Stem Cell Research article

by DevonMcBride 112 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  you're dodging the question:

  3. it moves around, from one place to the other until it has reached the place where it grows fully 4. it will be able to if you did not inhibit it's growth 5. even bacteria can detect stimuli, as I'm sure you'd know.

  "it" does not move around on it's own. you know this. don't pretend you don't.

  "it" is not reproducing itself. the computer that is the mother is reproducing it.

  "it" does not detect stimuli like bacteria, and respond to it. to compare it to bacteria now when it suits you, and not when it doesn't, as earlier in the discussion, is a form of dishonesty. strawman perhaps? at any rate, it's intellectually dishonest.
• 

  rem

  >> You said that a clump of cells has a probability of becoming another human being, yet you cannot prove this. It is unfalsifiable. In cloning you take and ovum and zap some complete DNA into, at that time it becomes a zygote and it's an artificial conception completed without a sperm.
  
  You just proved it was possible, thus it is not unfalsifiable. Just because it is artificial does not mean that the potential for another human being does not exist in the cell. It just needs to be expressed.
  
  It just so happens that there is already a pre-built scaffolding and framework that expresses the same DNA automatically when egg and sperm meet. We are down to mechanics here.
  
  The probabilities can be calculated for either case.
  
  rem
• 

  the_classicist

  "it" does not move around on it's own. you know this. don't pretend you don't.

  "it" is not reproducing itself. the computer that is the mother is reproducing it.

  "it" does not detect stimuli like bacteria, and respond to it. to compare it to bacteria now when it suits you, and not when it doesn't, as earlier in the discussion, is a form of dishonesty. strawman perhaps? at any rate, it's intellectually dishonest.

  I thought you knew that bacteria is the paradigm for all life. Besides, it's intellectually dishonest to say that determining the beginning of life is a scientific and naturalistic decision, while that may play a part, there is a philosohpical dimmension. Let's say you don't consider an embryo life, but you kill it while it's in the womb, with some sort of abortaficient. Now we set up a causal relationship as you destroy someone that will become an independent human being. Cause: You kill an embryo. Effect: That embryo can't become a person, you immediatley negate it's right to become one.
• 

  rem

  >> fine, replace unfalsifiable with specualtion and scientifically unproven.
  
  Had cloning never been demonstrated you would be correct. However cloning has been accomplished, therefore what I said is not merely speculation, but actually happens in practice and is scientifically proven. The mechanics of it are not important. The fact that the DNA (which you claim is the definition of a human being) is being expressed. At this point you will need to further tighten your definition of a human being.
  
  rem
• 

  the_classicist

  You just proved it was possible, thus it is not unfalsifiable. Just because it is artificial does not mean that the potential for another human being does not exist in the cell. It just needs to be expressed.
  
  
  It just so happens that there is already a pre-built scaffolding and framework that expresses the same DNA automatically when egg and sperm meet. We are down to mechanics here.
  
  
  The probabilities can be calculated for either case.

  The ova, when it takes on 46 chromosomes, starts to become a human being. A skin cell cannot, even though it has all 46 chromosomes and neither can a stem cell. Again, can you prove this wrong scientifically? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you're argument and you can make it clearer.
• 

  the_classicist

  Had cloning never been demonstrated you would be correct. However cloning has been accomplished, therefore what I said is not merely speculation, but actually happens in practice and is scientifically proven. The mechanics of it are not important. The fact that the DNA (which you claim is the definition of a human being) is being expressed. At this point you will need to further tighten your definition of a human being.

  Cloning uses the same mechanism as human reproduction. The ovum is given the full DNA from another cell by implantation (electric shock) and will grow into a life form.

  This cannot happen with other cells except the female gamete.
• 

  rem

  I'm talking about potential. The potential for a human being exists in the DNA. We can manipulate the DNA in any cell to create a new human being - ergo every cell has the potential to become a human. It's artificial, but the potential is still there.
  
  If you say that only cells that have the potential for becoming human without artificial means count, then I will simply label your argument as arbitrary. Also, there are many artificial means of helping the process along during development. To exclude all artificial help would define away many potential humans as not deserving human rights until some other arbitrary point has been crossed.
  
  rem
• 

  rem

  Why do you care whether a ovum or a toe-nail cell is used? You already defined an ovum as a non-human since it does not have all 46 chromosomes. Again, you are getting bogged down on the mechanics and not the potential. The fact that a toe-nail cell needs an egg cell to be successfully cloned doesn't affect the argument at all.
  
  rem
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  I thought you knew that bacteria is the paradigm for all life. Besides, it's intellectually dishonest to say that determining the beginning of life is a scientific and naturalistic decision, while that may play a part, there is a philosohpical dimmension. Let's say you don't consider an embryo life, but you kill it while it's in the womb, with some sort of abortaficient. Now we set up a causal relationship as you destroy someone that will become an independent human being. Cause: You kill an embryo. Effect: That embryo can't become a person, you immediatley negate it's right to become one.

  it's more intellectually dishonest to say that it's more of a philosophical/religious decision, than a biological one.

  again, you say that life starts at conception, and yet the clump of cells do not display the 5 biological phenomena for the definition of life.

  Effect: That embryo can't become a person, you immediatley negate it's right to become one.

  rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. philosophy. is that all you have? you're like the energizer bunny for your technically bankrupt "philosophy" (religion). cells do not have rights the same way that a sentient/sapient clump of cells (human) does.

  anyways, my wife says to log off and come have a beer. so, i must obey the master of universe. have a nice day. i'll check back later to see if you have become an atheist/immoral/murderous/cantankerous / naturalist. i have my hopes.

  TS
• 

  the_classicist

  I'm talking about potential. The potential for a human being exists in the DNA. We can manipulate the DNA in any cell to create a new human being - ergo every cell has the potential to become a human. It's artificial, but the potential is still there.

  I'm talking about reality. In reality, an embryo has the potential to become a fully-formed human. In reality, a skin cell does not have that potential.

  If you say that only cells that have the potential for becoming human without artificial means count, then I will simply label your argument as arbitrary. Also, there are many artificial means of helping the process along during development. To exclude all artificial help would define away many potential humans as not deserving human rights until some other arbitrary point has been crossed.

  I'm saying that those cells which are produced by artificial means do have the right to life. I'm saying it's unethical to do so, especially when we fool with evolution according to our own whims on such silly subjects as hair colour.