Posted on 09/12/2005 2:15:26 PM PDT by sourcery
LOL. I concede the point since I abhor activist courts.
Very probably. But also very probably not this year or next.
I'm not really clear in my own mind. I'm thinking of the distinction between: (a) science (physics, cosmology, etc.), which is the sort of stuff I ping one of my lists for, and (b) engineering news, for which I don't ping. Similarly, there's a distinction between: (a) evolutionary science, and (b) medical issues like stem-cell research, cloning, and similar items. I guess I'm thinking of medical research that has ethical issues -- perhaps a "Medical Research & Ethics" ping list.
But if I were doing it (and I won't be) I'd make sure to steer clear of hot-button issues like abortion and euthanasia. But if it's your ping list you can make the subject matter whatever you like.
I don't have a problem, major or otherwise, and my definition of human life is gleaned from science.
If I remember right, something like half of all pregnancies fail before the mother knows she's pregnant. Should we have funerals every month for this?
You want to reconsider this paragraph? Your premise is that the mother doesn't know she was pregnant. Kind of rules out a funeral.
I do not support abortion, because I think that unborn babies (they're NOT fetuses, except in pro-abortion propaganda lingo) have rights too. But when are unborn children a "person"?
Certainly before the second trimester, I think.
I think assigning personhood at some arbitrary time is just so much gobbledigook. But I'd be happy to hear your criteria for doing so.
My personal opinion is that if a woman is pregnant, the baby should have a right to live. And no one should be permitted to end the pregnancy. This is nothing whatever to do with abrogating any genuine "rights" of the woman, but everything with upholding the rights of the unborn baby.
Excellent.
But if a unique DNA sequence is formed in a petri dish, there is no pregnancy, and unless something further is done to implant the egg and make a "pregnancy", there never will be any child. Whatever happens in that case to further our understanding and help *other* children and adults live, then we should do it.
So your definition of human life includes a residency requirement?
Is it possible to extract stem cells without killing an embryo? If a frozen embryo is no longer viable and is going to be discarded as Biological waste and be destroyed anyways, would you still be against this procedure of research?
I am personally against federal funding of such research but I am also for advancing medical research and finding cures that can improve the lives of people already living. I am NOT in favor of starting life only to destroy it but I see this as a religous /moral battle against anything that goes against the teachings of the bible. Then again, I wonder how many FReepers have organ donor cards in their wallet?
I'm not trying to start a flame war either, just curious.
Not necessary. Reproductive cloning means that an embryologist can take an unfertilized recipient egg, take out its cell nucleus, leaving a hollow egg with just the outer coating, kind of like a shell. Then he takes a cell from your body, say a skin cell, takes out its nucleus, and inserts that nucleus into the hollow egg. You now have a one cell zygote identical to an egg fertilized by a sperm with one big difference--the female contributes no genes to the zygote as in sexual reproduction. This reproductive cloning process is asexual reproduction, and all the genetic material is yours.
The single cell zygote will now start to divide, that is it becomes an embryo cloned from you. The embryo continues to divide cells for about a week. At that point the embryologist must make a crucial decision. Either he can implant it into a uterus so that it becomes a fetus and eventually a baby which would be a clone or a twin of yourself. Or at the one week period, the embryologist can tear apart the embryo and harvest the stem cells in a process called therapeutic cloning. He can direct these stem cells to form specific types of body tissue or perhaps even grow them into some organ like a liver. Those tissues and organs will be genetically identical to your body tissue and the chances are that they will not be rejected if introduced into your body.
Am I in favor of doing this? No, but the science make this possible.
Yes, and this research may make it easier to do just that, by making adult stemcells as versatile as embryonic ones.
Yes, because it still involves the deliberate killing of a human being. The end does not justify the means.
Bottom line: How can I make money off of this information?
That's my definition. Anything else has no chance at life. Researching human DNA no different than taking healthy organs from a brain dead person to cure the disease of another.
Even less, actually. The dead person once was alive and had rights. In my opinion, a unique DNA code, merely because it happens to be a human DNA code, is not a human life.
You do have to set a dividing line somewhere, or as I said you should test for "pregnancy" every month and hold a funeral if it is unsuccessful. Those too are "unique human DNA sequences", and under your definition they are the same as a human.
I think, just my personal opinion, that the dividing line should be when a woman can be defined as "pregnant". A place where affirmative action must be taken, abortion, for that pregnancy to end. Unique DNA in a petri dish is a place where further affirmative action, pregnancy, is necessary to produce a human being. It is nothing otherwise.
But if they bag it and drop it into an incerator aren't they still taking a "Life"? I'm new to all of this discussion, do you not support Adult stem cell research as well? If a person dies at 80 and has a organ donor card, is this acceptable? It just seems like a waste not to further science and medicine if there is some hope of creating new ways of curing diseases or replacing damaged organs by using biological matter for doing so.
Yes, because the percentage of embryos that are found to be "non-viable" would almost certainly be higher if such uses were allowed than if they were not.
OK Reilly, catch ya on the flip flop.
If you mean dead, then sure, it's fine to use the cells. However, it is possible for the embryo to be still alive, but past the stage where it can be implanted in a womb.
It's still "somebody else". At that first cell division, differences appear.
Is it possible to extract stem cells without killing an embryo?
No, not to my knowledge.
If a frozen embryo is no longer viable and is going to be discarded as Biological waste and be destroyed anyways, would you still be against this procedure of research?
Yes, as I made clear above.
I am personally against federal funding of such research but I am also for advancing medical research and finding cures that can improve the lives of people already living.
I believe you are in a lopsided majority. I know of nobody who would not like to cure diseases.
I am NOT in favor of starting life only to destroy it but I see this as a religous /moral battle against anything that goes against the teachings of the bible.
Yeah, so? Moral absolutes are moral absolutes no matter where you derive them. I'm a creationist in the true sense of the word meaning that I belive God created the Universe and all thats in it. The mechanisms God used to do that are up to God. I'm also a Catholic and and I take the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas as a real good baseline. He teaches that the taking of innocent human life intentionally is a grave sin. He also teaches that failing to defend ones life or the life of the innocent is also a sin. I agree with him.
Then again, I wonder how many FReepers have organ donor cards in their wallet?
I do. I also donate blood every two months. What one has to do with the other is beyond me unless you're trying to make an argument that your appendix is a unique human being. I'd be happy to dissuade you of that notion if you'd like.
Similar research can be done with stem cells from cord blood but I understand where you're coming from and going to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.