Slashdot Mirror
'Plentiful' Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Found
An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that scientists at Harvard and Wake Forest have discovered a 'plentiful' non-embryonic source for stem cells, as well brain, liver, and bone cell types as well. The cells, found in amniotic fluid, can be harvested without harm to the donor or the donor's unborn child. While there's no proof that amniotic stem cells are as potent as embryonic stem cells, scientists are hopeful that this will be a huge step forward for the field of stem-cell research."
amazing the hurdles we have to jump to please the followers of a 2000 year old heretic.
From what I can gather, the basic issue that most religious folk have to do with stem cell research is that we're mucking around with human lives. Unless you can make this process look as simple as a cheek scraping for human cells (allergy research, for instance) the objections will not abate.
The argument that this cell couldn't have become a baby doesn't quite hold good and has been answered before about harvesting eggs from fertility clinics.
So are these cells are still human, but without a potential human, doomed to die when the aminotic fluid drains. Some facts which might not matter to those who have decided all of this to be Playing God.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
The donor's unborn child? An embryo is not a child. Why do we need an "alternative" to embryonic stem cells anyway? Embryonic stem cells work perfectly well, and are usually considered more effective than non-embryonic cells.
Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
your right, please don't use any form of the bible as a moral compass, it advocates hate and intolerance.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid?
To the anti-stem cell people:
Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from stem cell research?
Sorry, people, but I'm in the 99.9% of people who DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE ON THIS SUBJECT to be able to make an informed judgment yet on what is right and what is wrong here who is also prepared to ADMIT IT.
Nothing to see here...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
While ethical questions should not be based or caused by religion, there is no reason why they must not concur every once and then.
I can be an atheist and still think abortion is fundamentally wrong (albeit very convenient for the greater good)
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
You are wrong. Ethical systems are individualized first and shared second. One's world view, whether it incorporates a religious viewpoint or not, determines one's ethics. Religion has a huge bearing on individual ethics. The challenge is to communicate and discuss those ethical values across groups of people that may have different world views.
Current statistics give a 1% risk of miscarriage
after amniocentesis. Also, the amount of cells in
the volume of fluid that would normally be collected
is likely to be small.
Sounds like no news to me.
Amniotic fluid is already sampled in those that are high risk of havign a child born with down's syndrome, so this is a non-issue.
Glenn
The Smrt way to trade CFDs on the ASX
Progress has always been hindered by the masses if they feel it is unethical or sacreligious - regardless of the religion or ethics involved.
And so you would advocate giving power to a limited few to make decisions for us all?
For what reason?
Also, just being an atheist doesn't make you an ethicist. Atheists can have wacky beliefs too, I'll grant you that.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I would expect that the rational individuals who are arguing against stem cell research would also argue against abortion based on the value of human life. National abortion laws are established through court cases based on the limitations on the reach of government, not because everyone thinks it's acceptable and voted for it.
1) An embryo is a collection of cells and has life (as much life as a bacterium, which I doubt you would deny).
2) At conception, the genetic structure is uniquely human.
So I think that an embryo would count as human life.
Now, as to whether it is a person is a totally different issue.
"If God had intended us to walk he would not have invented roller skates." -- Willy Wonka
Even if these new stem cells aren't as useful as embryonic stem cells you can be sure that right wing zealots will argue that they are. I just don't get the case against embryonic stem cell research provided that research is carried out on embryos that have been donated with informed consent and would otherwise be destroyed. I could sort of understand the argument if these embryos were going to be implanted and had a real chance to become a baby, but we're talking about embryos that are going to be destroyed. IMHO destroying embryos that could be used in research to try and cure a number of truly horrible diseases is the immoral course of action.
The ethical concerns over stem-cell research are over whether the embryo is sentient, and has a soul. The first is scientific, while the second is religious in nature. We can theorise scientifically that it isn't sentient, since it has not yet developed a brain, and in the absence of evidence showing you can think without a brain we accept this as being as close to true as science get.
Whether it has a soul, however, is a different matter. Religious people can argue that it has a soul from the instant of conception. The idea, however, that something can be non-sentient but still have a soul has a number of ramifications that they don't seem to have fully grasped.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well, I am both a religious person, and a philosopher. Both you, and the "religious nutjob" as you put it, have made some philosophical errors.
I don't know if you have heard of Aristotle's Form/Matter distinction, but basically, it is this. Matter is the stuff of a thing, and Form is (more or less) how it is arranged. To put it another way, Matter is the material stuff that makes something what it is, and Form is the immaterial stuff that makes it how it is.
So, why is this important to note? Well, for a human being, the Matter is our body, and the form is our soul. So, as long as we have something that is human material (read, fertilized egg), we have the human form, aka, a soul. Don't believe me? The difference between a living thing and a dead thing is the presence of an animating principle (soul). Still don't believe me, I challenge you to come up with a material way of describing the difference between a living organism and a dead organism.
Now, your friend clearly isn't a philosopher, so I will correct her mistake as well. An animal has an animal body, and as a result, an animal soul. When the cow dies, the cow's soul goes with it. The difference is that a human being has an immaterial and thus immortal soul, and as a result, should be treated differently.
Before you go and deny that humans have an immortal soul, I point to the fact that it is the operation of an immortal soul to come to some notion of God (an immortal being). Every person I know has some notion of God. The Atheist has to have one so that he can deny it, and the agnostic has to come to a notion of God in order to be not sure about it. The cow can't say "I wonder about what there was before I existed" (an action that is uniquely human) but the cow can seek good grass to convert into methane and manure.
I guess thats all I have to say.
You can usually tell when someone has been thoroughly spanked in an argument when they resort to the CAPS LACK OF ANGRY ANGRY DOOM(tm). The fact of the matter is that precise definitions are not always necessary. Here's a simple analogy. If I'm standing Richmond, VA and you're standing in Sacramento, CA I can say with complete confidence that I know we're in different cities, even if I don't actually have any idea what the precise city limits of either city are.
When you ask for a definition you're asking someone to put exact borders around an idea and say "everything on this side is x, everything on the other side is not x". If you're talking about a case right on the edge, this degree of precision may be a necessary. For example: is a virus alive? Tough question. But no one seriously asks "is bacteria alive" unless they are being philosophical or unnecessarily obtuse.
As far as your rejection of the analogy, I have to wonder if you know what an analogy is. When something can be agreed by analog, it means that two things are similar, but not the same. So, setting aside your questionable characterization of an embryo as "a group of embryonic cells", your point that an embryo is not a bacteria is rather odd. Of course it's not. If it was the same, it wouldn't be an analog, would it?
It's pretty clear that what is going on is that you are playing the part of a good reactionary. You have, for whatever reasons, a strong emotional attachment to the abortion issue. You see the argument that an embryo is a living human being to threaten your position and so you react. Your logic in the reaction has been pretty poor (as indicated by your unapologetic resort to ad hominem and the CAPS LOCK OF ANGRY ANGRY DOOM(tm)).
1. An embryo is alive. Your response: define life. As I've already shown, this is an unnecessary burden. Your other response: an embryo is not a bacterium. True, but hardly relevant.
2. An embryo is a human being. No response so far. And there can hardly be one. I'm waiting (heart racing, I assure you) for the inevitable my liver/sperm/hair is human response. And this is true, but your hair is not a complete human entity, it's a part of one. Same for liver, blood cells, etc.
In any case, the solution to your apparent philosophical crisis is simply to realize that there is, or can be, a distinction between a human being and a person. That an embryo is technically a human being at the point of conception is pretty much beyond question. It's a living and unique instance of the species homo sapiens. The question is whether human rights should be expanded to all human beings (which is my position) or just to "persons" (yet to be defined). If you read the other Slashdot comments, you can see that there are plenty of people who are happy to have more constrictive definitions of "person" that exclude (for example) the mentally handicapped.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.