don't "shoot" unless we know. It doesn't matter if your motivation is to save your family member by killing a deer for food or a cure of a disease.
Many of us contend that a belief in God is an easy answer.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
2 generations?! Why not just let the disease run it's course and kill as many people as it can until the human race developes a natural immunity or is wiped off the face of the Earth? Who decides what motive are worthy enough to save a life? If someone discovers a cure for AIDS, I think they should me more famous than any rockstar, who cares what drove them to do it. Scientific succeses are only matched by their failures, does that mean we should stop trying? No. What sort of cop-out is using canned statements like "meddling with nature"? If we didnt "meddle with nature" we would still be dying from Polio or small pox. No cure is 100% certain and noone can predict the long-term effects of any treatment. Who knew, when it was discovered, that diseases easily treated with Penicillin would evolve to become resistant to it.
That homeless guy has a rough life. No home. No family.
Let's harvest his organs.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Then again killing flies just because they annoy you is also plain murder and no one would claim it is immoral eventhough it has probably a more important ecological impact.
Im liberal, democrat, hippie and therefore I am against violence, but is some cases like this one, I fail to see the immorality.
"Boohoohoo the poor embryo had its pain nerves stimulated oh the humanity !!!"
I think we can be certain consciousness does not develop before the nervous system.
From the article they are harvesting cells after 5 days and the nervous system starts to develop after 17 day.
I assume that changes you mind about this, unless, of course, you think one can have consciousness without a nervous system.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
Law itself is based on morality. I cannot think of any law which you cannot tie directly or indirectly to morality. Murder, stealing, etc.
Speeding? Concern for the safety of others.
So the "don't legislate morality" argument is a canard.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Princeton scientists have decided to clone the clones of human embryos.
When asked about the decision, a representative said: 'One upmanship? Competitiveness? Don't be ridiculous. A scientist knows not of these things.'
Agreed. I hate that, while everything else looks wonderful.
It just seems like pattens are lasting longer and longer and copyrights are too.
Still, this time frame would be about the same if the gov funded parts of it or if the private sector did it. Maybe electing politicians who will change the law to read something to the sort of "if your research uses government funds, your patten period on anything dirived from that research is reduced to 1/3 the normal and original time aloted not to exceed 5 years" and Then i would be happy to support politician favorable to that cause. Untill then, It just seems like some corperate welfare.
Have you all missed the fact that this is not a case of "scientists" (all bow to the title) just using embryos left over at fertility clinics; these scientists from Harvard (all bow to the school) are CLONING these embryos in order to have a limitless supply. This is functionally no different from couples being paid to produce as many embryos as they can. In the analogy given, this would be like bombing Hiroshima every few years, each time saying afterward, "Well, you know, it's a shame that this happened, but we can at least use this for some good and not let these people die in vain."
... 'you are creating life precisely to destroy it. You are making young humans simply to strip-mine them for their desired cells and parts.'"
From the article: "By cloning human embryos to extract stem cells
The mark of any truly civilized society is parents sacrificing their lives for their children, not sacrificing their children for the sake of the parents' health and welfare.
That homeless guy has a rough life. No home. No family.
Let's harvest his organs.
Let's put his liver into a juicer and see if we can get some gin out of it.
OSU (ohio state), one public school for example, owns copyrights, pattens and licenses them on a number of inventions or processes it has developed from schoolastic research. They have also sold the pattens outright to to ga other companies to gain funding for some projects. Just because it is acedemic doesn't mean it is immune to those things i mentioned.
Now, if your lucky and enough people who are effected by the same disease, marching in the streets might be an option. I'm not convinced that would cover everything this research could help.
Is the usage (including abuse), that is: the intrumentalization, of the left-to-die embryo morally more acceptable than just letting it die? They were created to be received, not to be abused. And hence, they shouldn't be used.
Why aren't women who let doctors create several embryos not forced to also receive the remaining ones after the treatment was a success?
The question I can never seem to get a straight answer to is this:
If somehow they manage to develop a cure for, say diabetes, using embryonic stem cells, what happens when the twenty million Americans (not to mention the untold millions around the world) who suffer from this disease come knocking at the door demanding the cure? How many embryos will we now need to create/destroy? The numbers needed just to do the research are negligible in comparison, I would think.
Do we really want to open this box, Pandora?
Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
Sorry, folks, but it had to be said.
I'd like to see most medications tested for at least 2 generations before being released -- it wouldn't halt everything, but it might stop a reoccurance of Thalidimide...
Whether you like it or not, drug development is a commercial decision. Getting a drug to market costs in the order of $600 million and takes around 7-15 years. Remember that unless this company has products on the market (there aren't actually that many market approved drugs around, so basically nobody except the big pharma companies) it is making no revenue during this time. Patents last 20 years, so a drug company then has maybe 5-13 years to make money from the drug to recover R&D costs.
This is why drugs are developed for highly profitable markets, say $500million/yr (e.g. insulin, heart disease, cancer, aids etc) - it's just not worth it commercially to spend that amount of money and time on a small, select disease population, no matter how crippling the disease or how urgent the clinical need is. And if pharma companies don't produce these drugs and put them through clinical trials, nobody else will - not government, not universities.
Of the 10-15 year development and approval process, probably 7 years is in clinical trials. If you extended this to 2 generations, you would instantly kill off the entire drug development industry and NOBODY would ever develop these drugs.
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
A friend of mine once told me "Science isn't perfect, but when it comes understanding this existence its the only game in town that is based on logic and reproducible evidence." Christianity and the moral stance that "Life" should be held precious and sacred is based in ideology diametrically opposed to the actions of most Christians and well humanity for that matter. We as a human race need to take into consideration our history as individuals and as a species and decide if we truly value "Life". As a species we have the ability to create and destroy, our history has shown we have excelled in both arenas. Christianity has had approximately 2000 years of existance and in that time has done very little to advance man's understanding of the universe (it can be argued that this was a means of politically controlling and thereby increasing the wealth of those in power but that is another topic). Bottom line for me is that basing ones belief structure on the thoughts, ideas, and hopeful wishes of under-educated nomadic sheep herders or subjugated peoples of the Roman Empire may have been applicable to its time, but individuals who chose to do so now are clinging to ignorance. Opposing the cloning of human embyonic cells for purpose of researching cures for diseases is ridiculous. The issue would be moot if these were plant embryonic cells or shark embryonic cells, because humans in general are anthropocentric, with Christianity being extremely so, we have the pleasure of listening to the ignorant masses clamour against something that could benefit even loudest objector. True science should speak nothing of nor adhere to the prevailing morality of any age, especially one based on the convictions of a cult no matter its size, its sole purpose is to experiment, catalogue, and attempt to understand. Historically if this was done, Da Vinci would never have disected cadavers (morally and spirtually taboo in his day). We would still think bacterial and viral infections were demons possessing the bodies of the afflicted and call priests for help. Information is not bad. Words are not bad. How people make use of information or words is where the debates on morality should start. So please before you discount someone's research or declare a topic of research morally reprehensible and start protesting Harvard science labs, think about all the things Science and innovation has done for you. Electricity, fresh water to your homes, waste removal, immunization, refridgeration, and the list goes on. I tend to like these things and appreciate the fact that there are humans out there trying to further improve our understanding of the universe and help me live longer to enjoy it. "Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence." -RAWilson
Belief is the death of intelligence. As one assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. RAW
Everything discovered will have a [patent] placed on it. Any treatment will be so costly that the people objecting to it on [its] morality will probably never be able to [afford] the treatments.
Viagra is patented. Is it priced so high no one can use it? Hugh Hefner (admittedly a rich fellow) calls it the world's best recreational drug. (Why he's not the spokesperson seems like the world's biggest missed marketing opportunity.)
No. It's priced to make money, sure, lots of money even, but people buy something because they feel it's more valuable than the money they paid for it. Granted, medical expenses are distorted by insurance, but the basic principle still shows through on some level.
I'd pay just about any price to solve my father's cardiac problems, and be happy doing so.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Fourthed
Read TFA, or TFS, and you'll see that's not what it's about.
So, you personally ignore all of what G-d does in the Old Testament then I imagine? He sure does a lot of killing in it.
...two embryos of the same sex don't try to get married, the Bush administration won't mind.
That is a shady matter. There are many species that does not have a centralized nervous system, yet that are acceptably complex, responsive to their environment. This defines that in order to live, you do not need a central nerve system. What we dont know is that, if a high level consciuosness can exist in a body that does not have a central nervous system.
Read radical news here
Nay, for the opposite is true too.
You cant commit an act that has the possibility of being a murder by declaring 'we dont know if it is or not yet'.
Read radical news here
I am sorry, but if you start argueing with consciousness, than you could even allow to kill a baby which is about a half a year old. Consciousness does imply that you are aware of your self. Talk to psychologists, neurologists and philosopher, they all agree that it is dangerous to argue with consciousness because it develops after birth.
And even if you would asume that there is sth. like it before, it won't be there before a brain develops and this is certainly not the case before the neuroblast has formed. A cell or several cells for sure won't have consciousness.
Don't get me wrong, I have severe difficulties to judge in this topic, but arguing with consciousness is very dangerous, that's why so many people argue with the possibility of human life.
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
A glaring design error. Please fix!
damaged by dogma
Spoken by someone not dying of the virus/disease during that 2 generations.
It's not quite that black and white. Sometimes patients are the ones pushing these things. Better to try something new and experimental then just lay back and die.
SO now we cure certain problems, and new ones will arise.
Are you advocating stopping scientific progress because some unforseen event might occur in the future? That even might happen if you do your science or not. Not much of a way to live.
Then, as Malcolm from Jurassic Park, says: Nature finds a way to control what is being done
Dude, it was a book/movie. Crichton doing what he does best, telling a good story. I don't think I would include quotes from hollywood movies as evidence of a position in science is all I'm saying. The book would have been really boring if Nedry hadn't shut the system down :P
That the rest of the world regards them as something undesirable?
One of the fundamental moral objections to cloning is that it would create a world in which people were genetically engineered to conform to their expected role in society. Nobody wants a geek. Instead, we would have a monoculture in which everyone had "optimal" characteristics - i.e., non-geeky, sports-loving, beer-swilling, do-as-your-told types. The geek would become even more marginalized as an outcast.
And the other primary objection is the matter of creating human life only to destroy it. Our nation has a history of exploiting the weaker classes in inhumane and cruel ways; imagine how cruel we would become if we grew people for no reason other than "harvesting" of their organs to prolong the lives of the wealthy. At what point is a human not a human? If we can arbitrarily draw the line at the embryo stage, what is to prevent us from making additional qualifications? For example, at first, to qualify as a human, one would have to be past the embryo stage. But as soon as scientists believe that fetuses could contain the secrets to life-saving cures, fetuses would be considered non-human. And then, children - but only defective children, that is, those with some illness so debilitating they would surely thank us for ending their lives early. And soon it would progress to the point where anyone who didn't meet arbitrary genetic criteria would be considered better off dead. And humanity would suffer for it.
There's an interesting verse in the Bible: Jeremiah 32:35, "They built high places to Baal in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, and immolated their sons and daughters to Molech, bringing sin upon Judah; this I never commanded them, nor did it even enter my mind that they should practice such abominations." Apparently, the notion of sacrificing the young for the sake of prolonging the lives of the old is not new; it was a part of pagan religious practice nearly 3 millenia ago. And, interestingly, those who support the cloning of embryos have the same fanatical belief that sacrificing the young will somehow make our lives better. Just like the pagans, they can't explain how, but they are sure that cures are just around the corner. And this in spite of the fact that adult stem cell therapies are being used now to treat diseases such as Parkinsons.
But, I suppose if the stem cell cloners want to sacrifice humans to their pagan god of eternal life, they will find a way to do it. The truly unfortunate part is that they are killing some humans for a remote chance at curing others. Who gets to decide who is worthy to be cured, and who is a research subject? Are humans even qualified to decide who deserves to live, and who doesn't?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Oh well, im not approving abortion either.
As for asking psychologists, i rescind. Oftimes i see an intro titled "why psychology is a science" in some psychology course books. A science that needs to prove to the people it is a science doesnt have a strong position to hold on to yet, i believe.
Notwithstanding, we have not been able to get any applied form of psychology that radically changes our lives still, in contrast to other sciences. Even in treating mental disorders, most often they resort to sedative drugs. When someone is sedated, its not a treatment - its just suppression.
Read radical news here
Yes, if only scientists could be free to walk under ladders and break mirrors, their experiments would be much easier to carry out.
Oh, wait, by "silly superstitions," you meant ideas like "life is sacred because God created it." Ideas accepted and elaborated by great minds throughout the centuries, which you so easily dismiss.
Even without considering whether those "superstitions" are based on truth, I think it's clear that a world where straight logic ruled would be unpleasant. Logic might suggest you should experiment on the homeless for the good of "productive" members of society. Logic might say you should kill those with genetic diseases to clean the gene pool. And that's assuming that you even WANT to work for the good of society - a rather vague, moral idea in itself.
I can't prove the sanctity of life in a lab, but I'd hate to live in a world where that "superstition" was thrown out the window. Progress indeed. But toward what?
Don't you think Harvard, also being a law school, has an interest in starting this debate? Don't be surprised if it's driving part of the decision
Seriously, well put. I'm going to remember that line of reasoning. But then, Jebus was a vampire who wanted us to drink his blood so we would have everlasting life with him after we died, so I imagine Christians would really be okay with the whole sticking a tube in your neck and feeding off of you thing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Now IS the time, because later on may be too late. Let's put all our cards on the table. If the government wants to interfere in privately-funded research to potentially cure/prevent diseases like Parkinson's, let's make them actually do it, so that for once people actually know where all the players stand. Did Darwin clear his findings with the fundamentalists? Did Galileo wait for the Church to accept the Copernican model of the Universe? Did Socrates change his mind at the behest of the Athenians? How many will have to die this time before resistance to narrow-mindedness becomes acceptable?
But I bet you're willing to eat yogurt even though you can't know for certain that the yogurt bacteria are not conscious. I bet you use paper, even though you can't know for certain that the trees are not conscious. And I bet your house has a foundation that was cut into the surface of the Earth, even though -- let's face it -- you can't know for certain that the Earth itself isn't conscious.
So you have exactly two internally consistent options. You could be utterly paralyzed and unable to live a remotely normal life for fear that you will hurt or kill something that you can't be certain isn't conscious, or you could admit that human rights come from being human and not from being conscious, that you can't even really define consciousness, and that embryos are biologically no more sophisticated than the yogurt bacteria, the paper trees, or the Earth's crust.
I think we are all agreed on this. Otherwise, nice job!
That's what we've always done. It's only by forging into new territory that we are able to maintain our edge. Full steam ahead, I say! They're not talking about birthing a clone, they will let it develop along to the multicelluar stage then harvest the stem cells. And bottom line, I always look at it this way: Someone Is Going To Do It Sooner Or Later. If America wants to stay on top of the science pile, and if humanity wants to continue to thrive and make advances, then we *need* to do this. It is part of our natural curiosity to learn more about the world and ourselves and then use that knowledge in legitimate and helpful ways. Carpe diem!
Did you know that you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...
to fund it, at a level ten times what the Administration "would" have, that would make a very strong argument that science funding and actual research has declined under the current Administration.
Me and half a lab doing malaria research got laid off when they cut infectious disease funding - they announced they were funding it, but they gave it half the money they did the prior year - for all US research in the area. The reality is that basic science funding is down, and if it weren't for people like Howard Hughes (HHMI) or Bill Gates, we'd be way behind all of Europe - and even behind China and Canada.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Let's add a check box to the IRS form. Check it if you want some of your tax dollars used to fund this kind of research, don't check it if you are opposed.
That's a fun little idea to one day "stick it" to people who didn't support this sort of research. However, government doesn't work that way -- we all contribute to the pot, and the government funds basic infrastructure, systems of social order, and ventures that may be helpful to society but not necessarily profitable for private investors.
They sound like honest to goodness christians to me:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:9). (http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm for various other delightful translations)
or
". . . and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child." (2 Kings 8:12).
and so on and so forth.
http://www.ffrf.org/
If so, how do you determine who? Destruction of the embryo to save other lives is akin, in this argument, to saying that you determine the person to toss overboard by evaluating their life and determining which one has the fewest friends and family who will miss them, or alternatively by which is least capable of fending off the forced toss.
Its not only that, but the fact that an unborn person is really just theoretical. If we let this guy die and his family miss him, but yet... That unborn child may or may not be a saint. He could be the next Hitler for all we know. But we are with the understanding the personal alive is not a mass murder and isn't doing those things.
I know that is quite a pre-judgment, but that is the key difference between a theoretical person and an alive person is that we already know the person that is alive has proven himself to be a better person.
Secondly, the unborn person doesn't care at that point if he lives or dies... Until you gain a state of sentience you could care less. You have no emotions nor knowledge to care. Truth is... Ignorance is the ultimate form of happiness. If you know nothing about existence, what do you care about death.
Sentience is the key feature on this issue... The only thing that always made me wonder about the Religious take of the issue.
If you abort a child he goes to heaven right? If he is born, then there is a 50/50 change he will either follow god and go to heaven or become evil and not go to hell.
So wouldn't it be better for these souls if they died young and didn't have a chance to become evil? Therby saving their souls by default?
Unless of course god sends aborted children to hell? Who would follow an evil god like that though?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
But I bet you're willing to eat yogurt even though you can't know for certain that the yogurt bacteria are not conscious. I bet you use paper, even though you can't know for certain that the trees are not conscious. And I bet your house has a foundation that was cut into the surface of the Earth, even though -- let's face it -- you can't know for certain that the Earth itself isn't conscious.
I dont object to any of those points. As a matter of fact, there are times that i think that way. However i have to do this, despite i refrain from such 'ethically incorrect (in a far fetched sense)' practices, i wont be refusing and denying responsibility if someone or something came and claimed damages from me.
Also, i would prefer euthanasia if i was to live in the state you described.
Read radical news here
What we dont know is that, if a high level consciuosness can exist in a body that does not have a central nervous system.
Well, given the fact that human consciousness ends when the brain dies, I think we can safely assume that it can't begin without *some* kind of CNS.
You have a debatable argument. The thing is, I get all pissed when people talk about silly marginal ethics rules when 11 million people die every year because of hunger. Everything else just doesn't seem relevant to me. So they want to advance science by possibly killing conscious beings. All our hands are full of blood anyway (yes, I hold everyone responsible for those 11 million people), who are we to say what scientists are doing is unethical.
Well... there's also issue about the current nonexistence of brain transplant technology.
At the hunger issue, you have a point. But we have to take all matters as they come up. This came up today at slashdot, and were discussing this.
As for hunger, well, we dont have much to do as people here.
Gangs and tribes control african nations and the food we send doesnt reach the hands of the needy. Our governments do not do anything about these gangs, they just support whichever gang is closest to them. deadlock.
Read radical news here
It's like when a FDA guy said that when testing for a certain drug (don't remember the drug) was done 14,000 deaths a year would be stopped. Since testing took 4 years, one could also say they killed 56,000 people.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
If we consider the basic principle "Only kill people who are guilty of a terrible crime," I'm not sure where the moral contradiction is.
As far as I can tell, the usual pro-choice stance is "Don't kill people," with a different definition of "people". I can tell you that conservatives who see this principle stated, but don't understand that people is being defined differently (e.g. fetuses aren't people) think someone who supports abortion but it against the death penalty is being hypocritical. How can they be against the death penalty (death for guilty people) but for abortion (death for innocent people to satisfy the parents lust? Yes, that's how its seen. Don't argue with me about it; I can understand why it's seen differently.)
I really, really wish people wouldn't invent hypocrisy where it doesn't exist. The differences are in the definition of "people," and the honest debaters don't throw out manufactured misunderstandings.
well, that will come - I saw it on Star Trek once, so it's bound to happen eventually!
Note to moderators... I wasn't being absolutely serious.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Whatever happened to survival of the fittest?
Still going strong.
Is all this technology assisting with breeding a race of second rate homo sapiens?
Why stop at rare diseases? Let's breed a race of humans impervious to all diseases and injuries! I'm sure you'll be the first to refuse all medical treatments, in the name of the betterment of humanity's genetic stock.
You can't take the sky from me...
Don't be fooled by the BS claims that this will cure diseases. Nobody has ever received an infusion on embryonic stem cells and then been free of cancer 18 months later. Embryonic stem cells are a death sentence.
All those "miracle cures" come from adult stem cells.
Unforutnately, there are so many leftist stem-cell-fundamentalists who refuse to see the truth, that we will never get down to the research that can save lives.
Andy Out!
You say you dislike the parent's characterization of atomic bombs, but then you go on to paint this flowery picture about how much better it is than another practice we fought to abolish. These days we act like there is nothing imaginable that is worse than targeting and killing several thousand civilians just to get to the government, but yet we're supposed to brush off targeting hundreds of thousands for that same purpose? I am in support of both stem-cell research and the use of nuclear warfare to end supermassive wars quickly. Sometimes if it's a choice between one life that's already gone and an limitless number that can still be saved, I just think you have to consider that the majority has feelings too.
Yeah, we could have done a lot worse if we just set up our own Nazi-style concentration camps and just reduced their population down to zero. There were also very few other ways to get the desired terms out of the Japanese governt, but that doesn't mean that destroying cities to force an unconditional surrender can ever be anything like a humanitarian mission, no matter what it is compared to.
... when we have an army of liberal brainwashed clones! MWA HA HA HA HA!
nt.
Law itself is based on morality. I cannot think of any law which you cannot tie directly or indirectly to morality.
And ruining someone's life because they decided to smoke some weed is moral how?
Denying chronic pain sufferer relief from said weed is moral how?
Please include the original argument for that legislation in your explanation: The devil's weed turns people who try it into axe murderers (I kid you not).
You can't take the sky from me...
isn't this a 6th Day violation?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Look, it's not enough to go "aw, poor thing", whether you're talking about the planet, forests, cute endangered species, or embryos. You have to at least apply some frickin' logic and rational thought! Otherwise, even a batshit insane nutcase like Ann Coulter is going to eat you for breakfast when it comes to demolishing your positions. If you want to make a difference, be able to back up your ideas with reason. Otherwise, you're just hurting the cause.
"Harvesting Scientists to Clone Human Embryos?"
http://khaaan.com/
Ha, my "confirm you're not a script" is "godsend"!
No it didn't occur to him, he saw a movie about dinosaurs and now he's a believer.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. You argue, correct me if I am wrong, that it is inappropriate to assign less significance to an embryo than a more developed person because it is not our place to determine who's life is more worth living. The case with the embryos used in stem cell research, however, is not that of a living human at a lower state of development. The embryos used in stem cell research are currently frozen and would never be revived and brought to term even if they were not used for research. Anyone choosing to donate embryos to stem cell research would have already decided that they did not wish to have any more children before determining what they would like to do with the additional embryos. Your argument, though well intentioned, is not truly applicable here.
-brin
A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.
"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said. "A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."
The incident was the first of its kind. reuters
Comment: If we ignore logic and just charge ahead saying the same things people have said for thousands of years, we're probably going to end up the same way as this guy. Stem cells are not 'alive', they are kept alive by the support system of the body. If this is considered killing, then historectomies kill millions of 'unborn babies' every time they happen. Stopping a potential life and killing a thinking human are two different things. Also, for those who say this will lead to people demanding the sacrifice of more embryos for stem cells, I believe the end goal is to divorce this process from human development - to turn it into an automated mechanism for generating these tissues. First we have to learn about what is actually going on in the system, then we can duplicate it and leave human subjects and the messy issue of human cloning alone.
Hi,
// must never, NEVER kill!
;-)
> The question is: Are embryos alive and have free will.
Yes they are alive, as any scientist will happily confirm (if you disagree, read up on the 5 standard defining criteria for life, for instance in the works of Humberto R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varela).
Whether they have free will is more difficult (old philosophical question), but if they don't then so you and me don't either.
> Alive is obviously not enough. Skin cells are alive. Plants are alive.
> Free will, or consciousness is the issue.
No. The issue is that we're talking _human_ embryos. Surely you can kill a plant,
for example to eat it (and if you're not vegetarian, you might agree that you
can kill chicken to eat them). But if you subscribe to the basic human right
to live and the basic human right to equal treatment you cannot just kill somebody
just because they're smaller (they will grow soon if not killed!) and because
they can't speak out for themselves yet (they will soon defend themselves if
not killed!)
> Can anyone say an embryo is conscious?
It is well known that emryos also dream, i.e. they do things in their sleep.
> They have a potential for consciousness, just like eggs and sperm have
> the potential for consciousness given the right conditions.
It is not settled among scientists exactly when conscience develops, but as
(as that's what the human rights say), thankfully we can decide about the ethic
question before reaching agreement on consciousness.
if ( isAlive && isHuman )
{
}
I believe that this argument is so strong that the only thing you can debate
above is the indentation of the curly braces
But seriously, think it through and ask yourself how you define "human being".
It boils down to accepting scientific facts for what they really are: a sperm
cell and an egg form a human being exactly when they unite, and that is the point
in time when there is another human being in existence. Consequently, this is
when the inalienable _rights_ of the (yet unnamed) individual begin.
May be invisibly small, may be week, but nobody kills it the embryo will grow,
be called a baby when left the womb, and he or she may even change the world one day.
Kindest regards
JLL
Of course they own patents and copyrights. Heck, as a grad student I protect my research and work all the time. I've even seen faculty at ivy league universities flat-out steal and publish work that has not been protected (and get away with it).
That said, you can't really equate the use policies of an academic institution with those of a large private corporation. That's just silly.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Fifth. I am extremely annoyed by this. I like the overall redesign otherwise.
It is shocking to me how you could be arguing that without a BRAIN someone could be concious. That is insane. Just because it "feels" bad doesn't mean that there is any logical reason for avoiding a promicing filed of research.
And in any event, we aren't talking about another species, we are talking about humans. With your reasoning it would be wrong to kill any animal of any kind, since they are all pretty much "responsive to their environment". Hell, add plants in with that. And why not computers too? If you really think that way, I'm suprised that you haven't starved to death.
We do not know at what point the consciousness starts to develop in human embryo. Without knowing this, in fact without not even knowing human psyche, it is plain murder to commit such 'research'.
We do not know if any animals have consciousness. Without knowing this, it is plain murder to kill them.
Do you still stand by your bold statement?
And why shouldnt i.
I not only stand by my statement, i am living by it for the last 9 years.
Read radical news here
NASA is now saying that possible life in remote worlds need not be even carbon based. There are theorists discussing if a silicon based rock-like life form evolution is possible. With all that, it is also possible that life may not need brain to be conscious.
What is consciousness ANYWAY ?
There are rednecks in usa in the understanding and responsiveness, iq & eq level of some highly developed squids. Why not treat them as pork then ?
Read radical news here
Why can't you? They aren't sticking it out there and saying we own the pattent and it is free or anyone to use. At best, there is very little differences outside one being private and the other being acedemic.
In the bible quote, aren't you being a bit presumptuous in assuming the injuries were to the child, and not to the woman?
In that day and age childbirth was one of the major causes of death in women, and premature childbirth was even higher.
I'm just not sure how you can justify that this quote is applicable...
If we can just pull out bible quotes to support our points without careful consideration as to what they really meant in context, then here's part of one from Lamentations:
"It's better to die a babe unborn..."
Harry Wilfong and his wife Sally are pleased to announce the acceptance of their zygote Pete Wilfong to Harvard.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Dat's 'cuz we gots to fights da terrerisms on thar intarwebs.
Don'cha werry tho', we ain't leavin' no children 'hind us.
~X~
~X~
A lot of these issues are addressed on this webpage >
http://www.newpath4.com/abortionlife101.htm . There's some
links to learn more about Bible teachings also.
The whole point of a cloning experiment is to make an embryo. They will use donated eggs, not donated embryos. If the scientists manage to make any embryos, they will destroy them after trying to extract stem cells.
If deliberately destroying human embryos is morally problematic (and I think it is), then your argument does nothing to resolve the problem. Maybe there is some other resolution, but no one in this thread has presented a good one.
...the Catholic Church doesn't speak for all of us.
Anything that can lead us to more knowledge of the universe, or can get us closer to knowing or understanding our creator, or what caused us to be here is fair game. Why would God give us free will and self awareness along with a huge brain and expect that we bury our heads in the sand? It doesn't make sense.
Organized religion is the bane of any any faith. I consider myself a bit of an intellectual semi-agnostic Judeo-Christian non-interventional deist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Libertas in infinitum