Replies

I found this and I think it applies to the discussion.

“What happens when a skin cell turns into a totipotent stem cell [a cell capable of developing into a complete organism] is that a few of its genetic switches are turned on and others turned off," writes University of Melbourne bioethicist Julian Savulescu in the April 1999 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. "To say it doesn't have the potential to be a human being until its nucleus is placed in the egg cytoplasm [i.e., cloning] is like saying my car does not have the potential to get me from Melbourne to Sydney unless the key is turned in the ignition."

Like turning the key in the ignition to begin a journey, simply starting a human egg on a particular path, either through fertilization or cloning, is a necessary condition for developing a human being, but it isn't sufficient. A range of other conditions must also be present. Those conditions include the availability of a suitable environment such as a woman's womb.

"I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilised egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained."

"If all our cells could be persons, then we cannot appeal to the fact that an embryo could be a person to justify the special treatment we give it," concludes Savulescu.

The DNA content of a skin cell, a stem cell, and a fertilized egg are exactly the same. The difference between what they are and what they could become is the environment in which their DNA is found. Thus, the mere existence of human DNA in a cell cannot be the source of a relevant moral difference. The differences among these cells are a result of how the genes in each are expressed, and that expression depends largely on which proteins suppress or promote which genes.

So people who oppose stem cell research must logically be committed to the notion that the only difference between your skin cell and your twin are the proteins that decorate their DNA strands. But can moral relevance really be reduced to the presence or absence of certain proteins in a cell?

You will first note that the quote you cited refers to taking the nucleus of the skin cell (a somatic cell- a cell which has differentiated as far as possible down the ladder of specification) and injecting that nuclear material into the enucleated ovum (a sex cell which has the powerful ability to begin differentiation along the long line of steps that build the body). To denegrate this injection and the very special cell that a sex cell is, to merely a location, is the reducio absurdum of apology for cannibalism ... the effort to reduce all life to chemical functions and the parts, ignoring the whole as more than the list of the parts.

Perhaps waht threw you was the following purposeful onfuscation: “What happens when a skin cell turns into a totipotent stem cell [a cell capable of developing into a complete organism]... The skin cell doesn't turn into the totipotent stem cell, and the writer knew that but chose to make the false statement as an aid in creating fertile ground for his chosen lie about to be supported (supporting a strawman is unusual, but it is still dishonest). The skin cell has the DNA removed, then the DNA of the individual from whom the skin cell came is then injected into the enucleated donor sex cell and zapped, to force cell division of a new individual human life (that's a whole new individual, not just a skin cell in different location).

the only difference between your skin cell and your twin are the proteins that decorate their DNA strands

If skin cells really were the same as humans, we'd all have little humans growing off of our bodies.

The differences between skin cells and humans are obviously not minor ones, even if the differences are microscopic or submicroscopic.

The diffenence is in stimulating the skin cell so that it begins to differentiate and develop as a new individual (assuming that it's possible, some day). That is creating a twin or a clone.

The ethical delemma come in when the oocyte and the sperm do not unite, if the nucleus in the emptied oocyte is not stimulated in such a way as to begin development, or if the skin cell is not stimulated to de-differentiate. It is wrong to cause any of these actions with the intention of killing the new human life.