Human embryonic stem cell research

[rory_20_uk]

Gee thanks for you input. Red herrings or science? Hmm....

A baby is a specific developmental stage. It is able to independently live. A zygote can't. Very important difference.

Perhaps when you've got over being all smug at sorting out the thread, you'll realise this rather simple fact.

[BigTex]

Gee thanks for you input. Red herrings or science? Hmm....

A baby is a specific developmental stage. It is able to independently live. A zygote can't. Very important difference.

Perhaps when you've got over being all smug at sorting out the thread, you'll realise this rather simple fact.

Shhhhh don't let cerlone hear you. You must either agree that all cells even bacteria are sacred and accept that if you are pro stem cell research you are indeed a babykiller, regardless of any benefits or definitions of human's. Those who dissent will be smitten!
___________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[Duke of Gloucester]

Some definitions of terms might be helpful:

Zygote: Fertilised cell

Embryo: Once the fertilised cell divides it becomes an embryo. With further cell division the embryo becomes more complex as cells start to special and form different tissues.

Foetus: Once the major organs have formed, the individual is termed a foetus (or if you want to be American, Fetus). This will be at 8 weeks for human beings.

Baby: Despite what doctor Rory is telling us, this is not a scientific term, so does not have a well defined meaning. Thus if Navros wants to call a zygote a baby, he can and if Rory does not want to call a zygote a baby, he does not have to. The scientific term is neonate, which is a "baby" between birth and 1 month old. Older babies and neonates are termed infants.

Stem cells: Cells are of a specific type making up tissue, e.g. skin cells, brain cells, nerve cells, muscle cells etc. (There are over 200 types of cells in the human body) Stem cells are basic, undifferentiated cells that can become other types of cells. It may be possible to use stem cells to repair tissue (such as brain cells) to cure disease (such as Parkinson's disease). Embryonic stem cells come from early embryos (4 to 5 days old). Adult stem cells come from older individuals (but not necessarily adults). It is believed that embryonic stem cells can produce differentiated cells more easily and quicker.

The moral issue here is what rights you assign to each stage of human development. If you accord full human rights to all stages (as I do) then creating individuals, harvesting their cells and then disposing of them is morally repugnant. If you accord lesser rights to earlier stages then you will be more comfortable with this idea. In deciding where you begin to assign full human rights, you need reasons, so if you think experimentation on embryos is OK, you need to be able to say why this is ok, but treating adults the same way is not.

A baby is a specific developmental stage. It is able to independently live. A zygote can't. Very important difference.

@Rory
Did you study medical ethics as part of your training because this seems sloppy thinking to me? Neonates and infants can't survive independently either, so are we free to create them, experiment on them and dispose of them? If not, why not?

As Rory said, if you consider a zygote a baby then most of the women you know are "babykillers". Guessing with your line of reasoning we need to just lock all women up, their all evil vile baby murdering scum.

@DC I hope this is going to get exactly the same response that Navros got, or, if you are really going to be fair, a stronger one, since Nav only attacked terminology and MJF, rather than a contributor to the thread.

[Sir Moody]

with the exception of this post im not going to touch this thread with a 80ft barge pole - these threads always implode at some point...

[Ironside]

Im not Navaros, but I'd have to be against invitro fertilization for the same reason I'm opposed to abortion.

May I suggest correcting people that calls themself pro-lifers and having the same opinion? As they don't choose life in every situation (and therefore aren't pro-life).

Anti-death might work if they do support abortion in some cases were the mother's life is in danger.

Hmm, seems that I'm derailing a bit on the path Don Carleone didn't want the thread to go.

But to summarize how the situation seems to be today, embryonic stem cells seems to have more potential, but adult ones are much easier to work with.

And that the stemcell research has been suffering from the "gold rush" phenomena, with the consequences that comes with it. I
can understand that Michael J Foxis interested in it though as Parkinson disease seems to have some promising stem-cell research. And that the current most promising treatment of Parkinson is to transplant dopamine producing cells from aborted foetuses, that is a more problematic treatment as the cells are rare and subject to more ethical debates then embryonic stem cells.
A bit like insulin before the breakthrough with genetically engineered bacteria.

[Don Corleone]

I'm afraid, Duke, that what I'm discovering is that it is impossible to have this discussion without watching it shift into an abortion debate. It would appear the two are too closely linked to separate them.

I did however get a couple of key nuggets of information I was looking for along the way. Specifically, one of the big arguments against stem-cell research is that it creates a demand for embryos and their subsequent destruction above and beyond the normal abortion demand.

I am still trying to sort through all the links to see what results embryonic stem cell research has yielded versus adult stem cell research. However, it would appear that most of the more ambitious claims, at this time, remain hopes, not accomplishments (even minor ones).

As Rory said, if you consider a zygote a baby then most of the women you know are "babykillers". Guessing with your line of reasoning we need to just lock all women up, their all evil vile baby murdering scum.

@DC I hope this is going to get exactly the same response that Navros got, or, if you are really going to be fair, a stronger one, since Nav only attacked terminology and MJF, rather than a contributor to the thread.

Actually, this falls more under the heading of 'straw man argument' then 'personal attack', in that whomever said it (I can't find the original) is exaggerating Navaros' argument in an effort to attribute to him an indefensible postion. But you're right, attacking Navaros' view contributes less than nothing to the conversation and I wish folks could focus more on the questions at hand and not the arguments they perceive in the opposition.

Thank you for your very helpful, thoughtful definitions by the way. One I didn't see in your glossary...where would a blastula fall in?

[Don Corleone]

Shhhhh don't let cerlone hear you. You must either agree that all cells even bacteria are sacred and accept that if you are pro stem cell research you are indeed a babykiller, regardless of any benefits or definitions of human's. Those who dissent will be smitten!

Just curious, when did I say anything even remotely like that?

[Duke of Gloucester]

I did however get a couple of key nuggets of information I was looking for along the way. Specifically, one of the big arguments against stem-cell research is that it creates a demand for embryos and their subsequent destruction above and beyond the normal abortion demand.

This is not quite correct. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from 4 to 5 day old fertilised eggs and this has to be performed in vitrio. Using tissue from aborted feotuses is a separate issue.

Thank you for your very helpful, thoughtful definitions by the way. One I didn't see in your glossary...where would a blastula fall in?

No problem. I hope they are helpful, but biology is not my area of expertise. I am not sure that my distinction between adult and embrionic stem cells emphasise that embryonic stem cells can divide quicker and produce a wider range of differentiated cells.

A blastula is an early embryo. It consists of hollow sphere of cells. A blastocyst is the next stage where cells develop inside the sphere and these are the source of ebrionic stem cells, as these inner cells go on to develop in to the foetus. The outer cells develop into the placenta. It actually occurs to me that, since this happens in all mammals, research in, say rats would be morally acceptable and likely to generate the same knowledge. Of course, once the knowledge was gained there would be issues about how that knowledge was used, but the knowledge itself would be morally neutral. I don't understand the insistence on using human embryos for research, although once thereputic techniques are developed, human embryos would be required. As I have said before, I find using human embryos unacceptable.

[rory_20_uk]

Infants can survive by themselves, and neonates can to an extent - although with far worse long term damage than if they are supported. Unless the cut off is when adulthood is reached. I was going for support that is vastly above and beyond what is required for an average healthy baby.

Experiment on them? What experiments exactly? There are none that I can think of that would be of benefit, as they would normally be in utero.

And I'm guilty of sloppy thinking...

Ethics is not a major part of the course, as things alter so quickly it would be a waste of time. And anything that has any aspect that is ethically charged is either a Consultant or senior Reg decision.

[Xiahou]

Edit: Meh, I see Duke of Gloucester has done a better job making the point that I was going to.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Infants can survive by themselves, and neonates can to an extent - although with far worse long term damage than if they are supported. Unless the cut off is when adulthood is reached. I was going for support that is vastly above and beyond what is required for an average healthy baby.

Why go for that cut off point though? Why not adulthood or the support required for a perfectly normal foetus? Interestingly Zygotes and early embryos don't need much support to survive either (although they will need support later when they get larger).

Experiment on them? What experiments exactly? There are none that I can think of that would be of benefit, as they would normally be in utero.

The question is not whether the experiments would be of benefit. The question is whether such experiments would be morally acceptable.

And I'm guilty of sloppy thinking...

I think so, yes. Your main criterion for deciding whether an entity is fully human or not, able to survive without support, seems imprecise to me and you don't seem to be distinguishing between what is useful and what is morally acceptable although the latter could be to do with how I framed the question.

Ethics is not a major part of the course, as things alter so quickly it would be a waste of time. And anything that has any aspect that is ethically charged is either a Consultant or senior Reg decision.

Interesting. Do consultants and Senior Registrars get ethical training then?

[Proletariat]

Infants can survive by themselves, and neonates can to an extent - although with far worse long term damage than if they are supported. Unless the cut off is when adulthood is reached.

Neither an infant or a neonate can survive by itself.

I was going for support that is vastly above and beyond what is required for an average healthy baby.

What's the difference?

[Major Robert Dump]

All I know is that Micheal J Fox seems really shaken up on the issue. Hopefully he doesn't flip flop or try to wiggle out of what he said

[Devastatin Dave]

All I know is that Micheal J Fox seems really shaken up on the issue. Hopefully he doesn't flip flop or try to wiggle out of what he said

edited

[Mithrandir]

Let's not make jokes about diseases. It's poor taste.

[Devastatin Dave]

Let's not make jokes about diseases. It's poor taste.

the hen pecks the cock till it crows (guess which movie and you win a tumor from an embryonic stem cell "cure")

[yesdachi]

I’d drink an embryonic stem cell Milkshake if it meant I would be cured of ___insert life threatening illness here___ .

[Papewaio]

DevDave, show some compassion because its bloody unlikely I will.

Mith used the light touch and gave you a hint to behave. Instead you decided to continue making fun of someone who has a disease that definitly diminishes not only the quality of ones life but also the quantity of that. Making fun of dying people is a very very cheap shot. Is this how we shall measure the groups you belong to?

As an adult you should understand that choices have consequences and as a parent you should be leading by example. How would you feel if your children publically or even privately heaped scorn on a cripple by following the pattern you have set, how would your parents or fellow congregration feel about you for doing so?

You now have a very public 24 hours to cleanup both of your posts or face 2 point warnings for the each of them. Too bad if you do or don't login in that period.

[Devastatin Dave]

DevDave, show some compassion because its bloody unlikely I will.

Mith used the light touch and gave you a hint to behave. Instead you decided to continue making fun of someone who has a disease that definitly diminishes not only the quality of ones life but also the quantity of that. Making fun of dying people is a very very cheap shot. Is this how we shall measure the groups you belong to?

As an adult you should understand that choices have consequences and as a parent you should be leading by example. How would you feel if your children publically or even privately heaped scorn on a cripple by following the pattern you have set, how would your parents or fellow congregration feel about you for doing so?

You now have a very public 24 hours to cleanup both of your posts or face 2 point warnings for the each of them. Too bad if you do or don't login in that period.

Jumping into politics and not even reading what you're doing a comercial for has far more reaching effects than some guy making dumb jokes on a gaming forum. Taking things so seriously could cause you a stroke...relax...

[Papewaio]

Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.

Your choice, your consequences.

Thankyou for editing your posts. I can now close this thread.