Embryonic Stem Cell Research and...

[HeatherJay]

I'm actually not trying to start a debate, though I feel certain that there will be opposing sides...

For those who support embryonic stem cell research, what's your position on human cloning?

I was reading through the speech given by Ron Reagan at the Democratic Convention on the subject and I was confused by a lot of what he said. Not because he was speaking over my head (in fact, I think he went out of his way to be simple), but because I felt like he was blurring the lines between the two procedures...completely unintentionally, I think.

Sorry, I don't have a link to the speech...I read it in printed form...maybe someone knows where to find it on the web?

So, for those who support ESCR, where do you stand on the issue of human cloning?

 

[CrossWiseMag]

I don't have a link, but I remember thinking at the time -- and a lot of people agree -- that he was not "unintentionally" blurring the distinction. The fact of the matter is, people who support the harvesting of unborn babies for their cells don't want the majority of the public to realize that. They redefine terms--even to the point of not defining "pregnancy" in the same way it was defined 40 years ago. Once a sperm fertilizes an egg, all the genetic material to produce a human being is contained in that single organism. Thus, it is a human, albeit at a different stage of development than you or me.

The words "human cloning" are off-limits, because of the public opposition to such a thing. But Ron Reagan's speech went even beyond embryonic stem cell research to discuss human cloning, without ever using that phrase to describe the process. This is how supporters will try to sell the harvesting of human beings to an unwitting public.

 

[kingreaper]

I don't have a link, but I remember thinking at the time -- and a lot of people agree -- that he was not "unintentionally" blurring the distinction. The fact of the matter is, people who support the harvesting of unborn babies for their cells don't want the majority of the public to realize that. They redefine terms--even to the point of not defining "pregnancy" in the same way it was defined 40 years ago. Once a sperm fertilizes an egg, all the genetic material to produce a human being is contained in that single organism. Thus, it is a human, albeit at a different stage of development than you or me.

The words "human cloning" are off-limits, because of the public opposition to such a thing. But Ron Reagan's speech went even beyond embryonic stem cell research to discuss human cloning, without ever using that phrase to describe the process. This is how supporters will try to sell the harvesting of human beings to an unwitting public.

What makes the Human genome special, why is something genetically human necessarily more deserving of rights than something without the exact human genome?

I justify special rights for humans by our sentience, how do you justify special rights for anything with a human genome?

 

[Jet Black]

I'm actually not trying to start a debate, though I feel certain that there will be opposing sides...

For those who support embryonic stem cell research, what's your position on human cloning?

apples and oranges really.

I was reading through the speech given by Ron Reagan at the Democratic Convention on the subject and I was confused by a lot of what he said. Not because he was speaking over my head (in fact, I think he went out of his way to be simple), but because I felt like he was blurring the lines between the two procedures...completely unintentionally, I think.

odd, perhaps I will try to hunt it down.

So, for those who support ESCR, where do you stand on the issue of human cloning?

well in principle I have no objections to either, though the latter seems somewhat pointless, since we already have a perfectly good built in human production system, but if the "cloning" is for organ production, then fair enough. the accusation for example by CrossWiseMag, that the cell is a human is an odd one, because it is only really becomes human if it recieves certain chemical triggers which it will not outside the human uterus, and certain gene switching on the formation of the initial oocytes or sperm. In the absence of these triggers it will not develop into anything much at all.

 

[HeatherJay]

Here's a link to the speech :

http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=131063&ct=159643

 

[Fuzzy]

Transcripts:

http://www.brainthink.com/view_article.php?articleid=1367
http://www.icount.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7
http://politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=535

 

[HeatherJay]

apples and oranges really.

odd, perhaps I will try to hunt it down.


well in principle I have no objections to either, though the latter seems somewhat pointless, since we already have a perfectly good built in human production system, but if the "cloning" is for organ production, then fair enough. the accusation for example by CrossWiseMag, that the cell is a human is an odd one, because it is only really becomes human if it recieves certain chemical triggers which it will not outside the human uterus, and certain gene switching on the formation of the initial oocytes or sperm. In the absence of these triggers it will not develop into anything much at all.

As far as ESCR goes, on the basic level, I don't have a big problem with it. I do have questions as to how effective it might be. And, I also question whether there are other forms of stem cell research that might accomplish the same goal without the use of an embryo. But, after reading the speech that Reagan gave, I have to question just how well the majority of people even understand the subject they're so adamently supporting...unless he meant to basically describe the cloning procedure and call it ESCR?

So, I posted my question completely out of curiosity...not a desire to convince anyone of the right side of the issue.

 

[Natman]

I do not have a problem with "Stem Cell Research", but like CrossWiseMag, I have a HUGE problem with "Embryonic Stem Cell Research" (ESCR) in that it requires the destruction of "human" life and creates a market for aborted fetus material.

Stem cells are available from so many OTHER scources in cluding adult donors and discarded placentas that it makes absolutely no sense to destroy an innocent life, even if by some chance it would improve the life of another.

On the same note, I see no "moral" problem with "human" cloning as long as we understand that cloning, like natural conception and birth produces a human being with all of the same rights to protection as any other person. As such, it becomes "immoral" when the cloned person is used merely as body parts for someone else.

That said, I do not believe we understand all of the ramifications of cloning, now or into the forseeable future. God created our genetic system with purpose, part of which is to ensure our survivability over time as new virus' come about and as our environment changes. I am not sure that "cloning" may not byass some of these "natural" protections and make us far more vulnerable down the road.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[kingreaper]

I do not have a problem with "Stem Cell Research", but like CrossWiseMag, I have a HUGE problem with "Embryonic Stem Cell Research" (ESCR) in that it requires the destruction of "human" life and creates a market for aborted fetus material.

Stem cells are available from so many OTHER scources in cluding adult donors and discarded placentas that it makes absolutely no sense to destroy an innocent life, even if by some chance it would improve the life of another.

On the same note, I see no "moral" problem with "human" cloning as long as we understand that cloning, like natural conception and birth produces a human being with all of the same rights to protection as any other person. As such, it becomes "immoral" when the cloned person is used merely as body parts for someone else.

That said, I do not believe we understand all of the ramifications of cloning, now or into the forseeable future. God created our genetic system with purpose, part of which is to ensure our survivability over time as new virus' come about and as our environment changes. I am not sure that "cloning" may not byass some of these "natural" protections and make us far more vulnerable down the road.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Once again I must ask

Why does having a human genome make something worthy of human rights, why shouldn't we consider Sentience, or at least the possibility of sentience, the factor which makes humans special

What is so important about the human genome?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

I think it is unethical and immoral to deliberately fertilize a human egg cell with the intent of destroying the zygote for some utilitarian purpose.

Adult stem cells have already proven more accessible and more useful for research than embryonic stem cells.

As to cloning -- i.e., creating a new living being using only one set of chromosones -- that is not a problem with human beings provided the intent is to produce a child that will be welcomed, loved, and nurtured as an independent human being, not as an adjunct to its gene donor.

I think the push for embryonic stem cell research, and the deliberate muddying of the waters to imply opposition to that is opposition to all stem cell research, is hiding an agenda that has less to do with science and medicine and more to do with social engineering.

 

[HeatherJay]

Once again I must ask

Why does having a human genome make something worthy of human rights, why shouldn't we consider Sentience, or at least the possibility of sentience, the factor which makes humans special

What is so important about the human genome?

Well, this is going to be a fundamental difference of thought between the two sides, isn't it?

Do you mean simply 'awareness'? And if so, on what level? Because to say that awareness is a necessary factor for human rights to be applied, then what about the comatose, or newborn babies?

If you believe that God is responsible for our formation in the womb, then it should go without saying that sentience isn't the factor that makes us special or unique. If you hold no such belief, then I guess it's more up in the air as to what constitutes 'life'.

 

[Natman]

Science is continually pushing our concept of "sentience" closer and closer to the point of conception. The newest 3D ultrasounds have shown that an embryo as early as a few days has already begun the development of a nervous system and is capable of responding to stimulus. We know that at the instant of conception, the fertilized egg begins to explode with an exponential growth of cells destined to be brains, eyes, mouth, arms, hands, legs and feet, heart, lungs and nerves.

I, for one do not want to second guess God on such an important matter.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Jet Black]

If you believe that God is responsible for our formation in the womb, then it should go without saying that sentience isn't the factor that makes us special or unique. If you hold no such belief, then I guess it's more up in the air as to what constitutes 'life'.

interesting that. what is the difference between an embryo fertilised in the uterus, and one fertilised in a petri dish? (no it isn't the opening line for a joke, or at least not one with a remotely appropriate punchline)

 

[Jet Black]

Science is continually pushing our concept of "sentience" closer and closer to the point of conception. The newest 3D ultrasounds have shown that an embryo as early as a few days has already begun the development of a nervous system and is capable of responding to stimulus.

no, a few weeks. days is pushing it.

We know that at the instant of conception, the fertilized egg begins to explode with an exponential growth of cells destined to be brains, eyes, mouth, arms, hands, legs and feet, heart, lungs and nerves.

but at that stage no cells have turned on. The initial cellular replication forms a blastocyst, before genes start turning on and differentiating the cells to form a zygote. as I pointed out earlier, chemical signals are required, otherwise the cells are nothing but an odd form of cancer. without those signals, can one really call it life?

 

[Jet Black]

As far as ESCR goes, on the basic level, I don't have a big problem with it. I do have questions as to how effective it might be. And, I also question whether there are other forms of stem cell research that might accomplish the same goal without the use of an embryo. But, after reading the speech that Reagan gave, I have to question just how well the majority of people even understand the subject they're so adamently supporting...unless he meant to basically describe the cloning procedure and call it ESCR?

because that is sort of basically what it is; producing a stem cell line is producing lots more of the same cells, aka, cloning (this is what is happening naturally in the blastocyst stage, just cellular clones with no alterations). It is a different process to dolly-the-sheep type cloning though.

 

[HeatherJay]

because that is sort of basically what it is; producing a stem cell line is producing lots more of the same cells, aka, cloning (this is what is happening naturally in the blastocyst stage, just cellular clones with no alterations). It is a different process to dolly-the-sheep type cloning though.

Yet it seems that at lot of the same people who support ESCR do not support cloning...or, at the very least, are reluctant to call it that, or admit the close connection between the two. I was wondering why that might be. I guess that's the core question that I was hoping to find an answer to with this thread.

 

[HeatherJay]

interesting that. what is the difference between an embryo fertilised in the uterus, and one fertilised in a petri dish? (no it isn't the opening line for a joke, or at least not one with a remotely appropriate punchline)

There's no easy answer to it, obviously. But, given that the embryo in the petri dish could potentially develop into a little baby if given the right environment, then it's difficult to say that an embryo fertilized inside a womb should have any more or less right to life than the embryo in the petri dish. It all comes down to determining at what point life begins, no matter the location of the embryo...and that's most likely a question we'll never come to an agreement on.

 

[Jet Black]

Yet it seems that at lot of the same people who support ESCR do not support cloning...or, at the very least, are reluctant to call it that, or admit the close connection between the two. I was wondering why that might be. I guess that's the core question that I was hoping to find an answer to with this thread.

It could be that it is a problem of equivocation. when people mention cloning in the vernacular, it has a slightly different meaning to the scientific meaning. i.e. when you mention cloning to joe public, they imagine making hundreds of Ronald Regans, but when you say it to a scientist, they think of hundreds of stem cells. I do find myself avoiding using the word evolution, even though it is technically the correct word, because I know people will leap off the deep end and equivocate stellar evolution with biological evolution for example.

 

[Jet Black]

There's no easy answer to it, obviously. But, given that the embryo in the petri dish could potentially develop into a little baby if given the right environment, then it's difficult to say that an embryo fertilized inside a womb should have any more or less right to life than the embryo in the petri dish. It all comes down to determining at what point life begins, no matter the location of the embryo...and that's most likely a question we'll never come to an agreement on.

the point I think I ws trying to make there, is that the location is critical. lets just say hypothetically that we take an adult stem cell and treat it in a certain way, such that the stem cell is now capable of forming into a blastocyst, and then into a human if we implant it into the female uterus. is that stem cell a human, even though it has not been formed in the conventional sperm-meets oocyte manner? sorry if this hypothetical is off the topic of the thread, I am just raising the issue of what is important when determining if something is "life". I suppose it is something on my mind at the moment, knowing that at least half of the children I father will never be born through choice to stop them from inheriting a genetic disorder.

 

[ForeRunner]

I do not have a problem with "Stem Cell Research", but like CrossWiseMag, I have a HUGE problem with "Embryonic Stem Cell Research" (ESCR) in that it requires the destruction of "human" life and creates a market for aborted fetus material.

This isn't even close to what stem-cells are OR how they are obtained.

Embryonic stem cells are NOT a fetus, they are barely even embyros. They are a clump of undifferentated cells not even resembling a human. Furthermore, they are obtained from fertility clinics where leftover zygotes from ivf are being tossed away.

They are literally taken out of the trash can and being used to do research that may cure some of the worst diseases of the 21st century.