Slashdot Mirror
Stem-Cell-Like Cells Produced From Skin
MikShapi writes "Skin cells can now be turned into something resembling stem cells. A genetic modification to four genes using a viral vector reverses differentiating, making the cells revert to a stem-cell state, capable for becoming any other cell in the body. The researchers are calling them 'iPS cells' or 'induced pluripotent stem cells.' In their experiments, iPS cells in the lab turned into nerve cells, heart muscle, and other tissues. The research was published in Cell and Nature by teams from the universities of Kyoto and Wisconsin. The article notes that if the new method proves successful, 'we can disconnect the whole stem cell debate from the culture war, from battles over embryo politics and abortion rights.' And, should this technique be adopted, stem cells will henceforth be abundant, easier and cheaper to come by for research and therapeutic purposes."
And of course this discovery can't go without political interference... the White House is already condemning the discovery, calling for a ban.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
then don't fuck them?
Now all those people getting abortions in the name of science can finally stop.
include $sig;
1;
Farnsworth: As a man it has become too much of a chore for me to clean out my wrinkles each day. Is it true that stem cells may fight the aging process?
Geneworks Woman: Well yes, in the same way an infant may fight Muhammed Ali! But -
Farnsworth: One pound of stem cells please.
Quite frankly, up until this point, everything about stem cells was about ethics. That is what makes this story so humongous.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Unemployed thanks to the heartless advance of technology. How sad.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
It is in Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151526
Here's hoping it works, the less controversial science is the more likely projects will get funded for it. Just look at cloning in the US.
There are a number of reasons why this could be a huge development. The biggest thing on my mind is that this solves the whole question of were to get all the stem cells you need for what you want to do. Now the source can be the very patient you are working on. I'm going to watch this with great interest.
That's not entirely fair. As far as I've seen the folks against federally funded stem cell research have always been enthusiastic about any source of stem cells other than embryos.
Just how much skin will we need? Will it be like blood banks? Instead of needles and cookies they'll hand you a loofa and tell you to start scrubbing. That would work if dry skin is what they need. If they need fresh moist skin then maybe each of us will be on the hook to 'donate' a 1 inch by 1 inch square from our buttock of choice.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
If I had billions and wanted to get into this kind of thing what I would do is buy all the gold that I can so that I can have a hard gold standard currency. Then I would buy an island (large), declare it a sovereign state, build the infrastructure to support the science facilities and data centers, and finally a nice place for people to live. After all of that I would invite any scientist that wants to have fewer chains on them to come live and research there. There would be a few basic rules such as no WMD, no full human cloning, no human chimera, and human experimenting. I would also encourage scientists there to sell finished projects to help support the island. Just a little idea for anyone with far vaster amounts of money than I.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
Nope. I object to using embryos for research, but I have no objections to non-embryonic stem cell research. We will support this research to attempt to divert interest and funding from embryonic research. I think it's great that this not only eliminates the interest in doing things the other way, but that it is simpler, less expensive, and has the potential to eliminate potential difficulties from finding genetic matches.
I wonder, if we hadn't been objecting, would anybody have attempted to find this alternative, or would researchers have considered the embryonic method good enough?
As long as the skin cells are not taken through a form that could be considered a viable human, I think this should end the ethical problems with stem cells nicely.
The issue people have with stem cell research is not stem cells per se, but that the harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of a viable human.
Remember, religious people haven't had issues with adult stem cell research -- which this is. It's only embryonic stem cell research and SCNT processes which result in a viable human that people take ethical issues with.
If this can directly transform a skin cell into heart cells or whatever without moving through an "embryonic" state, then it's really the best of both worlds.
The real debate goes far deeper than merely how to create patient specific stem cells. The real issue is longevity and let's hope we're getting closer to where there's something worth arguing about.
You'd think everybody is in favor of longevity, but one of Bush's early science advisers made it clear that he was opposed to life extension in principle and Bush explicitly backed him up on that. It blew me away, but they clearly were making the case in favor of death. Personally, I was shocked at this and I brought it up with some people in my family and I was even more surprised to find that a lot of the older people were sympathetic to the idea that death was something that shouldn't be messed with.
Personally, I say fuck that. Ya'll can be my witnesses, I want to live as long as freakin' possible and if I end up lookin' like Frankenstein carrying my head in the jar in the crook of my sewn on arm then all the better. Sounds good to me.
Some of the arguments in favor of death are kinda lame. I've heard the economic argument over and over. This is a popular one. It's like the economy would get all screwed up if people stopped dying on seventy year clocks because all the old geezer's saving would just accumulate insane interests until the oldest people had all the money. Okay, I can see that but this is not a good reason for people to die. Money aint that big a deal if we all had indefinite life spans. I'm sure we could calmly negotiate something once everyone had matured a few hundred years.
Another pro-death argument is the idea of overpopulation. I think I have a sweet answer to this one and this is what I really wanted to post about. See, the key is that you've got to have an answer that appeals to a really silly level of religious symbolism and I think I got it.
What you do is, you say that anybody who wants to extend their life past a certain age and have children will have to voluntarily exile themselves into orbit or the moon or some other place off the surface of the earth. This is the perfect solution. Why? Because, the result is that the people who accept eternal life can only do so if they . . . wait for it. . . go to heaven.
Is that sweet or what?
As opposed to the other extreme, where science has no sense of morality and is only another function of the wants of the state. Like the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese in WWII experimenting on live humans. Such as testing biolgical warfare on them, the identical twin studies of Mengele, Japanese scientists dissecting Allied prisoners alive, and so on. Or the US for a scientific study letting blacks with syphilis go untreated for decades. And who knows what the USSR and the Chineses did/are doing. Science has to have some moral responsibility for its research and conclusions. The hard part is where to draw the line, and reasonable people can disagree on that.
I'd say that one of the main ethical issues is that it is unethical to tell people that a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines would spare the destruction of those embryos when it only really means that those embryos would be destroyed as medical waste instead.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
I understand perfectly what you're talking about, but it's not ethics that are the issue it's morality. To a dying man using a blastocyst to cure him is the ethical decision as it saves his life and allows him to continue to contribute to society. To a person who believes that the blastocyst is a living person then this is an immoral decision because to them it's killing another human. I hate to nitpick, but people often confuse the two.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
Quack, quack.
stem cell researchers were using cells from unused IVF samples, not killing babies as you people like to compare it to. I can't even begin to understand how you could equate a couple of cells in a petree dish to a human.
And no, this line of research would still have been pursured without your stupid agenda, because it solves other problems not rooted in religous objections. So you don't get to claim this is some kind of victory.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Also from the site:
# Bush Bans Growing Skin, Baffles Scientists
# UK Donates 15M Private Records to Help Bolster Russian Economy
# The Long Tail of Sexy
# Apple Using IMEI Number to Prolong Your Life
# Rainbow Rights Activists Decry Prism Cruelty
# "Most Dangerous Cities" Go On Attack, Kill 5
This is why I don't like the "mod it informative instead of funny because funny doesn't give karma" bit. It's a humor blog and a damn hilarious one at that.
Well I for one am glad you don't have the billions to do this. How many insufficiently tested products have killed people under the current research rules? For example, because people and other drugs can respond differently, drug side effects slip through still in our current research and testing rules. I assume you would allow bioengineered foods and animals because you are not specifically prohibiting them. What a serious danger that could be without proper research rules and the moral underpinnings to consider the effects on society. Hey, how about bio-engineered monkeys - made smarter and subservient - that we will end up turning into a race of trained slaves?
people only ever trot out the nazi comparision with that exact agenda.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Damned bigots.
(\(\
(=_=) Bani!
(")")
The flurries wont need costumes anymore.
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
I would guess it more likely that the breakthrough will be held back by people who don't want their skin to turn to stem cells before their eyes because of some virus escaped from the research labs.
Then again, someone's probably already claimed movie rights on this and will sue anyone who voices this idea.
Oh for Pete's sake. I also mention the Imperial Japanese, the USA, the USSR, and the Chinese for some scientific crimes against humanity to make the larger point. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as the saying goes.
Except there is no blastocyst destroyed for the purpose even theoretically. IVF waste, thrown out as medical waste, or used for research and treatment. The opposition would rather burn it than have it used to help people.
It's not that already created embryos would be destroyed, it's that if a cure were ever found using embryonic cells instead of alternative methods such as this, the 'need' for embryos would far outstrip the supply, then it would become common practice to create more embryos specifically for the purpose of killing them. I suppose if you define human life as beginning at some time other than the first moment there exists a complete genetic code for building a new human in a single cell, you can consider this ethically permissible, but it seems to me that seems to be scientifically deficient position.
. . Look at what happened to the Brunnen-G . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunnen-G
.
.
These assholes who are against stem cell research will just find a new angle to attack this research. They will claim we are playing god or some such retarded objection.
i mean after all wtf is wrong with playing god? if we listened to these whacko's we'd still be praying on our needs in a dirt hut.
If i was a rich billionaire i'd pump shit tins of money into stem cell research and have them make me some kind of catdog style animal.
Wow! That's not only a troll, but 100% Grade-A Certified Organic FUD!
Conservatives, or more accurately, Christian Conservatives, have nothing against stem cell research. Hell, Bush was the first president in history to authorize funding of stem cell research. Yes, George Bush authorized funding for stem cell research, as long as the money was not spent on NEW stem cell lines derived from embryos. Existing stem cell lines from embryo's, chord blood stem cells, this type of stem cells, or any other, is fine and government funded. This type of funding is perfectly fine with everyone, including Christian Conservatives.
So your comment only shows that you are either ignorant or the facts or simply a liar. Which one is it?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
And that is where we disagree. And I'm sure you can understand this line of thought even if you don't agree with it. It goes to the question of what is a human deserving of human rights. We consider it a unique being with DNA, post-fertilization.
We find this definition has a scientific and ethical clearity that can avoid a lot of the horrors of history that now (most of) humanity regrets based on what counts as a human worthy of protection.
We've found your previous and current standards of tribe/religion/family/ethnicity/sexuality/age/disability/ or simply 'might makes right' distinctions to be unworthy of our species.
So you disagree - so if we are not persuasive, are we at least not 'stupid?'
you don't get to claim this is some kind of victory
To quote Jerry Sienfeld's response when he was told he was not in listed in the top 10 of comedians in the history of America but was instead number twelve, I'll take it.
Just a note, I agree with you and you're right. Also WHOOOOOOSH!!!(Cluebyfour: Post was about the difference between morality and ethics. Burning IVF waste is still a moralistic decision rather than ethical.)
No hard feeling?:P
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
You're right, the best reason to drag religion through the mud is because it doesn't understand the little concept we like to call reality.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
In my view, the scientifically deficient position is that life has a beginning.
The concept of being alive is a vaguely defined multi-dimensional continuum. Some things are more alive and some things are less alive. Some things are more alive in one way and less alive in another way. The idea that life (and "not life") is somehow a clear binary distinction has no basis in factual observation. Of course, even more fundamentally, the idea that "life" must be preserved and protected has no basis in science and only an indirect basis in fields of ethics and aesthetics - but that's a topic for another time.
Anyway, the most accurate scientific statement is that life is passed continuously from parents to children. If life had a "beginning", that beginning would have been millions of years ago when the first nucleic acids started making copies of themselves. Sperm is alive (and human - in the case of human sperm). Unfertilized egg cells are alive (and human - in the case of human egg cells).
Based on factual observation, over time an embryo/fetus develops attributes that make it desirable from an ethical or aesthetic perspective to preserve the the embryo/fetus's life. For example, eventually a fetus probably develops an ability to feel pain. A late term fetus may even have a rudimentary will to live. An embryo/fetus also begins to look progressively more "human" and many people have an aversion to killing things that look human.
What needs to happen with this whole business is that the law needs to recognize that, based on factual observation, there is no distinct boundary between alive and not alive. Instead there is a gradual development of attributes that make destruction increasingly undesirable. A fertilized human egg cell has essentially no attributes that makes its destruction undesirable. A late term fetus has most of the same attributes that make destruction of adult humans undesirable.
People do all kinds of crazy things on the basis of beliefs that have no basis in science. That's just the way life is. But, when it comes to positions that are scientifically deficient, the most scientifically deficient position with regard to this issue is that life is a binary state that has a distinct beginning.
I'd say that one of the main ethical issues is that it is unethical to tell people that a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines would spare the destruction of those embryos when it only really means that those embryos would be destroyed as medical waste instead.
Think of it this way. The government wants to do X. X in itself is not that bad, but it is a minor version of Y, which is totally unacceptable. X can lead to Y if you are not careful. Do you allow X?
Now let's say X is limited wire tapping of international phone calls without a warrant and Y is a police state. Do you allow X?
Now the way I see it is this. X is experimenting with human embryos. Y is experimenting with fully formed humans. Do you allow X?
If you did not provide the same answer for both, can you explain why?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
...looking at this, I think it wasn't so bad that there was a strong opposition to embryonic stem cell research in the first place. If you think about it, this forced scientists to find a new source for stem cells. Now they hit the jackpot, since skin cells are much more available, and can be easily grown in a lab.
I can't even begin to understand how you could equate a couple of cells in a petree dish to a human.
At what age does a human/zygote make the cut so that it is no longer available for scientific research? Two months? Six months? Birth? Five years? When they are potty trained? What classifies a human as a human deserving human rights? What test must be passed before that clump of cells is human? Who are you to decide? What if the government decided the age of liberty was your age +1? How would that make you feel?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Your signature makes a false assumption. That is that Religion is between people. Religion is about a relationship with God.
So what's Thor telling you these days?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Heh - if there's anything will freak the fundies out more than a bunch of gays, it will be a bunch of genetically-modified furry gays (or even hermaphrodites if you want to go way over the top).
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" -- Andrew Ryan, founder of Rapture
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
Religion is about a relationship with God in the same way that little kids have "relationships" with invisible friends.
Who Modded the parent as flamebait? Since when is stating the facts flamebait? He was calling the Grandparent a Troll and get's modded as Flamebait? What in the world. If this is how you are going to play then I might call it quits on Slashdot. This is insane. The point is that people do not understand the issues surrounding the Governments actions in relation to Embryonic Stem Cell Research. They didn't ban it. They just cut funding on new stem cell lines from embryos.
Your signature makes a false assumption. That is that Religion is between people. Religion is about a relationship with God.
... you might be right. But that's not the way it is. Organized religion is, at the core, all about social control, with compliance encouraged by the threat of eternal damnation and the dangling promise of everlasting life.
Word games. That sounds all well and good, but ignores reality. You see, organized religion (which is what we all mean when we say "religion" hereabouts, it does not refer to some unique personal profession of faith) is all about people, not God. In the end, if it turns out that God is just another of Man's less useful inventions, even that caveat will go away.
More to the point, it's all about people doing things to each other in the name of God. If it were true (and it isn't) that the bulk of the faithful were permitted their own personal belief systems, their own ways of communing with God, without any dogma or ritual being imposed upon them from without
God has less to do with that most people want to admit.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Because they are two different questions? That would be a good enough reason for me. What you have given is a classic example of a slippery slope. Excellent work.
This sig only exists because you are observing it.
A full grown human is "literally a mass of cells." You have to draw the line somewhere when you define what is human life and what isn't. Where you draw it and remain ethical isn't as clear cut as you seem to believe.
The only cogent logical argument for definition of life other than "life begins at conception" that I've heard is that the definition of life should be the opposite of the definition of death as it is currently defined. No heartbeat, brain waves, etc. In other words, when you can't medically define a mass of cells that will eventually develop into a human as "dead," then it's a human life.
If there's any other logical definition, please let me know. Otherwise, the definition of what is human life really is just an emotional plea to support whatever you want to advocate. But "it doesn't even look like a baby!" isn't a rock-solid basis on which to form an ethical argument.
And certainly the potential of the mass of cells has to be considered. If you were in a coma on life-support with little or no brain function, but we were 99% certain that in nine months you'd recover completely, could you justify pulling the plug on the machines keeping you alive?
If not, how do you ethically justify doing the same thing to that mass of cells?
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" -- Andrew Ryan, founder of Rapture
"Would you kindly kill me?" -- Andrew Ryan, founder of Rapture
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
A long series of lame questions with no discussion of the problematic aspects of any answer at all is proof that you are an idiot.
To demonstrated, let me extend your hysterical little list with one more: what makes conception special?
Now, to demonstrate I am not an idiot, I will actually discuss this question rather than stupidly spewing forth an endless series of minor variations on it.
Genetic uniqueness is not required to make a human human. On the one hand we have identical twins, who are unique individuals despite being genetically identical. Likewise, a clone of a human would be a unique individual with the same political and moral status as anyone else (side note: all arguments about the supposed ethical conundrums surrounding human cloning can be solved by replacing the word "clone" everywhere by "child" or "adult" as appropriate.) And on the other hand we have chimeric individuals, who contain more than one complete set of genes in two different cell populations, yet are only one human.
So there is nothing special about conception due to it being the point of creation of a genetically unique human being, because there is nothing about genetic uniqueness that endows a human being with their political and moral status. Identical twins, on the one hand, and chimeric individuals, on the other, demonstrate that nothing about humans depends on the uniqueness or number of their genetic codes. But the only thing that happens at conception is the melding of two haploid cells to create a new genetically unique cell. There is nothing special about this genetically unique cell versus any of the billions in my body or yours. It is just a cell that has a non-zero probability of becoming an adult.
Yet that non-zero probability is not interesting either. A zygote has a fraught and difficult course to become an embryo, a fetus, a baby, a child and an adult. Depending on time and place each of these, particularly the first, have probabilities of well below 1.0.
Sperm and egg have much smaller probability of becoming zygotes, but it is with absolute certainty more than zero.
Ergo, given that you have a deep and apparently obsessive fascination with arbitrary numeric limits, and you furthermore seem to be concerned with zygotes and later rather than sperm/eggs and earlier: at what point does the probability of a cell becoming an adult drop low enough that it no longer enjoys any rights?
Only by invoking an arbitrary and subjective dividing line can you avoid this question, and whatever argument you use, that very same argument can be used to justify a different dividing line based on a different (but equally arbitrary) division.
You, of course, have already established you're an idiot, so no doubt this argument will have no effect on you. Idiots are remarkably resistant to anything that might wean them from their idiocy. So this whole post is rather pointless. But there are those of us who think that even idiots ought to be given an explanation of their errors once in a while.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Oh my god. That was awful. I'm traumatized. All those poor little cells and the big nasty pipette coming down out of the sky....
I'm off to blow my nose now, and flush the kleenex down the toilet.
One problem with these techniques is that they use lentiviruses to deliver these genes. The lentiviral genome integrates into the host which could pose the threat of integration into a tumor suppressor gene or into another critical gene. Additionally, despite measures taken to prevent this, some studies have found that these integrants (proviruses) may be packaged into another virus if you're subsequently infected with a wild lentivirus (ie HIV), creating stem cell inducing viruses (which can't replicate, but can infect other cells).
Having an extra copy of these genes might also pose problems for normal differentiation and differentiated cell function. They need to find a way to excise the provirus after the genes are expressed and reprogram the cell. Or, better yet, activate the endogenous copies of these genes in skin cells, leading to reprogramming without needing to deliver exogenous copies. Still, even if they can't be used in therapies yet, research using them could lead to a lot of useful data.
So you would object to using your organs for transplantation after your death, as that's not dignified?
And you would never accept an organ transplant?
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Bush was the first president in history to authorize funding of stem cell research.
This is really a questionable statement. People had been getting grant money to do embryonic stem research well before Bush became president. He became the first to create a specific category of NIH funding towards stem cell research, but that was with the major caveat that you could only use existing stem cell lines which in effect froze embryonic stem cell research in the US and set it back 5 years. It's akin to setting aside NSF funds for space exploration research but then saying you can only use Legos to do it.
The problem with this statement is that embryos used for stem cells won't be a human in nine months; they'll eventually be destroyed. One could argue that destroying them is unethical, but unless legislation is passed stating that all embryos must be matured to a living, breathing human being, using them for stem cell research and destroying them as medical waste are equivalent.
Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
People need something to fight over, it's one of the things that makes us human.
One day (probably in the far distant future) the science-types will work out how to assemble (from scratch, no less) one (1) Hew-Man Being(patent-pending, tm, etc most likely) without the mess involved with "an embryo".
What you gonna do now?
You think this is insanely unlikely? (remember folks, people once thought it insanely unlikely the earth was NOT the center of the universe)
Until it's born, it's "an embryo". Of course essentially the same thing occurring as "just a bunch of separate organs" is (by definition) not "an embryo" although (in theory, so far) you could piece the jigsaw-puzzle together in "an assembl-O-mat" and produce a walking-talking fully-functional human.
And maybe we won't do it that way - maybe we'll just use full nano-assembley and build him (or her) one atom at a time.
At what point do you differentiate between "a human" (or "a person") and something that was literally designed and manufactured by "those geeks in Building C" you see in the cafeteria some days?
Do they deserve any rights? Rights the same as "the rest of us" or not? (anyone seen Blade Runner lately?)
Should "they" be any less worthy simply because we fully understand how they came to be, and can control that process?
Does anyone else in this room find it odd and unsettling that the very same people who are so against killing people before they're born are constantly requisitioning more funds from congress in order to kill people after they've been born? (well, very long after. And "those people" aren't "my people" so that makes it fair and just, doesn't it?)
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
What will really throw a wrench into the anti stem-cell argument is when an adult skin cell has a non-zero probability of becoming a zygote.
We certainly can't do it now, but is there any real doubt that this will be a possibility in the future?
Of course, we still need to answer some questions: what are rights? who(what?) gets them, and why?
Once we really have the answers to those questions, all this controversy will sort itself out.
Actually, the Roe vs. Wade surpreme court decision has this effect. The regulatory authority of the government changes based on the trimester.
What is your earliest memory? Because to you, YOU do not even exist before that point. Use the earliest verifiable memory as a starting point for abortion. (That or when the cell clump/fetus/baby is capable of independent breathing and feeding with an operational brain)
I don't remember being a baby. So is it OK to do scientific experiments on babies then? That's my point. While one person thinks it's OK to experiment on babies, another may say that it's OK to experiment on babies as long as they haven't been born yet. The Nazis thought it was OK as long as they were Jews or Gay. Where do you draw the line? What makes your statement any different than the Nazis. I'm not calling you a Nazi, but who's set of morals do we use. Of course, you'll say yours. What makes yours morally superior to the Nazis? What makes yours any morally superior than my own?
I feel we shouldn't take the chance and end the debate. A human is a human, even at the single cell embryo stage. You go any further than that, and you're a Nazi to someone.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
[flamebait]
when it can breathe and form a thought on it's own
[/flamebait]
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
To clarify - that would be my definition of the point where it becomes a human. Before that it is a potential human, after that - it is a corpse.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Quite impressive. You completely avoided my question and even changed the subject. After you proved that you did not have what it takes to provide an answer, you even had the gall to call me an idiot. Pot, meet kettle. By trying to prove that you are not an idiot, you removed any doubts we had about your intelligence. By dropping to the level of personal attacks, you removed any doubts anyone had about your level of class. Congratulations. Anyone who reads your posts knows exactly what kind of man you are.
In your post, you've shown that you have a remedial understanding of high-school statistics. How about a little demonstration of what makes you human? That is the only question I asked and the only one that I expected an answer for. So instead of trying to change the subject, how about you prove that you are intelligent enough to answer a single question by doing so.
So this whole post is rather pointless.
Well, we agree on that.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Hardly. Frankly this is pretty interesting, and certainly would be useful for the getting stem cells for a person to grow a new body part. The question remains are these cells totopotent or pluripotent? Do they have the same range of use as ESC? Or just the range of ASC?
The answer is, we don't have an answer. We haven't done the leg work to find out what the range of use is on embryonic stem cells. This debate has nothing to do with ethics. No medical ethics are violated here, the debate is 100% about religion. The fact is, if one actually worried about the embryo, scientists would be happy to make lines by taking some cells from a developing embryo, then make a stem cell line out of those and implant the embryo and get an infant out of the deal. So rather than some embryo which would otherwise be medical waste, we would have a stem cell line and a child. Who could object? -- Um, religious folks; they still object.
It could very well be that ASCs are all we need and that we could dedifferentiate them easily with full usability, able to make everything from a new kidney to an embryo and a clone army. The problem however, is we just don't know because the research isn't there. The idea that a clump of 150 cells without any nerves at all is the ethical equivalent to a child, or that that clump of cells is more valued than somebody with a spinal cord injury whose treatments are being prolonged is a joke. A fly has 100,000 nerve cells and is by far the ethical superior of swaths of embryos.
Embryonic stem cells might not be any more useful. And we'll always have that "might" there until we do the research.
There's nothing about medical ethics which suggests some kind of soul thing jumps into a zygote at the moment the gametes join, and nothing to suggest that a couple cells aren't just that, some cells. If you read this story you must realize that there is no more ethics problems with ESCs then there is with scratching my ass. In fact, I'm bound to scratch away swaths more cells with the ass-scratch. Ethics? No. This is about religion and the unevidenced nonsense it advocates for no reason in particular. This research is useful, but it doesn't answer the actual questions we need answered.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Because they are two different questions? That would be a good enough reason for me. What you have given is a classic example of a slippery slope. Excellent work.
No, they are both the same questions with different variables. Both are examples of slippery slope arguments. Why is that argument valid or invalid in one case and not in the other?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is really a questionable statement. People had been getting grant money to do embryonic stem research well before Bush became president. He became the first to create a specific category of NIH funding towards stem cell research, but that was with the major caveat that you could only use existing stem cell lines which in effect froze embryonic stem cell research in the US and set it back 5 years. It's akin to setting aside NSF funds for space exploration research but then saying you can only use Legos to do it.
No, it would be like saying you can experiment with all the corn you want, but you can only experiment with the corn that is already in the US. You may not import any more corn. You see, stem cells divide endlessly. There is no point in creating more stem cell lines. Just like you can plant new corn from the old and grow it forever. How did that set back stem cell research 5 years? If anything, it made scientists stop creating new lines for the sake of creating new lines and made them do actual work with the existing lines. If it did set us back 5 years, then why wasn't this discovery made by Kyoto University and the University of France? Shouldn't Europe be 5 years ahead of us now? Evidently, they are not because this discovery was made by Kyoto University and the University of Wisconsin, right here in the US and paid for with government funds (at least the WI part of it).
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Having a police state is a pretty big jump from international wire tapping. Experimenting with fully formed humans is also a pretty big leap from experimenting with embryos. You are trying to make it all into one big problem when there are clearly four.
My opinion is that warrant-less wiretapping of international calls should be illegal if at least one party is inside the US (or any free country wiretapping its own citizens for that matter). I don't feel, though, that doing so would lead to a police state. It may be one step in that direction, but it is hardly the sign that the end is near.
As for experimenting on human embryos, I am all for using stem cells from embryos that are otherwise going to be destroyed. Experimenting on "fully formed" humans, never.
So there you have two different answers. No the the first, yes to the second. One has no bearing on the other, so there is no reason to cross-justify them. You can't just throw in another subject and then try to use it to guilt people into agreeing with you.
This sig only exists because you are observing it.
Here is another argument in your own vein.
People want to eat. Eating is not bad in itself, but it is a minor version of eating poison, or even worse, cannibalism. Eating food can lead to cannibalism if you are not careful. Do you allow eating?
If you do not provide the same answer in *this* instance as well, can you explain why?
Care to do it *before* you die from starvation btw?
How about a cell taken from your skin, sitting in a petri dish? Human or not? Does the UN Declaration of Human Rights apply? Pretty soon we will be able to take that cell, put it into just the right soup of nutrients and chemicals, and it will grow into a copy of you. Do you now count it as a human, just because of this possibility?
And then it diverts attention from all those acts by crating fake controversies, over imaginary "murders" of "living cells".
How *do* you define life then? It might be fine to just ban the abortion of a unborn fetus older than 2 months. There are tons of medical reasons to support that decision. But if you want to push the line even further, where does it stop? A ban on the morning after pill? A ban on condoms, since they interfere with "potential" life and thus "murder" it as well? A ban on masturbation perhaps, since it is also wasting potential "life"? How *do* you define life? What makes one kind of cell(fertilized egg) "alive" and yet other(sperm) is not, when neither is showing any greater sentience than the other at the early stages at least? If you make a criterion, what is the "rationale" behind that criterion?
And how soon before we get people being persecuted for masturbating, or using protection during sex? What is the guarantee that this lunacy will not lead to *THAT*? Historical evidence shows that when we put "government" in charge of personal decisions, and allow them too much power, *that* is when "experimentation on humans" happen. Care to give one example of a reasonably democratic country where human experimentation was tolerated? I can definitely give examples of fascist, police states, where the human experimentation happened and was ignored by citizens. And a government making insane, illogical laws that are just a step way for interfering with personal decisions of people, is more likely to lead to a fascist, police state.
And if "life" is so holy, what is the arrogant reasoning behind killing and eating other "near-sentient" lifeforms? By your logic everyone should be forced to become vegetarian? Oh wait! Even plants have been proven to be alive! So, it is the arrogant belief that only human beings are "truly" alive, right?
But that is a very Christian belief, isn't it? i.e. humans being the only "really" alive beings! As a matter of fact Jain and Buddhist religion consider even lower life forms to be just as alive and forbid killing them because of the desire avoid the very same arrogant hypocrisy. So basically the American Government is just enforcing a "Christian" belief, while paying lip service to the idea of being secular, "religious equality" and "separation of state and the church".
There is no point in creating more stem cell lines
There are a ton of reasons to create new lines. First the technology used to create all of those lines relied on mouse "feeder cells" which the stem cells grew on. This resulted in widespread contamination of these cells with mouse antigens which not only makes them poor models of how natural stem cells function but also means you can't ever transplant them to humans. Second, growing cells in culture almost always eventually causes them to undergo genetic changes and chromosomal abnormalities that make them akin to cancer (by growing in culture you are by definition selecting for cells that grow the fastest and have the least ability to respond to overgrowing conditions). So you can't just grow them forever, though by nature they are less affected by this than other cell types (ie primary cell lines). The fact that there are now many more ES cell lines created by foreign research is clear that there is obviously a point to creating new lines.
If it did set us back 5 years, then why wasn't this discovery made by Kyoto University and the University of France?
This is not embryonic stem cell research. Blocking ES cell research would have zero effect on their ability to do this research. The reason the US is behind in embryonic stem cell research is because the people who have been working on it are leaving the US and foreigners who would normally come to the US are going elsewhere. Granted, places like Harvard and the state of CA have created gov't funding-free dedicated facilities to work on ES research but AFAIK, the CA money has been held up by court battles. So the only place you could even do embryonic research is at Harvard. To get US embryonic stem cell research back up to the point that other countries like Korea are at would take at least several years.
For me, its First nueron. Once they have that they begin to think, otherwise its just a collection of cells.
Indeed. Also, Chinese political prisoners are going to be killed, anyway, so why not harvest their organs to help sick people live longer?
The issue has always been one of a single, very important definition. What qualifies as a Human Being, deserving of human rights and what doesn't. Where is the cutoff? If there are multiple levels, what delineates them?
Most will agree (although, some even will hold fast here) that the individual germ cells are not deserving of separate human rights prior to conception. Otherwise, even wanking is an immoral act, with the numbers killed on par with the worst genocides.
Most, again, will agree that a person past the age of 21 is definitely a human deserving of having his rights protected. So the cutoff should go somewhere between just before conception, to just after the 21st birthday.
I think it should be an event based cutoff though, rather than an age based one. For how do you account those who mature faster? Age is easy to compute, but age-based humanity is based on statistics. You only get a probability that you're looking at a human. Statistical humanity is a rather frightening concept.
So, what do you have left as far as quantitatively measurable events at which to place humanity?
Conception is one such event, it happens quickly, and can be determined by direct observation with a microscope.
Birth is another such event.
First cell division?
First electrical activity? You'd have to be measuring constantly, and you have to have perfect equipment. "good enough" brings us back to "statistical human."
First heartbeat? same problem. Except that you have to explain whether heartbeat is the essence of humanty or if it is only a proxy for "humanity" where even with perfect, constant monitoring, you still have the statistical human problem.
Probably quite a few others, this is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Just an overview of the problems with picking a cutoff. I imagine there are quite a few in the pro-life camp that believe life actually starts some time after conception, but can't think of an easily measurable and unambiguous event or state at which to place the cutoff, and so revert to conception because it is prior to the life-point rather than some event after the life-point, guaranteeing that some humans will be murdered.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
But that is a very Christian belief, isn't it? i.e. humans being the only "really" alive beings!
Nonsense. One does not have to be a Christian to have ethics. It's not about who is or who is not "alive" it's about what rights an organism has. Even animals that we use for food have the right not to be tortured. Millions of people across the country will be eating Turkey this week, I doubt that many of them think it would be ok to torture those turkeys before they're slaughtered for food.
So basically the American Government is just enforcing a "Christian" belief, while paying lip service to the idea of being secular, "religious equality" and "separation of state and the church".
I'm not a Christian and I agree with the Bush administration on this issue.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Not only are you an idiot, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I bet you know nothing about the groundbreaking genetic work done by Gregor Mendel. Go ahead and google for him. You'll find out both his profession and where he did his work.
The point that I'm making is that religious people have long taken part in scientific research. Ethics may be influenced by religion, but it does not require it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Where are you going to find Randall Waterhouse, America Shaftoe and a bunch of secret admirers to run the joint?
Yeah, I've heard this story somewhere before.
here would be a few basic rules such as no WMD, no full human cloning, no human chimera, and human experimenting.
If you impose any conditions, what makes you any better than George Bush?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Even someone lacking in brain cells would know the answer to this question and wouldn't even have bothered asking it. But regardless
What test must be passed before deciding that a sperm and egg is not "alive" but a fertilized ovum egg is? Who are you to decide that the sperm or an egg is not really "alive"? After all an ovum egg, if fertilized with the sperm will become a human? So who are you to decide that only the result but not the participants are "truly" alive? Even a fertilized egg if deprived of "appropriate conditions" (norishment, a womb) might not become a human. Pretty much same as an ovum not becoming a baby if not provided with a fertilizing sperm. Who are *you* to decide what is alive and what is not? You *are* playing god by placing a definition on what is "not" alive.
And what is worse, you are a hypocrite. Because you have simultaneously implicitly decided that *animals* are not "really" alive and it is okay to kill and eat them... or even okay to just kill them because they are sick(mad cow disease). You are okay with *that*. You are okay with your government waging wars and killing humans. But you are more concerned about "embroys" and "cells" and what not. A bunch of hypocritical navel-gazers!
Who are you to decide that other lower lifeforms are not "really" alive? What gives you the right???? And if you can justify *that*, and the wars and the capital punishment in the country, how DARE you talk about protecting embroys and cells??!!! HOW DARE YOU??!!
Hope you have your answer.. and a few questions to ask yourself.
Nobody wants to do experiments on babies. Well, some do, but that's not the issue here. But if you have the choice between discarding those embryos as human waste or using them in the hopes that you can improve the quality of life for humans everywhere, including babies, why would you possibly object to that on moral grounds? Do you object to someone donating organs after they have passed on? There is a certain nobility to sacrificing oneself for the betterment of the group when it is clear that you are not going to survive. If you really do believe that an embryo is equivalent to a baby, I can't imagine why you would choose to let them die pointlessly instead of making their existence have at least some sort of purpose.
Nonsense. One does not have to be a Christian to have ethics. It's not about who is or who is not "alive" it's about what rights an organism has. Even animals that we use for food have the right not to be tortured. Millions of people across the country will be eating Turkey this week, I doubt that many of them think it would be ok to torture those turkeys before they're slaughtered for food.
Nice strawman! Animals have the right not to be tortured, but they do not have the right to not to be killed? You are espousing precisely the hypocrisy I am questioning!
I said I was against animals being killed at all, tortured or otherwise! And you come back with "oh it is fine to kill innocent animals... they are not REALLY alive, you know? ... my smallest, tiniest *cells* are more 'alive' than a full-grown intelligent chimpanzee or cow!". Bravo!!!
And by extension, if the emborys are not being tortured, I guess you are fine with their being killed? Please explicitly confirm so.
The annoying thing is that they're still trying to act like this is about ethics, like this is some kind of victory. We're seeing obnoxious comments from "pro-life" groups about how "Finally the scientists are seeing the light and having some common sense", as if they couldn't take the guilt any more.
But (taken from the article above): Prof Wilmut [the guy who cloned Dolly the sheep] said: "We've not made this decision because it's ethically better.
"To me it's always been ethically acceptable to think that if you could use cells from a human embryo to develop a treatment for a disease like motor neurone disease, for which there is no treatment at present, then that is an acceptable thing to do." I'm almost disappointed that this new technique has been developed. This means that now politicians can safely oppose stem-cell research, and people won't have to think about what they believe and why any more. It removes a question about ethics which I think needed to be tackled.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Ad hominems directed toward the parent aside, you misunderstand the argument one might make in respect of conception as the beginning of life, and have clouded the water with only marginally related (although interesting) questions regarding cloning and such.
Conception as the beginning of life follows a line of thinking something like this:
1) The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human thing. (of course, so is your arm or kidney)
2) This thing is not non-living, so it is a living thing. (whether it is independent has nothing to do with whether it is living--see arm/kidney)
3) This thing is genetically distinct from the parents. (as opposed to unique, as per your example of identical twins)
4) So the zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human thing that is not either parent.
Viability outside the womb, or relative completeness of development, is actually irrelevant. At conception, there is a living human thing that is distinct from, and hence not identical to, its parents. The question is whether you think that living human thing has value. Most people think that other human living things have an inherent value, such that it is morally reprehensible to cause such a thing to cease to live (at least against its will, but that's another debate) or to harm it. Also irrelevant is the apparent dissonance in those people who believe that an unborn human living thing must be protected, while one that has been born can be justly killed.
The arbitrary and subjective line drawing enters when one attempts to differentiate between one living human thing and another based on something other than its nature: a living human thing. That nature does not change with stage of development, intelligence, impairment, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, political persuasion, age, criminal behavior and so on.
That's why this matters. It's easy to point at a petri dish and say "it's just a bunch of cells;" as others here have pointed out, the same is true of an adult living human thing. Distinguishing between the two cannot be a matter of mere rhetorical device.
To reign is to serve.
At the risk of feeding a troll, I will at least attempt a brief answer.
Who's deciding what is "alive" and what is not? Of course sperm and egg are living, as they are not dead. They are not distinct entities, but when they combine they become a thing that is distinct from either of its parents, and is still alive. Whether it goes on the develop properly, or whether it is viable outside the womb, is not the point. It is a living human thing that is not identical with either parent, which is the important distinction to those opposed to harvesting embryos/abortion/etc. Hysterical rant #1 dispatched.
Nobody in the anti-(abortion) camp is claiming that animals are not alive. Whether it is morally licit to eat animals is entirely beside the present point (we call this a "red herring"). Furthermore, many who are opposed to harvesting embryos/abortion/etc. are also opposed to capital punishment, war, and so on. Many are outright pacifists--agree with them or not, it is a consistent position.
I leave you with this: a consistent life ethic. Next time take a moment to breathe before launching your attack.
To reign is to serve.
A fertilized egg is a new organism. Before fertilization, you have an egg cell, which is a component cell of the would-be mother, and a sperm cell, which is a component cell of the would-be father. If either of these cells dies, the organism they belong to does not die. But if the fertilized egg dies, then that whole organism dies. While it is alive it is by any definition a distinct organism from both the mother and the father, that is it is a separate human being. And by any remotely reasonable definition, it is alive until it dies. It has nothing to do with "potential for life," it has to do with killing a living human being.
Um, no. Religion is about the relationship between God and man. And most religious organizations are about offering support and guidance to other people in their relationship with God. As with all things, people have used religious organizations to further their own power and wealth, but those cases are the minority.
So your argument is basically that killing is wrong when, and only when, it makes you feel bad.
Your explanation is nonsensical. An embryonic or a stem cell looks or resembles nothing like its parents(humans). So what was your ill-thought point again? Do you guys actually even bother to think before you start trying to think of one reason or another to pave the way to the real agenda of banning abortions?
It is the *government* formulating and enforcing these laws and even forcing/coercing other countries to sign up in way of carrots and sticks. And *you* may be a vegetarian or pacifist, George Bush and the government is clearly not! Don't even pretend otherwise.
And thus, if they are taking "life in its tiniest forms is holy" philosophy to insane levels, they *have* to answer the myriad other questions that get raised.
1. Why are a bunch of cells "really" alive, but a full grown intelligent monkey or cow is not? It is *not* besides the point or a red herring. It is a pretty much relevant and related question. Why qualifies embroynic cells for a special treatment?
2. Why is it okay for the government to wage wars and kill humans in wars and by way of capital punishment, but killing a bunch of non-inteligent cells is such a big problem?
If *you* were just trying to *convince* and convert others to your own philosophy, there is nothing wrong with it. But when the *government* start making *laws* backed by such religious beliefs, it has to be answerable to the questions regards its hypocrisy about wars and destroying sick animals and so on. It doesn't matters what the anti-abortion/religious nuts camps believe or whether they are vegetarian or anti-war or not. The *government* is the one forcing this as law and if it says all life is holy and killing of even cells is wrong, it should best stop playing god with lives of people it puts to death every day.
If the government practices capital punishment, engages in war, creates nukes, it has no business talking about sanctity of life. *You* can go on talking about it all you want. Government cannot!
I am not a troll, despite your fondness of labeling everyone questioning your beliefs, as one. But you, unless you have a logically reasonable and common sense explanation, are a religious nutcase!
Learn to think before making nonsensical arguments that do not have a leg to stand upon. Stem cells look nothing like humans. They are *cells*! Plus it is hypocritical of even the anti-abortion/religious folks to go rabid over this topic, if you are not able to provide quality of life as well to all the "potential babies". For an example, a person may be in intolerable pain from an uncurable disease or accident, unable to move, see or function... he may *want* to die to just escape the pain, but you are insensitive to his/her suffering. All that matters to you is that he should be forced to live because of your beliefs. You are not even interested in allowing medical research that may find a cure for his/her condition... but only *your* salvation by forcing others to live according to your beliefs is important to you.
That is right. This is not about obeying the word of god. Heaven knows you are not worried about suffering of others and helping them. Because if you *really* did, you would not have an internet connection. You will instead spend the money, or ask whoever was spending the money on your connection, to spend it to feed hungry or treating sick children instead. Because there are millions of kids dying from starvation or diseases all over the world...and here you are ... ensuring *your* salvation instead, by wasting all your time and energy instead on arguing with me rather than *really* doing what your god wants.
So we have established that you neither believe in sanctity of life apart from your own(if you did you will be in iraq, throwing yourself against tanks and bullets to show you will die for your beliefs) ... nor are you concerned about *how* these babies live... since you are spending money on the net while kids are starving.... all you car
What makes animal embroys less worthy of such "protection"? Don't they match your above definition? If you add the qualifier "only human embroys", why so?
In short, you are just creating another question and need for yet another definition : What separates "human" cells from "animal" cells? If you state, the number of chromosomes or whatever as the part of requirement for such "protection"... why? Why is one "alive" and other is not? How is it different from "might or smartness is right"?
There's no way he's going to answer you because it's too difficult to explain with his tiny mind and backwards logic.
Funny things can happen with skin cancer. Does that have a right to live because some of the cells are doing something weird?
Of course the skin-cell stem cell process would not have been possible if there had not been other embryonic experimentation earlier. And there will still be cases where studying embryonic cells provides more (or different) information than the skin cell studies.
If not, how do you ethically justify doing the same thing to that mass of cells?
A mass of cells, even structured as a human being in any of it's development stages, is not necessarily a human being, IMHO.
A lump of cells no matter how organized is no Martha, Steve, Jane or Joe. However, a lump of human cells with a fully functional central nervous system and the potential to sustain it's own life given the correct environment, now that's my candidate for the human being tag. A teratoma, for example, is not a human being, not even the ones that develop rudimentary nervous systems (I think I've read that some even respond to stimuli like being pinched with a needle, but don't quote me on that)
The only cogent logical argument for definition of life other than "life begins at conception" that I've heard...
My particular view is: between conception and the time when the different types of tissues are being differentiated it's alive, but not a human being, and I don't think an abortion at this point is unethical (ducks for cover).
Of course, this is just my unwashed opinion, and anyone is entitled to disagree (politely).
The real idiots are the people who see issues in such a black and white fashion and can't seem to grasp the othersides reservations. The whole issue is when to define the start of life, from my non-religiously derived point of view it seems the only logical place it can start is conception, any other starting point seems rather arbitrary to me. So can you define when you consider life to start and explain why? For me, while I can see the reservations against embryonic stem cell research, I cannot see reservations against this kind of research. I would imagine most people with reservations against embryonic stem cell research feel the same and you are just jumping to conclusions because you are just as guilty as the "us" vs "them" mentality.
At what age does a human/zygote make the cut so that it is no longer available for scientific research? Two months? Six months? Birth? Five years? When they are potty trained? What classifies a human as a human deserving human rights? What test must be passed before that clump of cells is human? Who are you to decide? What if the government decided the age of liberty was your age +1? How would that make you feel?
This is an appeal to emotion. Which happens to be a logical fallacy when it comes to argumentation.
It seems to me that sentience should be the test. At some point in the not too distant future we will create sentient beings that are machine based. This is inevitable. They will have no DNA at all. Using the typical arguments that you seem to embrace, such being should not be afforded the same human rights that you and I have even though they may be thousands of times more intelligent than we are.
Perhaps we should be asking ourselves, what makes us human? I don't think relying on a purely biological answer is very wise or useful.
Actually, what kind of serious human stem cell research existed before the bush administration? None, so is it really THAT strange that he was the FIRST president to authorize it? The only thing he didn't do was to authorize it fully, that should have been done.
If this was a question on whether to experiment with living embryos or not, it would be an issue regarding the rights to experiment with life. But actually stem cell research is only experimenting with aborted embryos (read dead)- why wouldn't you on earth accept that? Will God be pissed? heck - if that theoretical being had the possibility on getting pissed, he would be that already, a long time ago.
'We' is me, the grandparent, the President, etc.
Never. Adults are the subject of research all the time. I know that's not what you really wanted to know, but imprecision in a discussion of this type irritates me.
To answer the question you meant to ask but didn't, at the average age that it is capable of surviving outside the womb.
And to be honest, the "embryo is a viable human" doesn't pass the sniff test. You can come up with all the intractable questions you like, they really don't change anything.
The scientist involved in this research said himself that Bush's ban on stem cell research set the field back four or five years.
Research is not a fluid. Barriers do not cause it to flow faster in a different direction. Research is gaseous -- it expands in all directions, and will get to any breakthrough faster if you do not put barriers in its way.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
I agree they have, however they go looking for God in science whereas the typical athiest scientist or engineer just wants to know how it works. Don't even get me started on intelligent design. Besides everyone knows the one true god is the flying spaghetti monster. Long may his noodly appendage flap upon us!
Do you object to someone donating organs after they have passed on? There is a certain nobility to sacrificing oneself for the betterment of the group when it is clear that you are not going to survive. If you really do believe that an embryo is equivalent to a baby, I can't imagine why you would choose to let them die pointlessly instead of making their existence have at least some sort of purpose.
Do I object to organ donors? Absolutely not. We are free to donate any part of our bodies that we wish. I have no problem with that. But that's not the same thing as using embryos for scientific research until the embryos agree to it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Even my cat is capable of a wide range of emotion, limited planning and communication (cursing, begging and lying mostly.) If it weren't for monkeys that do teamwork, tool use, comedy and lying there would still be one unique trait that humans have. Can it be that human is a merely a quantitative and not a qualitative measure?
Heh, to quote another slashdot comment:
Set the bar high enough and you too can join the Nazis in persecuting large sections of the current populace.
$(sleep 3 && export my_karma=0)
"You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
With regard to whether embryonic cells "look like" a person, see my post here. It may not look like an adult human being, but in fact it does resemble one in some important ways (just not visually). And again, I never did or would say that an animal is not "really alive." The question of whether it is ethical to kill and eat animals has no bearing on the question of when human life begins. What distinguishes between animals and the embryonic cells in question is that the latter is human. Right it or not, to the great majority of ethicists this makes a difference, and I imagine if we get down to brass tacks it does to you, too (ever slapped a mosquito buzzing at you? Or killed an annoying kid in class? There's a difference, right?).
Most of your problem seems to be with the government. I do not support everything my government wants to do (or much of it at all, really), and yes I am active in making my voice known on the matter. I am anti-war. I believe capital punishment is wrong and should be abolished. Please do not equate me and my beliefs with the Bush (or any other) administration.
Since you know nothing about me beyond a couple of brief posts here, you should probably refrain from personal attacks, too. You have no idea whether or how much I pay for internet access (free, by the way) or how I spend my time and energy, or even what my beliefs actually are. The group of people who are opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells on ethical grounds spans from atheist to Muslim to Christian to Buddhist.
I won't rehash it all here, but look at my other post (linked above) if you want to see a more formal argument. Take care.
To reign is to serve.
There is a very defined point when we cannot continue life after 'conception'. If we make embryo's, and try to continue them until they form a baby there is a critical point where maturation stops. Why can't everyone get together and say: look, there is this period between these 2 critical timepoints, and there is nothing we can do to move forward. Why can't after that critical timepoint be life? There is nothing we can do before that (aside from implanting into a uterus) to make a human. I, for one, am not going to offer up my uterus for implantation. I would however, let my eggs be used, as I don't plan on using them.
isn't this ultimately what it comes to, though? It's okay to kill cows for food (way past levels that are "neccessary" for survival). It is okay to kill a plant or organisms with no central nervous system. It is okay to kill fish or deer for sport. It is not okay to kill dogs as part of a gambling operation.
It is okay to kill some people (saddam Hussein). It is not okay to kill other people (JFK). In some cultures it is okay to kill people for sacrifice to gods, not okay to kill them in other situations. etc. etc. etc.
The point is exactly as you said. Killing is wrong when it makes you feel bad. You can try to clarify your ground rules as much as you want ("killing is bad if you are killing cells that could eventually become a human, but okay if the cells couldnt develop"). But in the end, thats only trying to define what makes you feel bad and what doesnt. Otherwise, you must either take the position that "all killing is bad" or that "all killing is okay."
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
An often-overlooked core issue is that some current reckless methods of IFV are already unethical - creating a surplus of viable humans with that knowledge that a significant population will be destroyed / discarded. These sorts of IFV treatments are already treating human lives as if they were a commodity - just a resource to be bought and sold. The use of "surplus" embryos in stem-cell research just opens up an additional market and creates a supply chain - generating more revenue from the creation and destruction of human lives. It offends the very notion of "human dignity," espoused by religious and non-religious alike.
The path to meet market demands for test-subject embryos should certainly be barred on ethical grounds, and on the same grounds that source of the market supply should be shut down as well. There are plenty of alternative paths that don't require creating so many "surplus" embryos - even if they do cost more time and money to perform.
No.
If you disagree, do so on grounds that one of my statements is incorrect, because the conclusion follows necessarily from them.
To reign is to serve.
No actually, you didn't. You redefined terminology to meet your own expectations. That is not a logical argument.
How about I disagree because you are abusing semantics and changing definitions, thereby being incredibly disingenuous?
Well, that's it right there, isn't it? A clump of cells doesn't 'feel' anything. And while the developmental line drawn between a clump of cells and a sentient being may not be an obvious one, I think we're certainly capable of determining when we're well behind it. The argument over whether terminating a developing human being is morally the same thing as murdering that potential person is another issue altogether, but deciding if a clump of cells 'wants' to live is a non-issue. Don't equate one extreme with the other simply because the transition between them gets a little fuzzy in the middle.
It goes to the question of what is a human deserving of human rights. We consider it a unique being with DNA, post-fertilization.
Then you're as much of a tool as someone who gets an elective abortion at 8 months and three weeks into a pregnancy because they define life as beginning at birth. On one hand, you have an unborn baby that has been kicking for weeks and could have been delivered a month ago by c-section. On the other hand, you have a single cell or cluster of cells that cannot be seen without a high powered microscope. *Cells*. Your views are not reasonable, they are asinine.
And if the destruction of embryos is a crime, why is the right wing not out trying to close down fertility clinics? Because if these embryos are not used one way or another, they are simply thrown away as medical waste. Since their destruction is a foregone conclusion, the real ethics problem is in *not* using them to save the lives of others.
At what age does a human/zygote make the cut so that it is no longer available for scientific research? Two months? Six months? Birth? Five years? When they are potty trained? What classifies a human as a human deserving human rights? What test must be passed before that clump of cells is human? Who are you to decide?
No, there is no single line we can draw that separates a potential human from an actual human, which is why those opposed to abortion and stem cell research like to bring up. What they don't mention is the obvious solution: draw two lines. Eight and a half months into a pregnancy, the baby is already capable of being delivered by c-section. At conception, it's a single cell with nothing whatsoever resembling thoughts, feelings, or autonomy. "Life begins at conception" is just as valid as "life begins at birth." Oh, and by "valid", I mean "asinine."
What if the government decided the age of liberty was your age +1? How would that make you feel?
Yawn.
"I still think your objection to embryonic research is down right stupid."
Thinking your opponents are stupid. Wow, there's a shock.
"stem cell researchers were using cells from unused IVF samples, not killing babies as you people like to compare it to. I can't even begin to understand how you could equate a couple of cells in a petree dish to a human."
Humans start somewhere. Where do you put that point at? Are fertilized eggs a whole person yet? Obviously not. Does that mean they're not human life then? Of course not. When you can create human life from scratch, then come back and claim you can declare when life begins.
"And no, this line of research would still have been pursured without your stupid agenda, because it solves other problems not rooted in religous objections."
This research took off precisely because of ethical concerns. It never would have gotten nearly as much support if scientists were allowed to take the easy way out and simply use human fetuses.
"So you don't get to claim this is some kind of victory."
Yes, yes we can. The liklihood that this research will largely displace the human fetus as a source of cells is a direct result of the President's policies, backed by the strong support of those policies from pro-life voters. Because of those policies, we can now conduct advanced, life-saving research, without the cost of chucking our ethics out the window and abandoning our own souls. This IS a victory, and thank God for it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
This debate has gotten a lot of people arguing about cells; when they are 'alive' and when they are 'dead'; when are they 'human', when are they not... Frankly, a lot of the opinions provided seem ill-informed and jejune; it is entirely possible that this is merely because the proponents of those opinions have failed to provide their rationale.
Personally, I believe that life has no distinct beginning, and a nebulous-at-best end; there-fore, I tend to lean towards the most mathematically viable option. For instance, this embryo's destruction may lead to a cure for Parkinson's Disease. One embryo is less than several million sufferers of Parkinson's. Death to the embryo, as it were. Also, there is a growing embryo/foetus in a woman; she cannot go through the pregnancy with her health: back problems, possibly pre-natal fatality, etcetera. Again, death to the embryo. Suppose she's fine and healthy, but cannot financially support the child. This one's trickier. I lean towards early-term abortion, but not late term. Once the child starts to develop a nervous system, I get uncomfortable. Even then though, I value the mother's life more; if she can't reasonably go through with the pregnancy and birth, let her choose to abort or not. She can make another one at a later date, when she's healthier.
This kind of thinking also leads me to believe that vegetarianism (and especially veganism) is a silly idea. No type of organism is 'better' than another; a cow has as much right to life as a human. Of course, the opposite is also true. Additionally, humans are designed (whether by God, gods, evolution, or some combination of the above) to eat plants AND meat; there are eight essential amino acids that humans cannot produce. Humans are supposed to consume fats and cholesterol, which are difficult or impossible to find in plants. We are supposed to eat other organisms. Get over it.
It also seems to produce a dichotomy: so you won't eat meat; why will you eat plants? Why is meat 'better' than plants? How do you feel about micro-organisms?
If any-one can tell me, phlegmatically and reasonably, why they believe some-thing counter to what I do, I would be grateful. Oh, and if one of those reasons is a religious doctrine, tell me what it is, and even explain it if you so choose, but no attempts at conversion, please. My religion is my business, not yours.
"What is there in this world that makes living worthwhile?" Death thought about it. "CATS," he said. "CATS ARE NICE."
If your whole post was a joke, I didn't get it. In that case, disregard this.
First off, you say that you prefer an "event based cutoff". Which event do you choose? You don't specify, so I'll assume conception, based on the rest of your post.
Anyway, you start off with a whole lot of handwaving about Chinese and 21-year-olds (WTF?), to end up with what I construe to be your conclusion; humans are being murdered (in italics) if an abortion concurs at any point after conception.
That is a fundamentalistic perspective.
As an aside, I'm going to assume that you eat meat. In that case you're not adverse to taking lives for an end which results in a comfortable, but by no means necessary experience for you (I enjoy meat as well). Even if it's not the case for you personally, my next point is still valid for most people of your opinion:
It's not *life* itself that's important to you. I assume that you perceive a difference between sentient and non-sentient life (Vegetables? Molluscs? Fish?). If you at any point claim that a human fetus at an age of under 12 weeks (the limit for abortion by choice in my society) is sentient by any definition of the term, or even significally different from an avian fetus of comparable age, then I have nothing more to discuss with you. We're living on different planets. If we're indeed living on the same planet, the act of eating an (unbeknownst to you) fertilized hen's egg would also be murder. This happens often enough, you've probably eaten one.
I'd enjoy to have this argument with you in real life. If you'd be the first from the con-choice (I can play word games as well) fundamentalist crowd to actually bring some real arguments to the table, it'd be a very interesting experience. On Slashdot I fear it won't be productive.
PS. I don't endorse uncritical abortions for the sole reason that it's "inconvenient" to bring a child into someone's life. It can have severe emotional consequences for the girl having the abortion, for one thing.
PSS. I know that I defined a fetus of 12 weeks of age as not being sentient. Prove me wrong.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Since when was it ethical to prohibit life-saving research because it was dependent on cells which would otherwise go to waste?
Totally unrelated linguistic question: Why pro-life, could this not just as easily be con-choice? It's pro or con abortion, as I understand it. English is not my first language, but would anyone remotely intelligent be mislead by such wordplay? Serious question.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Be careful calling people ignorant when you yourself are short a few clues to what you're talking about.
I said I was against animals being killed at all, tortured or otherwise!
... my smallest, tiniest *cells* are more 'alive' than a full-grown intelligent chimpanzee or cow!". Bravo!!!
Assuming that you live in a free country, that's your choice. I do not agree. The thing that I'm sure we both agree about is that animals shouldn't be tortured. That is a right of all living things.
And you come back with "oh it is fine to kill innocent animals... they are not REALLY alive, you know?
I said no such thing. Pay attention next time.
And by extension, if the emborys are not being tortured, I guess you are fine with their being killed? Please explicitly confirm so.
Spell it correctly and I'll answer.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I agree they have, however they go looking for God in science whereas the typical athiest scientist or engineer just wants to know how it works.
So what? Why does it matter if faith is someone's inspiration for studying things?
Don't even get me started on intelligent design.
I don't remember bringing that up. It's a separate issue.
Besides everyone knows the one true god is the flying spaghetti monster. Long may his noodly appendage flap upon us!
I can only assume that you think I'm a Christian and are trying to bait me. I'm not and you can't.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Oddly enough, P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula actually had a good write up on this paper. It turns out that they are in fact totopotent. They proved it by transferring the mouse cell nucleus to an oocyte and implanting it, resulting in an entire mouse; everything grew perfectly fine thus we know it can make everything.
They found a reset switch. They trigger it with gene therapy though and the mice produced have a much higher cancer rate and you might hit a useful gene you need. They found this reset switch by looking at actual ESCs. They need a way to trigger the cells without forcing some new genetic material in, leading to cancer and the like. The way to do that is more research. Ten years down the road this is going to be pretty important, and Takahashi et al. are probably going get a Nobel Prize for this.
Three things to remember:
This breakthrough was the result of embryonic stem cell research.
This needs more research to make it viable for any treatment which means more embryonic stem cell research.
This breakthrough was made in Japan where they are allowed to conduct the research.
We fell behind, and though there are breakthroughs coming they aren't ours, nor are they as soon as they could have been.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
People will continue to work with hESCs for quite a while, I guarantee you. They still have not figured out how to undo the genetic changes they had to make to "coerce" the skin cells back into stem cells. I also fail to see how adding several steps to the process of deriving tissue from hESCs is going to make it any cheaper...