Otter, I realize that I can't measure up to your level of intense intellectual rigor, but maybe you should consult a dictionary before smugly spouting off. From dictionary.com: sloganeering n : persuasion by means of empty slogans pabulum n : insipid intellectual nourishment
The huge difference is that an unfertilized ovum is not a developing human being, in contrast to an embryo. I've never heard of embryos themselves actually being cloned. To my knowledge, embryonic cloning involves transferring DNA from the cell of another human being into the nucleus of an ovum, mimicking the process of fertilization. You evidently didn't look very hard: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/index.html http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/index.html http://www.stemcellresearch.org/stemcellreport/index.html http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/prentice_03-02-05.pdf These are highly speculative assertions, and they completely ignore the ethical concerns raised by the prospect of creating new human lives for the sake of cannibalizing them. Adults have traditionally sacrificed their lives when necessary to save children, not vice versa.
Well since stem cell research is NOT cannibalism, and stem cell research can save children as well as adults, that argument is just an example of emotional propaganda. Everyone has the right to come to their own decision on how they feel on this topic, but please try to look at the research and information on both sides, and don't fall for emotioinal arguments that really hold no relevance to the reality of the situation.
"Most of the already harvested embryos aren't being used for research, and so far much of the advances in stem cell research have come from somatic (adult) stem cells, but that doesn't mean this research should be limited from using embryonic stem cells, not only the potential is real, but much work has already been done from embryonic stem cells. Embyonic stem cells are more resitant to immune rejections which plauge somatic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells can also proliferate much more efficiently helping to produce sufficient quantities for research and medicine." Those aren't speculative assertions. They are facts. There are advantages to using embryonic stem cells. Those opposed to it have to at least be willing to admit this much and grapple with the issue. There wouldn't be an interest in embryonic stem cells if there were no advantages to it.
These claims are addressed in several of the articles on the web site I've listed. Here's just one example: Scottish cloning expert Ian Wilmut, for example, wrote in the British Medical Journal in February that producing genetically matched stem cells through cloning is probably quite unnecessary for treating any neurological disease. Recent findings suggest that the nervous system is "immune privileged," and will not generally reject stem cells from a human who is genetically different. He added that cloning is probably useless for auto-immune diseases like juvenile diabetes, where the body mistakenly rejects its own insulin-producing cells as though they were foreign. "In such cases," he wrote, "transfer of immunologically identical cells to a patient is expected to induce the same rejection." Wilmut's observations cut the ground out from under Ron Reagan's simple-minded claim that cloning is needed to avoid tissue rejection. For some diseases, genetically matched cells are unnecessary; for others, they are useless, because they only replicate the genetic profile that is part of the problem. (Ironically, for Alzheimer's both may be true--cloning may be unnecessary to avoid tissue rejection in the brain, and useless because the cloned cells would have the same genetic defect that may lead to Alzheimer's.) Reagan declared that this debate requires us to "choose between . . . reason and ignorance," but he did not realize which side has the monopoly on ignorance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/401asygk.asp
Huck, one can always find a hundred reasons for not doing something or pick out exceptions to the data to suit a particular idealogical need. Creationists do the same thing when they carefully pick out the wild points of data to try to disprove evolution. There wouldn't be an interest in embryonic stem cells at all if there weren't at least some advantages to it. Also, you are aware now that human embryos can be cloned?
If we assert that an embryo one microsecond after fertilization is a full fledged human being and destroying the embryo is murder, there really isn't any further argument possible. From there after, it simply becomes a game of trying to belittle any advantages of using embryonic stem cells and praising the use of non-embyronic stem cells (or embryos that were not fertilized but were artificially tricked into thinking they had been fertilized).
First, as I've already pointed out, embryos can't be fertilized. You keep confusing embryos with ova. Second, I haven't denied that embryonic stem cells might have potential benefits for medical research. I've simply argued that their potential has been overstated, while the proven benefits of non-embryonic stem cells have been obscured.
I'm not confusing the issue. You're making it a game of words. How exactly do you want to state it? An ovum that's been fertilized and is now an embryo that is one microsecond old or more? (One can say 'fertilized ovum', but that's technically wrong too, because once an ovum is fertilized, it's an embryo). Again, if we assert that this embryo is a full fledged human in every respect no matter how old, there isn't really anything to argue. It turns into a game of trying to belittle advantages of embryo research and praise non-embryonic research. You're aware now that human embryos can be cloned? I'm interested in knowing what your thoughts are on that. It's another issue.
Yes, but "unfertilized embryo" is also a misnomer. I'm not trying to split hairs; I think there's a crucial qualitative difference between an ovum and an embryo that should not be blurred. Show me specifically where and how any of the articles I've cited has done this. I think they clearly show that Ron Reagan has done the reverse. I've never heard this from anyone but you. Regardless, I don't think any form of human cloning should be allowed, whether for reproduction or exploitive scientific research.
Ok. We can then sum up your views: 1. A naturally fertilized ovum (embryo) is a full fledged human being. 2. Cloning of human embryos is unethical. 3. There is no objection to using stem cells from an ovum that was tricked into thinking it had been fertilized using artifical means (electrical, chemical, etc.) 4. No objection to using stem cells not derived from an embryo. We can't really debate '1' or '2' if they are asserted as true. '3' and '4' give some leeway for a compromise between groups on both sides of the issue. It's best just to state the above assertions right from the start. If no one does this, then the issue is a muddled mess of political, religious, idealogical, and grammatical tactics right from the start.
The NIH site explains some of the differences between embryonic and adult stem cells. The embryonic stem cells offer an opportunity to research how stem cells differentiate into different tissues to an extent that is not available with adult stem cells. There's a basic research value in just knowing how the cells differentiate, outside of any debate about therapeudic clinical applications of the stem cells themselves. Whether one can take these tissues and use them for therapeudic purposes effectively is another issue. The fact that there are technical difficulties with clinical applications of stem cells doesn't negate the research value gained from the study of embryonic stem cells. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp International Society for Stem Cell Research: http://www.isscr.org/
One shouldn't belittle the value of non-embryonic stem cell research either. From Wikepedia: "Update: Human hearts repaired using patient's own stem cells Working with critically ill heart patients, researchers in Vienna have successfully used Mesenchymal stem cells to regenerate healthy new heart tissue. The stem cells were harvested from the patient's own bone marrow and injected into the ventricle. The heart is stopped for approximately two minutes to allow the stem cells to attach to the existing heart tissue. The patient is only under local anesthesia so that the surgeons can monitor how the lack of cerebral oxygen is affecting the patient. The heart is then restarted and incisions closed. The procedure is minimally invasive, as far as heart surgeories are concerned. All of the patients that received the new treatment experienced repaired scar tissue and most had nearly complete return of proper heart function. As stated previously in the article, autologous stem cell implants such as these could alleviate legal and moral issues revolving around stem cell therapies."
There is plenty of politics to go around. From Wikepedia: "Because of Christian opposition to research and his own personal views on the subject, US President George W. Bush announced on August 9, 2001 that he would prohibit the use of federal funding to work with embryonic cell lines created after that date, limiting research to a limited number of embryonic stem cell lines and adult stem cells. He has appointed an arguably conservative Council on Bioethics, a collection of 18 doctors, legal and ethical scholars, scientists and a journalist in 2002. In February, 2004 President Bush removed from the council a professor of ethics, William May, and a biologist, Elizabeth Blackburn. These two outspoken advocates of stem cell research were replaced with Benjamin Carson, Diana Schaub and Peter Lawler, all three of whom have expressed more conservative views on biotechnology."
Opposition to using human embryos as lab rats is not limited to the "religious right. Here's an excellent commentary on the subject by gay activist Andrew Sullivan: > In one of the creepiest scenarios in Steven > Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick's new movie, A.I., > there is something called a Flesh Fair. In this > sci-fi fantasy, human beings have developed > technology so refined that they can create > mechanical humans that appear almost as real as > organic ones. These "mechas" are essentially a slave > class: They perform chores, replace lost children, > even have their body parts distributed for various > uses. At Flesh Fairs, mechas are displayed and > killed for amusement, their body parts sometimes > traded and reused. They are humans entirely as means > - not ends. And, of course, they're not truly > human at all. They're robots simulating humans. But > even robots, Spielberg and Kubrick seem to suggest, > merit some dignity. > > If robots deserve dignity, shouldn't blastocysts? In > thinking about stem-cell research, the image of the > Flesh Fair still resonates. In A.I. humans use > pseudo-humans for sport; they chop them up, dissect > them, then throw them away. When we watch the movie, > we naturally recoil. But when we read essentially > the same story in the newspapers - about events > happening now - we manage to keep calm. > > Is the analogy a stretch? Supporters of stem-cell > research say blastocysts are not human beings. Or, > even if they are human, they are not beings. They > are no more human than, say, a clipped fingernail > (which contains all the DNA information for an > entire person, just as accurately as a blastocyst). > Clearly, however, the fingernail comparison misses > something important. A fingernail would not become a > mature human being if implanted in a womb. The real > question is whether this distinction amounts to a > moral difference. > > One criterion to distinguish a real human being - > with rights and dignity - from an embryo or a > fingernail might be viability. The blastocyst, while > clearly the same species as the rest of us, cannot > survive independent of scientific paraphernalia, a > freezer, or a womb. Hence it's not a human being - > and can morally be experimented on. That's a clear > line - but it opens up a host of other > possibilities. If "viability" independent of a > mother or others is the criterion, why shouldn't the > physically incapacitated or the very old be > consigned to medical experimentation? Why not those > in comas or on life support? If they're going to die > anyway and have no ability to fend for themselves, > what's the point of wasting their bodies when they > could yield valuable medical insights? Yes, we could > wait till they're dead - but they're far more useful > to science alive. > Other criteria might be the ability to feel pain, > think rationally, or be self-conscious. Since an > embryo (so far as we know) can do none of these > things, it's fair game. But again, these criteria > make others who are similarly limited - such as > those with Alzheimer's, or the paraplegic, or the > insane - equal grist for the scientific mill. This > is especially the case with those whose mental > capacity renders them unable to give meaningful > consent. Why ask at all if, like embryos, such > pseudo-humans cannot say yes or no? Perhaps some > people might even give their consent in advance for > such work. For ethical purposes, these people could > be protected from physical pain during > experimentation until their death. > > Supporters of stem-cell research won't go that far. > Except that they already have. What, after all, > makes a human being a human being? Scientists would > say a human is defined by its DNA - the genetic > coding that makes our species different from any > others. Stem-cell research enthusiasts say we are > defined by our DNA and our stage of development. > They say a blastocyst is so unformed that it cannot > be equated with a fetus, let alone with an adult. > But it remains a fact - indeed one of the marvels of > creation - that the embryo contains exactly the same > amount of genetic information as you or I do. We > aren't different from it in kind, only different in > degree: in age, size, weight, gender, and on and on. > In fact, in some sense, a blastocyst is the purest > form of human being - genderless, indistinguishable > to the naked eye from any other, unencumbered with > the accoutrements of society and experience - and > yet as unique as any human being who has ever lived > or ever will. To extinguish it is surely not to > extinguish something other than us. It is to > extinguish us.... > > (This article was excerpted from the July 30th issue > of THE NEW REPUBLIC magazine. Read the full text of > the column by going to their online magazine at > http://www.tnr.com/073001/trb073001.html.) Of course, he's wrong about embryos being "genderless," but that's a minor point. See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4229850,00.html.
I am for stem cell reaserch. For me, people who have already born come first. Incidentally, the fetuses being used are spares that were going to be thrown out anyway - no one is 'saving' a fetus by keeping it safe from stem cell reaserch. They say stem cells can do amazing things for those of us who have birth cirtificates. Why not give it a chance? It's the pro-life thing to do!
First of all, "spare" embryos can actually be adopted: http://www.embryoadoption.com Second, Ron Reagan's speech surreptitiously called for the federal funding of mass production and destruction of cloned human embryos by the biotech industry, not merely the killing of embryos from fertility clinics by the private sector.
Arlen Specter has been a vocal proponent for stem cell research, including embryonic. He has also been involved in supporting a federal program for embryo adoption. http://www.isscr.org/ http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm....Detail&PressRelease_id=400&Month=4&Year=2003
