Stem Cell Research article

by DevonMcBride 112 Replies latest jw friends

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien
    An embryo is the simplest form of life that will grow into a complete human being, I make the conclusion that it is a human life because of that: both potential and existing. To take away that life is to do so unjustly as you become God by saying who can live and who cannot. I don't see what's so illogical about that argument, unless you wish to elucidate further.

    what's illogical, is that you take your stand on "philosophical" grounds, and not on technical biological ones. you also ignore technical arguments against your stand by simply labeling them whatever fallacy strikes your fancy.

    you arbitrarily assert that "life" starts at conception, purely because it suits you philosophically. you ignore arguments based on the technicality of similarity between the fertilized cell, and other cells in nature.

    you assert that it is unethical, simply because it suits you philosophically, without providing any technical data showing that life starts at conception instead of at the end of the second trimester like the large majority of doctors assert. you say some old microbiology professor told you life starts at conception, but you do not expound on the technical points.

    you assert that the cells have "potential", when clearly you mean this philosophically, and not technically, since you have provided no sources.

  • the_classicist
    the_classicist
    an EGG, at conception, IS a cell with 46 chromosomes. so we ARE talking about the same thing. cells with 46 chromosomes. all cells in the human body have the complete genetic code for that human (46 chromosomes). a liver cell has the entire code, but only a certain part of the code has been executed. just admit it, and move on already. sheesh. you're being illogical with your refusal to define technically the difference between clump of cells that have divided from one, and an embryo.

    An egg can grow into a human being. A liver cell cannot, nor can a stem cell. Comparing the two is a false analogy.

  • the_classicist
    the_classicist
    what's illogical, is that you take your stand on "philosophical" grounds, and not on technical biological ones. you also ignore technical arguments against your stand by simply labeling them whatever fallacy strikes your fancy.

    you arbitrarily assert that "life" starts at conception, purely because it suits you philosophically. you ignore arguments based on the technicality of similarity between the fertilized cell, and other cells in nature.

    you assert that it is unethical, simply because it suits you philosophically, without providing any technical data showing that life starts at conception instead of at the end of the second trimester like the large majority of doctors assert. you say some old microbiology professor told you life starts at conception, but you do not expound on the technical points.

    you assert that the cells have "potential", when clearly you mean this philosophically, and not technically, since you have provided no sources.

    Wow, I didn't say "[my] old microbiology professor told you life starts at conception," I said that my old biology professort told us about the exaggerations of scientists when it comes to funding and dealing with the media. (strawman again).

    An embryo is a unit of human life that will grow and form into a unit of human life like yourself. I would like to see some research that the majority of doctors assert that life beings at the second trimestre, and I'm pretty sure that that decision is arbitrary and because of the influence of the abortion lobby.

  • Mary
    Mary
    Classicist said: Wow, an argument from selfishness and an ad hominem attack all in one. You're certainly an irrational piece of work, Mary.

    Wow.....Good comeback......that really made me stop and think.

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    I posed a question earlier....what about a cloned cell then? A clone would meet your definition of life. Are you for cloning then I assume?

    Currently there is genetic material that is being discarded. Logic would dictate what we use this for what we could, as simply throwing it away makes it go to waste. Not using it would be irrational and not logical. Using embryonic stem cells and such IS THE LOGIAL decision.

    When I said "forcing it down our throats" it was intended at the conservatives in general that are opposed to stem cell research....not necessarily you specifically. But my point is...while I accept your decision to not use any treatments from embryonic stem cells as your fundamental right (although you haven't answered my question about that)...conservatives opposed to this are actively trying to STOP ME from choosing what I deem to be acceptable. Vast difference.

    Surely you can see the irrationality of your argument.

  • rem
    rem

    >> An embryo is the simplest form of life that will grow into a complete human being, I make the conclusion that it is a human life because of that: both potential and existing.

    It is a clump of cells that has a probability of becoming a human being - just as egg and sperm cells are. Sperm has a lower probability of becoming human - it must meet with an egg. A clump of cells from a fertilized egg has a higher probability of becoming human, but it still has many obstacles ahead of it. Neither are sentient, neither have a 100% probability of becoming a full human in even the best case scenario. Setting the bar at the number of chromosomes within the cell is arbitrary.

    Anyone can arbitrarily draw the line of what is human at any point. Yours is no more "correct" than any other. I do believe that some lines are overly conservative and some are overly liberal for my taste - and this comes down to a moral judgement. As for public policy, I don't believe we should cater to traditional religious morals, but must meet a medium. If !00% of the human race believed the way you do, then that would be one thing, but there is a continuum of belief here that must be taken into account. Being overly restrictive or liberal can have bad effects on society, whereas there is a compelling argument for being "reasonable" as it has the potential for greater good.

    Notice I never said your position was illogical (insofar as your presuppositions are concerned) - just naive. There is no logicaly true boundary of what a human is in my estimation - it is arbitrary based on all of our presuppositions.

    I find it interesting that you believe a clump of cells will be going to heaven. Wishful thinking, I must say. There will be a lot of miscarried cells up there. I'm not sure how interesting their conversation will be. I sincerely doubt most religious people feel the same way you do. I used to be religious and did not feel that way.

    Toenail cells have just as much potential to become a human being as any other cell. Cells can be cloned, so there is potential for a future human being in every one. Also, in that clump of cells of a zygote - what cells are those? What do they eventually become? Nose hair cells? From my understanding, those cells may die off during the development, which means there is nothing magical about those cells - they are not part of the end product. They are merely a potential for becoming a human - one which has a calculable probability, just like my toenail cell.

    Also, it is natural for humans (and other animals) to kill their young - the Greeks did it and it happens today in some cases. You should be arguing that it is not moral (or perhaps not common) - not against nature. It is special pleading to say that miscarriage doesn't apply as abortion just because it is not performed by an intelligent act. It is natural for humans and other animals to abort - even congnizantly. We can talk about how often this happens or the morality involved, but there is no argument against nature here.

    rem

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien
    An egg can grow into a human being. A liver cell cannot, nor can a stem cell. Comparing the two is a false analogy.

    strawman ! no, er, false analogy! no, erm , argument from authority! no, um, red herring! no, er, false anology !

    how much magic do you think is involved in conception and development? i would like to know.

    secondly, for the umpteenth time, this is not a false analogy technically speaking. you keep calling it such, and i keep saying no. how long shall this go on? you're being illogical in your refusal to admit that they are both cells with full genetic code.

    what do you think a sperm is? it's a cell with 23 chromosomes. what do you think an egg is? it's a cell with 23 chromosomes. they get together and make a cell with 46, like the rest of the cells.

    what do you think cloning is? it's taking the full genetic code of a single parent, from any cell, and growing a clump of cells in a host female who provides no genetic material of her own. they have just cloned a dog in korea , it won't be long before a human is cloned. so your argument that a regular cell cannot grow into a human, is a false analogy because it is not the cell itself that grows into a human, but the genetic code from it. it is also a red herring to continually call my comparison a false analogy when i have clearly shown that it is not.

    i await your red herring.

    TS

  • the_classicist
    the_classicist

    Here's an argument from a scientific viewpoint from the NUSCCB: " "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei ... and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning ... of a human being." (Moore, Keith L., Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker, Inc., 1988, p.2.) "Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29). "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.) "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.) "The fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way to the uterus." (Carlson, Bruce M., Human Embryology and Developmental Biology. St. Louis: Mosby, 1994, p.3). (See also www.nccbuscc.org/ prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.htm for numerous quotations from medical texts.)"

    I posed a question earlier....what about a cloned cell then? A clone would meet your definition of life. Are you for cloning then I assume?

    I cloned embryo would still be a person, but it's unnatural to play with natural selection.

    When I said "forcing it down our throats" it was intended at the conservatives in general that are opposed to stem cell research....not necessarily you specifically. But my point is...while I accept your decision to not use any treatments from embryonic stem cells as your fundamental right (although you haven't answered my question about that)...conservatives opposed to this are actively trying to STOP ME from choosing what I deem to be acceptable. Vast difference.
    I would not use embryonic stem cells and as for people stopping you from choosing what you deem to be acceptable, I would say that the majority rules and society bases it's morality upon the majority.
  • the_classicist
    the_classicist

    Tetra, they use ova and a regular cell to make a clone, then shock them in order to mix their nuclear material. If that is successful, then conception takes place. I would doubt that they would be able to make a clone without any sort of ovum.

  • the_classicist
    the_classicist
    It is a clump of cells that has a probability of becoming a human being - just as egg and sperm cells are. Sperm has a lower probability of becoming human - it must meet with an egg. A clump of cells from a fertilized egg has a higher probability of becoming human, but it still has many obstacles ahead of it. Neither are sentient, neither have a 100% probability of becoming a full human in even the best case scenario. Setting the bar at the number of chromosomes within the cell is arbitrary.

    Funny, I've never heard of a clump of regular cells becoming another person, ever. Can you scientifically prove that this can happen or do you enjoy using unfalsifiable statements?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit