This is not a human.

[Danhalen]

I have no moral dilemna destroying it with the intention of saving lives. Even if the end result is merely the destruction of this thing, I have no qualms. In light of the fact that there is a surplus of these in labs that will be thrown out with the trash, it makes my decision all the more easy. Destroy these if you think we may help the life of a person by doing so.

 

[SpaceProg]

While it's a tough call for me to make, I have to agree. They'll be thrown out anyway, I'd rather we use them for the common good than waste them.

 

[whitestar]

I have no moral dilemna destroying it with the intention of saving lives. Even if the end result is merely the destruction of this thing, I have no qualms. In light of the fact that there is a surplus of these in labs that will be thrown out with the trash, it makes my decision all the more easy. Destroy these if you think we may help the life of a person by doing so.

That was you once you know?

First I think its flat wrong that they even do this at all...that they harvast a women's egg, inject a sperm and make a whole bunch of these that they end up being thrown out to start with!! I don't mean to sound cold hearted...I realize their are many couples that have trouble getting pregnant to start with...but why aren't they simply relying on God to start with? If God blesses them with a baby, great...if not they need to accept they weren't meant to have children in this way to start with. There are babies all over the world straving to death for lack of love! That need good homes...so why use what God gave us to create life then destroy the 'leftovers'? that is so disgusting...I could never consider doing that...

On another note there is a group that is 'adopting' these left overs to be used by other parents seeking to have their own babies...

On top of all of this is people need to realize HOW slanted the news is!!! They are NOT giving us the whole story...only what they want us to know.

Emboy stem cells research is not doing nearly as well as the adult stem cell research and no life has to be destroyed. The success rate with the adult stem cell is much better...

http://www.cmdahome.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=3198732578&CONTEXT=art&art=2702
1) Human embryonic stem cell lines have proven difficult to develop and maintain.

1 "The scientists [from South Korea that created the first human clone embryo] used 242 eggs from 16 women donors. Because they started with a huge number of eggs, they could vary the methods they used and the media in which they grew the cells. They derived 30 blastocysts and from these tried 20 times to produce a line of embryo stem cells. The success rate was not high, possibly because of chromosomal abnormalities that appeared in the reprogramming or possibly because of subtle variations in the techniques they used. They ended up with just one line of stem cells, cultivated from a blastocyst that had been cloned from nuclear material taken from cumulus cells belonging to the woman who had donated the egg in the first place." Radford, Tim. "Korean scientists clone 30 human embryos." British Medical Journal 328 (2004). Accessed July 21, 2004 at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7437/421.

Original article: Hwang, Woo Suk, et al. "Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst," Science 303 (2004): 1669-1674.

2 "Chromosomal abnormalities are commonplace in human embryonal carcinoma cell lines and in mouse embryonic stem-cell lines and have recently been reported in human embryonic stem-cell lines.” C. Cowan et al., “Derivation of Embryonic Stem-Cell Lines from Human Blastocysts,” New England Journal of Medicine 350 (2004): 1353-1356.

2) Pure embryonic stem cell cultures are difficult to obtain.

3) Embryonic stem cells are unstable and mutate in culture

4) Differentiation protocols for many cell types have not been developed

5) Cell types that have been differentiated often act abnormally.

6) When embryonic-derived cells have been placed in animals, cancerous tumors have formed.

7) To address the problem of immune rejection, researchers have proposed cloning individual patients to obtain compatible embryonic stem cells.

8) Besides the ethical inadmissibility of human cloning, some researchers have questioned whether cloning will truly solve the rejection problem.

9) Even if each of these problems were somehow solved, at a cost of over $200,000 per patient, only the very wealthy could afford the procedure

1) “Adult” (non-embryonic) stem cells have been found in cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, fat, teeth and other sources.

22 "One extremely interesting finding of the past few years has been the discovery of neuronal stem cells, indicating that cell replenishment was possible within the brain (something previously considered impossible.) Neuronal stem cells have been isolated from various regions of the brain including the more-accessible olfactory bulb as well as the spinal cord, and can even be recovered from cadavers soon after death. Evidence now exists that neuronal stem cells can produce not only neuronal cells but also other tissues, including blood and muscle." Prentice, David. "Adult Stem Cells." Monitoring Stem Cell Research, Appendix K; President's Council on Bioethics. January 2004; Accessed July 12, 2004 at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/appendix_k.html.

23 "These results indicate that adult skeletal muscle contains a rich source of hematopoietic progenitors for both myeloid and lymphoid lineages... these data document that satellite cells and muscle-derived stem cells represent distinct populations and demonstrate that muscle-derived stem cells have the potential to give rise to myogenic cells via a myocyte-mediated inductive interaction." Asakura A et al., “Myogenic specification of side population cells in skeletal muscle.” Journal of Cell Biology 159 (2002): 123–134.

2) Adult stem cells found in one type of tissue can repair damage in another tissue type.

3) Adult stem cells can be harvested from each patient, multiplied in culture and transplanted back into the patient. They genetically match and therefore are not subject to immune rejection.

4) Adult stem cells work in multiple ways to repair damaged tissue. They fuse with cells in damaged organs and initiate repair. They take cues from tissue that has been damaged and begin to directly produce cells. Sometimes they secrete substances that cause undamaged cells to divide and replace damaged or dead cells.

5) Since adult stem cells require limited, if any, manipulation, and are readily available from a number of sources, the cost for their clinical application will be far more reasonable than any application from embryonic stem cells.

6) There are no ethical concerns in their use, making them acceptable to virtually all patients and healthcare providers and a bipartisan point of agreement for federal funding.

7) Adult stem cells are already providing cures in animals and clinical human trials.

Now tell me WHY does the media not report how well things are going with adult stem cells?

God bless

 

[Spherical Time]

That was you once you know?

I know, but it is not me now.

I agree with Dan.

 

[Faithful nonbeliever]

I don't mean to sound cold hearted...I realize their are many couples that have trouble getting pregnant to start with...but why aren't they simply relying on God to start with? If God blesses them with a baby, great...if not they need to accept they weren't meant to have children in this way to start with.

Your reasoning seems awefully flawed. So do you think that if someone has poor eyesight it is wrong to get glasses since god intended for them to be blind? Or if someone develops an infection they shouldn't seek medical treatment? People shouldn't just give up on things simpy because god was too uncaring or lazy to provide.

 

[Faithful nonbeliever]

I know, but it is not me now.

Maybe we should treat cadavers nicer too, because one day we will be them.

 

[Spherical Time]

Maybe we should treat cadavers nicer too, because one day we will be them.

Even Christians don't believe that cadavers can feel.

True, I'd like to be properly burned and burried now, but after I'm dead I don't think I'll care any more.

 

[Alecto]

The gods gave us the capacity to change and effect life. If we werent supposed to do it, we wouldnt be able to. Simple as that, atleast in my mind.

 

[holo]

If that's not a picture of a human, my question isn't what it's a picture of, but rather, what is a human? What makes a person?

I work with people who literally have less mental capacity than dogs, and people who will spend the rest of their lives in bed, deaf and blind and losing the sense of touch.
Nobody in their right mind would label them "not human".

Consciousness does not make a person. I am me wheter I'm awake, asleep or in a coma. My bodily functions and abilities do not make me a person - I'm still me even if I lose my arms and legs and have to use an artificial heart.
Neither is it my intelligence or ability to survive outside the womb. We may not agree, or even know, what exactly makes us unique individual beings, but we largely agree that we are.

Most people will agree that the value of human life must be constant and absolute.
The pro-choicer's problem is that while it's easy to say that a newly formed fetus isn't a human, they have the burden of showing when this embryo/lump of cells/whatever actually turns into a person. If they're not 100% sure, they must acknowledge that they
a) might be killing an innocent human being, or
b) they see human worth as something gradual, something that changes with, say, development.

 

[Danhalen]

That was you once you know?

No it wasn't. I don't mean that I never looked like that. I mean that "I" did not exist when the cells that would become "me" looked like that.

<snip>[/snip]

Now tell me WHY does the media not report how well things are going with adult stem cells?​

Those that look for it (like me) know that the media does report this. I also know that the success rate of embryonic stem cell research is not as successful as adult stem cell research. What you are leaving out is the fact that embryonic stem cell research could lead to more versatile stem cells. Adult stem cells are not as adaptable, therefore we must continue to try and figure out how to produce the results with any stem cells. If millions of embryos must be destroyed in the process, so be it.​

 

[Danhalen]

If that's not a picture of a human, my question isn't what it's a picture of, but rather, what is a human? What makes a person?

I don't know. What is your opinion?

I work with people who literally have less mental capacity than dogs, and people who will spend the rest of their lives in bed, deaf and blind and losing the sense of touch.
Nobody in their right mind would label them "not human".

Now you are drawing a line between "sane" and "insane" to justify where you draw the line between "human" and "not human". Yet you still have not really drawn the line where humanity begins or ends.

Consciousness does not make a person. I am me wheter I'm awake, asleep or in a coma. My bodily functions and abilities do not make me a person - I'm still me even if I lose my arms and legs and have to use an artificial heart.
Neither is it my intelligence or ability to survive outside the womb. We may not agree, or even know, what exactly makes us unique individual beings, but we largely agree that we are.

Tell me, what makes a "person"? If you have no consciousness (I mean none), what is the point of living?

Most people will agree that the value of human life must be constant and absolute.

Count me in the "not most people" crowd.

The pro-choicer's problem is that while it's easy to say that a newly formed fetus isn't a human, they have the burden of showing when this embryo/lump of cells/whatever actually turns into a person. If they're not 100% sure, they must acknowledge that they
a) might be killing an innocent human being, or
b) they see human worth as something gradual, something that changes with, say, development.

We may also choose
c) an arbitrary line by which we will define the beginning of humanity which, by the way, pro-lifers have no problem doing.

It's all a matter of where you choose to draw the line. No choice is any less arbitrary than the other.

In my opinion, we (pro-choicers) have decided to side with the person that will be forced to give up her liberty for the sake of a clump of cells. You (pro-lifers) decided that she must be a slave to the biology of what her body is capable of.

Aside from the tangent you have taken, that clump of cells is no more human than a chicken embryo is. I have the proof.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Maybe we should treat cadavers nicer too, because one day we will be them.

I was under the impression that we give cadavers respect now, therefore not needing a 'nicer'.

 

[Infernal Freak]

I agree 100%. It's just going to go to waste anyway, why not use it for some good?

 

[Sitting Duck]

You're correct, that is not a human. It is not even human. It's actually equine. That picture is from a site on equine embryo transfer.

http://www.gvequine.com.au/Embryo%20Transfer.htm

It's hard to recognize a human embryo from a nonhuman one. Perhaps this was a point you were trying to make with that thread. This difficulty in recognizing human embryos from nonhuman ones is probably one of the reasons so many people have difficulty having sympathy for embryos in general. It sure makes it harder to identify with them.
​

 

[Danhalen]

You're correct, that is not a human. It is not even human. It's actually equine. That picture is from a site on equine embryo transfer.

​

http://www.gvequine.com.au/Embryo%20Transfer.htm

It's hard to recognize a human embryo from a nonhuman one. Perhaps this was a point you were trying to make with that thread. This difficulty in recognizing human embryos from nonhuman ones is probably one of the reasons so many people have difficulty having sympathy for embryos in general. It sure makes it harder to identify with them.

Man, thanks for blowing my cover. That was the point I was making.

 

[stubeeef]

never mind.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Man, thanks for blowing my cover. That was the point I was making.

LOL, thats why i enjoy your posts Danhalen.

 

[Lifesaver]

I have no moral dilemna destroying it with the intention of saving lives. Even if the end result is merely the destruction of this thing, I have no qualms. In light of the fact that there is a surplus of these in labs that will be thrown out with the trash, it makes my decision all the more easy. Destroy these if you think we may help the life of a person by doing so.

A picture of something is a depiction of that something's appearance.

I'm sorry to see you make moral decisions based on the appearance of things.
But how could it be any different, given the complete lack of arguments (and the excess of emotional manipulative propaganda) on the side of the culture of death, so keen on promoting abortions, euthanasias, birth control, experimenting with embryos, etc? It is obvious that those who support such a culture, wholy or partially, let themselves be led by appearances.

A man, beholding such an embryo, certainly will not recognize it to be a man. Afterall, it looks just like the embryos of many other species. The real question is not whether it looks like a man, but whether it is one.

 

[Danhalen]

A picture of something is a depiction of that something's appearance.

Yes, that is correct. The appearance of a thing, is part of what the thing is.

I'm sorry to see you make moral decisions based on the appearance of things.

I do not do that. I am sorry that you think that I do. Had you not known that the picture was the embryo of a horse, you too may have made a moral decision based on the similarity of its appearance to a human embryo.

But how could it be any different, given the complete lack of arguments (and the excess of emotional manipulative propaganda) on the side of the culture of death, so keen on promoting abortions, euthanasias, birth control, experimenting with embryos, etc?

Based on the highlighted section of your response, how can you accuse me of excess emotionally manipulative propaganda? "Culture of death" is nothing more than an emotionally manipulative term for someone that wishes to save lives through means different than your own.

You think that I am keen on abortion, when in reality I am keen on not forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. You think that I am keen on euthanasia, when in reality I am keen on allowing a person to die with the dignity they deserve, and on their own terms. You think I am keen on the experimentation of embryos, when I am actually keen on finding a potential cure for paralysis and other, as of yet, incurable disorders.

Now, if you feel that a woman should be forced to do something against her will, or people do not have a right to let their bodies die, and that paralysis cures should not be sought, that's your problem. That was a bit of emotional manipulation on my part. Yet I find that it rings true.

It is obvious that those who support such a culture, wholy or partially, let themselves be led by appearances.

It is obvious to me that you have no idea what I actually believe, or what I use to base my decions on.

A man, beholding such an embryo, certainly will not recognize it to be a man. Afterall, it looks just like the embryos of many other species. The real question is not whether it looks like a man, but whether it is one.

Can you answer that question for me? Can you tell me what it is that makes a man? Can you then substantiate your claim? Let's hear your argument rather than your wrong interpretation of mine.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Man, thanks for blowing my cover. That was the point I was making.

A properties check on the picture blew your cover.
I was curious how far you were going to take it.