NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/12/science.cloning.un.reut/index.html

So much for the "They don't want to ban embryonic stem cell research, they only want to stop government funding!!" argument.

Yay for stifling scientific progress in favor of religious dogma!

Now all we need to do is exorcise people of demons to cure illness.

Wait...its not okay to stop global air pollution just because it'll slowly destory the entire planet. Its bad for business (supposedly), so we can't try save the earth.

It is okay however, to save stem cells (by throwing them in a dumpster) from being researched even though it'll hurt business and the population in general.

The US's proposals at the UN are a little wacky at times.

I assume you two (Dempublicents and Hammolopolis) believe that human embryos are not people?

I think a ban on human cloning would be a good thing. The sticky point is that it includes embryonic stem cell research. I think that point is made moot by adult stem cells.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/12/science.cloning.un.reut/index.html

So much for the "They don't want to ban embryonic stem cell research, they only want to stop government funding!!" argument.

Did you even read the article to which you posted a link???

The article plainly states that it's "cloning embryos for stem cell research" President Bush is seeking a ban on, not stem cell research itself. There are a great number of people who consider this an unacceptable practice.

Those who advocate this practice, in my opinion, are the ones who have little faith in science to find alternate ways to conduct research in this important area. I strongly suspect that scientists will soon find a way to clone stem cells themselves, thus rendering this whole discussion moot.

I'm not just in favour of stem cell research, I am completely overwhelmingly in favour of cloning for personalised tissue/organ banks, as well as cloning for reproductive purposes.

Don't try feeding me that line about unborn babies, I want to raise my own clone.

I assume you two (Dempublicents and Hammolopolis) believe that human embryos are not people?




With the possibilities Stem Cell Reseach can offer, we can sacrafice a few embryos.

I assume you two (Dempublicents and Hammolopolis) believe that human embryos are not people?
Doesn't really matter what I believe, I'm not going to force you to follow my moral code.

You can choose to not get an abortion and not use stem cell treaments.
You can't choose that I can't get an abortion or use stem cell treaments.

If anyone would do a little real research, you would find that embryos are not the only place, or even the best place, to get stem cells from. The media is just playing it up as though stem cells from embryos is the only way to go. But that's just plain wrong.

True, but if you did a little more research you'd learn embryonic stem cell research holds the greatest possibility for medical breakthroughs.

If anyone would do a little real research, you would find that embryos are not the only place, or even the best place, to get stem cells from. The media is just playing it up as though stem cells from embryos is the only way to go. But that's just plain wrong.
Actually it isn't.

There are other ways to get Stem cells but they are harder to get. And so it is the best place to get them.

Plus its a blastoplasts not a embryo. Use the true term.

Adult steam cells are already specialized so they can only help the place where you get them. They also in short supply. Limited potential.

Blastoplasts stem cells are numberous. Do not require killing or harming Blastoplasts. Can change to suit any cells needs. (Unspecialized)
Have more potential.

I assume you two (Dempublicents and Hammolopolis) believe that human embryos are not people?

Even if you believe that life starts at fertilization. you should have no problem with therapeutic cloning, as there is no fertilization.

With the possibilities Stem Cell Reseach can offer, we can sacrafice a few embryos.
I really, REALLY don't like this line of reasoning!
You might be joking, I don't know. I'd like to hope you are, but you might not be, as well.

I think a ban on human cloning would be a good thing. The sticky point is that it includes embryonic stem cell research. I think that point is made moot by adult stem cells.

If you think that embryonic stem cells are made moot by adult stem cells, you have no knowledge in the field.

The two are very different, with very different potentials for medical uses.

If anyone would do a little real research, you would find that embryos are not the only place, or even the best place, to get stem cells from. The media is just playing it up as though stem cells from embryos is the only way to go. But that's just plain wrong.

Embryos are the only place to get *embryonic* stem cells, which are very different from adult stem cells, with very different medical potentials.

Doesn't really matter what I believe, I'm not going to force you to follow my moral code.

You can choose to not get an abortion and not use stem cell treaments.
You can't choose that I can't get an abortion or use stem cell treaments.
If embryos are people, then killing them for medical research is murder.
If they're not people, then maybe we can use them to benefit people.
My belief that embryos are people is not itself an ethical one, but a philosophical one. The morality comes in after having decided the philosophical point.

True, but if you did a little more research you'd learn embryonic stem cell research holds the greatest possibility for medical breakthroughs.
Sorry, I disagree. I've heard the people that claim that and I stand by the position that it's just not true.
A scientist friend of mine who happens to actually work in this particular field (he's currently working on the cure for certain types of cancer; he's starting human trials soon, so keep your fingers crossed) happens to hold the same view as myself, so I feel somewhat vindicated.

Maybe I'll post some sites to back up what I'm saying - if I have the time.

Embryos are the only place to get *embryonic* stem cells, which are very different from adult stem cells, with very different medical potentials.
I was refering to the stem cells found in the umbilical cord at birth (something else that is just thrown away but isn't controversial ie - no one thinks an umbilical cord is a human)

Sorry, I disagree. I've heard the people that claim that and I stand by the position that it's just not true.
A scientist friend of mine who happens to actually work in this particular field (he's currently working on the cure for certain types of cancer; he's starting human trials soon, so keep your fingers crossed) happens to hold the same view as myself, so I feel somewhat vindicated.

Maybe I'll post some sites to back up what I'm saying - if I have the time.
Well my position comes from the geneticist I talked to in Washington DC, in the Smithsonian. So I feel somewhat vindicated too.

I was refering to the stem cells found in the umbilical cord at birth (something else that is just thrown away but isn't controversial ie - no one thinks an umbilical cord is a human)

Those are still essentially adult stem cells. They are not totipotent, nor do they have the same proliferative potential as embryonic stem cells.

If embryos are people, then killing them for medical research is murder.
If they're not people, then maybe we can use them to benefit people.
My belief that embryos are people is not itself an ethical one, but a philosophical one. The morality comes in after having decided the philosophical point.

I'm not going to force you to follow my philosophical code either. Why should I be forced to follow yours?

If you think that embryonic stem cells are made moot by adult stem cells, you have no knowledge in the field.

The two are very different, with very different potentials for medical uses.

It's certainly not my field of study, but frankly even within the field there's debate. As it stands right now, which has *proven* to be more useful, embryonic, or adult stem cells?

True, but if you did a little more research you'd learn embryonic stem cell research holds the greatest possibility for medical breakthroughs.

Only at the present moment. Give it a year.

I'm not going to force you to follow my philosophical code either. Why should I be forced to follow yours?

No one is "forcing" you to do anything. Those who oppose cloning embryos for stem cell research are simply saying they don't want their tax money used for something they believe is morally wrong, not to mention unnecessary.

Sorry, I disagree. I've heard the people that claim that and I stand by the position that it's just not true.
A scientist friend of mine who happens to actually work in this particular field (he's currently working on the cure for certain types of cancer; he's starting human trials soon, so keep your fingers crossed) happens to hold the same view as myself, so I feel somewhat vindicated.

Maybe I'll post some sites to back up what I'm saying - if I have the time.

What do you mean by "this particular field"? Biology? Or stem cell biology? Because, being a biologist does not imply that your friend is an expert on stem cell biology.

*I* do work in this field. Specifically, I am working with adult bone marrow stem cells. And, as such, I have researched this particular area quite a bit. The potential for each type of stem cell is different. This is simply a fact of biology. There are diseases that adult stem cells cannot treat, as there are no adult stem cells that differentiate into certain types of non-proliferative cells. There are also diseases that adult stem cells may be better for than embryonic ones. This is why *both* lines of study must be pursued.

Stating that we should stick with one would be like saying we should have stopped looking for antibiotics when we found penicillin, even though penicillin won't *always* work.

Actually it isn't.

There are other ways to get Stem cells but they are harder to get. And so it is the best place to get them.

Plus its a blastoplasts not a embryo. Use the true term.

Adult steam cells are already specialized so they can only help the place where you get them. They also in short supply. Limited potential.

Blastoplasts stem cells are numberous. Do not require killing or harming Blastoplasts. Can change to suit any cells needs. (Unspecialized)
Have more potential.
It bans the cloning of embryos to get the stem cells. It says nothing of using the stem cells from aborted embryos. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to turn up any successes. Period.

On the other hand Adult and umbilical stem cells seem to be doing well.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200405130858.asp

Unless we all start citing research and posting links, this discussion will go nowhere. And, since I'm at work and shouldn't be doing this anyway, I feel as though my time here has expired.

It's certainly not my field of study, but frankly even within the field there's debate. As it stands right now, which has *proven* to be more useful, embryonic, or adult stem cells?

This is a silly question. There has been infinitely more study on adult stem cells, so of course we've gone farther with them. The truth remains, however, that they are not the end-all-be-all. There are degenerative diseases that cannot be treated with adult stem cells. Thus, alternative roads must be taken.

Which has *proven* to be more useful, rolling cars, or flying ones?

Which has *proven* to be more useful, the polio vaccine, or the SARS one?

Seriously, you can't compare the two until equal amounts of study have been done and both types of cells have been used in therapies.

No one is "forcing" you to do anything. Those who oppose cloning embryos for stem cell research are simply saying they don't want their tax money used for something they believe is morally wrong, not to mention unnecessary.
This measure would ban the cloning of embryionic stem cells the world over, not cut the research budget. I would say that is forcing.

I'm not going to force you to follow my philosophical code either. Why should I be forced to follow yours?
Who's forcing? We're discussing philosophy and ethics with each other, not going to war.
I don't know what country you are living in, but I'm pretty sure it's not a pure anarchy, because I've not heard that they exist, ever. Therefore, you are familiar with the concept of laws, and how a society has laws that it imposes on its members, whether they like them or not, though the democratic process may lead to a change in law.
What we are discussing is, what should the law be on stem-cell research and abortion? That's a legitimate discussion, no "forcing" involved.

Insert bump, here?

It bans the cloning of embryos to get the stem cells. It says nothing of using the stem cells from aborted embryos. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to turn up any successes. Period.

There are no "stem cells from aborted embryos". There *are* stem cells from embryos slated to be destroyed in IVF clinics.

However, those stem cells could most likely not be used in any therapies, as their DNA would not match the patient.

And "embryonic stem cell research has yet to turn up any successes" would only be a valid argument if the same amount of research had already been done on it. In truth, we are years behind in embryonic stem cell reseach, partially because we haven't known how to obtain them for as long as adult stem cells and partially because of over-zealous restrictions on said research.

Once upon a time, horse and buggy had proven more successful than cars. Is that true now?

On the other hand Adult and umbilical stem cells seem to be doing well.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200405130858.asp

Anyone who gets their news from nationalreview obviously doesn't have the motivation to do actual research and instead prefers an obviously biased source with no credibility whatsoever.

Who's forcing? We're discussing philosophy and ethics with each other, not going to war.
I don't know what country you are living in, but I'm pretty sure it's not a pure anarchy, because I've not heard that they exist, ever. Therefore, you are familiar with the concept of laws, and how a society has laws that it imposes on its members, whether they like them or not, though the democratic process may lead to a change in law.
What we are discussing is, what should the law be on stem-cell research and abortion? That's a legitimate discussion, no "forcing" involved.

If your only reason for passing a law is based in your own personal moral views, which others do not share, then you are forcing your morality on others.

No one is "forcing" you to do anything. Those who oppose cloning embryos for stem cell research are simply saying they don't want their tax money used for something they believe is morally wrong, not to mention unnecessary.

Unnecessary? Yes, I think we should continue to watch people suffer from horrible diseases that we might be able to treat.

Unnecessary? Yes, I think we should continue to watch people suffer from horrible diseases that we might be able to treat.

Operant word: "might."

Embryos are the only place to get *embryonic* stem cells, which are very different from adult stem cells, with very different medical potentials.
The "potential" in Embryonic stem cells is all hypothesized and as of yet there is not reliable evidence that any of the "potential" is actually there.

Operant word: "might."

Everything is a "might" until you try it.

Vaccines were once a "might".
All medicines were once a "might".
Heart transplants were once a "might".

And there is quite a bit of evidence in animal study to show that the chances of this "might" working out are very good.

If your only reason for passing a law is based in your own personal moral views, which others do not share, then you are forcing your morality on others.
What else am I suppose to base my opinions about the law on?
What do you base your opinions about the law on, other than your own personal moral views?

The "potential" in Embryonic stem cells is all hypothesized and as of yet there is not reliable evidence that any of the "potential" is actually there.

Says someone who has obviously not researched the topic. Try not to talk about something when you know nothing about it.

Do a little pubmed search darling, there is plenty of evidence.

What else am I suppose to base my opinions about the law on?
What do you base your opinions about the law on, other than your own personal moral views?

The law is meant to protect human beings from other human beings. The only reason to give an embryo the title "human being" is a religious one. One person's religious doctrine should never be forced upon another. Thus, without objective proof, the law should not recognize embryos as human beings.

There are no "stem cells from aborted embryos". There *are* stem cells from embryos slated to be destroyed in IVF clinics.

However, those stem cells could most likely not be used in any therapies, as their DNA would not match the patient.

And "embryonic stem cell research has yet to turn up any successes" would only be a valid argument if the same amount of research had already been done on it. In truth, we are years behind in embryonic stem cell reseach, partially because we haven't known how to obtain them for as long as adult stem cells and partially because of over-zealous restrictions on said research.

Once upon a time, horse and buggy had proven more successful than cars. Is that true now?


Anyone who gets their news from nationalreview obviously doesn't have the motivation to do actual research and instead prefers an obviously biased source with no credibility whatsoever.

I notice that you have no links pointing to any evidence. As such a vociferous proponent of it I would assume that you would have evidence yet there is no showing of it. It's also interesting to note your attack upon my source. Care to actually disprove with that stuff called evidence anything in the article?

:sniper:

The law is meant to protect human beings from other human beings. The only reason to give an embryo the title "human being" is a religious one. One person's religious doctrine should never be forced upon another. Thus, without objective proof, the law should not recognize embryos as human beings.
My belief that embryos are people does not spring from my faith in Jesus; the Bible says nothing clear-cut on the issue.
I believe life begins at fertilization because of genetic reasons. An ovum is haploid; a sperm is haploid. When the DNA from the sperm combines with the DNA from the egg, a new, diploid nucleus is formed. I believe, philosphically, that this is the most obvious time to declare that a new human life has started.
Your line about objective proof is specious. I could just as easily declare, "Without objective proof, the law should not assume that embryos are not human beings." This would not make my point any more than your statement made yours.

I notice that you have no links pointing to any evidence. As such a vociferous proponent of it I would assume that you would have evidence yet there is no showing of it. It's also interesting to note your attack upon my source. Care to actually disprove with that stuff called evidence anything in the article?

:sniper:

I don't have the time to do your research for you and get my work done. Do a pubmed search on embryonic stem cells.

Here:

http://www.pubmed.org

As for your source, the nationalreview is a *known* source of propaganda and trash. However, just for a lark, I looked at the article.

Things you should know:

Glial cells are not the type of neurons you need to reverse degenerative diseases like Parkinson's. No one has successfully used adult stem cells to get actual, functional, dopiminergic neurons. The one source that claimed to do so has since found that they were actually seeing cell fusion, not differentiation.

There are setbacks in every field of reserach. If we stopped reserach every time there was a setback, we would never make any progress. The studies in which cancer has resulted simply demonstrate that we need to differentiate the cells to a certain point *before* using them in therapy.

The cells that have shown karyotype problems have most likely done so due to the way in which they were grown (poor oxygen conditions, mouse feeder layer, artificial media, etc.), not due to an intrinsic problem with the cells. This is no way suggests that they would not be a possible source of therapy.

*OF COURSE* there are clinical trials going on with adult stem cells. We've known about them and researched them much longer - and they've had much less regulation than embryonic stem cells. However, none of this changes the simple fact that embryonic stem cells are totipotent, while adult stem cells are not. And there are not adult stem cells for every type of cell, as many cell types are non-proliferative.

My belief that embryos are people does not spring from my faith in Jesus; the Bible says nothing clear-cut on the issue.
I believe life begins at fertilization because of genetic reasons. An ovum is haploid; a sperm is haploid. When the DNA from the sperm combines with the DNA from the egg, a new, diploid nucleus is formed. I believe, philosphically, that this is the most obvious time to declare that a new human life has started.

However, that is still a philosophical argument. The scientific argument would be that nothing is life until it meets the requrirements of life. A zygote does not.

There is also the problem that such a statement means that any woman who is sexually active could be prosecuted for manslaughter at any time.

However, perhaps you should know that there is no sperm involved in cloning, so your definition wouldn't apply here anyways.

Your line about objective proof is specious. I could just as easily declare, "Without objective proof, the law should not assume that embryos are not human beings." This would not make my point any more than your statement made yours.

There is a big difference here. Your assumption would limit the rights of known human beings, mine would not.

I believe life begins at fertilization because of genetic reasons. An ovum is haploid; a sperm is haploid. When the DNA from the sperm combines with the DNA from the egg, a new, diploid nucleus is formed. I believe, philosphically, that this is the most obvious time to declare that a new human life has started.


What about tetragametic chimeras? A case where to embryos merge in utero, and a single child is born.

Yeah, they're very rare, but it does happen. When does the life for that single child start? When does the life for either (or both) of the embryos end? Which embryo ceases to be alive?

However, that is still a philosophical argument. The scientific argument would be that nothing is life until it meets the requrirements of life. A zygote does not.

There is also the problem that such a statement means that any woman who is sexually active could be prosecuted for manslaughter at any time.

However, perhaps you should know that there is no sperm involved in cloning, so your definition wouldn't apply here anyways.

Why do science rank higher than philosophy in making laws?
I am indeed opposed to any form of birth control that destroys a fertilised egg, on the grounds that it is an early abortion.
I am interested by the descriptions I have read on the web just now of therapeutic cloning, a.k.a. somatic cell nuclear transfer. Is it the case that such procedures NEVER involve sperm in any way, or is the transplanting of an adult nucleus into an ovum with the nucleus removed just the most common method?

There is a big difference here. Your assumption would limit the rights of known human beings, mine would not.
I know embryos are alive as much as you know they're not. Again, why does your interpretation of the scientific method determine law?

What about tetragametic chimeras? A case where to embryos merge in utero, and a single child is born.

Yeah, they're very rare, but it does happen. When does the life for that single child start? When does the life for either (or both) of the embryos end? Which embryo ceases to be alive?
No human is involved in causing this to happen, so there's nothing to legislate. Does such a child still only have one genetic code, with 23 pairs of chromosomes?

I know embryos are alive as much as you know they're not. Again, why does your interpretation of the scientific method determine law?
embryos are clearly and obviously alive. that doesn't mean they are human beings...not all living human tissue is a human being, and you better be glad that's the case because otherwise you are a mass murderer for the thousands of stomach cells you will shed today :).

What about tetragametic chimeras? A case where to embryos merge in utero, and a single child is born.

Yeah, they're very rare, but it does happen. When does the life for that single child start? When does the life for either (or both) of the embryos end? Which embryo ceases to be alive?
and what about identical twins? at conception they are ONE diploid zygote, just like any single-birth child is at conception, and it is only later in development that the zygote divides into two embryos. are such twins, therefore, only one person who happens to have two bodies?

Why do science rank higher than philosophy in making laws?

Philosophy is subjective. Science is objective.

I am indeed opposed to any form of birth control that destroys a fertilised egg, on the grounds that it is an early abortion.

You don't have to have birth control to end up causing a spontaneous abortion. If you are not willing to prosecute mothers whose busy lifestyles induce miscarriage or improper attachment, you need to reevaluate your philosophy.

I am interested by the descriptions I have read on the web just now of therapeutic cloning, a.k.a. somatic cell nuclear transfer. Is it the case that such procedures NEVER involve sperm in any way, or is the transplanting of an adult nucleus into an ovum with the nucleus removed just the most common method?

Therapeutic cloning would always be cloning, thus sperm would never be used. The DNA from the egg is removed. Then, either an entire somatic cell (this is the usual method) or just the DNA from said cell is inserted into the egg. The egg is then artificially induced to begin dividing.

Evidence from other animals and humans points to the fact that getting this embryo past the 8-day stage is highly improbable, so reproductive cloning is certainly not yet a worry. Of course, I do believe that reproductive cloning should be banned in case someone does try to increase that time line, and it is simply those who won't pass anything that doesn't also ban therapeutic cloning that have kept this from happening.

No human is involved in causing this to happen, so there's nothing to legislate. Does such a child still only have one genetic code, with 23 pairs of chromosomes?

No, such a child has two genetic codes, in different cells.

I know embryos are alive as much as you know they're not. Again, why does your interpretation of the scientific method determine law?

(a) Alive =/= a life

(b) My interpretation doesn't "determine law." It keeps a restriction based in subjectivism from being placed on people who do not agree with it.
Someone's philosophy might lead them to believe that we should legislate that women are inferior. Science would demonstrate that this is not so, that their subjective philosophy should not be forced upon others, and that the law should not be passed.

Everything is a "might" until you try it.

Vaccines were once a "might".
All medicines were once a "might".
Heart transplants were once a "might".

And there is quite a bit of evidence in animal study to show that the chances of this "might" working out are very good.

( shrug ) So let science try other ways to generate sufficient stem cells for medical purposes. Why the rush?

No human is involved in causing this to happen, so there's nothing to legislate. Does such a child still only have one genetic code, with 23 pairs of chromosomes?

Nope. There will be two unique codes in that single person.

There's no need to legislate about the event itself, but where does that child's life being? Is it at the fertilization of one cell, both cells, when they merge? At birth?

When the birth occurs, the child is as normal as any other you'd see. Just his/her internal genetic code is different.

Philosophy is subjective. Science is objective.

You don't have to have birth control to end up causing a spontaneous abortion. If you are not willing to prosecute mothers whose busy lifestyles induce miscarriage or improper attachment, you need to reevaluate your philosophy.

Therapeutic cloning would always be cloning, thus sperm would never be used. The DNA from the egg is removed. Then, either an entire somatic cell (this is the usual method) or just the DNA from said cell is inserted into the egg. The egg is then artificially induced to begin dividing.

Evidence from other animals and humans points to the fact that getting this embryo past the 8-day stage is highly improbable, so reproductive cloning is certainly not yet a worry. Of course, I do believe that reproductive cloning should be banned in case someone does try to increase that time line, and it is simply those who won't pass anything that doesn't also ban therapeutic cloning that have kept this from happening.
Science is not objective. It is carried out by human beings, who cannot prevent their own subjective worldviews from affecting the way they carry out experiments, and the way they interpret data.
Your point about mothers with busy lifestyles is interesting. However, since intent is a factor in the law, your statement doesn't entirely stand up. If fertilised eggs are people, then taking the morning-after pill is equivalent to opening the door to a small darkened room and throwing in a hand grenade with the pin out. You may not know if there's anyone alive in the room, but you want to make sure that there won't be. An accidental miscarriage could be viewed as negligence if the mother knew she was pregnant, but failed to provide a safe environment for her child to grow in, but it would depend on the circumstances of each individual case.
Your statements on therapeutic cloning are interesting as well. Has there ever been an attempt to implant such a pre-embryo into a womb? If so, what were the results?

( shrug ) So let science try other ways to generate sufficient stem cells for medical purposes. Why the rush?

Because the quicker the cure is found, the more people it can save.

I mean why the big rush to cure cancer? They'll get around to it eventually, somehow.

( shrug ) So let science try other ways to generate sufficient stem cells for medical purposes. Why the rush?

So you'd rather wait until scientists get to the point where they can create life? Because that is the only way they'll get totipotent stem cells other than from embryos.

( shrug ) So let science try other ways to generate sufficient stem cells for medical purposes. Why the rush?
you're kidding, right? you realize that people are suffering and dying from illnesses that stem cell research could help cure, right? are you honestly saying, "what's the hurry" in SAVING LIVES?! what the hell kind of a "pro-life" stance is that?! it's so essential that we stop abortion and stem cell research NOW to save all these little fetuses, but when it comes to the lives and health of post-birth fetuses...well, what's the hurry? i mean, now that they are born, who really cares if they suffer or die?

Science is not objective. It is carried out by human beings, who cannot prevent their own subjective worldviews from affecting the way they carry out experiments, and the way they interpret data.

Individuals are non-subjective. However, there are many restrictions put in place to ensure that *science* is. A subjective study that has not looked at several possibilities will be *very* unlikely to make it through a credible peer-reviewed journal.

Your point about mothers with busy lifestyles is interesting. However, since intent is a factor in the law, your statement doesn't entirely stand up.

Intent is not a factor in manslaughter. Only negligence resulting in loss of life is. By definition, a sexually active woman knows she may be pregnant, regardless of what actions she has taken to prevent that. If she leads a busy lifestyle, she knows that she may be endangering what you see as being a human life. Therefore, to be consistent, you must be willing to prosecute her with manslaughter.

An accidental miscarriage could be viewed as negligence if the mother knew she was pregnant, but failed to provide a safe environment for her child to grow in, but it would depend on the circumstances of each individual case.

Do you have to know that someone is going to be standing on the sidewalk to be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter if you are driving dangerously and hit them?

Your statements on therapeutic cloning are interesting as well. Has there ever been an attempt to implant such a pre-embryo into a womb? If so, what were the results?

No one has tried this, to my knowledge. Even in the lab, only one group has yet gotten the embryo to divide to the point where stem cells could be extracted. They managed this by using much finer instruments than those used in animal experiments. ((This was the Korean group that the media hyped as having "created a human clone" a few months back)).

It has worked out in lower mammals, but they have not yet reproductively cloned any higher-order mammals (apes, monkeys, people). Even in sheep or cows, only 1 in about 100 attempts results in a viable clone - another reason why I don't think research like that should be pushed forward into human studies.

Individuals are non-subjective. However, there are many restrictions put in place to ensure that *science* is. A subjective study that has not looked at several possibilities will be *very* unlikely to make it through a credible peer-reviewed journal.

Intent is not a factor in manslaughter. Only negligence resulting in loss of life is. By definition, a sexually active woman knows she may be pregnant, regardless of what actions she has taken to prevent that. If she leads a busy lifestyle, she knows that she may be endangering what you see as being a human life. Therefore, to be consistent, you must be willing to prosecute her with manslaughter.


I understand that there are processes in the scientific community intended to weed out bias, but if the vast bulk of the scientific community shares a false premise, they will all incorporate said premise into their peer-review system.

I think you may have convinced me on your point about sexually active women with busy lifestyles. The fact that such an application of the law is unenforceable is besides the point, ethically speaking. I'd want to see more evidence on what effect lifestyle has on spontaneous abortion rates, though.

Incidentally, on the subject of twins and tetragametic chimeras, I have a weblink here (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life014.html) that makes some interesting points.

less money for research means more for war and for tax cuts for the rich.

I don't have the time to do your research for you and get my work done. Do a pubmed search on embryonic stem cells.

Here:

http://www.pubmed.org

The best I can find is an article describing how embryonic stem cells in theory could help repair certain types of vertebrae damage that most adult stem cells haven't yet been useful in repairing. Of course it goes on to say that there is the slight proble of tumors continually ocurring in the experiment.

The best I can find is an article describing how embryonic stem cells in theory could help repair certain types of vertebrae damage that most adult stem cells haven't yet been useful in repairing. Of course it goes on to say that there is the slight proble of tumors continually ocurring in the experiment.

*sigh*

So you missed this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15476533

This one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15472070

This one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15462378

This one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15351793

Should I go on? Or will you actually do the research next time instead of just pretending?

Hmm, interesting. Two advancements that may turn this whole arguement over the morality of it irrelevant.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/uot-skr102904.php

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=15496

Should be interesting.

Hmm, interesting. Two advancements that may turn this whole arguement over the morality of it irrelevant.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/uot-skr102904.php

It clearly states that these cells are multipotent, not totipotent, so this wouldn't change things.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=15496

Should be interesting.

This is interesting, but the last time someone made a statement like this, it turned out to not be true differentiation. This is why I have a problem with the media reporting science to the uneducated masses. I'll wait and see how this one turns out though.