'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."

Comments

Re:amazing

[Etcetera]

amazing the hurdles science can leap when they put their minds to it

Still human ... ?

[Gopal.V]

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.

Re:Still human ... ?

[pdbaby]

It's a good point -- to the public it's all about the perception of the science, not the actual science. I suspect lots of people will see "stem cell" and react immediately. Hopefully lots of other people will be more reasonable.

I don't think there's any way to make it look as harmless as a cheek scraping, though -- from my meagre understanding, there's still a risk involved with going into the amniotic sack - any medics able to comment further?

Re:Still human ... ?

[TheSeer2]

I applaud you. The beginning of your post seems like you're trying to assert neutrality and look at the facts without a POV so that any point you make would be based on logic, unfortunately the vision of neutrality isn't going to stick around long for most people. [That is, people won't continue to think you're neutral even as they read the end].

Re:Still human ... ?

[picob]

I suspect lots of people will see "stem cell" and react immediately.

Maybe they could be called 'branch cells' instead

Re:Still human ... ?

[khanyisa]

The objection is not that embryos are potentially people, is that they are people. This is not true about some cells harvested in such a way that it does not destroy a person (whether embryonic or adult).

Whether you agree with the classification of embryos as people is what the debate should be about. See http://www.gerv.net/writings/foetal-personhood/ for some pointers

Re:Still human ... ?

[Carewolf]

Read the end again. He is being sarcastic..

Re:Still human ... ?

[caenorhabditas]

I'm sorry, but the idea that embryonic stem cells could have become a baby is precisely the objection that most of the people who object to ESC research have. That someone figured out that embryos aren't humans on a Slashdot discussion is of no concern to faith-based folks like George W. Amniotic stem cells can't become a baby, so no one cares. Amniocentecis isn't quite as easy as scraping a cheek, but it's probably as close as we're likely to get with stem cells.

"Clearly human" cells die every single day, from skin cells that die to become the epidermis to brain cells killed by collegiate drunks. Experimenting on human cells is objectionable to nearly no one, at least not enough people to make a difference.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Ingolfke]

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.

You're wrong on two counts. 1) The primary concern was that extracting the stem cells would destroy the embryo, not "Playing God". 2) You're also wrong to use the "religious folk" label. People who are non-religious also found that destroying human embryo's for research purposes was a concern. People who were religious argued for the research. Using statements like "religious folk" is indicates you're relying on a stereotype and in this case in particular oversimplifies the entire debate to the point of error.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Mark Maughan]

The argument to preserve "potential persons" is completely bogus as it enforces an entirely arbitrary dividing line. I can prove this as follows.

Seeing that I am fertile, when I walk into a room with a fertile woman there in lies the potential for a human being.
Just as easily as you can argue that the embryo should be preserved, I can argue that you must let me mate with the woman.

There is no end to this. The argument can be moved further and further from actual human life.

Pointing to the embryo and saying "don't kill this" is a priori no more reasonable not allowing people to use contraceptives (something which many Catholics still believe).

There must be a reason to place the dividing line in a certain spot, and that reason must be based on knowledge and not belief. Enforcing beliefs over people's welfare is just as evil as anything else, and stupid too.

Re:Still human ... ?

[KKlaus]

This is actually a pretty interesting point. In my mind its similar to the "pro-life" antiabortion stance. Its not so much that they really identifies with and cares about the fetuses, but that they despise young women who can have sex with no consequences.

I think its a similar idea here. A group of people finds one thing morally abhorent (quote unqoute "playing god"), but tries to win over more people to their cause with the sanctity of life argument. Because if it were anything else, they would be gung ho on _saving life_ with the cells fertility clinics throw out.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Dausha]

I recently sat in on a discussion with a bio-ethicist professor on the issue of embryonic stem cells. His thesis was that, since we have a legally defined point at which we declare somebody dead, that we must also have a point where we declare a person alive. His conclusion was that before 'x' number of days (I forget the exact number, but it is around 14 so I will use that throughout my post), that we should not consider the embryo alive. From this conclusion, he asserted that the bests interests of society support allowing harvesting embryos prior to that period.

I pointed out a couple of things to this professor that left him without response. First, as the point which one is considered dead is arbitrary, isn't "life at 14 days" also arbitrary? He said yes. Then, why not say life begins at conception? His response was that society could not benefit from that determination.

My answer was simple. American law (I can't speak for others as I am trained in American law) favors the "best interests of the child," even over that of society. It is decidedly not in a child's interest to be harvested before it can draw breath---the harvesting rather impedes one's chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, if harvesting before 14 days is good for society, then all embryos should be harvested. I know this is an ad infinitum argument, but stopping introduction of new life to society is decidedly against the interests of society.

Finally, the whole discussion of research on embryonic stem cells being a panacea seems a little much. Sure, government won't fund it, but I'm sure the Gates-Buffet funding would be more than ample. That is, private funding should be adequate without coercing public funding. Second, we have sources of stem cells apart from embryonic that are worth investigation fully before we take so drastic a measure as to go after the children.

Is there controversy over adult stem cells? Is there controversy over amniotic stem cells? Is there controversy over embryonic stem cells? Where there is no controversy is where science should focus as the depths of research in the non-controversial has yet to be plumbed.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Down_in_the_Park]

The argument to preserve "potential persons" is completely bogus as it enforces an entirely arbitrary dividing line. I can prove this as follows.

Seeing that I am fertile, when I walk into a room with a fertile woman there in lies the potential for a human being.
Just as easily as you can argue that the embryo should be preserved, I can argue that you must let me mate with the woman.

There is no end to this. The argument can be moved further and further from actual human life.

Pointing to the embryo and saying "don't kill this" is a priori no more reasonable not allowing people to use contraceptives (something which many Catholics still believe).

There must be a reason to place the dividing line in a certain spot, and that reason must be based on knowledge and not belief. Enforcing beliefs over people's welfare is just as evil as anything else, and stupid too. Good, there should be a border, but were should be this border? If you say, that it can potentially become a person, than you have to define a "person". Now, it is well known, that even a 1 year old child doesn't have that much personality, but if you want you can go back to weeks after birth. Would you define a 3 month old baby as a person or a potential person? Would you define a severly mentally disabled human as a person even if he/she can not express their own will?

These are just examples, to show you the difficulties if you apply a definition based on "person" or personality. You have to be aware of the ethical consequences, if you put up a definition of human life that is worth to be protected, because it implies that there exist human life which is not worth it.

Now if you rely on knowledge and knowledge tells you that human life is a pure vegatative act, until lets say there is a certain complexity in brain activity reached, what are you doing? If you asume that self awareness is the first sign of a concious mind, should we treat all babys as potential persons until they reach this point?

Re:Still human ... ?

[ArcherB]

I'm sorry, but the idea that embryonic stem cells could have become a baby is precisely the objection that most of the people who object to ESC research have.

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. The problem is not with stem cell research, or even the fact that it is possible to manipulate a stem cell into becoming a human being, but how you got the cell in the first place.

I fully support stem cell research. I think it is a sin not to. The only problem people like me have with embryonic stem cell research is not the research at all, but the production of the stem cells to begin with. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells (as my feeble mind understands it), an embryo must be coaxed to divide and start to grow. At a certain point, it has to be destroyed to harvest the stem cells. It's that destruction of a growing embryo that is the problem. People like me equate that to an abortion, but it's no longer about women's choice, but experimentation and profit.

Now we can get into a ton of philosophical debates as to when life begins and when an embryo becomes human and such, but this debate goes into so many different directions. If we agree not to harvest embryos for stem cells because they are human, then they must be human when considering an abortion. If an embryo is not human, then why the rub about abortion? This is another reason why the debate gets so heated. There is more at stake than just stem cells.

Most people want embryonic stem cells for one or a combination of three reasons:
1) Bush said not to and it pisses off fundies (these tend to go together)
2) It legally reaffirms that embryos are not human, and thus abortion remains legal
3) They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources.

This is why other sources must be found. It's not because anyone is right or wrong, but because neither side will ever give up. Will it get to the point where fundies are blowing up research labs and feminists are performing stem cell harvesting with coat hangers? Doubtful, but why have the debate at all when there are other means of harvesting stem cells than to kill a growing embryo? We really can have our cake and eat it too!

Re:Still human ... ?

[Skinny Rav]

There must be a reason to place the dividing line in a certain spot, and that reason must be based on knowledge and not belief.

Like, I don't know, when a cell with completely unique, diploid genome is created? A cell completely different from gametes that were its origin, yet geneticaly identical (modulo non-lethal mutations) with all cells that will exist in the body of a person which will grow from this one cell?

If we are to establish the dividing line based on knowledge then the conception is the only viable choice. All other lines will be arbitrary.

Regards

Raf

PS. Yes, and I know that in cases of clonning or twins this argument fails ;-)

Re:Still human ... ?

[caseydk]

"3) They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources."

I think this is where it gets pretty dirty... having Michael J Fox and John Edwards (referencing Christopher Reeve) that "cures" are on the way when - to the best of my knowledge and research - *adult* stem cells are the only ones which have actually demonstrated anything useful.

Re:Still human ... ?

[ArcherB]

I think this is where it gets pretty dirty... having Michael J Fox and John Edwards (referencing Christopher Reeve) that "cures" are on the way when - to the best of my knowledge and research - *adult* stem cells are the only ones which have actually demonstrated anything useful.

Seeing that MJF even supported the wrong candidate for his stated purposes (either one that voted against stem cell research or against a candidate that voted for it, I don't remember), it either means that he is completely ignorant and was used by the Democratic party or he is a political hack himself. For Fox's sake, I hope he's ignorant. Ignorance in this case would at least mean he was being honest and genuine.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Eccles]

Most people want embryonic stem cells for one or a combination of three reasons:

Arrant nonsense. You started acceptably, and then became an offensive idiot.

Consider an analogy. Stem cells are "like" pieces of paper. Embryonic ones are blank, other ones have writing on them already. (Remember this is an analogy.) Because the other ones have useful info on them, they are more immediately useful, and indeed therapeutic uses for stem cells have come from non-embryonic cells. However, that also limits what you can do with these cells without "erasing" the current writing, and replacing it with whatever you need. Right now we don't know how to "erase" or "write" on the stem cells, and that's what research is investigating.

I'm sure that in time we'll solve both of these issues. I expect that at some point they'll take a tiny vial of blood, extract stem cells of some sort, and convert them into pluripotent stem cells to cure what ails you. And no embryos will be involved. The issue is how to get there and how long it will take. The belief of pro-embryonic stem cell research folks like myself is that it will take longer if researchers are limited in what they can research.

As for ethical issues, you're dead when your cerebrum is no longer capable of functioning; I believe you're not alive until your cerebrum is capable of functioning. No conscious thought? No humanity.

Re:Still human ... ?

[0xdeadbeef]

It is decidedly not in a child's interest to be harvested before it can draw breath

That's is most definitely not true. Killed as an embryo it dies in a state of grace, and certainly goes to heaven. But once born it is subject to original sin, could very well live a life of suffering, and could quite possibly go to hell.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Citizen of Earth]

to be Playing God.

... an exercise exclusively in the purview of religious people.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Citizen of Earth]

3) They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources.

4) They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't care if stem cells can come from other sources since they don't consider a clump of undifferentiated embryonic cells to be any more significant that the billions of skin cells we shed every day.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

More precisely, the question is whether or not embryos have eternal souls. That question cannot be answered to a religious person's satisfaction by either science or logic. When the terms "potential person" or "personhood" are used, that obscures the issue, and I don't think it really serves anyone very well. That's why the argument that every cell in a body contains the blueprint for a person, and is therefore a potential person, makese sense to one side, but not the other. The confusion is because we're not actually talking about potential people - we're talking about eternal souls.

Re:Still human ... ?

[M-G]

Of course there's a risk involved. Some quick searching reveals that between 1 and 2 percent of amnios cause a miscarriage.

And while it's certainly possible that these particular stem cells could be proven useful, unless I'm missing something, you'll have issues with host rejection. It's my understanding that one of the beauties of somatic cell nuclear transfer is that the patient's own cell nucleus is being used, so all the stem cells created are 'theirs.'

Re:Still human ... ?

[CTachyon]

In order to harvest embryonic stem cells (as my feeble mind understands it), an embryo must be coaxed to divide and start to grow. At a certain point, it has to be destroyed to harvest the stem cells. It's that destruction of a growing embryo that is the problem. People like me equate that to an abortion, but it's no longer about women's choice, but experimentation and profit.

That's the sticking point, though, isn't it? It's not "the woman's choice", because it's not in a woman. There is no woman. We're not talking about terminating a pregnancy (abortion), because there is no pregnancy to terminate. The cells are coaxed to divide in a petri dish, not in a womb. The resulting ball of cells is torn apart for stem cells at an age of a few days -- before it has split into a placenta and what might have become a baby.

It's important to note here that we're talking about a ball of cells: no heartbeat (no heart), no EEG (no brain), and -- unless you're willing to go out on a rather flimsy limb -- no soul.

If you'd argue over the last one: the ball of cells doesn't have the potential to become one baby. It could also form identical twins, or hypothetically more. Which baby gets the one and only soul that God put there at conception? Do they share the same soul? Or does one of the babies get an "after-market" soul? Or does one of the babies miss out on the whole "soul" business, and grow up without one? Or suppose God put two souls there, knowing with certainty that the ball of cells would have become twins: why would God put two souls in there knowing that researchers were going to harvest stem sells from it?

This is the point where most theologists invoke Free Will, which raises more problems than it solves. Suppose God puts the appropriate number of souls into the ball of cells, and it's Free Will that allows Man to sin by murdering the cells. What does God do in the event the mother-to-be is taking St John's Wort, not knowing that she is pregnant or that St John's Wort is an abortifacient? Is the mother sinning because she killed the child(ren), however unknowingly? Or does God forsee this, and not put any souls into the ball of cells, preventing the mother from unwittingly harming them? Is the mother sinning if she knows that St John's Wort is an abortifacient and has sex anyway? In law, that'd be the difference between an accident and involuntary manslaughter. Suppose the mother has the Free Will to take a drug that, if taken, will cause the ball of cells to split into twins (as an unexpected side effect), but remain a unified child if she doesn't. Does God put two souls into one ball of cells, just in case? Or does God look past her Free Will and determine the actual number of souls required? If He can see past her choice, do we really have Free Will in the first place?

What's more, each of those harvested stem cells itself has the potential to become a baby. In essence, that's what "totipotent" means: the potential to become anything. That's why embryonic stem cells are so medically important: no other stem cells are known to be totipotent. Not umbilical, not placental, none. If we're very lucky and the speculations in the article are correct, there might be totipotent stem cells in the amniotic fluid -- but each of those totipotent stem cells could still develop into a baby if you implanted it into an unoccupied womb (possibly with some coaxing). That raises questions of its own.

Does each totipotent stem cell get a soul of its own? Is each of those souls murdered when you coax the stem cell into becoming, for instance, liver tissue? Or does the liver have its own soul now? If you grow a liver from stem cells and transplant it into a patient, does the patient have two souls now? If he becomes an alcoholic and develops cirrhosis, is that murder? None of these questions are actually avoided by obtaining totipotent stem

Re:Still human ... ?

[CTachyon]

But suppose she took the time to educate herself about St John's Wort before she started taking it, and she's fully aware that it's an abortifacient. She's not in a particular hurry to get pregnant with her boyfriend/husband/whoever, so she has no problem with taking the stuff for now. However, she and her boyfriend/husband/whoever have sex on a regular basis without a condom, and she's not on the pill. She generally tries to make him wear a condom when she suspects she's fertile, but she doesn't particularly mind if they do have a baby, either, so she doesn't go for something more consistent like the Pill.

So, it's a grave matter (in your view), and it's done with full knowledge (she's educated herself about the implications). So the remaining question: does that qualify as deliberate consent? She certainly knows that watching a calendar by itself isn't 100% accurate, so she's aware that, each time she menstruates, it might be a miscarriage in disguise thanks to the St John's Wort. Taking the first two questions as answered, this would be morally equivalent to pointing a machine gun into a school cafeteria and firing at random, wouldn't it? Just because you're not aiming at the particular targets that get hit doesn't mean the act wasn't deliberate.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Hatta]

People like me equate that to an abortion

Yeah it's pretty much the same. Fortunately there's nothing wrong with abortions.

Re:Still human ... ?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources."

Frankly, YOU don't know that either. There's still a lot of scientific debate about the potential usefulness of these non-embryonic stem cells. While a lot of people on the right would like to get out of this moral dilemma by finding non-embryonic cells that are just as useful as the embryonic kind, wishing doesn't necessarily make it so.

Re:Still human ... ?

[rthille]

No, the embryo doesn't have a soul. Neither do you nor I.
And if you did, what would it matter? If the group of 8 or 32 or 128 cells that the 'eternal soul' is inhabiting is destroyed, doesn't the soul go straight to heaven (do not pass hell, do not suffer for eternity)? Talking about an eternal soul is as idiotic as someone who believes in "god having a plan for their life" looking both ways before crossing the street.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Mister Whirly]

"In my mind its similar to the "pro-life" antiabortion stance. Its not so much that they really identifies with and cares about the fetuses, but that they despise young women who can have sex with no consequences."

It's not even really that, they just want to tell people what to do because they think they know what is best for everyone.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

My comment wasn't about the existence of the soul, it's about cutting through the other ways that people describe the debate. Just a quick glance through the comments should be enough to show you that everybody has a different idea of what the debate is about. Some think it's about person-hood. Somebody else says it's about potential life. Someone else says that it's about control of the body. And on, and on, and on.

I'm just another guy pointing out what he thinks the issue is, in the simplest terms. Cutting through all the bull shows that the people against stem cell research are pretty sure that the embryo has a soul.

When they say it in other terms, they're making it a euphamism, to keep themselves from looking nutty. They're well aware of what the rest of the world thinks of them, and they know how to distract people from the real message. They're not concerned about human lives, they're concerned about human *souls*. There is a difference! Once you understand that perfectly, then you realize that it's wacky to even consider souls when you're making US laws. It's quite plainly illegal.

Just another example of how not understanding the real issue involved here can completely confuse everybody and obscure the most effective attack. Frame the issue properly. It's about souls. Use the word. It sounds wacky, and it is wacky. Use that word and the anti-stem cell people become their own worst wacky critics.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Lord Ender]

For you to take that position against embryonic stem cell research, but not to take that position against fertility clinics in general, is blatant hypocrisy.

Re:Still human ... ?

[LWATCDR]

Funny but I have a friend that believes just as you do. Yet when his wife has a miscarriage he wore back for a week and grieved.
If it wasn't a person and just tissue then why?

"Talking about an eternal soul is as idiotic as someone who believes in "god having a plan for their life" looking both ways before crossing the street."
Funny but in the bible when Jesus was being tested by Satan he was asked to throw himself from a high building. His reply was though shall not put the Lord thy God to the test.

Many religions believe that the the greatest gift from God is freewill. That doesn't mean that you are immune from your own stupidity.

It doesn't matter really. I can tell you are an open minded and rational and as such feel that anyone that disagrees with you is stupid and not worth consideration.

Re:Still human ... ?

[rthille]

I don't feel that everyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I feel that people who can't form a logically coherent argument, nor communicate clearly aren't worth wasting my limited time on.

That said, I'll waste a little time and point out that you friend probably wore 'black', not 'back', and that Jesus probably responded with something like 'thou' not 'though'.

Funny but in the bible when Jesus was being tested by Satan he was asked to throw himself from a high building. His reply was though shall not put the Lord thy God to the test.

It's also funny how religions always seem to have little caveats that make them immune from testing. I think that's why the old religions that explained the world in terms of sun and rain gods died out. The new ones are 'smarter' than that; they only make 'predictions' about things which are untestable.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Mark Maughan]

Like, I don't know, when a cell with completely unique, diploid genome is created? A cell completely different from gametes that were its origin, yet geneticaly identical (modulo non-lethal mutations) with all cells that will exist in the body of a person which will grow from this one cell?

And that has absolutely nothing to do with why I wouldn't want to die or end the life of another person.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Mark Maughan]

By your absurd logic, why not kill 4 year olds? I mean, how human can they be when their bodies haven't developed fully (they've got extra freakin' bones!), their brains haven't clicked into the next gear, etc., etc. Of course, we could extrapolate from here. Since 4 year olds are still potential human beings, really aren't all individuals who don't meet the ideal of humanity just potential human beings? Thanks for the proof.

You've basically missed my point completely. You threw down an arbitrary dividing line without any thought. I was never arguing what is essential to being able to end life ethically, but pointing out something that wasn't essential. Thus your objection would be irrelevant even if it were sound.

A 4 year old isn't simply a potential human beings, but a current human beings. A 4 year old can feel pain, pleasure, hope, and fear death. An embryo or a glimmer in my eye cannot. Your attempt at arguing that a 4 year old doesn't qualify as being a human being is what is absurd. All the absurdity of your argument rests upon that and not any fault in my thinking.

Re:Still human ... ?

[StikyPad]

to the best of my knowledge and research - *adult* stem cells are the only ones which have actually demonstrated anything useful.

Likewise, only unmanned planetary missions have been successful, and 40% of accidents involve speeding. Nevermind that 100% of planetary missions have been unmanned, 80-90% of traffic is speeding, and the majority of stem cell research has been with adult stem cells. We cannot know what we're missing if we don't look.

Re:Still human ... ?

[caenorhabditas]

I don't think we disagree at all, actually. The problem from the perspective of those opposed to ES research is:

1) Embryos are considered a separate human life, deserving of legal protection (I disagree with this, but that's the view ES research opponents take)
2) In order to get ES cells, an embryo must be destroyed
3) Therefore, current methods of ES research are immoral

The great-grandparent post came close stating (or maybe he was stating, I'm not sure) that any research on human cells was playing god and therefore immoral. He was saying that even this new method of stem cell derivation would be opposed by those who oppose ES research for that reason. I disagreed - it's the embryo destruction that's the problem, not the idea of stem cells itself. Embryos can become an individual human, amniotic stem cells are (right now) unable to.

Part of the problem might be that I study this sort of thing, so it's tough for me to tell how much is too dumbed-down and how much is insufficiently dumbed-down. The inner cell mass of a mammalian embryo, which is the part the ES cells are derived from, is the part that becomes the new individual. However, saying that ES cells can become a new individual was likely poor and unclear wording on my part.

Re:Still human ... ?

[cas2000]

I fully support stem cell research. I think it is a sin not to. The only problem people like me have with embryonic stem cell research is not the research at all, but the production of the stem cells to begin with. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells (as my feeble mind understands it), an embryo must be coaxed to divide and start to grow. At a certain point, it has to be destroyed to harvest the stem cells. It's that destruction of a growing embryo that is the problem. People like me equate that to an abortion, but it's no longer about women's choice, but experimentation and profit.

then why do nutcases with beliefs like yours have a problem with somatic cell nuclear transfer (AKA "therapeutic cloning") - which has nothing at all to do with conception, abortion, babies or even embryos...it's about taking an egg cell (human or animal), removing ALL genetic material from it, and inserting DNA from an adult patient's cells. then triggering it to start dividing and growing to produce stem cells. the stem cells are harvested long before the mass of cells could even remotely be called "embryo-like".

it's a tissue culture made for a specific patient using that specific patient's own DNA. yet loony fundamentalists are as opposed to it as they are opposed to abortion - presumably because they have no understanding of the science involved, they're just reacting against the word "cloning" in the journalistic term "therapeutic cloning".

and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources.

pure bullshit. nobody who's in favour of embryonic stem cell research thinks it should be done INSTEAD of adult stem cell research. it should be done AS WELL AS adult stem cell research, and both of them used where it makes most sense to use them. they're well aware of the existence of adult stem cells, and of the differences between adult and embryonic stem cells (the major one being that adult stem cells are not pluri-potent - i.e. unlike embryonic stem cells they are very limited in what other kinds of cells they can become. many cell types can ONLY be grown from embryonic stem cells.)

it's not the pro-research people who are ignorant, it's the anti-research people (the loony fundies). they're ignorant, they like it that way, and they intend to stay that way.

Re:Still human ... ?

[hkmwbz]

Funny but I have a friend that believes just as you do. Yet when his wife has a miscarriage he wore back for a week and grieved. If it wasn't a person and just tissue then why?

Because he wanted a child, and it saddened him that he didn't get one? Seriously, if you can't think of possible reasons, then you are an idiot. You are a brainwashed religious fool who is unable to think thoughts of your own.

Re:Still human ... ?

[LWATCDR]

Why would you wear black ?
What you don't understand is to him that miscarriage was a Child! It was his CHILD.
I am not even what most people call pro-life!
What you don't understand is that when you speak about abortion you talk about it as as fetus, or tissue. When it is yours and you show the pictures of the sonograms it is your child. That is human nature.
Some of the people that are pro-life feel that way about every fetus even when it isn't their child.
You have drunk the kool-aid not I. I am trying to explain how someone can see the world differently than you do.
Like I said you are one of the rational open minded people so you have no dobut that you are right and anyone that feels different is an idiot.

Re:Still human ... ?

[khanyisa]

Personhood is important because it is a
- legal concept in some of the relevant legal systems
- possibly (given your criticism) a commonly accepted concept
Since as you say there are different sides here its difficult to come up with common ground for the debate. It's at least important to understand how people you differ with (or should I say 'lives you differ with'?) think about and view the issues.

Now in response to your restatement of the question in terms of eternal souls:
- I would argue people have value for more reasons than just them having eternal souls, that are nonetheless distinct from 'life' as a generic concept (consciousness being one, being created by God for a significant purpose is another) - although their eternal endurance is certainly significant.
- 'eternal souls' are not inherently an illogical concept, and I can answer the question of whether embryos have eternal souls quite easily - "Yes" :-)
- I'm not sure any 'religious people' would think that science even intends to come up with answers to questions about eternal souls. Why should that be the domain of science?
- I find most atheistic models of ethics illogical. For example, if a person is just a collection of physical particles, why can't any person be destroyed if I find it convenient? Social contracts etc aren't all that convincing when you're in a bad mood :-)
- it doesn't help to disallow 'religious' people 'religious' reasons for believing things any more than it helps to disallow 'scientific' people 'scientific' reasons for believing things - at issue here is how we debate ethics and deal with ethical issues in a society with no common belief system

Hmmm a collection of thoughts, hopefully it contributes to the debate...

Re:Still human ... ?

[hkmwbz]

In other words: Leave the decision about abortion or not up to the parents, not to religious nutcases who fantasize about "souls" and crap like that.

Re:Still human ... ?

[LWATCDR]

In other words try to understand why people feel the way that they do. Instead of knowing you are right.
I make no statement about how anyone should feel about abortion. Why should you care what I think about abortion. I only ask that people try to understand each other instead of acting like rude idiots.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

- I would argue people have value for more reasons than just them having eternal souls,
that are nonetheless distinct from 'life' as a generic concept (consciousness being one, being created by God for a significant purpose is another) - although their eternal endurance is certainly significant.

The concepts you suggest are not the lowest level. The quality of having a soul still underlies your suggestions. In other words, the idea of consciousness is understood by many people to be a result of having an eternal soul which has a mystical involvement in the existence and experience people have of themselves. And being created by God is certainly implied by having a soul.

But I think the main distraction here is your proposal of people having value. The value of people is not the question here. The value of an embryo is the question, and opinions are divided on whether the embryo has the same value as a person or not.

- 'eternal souls' are not inherently an illogical concept, and I can answer the question of whether embryos have eternal souls quite easily - "Yes" :-)

I disagree with that, but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to drill down to the core of the discussion to boil it down to the simplest term. The single thing that can explain most of the points that people are disagreeing about. I still do think that what we're disagreeing about in the simplest terms is the question of whether an embryo has an eternal soul or not.

- I'm not sure any 'religious people' would think that science even intends to come up with answers to questions about eternal souls. Why should that be the domain of science?

If there are specific properties of the soul which can be measured, then science would have a means to investigate it. As it stands, there is no scientific evidence of a soul, and that, coupled with a very long history of disproven claims for invisible and non-material objects, means that many people are skeptical of the concept of a soul.

- I find most atheistic models of ethics illogical. For example, if a person is just a collection of physical particles, why can't any person be destroyed if I find it convenient? Social contracts etc aren't all that convincing when you're in a bad mood :-)

If you're talking about ethics, then I don't understand why you're having such a hard time. The answer is that society works much much better without indiscriminate killing. Proof of this is intuitive and obvious. And plentiful.

If you're talking about morality, then you should have said morality.

- it doesn't help to disallow 'religious' people 'religious' reasons for believing things any more than it helps to disallow 'scientific' people 'scientific' reasons for believing things - at issue here is how we debate ethics and deal with ethical issues in a society with no common belief system

I'll agree with that. My underlying purpose in wanting to find the root cause of the disagreement is to frame the disagreement in a way that makes my interests more appealing. Framing the disagreement in terms of an eternal soul tends to make people move towards the idea that embryos don't have an eternal soul because of the "fundamentalist factor". Most people are uncomfortable talking openly about their eternal souls, and most people are comfortable making legislation to protect eternal souls. Most people understand our nation to be a secular one, which has to stay out of religion. My method of operation is through persuasion, not through attacking anybody for pursuing their right of religious belief. I've got no quarrel with someone who doesn't believe the same thing that I believe.

I'm an honest guy, and I don't mind telling you why I'm proposing this way of thinking about the issue. But separate from my motivations, I really do think that the issue is mainly about eternal souls, and not about personhood or any similar secular concept.

Re:Still human ... ?

[Copid]

It's not the rythm method, and is based on taking the woman's basal temperature (resting temperature), and checking mucus signs. It has the highest success rate (greater than 98%) with no harmful side effects. Planned Parenthood even admits to this success rate on they website!

I suppose that's one way of measuring effectiveness, but I don't know that it's necessarily a good comparison. You're measuring effectiveness based on what is, in all likelihood, a significantly decreased number of sessions of intercourse, yes? The number of times intercourse happens (or is allowed to happen under a given birth control regime) is a number that most couples wouldn't want to disregard. One could argue that complete abstinence is 100% effective, but I wouldn't consider it viable birth control in the same sense that most other methods are.

Re:Ethic issues

[$pearhead]

The ethic issues will always remain as long as there is religion.

Re:amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

More evidence that God loves scientists: each time a religious nut tries to stop progress, He finds a way around it.

Now they can do all the stem cell research they want with no ethical problems. Can't wait 'till the religious wackos try to stop space exploration. The moment they do, God will drop inertialess drives and FTL engines right onto the physicists' laps.

The spin

[dangitman]

The cells, found in amniotic fluid, can be harvested without harm to the donor or the donor's unborn child.

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.

Re:The spin

[Dave114]

Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.

You mean like this?

Re:The spin

[loganrapp]

The donor's unborn child? An embryo is not a child.

Inputting your own perception and beliefs. But ask the average street person, they'll say it is. Or the average pregnant woman.

Sorry - I'm liberal when it comes to stem cells, too - but such questions as to the start of life and when something becomes a child are answered by individuals, not groups.

Re:The spin

[JesseJackson]

Science or not there is nothing to support the effectiveness of embryonic stem cell treatment. Embryonic stems cells don't work perfectly well. Maybe it's due to limited research potential because nobody wants to fund it but embryonic stem cells have shown little more than "promise" and "hope".

Re:The spin

[Ingolfke]

Yeah... and why don't we harvest organs and perform tests from bodies in persistent vegetative states? They're not really people anymore.

Re:The spin

[dangitman]

They do work perfectly well - for research. I never said they worked perfectly well as a treatment for anything. But they do work fine for the purposes they are being used for.

Re:The spin

[aussie_a]

If by persistent vegetative state you mean brain dead whose body would cease to function without life support, thankyou. I agree wholeheartedly with that stance.

Re:The spin

[Ingolfke]

Also... we test on pigs, they have lower brain functions then humans and can't really ever hope to be humans... maybe we should consider testing on SOME, just SOME, humans with lower brain functions. We'd give them sedatives of course... try to limit the pain and all... but is it right that healthy human beings who can go on to create a cure for cancer or write the next great novel don't have a chance because someone with lower brain functions holds the key to the life of thousands of people?

Re:The spin

[WoLpH]

The problem with embryonic stem cells is there exponential growth, without doing any effort the cells quicky duplicate so fast that it just becomes a cancer, the non-embryonic stem cells shouldn't have that problem and it should be easyer to control there growth.

Re:The spin

[aussie_a]

I'm sorry now you're moving from unborn fetuses to dead humans to sentient beings. I was with you with the first two, but the last I must disagree on. I also object to tests done on apes as I do believe most, if not all of the great apes, are sentient.

Re:The spin

[mathi]

An embryo needs to be fertilised before it even has the chance of becoming a child.

Please don't talk about things you don't know anything about.

Re:The spin

[Dausha]

"An embryo is not a child."

You're being conclusory. Left to its own devices it its natural environment, a child usually results. Or, at least it has done so billions of times before. Show me another way a child results---a diamond left behind a head of cabbage? You assert an embryo is not a child because it supports your own moral preference. I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child. Even if an embryo is not a child (yet), then protecting its interests until it is a child is preferable to subverting its interests for somebody else's selfish indulgence (whether it be the extension of that else's life or lifestyle).

If we were talking slavery, I think you would be opposed to subjugating an entire class of people for the selfish indulgence of another. Why is harvesting embryos any different?

Re:The spin

[Ingolfke]

So, what if we made them unsentient first. You know drug them up or make them brain dead?

Why are you placing a higher value on beings with lower capabilities and prospects then other beings? It seems like you have some sort of personal norm that is keeping you from accepting the fact that we should use the weak to make the strong stronger? Right? I mean... fetuses can't feel anything and it doesn't really matter that they're life and will soon be sentient, if we take that away from them then it's ok... and is there really anything wrong with determining a point when someone should be dead, but keep their body alive for tests and stuff? Even so, even if something is sentient, isn't the potential good of many people worth more than the individual value of a single thing?

Re:The spin

[loganrapp]

Frankly, I call BS. Have you done a poll to determine this?

Yeah. It's called "opening my fucking eyes." You should look it up. Get outside of your basement and go speak with people who don't hang out in Starbucks. You don't have to like it, but the reality is that if embryotic stem cells weren't considered a child, it would be widespread and paid for already, with Congress easily overridding Bush.

Again, I am for doing this. But I also don't sit around and wonder why it isn't happening. It's not that hard to figure out, and has nothing to do with a few politicians.

Re:The spin

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

So, what if we made them unsentient first. You know drug them up or make them brain dead?

For almost all brain dead people on life support, no one set out to "make them brain dead". Something happended, wither an accident or other event, the result of which is that person is now a vegetable on life support.

The only reason this person is alive is that in this case modern medicine is too efficient and in addition to being able to keep a person alive, it is now able to keep a dead persons body animated. Truely brain dead people are not alive anymore. They are little above an animated corpse, with breathing machines instead of puppet strings. I for one wouldn't want my corpse to be treated in this way.

Re:The spin

[Ingolfke]

I agree. We shouldn't be testing on any form of human life without their willing consent. I was stretching out a facicious argument far too long...

It would however make for great science fiction if in the future when AI and robotics were more advanced if we kept our celebrities alive using organ transplants, and a robotic shell. That way future generations could enjoy Paris Hilton as much as we do today :)

Re:The spin

[aussie_a]

Sounds like you're against abortion. Try outlawing abortion instead of outlawing stem cell research using aborted fetuses. You'll stop what you're really trying to stop.

Re:The spin

[Oddscurity]

Indeed, Embryo = Fertilised Egg, last I was taught biology.

Re:The spin

[dangitman]

You don't have to like it, but the reality is that if embryotic stem cells weren't considered a child, it would be widespread and paid for already, with Congress easily overridding Bush.

I doubt it. A vocal religious minority with strong ties to the government does not make a majority. If most people really believed that strongly about it, abortion would be illegal by now. The thing is that most people don't have strong opinions about stem cell research, as it doesn't really affect them. So, a vocal minority can easily sway the issue. However, abortion affects a lot more people, and most don't want that right taken away from them.

Re:The spin

[smoker2]

No, it's not a belief, it's a fact. An embryo needs to be fertilised before it even has the chance of becoming a child. But even a fertilised embryo is not a child.

An embryo is a fertilised egg. So by definition, it does not need to be fertilised.

An embryo has the capability to develop into a viable child, but even that is not guaranteed.

Does the average person also believe that a woman is "killing babies" when she menstruates? I don't think so.

Mainly because menstruation is the bodys way of expelling unfertilised eggs !

It's a good thing you don't have to be a scientist to procreate, otherwise you wouldn't exist.

Re:The spin

[dangitman]

You're being conclusory. Left to its own devices it its natural environment, a child usually results.

I'm being factual. The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child. It's an embryo. It doesn't matter if it might later become a child.

You assert an embryo is not a child because it supports your own moral preference.

No, I'm saying that because an embryo is not a child.

I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child.

That doesn't even make any sense. Is water human because it supports life, and the best interests of humans?

Even if an embryo is not a child (yet), then protecting its interests until it is a child is preferable to subverting its interests for somebody else's selfish indulgence

What if the child that comes from the embryo was to have a miserable life? Wouldn't it be selfish to keep the embryo alive, when you could prevent the suffering of a child by disposing of it?

If we were talking slavery, I think you would be opposed to subjugating an entire class of people for the selfish indulgence of another. Why is harvesting embryos any different?

Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle. And it's nothing like slavery, as an embryo is not a sentient individual that can survive outside of the womb.

You also ignore the fact that the embryos used for research would not become children anyway. They either come from abortions, or cells used in IVF labs.

Re:The spin

[Darth Daver]

"Embryonic stem cells work perfectly well, and are usually considered more effective than non-embryonic cells."

    That is not true. Non-embryonic stem cells have been used successfully for years to cure various conditions. No one has ever cured anything with embryonic stem cells. In fact, embryonic stem cells cause monster tumors.

    The argument usually goes that scientists _hope_ embryonic stem cells will prove more effective than non-embryonic ones, and "we won't know until we try". These scientists also like to distinguish blastocysts from embryos or fetuses, which seems like a valid distinction. Then I heard one of these geniuses slip up in a Science Friday interview. He said that these stem cells were mostly harvested from pregnancies terminated for personal reasons. Nope, no concern about harvesting human lives for the benefit of the selfish there.

    The notorious lack of results with embryonic stem cells causes cynics to believe some scientists are just trying to squeeze tax money out of the government to fund their unsuccessful research. After all, embryonic stem cell research was not outlawed by the Bush administration, contrary to what Slashbots pronounced. He was actually the first President to provide any government funding. He just put limits on it. If embryonic stem cell research was so successful, why aren't private investors leaping to fund it?

    Sorry, just wanted to clear up your spin. Insightful? Riiiiight.

Re:The spin

[cnettel]

Left to its own devices in a natural environment, it's actually a quite hard question to answer if a majority of fertilised human eggs develop into born children. Quite a lot fail to even integrate into the wall of uterus, and a lot will also cause a spontaenous abortion within the first few weeks. The exact numbers are hard to get at, but if all those cell bundles are to be considered human beings, we have a death toll that makes just about anything else seem like a joke.

If the vast majority did in fact result in a child if unattended, then your argument would make more sense. Having an embryo, in a uterus, is a necessary but far from sufficient condition to get a child within a few months, even with the mother kept alive and (overall) healthy.

Re:The spin

[magicalyak]

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.

An embryo is a human being and that's really the concern, you are arguing semantics here. The difference between embryonic stem cells and amniotic stem cells is that the latter do not kill the donor (the embryo). You don't kill anything. This has the positive effect of advancing research without protest from those who object to a human being destroyed (probably the biggest roadblock to embryonic stem cell research).

Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.

You do, they stand in front of Planned Parenthood and clinics that offer not only abortions but fertility treatments. The Catholic Church has stated more than once that IVF and other fertility treatments are wrong.

Re:The spin

[caudron]

I can't speak for others, but I am against embryonic stem cell research and I'm also against IVF. For a more nuanced version of my position, you can read this slashdot thread where it was discussed in depth. As a side note, the thread was remarkably polite and insightful for all sides, I think. We all got something from it. It's one of those threads that reminds you how cool slashdot can be. :)

Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/

Re:The spin

[Nappa48]

You should then ask those same people about using condoms and masturbation as well.
Oh the hypocrisy you will see when you ask them that!
Some people just need shot...srsly.

Re:The spin

[FlyingCowOfdoom]

Actually, most of the people that are against embryonic stem cell research also oppose abortion, IVF, and other procedures that destroy embryos (because the embryo is considered to be alive). I'm thrilled to see this development because the subject is a big moral dilemma for me. I don't approve of the destruction of embryos, but I recognize the amazing scientific potential stem cells hold. Perhaps this is the solution to that dilemma.

Re:The spin

[oni]

An embryo needs to be fertilised before it even has the chance of becoming a child.

LOL! You're a moron! You don't have a clue what you're talking about! I bet you made fun of that guy who said the internet is a series of tubes, didn't you. Well, how does it feel to eat crow?

Re:The spin

[oni]

I would also like to point out that people who are against embryonic stem cell research have a vision in their head of an 8.5 month old fetus being chopped up for spare parts. Meanwhile, the people who are for embryonic stem cell research have a vision in their head of basically a blastisist (sp?) with 100 or 200 cells at most that isn't even visible without a microscope.

People aren't even talking about the same things. That's one of the reasons for all the anger. If I'm thinking about a microscopic lump of cells, then of course I think you must be an idiot for calling that a person. On the other hand, if I'm thinking of a fetus with fingers and toes and a heartbeat, then of course I'll see you as a monster for wanting to chop it up.

There are extremists on BOTH sides (yes, both sides) who think even killing sperm is murder, or even killing an 8.5 month old fetus is not murder. Those people are the extremes though. Most people are reasonable. The anger is just because we're talking about different things.

Re:The spin

[theStorminMormon]

I'm being factual. The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child. It's an embryo. It doesn't matter if it might later become a child.

I don't know why people take arguments from definition seriously. A word is just a sound that we've agreed has a certain fuzzy, non-specific meaning. Unless we're talking a specific scientific definition, than the fact is that there is no "dictionary in the sky" you can resort to that has it written down "child, definition: ... not an embryo". In order for this argument about definitions to have to have traction you have to do something more than just refer to a definition. Even if you refer to the OED all you've done is say "most people think it means x". Usually we're more interested in knowing what people should think something means, not what they already think it means.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the strategy that you found "didn't make any sense".

Here's the argument:

I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child.

The argument is plainly not "that which supports x is x" (which is what you took it to be). The argument is simply "I think we should call an embryo a child because this course of action supports life and the bests interests of the child. Other than the glaring flaw of question-begging (calling something a child because it supports the best interests of the child means you've assumed it's a child before you defined it as a child. Oops.) it's an interesting and compelling argument for why we should define something a certain way. It's a pragmatic, not ontological, argument.

And really, this is the only kind of argument that makes sense. There's simply no way to find out what a word really means. It means what we say it means. Appealing to the definition of a word (again, unless the argument is about usage) is non-sensical. It makes much more sense to argue for why the definition should be a certain way because, among other reasons, that demonstrates that you've grasped the fact that definitions are subjective and not objective.

-stormin

Re:The spin

[rohan972]

The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child.

pregnant: -adjective
1. having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.

You are using neither the dictionary definition nor historical common use of the word. You are using a narrowly defined meaning which has the only purpose of justifying the killing of embryos.

Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle.

What scientific method did you use to determine the motives of parents? What was the size of the sample used in the research? What peer reviewed journal is this study published in?

Re:The spin

[driddle]

Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.

People that are against embryonic stem cell research are also against IVF. The Catholic Church is firmly against such things as am I. I not sure about protests but people are against it. Here are some quotes from Donum Vitae on the matter.

Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological material."

In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin fission." By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenseless human beings.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part1.htm


Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person."[50]

These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called "simple case," i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it.

Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children. Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm

Re:The spin

[Coward the Anonymous]

Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle. And it's nothing like slavery, as an embryo is not a sentient individual that can survive outside of the womb.

Yes, because waking up 6 times a night to feed a screaming baby suits my ego and lifestyle.

Re:The spin

[hamelis]

A friend of mine is currently living in Fiji. She related a story to me where the daughter in law of the chief (the chief is a woman) decided she didn't want to have more children, and asked the American doctor for birth control.

"Likewise, birth control is clearly prohibited here. And yet the wife of one of the Chief's sons, after already bearing eight children, secretly asked the American doctor I am staying here with for birth control. The doctor gave it to her. And then yesterday, this woman showed up at our home late at night, one eye swollen shut, her cheekbone protruding at an unnatural angle, her back criss-crossed with welts. Her husband had found the pills, and had beaten her savagely."

This is not an anomaly, this is the real world, where a large majority of births are occurring.

Do some sociological research, or, if you want to be a little more scared by the results, look at demographic economics (I suggest the work of Amartya Sen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen and Partha Dasgupta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partha_Dasgupta for starters.) There is a substantial body of literature specifically linking cultural norms for children to fertility rates. Parents do have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyles, especially in third-world countries where fertility rates are the highest. There is some difference due to availability of birth control, but studies of variance across cultures, controlling for the availability of contraception, still find culture to have a substantial and statistically significant impact on total fertility rates.

With the availability of highly effective birth control, the decision whether or not to have children has obviously become just that, a decision, and even in areas without access to birth control, TFR is strongly influenced by cultural norms. So to suggest that parental motives have nothing to do with the decision to have children (and the total number of children) is inaccurate, and yes, it has been shown in numerous studies. I'm unfortunately not at home or I'd dig up some bibliographies for you.

Re:The spin

[rohan972]

So to suggest that parental motives have nothing to do with the decision to have children (and the total number of children) is inaccurate

I didn't suggest any such thing. dangitman made a specific claim, ie:
Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle.

Of course parents have motives. Duh! I asked if dangitman could verify his claim that having children is "most often a selfish indulgence of the parents." What percentage of parents make the decision selfishly? How was it determined that the reason was to satisfy their egos? Cultural norms do not necessarily mean selfish indulgence. Your post, while accurate, misses the point I was making, which is to say the dangitman was posting opinion as fact.

Re:The spin

[dangitman]

Then what's the point?

Research. Furthering of humanity. Finding treatments that do work.

The whole issue seems to center on finding something so that Michael J. Fox can stop twitching and get back to work making us all laugh. If embryonic stem cells don't work as a treatment for that, then what's the point?

Michael J. Fox and millions of others. What's the point? Advanced medicine and science doesn't just happen overnight. If we don't do the research, then we may never find cures or treatments. Humans would still be in the stone age with that kind of additude.

It seems that with your Michael J Fox crack, you have more respect for a bunch of non-sentient cells, than you have for a human adult. Sadly, this is often the case among the "pro life" people. They insist that people have more babies, and abortions be banned - but after the child is born, lose all respect for that life, treating actual children and adults like crap.

Re:The spin

[dangitman]

Miserable according to the child. Many people commit suicide or wish they were never born. And it's not the basis of my argument, it's just a philosophical question to get peoiple thinking a bit, instead of all the knees jerking.

Re:The spin

[dangitman]

I don't know why people take arguments from definition seriously. A word is just a sound that we've agreed has a certain fuzzy, non-specific meaning. Unless we're talking a specific scientific definition, than the fact is that there is no "dictionary in the sky"

I wish that so much of the argument did not revolve around that. But we need to get terminology straight before we can get down to the real argument. I was just rebutting the argument as put forth by anti-stem-cell proponents. They seem to think it is pretty important to call the embryo a child. Why do you think this is? Could it perhaps be that "child" is a more emotional word, one which people relate to in their lives more than embryo?

And really, this is the only kind of argument that makes sense. There's simply no way to find out what a word really means. It means what we say it means. Appealing to the definition of a word (again, unless the argument is about usage) is non-sensical.

But you're contradicting yourself here. You say we should argue definitions - but then you applaud the above argument, which appeals to the definition of a word on emotional and propaganda grounds. I'm finding your praise of it to be rather cryptic. I don't see what's so interesting or compelling about blatant emotional appeals.

The argument is plainly not "that which supports x is x" (which is what you took it to be).

Further, why is this not plain? If someone calls an embryo (not X) a child (X), they are clearly turning "that which supports X" into "X" - how can they not be, even if they don't mean it that way?

Re:The spin

[hkmwbz]

A damaged human is still a human. If you see a car wreck, you still recognize it as a car. But if you see parts on an assembly line, you realize that it is not yet a car. It might become one (that is not certain at all), but it is not and never was a car.

However, if you drive your car into a tree or blow the engine, it's still a car. It was once a car, and it is still recognizable as one.

Re:The spin

[Ingolfke]

So you're right that individual sperm and invidual eggs don't have unique human value. They're just "the parts". But...

When a human sperm and a human egg join and begin reproducing you have a unique human life. It is unique in that it has its own unique DNA structure different than its parents, it reproduces itself, and it is genetically human. This sounds like a unique human life.

Re:The spin

[theStorminMormon]

They seem to think it is pretty important to call the embryo a child. Why do you think this is? Could it perhaps be that "child" is a more emotional word, one which people relate to in their lives more than embryo?

As in the larger abortion debate, both sides have their preferential terminology. If you can dictate the terminology than you can dictate the terrain to your advantage. Thus you have the "pro-choice" side talking about the "products of conception" while the "pro-life" side talks about the "child".

In this case there is a technical term that is most appropriate: embryo. Insisting on application of a technical term in a moral argument is not necessarily correct, however. If we were discussing the holocaust and I continuously referred to the Jews as "homo sapiens" you would be quite right to insist on calling them "people". Despite the fact that "homo sapiens" (or any other technical term) is quite unambigiously technically correct, it's technical nature may mask the moral question that should take precedent.

The only way to decide whether the technical term or some more emotive term is more correct is to solve the argument. Thus there's no way to apply an unbiased terminology to this argument before it is solved. Anyone that claims to be doing so is engaging in hypocrisy for the simple reason that there is no alternative (and thus they do are using biased terminology whether they mean to or not).

But you're contradicting yourself here. You say we should argue definitions - but then you applaud the above argument, which appeals to the definition of a word on emotional and propaganda grounds. I'm finding your praise of it to be rather cryptic. I don't see what's so interesting or compelling about blatant emotional appeals.

I can only try to explain better what I have already said. An argument from definition is essentially an appeal to authority. You say "but the OED says X means Y and therefor..." The problem is the same as the problem with all appeals to authority. Keep in mind that an argument from definition rests on some pre-existing definition. It never argues what a definition should be, it relies on claiming what a definition already means.

Contrast this with the actual argument. As opposed to relying on some authority to provide a definition for child, the poster actually created an argument for what our definition should be. This makes it emphatically not a definition from argument, but an argument for definition. I don't think it was a very persuasive argument (for reasons already enumerated) but it was refreshingly different from an argument from definition.

An argument from definition is structurally flawed. It will never work. An argument for definition is not structurally flawed. It could work. That's why I liked the argument. Even though it didn't actually succeed, it was on the right track.

Further, why is this not plain? If someone calls an embryo (not X) a child (X), they are clearly turning "that which supports X" into "X" - how can they not be, even if they don't mean it that way?

Firstly, your "X vs not X" dichotomy of embryo vs. child is entirely unwarranted. There's no rule in the English language that a concept can have only one corresponding word. The opposite is true. An embryo could reasonably be both embryo and child - especially because child is such a generic word. An infant is also a child, a newborn is also a child. So let's dispose of this assumption immediately.

As to your misunderstanding of the argument it's a simple question of determining the object of a pronoun. This is the argument as originally stated:

"I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child."

You think "it" refers to "an embryo". I find this rather silly. I think "it" refers to "I assert an embryo is a child". In other words, it is the assertion of the status of embryo as child that supports life and is in the best inte

Re:The spin

[hkmwbz]

A fetus is not an human. It is simply a potential human.

Re:The spin

[Ingolfke]

Why? What do you define as "human" and how do you justify that definition?

Re:Ethic issues

[dangitman]

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.

Re:Ethic issues

[$pearhead]

shouldn't

That's the key word...

Re:Ethic issues

[smallfries]

The ethic issues remain: can a foetus be taken in consideration separately from his/her amiotic fluid and umbilical cord? Well, once one is born and the other is on the delivery room floor I'd say that they can be taken separately...

Re:amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

As an agnostic and former embryo, I'm very pleased with this news. It's a human rights issue for many - not just Christians.

Viability?

[TubeSteak]

Are these new stems cells viable and useful now?
After I RTFA, the answer is no.

"However, the scientists noted they still don't know exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. They also said that even preliminary tests in patients are years away."

Or we can keep putting money into embryonic stem cells which have already resulted in _proven therapies that work_

Re:Viability?

[will_die]

embryonic stem cells which have already resulted in _proven therapies that work_
And thoses would be???? Please name two, here I will make it easy name one.

Since the original poster will never be back the list of proven embryonic stem cell therapies is none. The truth about embryonic stem cell was that since it contained a large amount of possibilities venture capitalists invest huge amounts of money and have shown no possible pay back any time soon, so they started pushing to have the government put more money after it. When that failed they started doing a bunch of press releases about the potential capability and got some state governments and other individual to buy in. You are starting to see less about embryonic stem cells because the major venture capitalists have sold out after they did thier pump and have no need to spend the money on PR any more.

Re:Viability?

[savorymedia]

Or we can keep putting money into embryonic stem cells which have already resulted in _proven therapies that work_

Really? Do you have links? The only proven results I've seen have been from ADULT stem cells...although I'll admit that I haven't kept up with the most recent results.

Re:Viability?

[Down_in_the_Park]

You are starting to see less about embryonic stem cells because the major venture capitalists have sold out after they did thier pump and have no need to spend the money on PR any more. Maybe some scientist were a bit loud and of course some companys too. But that doesn't change the fact, that there is active research goin on and a lot of groups around the world are actively characterising and working with stem cells right now. There is always basic or fundamental research going on before applied science jumps in. And you want to have everything double checked before you work with humans and particulary with human therapy.

At which time there will be organs or tissue from human stem cells (adult, embryonic, your own or from a donor) I don't know, but you can be rest assured; this will happen.

Re:Ethic issues

[timmarhy]

your right, please don't use any form of the bible as a moral compass, it advocates hate and intolerance.

Questions to both sides of the argument

[pandrijeczko]

To the pro-stem cell researchers:

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...

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[warm sushi]

"Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid?"

Yes. Get over it. A bunch of total strangers are already staring at her distended vagina.

"Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from stem cell research?"

Yes. I'm not a self centred insecure inhuman religious fuckwit.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[caenorhabditas]

Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid? Absolutely, if she wants to (because she's the person who should be doing the deciding, anyway). Amniocentecis is a routine procedure, a friend of mine had one done just the other week. The OB/GYN department likely performs several every day. Besides, it's unlikely that it'll do her any good after she gives birth anyway, it'll probably just be soaked up and tossed in the medical waste bin.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[Ingolfke]

Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from stem cell research?

Treatment derived from stem cells isn't the issue... that's why the debate has been about using different types of stem cells and whether or not they could be used as successfully in research.

Here's a question...

Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, and hideously painful, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from the extraction of organs from a living person in a permanently vegetative state?

What if your daughter was in a permanently vegetative state?

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[aussie_a]

Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid? Sure but then I'd be having a serious talk with this daughter and find out why and how she got pregnant at 7 years of age, the oldest possible age she could be, and then I'd talk with the mother to find out why I was never told I had a daughter.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[RancidMilk]

Well, while I am not an expert on stem cells, I do know that women have a limited number of eggs. You make emryotic stemcells legal, and you will have a massive number of girls in college giving up their future babies for a few bucks. Which if you have ever met a girl that has had an abortion, you know that it messes them up mentally and sometimes physically. Take my Aunt, she died during an abortion. So, while I can't answer the question of whether the stem cells can fix people beyond a shadow of a doubt, I know that it can kill people. So sticking to these safer alternatives to get stem cells is a great idea.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[burner]

What does embryonic stem cell research have to do with your aunt's abortion?

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[halivar]

Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from stem cell research?

Yes, because there is a well-nigh 100% certainty that cure came form adult stem-cell research, not embryonic. So far the only actual cures provided by stem-cell research are from adult stem-cells. Note that this is not because embryonic stem-cell research is illegal or somehow hard to fund. America spends more money on embryonic stem-cell reasearch than anywhere else in the world. It just doesn't work as well.

Why do people just ignore or hand-wave away adult stem-cell research? There are real miracles, happening today, through adult stem-cells; and yet it's embryonic stem-cells that get the spot-light in scientific circles. Adult stem-cell research gets the federal funding, and for good reason.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[Eccles]

Why do people just ignore or hand-wave away adult stem-cell research?

I don't, I just want both.

Non-embryonic stem cells are pre-programmed to do something useful. Thus it's relatively easy to get them to do that something. Embryonic stem cells are like a computer without a program. It'll take a lot of work to get them to do useful things, but they'll be capable of doing just about anything.

I expect at some point we'll figure out how to "erase the programming" of non-embryonic stem cells and make them also capable of doing anything, and won't need embryonic ones. Presumably the best cells are gotten from the patient (due to lack of rejection), so a method of generating pluripotent stem cells from the patient's tissues is one ultimate goal.

But to get there, we need to do research, and researchers will achieve the most if they can choose the research paths they think will yield the most useful results. Thus some want to do embryonic stem cell research now, rather than waiting until someone can come up with another method of creating them.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[marklar1]

RISK OF AMNIOCENTESIS:

Historically attributed to be ~ 0.5% (I remember 1% from classes).

Recently downgraded in studies published in JAMA, and Obstetrics & Gynecology.

It is routinely done, particularly in older women and other higher risk pregnancies.

The Journals mentioned above are not linkable here, but many news organizations reported on their finding.

-------

A lot of people here need to do some reading in Biology. Basic definitions of life/living, cellular reproduction, the differences between a zygote and a stem cell have been so badly butchered there isn't enough time to respond...

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[marklar1]

aahhh, forgot the updated stats:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546975

"The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers included Keith Eddleman, MD, of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

The women were offered amniocentesis, in which doctors insert a thin needle through the belly to get a small sample of amniotic fluid, which surrounds the baby in the womb.

The test is used to check the baby's risk for genetic conditions such as Down syndrome.

Most of the women -- nearly 32,000 -- declined amniocentesis. About 3,000 got amniocentesis.

About 1% of the women in both groups miscarried before 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The amniocentesis-related miscarriage rate by 24 weeks of pregnancy was 0.06%, or about one in 1,600 pregnancies studied.

That's lower than the rate of 0.5%, or about one in 200 pregnancies, from studies done in the 1970s, before current amniocentesis techniques were in place, the researchers note.

Eddleman commented on the study in a Mount Sinai School of Medicine news release."

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[chrwei]

Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid?
The better question would be "would you allow yourself or your pregnant wife...". I would hope that if/when my daughter becomes pregnant that she's old and healthy enough that my permission would be totaly irrelevant. Assuming the pregnancy is going well, I would certainly consider donating a bit of amniotic fluid, in the same way that I would donate blood or bone marrow. Saving a life is saving a life, and if it causes me and my family no harm then why shouldn't I?

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[Politburo]

The answer to both is: Whatever she wants.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[Hatta]

Which if you have ever met a girl that has had an abortion, you know that it messes them up mentally

Chicks are already messed up mentally, don't go blaming abortions on that. And for what it's worth my present girlfriend has had an abortion and she's as sane as they come. Which admittedly is not that sane, but still should she get pregnant she'd still want to have another abortion. It's just anecdotal evidence but it seems to me that it's not the abortion that fucks you up, it's the attitude (i.e. religious guilt) that fucks you up.

Also consider this:

"If you have ever met a girl that has had a child, you know that it messes them up mentally and physically"

You know it's true.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[Hatta]

Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid?

Of course. In fact I think it would be immoral not to.

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.

What knowledge do you need to have? All you really need to know is that embryos don't have brains, and brains are what make people people. The rest follows logically.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[rthille]

One of the best slashdot posts I've read.

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[Mal-2]

Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid?

Yes, especially if some of it was set aside for the benefit of her own child in later years. Of course it would matter how much needs to be taken and how much of a risk this poses to both mother and embryo (I would guess by the time you get to "fetus" it's too late).

No matter what these cells turn out to be good for, it stands to reason that the person for whom they would do the most good is the person they match precisely -- the one that created them in the first place. So I say: Sample safely but save some for my grandkid!

Mal-2

Re:Questions to both sides of the argument

[Copid]

Well, while I am not an expert on stem cells, I do know that women have a limited number of eggs.

That number is *a lot* given that you only burn through a handful a year.

You make emryotic stemcells legal, and you will have a massive number of girls in college giving up their future babies for a few bucks.

I have a little more faith in the intelligence of the average college student and the ethics of the medical industry than that. Do you really think that the medical industry is going to start taking egg donations in such a way that they'd make people infertile? Seriously?

Which if you have ever met a girl that has had an abortion, you know that it messes them up mentally and sometimes physically.

That's kind of a gross generalization. Have you looked at the statistics on exactly how many people have had abortions?

Take my Aunt, she died during an abortion. So, while I can't answer the question of whether the stem cells can fix people beyond a shadow of a doubt, I know that it can kill people.

I'm sorry to hear that. You can die during just about any nontrivial medical procedure, though. What percentage of people die during this particular procedure when it's done by a properly trained and licensed doctor?

So sticking to these safer alternatives to get stem cells is a great idea.

I'm all for safe alternatives to anything dangerous, as long as those alternatives provide the same benefit (or the original thing was unnecessarily dangerous). I just don't think that the sky is falling just yet.

Re:the more important question is....

[sam_champion]

Because, unfortunately, a lot of those "nutcases" still hold a great deal of sway - if by sheer number alone. Politicians must play to the masses, and if the politicians are coerced or pressured into passing a ban because of the opinion of the masses, the scientists that did not tippy-toe around the issue to begin with are screwed. Progress has always been hindered by the masses if they feel it is unethical or sacreligious - regardless of the religion or ethics involved.

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

We that really depends upon what makes you human. I wouldn't say that an embryo is human in any sense that it's worth caring about.

Re:amazing

[lbbros]

Why the attack on religion? Some ethic considerations may be not only religious in nature, but also philosophical. This involves the beginning of life itself, so I wouldn't classify the matter in such simply (and I dare say "propagandistic") terms. (A religious scientist who used to work in the stem cell research)

Re:Ethic issues

[rbanffy]

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)

Re:Ethic issues

[Ingolfke]

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.

Without harm...

[mikehunt]

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.

Re:Without harm...

[foniksonik]

And how many embryonic cells do you think they get in a typical procedure? Article in new scientist says these cells replicate quickly so a few (probably hundreds if not thousands) would become a good supply in short order.

Re:amazing

[PopeRatzo]

"Why the attack on religion?"

Haven't you noticed that about 95% (I didn't make that number up) of the war in the world currently is caused because of religion? I'm all for Faith, but there's way too much religiopathy today. Time to dial it back a bit.

Re:Ethic issues

[HaggiZ]

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.

Re:Ethic issues

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The ethic issues remain: can a foetus be taken in consideration separately from his/her amiotic fluid and umbilical cord?

If someone from the hospital where you were born arrived at your doorstep tomorrow and handed you your aminotic fluid, umbiical cord and placenta, would you

a) Thank them for their considerable trouble
b) Have them arrested
c) Bin the items as quickly as possible

Or any combination of the above?

There are people who eat placentas. They mince it and cook it in a lasange. Should we convict them of cannibalism?

Abortions

[246o1]

Taking some amniotic fluid will probably cause a slight increase of the risk to the mother or the fetus. There's a very, very easy way around this: harvest stem cells only in the case of abortions. Whether from the fetus or the amniotic fluid, it's just going to be biowaste anyway.

Regardless of your feelings on abortion, why should it bother anyone for stem cells to be retrieved from aborted fetuses? They are already going to be aborted, we just ought to get stem cells out of it so that we can help more people who are alive.

Would this not solve the problem immediately? If not, why the hell not? Perhaps the stem cells available at the stage in pregnancy when it can be detected (and thus, aborted) are of a lower quality than those from frozen embryos of only a cell or three?

Re:Abortions

[Ingolfke]

harvest stem cells only in the case of abortions. Whether from the fetus or the amniotic fluid, it's just going to be biowaste anyway.

Hell and considering how rare viable stem cells are I can see a great business opportunity hear... start baby farming. Get pregnant, abort the little bastard, and get paid for the stem cells. Hells yes... where's my ho.

Re:the more important question is....

[Ingolfke]

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?

Re:Ethic issues

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> The required action is not sampling (also known as amniocentesis), but rather draining the whole amount of fluid out of the uterus.

That is simply not the case. From TFA which you clearly didn't read:

They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus...

Nice troll, though. I'll expect to be hearing this kind of ignorant FUD from Pat Robertson Real Soon Now(tm).

Backward and Forward

[Hic sunt leones]

In a society that *does* permit pregnancy termination of up to 3 months, it is completely demented that it *won't* permit abortions which would result in somebody else's life being improved or even saved!

I am not very well informed on this matter, but it just seems so backward to me...

A great advancement in science, nonetheless. At least we go forward in some way.

Re:Backward and Forward

[Ingolfke]

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.

Re:Backward and Forward

[SPBesui]

That's a common misconception. Roe v. Wade did not, in fact, limit abortion to the first trimester. It put absolutely no limits on it whatsoever.

Re:Backward and Forward

[Hic sunt leones]

Yes, of course, but what I was getting at is how ridiculous it is for a whole society to listen to those opposed on one issue, but not the other. The problem with stem cell research is that, legally, it is very hard to represent, since many laws that may apply clash.

Re:amazing

[Gryle]

With respect, I'd data to verify that number please. I'd argue that much of the world's war is caused by human greed, with religion being the pretext and/or justification for the war. That doesn't make religion responsible, it makes it an excuse for war.

Re:Ethic issues

[dangitman]

I can be an atheist and still think abortion is fundamentally wrong

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.

Re:amazing

[Gryle]

Apologies, that should read "I'd like data to verify."

Re:Ethic issues

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Ah, the irony of your sig...

Re:amazing

[N8F8]

I agree. We should use the elderly and convicted felons as guinea pigs too.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Carewolf]

No. Just no.

There is no scientific definition of when human life starts. Such an idea will always be religious or philosophical.

In that sense the "secular" definition of when human life starts, are the limits we make for legal abortion. Something like 20 weeks.

Re:amazing

[louzerr]

Just think how many cures we could discover if we started experimenting on illegal aliens ... oh wait, that 2000 year-old heretic (and the 3000 year-old prophets he followed) had something against that, too.

It's amazing how people will believe in Miracles if there's a billion-dollar company behind it ... but not some poor Palestinian carpenter.

Re:amazing

[saboola]

Faith is a scapegoat. Man has a natural propensity to want to destroy each other, if it was not for faith then it would be for something else.

Harvested without harm???

[advocate_one]

woah boys and girls and other non-determined gender orientations... I'm afraid there is a small but significant risk of harm to the mother and/or the unborn child when you take samples of amniotic fluid... too risky? not my call... but there is a risk.

Re:Harvested without harm???

[smoker2]

I'm afraid there is a small but significant risk of harm to the mother and/or the unborn child when you take samples of amniotic fluid... too risky? not my call... but there is a risk.

Life is a risk.

If women are already undergoing amniocentesis, then the risk has already been taken, so why not get extra value from the resulting fluid ?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the fluid is harvested on industrial scales.

Re:Harvested without harm???

[YetAnotherBob]

Amniocentesis, a common procedure used to determine sex doesn't seem to terminate a lot of pregnancies, why should this? its just a different use after you remove the fluid. You only need one cell to start a line. Stem cells will reproduce indefinitly under the proper conditions. I think your concerns are unfounded. There are other valid concerns, though. That's why it's still an experimental procedure, not a standard practice. End result, more research is needed.

Ha-ha, but . . .

[246o1]

As long as the doctors keep all the money from the stem cells (as if it would be any other way), there will be no new incentive for women to get pregnant, and those same doctors already have a financial incentive to increase the number of abortions, so it's not like any NEW ethical dilemmas are likely

Re:Ha-ha, but . . .

[hamelis]

once embryos are more than a few days old (or less, I'm a bit rusty) cells are too differentiated to be used as embryonic stem cells, so this (somewhat facetious?) idea isn't viable, unless you meant that doctors could collect the stem cells found in the amniotic fluid without any increased risk (since miscarriage is obviously no longer a concern).

Re:Ha-ha, but . . .

[246o1]

Well, the amniotic fluid is my main meaning, but it seems possible to me that there could be some viable stem cells in the actual fetus at that point, mainly because I have faith in science and I imagine that not too many people have gotten grants to study aborted fetuses to check.

Re:amazing

[aussie_a]

And will get tossed in the bin. Oh yes, so much better to toss them away unused.

Re:Ethic issues

[Down_in_the_Park]

It's quite hard to extract relevant amounts of stem cells from few drops of fluid.
Unless you just need a cell or two, I would say you need to drain much more that few drops. Not really, there are 10 to 1000 cells per ul (microliter) of amniotic fluid and if you take 100 ul, you have already a significant amount, as they do grow (become more), when you cultivate them under proper conditions

Re:amazing

[savorymedia]

Considering that all of the current advances that have been made in the field have been made with adult stem cells, despite all of the research directed towards embryonic stem cells (not just in the US...mainly in Europe and elsewhere), it's really amazing that everyone is in a huff over embryonic stem cells. Put the money where they results are.

Re:Liar

[ChetOS.net]

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.

Re:Liar

[Blappo]

I took issue with the statement "It is a scientific fact"

I am not even a little interested in the philosophical debate you attempted to start. I am very much interested in denouncing zealots who toss about statements like "it is a scientific fact" when it is clearly not.

Re:Ethic issues

[savorymedia]

Funny. Einstein apparently came to the opposite conclusion:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein

In other words: science asks "CAN we do this." Religion asks "SHOULD we do this."

Re:amazing

[minus_273]

Well that really depends upon what makes you human. I wouldn't say that you are human in any sense that it's worth caring about.

Buddha nature

[RedLaggedTeut]

Well, so, does that egg have a Buddha nature? Or that stone out there for that matter?

Re:Liar

[ChetOS.net]

If you take the common view of what is considered "scientific fact" then, if you accept that:

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.

Then you would accept it as fact that it is a living human.

I use the term "scientific fact" the same way evolutionists do. Evolution is a scientific fact.

It is not a philosophical debate.

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

"Chris - If you look at something like a banana for example, I'm supposed to share about 60% of my genes with a banana. Would you go along with that?"

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[swarsron]

> It is scientific fact that embryos, from conception onward, are living human organisms

It is not a scientific fact because it is not a question which can be answered in the scientific realm since it is a question of value

Re:Ethic issues

[dangitman]

Yes, Einstein was wrong about many things.

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

I would say that the thing that makes us human is the differnece between us and the other animals, our mind (or as some people call it our soul). An embrio certainly doesn't have a mind (or knowlage) greater than that of any other animal so or probably an insect or plant so why should they be treated any differently to the other aminals and plants?

Re:Liar

[Blappo]

"It is not a philosophical debate."

I will respond to your argument with an argument that relies on exactly the same methodology you use.

It is a philosophical debate 'cause I said so, so yes-huh. YES HUH TIMES INFINITY!!! YES HUH TIME INFINITY PLUS WHATEVER YOU SAY!!!

Re:Ethic issues

[smoker2]

Mod parent up !

It is not necessary to interfere with the pregnancy at all in order to gain access to amniotic fluid.

All ethical arguments are moot.

Does my urine have inalienable rights to existence ?
When I hawk up a greeny saying "get out and walk", do the UN guarantee its natural right to use the bus ?

Re:Liar

[ArcherB]

"It is scientific fact that embryos, from conception onward, are living human organisms."

Why lie? That is by no measure a "scientific fact" and you destroy any credibility you may have had by lying in such an obvious fashion.

More to the point, YOU betray your religious leanings by lying like that.

You either don't know the definition of "living organism" or you are the liar yourself. I don't know which is worse.

Re:Liar

[ChetOS.net]

I will use Stephen Gould's definition of scientific fact: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"

No need to define life. We can agree by analog. If you agree that a bacterium has life, as I do, then we should both agree that a collection of embryonic cells have life as well.

I wasn't using the term "evolutionist" in a derogatory way. I was simply stating that there is a large group of scientists who consider a well though out theory a fact because it is well confirmed, even if large parts of the theory cannot be testing using the scientific method.

Thanks for the ad hominem attacks, it has been a while.

You Can Be Sure

[Luscious868]

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.

Re:You Can Be Sure

[foniksonik]

Without research targeted at embryos there would be no donations by misguided people consent or no... it's a slippery slope as they say. Allow embryos donated for research to be destroyed and there will soon be a market for said embryos which poor/desperate/greedy people will exploit by harvesting from people w/o consent and then selling as 'donated' embryos, etc.

Why not just start experimenting drugs on people in Comas? Their chance of coming out is slim... in the meanwhile they could be human subjects for drug trials... anyways, it's a slippery slope and there's really no good reason to do so when alternatives exist.

Re:You Can Be Sure

[Citizen of Earth]

Why not just start experimenting drugs on people in Comas?

Dr. House, you've tanned!

Re:You Can Be Sure

[DerangedAlchemist]

Creating embryos for stem cell research was rejected. Using existing stem cells that were going to be destroyed anyway was stopped by Bush. If you actually cared about embryos, why not prevent fertility clinics from creating excess embryos in the first place? If you actually think about it, this stance is hypocritical. You won't stop fertility clinics from creating excess embryos (which would cost them more money) but you will insist on killing those embryos rather than possibly be used to save or improve lives. Virtually none of these embryos are adopted, but if you cared you could adopt as many as possible to save them from research. Instead, right now embryos are being incinerated as medical waste.

Re:You Can Be Sure

[RexRhino]

The trouble is, as soon as scientists find a method to collect stem cells that is palitable to the religious right (they are worried that stem cells from aborted fetuses are going to be a commodity, and therefore encourage abortions)... Then you are going to have the left wing greens, the same people who protest GM foods and oppose nearly all biotechnology, trying to stop it. Right now the greens have been silent on the technology, mostly because the right wing has been so adamantly against it... but as soon as the position stops being associated with christians and the anti-abortion movement, the left will jump on the issue.

Rest assured, no matter what... if it is benificial and can save lives, some powerful political group is going to oppose the technology.

Re:You Can Be Sure

[foniksonik]

why not prevent fertility clinics from creating excess embryos

ESC's must be harvested from an embryo which is encouraged to develop several orders of magnitude more than what is used for fertility purposes... essentially the embryo's are started on the process to becoming viable beings and then cut short during the harvesting process. embryos kept for fetility purposes are not brought to this stage and are more like to a simple zygote than an embryo in first week developmental stage like ESC embryos.

The differences are semantics and intent of course but significant nonetheless.... they say the devil is in the details, this is a case example of that. It's like the difference between killing for food and killing for sport, or killing for self-defense vs. killing for revenge... our laws reflect this difference of action and intent why should it not also cover this area of behavior as well.

Re:You Can Be Sure

[argStyopa]

Nice assumption. It could be that "right wing zealots" are delighted, now that it's not required to KILL A LIVING BEING to harvest them.

Oh, you don't think a fetus is a living being? It kind of depends on your definition, doesn't it? Personally, I'd rather err on the side of being overcautious, else: Vell, ve vere getting rid of zese pesky Jews anyvay, warum not get some use from zhem from medical experiments, ja?

Re:amazing

[ArcherB]

I would say that the thing that makes us human is the differnece between us and the other animals, our mind (or as some people call it our soul). An embrio certainly doesn't have a mind (or knowlage) greater than that of any other animal so or probably an insect or plant so why should they be treated any differently to the other aminals and plants?

I could say the same for the "mentally challenged". Should we carve them up as well?

To take it a step further: I remember the Chaivo case a while back where a lady was determined to be brain dead. Her husband was allowed to pull the plug on her, not because she had no brain activity, but because she would never again have any brain activity. You can't say the same of an embryo.

Re:Ethic issues

[Eivind Eklund]

I did. Here's some choice quotes with intolerance:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

And relevant in context: Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10)

The bible advocates hate and intolerance. Now, many *interpretations* of the bible remove that hate and intolerance, but if you'd actually read the bible, you'd know that there is plenty of hate and intolerance to disregard.

Eivind.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[brouski]

An embryo is either alive or dead.

It is either human or it is not.

Science should treat these as binary questions.

Re:Liar

[Blappo]

Ok, what did I lie about then spunky? I'm not the one making erroneous claims of factuality in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The funniest part about this is your assumption that science is capable of defining to a factual certainty what constitutes a "living human organism" and then attacking me for MY ignorance.

One big problem

[moracity]

Drawing amniotic fluid is extremely risky to both mother and fetus. That is why amniocentesis is only done if absolutely necessary. My wife had one around 20 weeks gestation. Not only is the procedure extremely painful, she went through two weeks of uterine cramping. She had to take two weeks off work to recover.

Poking a hole in the uterus of a pregnant woman is not something to take lightly. This article makes it seem like a trvial procedure, which is certainly is not.

Re:One big problem

[Apocalypse111]

Extremely risky? Its a 1% risk of miscarriage. Without having my judgment clouded by emotion, I can say that 1% is not extremely anything, except low.

Re:One big problem

[foniksonik]

They can also be taken from the placenta after delivery.. which makes this a non-problem.

Re:One big problem

[jackbird]

Medical risks are normally measured in rates per 100,000, not rates per 100. A 1% risk is extremely high, and tolerated only because the benefits of amnio are significant.

Re:One big problem

[Apocalypse111]

Who cares what size of population you're measuring? Its 1% of that population. I don't know what the medical community calls high risk, but statistically speaking, 1% is pretty small.

Re:One big problem

[BumBiscuit]

Statistically speaking, 1% is pretty small. Realistically speaking, 1% means the death of 1 out of every 100 embryos whose mothers undergo this procedure. Keep in mind, those are not "unwanted" embryos destined for abortion; the mothers are expecting to carry them to term and have a healthy baby at the end of their labors.

That said, there's some new research that suggests that the risk is more like 1 in 1,600. Even so, with about 4 million born in the U.S. alone annually, that's 2500 dead babies per year due to an elective procedure. And I assure you, if one of those 2500 was yours, you wouldn't be taking that statistic so lightly.

Re:One big problem

[Apocalypse111]

Yes, of course no matter what the percentage is, if I lost a child due to it I would feel the risk was too high, but I was trying to think about it rationally, not emotionally. Nice link BTW. Your 2500 miscarriages figure is slightly off though, due to the fact that of course not all mothers would want this done, as no matter how low-risk you make the process its still very uncomfortable and painful from what I hear.

Re:One big problem

[BumBiscuit]

Ah, very good point. For some reason that slipped my mind while I was doing the calculations; probably because A) I drank way too much coffee yesterday, and B) a bigger number makes my point seem more effective.

So consider 2,500 a worst-case estimate. I would expect the actual number to be quite a bit less than that, since amniocentesis is not highly recommended these days until the mother is at least 35. And then, of course, some of those will opt out, many due to FUD about the miscarriage rate, and others out of fear of pain during the procedure -- though my wife had one of these done a few months back and said it was no big deal.

Let me adjust my numbers based on what was in that linked article. 3,000 out of 35,000 in the study underwent amniocentesis, which comes to about 8.5%. If we apply that to the 4-million-odd annual births, we get about 343,000 tests performed each year (I realize that 4-million does not cover cases like twins, nor does it include women who miscarry, but it's probably good enough for a ballpark figure.) Divide that by 1,600 and you get 214 miscarriages annually.

Even so, 214 a year is a lot of dead babies. Keep in mind, too, that that number only covers miscarriages. It does not include other negative ramifications such as infection or damage to the amniotic sac that, while not resulting ultimately in miscarriage, can be harmful to both mother and fetus.

I get your point about thinking rationally, but I'm not sure it makes sense to be totally objective when we're talking about unnecessary death. People will naturally put more weight on a .06% chance of death than, say, a .06% sales tax; and much as I like to be as rational as possible, I think that's a good thing.

At any rate, the point may be moot to this thread. Somebody has pointed out elsewhere in that the amniotic fluid containing stem cells can be harvested after birth.

Re:One big problem

[Apocalypse111]

While I would agree that weighing the value of human life (or human life-to-be) is a strange exercise at best, I would like to put forth the following for your consideration. Yes, 214 sounds like an awfully big number, and when weighed in developing lives, the human mind may have difficulty grasping it. However, when compared to back to your 4-million-odd annual birth rate, one pales in comparison to the other. Since these are developing lives that are wanted by the parents, each one is sad, and as you said, these numbers don't take into account other complicating factors such as infection harming both mother and fetus.

Again, as you said the point is or may be moot. However, there are other issues with a similar cost/benefit trade-off out there, emotionally charged and parading numbers about. One of the best issues by comparison (that I can think of, anyways) is that of gun ownership. Yes, a number of children are killed each year by finding and playing with their parents' guns, and each one is tragic. However, when compared to the number of guns and other weapons owned by private citizens in America, the number is very small, a similar comparison to that I made above. And in both situations, we don't know how many lives have been or will be saved by the article in question - one has yet to be researched fully and have cures developed from it, the other may ward off potential violent criminals (although this too can be debated endlessly). In both cases, the numbers can be improved as well, with better methods in the case of the former, and better education to children and more weapon security in the case of the latter.

Re:the more important question is....

[schiefaw]

And so you would advocate giving power to a limited few to make decisions for us all?

Yeah, who ever heard of a "Representative democracy"? Unthinkable!

Re:amazing

[KUHurdler]

I think every man seeks a purpose...

I suppose some people think their purpose is to discredit another's.

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

I could say the same for the "mentally challenged". Should we carve them up as well?

I personally have no problems with that persay, there are some problems as to where you draw the line though.

Nice strawman.

[porkchop_d_clown]

No opponent of embryonic stem cell research opposes the use of non-embryonic stem cells; most of us are happy to point to the many successful therapies that have been developed using other sources of stem cells.

My objection to embryonic stem cell use is that it sets a scary precedent - I really don't want to live in a society that believes living beings - even non-viable, merely potential living beings, as a private property and a commercial resource.

This is no different than my opposition to patenting human cell lines or DNA sequences.

My firm belief is that we will eventually get to the point where it is possible to harvest some stem cells right from a patient and use them to grow the needed replacement parts directly. Heck, companies are already working on that very thing.

So why screw around with controversial, not to mention unsuccessful, techniques when better methods already exist?

Re:the more important question is....

[Ingolfke]

Read the thread before you post. The original post I responded to made the point that "the masses" should be ignored in favor of scientists. Representativ democracy is "the masses" choosing to give their authority to make decisions for their country to a few individuals. The parent post was advocating a priestly caste of scientists who would choose for us all.

Re:Liar

[Blappo]

"No need to define life." What an incredibly moronic thing to say. The very substance if this debate is "what constitutes life" and YOU DISMISS THE IDEA THAT SUCH A DEFNIFITION IS NECESSARY. "We can agree by analog" NO, WE CAN'T. "If you agree that a bacterium has life, as I do, then we should both agree that a collection of embryonic cells have life as well." NO, A GROUP OF EMBRYONIC CELLS IS NOT A BACTERIUM, AND VICE VERSA. "Thanks for the ad hominem attacks, it has been a while." If that's the sum total of your "logic" I strongly suspect it HAS NOT been a while.

Finally...

[egyptiankarim]

Now everyone can have a Shakey's Pizza of their very own.

Re:Finally...

[heroshima]

emmmm Shakeys pizza!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey can we have some of there potato wedges to ??? I haven't had them in 15 years :-) On another note, if the cells could keep me from having to take 20 units of insulin a day and perhaps extend my life a few years then why not ? How about leukemia patients and all the other diseases that could be helped if not revered by these cell's ? just a reminder why we are doing this in the first place. unfortunately all the cells in the world wont cure my spelling.

Simply naive!

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

While it is true that one could theoretically develop an ethical framework without religion, it is simply naive to assume that any ethics system in place in modern society is devoid of a religious influence and therefore ethics and religion are definitely linked together.

Re:Simply naive!

[OpieTaylor]

"ethics and religion are definitely linked together"

The counter examples, Confusiansim and Buddahism, with hundreds of millions of adherents, would tend to disprove your point.

Re:Simply naive!

[theStorminMormon]

While it is true that one could theoretically develop an ethical framework without religion, it is simply naive to assume that any ethics system in place in modern society is devoid of a religious influence and therefore ethics and religion are definitely linked together.

This is an odd assertion. In the first place, you don't have to look hard to find a system of truly atheist ethics. Consider, for example, any of the atheist existentialists. Names like Camus and deBeauvoir (not to mention Sartre) are not exactly unknown to people who study ethics.

Next keep in mind that the average Joe on the street has more or less 0 knowledge of the theological basis to religious ethics. The elements of ethics transferred from religious prophets, scholars, and even authoritative texts (scripture) are only the most simplistic shadows of their original statements.

This same process has been operating for quite some time from atheist philosophy to the mainstream. Your average godless materialist has probably not read "Ethics of Ambiguity", but certainly employs some kind of watered-down remnant of atheist ethics. So while I'd agree that it's hard to talk about ethics without even mentioning religion, there are already competing non-religious ethical systems that have been around for quite some time (decades, generations).

Finally, and most importantly, you have to realize that people who take ethics seriously and are religious are still going to (for the most part) discuss ethics in a religion-neutral view. The evangelicals get all the press because they are so loud and out-there. Their idea of an ethical discussion is convince you to accept Jesus as your personal savior first, and then have you believe everything their pastor tells you that Jesus said second. But a lot of religious people debate their ethical and philosophical viewpoints without trying to convert you first (or at all).

In short, not only can any serious discussion of ethics take place without requiring people to assert a particular dogma (atheist or some variant of theism), that's how most serious discussions of ethics actually work.

-stormin

Re:Simply naive!

[jcgf]

Anyone who tells you that those two aren't just religion in disguise is a liar.

Re:Simply naive!

[OpieTaylor]

Really? What supernatural beings do they worship in Buddahism or Confucianism?

Re:Simply naive!

[OpieTaylor]

My reference for Buddahism is Siddartha by Herman Hesse, which I recently read. If that book represents Buddahism, then there's nothing religious/supernatural about Buddahism.

Re:Simply naive!

[Dcnjoe60]

There was no mention of any particular religion or any particular dogma in my post, only that modern society ethics and religion are linked. As someone did point out in the East, there is Buddhism and Confucianism, which technically are not a religion, so I should have said in modern western society.

Even the most ardent proponent of an atheist philosophy would have to admit that since the western culture is based on a Judeao-Christian background, it and it's views are influenced by those teachings (right or wrong). That does not mean that one has to discuss ethics in that framework, but to ignore the influence of the underpinnings of the culture will surely give false results.

I agree whole heartedly that serious discussion of ethics can take place and should take place without requiring people to assert a particular dogma, however, that is not what the original poster stated, which was that they had no relationship. And that, for better or worse, is simply not true.

Re:Simply naive!

[theStorminMormon]

Even the most ardent proponent of an atheist philosophy would have to admit that since the western culture is based on a Judeao-Christian background, it and it's views are influenced by those teachings (right or wrong).

1 - The ethics of judeo-christian traditions didn't spring from the void. They came from somewhere. You can't trace ethics back to there and then say "here is the foundation". Whether we can historically trace the development back futher, there were certainly ethics before there were Jews. As a result, it's fallacious to claim that western ethics from exclusively from those traditions. Atheism is well-developed in the West, and offers a possibility to access ethics - many of which are similar to judeo-christian traditions - without recourse to religion. All I'm saying is that there are non-religious ethical traditions in the West. They are the minority, but they exist. You can be a westerner, ethical, and completely secular.

however, that is not what the original poster stated, which was that they had no relationship. And that, for better or worse, is simply not true.

There's an excluded middle. I'm not saying they have no relationship, but you seemed to be saying they always have a relationship> I'm merely saying that even though they are generally related, they do not have to be. I'm just making some middle ground between you and GP.

-stormin

Re:Simply naive!

[Dcnjoe60]

While it is desirable to think that you could be a westerner, ethical and completely secular, as an individual, it is not totally possible. On a societal level, western society has been influenced by religion. Even pre-Jewish societies, had religious overtones that influenced their behaviors. Even tribes deep in the jungle that never heard of a mono-theistic God have developed some sort of religious cult. Sociologists say that the development of religion to explain natural phenomenon is a natural development. Atheism, on the other hand, is the application of reason to dispel the primitive notion of religion or the supernatural in controlling the world around us, so by definition it had to develop after religious superstition.

Since, even an Atheist in living a totally secular life is influenced by the culture around them, and that culture to some extent has been tainted by the influence of religion (for example, just about every western society celebrates Christmas, whether the Atheist personally does or not) and by contact with people who have other ethical frameworks, then the framework the atheist is using to build his/her secular ethics framework is also tainted, no matter how slight.

The only way, it could not be is if the framework being built is built totally on reason, without any external influence, but how can that occur in todays modern world? Besides, it's not really a framework until it has been tested and once tested, the test modifies the framework, which means that it again, is tainted.

So, I think that there always is a relationship. The question is how strong of an influence does that relationship create in the secular framework? The answer to that can vary quite a bit.

Re:Simply naive!

[theStorminMormon]

There are two ways to understand the idea of a non-religious system of ethics. My own idea is simple. You don't need a person who has never been exposed to religion in their life, just a person willing to set aside religious belief and consider ethics from an atheist standpoint. We have had several great philosophers do precisely this, and therefore atheist ethics are a part of the Western tradition.

Your own understanding seems to require some kind of purified, non-religious environment. Based on that understanding you are right. There are no westerners who have not been influenced by religion and so there is no ethical framework entirely free from all religious entanglement. But this isn't a very interesting assertion, in my opinion, because the reverse is also true. There is no westerner who has not been influence by atheist thought, and thus it is impossible to consider ethics free from all atheist entanglements. Clearly the degree of entanglement from religion tends to be more pervasive, but you can't remove atheism from the modern western tradition any more possibly than you can remove christianity or judeaism.

-stormin

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[TheRaven64]

Scientifically, life starts at conception. The embryo is clearly and demonstrably alive. This is not the issue, however, since we have no problem killing things; even vegans kill plants, and while fruitarians don't kill whole plants, the cells in the fruit they eat are alive.

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.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[The_Wilschon]

Perhaps if you consider the bases of the assertions of the "religious nutjobs", you might find that at least some (more than you think) are not hypocrites, and are in fact (nearly) perfectly self consistent (Show me a person who is perfectly self consistent in their beliefs, and I'll show you a person who believes nothing). If one believes that souls exist (and tell me how that is hypocritical), and one believes that human beings have souls before they are even conceived (this is biblical, and once again, how is this hypocritical?), and one believes that animals other than humans do not have souls (hypocritical? I think not), then it is perfectly rational and not at all inconsistent to eat beef and lamb and eggs, but oppose abortion etc. Not that the opposition to abortion etc. is necessitated by the above beliefs (one could consider that a greater evil is being prevented by stem cell research or by some abortions), but the two are certainly not inconsistent.

Also, if one considers (for whatever reason) that a war at one time, complete with all the thousands of deaths involved in it, can prevent many thousands more deaths, then that war would then be justified by a belief in the sanctity of human life, provided of course that no other way to prevent deaths without causing as many or more can be found. Again, this is not hypocritical, nor is it inconsistent with itself or any of the beliefs suggested above.

Of course religion looks nutty if you only look at it through your own glasses. Praying and believing in God is absolutely ludicrous if you *know* that God does not exist. And that doesn't even start on everything else, which by extension, pretty much has to be nuttier. So, next time you are in a "discussion" with a "religious nutjob", before you call them inconsistent and hypocritical, take a look at what their first principles or first axioms are, and then see if you can find any inconsistencies among those axioms (and any subsidiary belief, like believing in souls, which does not follow strictly logically from the first axioms you've already come up with must also be considered an axiom). If you find inconsistencies, then and only then can you consider them a hypocrite without yourself being unsane.

Oh, and by the way, if you really want to make sure you are not yourself a hypocrite, you'd better apply the same consistency check to yourself and your own beliefs. Or better yet, have someone do it for you, since it is awfully difficult to figure out yourself what it is that you actually believe.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[CrimsonAvenger]

In that sense the "secular" definition of when human life starts, are the limits we make for legal abortion. Something like 20 weeks.

Umm, no. Legal limits on abortion in the USA are pretty much set at "before labor commences".

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Vegeta99]

It is scientific fact that embryos, from conception onward, are living human organisms.

Wrong.
According to what Law? If it's anything less than a law, it's not a fact. Go read a book on existentialism. The line between human and not human is so fuzzy you can't even call it a line. I'm inclined to believe any animal that can feel AND express emotion (and don't say they can't, go talk to a dog for a little while) deserves some of our human rights. An embryo (not a fetus) cannot do that. It is not human. It's a ball of undifferentiated cells. A glorified bacterial colony.

You ARE born with some sense of a personality. However it's very, very rudimentary. You are human because you were raised by beings that defined themselves as such. If you were raised by dogs, you'd be running on all fours, barking and growling and nipping people on the neck. Don't believe me? Go google about "Wild Boy". Hell, there even comes a point in your life around 12-13 where if you don't learn a human language, you will forever be unable to communicate in the ways that seem to define us as human. Don't think for one second that we're concieved - or even born - human.

Huh? - who's doing the spin now?

[gillbates]

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.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trolling, or are just expressing an emotional opinion. Regardless, I think your points deserve a response. And I'm really not trying to flame you, but you're wrong on every point you've made:

• An embryo is a child - at least according to the 1 billion Catholics on the planet.
• Why do we need an alternative...? Well, for starters, to avoid killing human life. A cure which depends on killing someone else to work isn't really a cure.
• Embrionic stem cells don't work at all yet - it will be between 10 and 20 years before cures could be developed which use them. Meanwhile, diseases like Parkinson's are being cured today by adult stem cell therapies.
• Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too. Okay, perhaps you don't see these people, but the rest of the world does. I'm not sure where you've been hiding from the 1 billion Catholics in the world, but in a lot of places, IVF isn't even offered because the medical facilities are Catholic owned. So yes, maybe the don't protest publicly, but it's not as if they aren't opposed to it.

Granted, I understand a lot of people may not agree with the position of the Catholic church regarding stem cell research, birth control, IVF, etc... but at least it is logically consistent. If one believes that life begins at conception, then it logically follows that anything which deliberately causes the end of that life is morally wrong. Hence, you have the objection to the aforementioned activities. If you want to prove the Catholic church wrong on this point, you'd have to produce compelling scientific evidence or a chain of logic which showed that life didn't begin at conception. That's unlikely to happen, as it was medical research which revealed that a person's DNA - that is, their physical characteristics - are uniquely determined at conception.

And please don't take this as a flame or a troll. If you disagree with what I said, post an intelligent reply. After all, I've been proven wrong before.

Re:Huh? - who's doing the spin now?

[jcgf]

An embryo is a child - at least according to the 1 billion Catholics on the planet.

Their organization also supports forced confessions and burning people alive.

Re:amazing

[DarkSarin]

You, sir, (and I mean this in the nicest way possible) are an idiot.

First, the "problems as to where you draw the line" are so big as to be impossible to overcome.

Second, even if you could draw the line, what makes it ethically reasonable to do that.

Third, it is spelled "per se", not "persay".

Re:Liar

[ArcherB]

The funniest part about this is your assumption that science is capable of defining to a factual certainty what constitutes a "living human organism" and then attacking me for MY ignorance.

No, the funny part is that you think that science does not able to identify:
1) Life. We are not talking about strange, Martian life here, but mammalian life here on earth. I think science has ID'd cells as living, especially when they do things like divide and convert chemicals into energy.
2) Human. A DNA test will confirm that the cell is indeed, human
3) Organism. Same as number one, but currently "alive" is not a requirement.

So again, either you disagree with some part of what I've written, which means one of us is ignorant (not that there is anything wrong with that) or that you are being intellectually honest.

I think that you are equating "human" with "having a soul" (not necessarily a religious-type soul, maybe a "James-Brown-type soul"). And I hope that you see that the GGP's definition lands a bit close to my own. My beef is you calling someone a liar because you disagree with them. Believe it or not, some people see things differently than you do and are not they lying when they say something that does not jive with YOUR view of the universe. Just because someone's view is different then your own does not make them wrong.

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

First, the "problems as to where you draw the line" are so big as to be impossible to overcome.

Well that depends upon where you come from, many countries don't have a problem with abortion, so that's one place where the line is drawn.

Second, even if you could draw the line, what makes it ethically reasonable to do that.
The same thing that makes it ethically reasonable to kill anything.

Third, it is spelled "per se", not "persay".
I didn't realise this was a spelling contest.

I donated umbilical cord stem cells

[Jess (geek-chick)]

When I was pregnant with my daughter, I knew from the start I wanted to donate the umbilical stem cells. It wasn't an easy search to find somewhere that would take them. All the advertising toward pregnant women are for banking the stem cells. They scare parents into thinking their child's stem cells could be used for a cure on the chance the child develops a disease. I think this is a horrible practice to do on parents, most of whom probably are just throwing their money away in the belief it could save their child.

None of the hospitals in my state accept cord blood donations, nor are their any cord or blood banks here. I found only one cord bank that accepts donations from out of state (their name escapes me), and at no charge to my doctor, the hospital, or me. From what I've read, I know that the cord blood stem cells aren't able to be used like embryonic stem cells, but since they were just going to be destroyed anyway, why not donate them?

Re:I donated umbilical cord stem cells

[bill_mcgonigle]

I found only one cord bank that accepts donations from out of state (their name escapes me), and at no charge to my doctor, the hospital, or me.

If you remember the name, please post it here. I tried to do this a few months ago when our son was born and couldn't find anything, perhaps due to my weak Google-Fu. The only advice I found was to contact your local medical school, which we did, and the phone calls went unreturned. I heard later that they "have plenty", though the source isn't first-hand.

Re:I donated umbilical cord stem cells

[Jess (geek-chick)]

I had to do some digging, but I believe it was with CryoBanks International. I called the toll free number, and was sent a questionaire asking about both of the baby's family health histories. Once I sent it back, I received a packet to bring for collection at the hospital. They even sent a courier to pick it up after the doctor collected it.

I just wish more places were available for donation. Hell, I'd take just one place in my state.

Re:I donated umbilical cord stem cells

[bill_mcgonigle]

Thank you.

They even sent a courier to pick it up after the doctor collected it.

Impressive. When we looked at banking cord blood a few years ago the courier fee alone was >$200, so they're spending some money on this process.

Which leaves me confused about the value of these since they're obviously willing to incur the expense but I had trouble giving it away. Maybe it's all too new. Anyway, thanks for digging.

Re:I donated umbilical cord stem cells

[harborpirate]

You're absolutely correct, people need to donate to Cord Blood Banks, not individual storage.

My son died of leukemia recently, but had acheived a first remission. We were beginning the process of setting up a bone marrow transplant. I learned a lot more about cancer than I ever wanted to know.

We went to the closest transplant center to talk to the doctors there, and they said the majority of transplants that they do are cord blood now, rather than bone marrow. Cord blood transplants are much better in terms of what is know as Graft Versus Host Disease; in this case, the tendancy of the introduced blood cells to attack the vital organs of the new host. With a traditional marrow transplant, symptoms can often last 1-3 years. With cord blood donations, the symptoms usually last about 3 months and are usually not as severe. GVHD is critical because it prevents the new cells from fighting any potential infections, as they are distracted fighting the body they're supposed to be helping. Couple that with the fact that all existing cells are wiped out prior to transplant (to allow new cells to take hold), and the bodys defenses against infections are little to none in the presence of severe GVHD.

So whats the big deal about a cord blood bank instead of individual storage? In the case of leukemia, the childs own cells are almost worthless, because they are susceptible to the same mutation that caused the leukemia in the first place. Since they are the same cells, they will also not provide an effective defense if it should arise. Doctors will refuse to use them for transplant unless its absolutely a last resort (in the case of leukemia at least), because the chances of relapse (recurrence of cancer) are high. Cord blood donation offers cells which are close enough to work in another person, but different enough that once they take hold (known as neutrophil) they will attack and destroy any leukemia cells (or any of the old blood cells at all) that arise in the body. Leukemia cells can hide in certain locations, such as the spine, which are more difficult for chemotherapy treatments to penetrate.

All this means that cord blood donations are critical for treatment of certain types of leukemia, such as AML (Acute Mylocytic Leukemia) where transplants are commonly performed due to the high risk of relapse. If you're a member of certain ethnicities, the importance is even greater, because the availability is lower for those who need it.

Re:I donated umbilical cord stem cells

[elsrod]

I ran into the same issue. What's really odd is that in most hospitals, even if you opt not to donate anything the hospital can keep anything you have not specifically arranged for disposal. In other words, placentas, umbilical cords, other tissue/fluid can be collected and used for research unless you have requested that it be incinerated.

An issue that I think keeps being dodged with the whole stem cell issue is the ownership of the cells. If, as current laws hold, the future of a fetus is a choice of the woman carrying the fetus, then all decisions about the fetal tissue and other materials should lay with the woman. So, those stem cells are mine (whether from fetus or amniotic fluid) and it is my choice about what to do with them. It's very weird to me that some types of disposal lay with the state (or the industry) and others lay with the individuals.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[THE anonymus coward]

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.

Re:Ethic issues

[TheRaven64]

The Bible was written over a period of several centuries by people with widely differing ethical systems. The great thing about it is that you can use it to justify absolutely any action. For bonus points, you can call people who interpret it slightly differently 'heretics' or 'not real Christians' and burn them.

Re:amazing

[Lavene]

The ethics issue is similar to that of organ donors. Organ donors have a slightly higher mortality rate because there are doctors who behave unethically and do not work as hard when they realize a seriously injured patient is an organ donor. ... ... So you say some doctors will kill one person in order to save another? I guess you can back that up with some credible research because the basic idea seem to lack logic... unless the patient is a friend/ relative of the doctor of course. One patient will die anyway if there is an urgent need for the organs.

Re:amazing

[mrpeebles]

We don't have to find where to draw the line. We just have to verify which side of it embryos used for stem cell research are on. My personal bias/belief is that we are more than a collection of cells- the behavior we exhibit is much richer than that. So I claim that if it only really makes sense scientifically to understand your behavior as the interaction of cells (versus tissues and organs and individuals in society, etc) then you certainly can't be a person. Then we don't have to carve up the mentally handicapped, but we don't have to join hands and sing songs with amoebas and bacteria, either. I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that we find it perfectly acceptable to understand the behavior of a week old embryo in a petri dish as only a collection of cells. This covers an embryo that would be used for stem cell research, I think, and puts them firmly in the "not a person" category.

Re:You USians (-1, Flamebait)

[Apocalypse111]

By that same logic(?), why is it that conservatives are so bent out of shape on the idea of protecting biological matter which might be unwanted and may, MAY become a worthwhile human, and yet in the same breath are ready to throw the switch on a human being that, while they are no longer fit for society, can be put to so many other uses (hard labor) and with a much smaller cost? See, if you chose your adjectives and adverbs carefully, you can make any position sound appealing.

It's a tenuous balance

[anomaly]

For what it's worth, I agree with you that most people are not passionate about stem cell research. It irritates me that when most people talk of stem cell research they are focusing on embryonic stem cell research. As others have noted, it's not helping anyone these days, and adult stem cell research *is* helping MANY MANY people. I'm hopeful that this recent discovery about amniotic stem cells will kill the debate and people will stop trying to do medical research on *all* products of conception.

I'm not sure that I agree with you about people don't want that right taken from them. Recent surveys show that the majority of Americans find abortion unacceptable for themselves but feel that there is some need for it to be available. Most seem to want to protect the right of others to have abortion.

The following numbers come from recollection - frankly I'm too busy this morning to go look up the actual numbers, but this is pretty close to what I've been reading on this issue:

The number of Americans that think abortion is a bad thing is something like 80+% The number that feel it should be illegal is substantially smaller, but the bottom line is about 10% want it legal under every possible circumstance, about 10% want it illegal in every circumstance, and the other 80% of the population is split just about down the middle with varying circumstances determining the legality.

Essentially about half of the US wants it illegal under some circumstances, and about half of the US wants it legal under some circumstances.

I tire of the meme that a 'religious minority controls the government.' That's crap. If it was true, there are lots of things that would be handled differently.

The fact is that there are a lot of people who disagree with the liberal view that abortion should be legal for all women. Most of those people are not passionate advocates of that position, but when the issue comes up, they stand for what they believe. This is the phenomenon of the "values voters."

The religious minority of which you speak is merely the 'tip of the spear' to speak in military parlance. You see them, the politicians feel them because of their platforms, *and* because of the values voters. Policies are made as a result.

That abortion is still legal in the US shows that there are many near silent people who share your view, and the politicians feel their presence on election day, too.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:It's a tenuous balance

[Hatta]

It irritates me that when most people talk of stem cell research they are focusing on embryonic stem cell research. As others have noted, it's not helping anyone these days, and adult stem cell research *is* helping MANY MANY people.

Embryonic stem cells aren't helping anyone these days because it's really hard to develop therapies when you can't get federal funding.

It's a lot like the FDA saying marijuana has no proven medical benefit. Well duh, they've prohibited us from doing medical research with it for decades. We need more research with medical marijuana and more research with embryonic stem cells. Only AFTER the research is done can you determine whether there are useful therapies there.

Re:It's a tenuous balance

[dangitman]

I tire of the meme that a 'religious minority controls the government.' That's crap. If it was true, there are lots of things that would be handled differently.

I never said they controlled the government. I just said they had close ties to it. And this resurgence of the religious right is fairly recent. I think if Bush didn't get stuck in Iraq, the religious agenda would be much more advanced by now. There is obviously a massive influence there. Otherwise we would never get crap like the Schiavo affair, the idea of an amendment to ban gay marriage, or the ridiculous "faith based iniatives."

Recent surveys show that the majority of Americans find abortion unacceptable for themselves but feel that there is some need for it to be available. Most seem to want to protect the right of others to have abortion... Most of those people are not passionate advocates of that position, but when the issue comes up, they stand for what they believe. This is the phenomenon of the "values voters."

I don't think this is the kind of thing people will answer very honestly in a poll. I think the reality is probably the opposite. Many people like to lecture others on the evils of abortion - but if they came into a situation where they (or a daughter, partner or sister) needed one, they would have an abortion. I don't think it's so much concern for others, but fear of being stuck in that position themselves.

Re:It's a tenuous balance

[StikyPad]

when most people talk of stem cell research they are focusing on embryonic stem cell research.

And that stigma is why they need to give stem cell research a new, more palletable name, like organic healing research.

(With apologies to either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert who said something similar, but I can remember neither who suggested it, nor what they suggested).

Re:amazing

[mr_mischief]

Well, a dog or cat embryo doesn't grow up to be a human adult. I'd say there's a pretty big distinction there that makes a human embryo a human worth caring about.

If you and some person you cared about very much were going to have a baby, and someone came along and killed your baby, I think you'd care. So does that mean it's just a matter of the embryo being wanted? That implies ownership. Do you believe you own your children as property? At what point do you not own your child -- if not embryo, if not fetus, if not 3rd trimester, if not birth, if not 5 years old... It's a slippery slope. Do you think parents own children until they are the age of majority? The courts in the U.S. very much make a distinction between ownership of a person and custody of minors.

Re:amazing

[ElleyKitten]

I could say the same for the "mentally challenged". Should we carve them up as well?

The mentally challenged feel pain, happiness, sadness, and many other things, even if not like we do. An embryo does not. That's the difference.

To take it a step further: I remember the Chaivo case a while back where a lady was determined to be brain dead. Her husband was allowed to pull the plug on her, not because she had no brain activity, but because she would never again have any brain activity. You can't say the same of an embryo.

Ms. Schiavo also has no similarities to an embryo. I was against euthanizing her because PVS (Persistant Vegetative State, the diagnosis she was given) has an incredibly high misdiagnosis rate and there have been plenty of people who have been written off as PVS despite being aware and able to feel pain (say, the pain of not having food or water until they die). I personally know a woman who was labeled PVS for 14 years, but today is far from that. Anyways, back on the topic, if you think that embryos shouldn't be experimented on because they will grow into humans, I hate to tell you, they won't. The embryos that they get stem cells from are either fertility clinic rejects or created from eggs and sperm specifically donated to science. If we didn't get stem cells from them, they would be thrown away - and in fact, millions and millions are. If you want to complain, go complain that people are making more embryos than they can use in the first place, don't complain that some are using a tiny percentage of what's destined for trash for something useful.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Nf1nk]

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.

Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right

First thing that came to mind

Re:amazing

[fireboy1919]

Now they can do all the stem cell research they want with no ethical problems.

Unless you count that pesky hippocratic oath. Drawing amniotic fluid from the mother essentially amounts to stabbing her with an incredibly long needle. Then there's the chance you might hit the baby...

So I'm reading this as 100% chance of harm to the mother this way, and a great deal smaller chance of hitting the infant in exchange for the extremely uncertain possibility of helping people in the future.

Sounds like an ethical quandry for a lot more people than the first case does even if it isn't as large of one for those who consider abortion to be murder.

Re:amazing

[ArcherB]

First let me start the flaming by saying... Excellent post.

Next, let me sorta agree with the "We don't have to find where to draw the line" part. I agree in the sense that when we start trying to decide what is human and what is not, you are going to upset a lot of people. That's why this is such a debate to begin with. People like me (/.'ers call us "fundamentalists" while fundamentalists call us "heathens"... so I guess we are somewhere in the middle) feel that the line should never be drawn. It's either human or it's not. A simple DNA test will decide. Human rights are just that HUMAN rights, whether that human be a glob of cells or a Alzheimer's ridden 90-year drooling and wearing a diaper. After all, we are all really just a glob of cells. Of course, you disagree, which is one of the most telling human characteristics I know of. We aren't wrong, we just see things differently

Hopefully, none of that really matters. If this discovery pans out, this debate will be over and we can hopefully see the benefits of stem cell research sooner rather than later. Hopefully, the discoveries will be so incredible that the new debate will be "how far should we go?" rather than "how will we get there?"

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

Well, a dog or cat embryo doesn't grow up to be a human adult. I'd say there's a pretty big distinction there that makes a human embryo a human worth caring about.

Ever heard of evolution? it's possible that a cat or dog embryo may turn into a human like creature after a few million years of evolution. Isn't that worth caring about?

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[ElleyKitten]

Animals can feel pain. Embryos cannot. That is why I'm a pro-choice vegetarian.

I don't understand why people think that animals don't have souls. A soul is what gives you spirit and personality, makes you more than just a clump of moving cells. Animals are clearly more than just a clump of moving cells. I guess that's just one of the many reasons I don't look to the Bible for spiritual elightenment.

Re:the more important question is....

[schiefaw]

Read the thread before you post. The original post I responded to made the point that "the masses" should be ignored in favor of scientists. Representativ democracy is "the masses" choosing to give their authority to make decisions for their country to a few individuals. The parent post was advocating a priestly caste of scientists who would choose for us all.

Thank you for your concern, but I did understand the point. I was merely pointing out that we already have a group of individuals who make decisions for for the rest of us. Unfortunately, they are seldom experts in the subject matters that they are asked to govern.

I hold no delusion that our representatives actually take the time to develop a deep understanding of the issues that they are asked to legislate, or that they would be driven more by a deep understanding than political expediency if they had knowledge. But, "the masses" are called "the ignorant masses" for a reason.

You, as a slashdot reader, are almost certainly far more inquisitive and therefore informed than the "average Joe". Any individual member of society can probably make a reasonable decision when properly informed, but I would never trust "the masses" to make a decision that required more than a 30 second sound bite to become an expert on. Society has long abandoned the practice of placing value on education. That is why (at least in the USA) politicians are electing for being a "regular guy" and attempt to downplay an "Ivy League" education.

So, the question remains, is it better to have complicated issues resolved by a select few who know something about the subject matter, or do we let "the masses" decide in whatever manner Oprah, Micheal Moore, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly instructed them to?

Re:amazing

[JebusIsLord]

Yes, because we're going to be stabbing 9-month pregnant, unwitting mothers with long needles. *rolls eyes*

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[t0rkm3]

Incidentally, you would learn how to walk without ever seeing another human. That motor action is imprinted before you are born. So, if you have a funny gait, thank your mom.

Re:Liar

[theStorminMormon]

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

Re:Ethic issues

[t0rkm3]

As an atheist who believes abortion is wrong:

It's about market and rewards. I think, as a society, it's wrong to market the destruction of fundamental innocents as socially acceptable. Less than 2% of all abortions are due to rape/incest. In poor neighborhoods abortion is a method of birth control. (I work with these people, on a volunteer basis, and as a slum lord.I own some low income rentals.)

The wholesale of human fetuses and embryos lowers the overall value of a human life. I cannot support such a course.

Re:Ethic issues

[clayanderson]

1) Hate is not equal to intolerance. I can fail to tolerate someone's actions (and even advocate punishment) without hating them. This could range from a parent disciplining a child, all the way to a death sentence for a convicted murderer. Justice, discipline, and intolerance, can exist effectively apart from hate.

2) Intolerance is not a primary ethical value. In fact, it undermines all law and ethical codes of conduct. As a principle, it gives no indication as to what behavior might be right or wrong, so taken to its logical conclusion, it is utterly flawed.

3) You have quoted only from the Old Testament, and not from the New, and therefore only give examples that reflect the law as set forth in the Pentateuch (first five books of the OT). The law was harsh -- given as a response to the sinfulness of man. It seeks one thing: justice.

But in the New Testament, the arrival of Christ offers freedom from the law. He comes to offer mercy and grace in place of the harsh judgment of the law.

From Romans chap 7:
"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."

Without the New Testament, the story is not complete, and therefore your quotes are also incomplete and out of context, failing to make an effective case for the "hatred" of Christians. Read the words of Christ in Matthew chaps 5-7, and tell me what he truly advocates.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[ElleyKitten]

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.

How do you know that cows aren't wondering that? Sure, they can't say that in English, but how do you know what goes on inside their heads? Or what about other animals, like dolphins, who do have a language they use to communicate with others of their species? How do you know what they talk about? Or how do you know that a cow's life wasn't intended by God to be the comfortable life for reincarnated human souls after living a good life? Just lazily hanging out in the sun all day, no worries, just occasionally being milked, but we had to go fuck that up by cramming them up in little cells and forcing them to milk much more than they were ever meant to until they get sent off to be slaughtered.

You think you know all the answers, but you're just as wrong as everyone else.

You were doing well until the last line.

[FurorPlacidus]

What do his/her parents have to do with it?

Re:Ethic issues

[clayanderson]

Oop, edit: point #2 should begin "Tolerance..."

Re:You USians (-1, Flamebait)

[t0rkm3]

Not really. Your proposition didn't sound any better than the original.

What we need are abortions that cost as much as executions and executions that cost as much as abortions.

That would at least set the cost of each closer to the relative damage to society caused by each.

Re:Ethic issues

[Enzo the Baker]

Well, Hippocrates (c. 460 BC - c. 370 BC) was certainly not a Christian, and he was opposed to abortion.

From the Hippocratic Oath: To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

Re:amazing

[fractalVisionz]

Actually, some Native Americans did protest space exploration (specifically the moon), because it was holy land for them.

Ethics vs. Religion

[Herr Ziffer]

On the point of ethics vs. religion, it should be pointed out that the religious concerns are usually underpinned by ethical ones. Most religious people don't actually believe that something is good simply because whatever God says is good is by definition so. Rather, they believe that what is good (what we all believe is good, actually -- it's a universal judgment that, philosophically, we should all eventually be able to come to agreement on) really is so, and because God is good, he will also see things this way. For 'religious folk', then, the problem isn't what 'is' good, but rather why we should do good. I think there does tend to be a tendency among religous people to see themselves as being better at being good than non-religious folk, because they don't see what can be motivating the non-religious to behave differently. This, I should add, I think is a misunderstanding. On the other hand, there is a strong tendency among non-religious folk to assume that the religious don't have intellectual underpinnings for what they believe, and so there is a general leap to project irrational opinions to them -- for instance, that they are anti-science or anti-progress, rather than simply having an ethical opposition to certain research. This is also a misunderstanding that prevents any actual engagement. I don't know if this particular method for gathering stem-cells will ultimately be effective or feasible, but from what I know of the main ethical concerns of various religious denominations, this is a good thing. The only Christian denomination that might still be opposed to it are the Jehova's Witnesses, who believe that harvesting human organs is analogous to canibalism. For those ethically concerned with embryonic stem-cell research, the problem is that we destroy human life in order to save human life. There is even the recognition that we in fact do this in other cases. However, if it can be avoided, then an alternative course is best. And because there are alternatives, such as adult stem-cell research and possibly this new technique, we ought to pursue those instead. One common objection to this position tends to be that alternative potential therapies will never be as good as therapies based on embryonic stem-cell research, so it is "as if" there really were no alternative. Because this is an extremely speculative position, it tends not to be all that persuasive. So far, most of the arguments claiming that "the religious right" won't accept this new form of research seem simply to be trying to make a reductio ad absurdum argument that if the ethical position opposed to embryonic stem-cell research accepts this new harvesting method, they must therefore accept embryonic stem-cell research also because they are the same thing. It's a good strategy for proponents of embryonic stem-cell research, and I really don't begrudge anyone for throwing it out there. But I don't think it really works in this case. As a factual matter, opponents of embryonic stem-cell research do see conception as a non-arbitrary point differentiation between non-living and living. If you accept at least that this is a core ethical axiom for opponents of stem-cell research (since they themselves repeatedly claim that this is so) it should be clear that this new method for harvesting stem-cells does, in fact, serve as a viable alternative to embryonic stem-cell harvesting for them. This, I think, is a good thing, since it provides something that people on both sides of the issue can support. And on this rests the issue of whether it is better to drag out debate, and basically do nothing, over research we disagree on, or rather to go forward with research, starting today, on things the nation does agree on. Do we fight to be right, or do we get things done?

Re:Liar

[mr_mischief]

Define life please. And do so without including any philosophical arguments.

You seem to have lost sight of what science is. Science is a branch of philosophy. It is a different branch of philosophy from gnosticism or nihilism, sure. Science is a set of beliefs built on the central belief that to start with an acceptable premise, make an argument, and support your argument makes a point believable. The level of physical evidence required by science is a mark of the branch of philosophy, not a sign of a lack of philosophy.

In short, a scientific argument is a philosophical argument.

As for a definition of life, how about definition 1.a. from The Free Dictionary: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Does an embryo have a metabolism? Each cell does, and it is in the process of developing one separate from the mother. Does it grow? Well, yeah. It is in the process of being reproduced, and if allowed to mature will likely be able to reproduce in the future. Does it respond to stimuli? It does implant itself and develop a placenta, umbilical cord, etc only upon finding something within which to implant. Does it adapt to the environment? Well, it does grow based on its genes into a human, if allowed to do so. Humans not only adapt to the environment, but adapt the environment to us. The small bundle of cells itself doesn't have too much control over becoming suited to the environment, but it does cause hormonal changes in its mother that are beneficial to itself.

Is the previous paragraph incontrovertible proof that embryos are alive? Well, no, it probably is not. It does support the case that a human embryo is alive.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[KylePflug]

Curious: Absent religion, where do you find any reason at all to believe that such a thing as a soul even exists? (yes, that makes the precarious assumption that by "I don't look to the Bible for spiritual enlightenment" you meant "I don't purport to believe in any sort of textual religion)

Re:amazing

[heinousjay]

Your example is so ridiculous I actually laughed. If that's your most brilliant retort, you've lost the debate.

One EASY solution

[Dread_ed]

Doctors routinely break the membranes of pregnant women to help induce pregnancy. Of course this results in the loss of ALL the amniotic fluid.

Just siphon it off and everyone is happy.

Re:amazing

[Rich0]

The mentally challenged feel pain, happiness, sadness, and many other things, even if not like we do. An embryo does not. That's the difference.

I'd imagine that most animals are capable of feeling pain, and something tantamount to happiness and sadness. Have you ever seen a dog whimper from apparent dreaming during sleep?

I'm not saying that this isn't a legitimate field for debate, or that it is impossible for a line to be drawn. However, most people who feel they have some sort of rational standard for when "life" begins just haven't thought it through. Gosh, it is hard enough to define the term "planet". Most definitions of the start of life are essentially arbitrary or based on a religious viewpoint. I'm not sure I've seen one that has satisfied me as being rationally derived from biology in some way.

whoa...

[cynic783]

Does this mean we still get to carve up embryos? Oops, I mean blastocysts? Err, I mean whatever I am supposed to call the fertilized eggs.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[jacksonj04]

I'd be more tempted to say that scientifically life begins in a big grey area sometime between conception and birth (Be it natural, Caesarian, premature, whatever). It is difficult to say "At this point this embryo can survive without support" at any stage until it's actually tried.

A dead animal is still mostly living cells, but it's fairly obvious it is no longer in a state suitable for that which we call 'life'.

Death has always been a fairly clear-cut line with animals (Not so much with plants, which tend to wither). When does life begin? It kinda happens over time.

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

No you've lost the debate, unless your saying that the possibility of something to turn into a human is enough, or that evolution doesn't exist were ll designed by God.

Re:amazing

[heinousjay]

They may be interested, but I'd have to wonder about their sanity if they think that a rotting piece of meat is going to be a substitute for a child.

Re:amazing

[Dread_ed]

I would say what seperates us from the other animals this conversation. To say it another way, it is that we actually save the lives of other humans who are incapable of sustaining themselves.

Other animals just toss those to the wolves (literally) so that they can escape unharmed.

Alternatively, we circle the wagons and will sacrafice our halest and prized to protect one mewling, atrophied, deformed, and retarded offspring.

Some of us just carry that same protective instinct a bit farther, or earlier if you will.

Re:the more important question is....

[rohan972]

So, the question remains, is it better to have complicated issues resolved by a select few who know something about the subject matter, or do we let "the masses" decide in whatever manner Oprah, Micheal Moore, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly instructed them to?

Remember "of the people, by the people". The system we have says it's the masses. Free speech is so you can influence the masses. Don't tear down that system just because the masses listened to someone who disagreed with you.

A better article on New Scientist

[foniksonik]

The article on New Scientist clearly states that the amniotic stem cells can be taken from the placenta after delivery and placed in cryogenic storage and then replicated easily within 36 hours to become a plentiful source of these cells....

So all the comments about the dangers of taking fluid during pregnancy are mis-informed based on the original link apparently... sounds like bias from cnn editors.

This is a great new discovery and should certainly be explored fully before being discounted because it doesn't involved the destruction of embryos to accomplish new science.

Re:amazing

[JavaLord]

To take it a step further: I remember the Chaivo case a while back where a lady was determined to be brain dead. Her husband was allowed to pull the plug on her, not because she had no brain activity, but because she would never again have any brain activity. You can't say the same of an embryo.

Her husband was allowed to pull the plug on her because he stated that was her wish, and she had made it known to him. An unborn child doesn't have the same kind of choice.

While I think abortion is bad public policy (check out the birthrates of countries with legalized abortion), if it's going to be legal you might as well harvest whatever you can from the child's dead body...at least some good can come of the bad.

What about a finger?

[StarKruzr]

Suppose someone's finger gets cut off. DNA tests will undoubtedly confirm it to be human. Should it be afforded all the rights of a person? Should we keep it on life support?

No. Because a finger, like a pre-3 month embryo, is an incomplete piece of a person.

Re:What about a finger?

[ArcherB]

Suppose someone's finger gets cut off. DNA tests will undoubtedly confirm it to be human. Should it be afforded all the rights of a person? Should we keep it on life support?

No. Because a finger, like a pre-3 month embryo, is an incomplete piece of a person.

Excellent point, except that a pre-3 month embryo will continue to grow and be self sustaining eventually. A finger will not. Besides, under your logic, if someone loses a finger, what do we save, the finger or the rest of the carcass?

Re:What about a finger?

[corerunner]

a finger has no neural tissue, unlike a human embryo after 8 weeks

Re:What about a finger?

[jstomel]

Excellent point, except that a pre-3 month embryo will continue to grow and be self sustaining eventually. A finger will not. Besides, under your logic, if someone loses a finger, what do we save, the finger or the rest of the carcass?

So it sounds to me like you want to draw the line at "possesses human dna and will continue to grow and be self sustaining eventually". I should point out that there are some alzeheimer's patients and coma victems who would not pass this test. I should also point out that frozen embryos do not pass this test as they are not in an environment where they are capable of growth.

Re:What about a finger?

[jstomel]

8 week old embryos are not used in stem cell research. In fact, at 8 weeks they aren't even technically embryos. embryos with usable stem cells are a day old, maybe two, and they look like a very, very tiny basketball. They have a couple hundred cells, none of which could be remotely classified as a tissue, neural or otherwise. And fingers do have neural tissue, thats how you can move them and feel with them.

Re:What about a finger?

[ArcherB]

So it sounds to me like you want to draw the line at "possesses human dna and will continue to grow and be self sustaining eventually". I should point out that there are some alzeheimer's patients and coma victems who would not pass this test. I should also point out that frozen embryos do not pass this test as they are not in an environment where they are capable of growth.

Yeah, I didn't put that very well. I thought of a better way after I hit submit:

A finger is part of a person. A person can live without a finger but not the other way around. If it were possible to extract stem cells without destroying the embryo, I would not have any problems with it, just like I don't have a problem removing them from am biotic fluid as mentioned in TFA.

Also, there is a possibility that coma patients will wake up. If not, I would still not like them being experimented on, but I don't have a problem with euthanasia. The same could be said of Alzheimer's patients. I guess you could consider embryos as organ donors, but that would be stretch as they won't have ID's to put the sticker on. I guess I'll support harvesting embryos for stem cells when it's made legal to take organs from cadaver without consent.

Re:What about a finger?

[jstomel]

I think the general legal principle is that when someone is incapable of expressing consent there is someone else appointed who can give consent for them. Generally, organs cannot be harvested without consent because we assume that the person was capable of giving consent and chose not to. Embryos, not being things which are capable of consent, are generally not used without the consent of the next most interested parties, the genetic progenaters, who are (fairly reasonably, I think) empowered to give consent on behalf of the embryo since it was never in a situation where it was able to. That all seems pretty reasonable to me.

Re:What about a finger?

[StarKruzr]

"Will" is an entirely different matter from "is."

We are under no obligation to allow every pre-something to become that something. There is also no logical reason to grant pre-somethings the considerations due somethings.

Re:Ethic issues

[DurendalMac]

Congratulations, you found the Old Testament. Now try reading the New Testament, where much of this is nullified by Jesus.

Re:amazing

[heinousjay]

I wasn't part of the debate, simply an observer making a comment.

Also, good luck to anyone looking for a dog embryo that will grow up into a human.

Re:amazing

[rohan972]

First, the "problems as to where you draw the line" are so big as to be impossible to overcome.

Not really, you make an arbitrary judgement. You then see whose arbitrary judgement is most popular. Then you have it signed into law. If you want more people to agree with your arbitrary judgement, you utilise your right to free speech.

And if you see any spelling errors in my post, don't be a spelling nartzy with me. If you can't spell a wird more than wun way, that's your problem.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Dread_ed]

The real irony is that the Scarecrow is an allegorical reference to a group of people in the US just before 1900 that were ridiculed by others and called stupid for their beliefs. Each character in the story represents either a person or a group of people on the politcal scene at that time.

The author espoused the beliefs of that group and therefore the Scarecrow doesn't act as if he has no brains. In fact, if you study the movie (or better, the book) you will realize that the scarecrow is the smartest of the bunch. He constantly comes up with the answers that get them out of trouble.

The story is entertaining by itself, but it becomes utterly fascinating if you understand the political allegory behind it. And it leads to all sorts of interesting comparisons when you understand what it was really about and others do not.

Re:the more important question is....

[SnarfQuest]

The more important question is, what proof is there that fetal stem cells would do you one damn bit of good? Organ replacements requires constant anti-rejection treatments, and they are frequently rejected anyway. What makes you think that there would be a way around that for stem cells? once those suckers started to reject, you probably wouldn't be able to remove them, and would likely end up worse than when you started. Using stem cells harvested from your own body (adult stem cells) avoids the rejection problems. Research in that direction, which has already created useful treatments, seems a better path to me than fetal stem cell research, which has created none, even after all the hype.

Re:Ethic issues

[Shatrat]

That's just about the least ethical thing I've heard this week.

Re:Ethic issues

[Eivind Eklund]

As I said, it is a question of *interpretations* of the bible. You are choosing to put weight on parts I happen to like, too, yet I still see people saying that homosexuality is a sin (which would fit under my definition of irrational intolerance, given that homosexuality is a frequent phenomenon in nature) based on one of the quotes I gave.

I don't see christians as generally filled with hatred. I see the bible as supplying ample material for those that want to be filled with intolerance and hate, and ample material for those that want to be what I see as good people, and which side you land on as being a question of how you interpret the bible.

Eivind.

Re:amazing

[minus_273]

many other animals protect the weak e.g. dolphins

Re:amazing

[DerangedAlchemist]

Adoption is incredibly rare. Most embryos are just incinerated as medical waste. If Bush actually cared, he could have stopped fertility clinics from making excess embryos in the first place.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Your Pal Dave]

Scientifically, life began about 5 billion years ago. Gametes are no less alive than somatic cells. As you point out, whether they, or embryos for that matter, are Persons entitled to various rights is a matter that falls outside of the scientific domain. Which is why this debate will go on and on.....

We'll see

[illegalcortex]

I've seen so many announcements about some non-embryonic stem cell source that will solve all the ethics issues that I'm a bit skeptical. I know it's the nature of science "journalism" that the more sensational something is, the more likely it will be reported long before it's proven. But so far I haven't heard anything about the previous methods being the silver bullet that the initial press made them out to be.

Re:We'll see

[illegalcortex]

Like how stem cells can cure Parkinson's?

Short answer - yes.

Long answer - It really sounds like you are trying to turn this political. I don't know why that has to be. Bad science reporting is something that is really independent of your political persuasion. Embryonic stem cells are not the only topic that gets bad science reporting. Just watch the AP/Reuters news feeds for about a month. There are plenty of apolitical but still sensational science stories.

Harvest?

[ElleyKitten]

What do you (or your professor) mean by "harvest"? They've either been in a lab since day 1, in which case I'm not sure how you can apply the term "harvest", or they're in a woman who's not likely to even know she's pregnant before day 14 (day 14 is usually the first missed period day) so they're not likely to be harvested from her. Anyways, assuming we're talking about lab embryos, while they could be implanted in a woman, there are more made than there are women who want them, so many of them go in the trash. I'm not sure what's wrong about experimenting on things that would be thrown away otherwise.

Re:Harvest?

[RockModeNick]

I think women with the stance that any fertilized egg is a human life should have to line up for implantation with all the surplus eggs created at fertility clinics. Not doing so, and letting those eggs be disposed or frozen, is elminiating a potential life!

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

Also, good luck to anyone looking for a dog embryo that will grow up into a human.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

"Most early mammals were small and shrew-like animals that fed on insects. Constant body temperature. All mammals have milk glands for their young."

Ethic issues? None here.

[Hittite Creosote]

Indeed, the text of the paper specifically states that they have "isolated similar stem cell populations from placental biopsies obtained after full-term pregnancies"

Can't be less ethical than eating the thing...

Re:You USians (-1, Flamebait)

[Apocalypse111]

Ok, so perhaps "appealing" wasn't the right word there. But my proposal probably sounded just about as good or bad as the previous one, which was my point. To make it clear, I am somewhat liberal on this issue, although not necessarily for the reasons I stated. As I don't have a problem with abortion, I am glad to see that it is affordable by most people - I don't see that it causes damage to society, rather, that it helps society. Like it or not, people are going to get pregnant. The desire for sex isn't going to go away with classes on the subject, its part of our biology, and that can only be curbed so much. That being the case, which would you rather have: a) an overwhelmed foster care and orphanage system, as well as parents raising children they didn't want in the first place, or b) fewer kids. Admittedly, I don't like kids, but trying to think objectively I still think (b) is the better choice. On the death-row side of things, I think its a good thing that it is both prohibitively expensive and time consuming, as the extra time allows for the possibility that evidence could come about that clears the convict. Were I to be wrongly convicted, I would want every opportunity to prove my innocence, and I would much rather that I be freed later than killed quickly only to be exonerated posthumously. I am not against the death penalty, but I do think it should be a relatively infrequent thing, and would want an innocent killed by mistake. Thus, the more opportunity for exoneration, the better.

Re:You USians (-1, Flamebait)

[DerangedAlchemist]

Far too many executed "murderers" were later proven innocent.

without harm? - not quite

[bcrowell]

The cells, found in amniotic fluid, can be harvested without harm to the donor or the donor's unborn child.
Well, not quite. Amniotic fluid sampling does have risks, but many people undergo the risks because they want the benefits of genetic testing on the fetus. I have a relative (now a teenager) who was not expected to survive as a fetus because of complications arising from sampling her mother's amniotic fluid.

Re:amazing

[Dread_ed]

Not to the same extent.

Dolphins have no ACLU.

Re:What I'm shocked about...

[wombert]

Be realistic.

1. It wouldn't be a few hundred or a few thousand embryos used for research. If embryonic stem cell research was the norm, and was supplied by donated embryos, why wouldn't it be in the hundreds of thousands? (How many are held in storage now as a result of fertility treatments?)

2. The research would not result in a tangible benefit for 6 billion people. If it developed a cure for one disease, that would be applicable to the subset of the population suffering from that disease.

3. The contents of your body could be used to assist several others who are suffering. Let's see: corneas, kidneys (2), liver, heart, blood ... I'm sure we could find at least 10 people, maybe more, whose lives would be improved by taking advantage of your bodily resources. Would that justify the taking of your life for that purpose? Or does that only apply if you're not in the phone book? (Oooh, let's start with the homeless, then, hmm?)

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[fireboy1919]

I don't think that "able to survive without support" is a sufficient definition for living organism. Then you're left with the difficult task of what "support" means in such a way that covers clearly alive organisms.

By what I perceive as your definition, all of the parasites living within one's body aren't alive because they're relying on another organism for support in exactly the same way that the fetus does. That doesn't make sense.

Further, if you're definition of support is sufficiently broad, you could say that children aren't alive since they depend on parents for support.

With respect to organic life, you could say something about "if it has metabolic processes and it has it's own DNA, then it's an organism unto itself," but that means that Siamese twins are one organism, which also doesn't seem right...

Re:What I'm shocked about...

[SnarfQuest]

We want to test the effects of torturing adult humans to the point of death. Since this research will benefit thousands of people, we are glad to know that you will be available for testing. Your sacrifice will be appreciated by hundreds.

Please come to our office, remove your clothes, and climb into the rend-o-matic. The testing will start automatically when you shut the door.

Re:Ethic issues

[Eivind Eklund]

Now read the stuff in context: There was a claim that there wasn't suggestions of hate and intolerance in the bible. There is, and some of these are used today (for instance, the homosexuality quote I included). Fortunately, most christians disregard this and behave as good people anyway.

Eivind.

Re:Ethic issues

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

This is becoming less common as ultrasound measurements of neck thickness are considered to be an effective measure and the risk is substantially lower.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[finity]

I think the parent was talking about life in a more general sense. He was referring to life at the cellular level, so he'd probably say that while the dead animal as a whole is dead, parts of it are still living.
Also, I don't think it's so much, at which point can the human survive without support. Many children are born prematurely and require medical support to stay alive, but they're still alive aren't they? Is the child alive in the womb when it's able to respond to pain? Some people who are seriously injured cannot survive without support, but they are still alive, and many go on to live the same as before they were put on support.
I think an important problem with society's debate about abortion is that it's a debate. People agree that we need to preserve human life and now the question is what do we define as human life? I think people will always disagree about this, as it truly is an issue of where to draw the line. Unless someone comes up with a revelation from God that suits most people, we'll have to trust science on this one. From what I've seen, so far most people that say they're relying on science for the abortion issue are just bending it to their own needs.

This stumped the guy?

[sammy baby]

(IANAL, although I assume you are from your post.)

My answer was simple. American law (I can't speak for others as I am trained in American law) favors the "best interests of the child," even over that of society. It is decidedly not in a child's interest to be harvested before it can draw breath---the harvesting rather impedes one's chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, if harvesting before 14 days is good for society, then all embryos should be harvested. I know this is an ad infinitum argument, but stopping introduction of new life to society is decidedly against the interests of society.

In response to your first argument: I'm surprised that your claim left the bioethicist without response. If he is arguing that law should define the start of life at fourteen days post conception, the "best interest of the child" argument can't even come into play. You can't take "the best interest of the child" into account if the child isn't alive yet. That's the whole point of putting a mark at 14 days.

In response to your second argument: the same logic would argue that if the right to abortion is a good thing, then all pregnancies should be terminated. This isn't just an "ad infinitum" argument, it's silly at best, and deliberately misrepresentative at worst.

A lot of misconceptions from a lot of people

[Goshzilla]

There are a lot of misconceptions running around on this blog, so I won't respond to them on a post by post basis. Rather I'll just list some and respond to them. 1.) An embryo is a fertilized egg. Wrong, an embryo is a cell. Fertilization is a process an embryo can be subject to. 2.) Embryonic stem cells are destroying fertilized eggs. The process of creating embryonic stem cells is taking an unfertilized embryo, replacing the native dna material with the dna of the thing that is to be cloned. This embryo is not fertilized with a sperm, nor is it fertilized in the biological sense. This embryo is not capable of cell division naturally. After the dna material is replaced, a small current is applied to the embryo to force it to undergo cell division. It's not natural fertilization, nor was it fertilization in the first place. Fertilization requires both host dna and the mate's dna. 3.) Creation of stem cells destroys a potential life. The odds that the process to make stem cells can make a fully developed life form is very very rare, more rare than fertilization. If they just let the embryo continue cell division, the chances of it making it to the fetus stage and beyond is over one and a hundred. Their were hundreds of failed attempts to make dolly the sheep, which in the end died because of health problems. So again there wasn't complete success in making a healthy life form. 4.) extraction of Amneonic fluid is dangerous. Doctors do these kinds of testings all the time. It is a test done in prenatal care to detect any potential health problems early on. This would not be a practice at all if the risks to the unborn was greater than the benefits. If someone asked me if I would subject my daughter to amneonic fluid extraction, I would say yes, it would a.) ensure the safety of my grandchild, and b.) contribute to the sciences, its a win win situation where I and my daughter get cake and eat it too.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[bill_mcgonigle]

There is no scientific definition of when human life starts. Such an idea will always be religious or philosophical.

Science makes some pretty good approximations of when a person is 'brain dead', as measured by various types of brain activity. As I understand it we don't yet have the technology to safely measure the same levels of activity in a developing fetus. There's also the problem of the direction of progress, so it's not a simple inverse case.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[THE anonymus coward]

How do you know that cows aren't wondering that? Cows don't bury their dead, and neither do dolphins. Sure they communicate with each other and have an animal form of community, but the mother dolphin doesn't plan for the child dolphin's future. These things don't happen without an immaterial soul. You're right that I can't get into the subjective experience of a cow or a dolphin to say for sure, but being is revealed in action, and they sure don't act like they have immaterial souls.

how do you know that a cow's life wasn't intended by God to be the comfortable life for reincarnated human souls after living a good life? You think you know all the answers, but you're just as wrong as everyone else. I don't know all the answers, I just understand the questions.

Re:Ethic issues

[ultranova]

I can be an atheist and still think abortion is fundamentally wrong

Not really. What would make it so ? Not god, since an atheist denies the existence of one. Nor laws of physics, since they - being purely mechanical - don't care. Not society, since that ultimately just means that some people arbitrarily decided that something is wrong - arbitrarily, since they have no higher moral authority to base their decision on, there being no higher moral authority in atheism - and not yourself, since that is just you deciding something is wrong without anything to back that decision besides your personal tastes for the reasons mentioned previously.

An atheist really shouldn't talk about right and wrong - and certainly not about "fundamental" right and wrong - since they simply have no meaning in a godless, purely physical world. "Beneficial" and "harmful" might be useful replacements, but they obviously raise the question "to whom ?".

Now let's see how many people flame me with "I'm an atheist and a moral person!", completely missing my point: that since there is no being in atheism capable of authoritatively declaring one set of moral values better than others, and since nature is unable to do so either, "moral behavior" can in atheism be defined by any person any way they want with no one being able to show any reason why that definition would be any better or worse than any other definition; consequently, any behavior is just as moral in atheism as any other (since it's always possible to make up a moral code justifying it, even if that code only says "I can do whatever I want, but the rest of you can't"), which of course means that the word "moral" has no meaning in atheism.

Luckily, most atheists still follow the religion-derived values of the society around them, being unable or unwilling to take their belief - or lack of belief, whatever viewpoint you prefer - to its logical conclusion, and so stay productive or at least non-destructive members of society. And luckily most religious people don't take seriously every weird half-baked phisolophy various theologians with too much time on their hands have added to it over the centuries, especially the parts about killing anyone who disagrees on anything with religious leaders. Laziness is the one thing that unites the masses of humanity anywhere, no matter their creed :).

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[THE anonymus coward]

it didn't take right the first time...

How do you know that cows aren't wondering that? Cows don't bury their dead, and neither do dolphins. Sure they communicate with each other and have an animal form of community, but the mother dolphin doesn't plan for the child dolphin's future. These things don't happen without an immaterial soul. You're right that I can't get into the subjective experience of a cow or a dolphin to say for sure, but being is revealed in action, and they sure don't act like they have immaterial souls.

how do you know that a cow's life wasn't intended by God to be the comfortable life for reincarnated human souls after living a good life? You think you know all the answers, but you're just as wrong as everyone else. I don't know all the answers, I just understand the questions.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[THE anonymus coward]

it didn't take right the first time, or the second time.... stupid HTML tags...

How do you know that cows aren't wondering that? Cows don't bury their dead, and neither do dolphins. Sure they communicate with each other and have an animal form of community, but the mother dolphin doesn't plan for the child dolphin's future. These things don't happen without an immaterial soul. You're right that I can't get into the subjective experience of a cow or a dolphin to say for sure, but being is revealed in action, and they sure don't act like they have immaterial souls.

how do you know that a cow's life wasn't intended by God to be the comfortable life for reincarnated human souls after living a good life? Reincarnation as a different creature is metaphysically impossible. The matter that my soul informs is human, and my soul is a custom fit for the human being. In other words, a human soul doesn't fit in a cow body, only a cow soul fits in a cow body. In fact, it is only because it is a cow soul that informs a cow body that we can recognize it as a cow.

You think you know all the answers, but you're just as wrong as everyone else. I don't know all the answers, I just understand the questions.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[ElleyKitten]

Curious: Absent religion, where do you find any reason at all to believe that such a thing as a soul even exists? (yes, that makes the precarious assumption that by "I don't look to the Bible for spiritual enlightenment" you meant "I don't purport to believe in any sort of textual religion)

Your assumption's wrong. Let me try to explain.

I am a Unitarian Universalist. Our beliefs vary; we do not have one book that we all agree is inerrantly true. We do believe in our Principles and Purposes, and individually we may find spiritual truth in texts of other religions. I personally find mine in the Tao Te Ching. I'm not Taoist though, and I personally can't believe that all the truth about the Divine can be bound up in one book. Religion is something you feel in your heart (or not, if you're an atheist) and all the books on religion are just attempting to describe with words what can't, and never can be accurately described, only felt.

I probably just confused you more. But what I'm saying is I am relgious, even though I disagree with much of what the Bible say.

Re:amazing

[LEgregius]

One issue with using the "mental" argument for abortion is that it's becoming very clear that around the start of the second trimester, the fetus already has a fair bit of mental capability. It's also very difficult for us to know at what point this happens since it varies per fetus, and it's pretty darn hard to test. Babies born at 22-23 weeks, about half way through, are able to eat, and grow up to be healthy adults. Certainly a killing a newborn, regardless of the gestation, is a murder. It's pretty stupid to think because a child is inside the womb rather than outside that his/her sentience may vary. You obviously can't make that argument about a 2 week old embryo. The real legal argument in the US has always been whether or not the unborn have protections under the constitution and whether or not a women has control of her own body. Back to the subject of the post, amniocentesis is pretty dangerous. Most women probably wouldn't want to just go in and be a "donor". Puncturing the amniotic sac has caused a fairly large number of miscarriages. It's like popping a balloon hoping it seals back up before the air comes out. However, in the cases where the mother already decides that the test should be done, she could be asked if she would allow the cells to be used in medical research.

Re:Liar

[jstomel]

On the issue that an embryo is a human being, Human tissue cultures are generally not considered human despite the fact that they have a distinctly human genetic structure. Would you extend human rights to tissue cultures? Speaking as a biologist, in order to be a member of a particular species requires more than just the right genes, it also requires the proper organizational structure. Does an embryo have the proper organizational structure to be considered functionally human? It probably depends on the stage of development.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[jstomel]

I'm going to assume that you're talking about physical laws rather than legislative ones. Your definition of human seems to be cultural rather than biological. I think that the Gparent used "human organism" in the sense of "member of the species Homo sapien". Someone raised by wolves would still be, biologically speaking, human. Wheather or not you want to extend so called "human rights" to such a creature is a value judgement, not a scientific one.

Re:the more important question is....

[jstomel]

There is already a stem cell treatment in testing that involves using embryonic stem cells to regrow damaged spinal tissue in parapalegics. It works in rats and is being tested in humans. To my knowledge there have been no rejection problems. Also, adult humans don't have any stem cells that are capable of growing in to fully functional organs (with the exception of blood and skin, if you consider those organs). The level of pluripotency required to create that many cell types with that level of organizational complexity is not known to exist in any adult stem cell. On the other hand, it would be fairly easy to genetically modify an embryonic stem cell line to express your own cell surface proteins, thus avoiding potential rejection problems.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[jstomel]

Errr...so how do you know what "shape" a soul is other than by looking at the body? If a human soul was in a cows body, how could you tell? Maybe cows don't bury their dead because their lack of thumbs makes holding the shovle kind of difficult. Besids which, not all people act the same either, are you saying that the ones who don't bury their dead or plan for their child's future don't have souls?

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[jstomel]

I challenge you to come up with a material way of describing the difference between a living organism and a dead organism.

Ok. A living organism has homeostasis. It utalizes energy to maintain it's own internal structure. Dead organisms do not do this.

Re:amazing

[BakaHoushi]

To quote Lewis Black, "THEY'RE NOT ALIVE! They have the POTENTIAL for life, but until they do, they're about as alive as a mini-pizza. If we're going to protect frozen embryos, we ought to have National Guardsmen in every frozen food section of the country with guns. 'GET BACK! The crab strips may come back to life!'"

My take on this? Well, let me ask this question:
If an embryo is a person, why do people say "we have one child and another on the way" instead of "we have 2 children?" If a human becomes a human at conception, why is it most (I lack the exact figure at the moment, but I've always seen 60%-80%) of fertilized eggs get flushed out of a woman's body during her periods? (Fertilization is only half the start-up process)

One of the largest arguments I hear for the "pro-life" side is "You're denying a person life." Well, an embryo can't think. Not at all. Even someone who is mentally retarded is capable of some thought. But an embryo is, still, just a clump of expanding cells that have the POTENTIAL for thought. Someday. If things go right enough, though there's a good chance it'll be flushed away, form incorrectly, come out too soon, etc.

I do suppose "adoption" is a choice. I mean, there's just a shortage of kids up for adoption now, we're running on empty, right? And the human race is just so close to extinction... Seriously, I know family traditions, socio-economic structures, $DEITY tell people to "be fruitful," but I think we've harvested enough for now, and I'm pretty much for any and all means of population reduction short of genocide, random murder, etc.

In a technical sense, I will admit that an embryo is alive. It is alive in the sense that it takes in energy, gives off waste, can reach a stage where it can possibly reproduce someday, etc. but that describes so many things in the universe it's ridiculous. But then the question is, "Is life sacred?" Most people will say, "yes, life is sacred." Though we certainly don't act like it. Humans kill for so many reasons. Food. Entertainment. To get rid of a pest. Even typing on these keys, I'm prbably crushing some spores that could have, potentially, become a fungus someday, a living entity. And most people, I'm sure, aren't going to find said fungus to be sacred.

So now we arrive at the point where we're saying "SOME life is sacred" (whatever the Hell "Sacred" means, seems a bit subjective to me). So we can think about sentient life now, ignoring the fungus and amoebas in the world. Is a cow sacred? Well, we kill 'em and eat 'em. So, some will say, no. (Though to act on an old stereotype, Hinduism finds them sacred)

So now we're back to people. Is human life sacred? Well, what even defines "human life?" DNA? Any cell with Human DNA? What about blood? Pouring through my veins is an assload of blood cells, which are living things, with my DNA in them. If someone punched me in the face and gave me a nosebleed, is he guilty of assault, or manslaughter? Seems the courts don't find living things with human DNA to be automatically given human rights.

So, what's the difference between that clump of my red blood cells and that clump of cells in a woman's uterus? That the Uterus has the POTENTIAL for life? But, and this may surprise you, I am a male. As a human male, I have certain characteristics, including genitals. These "genitals" have these things called "testicles" which are full of sperm. Every sperm in my body has the POTENTIAL for life (assuming it wasn't poorly made. I hear the male body really does a rush job on a lot of them, and some end up deformed and essentially useless, so the male relies on sheer numbers, causing the female immune system to cry out, "OMG SPERM RUSH!").

So, then here's a question: Is every sperm sacred? Is every sperm good? IS every sperm neeeeeeeeeeded in your neighborhoooooooood? For once, I'm going to disagree with Monty Python. If I don't have sex with a woman and get her pregnant RIGHT NOW, well, all those sperm are probably going to die. They'll never fufill their potent

Still a Basic Problem

[YetAnotherBob]

Stem cells harvested from amniotic fluid will still have the basic problem that embrionic stem cells have for clinical use. True, you didn't have to kill a baby to get them, eliminating the objection that a lot of religious people have with stem cell research, but they are still forign to the body. (If you don't chose to admit that embronic stem cells are harvested by killing a baby, then you don't want to really address the 'conservative' concerns, so you will never be able to resolve the issue. The problem then isn't with the objectors, it's with you. Deliberate blindness, whether you agree or disagree with the view is not ever going to resolve the concerns.)

Rejection by the immune system will be a problem for clinical use with , unless like in transplants, you do something to supress the immune system. That of course causes a whole raft of other problems.

A better system would be to find how to harvest and grow stem cells in the patients body. We all have them, it's just hard to get them to express themselves. That would be a natural way to eliminate the rejection problems. Fortunatly, that is also being worked on.

Next, we just have to figure out how to really use them. I hope we do. Now the benefits are mostly just promises. Vaporware that may soon turn to something great.

Re:Ethic issues

[YetAnotherBob]

There is no ethical issue. Removal of a little amniotic fluid does no harm to the baby. There is no greater religious issue here than there would be if I did an experiment using your urine.

Previous poster doesn't like that religious people may have ethics. He only shows his ignorance. Religions are heavily into ethics. Ask any buddist, or read Jesus comments in his 'Sermon on the Mount'. Mohammed, Hindus etc. All felt that ethics are very important, and agree that your personal ethics will probably determine your fate in the afterlife. (They don't agree on what that afterlife is, but that's a separate question.)

FUD

[tthomas48]

This is complete FUD, yet again trying to stop any real research. Amniocenteses is a risky, voluntary procedure that doesn't return very much fluid (nor would we want to). How exactly would this be capitalized or used as a treatment. This is just a stop gap measure for research purposes until the Federal Government gets its ducks in a row.

Re:Lean-tos.

[Hatta]

that's a poor foundation for any kind of understanding.

You know what else is a poor foundation for any kind of understanding? Faith. Faith discourages questioning which discourages the finding of real answers and real understanding. Since asking interesting questions and probing the world around us is what it is to be a nerd, it shouldn't be any surprise that a "news for nerds" site would be hostile to religion.

Nor is that a bad thing necessarily. Reason and skepticism have given us all the wonders of the modern age. Without them there is no science or technology. Faith has given us nothing but the Dark Ages.

Re:Liar

[rantingkitten]

1) An embryo is a collection of cells and has life (as much life as a bacterium, which I doubt you would deny).

Okay. But no one cares about whether it's alive. We kill living things all the time. We care about whether it's human...

2) At conception, the genetic structure is uniquely human.

Great definition! But wait, can't the same be said about every cell in my body? Am I committing mass murder of "human life" by pricking my finger and losing a drop of blood?

What makes a human a human isn't just genetics or "being alive". Our brain is the only thing that seperates us from any other living creature as far as we can tell. Let's talk about whether or not this thing has a brain.

Of course, the fundies will quickly argue that even though large-scale neuron linkup doesn't begin until the sixth or seventh month, the embryo has a "soul" or somesuch. Pure speculation with zero factual evidence behind it, but for the moment let's assume that's true.

Have they considered the implications of life being able to have a soul without a brain, or sentience? If they're willing to say that this brainless clump of cells has a "soul", how do they know animals don't have souls? Or plants? Or bacteria, for that matter? They're just as alive as the embryo, and the animals at least have developed, functional brains.

But it terrifies them to think that the hamburger they just ate may have come from a cow that had a soul just like theirs, so they dismiss it as nonsense. Eventually they'll fall back to some line about how God uniquely created humans in his image, not animals, so there.

The more you push the more weak their argument becomes. Of course, most people never get this far -- they just assert blind opinions as fact: "I believe abortion is morally wrong." Ask them why and you get standard-issue responses. Press a little more and they're left gibbering.

Oops

[YetAnotherBob]

First it's an egg, then it's fertilized. A couple of days later it's an embryo. A few months later it's a child. Then still later it's an adult, then a parent. (repeat process). At no point in the process is there a clear difference from the condition near the same point in time. (Except twords the end of the blastocyst stage, when the cells first start to differentiate, or before/after fertilization.) The lack of science education in the country is really showing in this thread. Didn't any of you study biology?

Re:Oops

[Goshzilla]

Yes but the point is that embryonic stem cells are not created from a sperm fertilized egg.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Hatta]

It is scientific fact that embryos, from conception onward, are living human organisms. One could say this alone gives them at least some basic rights.

So is a tumor. I can cut it out and grow it in a dish, so it's a distinct organism. It has human DNA so it's human. It undergoes cellular respiration, DNA replication, mitosis, and any other process living cells undergo. What differentiates an embryo from a tumor? Where are the protesters at oncology clinics?

Re:amazing

[mr_mischief]

Red Dwarf aside, I've never seen a cat that could be confused with a human. When your cat or dog starts to interact with your starship's computer's AI verbally, let me know.

Evolution from one species to another, substantially different species does not happen within a generation. No accepted theory of evolution allows for it. So the time to concern ourselves with a dog or cat's descendents becoming sufficiently genetically similar to humans that we can interbreed and produce fertile offspring is when those descendents happen to reach that point. The likelihood of dog-descended humanoids or cat-descended humanoids ever becoming that close to our ape-descended selves is another matter entirely, since it is nearly nil.

Doofus

[YetAnotherBob]

Read the article. They got the amniotic fluid during/after delivery. there is about a gallon of it released. There is no danger to the baby. It's already been born. Any hospital could provide liters and liters of the stuff every day. Too bad they still don't know how to really use it.

Then you haven't been paying attention

[porkchop_d_clown]

because, to date, all the successful stem cell therapies have used non-embryonic stem cells.

Re:amazing

[jstomel]

I'm not sure I've seen one that has satisfied me as being rationally derived from biology in some way.

With good reason. From a biological perspective, life doesn't "begin", it just continues. All life descends from other life, egg and sperm are alive, so its incorrect to even say that life begins at conception. But life isn't really the issue, "personhood" is the issue. What, in our conciet, do we consider to be the defining quality that makes us people as opposed to animals (which we generally have no problem killing)? I think many people would say it is our capacity for free will. That's why I would say that life begins with the first breath, as it is the first independent act of free will that anyone ever takes. When you choose to live or die, even it you are helped along in the decision by a sharp slap to the tush.

Re:the more important question is....

[YetAnotherBob]

Not according to Scientific American Magizine. The real problem with Adult Stem Cells, as reported, is that they have shorter alleals (sp). They can't last as long after use, and will die quicker. Still, an adult stem cell can be grown, and can take on the charactoristics of the surrounding tissue. Even so, it's still years away from a useful therapy. So much opinion, so little science. Typical of the slashdot crowd.

Thankful

[Mainusch]

I'm so thankful that with this discovery, nobody can claim it is necessary to kill these people for their stem cells anymore.

The justification for embryonic stem-cell research is now gone completely (not that it was ever valid).

And yet, I somehow get the feeling that some will still fight for the right to kill them, even though there is absolutely no reason to. You have to wonder about people who insist on killing for no reason.

You can find plenty of information online.

[Xenographic]

> Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid?

Yes. It's a pretty normal procedure, I don't believe it to be very risky to either the mother or the child.

Also, I'm glad for the fact that there are no ethical complications here--this should allow stem cell research to move forward and help save lives. For all the propaganda to the contrary, most people who are "against [embryonic] stem cell research" are actually against killing human embryos, not against science or research, even stem cell research, in and of itself.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[vakuona]

If wild boy had died, and some scientists had happened upon his remains, and tested them, would they have found him to be human or otherwise?

Your programming does not make you human. You are human from the moment of your conception because you will not turn out in any other way. Your destiny is set. You will have two legs, and two hands (asides some possible deformities).

I mean, if you are arguing that the programming is what makes one human, then you might as well argue that all those bones we dig up were not human, or we can't prove they were, because we do not know what their programming was like.

Your argument is pretty much circular in that you are defining a human to be someone programmed in a certain way, and therefore your conclusions follow. But your premise is very flawed. I mean, from your arguments it would follow that there are various degrees of being human, because there rudimentary your personality, the less human you are. How do you then define what a rudimentary personality is?

The line between humans and none humans is not fuzzy at all. It is very clear, but perhaps some people like to make it less clear because it serves their arguments better to make it seem so. If an embryo is not human, then you have to come up with a point at which it becomes human. For many of us, it is when the sperm and the egg fuse. It may not be much to behold then, but since when has size been the be all and end all of anything.

Except for the fact

[anomaly]

Except for the fact that both issues you raise are troublesome.

Medical marijuana is a problem because every place that tries to offer medicinal use of this drug ends up selling it to people who are not sick but just want to get high. In fact, perhaps you can be the first, but I have yet to meet a marijuana proponent who was not also a recreational marijuana user. People don't need to get high. We should not make it legal for people to get wasted just because they want to. I don't need you drunk or stoned and driving the car which ends up killing anyone.

Embryonic stem cell research is more troublesome - it's not just some stoner who is choosing to waste his life on drugs that is the problem. My world view says that a powerless, silent person is killed for every IVF failure and abortion and more would be killed to support the possibility of treatments. That is completely unacceptable.

Californians voted to fund embryonic stem cell research to the tune of $3B, so I'd suggest that federal funding is not the key to success that you seem to believe it to be.

My view is that embryonic research is morally tainted, and adult stem cell research is not, and is already helping people with practical therapies. Why waste time talking about embryonic stem cell research, particularly when we can now get similar cells from amniotic fluid without killing anyone?

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:Except for the fact

[dangitman]

Medical marijuana is a problem because every place that tries to offer medicinal use of this drug ends up selling it to people who are not sick but just want to get high.

And what's wrong with that?

We should not make it legal for people to get wasted just because they want to.

Why not? Are you against freedom? "The pursuit of happiness" is listed as one of the unalienable rights in the US Declaration of Independence. Surely recreational drug use can be considered part of that pursuit?

I don't need you drunk or stoned and driving the car which ends up killing anyone.

So, do you also believe that alcohol should be banned? Studies have been done which show stoned people drive safer than either drunk or sober people. Anyway, driving a car drunk or stoned is already illegal. Why should people who do not drink drunk or stoned be prevented from enjoying intoxicants while not driving? Should guns be banned because some people use them for murder? Should computers be banned because some people use them for child pornography and pedophilia?

My world view says that a powerless, silent person is killed for every IVF failure and abortion and more would be killed to support the possibility of treatments. That is completely unacceptable.

It's also complete nonsense. There would not be more abortions to support research. Nobody is going to say "Hey, those researchers need cells, I'm going to get pregnant and have an abortion."

Re:Except for the fact

[Hatta]

I have yet to meet a marijuana proponent who was not also a recreational marijuana user.

Funny, I've yet to meet a medical marijuana detractor who was not also a prohibitionist. So the scientific question of whether marijuana is good medicine tends to follow the political question of whether marijuana should be prohibited. Why is this? Because there are not enough facts to base a scientific opinion on, so people default to their political opinion. All this means is that we need to get more facts. The only way to do so is with more research.

People don't need to get high.

People don't need to play football either. Or dance, or scuba dive. If you care about freedom the proper position is to prohibit risky behaviors, e.g. driving while high, and leave the non-risky ones, e.g just being high, alone. Punishing someone who hasn't done anything harmful to anyone just because they might is pure fascism.

My world view says that a powerless, silent person is killed for every IVF failure and abortion

My world view says that a lump of cells is a lump of cells. An IVF failure or abortion is no different than, say, a tumor biopsy or a liposuction.

Re:Except for the fact

[Copid]

In fact, perhaps you can be the first, but I have yet to meet a marijuana proponent who was not also a recreational marijuana user.

For what it's worth, I'm one. Likewise, I'm all for medical use of morphine, Xanax, and any number of other potentially abusable drugs that I don't personally use recreationally. If it has a medically valid use, go for it.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[vakuona]

Well, it is quite unfortunate, but unless you are a plant, you feed on other life. Lions feeds on deer, buffalo, snakes feeds on mice, and humans feed on just about anything. If another species were to become dominant on earth, rest assured they would have no problem cutting off your backsides to make burgers.

But to each his own.

Re:the more important question is....

[jstomel]

Don't get me wrong, adult stem cells do have plenty of uses. And yes, under certain circumstances they will adopt the characteristics of tissue they are placed near. That's how our body replaces damaged tissue. But most adult stem cells have only a few types of tissue they can become. To the best of my knowledge (and yes, I am a biologist) there is no adult stem cell that can turn in to all the various types of tissue in the typical organ. Perhaps you have a reference I havn't seen, I am not a stem cell expert. There is this guy who claims to be able to turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, but other researchers have had difficulty replicating his results. By the way, An alleal is a variant of a gene, I think you mean that adult stem cells have shorter telomeres, which is true.

Re:Ethic issues

[markmier]

Kant's Categorical Imperative does a pretty good job of atheistically summing up an ethical system.

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperativ e

On a different note, I take it that you're religious, and that you believe that anyone who does not believe in a god cannot be moral? So in other words, the only reason that you personally do not rape and kill your mother is that the invisible sky daddy that you believe in says not to?

Yes, I understand that I'm making something of a straw man here, but I personally do not rape and kill my mother, yet I do not believe in any gods. I believe that raping and killing one's mother is wrong, because if everybody raped and killed their mother, society would be... rather different. Yet you don't rape and kill your mother because the god that you believe in threatens you with eternal pain and you are scared of him.

Which one of us is "moral"?

abortions for science?

[anomaly]

Right - no one will get pregnant to make babies for scientists to kill, but absolutely IVF techniques will be used to create more embyos from which to "harvest" stem cells. Again, my world view says that those are people being killed for research.

Re:abortions for science?

[dangitman]

So, how does that result in more embryos being destroyed, as you previously claimed? IVF is already very popular, and would easily provide enough embryos for research, without any greater number of people using IVF.

Re:abortions for science?

[anomaly]

Not everyone who has "extra" embryos from IFV will donate them for research. I guarantee that scientists will want to create cell lines by creating new embryos. And why not? They are just cells - just stuff in a petri dish, right?

It's morally objectionable and should be banned.

Re:abortions for science?

[Copid]

It's morally objectionable and should be banned.

Practically everything is morally objectionable to some group or another. Our options would be fairly limited if we listened to all of them.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[THE anonymus coward]

If a human soul was in a cows body, how could you tell? Clearly you don't understand... This question is like asking, "What if a table had the form of a chair?" Tables aren't chairs and chairs aren't tables.

Secondly, Aristotle talked about something called act and potency. Act is something that is actualized, and potency is the possibility for something to be actualized. What is important is that people (as per their form... there are always exceptions) have the potency to bury the dead or plan for the future of their children. Whether or not they actualize it is their choice. In fact, humans are also unique in that they have the free choice to either actualize their potential or not, but I am digressing...

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Carewolf]

The problem is also that a 5 month old baby only has the mental capacity of a small animal, yet we want it to have a greater right to life (we kill dogs if no one wants them).

Getting too scientific about the issue, could give us some very unpleasant results, some that our biology might not like us to make.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[THE anonymus coward]

Homeostasis is an excellent answer, precisely because it indicates the presence of a non-material animating principle. The point of my question was to ask for a material cause, and homeostasis (at least as I understand you stating it) is notably immaterial. Homeostasis is one of the functions of the soul.

Think; we looked all over the chicken, but couldn't find the homeostasis.

Re:Ethic issues

[dangitman]

But the statement I was responding to was that abortion is "fundamentally" wrong. This means it should never be performed. So, it should not be performed, even if the mother is likely to die during child birth. It should not be performed in cases of rape, etc. Do you agree with that?

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[bill_mcgonigle]

The problem is also that a 5 month old baby only has the mental capacity of a small animal, yet we want it to have a greater right to life (we kill dogs if no one wants them).

Infanticide is already considered murder, so I don't see that being a hard problem for the ethicists. But I think we should be careful using the terms 'mental capacity' and 'mental capability' interchangeably. A dog is at milepost X whereas a baby is passing milepost X on its way to milepost Y. They may have the same mental capacity, but they have different mental capabilities. Here English is probably too vague to even nail down specifics with single words.

Similarly, in those with brain death, they've passed milepost X but they're on their way to milepost A, to further tax an already bad analogy.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[jstomel]

Homeostasis is an extremely material thing. And fairly well studied. It's primary actors are enzymes which break down high energy molecules, store that energy in other molecules, and then use that energy to build and repair other molecules which maintains the internal order. Saying that you can't find homeostasis in a chicken is like saying you can't find the flight in a duck. It's not a noun, it's a verb. It's what living things do that dead things don't. And we can watch cells do it in the lab. You seem to be saying that the soul takes energy from the environment and uses that energy to repair the cell, but I'm pretty sure we found what does that and it's mostly proteins.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[jstomel]

The form of the chair does not survive the chair being thrown into the fire. At least not according to Aristotle, Plato might disagree. If you want to say that the soul can exist independent of the body then you have to allow that it could exist independent of the body and be inside a cow. After all, what's the difference between the soul just floating there and the soul floating around inside a cow? And I don't know about you, but my cat seems to have a fair amount of free choice. When I call her, sometimes she chooses to come and sometimes she doesn't.

Attack of the Killer Strawmen

[illegalcortex]

And you clearly didn't read my post very thoroughly. I made no mention whatsoever about stem cell therapies. Perhaps my phrasing was a bit sparse. Basically, we know for a FACT that embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. We also know for a FACT that no adult stem cell source has been shown to produce pluripotent stem cells. Right now, pluripotent stem cells == embryonic stem cells. My whole point is that there have been so many possible methods that have been touted as a replacement for embryonic stem cells. However, none of them have been shown to be pluripotent, thus limiting their uses and making them not really a replacement that will get us out from under the ethical problem.

That isn't to say multipotent stem cells have NO uses. You would never find me saying that. ESCR has only been around since about 1998, so it's a bit jumping the gun to start talking about all the successful stem cell therapies and putting down therapies that might be created using pluripotent stem cells. Right now, there are a lot of hurdles for them to be used. First, there is the giant mess with funding. Second, there is the problem with contamination in a lot of stem cell lines. Third, there is the giant ethical issue. Fourth, there is the largest problem - we haven't yet figured out all the buttons to push in a pluripotent stem cell to make it do what we want. The last is both the story of science and a results of the first three issues. But since you don't have issues 1-3, much more research has gone into using multipotent stem cells and hence more success. Personally, I think it's GREAT that there has been success. But to ignore the fact that a multipotent cell has less potential than a pluripotent one is to not only be ignorant of science but also grammar .

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[jstomel]

Your argument is rather ironic, anyway. The Bible does not say anything particularly relevant to abortion or stem-cells in the first place.

Sure it does. "9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalms137:9. God is obviously pro-abortion.

Re:Liar

[theStorminMormon]

Organizational structure would be a valid alternative to my suggested critieria: completeness. A tissue sample is human but it is not a human. It is merely part of one. An embryo is clearly not part of the mother in that sense. It is an entire entity.

As far as organizational structure is concerned, however, I would argue that the embryo has all required organization from the moment of conception. This is because I don't think the actual implementation of the characteristic is important - the intrinsic nature of it is. I'm not trying to prove I'm right and you (or anyone else) is wrong: just explaining my own viewpoint. We all agree that, for example, consciusness is a part of being human. However I think we would also agree that being unconscious does not make you not-human. So consciousness matters, but not in terms of it's manifestation at a certain point in time. The same goes for things like fingers. Humans have 10 fingers. It's part of the Platonic form of "human" (metaphorically, I don't really believe forms exist). And yet if someone loses a finger it doesn't make them non-human, or even any less human at all. They are simply a human missing a finger. We know that the intrinsic nature of that human is to have 10 fingers. They just, through an accident of time and coincidence, only have 9 at this point in time.

I see embryos in the same way. An embryo - in terms of intrinsic quality - has 10 toes and self-conciousness already. Of course it is not actually conscious until (as far as we can tell) at least a year or two after birth. And it obviously doesn't have any toes or fingers at conception - it is just one cell.

Nevertheless it is a new instance of the object "homo sapien". And thus, in my opinion, it deserves all the rights of a human being regardless of the fact that it has not yet expressed most of those characteristics. We don't treat sleeping people as less human, we don't amputees as less human, we don't treat pre-adolescents as less human and we don't treat babies as less human. Despite the obvious lack they all demonstrate of some human characteristic, we don't deduct from their humanity a single iota as a result. Why should we then expect to suddenly abandon this logic and declare that, based on characteristic x or y an embryo is not human - not a person?

Our own inttuition holds the key: humanity is about intrinsic characteristics (which is not the same as potential), and not about the exprssion at any given time of those characteristics. The organizational structure of a human being, eyes, toes, heart, liver, blood: all of the info necessary for that organization are present at the moment of conception. (The info is present as well in the sperm and egg, but info is not the only requirement for humanity, just one of them).

-stormin

Re:amazing

[minus_273]

you mean there are no dolphin anti-semites?

You are free to read the dictionary

[Ogemaniac]

You may find the definitions of "alive" "life" "living" "human being" "human" "organism" and "embryo" particularly enlightening on this matter.

From conception onward, an embryo is ALIVE, HUMAN, and an distinct ORGANISM (not part of an organism). These are sure as sunshine and rain.

What is a "human" embryo at 18 weeks, pray tell? A monkey? A rat? A slug?

Not at all....

[Ogemaniac]

Virtually no one believes such stupidy. Embryos are not sentient. Quit putting stupid words in other peoples' mouths and then refuting them. Beating the straw man is one of the lamest games in the book.

Re:amazing

[PopeRatzo]

My original post differentiated between Faith and Religion. Not the same thing at all.

Well, isn't the fetus just at milepost W, on the

[Ogemaniac]

way to Y?
br? Thank you for pointing out the secular argument against abortion. If the ability to get to Y, rather than being there, is what matters, fetuses win.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Rastan_B2]

Hey I can dig that cows might and possibly do ponder they greater meaning of this ride on the big green ball. But in defense of my propensity towards a nice steak a few points: A) If we didn't herd and protect cattle, wouldn't they be quite an easy prey in the wild and quite easily extinct? and B) I can't say I've seen every single dairy and cattle farm in Australia, but at the ones I have seen, the cows seem pretty happy to me. I think there are still some inhumane execution methods out there, but as far as lifestyle goes, all of the cattle I've seen in Australia seem to have a big paddock to run around in and shade from trees and protection from predators...

Re:the more important question is....

[all_the_names_are_ta]

If I am in the decision making minority then yes.

Re:Ethic issues

[StikyPad]

That doesn't make it low risk, but the point is moot -- the cells can be harvested after birth.

Re:the more important question is....

[StikyPad]

And so you would advocate giving power to a limited few to make decisions for us all?

Sounds interesting. Tell me more about this representative government...

Re:Still alive ... ?

[Hatta]

"Yeah it's pretty much the same. Fortunately there's nothing wrong with abortions."

Thankfully your parents disagreed.

I wouldn't care if I had been aborted. There would be no me to care. The resources I use would be used by someone else and maybe there would be another person instead of me. The world would be different to be sure, but not necessarily any better or any worse.

BTW to your reply to me about faith. You're incorrect. Ask someone who's faithful...if you have the nerve.

I take it you're a person of faith? I'll ask you, how am I wrong? Websters defines faith as: (2b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Re:amazing

[lysergic.acid]

As an agnostic, and former gamete (formerly a random cluster of molecules) I think masturbation and chemistry are evil. We need to get rid of anything that causes harm to gametes or molecules. It's a human rights issue.

Re:amazing

[StalinsNotDead]

they're about as alive as a mini-pizza

It's not delivery. It's Digiorno's

When I stop

[anomaly]

My world view says that a lump of cells is a lump of cells. An IVF failure or abortion is no different than, say, a tumor biopsy or a liposuction.
Right. So take that biopsy or liposuction and put it in a petri dish - provide nutrients and shelter and see what develops.

Now, take that embryo and provide nutrients and shelter for... I don't know.... 21 days after conception - you have a beating heart. Let that continue for another 21 weeks, and THEN compare your biopsy with the very clearly HUMAN BABY and tell me that they are the same. Ridiculous.

People don't need to play football either. Or dance, or scuba dive
When I stop dancing, playing football, or snorkeling, I don't have negative after effects linger in my body for days. When I engage in physical activity, I'm not then tempted to engage in more behavior altering activities which lead to greater risk.

The fact is that when some (perhaps many) people use marijuana, they decide that life is not worth living without it. Some go even further to more physically and mentally detrimental drugs. Every addict thinks "I'll be the one who can control it. I'm smarter than those junkies."

Marijuana alters the user's perception of the world around them. Their judgment is impaired, and as a result are more likely to engage in behaviors which are not good ideas. The law recognizes a fixed amount of BAC before determining that someone's ability to respond is impaired and they are no longer allowed to operate a vehicle - regardless of their amount of consumption, body weight, tolerance, or natural giftedness which might allow them to be "safe" behind the wheel. People on drugs are much more likely to think that they are "fine" and then do something stupid like operate a car.

On a pro-marijuana site, I found the following quotes:
"Marijuana affects memory, judgment and perception."

"Athletes could find their performance is off; timing, movements, and coordination are all affected by THC. Also, since marijuana can affect judgment and decision making, its use can lead to risky sexual behavior, resulting in exposure to sexually transmitted diseases like HIV"

"regular use of marijuana or THC may play a role in some kinds of cancer and in problems with the respiratory and immune systems."

http://www.ganjabus.com/2006/05/how-long-does-cann abis-stay-in-system.html

Sounds great. Where do I sign up for all of these benefits?

pure fascism
Yeah. I'm a fascist. You've totally convinced me. I bow at your irrefutable rhetoric. Perhaps if you were clear of mind you could make a rational argument which might influence me. Nevertheless, continue in your constitutional right to take illegal drugs. The man is really sticking it to you, isn't he?

Re:When I stop

[Hatta]

Right. So take that biopsy or liposuction and put it in a petri dish - provide nutrients and shelter and see what develops.
Under the right circumstances an embryo can become a person, sure. Under the right circumstances a sperm can become a person too. Does that make masturbation something akin to genocide?

Mindless scaremongering snipped...

Yeah. I'm a fascist.

Listen, I lead a good life. I have a job, I pay my bills, I love my family. I don't lie, cheat, or steal. The elderly love me, I'm good with kids, and I'm kind to animals. I am a very wholesome and mild mannered individual. I don't harm anyone in any way. When I get off work, I like to unwind with a little herbal refreshment. If you honestly think that I deserve to spend time in prison because of this, then yes you are a fascist.

Drugs are not the bogeyman.

Re:Ethic issues

[ultranova]

Kant's Categorical Imperative does a pretty good job of atheistically summing up an ethical system.

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

Yes... Except that this is just Kant arbitrarily deciding that following this principle is morally better than not following it and following some other principle, say, "I can do anything as long as I'm not caught".

In other words, it fails to address the core issue at all.

On a different note, I take it that you're religious, and that you believe that anyone who does not believe in a god cannot be moral?

As I specifically stated that they can, yours is a somewhat strange comment. All I'm arguing is that atheism is unable to provide any kind of basis for moral, since it denies the existence of anything beyond the natural world and the natural world is not inherently moral, not any individual atheists actually having no moral.

Yes, I understand that I'm making something of a straw man here, but I personally do not rape and kill my mother, yet I do not believe in any gods. I believe that raping and killing one's mother is wrong, because if everybody raped and killed their mother, society would be... rather different.

Certainly. But you are making the - entirely arbitrary - assumption that Kant was right, and that everyone will emulate you.

Yet you don't rape and kill your mother because the god that you believe in threatens you with eternal pain and you are scared of him.

By your own words, the only reason you don't do bad things to your mother is that you're afraid of the consequences if everyone decides to emulate you. So perhaps you might be a little less condescending ?

Which one of us is "moral"?

Both, since both have moral rules. That is not the point. Please read the message again.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Chronus]

Thinking about this, something comes to me. Both the sperm and egg are alive by those definitions. Life starts BEFORE conception. Thus, every time a girl turns me down it's a crime against god.

Re:Liar

[ChetOS.net]

The issue was Blappo calling Ogemaniac a liar for saying that "an embryo is a living human organism" is a scientific fact. I was merely pointing out that it is so.

You can put the rest of your troll in another forum.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[THE anonymus coward]

Saying that you can't find homeostasis in a chicken is like saying you can't find the flight in a duck. It's not a noun, it's a verb. It's what living things do that dead things don't. Sounds like you got my point.

And we can watch cells do it in the lab. Remember that there is always more than what meets the eye. Everything you see is material, and "seeing" is your mind operating on the form.

we found what does that and it's mostly proteins. And those proteins are formed just right to do their job within those greater tasks.

The soul doesn't use or consume anything, it simply exists in informing the matter. When the animal dies, the body is no longer informed, and homeostasis stops.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[ElleyKitten]

There might be some nice dairy farms out in Australia, but America has mostly moved towards factory farming. Basically, the animals are reduced to cogs in a factory, to get out the most meat/dairy/eggs in the quickest time for the cheapest cost. They are trapped in cages so small they can't turn around, and instead of a nice farmer coming to milk the cow, machines come around at preset times to force milk them. I can't even get into any other details, it's just too horrible. If you don't believe me, think about this: in America, we have >200 million people eating meat, dairy, or eggs (or all three) for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every single day. How could we do that with only the nice family farms that you've seen? Or just look it up sometime, it's all publicly available information. If most cows lived happy lives on spacious farms, I probably wouldn't be a vegetarian, but I know they don't.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[THE anonymus coward]

I am a Thomist, and Thomism has a view that is closer to Aristotle's, but not without some Platonic influence. I'm glad to see you did some homework :)

The cow soul doesn't do anything except inform the matter of a cow, so when the cow is gone, so too is the cow soul. Now, the human soul is different, as the human soul is capable of immaterial operations, e.g., coming to some notion of God. The human soul doesn't have the power to inform a cow body.

I don't know about you, but my cat seems to have a fair amount of free choice. Coming when called, or not coming when called isn't the sort of free choice I am talking about. The free choice I am talking about is the choice to actualize the fullness of my potential. I can choose to act less than human, or I can choose to act fully human. Now, to talk about what it means to be fully human would require some measure of theology (the natural sort is good enough), but that is a debate that is best left for later.

When I call her, sometimes she chooses to come and sometimes she doesn't. Yeah, your cat can't choose to act like a cat or to not act like a cat. Your cat is a cat, and cats are fickle. Sounds to me like she is fully actualizing her cat potential.

Re:Ethic issues

[Abcd1234]

So much for women who will die if childbirth proceeds, eh?

Re:amazing

[oliverthered]

What you fail to have noticed is that the parent argument was about someone who had no other problem than being serverialy mentally retarded had the plug pulled.

"I remember the Chaivo case a while back where a lady was determined to be brain dead."

Re:Ethic issues

[Abcd1234]

Except that this is just Kant arbitrarily deciding that following this principle is morally better than not following it

As opposed to God saying the exact same thing?

Re:the more important question is....

[Ingolfke]

Yawn. Read the comment I responded to, or the other sub-thread of my post or the comment I copied into my post. The original post advocated giving power to a set of elites based on their status as being elite, not based on individuals choosing representatives. His point is that the masses should not have the capability to decide for themselves on certain subjects (no doubt of his choosing) and therefore should abdicate all authority for those decisions to elites.

Re:the more important question is....

[badsign]

I do have a spinal cord injury and I am in a wheelchair and yes if some jackass wants to put his beliefs between me and a better life (a life that would not impact him in the slightest of possible ways, I must add) then yes I would smash his face and run over his balls with my wheelchair, while doing a wheelie and smoking a fat blunt ... listening to some heavy metal or evil dnb.

If you believe stem-cell research is wrong, then put that on your list of things you don't agree with but do not stand in the way of something that will change the lives of millions of people today and tomorrow.

Re:Ethic issues

[ultranova]

As opposed to God saying the exact same thing?

Yes. All morality ultimately comes down to someone saying that something is right or wrong. Religion has an absolute authority figure capable of giving absolute moral rules, atheism doesn't. Therefore, a religious type can say that something is fundamentally right or wrong while staying consistent, while an atheist can't; lack of absolute authority also means lack of absolute values, since there's nothing capable of dictating them.

A theist can say "This is wrong because God says so", while an atheist can only say "This is wrong because I say so", or "because Kant says so". However, the atheist could always change his mind, and it would be impossible to consider his new opinion of right and wrong any better or worse than the previous one.

In other words, it is impossible for an atheist to show either statement "X is morally right" or "X is morally wrong" right or wrong for any X. It is impossible, because there is no moral principle he could deduce it from without first having to prove (deduce from other principles - but then they must be shown correct) or arbitrarily declare that principle correct. It's a bit like trying to decide which direction is up without an external gravity field: pick any, it's as good as any other.

An atheist can pick any set of moral values he pleases, without there being any way to consider one set better another (without resorting to assuming pre-existing moral values, in which case you need to show there they come from). What most atheists end up picking are the values their own social instincts and upbringing instilled on them, giving them sufficient morality that they are not a danger to others; however, following those values is not - from an atheistic viewpoints - inherently any better or worse than emulating Hannibal Lecter.

That's what I'm trying to get to, in my long-winded way. By denying the existence of God or gods an atheist also denies the existence of universal values since there are no entities with authority to set any and the natural world in itself doesn't have any; consequently, any moral judgement made by an atheist are just his personal opinions depending on his personal tastes and cannot therefore be fundamental.

To put it very simply: You either follow someone's rules or you don't. If you don't, you're free to do whatever you want. A theist has someone to get rules from (God), atheist doesn't. Therefore an atheist doesn't have any basis for choosing a particular morality over any other, besides social pressure and force of habit.

For the reasons mentioned above, atheism makes morality a meaningless concept; any imaginable behavior is equally moral under atheism, since there's no basis to judge one more or less moral than another. Consequently, an atheist declaring somethign "fundamentally wrong" is one who either hasn't thougt about the consequences of his position, or has and has decided that integrity and consistency are not amongst his values ;).

Let's not be silly

[anomaly]

Does that make masturbation something akin to genocide?
Nope. An embryo is a person, a sperm cell is a cell. The mojo is when the sperm enters the egg. At that point, all that is needed for a BABY to be born is food and shelter.

Look, if the Monty Python song is right "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." Then every time I have sex and a pregnancy results, I've made God (who designed the system) angry because a couple million of those things die. Sperm cells don't contain the minimum necessary ingredients to make a person - just half of the ingredients.

Mindless scaremongering snipped...
Interesting when I state facts - even facts written by marijuana advocates - that's called mindless and scaremongering.

I lead a good life.
I never said that you are a bad person. I don't know you, but I'll take you at your word. You probably are a decent fellow, and one that I'd appreciate as a next-door-neighbor.

I like to unwind with a little herbal refreshment.
It seems to me that an ongoing desire to not be clear of mind indicates that there is something about your life which you desire to avoid - to escape the mundanity of life, you want to use mind-altering substances. This is your choice, but, for the reasons I listed above, I think that it should continue to be illegal.

I don't want some idiot stoned on ANYTHING killing my wife or kids. FWIW, I would be OK with prohibition of alcohol, and cigarettes too - use of alcohol is so unimportant to my life that the loss of it would be nothing to me. (BTW - by definition, anyone being reckless due to their self-imposed incapacity is an idiot.)

Drugs are not the bogeyman.
But they are not good for you, and one function of the law is to teach - to teach people what is good and bad for them. Another is to protect society - people on drugs do things that are bad for the general population, and laws against drug use serve to protect the populous.

I know we won't agree here, but I do think that your position is unreasonable, and I think that your life would be more rich and full if you dealt with whatever it is emotionally that drives you to self-medicate with drugs.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:Let's not be silly

[Hatta]

Nope. An embryo is a person, a sperm cell is a cell.

An embryo is just a cell too at one point.

Mindless scaremongering snipped...
Interesting when I state facts - even facts written by marijuana advocates - that's called mindless and scaremongering.

When you exaggerate those facts, that's scare mongering. For instance, yes marijuana affects judgment. But lots of things affect judgment. Being hungry, or tired, or horny, for instance. These are all altered states of consciousness that affect judgement, and they affect it as much if not more than marijuana does. Saying "OMG MJ affects judgement! it must be bad!" That's blowing things way out of proportion.

I never said that you are a bad person. I don't know you, but I'll take you at your word. You probably are a decent fellow, and one that I'd appreciate as a next-door-neighbor.

Then why do you think I should go to jail?

It seems to me that an ongoing desire to not be clear of mind indicates that there is something about your life which you desire to avoid - to escape the mundanity of life, you want to use mind-altering substances.

You're right. I want to avoid stress. Is that really so bad? How would my life be better with more stress in it?

FWIW, I would be OK with prohibition of alcohol

Because that worked so well the first time... If you really care about protecting your wife and kids, it's not drugs you should fear. It's crime associated with the black market status of the drugs that's really dangerous. It would be nice if we could pass a law and make the bad drugs disappear, but we can't and the Law of Unintended Consequences is a harsh master.

I think that your life would be more rich and full if you dealt with whatever it is emotionally that drives you to self-medicate with drugs.

Everyone engages in a little escapism from time to time. Some people read books or go camping or whatever. I do that too, but I also enjoy exploring my mind. There's a whole world of conscious states locked up inside our brains. Exploring them adds to my life, it doesn't take away from it.

Re:Ethic issues

[Abcd1234]

Yes. All morality ultimately comes down to someone saying that something is right or wrong

Good, I'm glad we agree.

In other words, it is impossible for an atheist to show either statement "X is morally right" or "X is morally wrong" right or wrong for any X.

The exact same thing is true for religion. Prove to me that your God actually said "X is right" or "X is wrong". Wait, you can't, can you? There's no way for you to prove that God made that decree, as opposed to, say, some nutjob trying to rebel against the oppression of the Romans. Worse, in the case of religion, people happily pick and choose their morality. For example, people say "I can eat shellfish because the NT obsoletes the Pentateuch". Then they turn around and condemn gays based on Leviticus.

Therefore, the argument that "god said so, therefore it's moral" is merely an appeal to an arbitrary authority, and is no better than saying "Kant said so, therefore it's moral". They're on the exact same footing. 'course, the difference is the latter is at least grounded in some kind of rational, philosophical reasoning... as opposed to, say, rules which ban the creation of clothing from two different fibres.

Re:Ethic issues

[ultranova]

In other words, it is impossible for an atheist to show either statement "X is morally right" or "X is morally wrong" right or wrong for any X.

The exact same thing is true for religion. Prove to me that your God actually said "X is right" or "X is wrong". Wait, you can't, can you? There's no way for you to prove that God made that decree, as opposed to, say, some nutjob trying to rebel against the oppression of the Romans.

This raises up one of the fundamental differences between religion and atheism: in religion, you don't need to prove everything, you can take things on faith.

Or, to put it a bit less flippantly: no one believes in just "God", without adding some attributes to that. These attributes typically take the form of that god having said or done something. Every religion (that has a god - not all of them do) has a set of things all who are considered part of that religion believe their god (and usually prophets or some other people too) did or said.

A theistic worldview has absolute truths (an therefore absolute morality), while an atheistic one doesn't.

Worse, in the case of religion, people happily pick and choose their morality. For example, people say "I can eat shellfish because the NT obsoletes the Pentateuch". Then they turn around and condemn gays based on Leviticus.

I never claimed that religious people would neccessarily or even likely be nice, moral or logical.

Therefore, the argument that "god said so, therefore it's moral" is merely an appeal to an arbitrary authority, and is no better than saying "Kant said so, therefore it's moral". They're on the exact same footing.

Are we talking atheists anymore, then, or Kant-worshippers ?-)

'course, the difference is the latter is at least grounded in some kind of rational, philosophical reasoning... as opposed to, say, rules which ban the creation of clothing from two different fibres.

Unfortunately, rationality and philosophy are unable to provide a base for morality. You still need to make the basic value judgements before you can start building anything on them, and atheism gives no tools for making them.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Vegeta99]

Not necessarily. Wild Boy ran on all fours, like a dog.

Re:Ethic issues

[Copid]

Less than 2% of all abortions are due to rape/incest. In poor neighborhoods abortion is a method of birth control

I'll admit that I've never done the cost / benefit analysis, but this doesn't seem like a particularly cost effective system, and it certainly doesn't seem like a convenient one. I can't even get a physical for less than $100, so it seems like either an abortion is just about the cheapest medical procedure available to an American adult, or somebody is *really* bad at math.

Re:the more important question is....

[Copid]

The more important question is, what proof is there that fetal stem cells would do you one damn bit of good?

Agreed! We should only ever do research on things that have already been shown to work. Forget where theory leads us. Theoretical possibilities never result in real results anyway.

Are you saying

[anomaly]

Are you saying that you find morally objectionable my opinion about when life begins?

If so, on what platform do you stand to make the judgment that my position is unacceptable and should be ignored?

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:Are you saying

[Copid]

Are you saying that you find morally objectionable my opinion about when life begins?

No, I just don't happen to agree with it. I also don't find a distaste for peanuts or the opinion that Bob Ross was the greatest painter ever morally objectionable. I just don't see a reason to enshrine those ideas into law.

If so, on what platform do you stand to make the judgment that my position is unacceptable and should be ignored?

The same platform I stand on when I say that blasphemy, dancing, speaking ill of The Prophet, interracial marriage, and eating non-Kosher foods should not be made illegal--even though some people find them so morally offensive that they froth at the mouth at the very thought. I listened to the idea, understand that some people are offended by those things, and decided that no action should be taken because (1) those actions don't appear to harm society in any material way and (2) I don't see a particularly compelling case for the existence of a victim. If I just said, "Well somebody somewhere thinks that X is immoral, so it should be illegal for everybody" the list of things that remained legal would be remarkably short. I generally start with that heuristic.

I appreciate that a lot of people would disagree with the results of the second half of the test, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Everybody has a slightly different set of axioms in life. Mine are based on empathy, and I can't particularly empathize with something that doesn't have a nervous system. Otherwise, I just tend to err on the side of not making laws that we'll likely regret later. History is full of laws that we now consider silly that made life hard for a lot of people. If you want me to give the nod to a new law, I have to be pretty well convinced that your idea isn't one of them.

Re:Ethic issues

[t0rkm3]

I'm sorry. Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute reports that less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape and/or incest.

The below wikipedia article sheds some light on this topic. You'll find that most of the reasons are optional and have more to do with preservation of lifestyle or social standing. Overall 8.2% could be construed as medically needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Unite d_States

How do the visitors to PlannedParenthood pay for their services? No idea. It is a relatively inexpensive procedure as I remember it.

Re:Ethic issues

[Copid]

I'm sorry. Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute reports that less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape and/or incest.

That makes sense.

The below wikipedia article sheds some light on this topic. You'll find that most of the reasons are optional and have more to do with preservation of lifestyle or social standing. Overall 8.2% could be construed as medically needed.

That also seems to match with reality. My problem is with the use of the phrase "as a form of birth control." It implies that no other birth control is being used and people are using abortion in lieu of more common birth control. I would argue that people who would do such a thing are stupid and are abusing the procedure, and I think that most other people would as well. I think that when people use that phrase, they're implying that it's just another form of birth control and people should simply use something else. It's misleading.

If you want "as a form of birth control" to mean "because they opt not to have the child" well, yes. That's pretty much what an abortion is. I think I just wasn't following what you mean.

How do the visitors to PlannedParenthood pay for their services? No idea. It is a relatively inexpensive procedure as I remember it.

As I said before, given what it costs to use conventional birth control, an abortion would have to be just about the cheapest medical procedure you could ever have in order for it to make economic sense (especially when combined with the fact that it's not exactly a convenient thing to have done) as an alternative birth control. If that's what you meant, I can't imagine how it could be true for any but a small portion of the population.

Re:Well, isn't the fetus just at milepost W, on th

[bill_mcgonigle]

way to Y?

Good question.

br? Thank you for pointing out the secular argument against abortion.

IMHO religions just confuse bioethics issues because you wind up with a "my god is better than your god" impasse so often.

If the ability to get to Y, rather than being there, is what matters, fetuses win.

Good point. Yet most people who feel disposal of embryo leftovers is OK feel that infanticide isn't and unwanted dog euthanasia is.

"Because they're human" seems too specious to be logical, but I don't know what the proper reasoning is.

Re:The idea that human life begins at conception

[Raenex]

Nice strawman argument.