Spark of life creates 'ethical embryos'

Scotsman ^ | 12/2/04 | JOHN INNES

[litany_of_lies]

But, I don't think a sperm cell is simply a lump of proteins. It also contains (at least) a genetic code, and chromosones, and probably other material that the cord would never have (inexpert assumption, admittedly).

[Ichneumon]

The so-called "ethical" embryos have been created by using an enzyme dubbed the "spark of life"

It's alive! ALIVE!!

(Actually, I think this research is quite interesting and has much promise, I just couldn't resist goofing about the terminology they used.)

[Blue Screen of Death]

I already have and rejected it. I recently read somewhere where some scientist proposed the possibility of growing humans without heads so they wouldn't really be people, just body parts.

Been done. They are all working tech support at Microsoft.

[so_real]

Buzz ... wrong answer ... try again. First of all it is still an "embryonic" stem cell which means none of the stability issues in adults have been overcome, like tumor formation for example. Second of all, if it's tricked into growing without fertilation it remains conceivable that parthenogenesis would occur (thought to be limited to insects) and actually produce a very sick form of life. And finally, if cells from these tricked embryos are harvested and used in people, they will still only possess a single strand of DNA and reproduce cells having a single strand of DNA -- no one has any idea what the consequences of using these in a normal human being with a DNA pair would be.

It's just a bad idea. The idea of an "ethical" embryo sickens me as much as the original idea of aborting viable fetuses and harvesting them like crops. This isn't a break-through; it's an effort by the baby-killers to find some compromise in the middle that will weaken our resolve and make us willing parties to their evil.

[thoughtomator]

There's nothing ethical about purposely creating a crippled human being so you can harvest parts from it.

[litany_of_lies]

it's an effort by the baby-killers to find some compromise in the middle that will weaken our resolve and make us willing parties to their evil.

Thanks for pointing out the practical problems of embroynics vs. adult and cord cells.

I tend to agree with you on the motivation, especially after visiting the Advanced Cell Technology site, which creeps me out.

[valkyrieanne]

Boy, is that ever *creepy* (#36.)

[Marie]

According to a report in New Scientist magazine, embryos created by the new procedure contain two sets of chromosomes from the mother, but none from the father and so are unable to develop into babies.

OK, I'm not getting this. Wouldn't this be a clone or twin of the mother? Does it automatically stop dividing at the blastocyst stage?

[sweetliberty]

" They're just a clump of cells that do not have even a remote chance of becoming human."

Not yet, anyway, given the young state of this technology."

A human being, by definition, is the product of conception. No conception is taking place here, just the manipulation of cells. Science has been doing that for generations. Nothing an egg can be "tricked" into producing without a sperm cell could be accurately defined as a human being.

Still, it does boggle the mind. I suspect the death brigade would be unsatisfied with these stem cells anyway, since no life is sacrificed for their production. Preliminary research has already shown umbilical cord and adult stem cells to be more effective than embryonic stem cells in treating some targeted maladies, so why the big push for embryonic stem cells, if not for the idea of furthur devaluing human life?

[so_real]

Thanks, litany. If you are interested, here is link from a previous thread on FR -- it is an article about some real stem cell science that I can be supportive of : link

Non-embryonic technology is real; it works and it is truly ethical. "The procurement of stem cells from such sources does not harm the donor." I just can't find any reason to waste time, money, or morality on red herrings that serve only to legitimize abortion. My opinion, anyway.

[beavus]

But, I don't think a sperm cell is simply a lump of proteins. It also contains (at least) a genetic code, and chromosones, and probably other material that the cord would never have (inexpert assumption, admittedly).

But the egg already has genetic code. As another astute poster already pointed out, for some animals, that is sufficient. It is not yet known why it is never sufficient for humans, but it unlikely an absence of genes, seeing as mom has all the genes she needed. It most likely comes down to some proteins. One day someone may unlock the key, and feminists will have a field day.

[litany_of_lies]

I just can't find any reason to waste time, money, or morality on red herrings that serve only to legitimize abortion.

Thanks for the link. Me neither.

If I'm not mistaken, what CA voters just passed was for embryonic SCR only, which is simply horrible. The biotech industry doesn't need help being unethical, and now they have access to a taxpayer bonanza.

[beavus]

OK, I'm not getting this. Wouldn't this be a clone or twin of the mother? Does it automatically stop dividing at the blastocyst stage?

It's the difference between meiosis and mitosis. Most of mom's cells have a set of chromosomes from grandma and a set from grandpa. Mom's egg cells (prior to meiosis II), however, have either two sets from grandma, or two sets from grandpa, and so is different than mom's cells. So, not a clone.

Mitosis duplicates the genes into new cells. Meiosis splits the parentage of the genes into new cells.

[litany_of_lies]

I'm guessing that the egg's code isn't complete and needs the sperm's code to become complete. So I would think it's proteins AND genes.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Nonsense. Fully developed adult rabbits and mice have been produced parthenogenetically. A little more practice, and they'll be able to make parthenogenetic human embryos develop all the way.

[beavus]

I'm guessing that the egg's code isn't complete and needs the sperm's code to become complete. So I would think it's proteins AND genes.

The problem with that idea is that mom's egg chromosomes were sufficient for her conception. The only way this would make sense is if some duplication of genetic material is needed to increase excess amounts of some protein that mom's genes can already produce.

[GovernmentShrinker]

One parent duplicated set is shed as the first polar body in meiosis I. The remaining parent duplicated set separates in meiosis II into the second polar body and mature egg. The mature egg is therefore haploid before fertilization, not after.

Yes, but at least the second polar body is still within the zygote/embryo for a short time after fertilization. Not sure what happens to the first polar body or when.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Boy, is that ever *creepy* (#36.)"

It sure was. They clearly showed the failed fetus from the little boy. The hair was about five of six inches long. It was wavy and looked healthy. But when they cut open the specimen or whatever it was, it was sort of hollow where the brain should be and it looked like some sort of spongy tissue where the entrails should have been. Scientists speculate that about one in eight twin conceptions end up this way but most don't cause a problem. I guess because they don't grow as big as the one the little boy had. He was about 7 years old and had it in his belly.

[GovernmentShrinker]

it remains conceivable that parthenogenesis would occur (thought to be limited to insects) and actually produce a very sick form of life

Actually, it's easy to do in frogs (and other amphibians), and healthy adult rabbits and mice have been produced parthenogenetically (though it's very difficult and the vast majority of stimulated eggs fail early in development).

[GovernmentShrinker]

A human being, by definition, is the product of conception. No conception is taking place here, just the manipulation of cells.

What are you going to call a fully developed, breathing, thinking, feeling person who was developed from a cloning process (such as this parthenogentic process)? Rabbits and mice have already been produced parthenogenetically, and the technical obstacles to doing it in humans will no doubt be overcome shortly. Since you don't believe anything to be human unless it started by "conception", will you be okay with killing, enslaving, or otherwise abusing non-conceived people?