Replies

But that's why parthenogenesis is important, and - setting aside the morality of it for a moment - why researchers were interested in fetal stem cells in the first place - because it's important to understand the process of cell and tissue differentiation, and how generic cells morph into specialized forms. Adult stem cells have already undergone that differentiation, so you have to try to force them to generalize again, to see if you can force them to specialize in other directions than what they already are. But if you do that, you can't be sure that you're duplicating the natural process of differentiation unless you've studied the natural process of differentiation in the very early stages of development. And that's where parthenotes could prove important and worthwhile - you get the advantage of studying cells that are effectively equivalent to fetal stem cells, but you also have the advantage of not actually requiring a fetus to do so.

Yes, ideally the point is to someday take a swab of cells from the inside of your cheek and use the DNA to grow you a brand-new kidney, or whatever organ you might need, without requiring a full-blown clone that you strip for parts, but you can't do things like that unless you understand how to take some random specialized adult cell, force it into regressing back to the developmental point where organs and tissues are differentiating, and then guide it into growing into one single organ - and there's no way to do that unless you really understand how specialized cells and tissues and structures and organs come about from generic stem cells. And the only way to do that is to understand how the process takes place in the fetus. But now maybe we can learn those things without actually using fetuses, which is why I don't quite understand the resistance to the prospect of parthenogenesis - it seems to me to be an excellent middle ground.

Too bad Askel's not around any more - I'd truly be interested to hear her take, although I can guess what it would be ;)

First let me state that I do not want to slow the advancements of science and medicine down, but I have some grave concerns here.

You have repeatedly used the term embryos.

Your #27: “Add to that the fact that it is overwhelmingly likely that parthenogenetic embryos simply cannot develop into normal humans, and I think you're in the clear, morally speaking”

Your #28: “Right, fine. But as I said in my previous post, we're also talking about embryos here where it's extremely likely that it cannot develop into a viable human baby. If you actually implanted one into a womb, the likelihood is that it would just spontaneously abort or be reabsorbed or be stillborn anyway. We're talking about embryos that really aren't long-term viable anyway, so where does that leave us?”

Are they or are they not human embryos?

In your # 57 you start with: As you may have noticed, I'm trying to walk a middle ground here, and find some compromise that can satisfy everyone.”

In your #58 you start with: “setting aside the morality of it for a moment”

With all due respect “setting aside the morality of it for a moment” & “middle ground” are not acceptable with this subject.

Doing the science first and figuring out the morality after the fact sounds hauntingly familiar to: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

30 years and 42+ million dead babies later, this country is so dead to the truth that this very week people are debating weather or not Connor Peterson was a “Person” deserving equal protection under law. UNACCEPTABLE.

Also—if you could please let me know what your position on abortion is, that would give me a much more clear understanding as to your general fundamentals on Bio-ethics.