George Will misrepresented reported stem-cell breakthrough
SUMMARY: On ABC's This Week, George Will misrepresented a reported scientific breakthrough that would allow scientists to grow embryonic stem-cell lines without destroying the embryo. Will dismissed the finding, stating, "[I]n fact, it isn't true. All 16 embryos involved in this were destroyed." However, in making the assertion, Will conflated two issues: whether embryonic cells can be removed without destroying the embryo and whether stem-cell lines could be created from those cells. The first is well established; it was the second that ACT announced.
On the August 27 edition of ABC's This Week, Washington Post columnist George F. Will misrepresented a reported scientific breakthrough by Advanced Cell Technology Inc. (ACT): the ability to grow embryonic stem-cell lines without destroying the embryo.
Asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the "potentially major development" that the scientists had "announced that they might have come up with a procedure that would allow you to create stem cells without destroying the embryo," and whether that might "end the debate" over the use of embryonic stem cells, Will replied: "[I]n fact, it isn't true. All 16 embryos involved in this were destroyed." In making the assertion, Will conflated two issues: whether embryonic cells can be removed without destroying the embryo and whether stem-cell lines could be created from those cells. The first is well established; it was the second that ACT announced.
While it is true that the researchers who conducted the ACT study destroyed all 16 embryos from which they derived cell lines, according to lead researcher Robert Lanza, "It is well established that a single cell can be removed from an eight-cell human embryo without causing any apparent harm to the embryo, and the new report aimed only to show that such single cells can become stem cells," as The Washington Post reported on August 26. The Post further noted that according to Lanza, "In the experiments, the scientists took as many cells as they could from each embryo, destroying them in the process, to make the most of the embryos donated for their study." On August 24, the Post reported that of the 91 cells removed from the 16 embryos, "53 of the cells began to divide and two formed robust colonies of what appear to be, by all tests, embryonic stem cells." The new study claims to prove the ability to take just one cell from an eight-cell embryo to make a stem-cell line; the new approach of taking a cell, known as a blastomere, from a two-day old embryo would allow the embryo to continue to develop. The current method of harvesting stem-cell lines takes cells from a blastocyst -- an embryo containing around 150 cells -- results in the destruction of the embryo. In an August 23 press release on the ACT website, Lanza summarized the significance of his group's study: "We have demonstrated, for the first time, that human embryonic stem cells can be generated without interfering with the embryo's potential for life."
Will's claim that scientists have yet to grow embryonic stem-cell lines without destroying the embryo echoed Richard M. Doerflinger, deputy director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who claimed: "Researchers did not safely remove single cells from early embryos, but destroyed 16 embryos in a desperate effort to obtain an average of six cells from each one. This experiment left no embryos alive, and solves no ethical problem."
From the August 27 edition of This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And will that tolerance extend to other issues? I want to get to something else before we go. A potentially major development in stem-cell research this week. A company called Advanced Technologies, which in the past has said that it was cloning embryos, it turned out not to be true -- announced that they might have come up with a procedure that would allow you to create stem cells without destroying the embryo. George Will, if this is true, if it works, it ends the debate, doesn't it?
WILL: Two ifs -- but before we get to those ifs -- in fact, it isn't true. All 16 embryos involved in this were destroyed. Which the headlines and the hype -- this is a genius of a company getting journalists to write all this stuff. If it works, it might change the debate. But there will always be many people of good conscience who will say you shouldn't manipulate embryos, period. But --
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that would rule out in vitro fertilization.
WILL: It would rule out all kinds of things. So this would be a big development if it ever happens. It has not happened yet that you can remove these cells without destroying the embryos. Those -- all 16 were destroyed.
It's ridiculous that scientists are even seeing a necessity of trying to produce stem cell lines through this procedure.
There is no good reason not to use excess blastocysts from in vitro fertilization procedures. These are a small number of undifferentiated cells. There are NO nerve cells there. There are NO brain cells there. There are NO heart cells there.
They are slated for disposal if they are not used. There is absolutely zero harm done by using them to obtain stem cell lines for research and eventual medical treatments. There is only potential for good.
How can people be so ignorant?
Bill,
Oh, you mean besides killing an innocent human being.
Then why aren't you out in force in front of cancer wards? After all cancer cells are alive. What about places giving away flu vacinations? Those poor viruses have no one in defense of them.
Silly argument. You are simply showing your ignorance if you don't understand the difference between cancer cells and a human being.
A human being actually can live without a host. Cancer cells and embryos can't.
Besides I'd give a lot more weight to the idea of protecting these embryos if it didn't come from a hypocritical species that harvests reproductive ovum for consumption.
If you cannot see the difference between potential human life, non-viable human life, and a human being.
That the ones who throw out the "Showing your ignorance" cliche are the ones who never back up their arguements? You wanna show me how ignorant I am? Then give me something more than "you're showing your ignorance".
I mean if I don't know the difference between those things? Apparently I'm the one who actually is saying there IS a difference between those things. I'm ignorant because I don't know the difference in something you're saying there is no difference in? The sheer irony of that statement is almost off the scale.
I mistook your posting as being directed towards me. After looking at it again I saw that it wasn't a reply to mine. Unfortunate side effect of looking at a computer monitor all day is that sometimes my vision gets a little tired.
Please accept my most sincere apology for the misunderstanding.
I think I've concluded that anyone who says that stem-cells (or any variation on the idea) "are" human, or of equivalent worth to a human has so miswired their ethical thinking as to be not worth listening to. This entire debate revolves around people who want to claim that a wad of cells has the same value as an actual human. Barbarians, the lot of them. Learn to live in the 21st century, please, and stop telling us what your local shaman wants you to believe.
It's much more humane to leave them frozen indefinitely.
They're thrown out. They're not even frozen indefinitely.
Oh, you mean besides killing an innocent human being. - from AnotherAmerican
It is not a human being. It is an undifferentiated mass of cells. There is zero potential for pain or thought. It doesn't fit any definition by which we consider humans to be alive.
Similar masses of cells are expelled from bodies in nature every single day. Almost no one considers such an expellation to be a tragedy on a scale with the death of a person after birth. This isn't the result of callousness. It's the result of the common sense perspective that tells us that that small mass of cells had not reached human status.
Sorry Bill, but an embryo fits all the definitions of a living human being except those who want to kill it.
"Sorry Bill, but an embryo fits all the definitions of a living human being except those who want to kill it."
And what definition would that be? A jelly-blob is now a human being? You're not making sense.
Sorry Bill, but an embryo fits all the definitions of a living human being - from AnotherAmerican
Please provide me with that definition and the scientifically reputable source from which you get it.
AA has made similar assertions like this before only to leave everyone breathlessly and endlessly waiting for his "scientific" consensus definitions of "human being" or "life" or even "When life begins".
I don't think he is aware those are largely subjective ideas that may simply be informed (or not) by scientific evidence, but are not in themselves scientifically proven as he apparently likes to portray them.
In this instance (as in the past ones), I am affraid AA is simply making things up or trolling.
What they may differ about is the value of the life within the womb. But the question of whether that is a human life is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact.
Listen to what the experts have to say: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence" (Dr. Jerome Lejeune, "Father of Modern Genetics" and discoverer of the cause of Down's Syndrome). "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception" (Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at Mayo Clinic).
The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that "The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous.... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original]...."
Judge Michael J. Noonan ruled as follows in a New Jersey case based on a man's efforts to save his unborn child from being aborted: "…based upon the undisputed medical testimony by arguably the foremost authority in genetics in the world, I found that human life begins as conception; and that Roe vs. Wade permits a legal execution of that human being." (Municipal Court of New Jersey -- Law division, Morris County criminal action docket no. C1771, et seq. State of New Jersey v. Alexander Loce, et als., Defendants, April 29, 1991, Honorable Michael J. Noonan).
Even the "pro-choice" feminist author Naomi Wolf has criticized the efforts of abortion-supporters to obscure the humanity of the unborn child. She asks, "So, what will it be: Wanted fetuses are charming, complex REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere 'uterine material'?" (Our Bodies, Our Souls, The New Republic, October 16,1995)
These people are not speaking about the Bible or some religious belief. They are speaking from the basis of scientific proof. Every medical text in the world, in fact, will confirm that a unique human life begins at fertilization. If science did not know that, how could it have produced test-tube babies?
We have entered the 21st century. This is the age of fetology (the study of the preborn child) and fetal surgery (operations on the preborn child). The medical textbook The Unborn Patient begins by noting that modern science sees that "the fetus is a patient, an individual. . . " (p. 3).
Those who say, "It's not a child" need to catch up with the times!
[link to www.gospeloflife.com]
the question of whether that is a human life is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact - from AnotherAmerican
Jerome Lejeune - Appointed by the pope as the first president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. A devout catholic, very active in the church. What you presented from him is not an impartial scientific assessment; it is an expression of religious faith.
Hymie Gordon certainly had an impressive medical background. However, his stated opinion does not constitute medical definition.
The section you quoted from the textbook does not define the blastocyst as a living human being in either quoted section.
Judge Noonan's opinion has no scientific authority.
Your section entitled "more proof" contained no proof whatsoever. It was completely devoid of facts supporting your position.
You haven't provided what I requested. Can you provide a reputable scientific source that clearly defines a blastocyst as a living human being?
I want to reiterate what I stated before. The blastocyst contain no nerve cells. It contains no brain cells. It contains no cells for the heart or any other organ. You could not inflict pain upon it no matter what you did. These masses of cells get flushed down toilets every day, usually without the woman even aware of what had happened. Virtually no one would consider such an event to be an equivalent tragedy to the death of a one-year-old. This isn't a failing on our part, it's just our collective common sense, our grasp of reality.
All of that and no scientifically reputable definition of a living human being? I think you cut and pasted so much, you forgot the question.
Again, "Please provide me with that definition [of a living human being] and the scientifically reputable source from which you get it." --BillJ-MN
The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists - not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars or obstetricians and gynecologists.
To begin with, scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced.
This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and directs his/her own growth and development (in fact this growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother). Finally, this new human being - the single-cell human zygote - is biologically an individual, a living organism - an individual member of the human species.
After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are denoted as a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bi-laminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).
[link to www.all.org]
Actually have facts and statistics that you didn't cut and paste from a website that so painfully obviously isn't pushing it's own agenda. Once you do that you actually may be able to be taken seriously.
Your response is means little.
Yes, I cut and paste. So what? I am not a doctor nor an reproductive expert like the one's I've found. Obviously I put the source in so you could go see it yourself.
Either what I printed is true or it is not. It does not matter where it came from. I can find many other sources but this answers the critique that I do not have science to back up my claims.
For you to argue otherwise by discrediting the source is a very weak debating tactic and fails miserably here.
Just show me where it is in error.
The source you appear to have copied from does not explicitly define human life (besides the original question was not for a definition from a single person with an apparent agenda). Without it, your source is simply over-reaching each time he/she asserts that what they see is "human life".
We have to start somewhere. If your assertion is that you are being scientific, you have to demonstrate that science has an agreed upon definition of human life to begin with.
What I find interesting is that your opening paragraph states that "The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists" --AA
This is a purely biased statement. You provide no reasoning for why it is a scientific question or why human embryologists are uniquely qualified to answer the question for that matter. Just your (or your source's --not clear which) biased assertion. You probably think it is obvious, but that is why understanding of science appears to elude you.
Scientific statements are never supported by the "everyone knows" or "it should be obvious" school of reasoning. You always need to be able to ask "Why?" or "How" in order to track back to how a conclusion was reached.
Do you know what science is? Reasoning is not science, believe it or not. If it were, we would be stuck with thinking that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter one, as they believed in the medieval ages. Anyone can quote from a biology textbook and then conclude that an embryo is a human being. That doesn't make it science.
In order ot make it science, you have to have something that is verifiable and testable by observation. The only thing provided here that is provable, testable, and verifiable are statement such as "This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes." While these observations are true, they in no way lead to the conclusion that an embryo is a human being. They only prove that single-cells produce certain types of enzymes. That is it.
Perhaps that is why the author of the article is a "PHILOSOPHER." Did you read the byline? Let me post it for those who didn't click on the links:
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D./ Professor of Philosophy
Do you perhaps see that what your provided was simply an opinion, and not the proof you claimed?
I will repeat Billj-mn's question:
>>You haven't provided what I requested. Can you provide a reputable scientific source that clearly defines a blastocyst as a living human being?
You haven't so far, but let me even be more careful than Billj-mn:
Can you provide *scientific proof* that clearly defines a blastocyst as a living human being? I don't want to let you off the hook by letting you find some crackpot biologist who simply has an opinion that agrees with yours. I am demanding the real thing--scientific proof, a peer reviewed paper that is fact checked by other scientists. You won't be able to produce it because your very contention that an embryo is a human baby is a philsophical one, not a scientific one. It would be like stating that science has or has not proven the death penalty is inhumane.
The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that "The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous.... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original]...."
A zygote is the beginning of a new human being...
Right. Everybody who sat through middle school biology knows that. But that's different from saying a zygote IS a new human being.
You are apparently confused at the difference between evidence and proof.
I am done with this conversation because you are avoiding making any kind of sense at this point. You have refused to take the first step in the argument by providing the definition asked for (on multiple occasions).
You need to admit that there is no scientific consensus on a definition of human life and that without that, you cannot have proof of any kind. Until then, your arguments on the matter don't hold water and I doubt you will convince anyone you are right. You are ignoring the very foundation of the argument.
Logically you are saying 'Human Life=Embryo'. In order to make the proof work, you need to FIRST define both sides of the equation. Without that, I am affraid you are simply resorting to your own bias or the author you choose to cite if he avoids using scientific consensus definitions (as your source avoided using them).
>>I already posted this...The widely used medical textbook A zygote is the beginning of a new human being...."
As other posters have pointed out, that is the *start* of human life. That is not even close to proving that an embryo is human life.
B. Lewin, Genes III (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. 9-13; A. Emery, Elements of Medical Genetics (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1983), by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.Dpp. 19, 93.
William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4, 8, 11.
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994). See also, Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Biology (St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), and Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).
Nucleic Acids Research 15(14) (July, 1987), 5739-47; also similar work by, e.g., R.K. Humphries, A. Schnieke.
Progress in Clinical Biological Research 175:3-11 (1985); also similar work by, e.g., F. Mavilio, C. Hart.
Ethics Advisory Board, 1979, Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, p. 101.
Clifford Grobstein, "External human fertilization," Scientific American 240:57-67.
Clifford Grobstein, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1988).
Dame Mary Warnock, Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1984), pp. 27, 63. See also the writings of, e.g., H. Tristram Engelhardt, John Robertson (in legal writings), R.M. Hare, Bedate and Cefalo, William Wallace.
Peter Singer, Helga Kuhse, Stephen Buckle, Karen Dawson, and Pascal Kasimba, Embryo Experimentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
National Institutes of Health: Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel, September 27, 1994 (National Institutes of Health, Division of Science Policy Analysis and Development, Bethesda, MD).
Clifford Grobstein, "The early development of human embryos," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1985:10:213-236;
Richard McCormick, "Who or what is the preembryo?" Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1991:1:1-15.
Karen Dawson, "Segmentation and moral status," in Peter Singer et al., Embryo Experimentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 58.
For extensive comments on the make-up of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel and on its Report, see several of my articles in Ward C. Kischer and Dianne N. Irving, The Human Development Hoax: Time to Tell The Truth!, (1st ed., Clinton Township, MI: Gold Leaf Press, 1995); (2nd ed., published by authors; distributed by American Life League, 1997).
Albert Moraczewski, "Managing tubal pregnancies: Part I" (June 1996) and "Part II" (August 1996), in Ethics and Medics (Braintree, MA: Pope John Center).
by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D A Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, Department of Philosophy, 1991);
For an excellent and easy to read analysis of the problem of a mind/body split as one of the fundamental theoretical problems in contemporary bioethics theory, see Gilbert C. Meilaender, Body, Soul, and Bioethics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995);
Principles of Health Care Ethics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994)
Edwin R. DuBose, Ronald P. Hamel and Laurence J. O'Connell (eds.),
A Matter of Principles? Ferment in U.S. Bioethics (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994)
D. Gareth Jones, "Brain birth and personal identity," Journal of Medical Ethics 15:4, 1989, p. 178.
Peter Singer, "Taking life: Abortion," in Practical Ethics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 118;
... I could go on.
You stated that science has proven that an embryo is a human life. No it has not. You have yet to provide any proof.
You list of sources might fool a casual reader of this page, but it is not going to fool anyone else. You did not provide the proof; you merely listed articles--many of them based on ethics, which have nothing to do with science--which support your point of view.
Still waiting for you to provide proof.
Viability sentience.
And please don't try to say that the movie "Look Who's Talking" proved that we are self-aware the second after the sperm infiltrates the egg.
I meant viability and sentience.
Such claims as yours are all pure mental speculation, the product of imposing your own philosophical (or theological) concepts on the scientific data. You have no scientific evidence to back up your belief.
"The I'm going to try and turn it around" approach. Bill O'Reilly would be proud.
Tell you what...you name me one walking talking human being who wasn't gestated for at least 6 months inside a uterus and I'll actually use your definition of the word viable. Sound fair?
Miracle baby reaches first birthday...
Although her birth certificate has her listed as Cora Rose Leone, friends and family of the 1-year-old girl simply refer to her as a “miracle.”
Born four months premature at a weight of just under a pound, Cora arrived at Loma Linda University Children’s Hospital on Monday with her mother, Shawnda Leone, to celebrate her first birthday and show appreciation to the hospital’s doctors and nurses.
[link to www.goodnewsblog.com]
Here's another... Da’Janique Amarya “Miracle” Pringle was born 16 weeks premature on Oct. 22 at Shands at UF. She arrived home in Ocala Tuesday, marking the end of her nearly nine-month struggle in the Shands Neonatal Intensive Care Unit battling chronic lung disease, brittle bones, pneumonia and other complications.
“She’s a fighter,” Whyte said as she helped Da’Janique sit upright in her lap. “I would have to say I am blessed, because there were a lot worse situations that families were going through - and some babies that didn’t make it.”
These children were viable fetuses.
They could live outside the womb.
Once they left the womb, they became human beings.
Any non-viable fetus that leaves the womb is not a human being.
Any non-viable fetus before it leaves the womb can never be a human being. The fact that they are non-viable means that they cannot be human beings.
They are human life. They are not human beings.
The science is NOT there to show when a seperate life is created during the conception/gestation cycle. All your biased sites giving THEIR opinion are no better than than ME giving MY opinion. We dont even know what life IS. All YOU are doing is citing YOUR opinion and those who believe it but there is NO PROOF. Not even close
>>We dont even know what life IS
Anotheramerican does not understand science. Science cannot tell us what life is. It can make observations, such as noting that an embryo produces certain types of enzymes. It cannot answer ontological qeustions such as what is a human being.
Let me add that Thomas Jefferson also fashioned himself a scientist and started quoting from scientific journals to prove that Indians were sub-human. Merely quoting scientists or even science, and then forming an opinion from this science, does not make that opinion scientific.
For example, I can note science has shown that dogs can understand more human words than cats. This has been proven in scientific studies. I can state that based on science, dogs are more worthy of human love than cats. Of course my opinion is based on science, but it is not science.
Anotheramerican is really confused on this point.
You are mistaken. We do know what life is even if there is not a universal agreement on the definition of life. Scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:
1. Organization - Living things are composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. 2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. 3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. 4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. 5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. 6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
I think you are the one confused as you are straying from the discussion. You are now trying to bring about philosophical ideas about life rather than continue the discussion regarding the scientific facts regarding the beginning of life.
forgot to list my source: [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Please answer this definitively:
Is a virus alive? Please prove your answer.
Pretty simple question one would think. Do you have to meet all of the points of the working definition to be alive? How about just 1 or 2 of them? Are some of the points more important than others?
Viruses demonstrate some of the murkiness of using such vague "working definitions".
No, we don't know what life is when we talk about *human* life. That is what is meant by life in this context, so stop playing games. Yes, science can define life. But it cannot say that an embryo is a human being.
I am still awaiting your proof to show me where science has proved this.
Far from it, in fact.
A human being can live outside the womb. (And yes, I know that premature babies may need lots of medical attention to survive outside the womb, but they can survive. An embryo cannot.)
These embryos, from which this research flows, were not viable outside the womb.
That stops them from being human beings.
That is the key definition, in fact, and embryos are not human beings.
Ellie,
There are a couple of mistakes with your post.
Apparently embryos are living when removed from the embryo. So they do live outside the womb. That disproves your contention right there.
Secondly, suppose science develops a method of providing a place outside the womb for the embryo to develop for nine months. What does that do to your definition?
Will your non-human all of the sudden become human because he/she lives outside the womb from conception forward?
Viability is constantly being pushed back toward conception. What does that do to your definition?
No, your definition does not work at all.
I meant to say in the second sentence:
Apparently embryos are living when removed from the womb...
Sorry for the confusion.
ps. Besides, many embryos are formed outside the womb are they not? How else are the blastocysts created?
I've been wondering. Why is it that people like you constantly talk about them being taken out of a womb?
>>Apparently embryos are living when removed from the embryo. So they do live outside the womb. That disproves your contention right there.
Ellie said viable, not living.
I misread that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. My apologies for the confusion.
However, whether a embryo or a fetus can live outside the womb is immaterial to whether it is a human being.
After all, a viable premie will die within hours or days outside the womb unless it gets nourishment and protection as would a fully gestated 9 month new born. They need the same things to survive as an embryo. They would simply survive a bit longer before dying.
An inch or so of skin and tissue separating a baby from the outside world, nor it's ability to live outside the womb determines whether the baby is a human being or not.
It either is or it isn't a human being. Science has proven that it is. Ellie's definition is simply her misguided opinion.
>>It either is or it isn't a human being. Science has proven that it is. Ellie's definition is simply her misguided opinion.
Oh really? There has been a paper entitled "Embryos are human beings?" And this paper has been peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community? Of course there hasn't!
You have quoted one textbook and I believe some scientists. But you are confused on how science works. Merely because a scientist states something does not make it science. For example, one of the earlier astronomers, whose work is largely correct, also believe in the music of the spheres theory, that planetary motion actually caused music. Is that science because a scientist stated it? Did science prove that there is music in the heavens?
When you can provide a working scientific definition of a human being, and how how an embryo fits this definition, and then how scientists agree on this, then you are correct. Otherwise you are blowing smoke.
I listed many sources that totally negate your contention in an earlier reply.
Since you mentioned it, you are the one blowing smoke. I see no refutation of my sources other than your opinion.
Please try to add something, say for example, scientific arguments or textbook sources either refuting my claims or providing proof of yours rather than simply trying to disparage actual science.
It is very weak argumentation and doesn't prove your side at all. You see, based on the science available you are coming down in favor of killing human beings.
Prove to me using biological science, that a human embryo is not a human being. I'm not asking for your opinion, but rather hard scientific proof.
If you can't do that, then we have nothing further to discuss.
Contrary to what you seem to think, you haven't provided scientific proof that an embryo is a human being. The only source you have for your contention that "an embryo is a human being" is a document by an avowedly pro-life philosophy professor named Dianne Irving. I've read your posts several times, and that's all you have. That is not scientific proof. It's not even scientific evidence. It's only Dr. Irving's opinion, which is no more or less valid than yours, mine, Funnymanpants', or Open Mind's.
The fact that a zygote is the first stage in human development does not prove that a zygote or an embryo is a human being. The problem isn't that there's no definition of life (the Wikipedia definition would work fine), or that there's no definition of human, but that there's no agreement on what constitutes a human being.
That's a philosophical question. There simply isn't going to be "scientific proof." You've stated before that your philosophy is that a human being is created when it is endowed with the "divine spark," which frankly is the best argument you've made because at least you're engaging the question in the proper sphere of thought (philosophy/religion, rather than science).
The first stage in the development of a diamond. Does that mean a lump of coal is a diamond?
that she wants diamond earrings and you get her lump-of-coal earrings, you'll find out the answer to that question!
"Prove to me using biological science, that a human embryo is not a human being." --AA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why would anyone do that? I don't believe it is scientifically provable one way or the other. The simple fact that you or I need to make basic judgements about what constitutes life in general or human life means the argument is philosophical in nature.
You were the one that made the preposterous affirmative claim in the first place that such things were indeed scientifically proven. You needed to provide consensus definitions to prove your argument met even the first step necessary for proof. You did not do that.
Prove to me using biological science, that a human embryo is not a human being.
Biological fact: a human being cannot survive without a head.
Biological fact: embryos, at the blastocyst stage, do not have heads.
Conclusion: embryos are not human beings.
Where am I wrong, AA?
“Viable, as it pertains to the neonate, means being able, after delivery, to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heartbeat and respiration.
--------------------------
A viable fetus can be kept alive, sometimes with a lot of medical intervention.
That fetus can rightly be called a human being.
Before viability, it is only a potential human being.
Before viability, it is only human life.
It's not a human being until it can survive outside the womb.
Period.
Not my opinion.
Fact.
Embryos can not live outside the womb. They cannot sustain life outside the womb.
The definition of viable is
"“Viable, as it pertains to the neonate, means being able, after delivery, to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heartbeat and respiration."
This is not difficult to understand. In fact, it's hard to misunderstand it.
Like I said,
“Viable, as it pertains to the neonate, means being able, after delivery, to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heartbeat and respiration. "
With a real womb or an artificial womb, the definition still works just fine.
Just wrong.
Never an attempt to present any kind of moral argument or even answer critics. Make a statement that will "stir up" the other bloggers and then sit back and (bask?) in your power to provoke people to write.
I guess this kind of behavior makes some people feel important. Much like a 3 year old making noise so people will look.
Oh well... children will be children
Are you referring to yourself?
ps. I was away from my computer.
Three day old blastocyst != Human Being
And similarly:
Acorn != Tree
A blostocyst is a three day old collection of about 150 completely undifferentiated cells (and just for comparison, if 150 sounds like a large number of cells, there are about 100,000 cells in the brain of a fruit fly). It's not a human being. It has no body, no functioning organs, and most importantly, no conciousness, sentience of volition. It's impossible, you're objections are based on ideas from the dark ages.
You forget that an oak tree is just an acorn that lived and matured. It is obvious the acorn is an oak, just in its initial phases of life.
>>It is obvious the acorn is an oak, just in its initial phases of life.
No, it's not obvious to me at all. An acorn is just that. In many states there are laws against cutting down trees, but I am not aware of any laws that prohibit you from running over acorns.
By your argument, we should also say that sperm is human life, and that anyone who uses a condom is killing a human baby.
You, my friend, need to brush up on your biology.
A human sperm and a human oocyte (female egg) are products of gametogenesis - each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts - each one a part of a human being.
On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.
So, using a condom is not killing a human baby because sperm are not human beings.
>>You, my friend, need to brush up on your biology.
This is rich. Someone who quotes right-wing fanatical sites and insists that an embryo is a *human being* telling me I need a lesson in biology. Yes, it is true that sperm by itself cannot develop into a human being.
But it is equally true that just because an embryo can develop into a human being it doesn't make it one. When you state "on the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization," you are wrong. A human human being does not result from fertilization: an embryo does. An embryo is not a human being. The consensus of science does not hold it as such.
When you state that disposing of an embryo is killing a human being, you are equating the potential to create a human (the embryo) with the real deal--the full grown baby with a central nervous system. So it is perfectly logical to say that since a condom is also stiffling the creation of a human being, that by your logic you can claim condom wearers are killing human beings.
"A human sperm and a human oocyte (female egg) are products of gametogenesis - each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being." --AA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So people with Down Syndrome or Turner Syndrome that have a non-required number of chromasomes for a human being (45 and 47 chromosomes respectively) are not really human?
This definition stuff can be tricky. I see why you haven't yet provided a generally accepted scientific one.
Between a potential human life and a human being.
No human beings are killed by these procedures.
Potential human life is stopped by these procedures.
Potential human life that might not ever make it past the first stages - a large percentage of early potential human life, even in the womb, never makes it past the first few days or weeks of growth.
By demanding the RIGHT to define the terms. Just because YOU say a blastocyte is a human being doesnt make it one.
Sand just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so.
Science tells us when life begins.
Sorry. Sand was meant to be And.
Name one source that you haven't gotten from a right-wing talking points website.
You are in denial and arguing like a child.
It was a silly argument of yours to begin with. Let it go.
There is no meter that tells whether a website is right or left.
>>You are in denial and arguing like a child.
I think the person in denial is yourself. You merely cut and pasted from a right-wing site, which presented flawed arguments. (Another poster refuted each of the so-called experts. Let me point out that the site quoted a New Jersey judge who went against what the Supreme Court said. Well the judge is entitled to his opinion, his legal argument is superceded by the supreme court.)
I really think you are a child to argue that a mass of cells with no nervous system is the same as a human being.
The other poster did not refute the arguments. He ignored them by trying to descredit the source. Which by the way, did not discredit them at all.
You are simply being unreasonable and adding nothing to the discussion.
I'd be happy to discuss this with you but please provide counter arguments that refute what I say, with sources you find, rather than your extremely biased opinion.
I already have refuted what you have said, and so have many other posters. They, as well as I, have pointed out that you have yet to show any proof where science has proved that an embryo is a human life.
You made a claim, now back it up.
As to proving that an embryo is not a human being, this is impossible to do scientifically because you can't prove a negative, and since the question of who or what a human being is a philsophical one, science cannot answer it.
There is a difference between human life and human beings.
Until the fetus is viable, there is no human being. There is only a potential human being.
The following is the definition that the government and scientists use to describe viability.
Neonates: Newborn, viable neonate means being able, after delivery, to survive (given the benefit of medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heartbeat and respiration.
An embryo does not fit this definition. Neither does a 15 week old fetus.
>>Science tells us when life begins.
Life obviously begins with an embryo. That doesn't make it a human being. As I said in another post, using your logic we should claim that people using condoms are killing human life because the condoms don't allow a human being to form.
NO SUCH THING.
After all where are the 400,00 or so fundie wombs for all those excess blastocysts? If you are not willing to have one implanted in YOU then you are being dishonest. Put-up or shut-up.
Can we agree that until one has a central nervous system, one is not a human being? That a congregate of undefined, unassimilated tissue is just tissue. It doesn’t seem unreasonable for tissue to first exhibit signs of life before it is labeled “alive” let alone a “human being”.
Long list of side notes: Why is it that those of you who are adamant about the "sanctity of life" are often OK with the Iraq WAR, the DEATH PENALTY and couldn't care less about the QUALITY of life once the little critter is born? Why don't we have universal HEALTH INSURANCE for CHILDREN? And why don't you "right to lifers" ever put your money where your yap is an ADOPT an unwanted orphaned child? Why does your compassion stop with the uterus?
Here's my idea: from now on, human life span will be referred to in terms of TRIMESTERS. For example, I am in my 164th trimester (492 months, including gestation, divided by 3). Maybe then you womb-lovers will care about EVERYONE not just the unborn.
But then I remember something I once heard that sums up the right wing very well.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers."
but predictable.
Fantagor,
A very emotional outburst but rife with logical fallacies.
No, we don't agree that human life begins with a central nervous system. It is only your opinion. There is no basis in science that life begins only when one has a nervous system.
Your side notes are just silly. Your aguments regarding the Iraq War, the death penalty, and quality of life are separate issues. Stick to the subject.
BTW, if I as a right to lifer, put my money where my yap is, and adopt an unwanted orphaned child do you concede I am right?
So, since you believe in right to kill babies in the womb, why don't you put your money where your yap is and go kill an orphaned unwanted child? Hmm?
Stop being so silly.
ps. I've adopted two unwanted children after having two of my own. What does that do to your argument?
I suggest everyone who is capable of look into adopting a child. They are truly a blessing. :-)
Good grief! This is some of the worst logic I have seen on these boards in weeks. Are you really serious?
>>No, we don't agree that human life begins with a central nervous system. It is only your opinion. There is no basis in science that life begins only when one has a nervous system.
Likewise, it is your opinion that a human being is the same as an embryo. There is no scientific consensus that states an embryo is a human being. Let me repeat: there is no scientific consensus, so stop pretending their is one. The only science you have to back up your opinion (and it is just that) is a text book. That text book does not represent the scientific consensus.
>>So, since you believe in right to kill babies in the womb, why don't you put your money where your yap is and go kill an orphaned unwanted child? Hmm?
What a dumb argument! No, Fantagor does not believe in killing babies in the womb because he does not think they are babies. It is you who think that. You think you have trapped Fantagor in a logical inconsistency, but you haven't; Fantagor never said he believes in killing babies in the womb. He has stated the opposite, that embryos are not babies. So who exactly is being silly?
The reason Fantagor won't kill a child, as he clearly states in his post, is that he believes a human being must have a central nervous system. That is his definition, and he is consistent.
I think his definition is adequate, too. If a mass of undifferntiated cells cannot think or feel and has no consciousness, I really don't think it is a human being. As I've stated before, using your logic, we should condemn those who use condoms as killing babies because a condom stops a human being from coming into existence.
You just contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.
"Let me repeat: there is no scientific consensus, so stop pretending their is one. The only science you have to back up your opinion (and it is just that) is a text book. That text book does not represent the scientific consensus."
First you say I am only stating my opinion and then you say the only science I have is a scientific textbook. Well, is that textbook science or opinion? BTW, I also showed a number of scientists (look back and you'll see) and texts that that do support my contention...
So far you have shown none that support your opinion.
Please be so kind as to how me a biology book that says there is no scientific concensus on when life for a human being begins.
You have quoted one science textbook. This does not represent the consensus of science, and you know it. So yes, you are stating your opnion, and to back up your opinion you are cherry picking from one science textbook pulled from a right-wing site.
I cannot quote scientists who support my opinion because you cannot prove a negative. That is like saying "show me a scientist who doesn't believe that water causes cancer." No scientist goes around stating that water does not cause cancer. Likewise, scientist have better things to do than to go around proving that a human being is not an embryo. Do you really think some scientist has published a peer reviewed paper entitled "An embryo is not a human being?"
You are not trying to prove a negative.
I'm asking you to prove to me, using science, when a human life begins.
I'm showing that it begins at conception. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show me something different.
>>I'm asking you to prove to me, using science, when a human life begins.
I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who needs to prove anything. You have made a ridiculous statement, that science has proven an embryo is a human being. No, it has not. You have yet to show any proof of what you claim. The only thing you can show is that human life *starts* with an embryo. That is a huge difference from saying that an embryo is a human being.
So no, I don't have to show where science to show when a human life begins. You have to use sceince to back up your claim that killing an embryo is the same as killing a baby. You have made the claim, now back it up.
I notice you didn't even address your own logical fallacy, thinking you had trapped fantagor in some contradiction when the contradiction was your own making.
That an embryo is already a human being:
Under British analysis, the embryo outside the body did have moral status, but only after the appearance of the so-called primitive streak on or about the 14 th day of development. Before that, it could not be said to be a unique, identifiable future person; it might still split and become twins. Embryo research was allowed for purposes such as improving the efficiency of IVF. It was only a small step for the British to allow stem cell research as a permissible purpose.
[link to www.project-syndicate.org]
Karen Dawson acknowledges this as scientific fact in her article in Embryo Experimentation:
"After the time of primitive streak formation, other events are possible which indicate that the notion of 'irreversible individuality' may need some review if it is to be considered as an important criterion in human life coming to be the individual human being it is ever thereafter to be. There are two conditions which raise questions about the adequacy of this notion: conjoined twins, sometimes known as Siamese twins, and fetus-in-fetu. ... Conjoined twins arise from the twinning process occurring after the primitive streak has begun to form, that is, beyond 14 days after fertilization, or, in terms of the argument from segmentation, beyond the time at which irreversible individuality is said to exist. ... This situation weakens the possibility of seeing individuality as something irreversibly resolved by about 14 days after fertilization. This in turn raises questions about the adequacy of using the landmark of segmentation in development as the determinant of moral status."
Sorry, that example does not prove your contention that it takes 14 days before irreversible individuality is said to exist. So the basic contention that this is a landmark has been proven incorrect.
I never MADE that assertion. The assertion I DID make was that YOURS was NOT a consensus opinion. YOUR article that someone disagrees ( please that was an attempted rebuttal it didnt PROVE anything all it did was spend an entire paragraph saying I disagree) isnt even in the same UNIVERSE as refuting the contention I DID make which is that YOURS is NOT a consensus opinion which you keep saying it is. This article shows it isnt. British law would reflect a consensus opinion. QED
>>Karen Dawson acknowledges this as scientific fact in her article in Embryo Experimentation:
No, that is not a scientific fact. A scientific fact is the law of gravity, which virtually every scientist agrees with. Dawson is stating an opinion.
The Thing about George is like the fella who is found holding hands with his wife by his girl friend, if she see's you kiss her on the lips, she'll cut you off. If she see's you french kiss your wife, or pat her on the bum, the relationship is over.
Makes a man feel as though the world is turning the wrong direction, and you don't know if your coming or going.
Poor George, having to deal with all them fleas he's been carrying around after lying with them dogs. He must be going bald for all the scratching up there.
George wishs his name were Frank.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
This is just one more phony issue the Republicans use to keep the Troglodytes dragging their knuckles to the polls to keep them in power.
Stem cell research, Gay marriage, Terri Shiavo, abortion, evolution, Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments.... etc. etc. These are all hot-button issues that have been inflated to phony significance by Karl Rove and his flying monkey brigade, all to keep the gullible minions slavishly voting their way.
Lanza's company destroyed the embryos.
WASHINGTON (August 24, 2006) - Reacting to a new report in the journal Nature, claiming to show an “ethical” way to obtain stem cells from human embryos, an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says this study has been misrepresented in early news reports. “This experiment left no embryos alive, and solves no ethical problem,” says Richard M. Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Mr. Doerflinger’s statement follows:
“Initial news reports have misrepresented a study published August 23 in the online version of the journal Nature. The study, conducted by researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, has been described as showing that a single cell can be obtained from an 8- to 10-celled embryo, and used to create an embryonic stem cell line without harming the original embryo. Some even speak of each child receiving his or her own “repair kit” of stem cells upon birth.
“The reality is very different. Researchers did not safely remove single cells from early embryos, but destroyed 16 embryos in a desperate effort to obtain an average of six cells from each one. This experiment left no embryos alive, and solves no ethical problem. From the resulting 91 cells, they still only managed to make two cell lines. Their study shows nothing about the safety of removing only one cell, which in fact is something they never did – partly because their own earlier experiment in mice indicated that “co-culturing” several cells together might be needed to develop a cell line.
“Even if the authors had shown that single cells obtained by “embryo biopsy” could produce a cell line, serious ethical problems would remain. When this procedure is used to do genetic testing of embryos in fertility clinics, some embryos apparently do not survive the procedure, and the long-term risks for children later born alive are unknown.
Moreover, any embryo found to have a genetic defect is thrown away – the test is done precisely to determine which embryos do not deserve a chance to live. The promise of a “repair kit” later in life rings hollow if the very children who could most benefit from a stem cell treatment will be thrown away.
“As our fellow human beings, embryonic humans should not be manipulated, harmed or used solely for possible benefit to others, even if this would not always kill them. In any event, further efforts to find a “safe” way to take cells from these embryos would surely require more experiments like this one that are clearly destructive and unethical.
“A better path, already endorsed by President Bush and an impressive bipartisan majority of Congress, is to fund avenues for discovering or creating cells with the abilities of embryonic stem cells without exploiting human embryos at all. The Catholic bishops’ conference has supported this effort and looks forward to advances that are both scientifically and ethically sound.”
Email us at commdept@usccb.org Office of Media Relations | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.
[link to www.usccb.org]
Try re-reading the MMFA item...all of it...slowly.
I would make sure to keep a database of every neo-con, anti-science, follow-the-party-line zombie who has opposed this research. Then when this technology is being used to treat and cure diseases that now are only given expensive drugs for momentary relief: I would check the names off against that database when a patient went to a doctor and this treatment would help them. If they were so opposed to it in the development stage then I would say that they couldn't be permitted to reap the benefits. Let them suffer since they are so steadfast in making sure that the people who this could benefit now suffer. You reap what you sow. Let them agonize and think "Wow...that really could help. Why are they saying I can't have it?"
That's what I would do if I were vindictive. Good thing I don't have any say in this, isn't it?
(Disclaimer: After watching my father wither away after suffering a stroke years ago, and finally watching him succumb and die to a heart attack this past Thanksgiving. I can't in any conscience stand behind denying the treatment of anything to anyone based on a politcal or religous arguement. My belief in this research results from having to live through that ordeal. I think that once you have been forced to watch someone you love suffer for so long the idea that anyone could stand opposed to anything that could give hope to others who suffer is incomprehensable. I honestly believe that the people who oppose this research so fiercely have never had to watch a loved one suffer. If they had, they must truely be sadist to be able to look at themselves in the mirror and say "I'm doing the right thing.")
On the passing of your father.
Theoretically speaking would your sacrifice and kill one of your children, (if you have any,) to save your father?
That is the basic moral question.
A valid moral question with ANY relevance to this debate IF we accepted your basic assertion that a blastocyte IS a human being. A tautalogical argument. Therefore one without merit
Your contention that anyone who believes in the sanctity of life is a sadist is very sad.
How do you feel about the 1.5 million innocent babies killed in the womb every year? How do you feel about the thousands of viable babies during delivery that have had their skull punctured and their brains sucked out?
Do you ever think of them? Do you feel for them?
There are millions of non-viable fetuses killed each year.
Non-viable fetuses are not human beings.
Until the fetus can sustain life outside of the womb, it is not a human being. It cannot stay alive outside the womb, even with lots of medical intervention, and so cannot be a human being, and if it cannot first be a human being, it cannot be a human being that is a baby!
George Will is absolutely right and it's Media Matters that is off base.
While ACT did indeed issue a press release heralding its embryonic stem cell experiment as having "successfully generated human embryonic stem cells using an approach that does not harm embryos," the actual report of the research led by ACT chief scientist Robert Lanza, published in Nature, tells a very different story. In fact, Lanza destroyed all 16 of the embryos he used, just as in conventional embryonic stem cell research.
And that's not the only facet of Lanza's work that the press got wrong.
The ACT team did do something new: It worked with very early embryos, of 8 to 10 cells each, rather than the 100- to 200-cell blastocysts usually used in such research. From each of these early embryos, the scientists removed not one cell--as several press accounts reported--but 4 to 7 cells. This misreporting is important because it creates a materially false impression.
Media Matters has accepted that misreporting as true, which is the basis for the false attack on George Will.
For more information on the truth about ACT's study, visit this link.
Oh yeah...there's a website that can be trusted for it's objective reporting. NO agenda there. I'm sure you can also find some impartial reporting on the question of gay marrage on "godhateshomos.org". What about "hispanicsaresatan.com"? Good coverage of the immigration issue? I'm sure the coverage on the "war on terror" has some really great insight on "Allmuslimsaremurderingterrorists.gov".
*LOUD BUZZER SOUNDING* Thanks for playing. See you next time on "Can It Be More Biased?"
I distrust any source that involves the word "life" in it's name. But it's so completely wrong that it's not funny. What the scientists developed in this case was a technique for extracting cells friom embryos while keeping most of the embryo intact. Yes, the embryos were discarded, but here's the kicker: THAT HAPPENS ANYWAY, AND THAT'S WHAT PROPONENTS OF ESC RESEARCH HAVE BEEN POINTING OUT. Guess what happens to all those excess embryos that are used in in vitro fertilization. Oh you, they're discarded!
You can find a better summary of the minor miscommunication between ACT and Nature in 'Hype' accusation blights stem cell breakthrough. It also gives more details of the science behind the discovery.
The approach is to use one cell from an 8 cell organism.
Removing one cell from an 8 cell organism does not destroy it.
That's the approach.
That's the procdure.
In discovering that one cell from an eight cell organism can lead to a stem cell line, they did take multiple cells from 8 cell organisms, and destroyed those organisms.
Once again though, the procedure is to take one cell from an eight cell organism and by doing so, create a stem cell line, and they did that!
Idiots! Simple reading comprehension! One would think that George Will would be better at it than this - I don't expect much from the resident trolls here!
You need to take that smug chip off your shoulder.
Everybody understands what is said. If you would read the replies carefully, (including Will's,) you would see that no has yet provided any proof that what these people said is actually true.
They certainly have not. And you parroting the talking points has not done it either.
At least understand the discussion before making yourself look foolish by denigrating others with whom you disagree.
I was completely accurate, and 100% correct.
damm you numbskull-cons are dumb!
...more about Will's statement than the science behind the research, protocols, or procedures. It always comes down to the Solomon's question, "Where do we split the baby?"
Personally I come down on the side of those already breathing. That being said I will offend another group, while I do not condone spraying hairspray in the eyes of little bunnies -- if attaching a monkey to a car battery save human lives down the road, allow me to quote, "black is positive, red is negative".
if attaching a monkey to a car battery save human lives down the road, allow me to quote, "black is positive, red is negative". - from Ufleirx
I think you got that backward. Black is negative, red is positive.
I hit the post button before I re-read it, then hoped no one would notice. But I appreciate the fact that you were concerned about my electrical safety.
We can't afford to lose any liberals by way of battery shrapnel or acid.
I'm a native Minnesotan. I've done more car jump-starts than I can possibly guess. I'm afraid that error just popped out for me.
So you believe someone must be breathing.. Hmmm.. that would mean you could deliver a baby and kill it so long as he hadn't taken his/her first breath.
Very sad reasoning.
What about those who cannot breath on their own? Say they've experienced a shock from a car battery and it has caused them to stop breathing momentarily. Shall we kill them too?
Buyt hey, you're entitled to your 'negative' opinion.
Folks who conclude embryos are "life" do so from a religious perspective. Bible passage states something like "I (God) knew you when you were in the womb". Also, Christians (and perhaps others) believe the "soul" is eternal--no start/end.
It's based upon a religious belief. No scientific evidence to support it (as far as I know).
I'm a Christian and a liberal/free thinker. Believe me, it's tough to mesh those two. Abortion/stem cell research causes my head to spin.
I just wish the anti-abortion anti-stem cell research folks would just be honest and state their position comes from religion. There's no shame in that. It probably hurts them politically, but they shouldn't run from their beliefs.
My head hurts again.
That is probably the most eloquent and truthful statement I have as yet seen as to the core of this whole mess. I can't understand how difficult it must be to try and walk in both worlds of spirituality and worldly ideals. *hands you a bottle of extra strength pain medication*
But I do have to disagree that it is merely a religious standpoint. I think it's more a blind devotion to what they have been told is what their religion dictates. What I think most "Christians" now don't understand is that you can't have true faith until you've questioned your beliefs. It's only after you've questioned them and found the answers for yourself that you can come close to thinking you understand what God intends. Most of the people who fight against things in the name of God do it because they don't question what they're told. At least that's my way of thinking.
What I do NOT believe is that God gave me a brain so I WOULDNT use it.
It isn't just an issue of religion. Sometimes it is an emotional response to the question of life and when it begins. Emotionally I am anti-abortion because I believe life begins at conception--to me it is a question of life not religion. Politically I am pro-choice and pro stem cell research because I am also pragmatic and don't believe in pushing my beliefs onto others. I don't know that given the choice I could donate my leftover embryos to science. It is a very emotional decision for some to make when they have tried so hard to create these little potential lives to divorce themselves from that emotion--probably why so many are left in storage indefinitley. There was a good article about the emotional side of this issue in Mother Jones a couple months back that did a good job of showing the emotional perspective. So I think it is too simplistic to write this off as religious fanatisism.
It IS a very emotional choice. I dont for a second think we ought to dismiss the religious conviction NOR the emotional agrument that since it IS life we are talking about we shouldnt take the chance. This is a hard choice, so much of lifes choices are not made about what is clearly right or clearly wrong but dancing on that extremely thin line between the two, those gray areas exist and a lot of thought is necessary to do that dance. There are certainly good people on both sides of this debate and the debate on the choice. I know where I stand but its disengenuous to think its not a hard choice.
In the womb describes an experience NINE MONTHS LONG. It didnt say I knew you as soon as the sperm hit the egg. The Bible also says in Exodus that the LIFE is in the BLOOD. Which would lead one to believe that the life is breathed into a fetus when it gets a circulatory system. That would be about four months or thereabouts. This issue is NOT really addressed in the Bible. Only through THEIR interpretations can they pretend the bible claims life begins at conception. I have read the Bible and am a religious person. I dont remember ANYTHING that can definitively support the crackpot idea that a blastocyte is actually already a human being.
I have not argued life begins at conception from a religious perspective but only argued from a biological perspective.
Biology tells us that life begins at conception it is a simple as that. The biology books are full of explanation as to how life begins. It is a myth to say that there is no scientific evidence. If you haven't followed the thread, you just need to go look it up.
"I have not argued life begins at conception from a religious perspective but only argued from a biological perspective."
Not on this thread, but previously you did say that you personally believe that the "divine spark" was given to an embryo. Did you not?
what's your point?
That your argument stems from religious belief? You think? It's kind of hard to suggest that embryos have souls and then act like your point of view is purely scientific. Well, for anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty, at least.
S0me embryos dont become babies they become a virulent form of tumor. A tumor IS alive. So is my thumb. That doesnt make either a seperate human being. THAT is the relevent point.
Please supply your source that embryos become a virulent tumor.
Thanks
[link to www.medicineonline.com]
Between human life and a human being.
You keep trying to conflate the two things.
A 1 day old fetus is human life.
All non-viable fetuses are human life.
Not a single non-viable fetus is a human being - they are all still just potential human beings. If they leave the womb, they will not survive, even with medical intervention. That's the definition of viable. Once a fetus is viable, and then is born, it can be a human being when it is born.
Human life is one thing.
Human beings are another thing.
All human beings are human life.
Not all human life is a human being.
Some human life is still just a potential human being.
When wasn't George Will a disingenuous liar? Anyone? Anyone?
Let's put this on a religious track where some of this discussion belongs...
To those of you who believe that the destruction of a small mass of embryonic cells is the equivalent of killing a human being I ask: At exactly what point are embryonic cells instilled with a soul? In the religious context isn't a soul that which distinguishes a human being from other creatures? Isn't it the soul that which is given immortal life through God? Does one embryonic cell have a soul? Or does God give an embryo a soul at a later stage? On what basis do you know when God gives an embryo a soul? And where does the soul reside? In my cells? If I lose a leg to amputation do I lose part of my soul? Where exactly does one find answers to these questions?
"If I lose a leg to amputation do I lose part of my soul?"
-----
You lose a sole, that's for sure.
you're opening for Jackie Mason in Albany all next week.
my horrible pun territory.
Thanks.
Theologians do not agree on the exact time of ensoulment.
According to the Bible ensoulment (the entry of the soul into the body) occurs before birth. A verse from Jeremiah suggests that ensoulment occurs before implantation (i.e., before the fetus is formed in the womb). Although not specifically stated, it would seem most likely that the soul begins at the moment of conception.
# Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
# John the Baptist: "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)
# Paul: But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace… (Galatians 1:15)
Even assuming that Bible quotes prove that an embryo has a soul...
So what?
Yes, you read that correctly. If you believe in a God that would punish the souls of embryos by sending them to Hell, then good luck. And if he doesn't punish them, if they go to Heaven or get recycled so to speak, then what's the damage? Where's the sin, exactly? If you're going to take a religious view of "ending life", there has to be some negative impact of that ended life. What is it in this case, precisely?
Nobody dared to respond (as far as I saw) when I asked about this on a previous thread, which happened to be crawling with pro-life visitors. Thought I'd give you another chance.
Anyway, since they can do this research without destroying the embryo, why is it Bush STILL opposes it?
And do you still oppose it, under these circumstances? If so, why?
1. Who ever said embryos would go to hell?
I can show you your argument is illogical and immoral by simply changing the age of the human being you decide to kill.
2. After all, if we kill a two year old and they go to heaven, what's the damage?
"1. Who ever said embryos would go to hell?"
Then where do those souls go, in your mind?
"2. After all, if we kill a two year old and they go to heaven, what's the damage?"
The damage is that people have been raising that child. You can't show anything illogical or immoral about my argument by changing the age because you're changing the scenario completely. These embryos are not ever going to be two-year olds, under any circumstances. They are going to be discarded. It's illogical or dishonest to compare genetic material that has no possibility of a future to a child that is being raised in good faith that they will be part of a family and a society.
The reason that we have laws against murder and theft is not because they're immoral. It's because those things damage the fabric of society. If people can't feel safe in their possessions and health, then people will have no faith in any system of society. It would be complete anarchy. There's no law that you have to honor thy father and mother. There's no law about coveting your neighbor's wife. Outside of court and government investigations, there is no law against bearing false witness. So it's not about "thou shalt not kill". It's not about sanctity of all life no matter in what stage of development or mental/physical condition (read:Schiavo), it's about what affects society. "Killing" an embryo that's bound for the trash can has no affect on society, but legal killing of toddlers would. That's precisely why your moral absolutism is so difficult to defend, as you show with amazing effectiveness.
"I can show you your argument is illogical and immoral..."
Thanks for the laugh!
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood.
So go figure, since a fetus spends nine months in the womb and NONE of those quotes say EXACTLY WHEN nor that its conception itself. Since it is quite possible the first quote is talking about knowing the soul BEFORE it was incarnated IN a body, NONE of those quotes say a seperate life was created at CONCEPTION nor at the blastocyte stage. A good try but nothing really shown here but more uncertainty.
So, in effect, the basis of your belief as to when humans are ensouled is biblical and not based on any medical or scientific data.
If a human being is ensouled at the moment of conception, everything you guys are arguing is still killing a human being, (only this time around you say it has a soul.)
If it is not ensouled at conception, then are we still killing a human being?
I say we are and I have shown science proves it.
Even for those of us who believe in 'the divine spark', None of us knows at this time when exactly a human being is ensouled.
That being said, the fertilization of an ovum with a sperm is biologically proven to create a new human life when none existed before. To deny that this new embryo is not a new human being is to deny biology.
Human beings, whether one believes in God or not, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness no matter if they have just been concieved or they are an adult.
Therefore, the issue of whether one is 'ensouled' is not essential to believing that embryos deserve a chance at life. Embryos deserve life simply because they are human beings. No human deserves to be killed and torn apart so they can be used for experimentation or as spare parts. Nor do they deserve to be killed because they are unwanted.
That is simply barbaric. I believe future generations will condemn us for killing our children.
You have not "proven" that a zygote/blastocyst/embryo is a human being. All you have proven is what everybody already knew - that human development begins at the zygote stage.
I say that a zygote or blastocyst is not a human being because it doesn't have a head. Science has proven that a human being cannot live without a head. Thus, a zygote/blastocyst is either a dead human being or not a human being at all. Since it is not a dead human being, then it must not be a human being at all. Where am I wrong?
>>That being said, the fertilization of an ovum with a sperm is biologically proven to create a new human life when none existed before.
No one has ever denied this. But then you come up with this dandy:
>>Embryos deserve life simply because they are human beings.
False. Science certainly hasn't shown that an embry *is* a human. It merely states that it is the start of a human. As I said before, using a condom also prevents human life from developing. So by your logic, condom wearers are baby killers.
>>No human deserves to be killed and torn apart so they can be used for experimentation or as spare parts.
The embryos are destroyed anyway! Are you for real? And what kind of bizzarre ethics do you practice in which you think an embryo with no consciousness of being, no centeral nervous system, is the same as a 2-year old child?
You will find that in the cases of Jeremiah, Jesus (which you didn't mention) and John the Baptist, they were all prophets, saints or otherwise special people in the Bible. Those verses are meant to be an "endorsement from above" in Biblical terms. Paul was apparently speaking from personal experience. I have trouble remembering back in the womb.
The translated term "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament comes from Pneumatos in Greek, which is a root for pneuma. If you go to any Ancient Greek to English dictionary, you will find that pneuma means "breath". Spirit comes from the Latin "Spiritus", which means "breath" as well. The word "soul" comes from psyche that also means "breath" in Ancient Greek.
Strange how all of these words for spirit and soul come from "breath", the main thing that differentiates a fetus from baby. Fetuses don't breathe as far as I know although it is definitely possible that very special people in the Bible may have miraculously achieved that feat.
In ancient times, birth legends were often used to show the divinity of the subject of the legend.
1) The ability of removing one cell from an embryo without destroying the embryo has already been demonstrated prior to the ACT test.
2) The ACT test established the ability of using single cells removed from an embryo to create new stem cell lines.
3) Therefore, it should be possible to - without destroying an embryo - remove one cell (from #1) and use that single cell to create a new stem cell line (from #2).
To provide a sufficient sample size for the ACT test, rather than require many more embryos, ACT removed more than one cell from each embryo. Thus the destruction of embryos for the test was just performed in the interest of time. This would not be the process used for creating human stem cell lines, which would involve only removing one cell from an embryo.
The process used by ACT was clearly inefficient. Further research is needed to address this and other issues. However, at least the possibility has been demonstrated, warranting further research.
provide a reference for your first assertion? I mean besides this "press release". Thanks.
1) The ability of removing one cell from an embryo without destroying the embryo has already been demonstrated prior to the ACT test. - from ChristianDemocrat
can you provide a reference for your first assertion? - from AnotherAmerican
I provided this link earlier in another thread. From the article 'Hype' accusation blights stem cell breakthrough you find the following:
Taking a single cell from a human embryo appears not to harm the embryo, as demonstrated by the success of a technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) – a test carried out on IVF embryos.
That should answer your doubts. If you're not satisfied because it's an article in a science magazine, go ahead and Google the procedure cited.
Bill,
The article you cited comes from the same source, the company that issued the press release.
There is nothing in the article that proves or provides reference to their claim that a single cell can be removed from a very early stage embryo without harming the embryo. (It may well be the case, but in the sources I've seen, nobody else confirms this.)
So.. Take another look. I'm afraid your source does not pass muster. Sorry. It does not prove your contention at all.
Like Bill said, Google the term "pre-implantation genetic diagnosis." That procedure involves the removal of a cell from an embryo without harming the embryo.
When other posters attacked your cut and paste right-wing sites, you called them "childish" and demanded that they refute specifically what was wrong with your cut and paste job.
Now you are doing the same thing--simply dismissing a source wholescale rather than refute it specifically.
Again, you are blowing smoke.
Thanks ChristianDemocrat.
The context of what Media Matters is presenting is the real issue. How does a national news commentator present this story? Do they fairly lay out all positions and discuss the serious objections on all sides of the issue?
Or do they, as Will did, just make stuff up. All this does is harden positions on all sides and makes it difficult to even engage in a reasoned discussion. No matter which side of this issue you are on, you should object to the way that Will presented the information.
Just another example of how unprofessional the News people have become.
If you mean that a single cell is a "human being" because it has human DNA, then, OK, a cell is a human being.
But then, so is a flake of dandruff, and a drop of blood is whole civilization.
Science is fun!
but a flake of dandruff, if left to its natural growth will not result in a human being.
I'm sure you see the difference.
But neither will a frozen embryo.
Too many posts focus on discussing whether embryonic stem cell research is murder or not. I'd say that close to 90% of the comments failed to address the ACT study, which is what the MMFA article is about.
Ignore trolls. They are trying to create a distraction because this skeptic has been proven wrong.
We need a feature that could take us to the last comment of the page. I have to press the "next" link several times in order to reach #77.
If conception is the moment that a human being is created making an embryo equal to a person, I have some important questions that need to be answered:
1. Why do we culturally and religiously celebrate birthdays and not conceptiondays? Is is just because it sounds funny? Or because no one would eat a conceptioncake? Shouldn't the word "birth" be downgraded in meaning since it is merely a debut of sorts and not really all that special? Should we even be allowed to miss work for a birth?
2. Why don't we list our age from the date of conception instead of some arbitrary day on which, we happen to take our fist breath?
3. Why don't we commonly have funerals for miscarriages, abortions and/or stillbirths?
4. Should you be able to get a social security number for a fetus? Why does a baby have to be born in order to receive a tax deduction on it? Seems kind of arbitrary to me.
5. Why do baptisms represent a new birth? Shouldn't they represent a new conception? Why would anything in the Bible focus on birth like that when we apparently receive our spirit at conception?
6. Can you get life insurance on a fetus?
(7) If it has been "scientifically proven" that an embryo is a human being, why aren't embryonic stem cell scientists in jail for murder?