NationStates Jolt Archive

Fascinating story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1530&u=/afp/20041128/wl_asia_afp/health_stemcell_paralysis_skorea&printer=1).

I've been out of town for a week and away from the boards, so forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I think it's significant both from a scientific/medical and a political point of view.

A South Korean woman paralyzed for 20 years is walking again after scientists say they repaired her damaged spine using stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood.

Hwang Mi-Soon, 37, had been bedridden since damaging her back in an accident two decades ago.

Last week her eyes glistened with tears as she walked again with the help of a walking frame at a press conference where South Korea (news - web sites) researchers went public for the first time with the results of their stem-cell therapy.

They said it was the world's first published case in which a patient with spinal cord injuries had been successfully treated with stem cells from umbilical cord blood.

Though they cautioned that more research was needed and verification from international experts was required, the South Korean researchers said Hwang's case could signal a leap forward in the treatment of spinal cord injuries.
Now this case uses umbilical stemcells instead of embryonic stem cells, but it does seem to give the lie to the claim made by First Lady Bush during the campaign that we shouldn't do stem cell research since there's no indication that any good will ever come from it.

So what's your call? Will this case, assuming it can be confirmed, finally shut the naysayers up about the use of stem cells in medical research?

Come on conservative assholes, tell us stemcell research is stupid.

Flamebait. :rolleyes:

This is basically copied from my response in the other thread, but it's easier than linking to it.

I am happy for this woman, but let's not jump to conclusions too quickly.

It does seem very promising. However, we cannot say anything definitive until she dies and (hopefully) has an autopsy. Chances are that these cells became astrocytes and other such "helper" cells which simply aided the neurons she still had left (as has happened in other similar models). Therefore, the claim that this will do away with embryonic stem cell research is incredibly premature, as there is *no* evidence that cord blood cells can become actual functional neurons.

I really wish the media would just shut up and wait for the science to work itself out.

i'm not surprised. at all. stem cells can do anything.

So what's your call? Will this case, assuming it can be confirmed, finally shut the naysayers up about the use of stem cells in medical research?

The naysayers (the vast majority of them anyway) are against embryonic stem cell research, not umbilical stem cell research or adult stem cell research. They are against it because they believe that life begins at conception and therefore, creating embryos just to harvest stem cells from is wrong. The same goes with already existing embryos. The moral analogy for this is that it isn't right to use stolen money, no matter how good your intentions. In the embryonic case, the unused embryos are like the "stolen money".

Of course, this stance brings up other questions like "is there life at conception?" and "if so, do those embryos deserve the same rights?" I strongly believe that the answer to both questions is "yes" but perhaps that argument should be saved for another thread.

Anyway, I'm writing this to show that there are more valid reasons to oppose embryonic stem cell research than what Barbara Bush put forth. People see this as murder, or at least profiting from murder, to save others. So you can see why there is the controversy.

This case you put forth in no way changes the view. If anything, it shows that we can make progress with stem cell sources other than embryos, even though embryonic cells are more "flexible" than the cells from other sources.

Of course, this stance brings up other questions like "is there life at conception?" and "if so, do those embryos deserve the same rights?" I strongly believe that the answer to both questions is "yes" but perhaps that argument should be saved for another thread.

Nah, threads morph all the time.

Just answer this:

If a woman lives a very busy lifestyle and sometimes forgets to feed her three-year old child, and the child dies, regardless of whether or not she knew it was malnourished - is this neglect worthy of prosecution?

If a woman lives a very busy lifestyle and sometimes doesn't eat or sleep, and this results in a miscarriage, regardless of whether or not she was absolutely sure she was pregnant - is this neglect worth of prosecution?

If the answer is not the same on both counts, then you don't really believe that an embryo is deserving of all the same rights.

This case you put forth in no way changes the view. If anything, it shows that we can make progress with stem cell sources other than embryos, even though embryonic cells are more "flexible" than the cells from other sources.

This is a very illogical viewpoint. If we can make progress with penicillin, should we stop investigating other medicines?

Since we know how to transplant hearts, should we stop trying other forms of treatment?

Since we know that balloon angioplasty sometimes works, should we stop trying to improve cardiac bypass surgery?

We can and have made progress with all types of stem cells available, but the progress is often different, and what you can do with one type often simply can't be done with another.

Fascinating story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1530&u=/afp/20041128/wl_asia_afp/health_stemcell_paralysis_skorea&printer=1).

I've been out of town for a week and away from the boards, so forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I think it's significant both from a scientific/medical and a political point of view.


Now this case uses umbilical stemcells instead of embryonic stem cells, but it does seem to give the lie to the claim made by First Lady Bush during the campaign that we shouldn't do stem cell research since there's no indication that any good will ever come from it.

So what's your call? Will this case, assuming it can be confirmed, finally shut the naysayers up about the use of stem cells in medical research?
Umbilical stem cells are "adult" stem cells. Gov. Funding is well in place for that sort of research.

Makes me feel even better that I pressured my mom to voting for California to spend millions of dollars on said research.

Just answer this:

If a woman lives a very busy lifestyle and sometimes forgets to feed her
three-year old child, and the child dies, regardless of whether or not she knew it was malnourished - is this neglect worthy of prosecution?

If a woman lives a very busy lifestyle and sometimes doesn't eat or sleep, and this results in a miscarriage, regardless of whether or not she was absolutely sure she was pregnant - is this neglect worth of prosecution?

If the answer is not the same on both counts, then you don't really believe that an embryo is deserving of all the same rights.


The answer I would give to both of these questions is "yes" whereas the law as it is currently would say yes to the first one and no to the second one. I believe the law to be wrong in both this case and other related cases like with abortion, for example.

Immediately after conception, the embryo has it's own human DNA and will continue to develop unless stopped (killed by my definition). It seems to me to be 1.Its own person 2.Alive and 3.Human. In essence, it's just a less developed human being. Babies have laws protecting them against both murder and neglect so why not embryos? Every reason I've heard has always struck me as arbitrary or just plain not effective. Feel free to explain why you feel it shouldn't get the same rights, it's possible I haven't heard yours yet (I'm being genuine- not sarcastic)




This is a very illogical viewpoint. If we can make progress with penicillin, should we stop investigating other medicines?


Since we know how to transplant hearts, should we stop trying other forms of treatment?

Since we know that balloon angioplasty sometimes works, should we stop trying to improve cardiac bypass surgery?

We can and have made progress with all types of stem cells available, but the progress is often different, and what you can do with one type often simply can't be done with another.

My argument is that it shouldn't be done because it's murder. The part about the other forms is just "it wouldn't be so bad" attempt to console those who still aren't convinced, not an argument against embryonic stem cell research.

The answer I would give to both of these questions is "yes" whereas the law as it is currently would say yes to the first one and no to the second one. I believe the law to be wrong in both this case and other related cases like with abortion, for example.

Well, at least you are consistent.

Immediately after conception, the embryo has it's own human DNA and will continue to develop unless stopped (killed by my definition). It seems to me to be 1.Its own person 2.Alive and 3.Human. In essence, it's just a less developed human being. Babies have laws protecting them against both murder and neglect so why not embryos? Every reason I've heard has always struck me as arbitrary or just plain not effective. Feel free to explain why you feel it shouldn't get the same rights, it's possible I haven't heard yours yet (I'm being genuine- not sarcastic)

Well, as far as legal issues go, a woman does not always know she is pregnant before the possibility of a miscarriage. If you hold her to neglect if her lifestyle causes a miscarriage (which you would have to do if you mean to give all the same rights to an embryo), every sexually active woman becomes liable for neglect/manslaughter every day of her life. If she works out too hard, she may be killing someone. If she skips a few meals, she may be killing someone. If she stays up too late, she may be killing someone. You have just turned women into nothing but possible baby-incubators who have to be careful all day every day in case they might be pregnant.

Meanwhile, despite my own misgivings about abortion, the scientific view is clear. The fetus does not even meet the requirements to be termed an organism, much less a human organism, until it has developed a sufficient nervous system to sense and respond to stimuli *as an organism*. This does not occur until roughly the end of the first trimester. Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, there is no reason to grant *any* legal rights to an embryo/fetus until that point.

Our law (in nearly every state) grants the fetus protection at that point, as elective abortions are no longer allowed and there must be a health risk.

Once the fetus reaches viability, one could argue that it could receive *all* the rights afforded to a human being and the pregnancy can only be terminated if the woman's *life* is in danger, as it is still essentially living a parasitic life off of her, so, if her life is endangered, she cannot be forced to provide it sustenance. However, all attempts to preserve *both* lives should be made at this point.

My argument is that it shouldn't be done because it's murder. The part about the other forms is just "it wouldn't be so bad" attempt to console those who still aren't convinced, not an argument against embryonic stem cell research.

If life starts at fertilization, then you should have no problem with therapeutic cloning, as there is no fertilization. In fact, there is no sperm involved at all.

The naysayers (the vast majority of them anyway) are against embryonic stem cell research, not umbilical stem cell research or adult stem cell research. They are against it because they believe that life begins at conception and therefore, creating embryos just to harvest stem cells from is wrong. The same goes with already existing embryos. The moral analogy for this is that it isn't right to use stolen money, no matter how good your intentions. In the embryonic case, the unused embryos are like the "stolen money".

Of course, this stance brings up other questions like "is there life at conception?" and "if so, do those embryos deserve the same rights?" I strongly believe that the answer to both questions is "yes" but perhaps that argument should be saved for another thread.

Anyway, I'm writing this to show that there are more valid reasons to oppose embryonic stem cell research than what Barbara Bush put forth. People see this as murder, or at least profiting from murder, to save others. So you can see why there is the controversy.

This case you put forth in no way changes the view. If anything, it shows that we can make progress with stem cell sources other than embryos, even though embryonic cells are more "flexible" than the cells from other sources.

I agree 100%

I also am glad you spoke up because I don't have to present my case, you presented it for me.

isn't umbilical cord stem cell research the darling of conservatives because no embryos are destroyed?

isn't umbilical cord stem cell research the darling of conservatives because no embryos are destroyed?

Generally, but they have to ignore its limitations.

American politics aside, this is a momentous and wonderful occaision.

A true and profound milestone in the history of medicine.

I for one, extend my greatest and deepest thanks to all the researchers in the world working to cure disease and repair injury.

Humanity is truly in their debt.

This is a very illogical viewpoint. If we can make progress with penicillin, should we stop investigating other medicines?


It's only illogical when the context is ignored.

If penicillin were shown to have no side-effects, and other medicines were shown to result in death in 10% of patients, I would hope that we would stop trying the other medicines, instead of trying them "just to make sure they still kill you and haven't been miraculously transformed into a safe option"*.

I think that is an illogical viewpoint.

*no, no one actually said that (I hope). But that's the impression that I get sometimes.

American politics aside, this is a momentous and wonderful occaision.

A true and profound milestone in the history of medicine.

And this is why the media shouldn't report things like this. What will you do if it turns out that it was more of a placebo effect? Or that she had been healing all this time and this just dislodged something? Or that no one else is ever helped by the same therapy.

The researchers themselves even pointed out the fact that this one case proves *nothing*. Without much, much more study and comparable controls, we have no idea what exactly helped this woman. Don't jump to conclusions, as all it does is make things much worse on those of us who research these things.

I for one, extend my greatest and deepest thanks to all the researchers in the world working to cure disease and repair injury.

Humanity is truly in their debt.

Um...your welcome.

It's only illogical when the context is ignored.

If penicillin were shown to have no side-effects, and other medicines were shown to result in death in 10% of patients, I would hope that we would stop trying the other medicines, instead of trying them "just to make sure they still kill you and haven't been miraculously transformed into a safe option"*.

I think that is an illogical viewpoint.

*no, no one actually said that (I hope). But that's the impression that I get sometimes.

This completely ignores the point I was making. Penicillin cannot cure all diseases, thus research into other medicines was necessary.

Every time something happens in adult stem cell research, people say "See! Now we can stop doing embryonic stem cell research!" ignoring the fact that a cure/treatment for one thing does not mean that every human disease is miraculously cured.

Though i'm sure i'm not as intelligent as half the people posting on this thread. The embryos used in stem cell resarch come from in vitro fertilization. When a couple decides to use in vitro fertilization several embryos are made but ultimately one is used. Those that are left over are put into storage indefinately. If they aren't used for research, they'd be discarded. There are an estimated 400 thousand embryos in storage right now. Wouldn't you think using those embryos for research is better than just discarding them? Plus around 128 million people may benifit from stem cell research. One embryo that will probably never see the light of day no matter what vs 128 million people suffering from diabilitating disesase...

Plus I am all against animal testing, they do some horrible things. But if my mom were sick and a medicine that came from animal testing could help her, i'd be grateful for it. In the end you may feel that it is wrong, but if it could save your family's life would you not condone it?

This completely ignores the point I was making. Penicillin cannot cure all diseases, thus research into other medicines was necessary.

Every time something happens in adult stem cell research, people say "See! Now we can stop doing embryonic stem cell research!" ignoring the fact that a cure/treatment for one thing does not mean that every human disease is miraculously cured.

I was not ignoring the point. I was mocking it, to debase it's credibility.

Stem cells cannot cure all diseases. I'm not saying we should stop doing embronic stem cell research because stem cells from umbilical cord blood can do almost the same thing. I'm saying we never should have began embryonic stem cell research, because, in my view, it is taking a life to POTENTIALLY save another. Don't tell me an embryo, a zygote, or a fetus isn't a life. You won't change my position, because I've heard all the arguments before.

If I think it's taking a life, why shouldn't I be opposed to it?

Plus I am all against animal testing, they do some horrible things. But if my mom were sick and a medicine that came from animal testing could help her, i'd be grateful for it. In the end you may feel that it is wrong, but if it could save your family's life would you not condone it?

Just in case it makes you feel better, there aren't many "horrible" things done in animal testing. Lab animals are often treated better than most pets, and definitely better than most farm animals. Unless the study is about pain, nothing even remotely painful is done without painkillers being administered, and sick animals have to be seen to *immediately*. In the rare cases that social animals are used, there are set-in-stone requirements for non-experimental human interaction and play time.

If I think it's taking a life, why shouldn't I be opposed to it?

If your view is based entirely in religion, which it would just about have to be as a scientific viewpoint says otherwise, why should you be able to force your religion on others?

One embryo that will probably never see the light of day no matter what vs 128 million people suffering from diabilitating disesase...

Plus I am all against animal testing, they do some horrible things. But if my mom were sick and a medicine that came from animal testing could help her, i'd be grateful for it. In the end you may feel that it is wrong, but if it could save your family's life would you not condone it?

If only embros could volunteer themselves... then I think I would be an avid supporter of embryonic stem cell research.

If your view is based entirely in religion, which it would just about have to be as a scientific viewpoint says otherwise, why should you be able to force your religion on others?

Why should I be ABLE to? That's an interesting question. But a pointless one, because, like it or not, I am able to.

Which brings us to the question of why should I.

I should because my religion tells me to protect life.

Why should death be forced on people to POSSIBLY help people with diseases?

Well, as far as legal issues go, a woman does not always know she is pregnant before the possibility of a miscarriage. If you hold her to neglect if her lifestyle causes a miscarriage (which you would have to do if you mean to give all the same rights to an embryo), every sexually active woman becomes liable for neglect/manslaughter every day of her life. If she works out too hard, she may be killing someone. If she skips a few meals, she may be killing someone. If she stays up too late, she may be killing someone. You have just turned women into nothing but possible baby-incubators who have to be careful all day every day in case they might be pregnant.

True, but the difference between this scenario and creating embryos just to be destroyed is the same as intentional murder and say, killing a friend in a hunting accident. The hunting accident isn't murder not because the victim wasn't alive or human, but because it was an accident.

Accidents happen all the time to adults, yet it's still not ok to kill them intentionally. Likewise, a number of things could cause an embryo to die. This, to me, isn't justification to purposefully kill them.


Meanwhile, despite my own misgivings about abortion, the scientific view is clear. The fetus does not even meet the requirements to be termed an organism, much less a human organism, until it has developed a sufficient nervous system to sense and respond to stimuli *as an organism*. This does not occur until roughly the end of the first trimester. Therefore, from a scientific standpoint, there is no reason to grant *any* legal rights to an embryo/fetus until that point.

Our law (in nearly every state) grants the fetus protection at that point, as elective abortions are no longer allowed and there must be a health risk.


What scientific view is this? A man in a coma can't respond to stimulus (depending on that specific coma) but he still has his rights. Heck, a recently dead man in the process of being revived can't do anything, but I would imagine that it would be illegal to shoot him in the head. (I know I wouldn't be pleased if that was someone I knew). I doubt that the law says it's ok to terminate an adult human life based on the status of the person's nervous system. So why should it with unborns?


Once the fetus reaches viability,


If the fetus isn't killed, it will continue to grow and not die. That seems viable to me.


one could argue that it could receive *all* the rights afforded to a human being and the pregnancy can only be terminated if the woman's *life* is in danger, as it is still essentially living a parasitic life off of her,


I think that a parasite is a parasite and an unborn human is an unborn human. A newborn baby is a financial parasite and even a physical one if it's allowed to breast feed. Yet it's illegal to kill it.



If life starts at fertilization, then you should have no problem with therapeutic cloning, as there is no fertilization. In fact, there is no sperm involved at all.

If I understand it correctly, an embryo is still destroyed in the process.

If I understand it correctly, an embryo is still destroyed in the process.

Without sperm, it's not an embryo. It's not even a zygote.

What scientific view is this? A man in a coma can't respond to stimulus (depending on that specific coma) but he still has his rights.

(a) This man is already an organism, while the fetus is not yet one.
(b) A person in a coma *can* and *does* respond to stimuli in a reflexive manner.

I doubt that the law says it's ok to terminate an adult human life based on the status of the person's nervous system. So why should it with unborns?

With unborns, we are not terminating a life - we are preventing one from coming into being. The two are not comparable.

If the fetus isn't killed, it will continue to grow and not die. That seems viable to me.

If we are going to do everything by your personal definitions because you are the supreme being, fine. However, in science, a viable fetus is one that can survive on its own, outside the womb.

I think that a parasite is a parasite and an unborn human is an unborn human.

Again with your personal definitions that mean nothing in the scheme of things. I can say that I believe a parasite is a pink unicorn, but that wouldn't make it so.

A newborn baby is a financial parasite and even a physical one if it's allowed to breast feed. Yet it's illegal to kill it.

(a) It is illegal to kill a viable fetus as well, so what does this have to do with anything?
(b) At this point, it is clearly its own life which can survive outside of the mother. Therefore, it is in not endangering her life, and, if it is, it can be taken elsewhere.

If I understand it correctly, an embryo is still destroyed in the process.

An embryo of a sort, but there is no fertilization or even sperm involved. The egg is artificially made to start dividing, and would most likely never continue dividing past about 8 days.

And then, I always ask myself, since when did an embryo have greater rights than a person who is already living, and has suffered from his diseases for whatever amount of time. Should these people suffer just so that an embryo can live? Wow, I don't think that is our decision to make any case.

Of course, the same is true in reverse. :confused:

Without sperm, it's not an embryo. It's not even a zygote.

I know, but I was still under the impression that embryonic stem cells were needed at some point in the process. I guess I was wrong though, looking at some sources now. Anyway, I would have to learn more about therapeutic cloning before I could make a decision.

(I still hold that embryonic stem cell research should be illegalized.)

Of course, the same is true in reverse. :confused:

I was going to flame at you a bit, then I saw you stated my case.

Err... good job? :confused:

So what's your call? Will this case, assuming it can be confirmed, finally shut the naysayers up about the use of stem cells in medical research?

Wow...Stem cells cured one person. That means it has to cure everyone of everything.

Ya know, if you watch Tv, they have these guys on there that talk about Jesus. In one one-hour show, this man cured THREE people of paralysis AND made a blind woman see! Take that stem-cells. We can't wait forever for stem cells to cure people one at a time. Every government should now divert stem-cell funds to faith healers. Do you see the logic?

If this is true, it's one woman. You can't convince me stem cells actually cure people the way "scientists" say they do unless you take at least one hundred people and have over 80 of them cured. Sorry, I don't jump on the bandwagon unless you show me this isn't a fluke.

Of course, even if you could manage to do that, I'll only support using stem cells that don't come from aborted babies. Sorry, but I don't believe it's my place to tell an innocent child he/she can't come into this world.

Good luck with the old lady, but I won't believe stem cells actually do anything good until you prove it.

(I still hold that embryonic stem cell research should be illegalized.)

Of course it should. I'm on your side, but I like for everyone to have their facts straight, so the truth can be known.

The answer I would give to both of these questions is "yes" whereas the law as it is currently would say yes to the first one and no to the second one. I believe the law to be wrong in both this case and other related cases like with abortion, for example.

Immediately after conception, the embryo has it's own human DNA and will continue to develop unless stopped (killed by my definition). It seems to me to be 1.Its own person 2.Alive and 3.Human. In essence, it's just a less developed human being. Babies have laws protecting them against both murder and neglect so why not embryos? Every reason I've heard has always struck me as arbitrary or just plain not effective. Feel free to explain why you feel it shouldn't get the same rights, it's possible I haven't heard yours yet (I'm being genuine- not sarcastic)

My argument is that it shouldn't be done because it's murder. The part about the other forms is just "it wouldn't be so bad" attempt to console those who still aren't convinced, not an argument against embryonic stem cell research.Only one point to make here--under your definition, people using IVF to conceive are guilty of murder, since in no case are all the embryos ever implanted--most are flushed. Does this mean that you're in favor of banning in vitro fertilization in order to be consistent in your views?

Of course, even if you could manage to do that, I'll only support using stem cells that don't come from aborted babies. Sorry, but I don't believe it's my place to tell an innocent child he/she can't come into this world.

Good for you. Guess what, there isn't a single stem cell that came from an aborted baby? Feel good now?

Stop listening to idiotic propoganda and do a little research before you make yourself look like an idiot.

Only one point to make here--under your definition, people using IVF to conceive are guilty of murder, since in no case are all the embryos ever implanted--most are flushed. Does this mean that you're in favor of banning in vitro fertilization in order to be consistent in your views?

I can't speak for him, but I am for banning IVF in it's current form, and possibly in any form.

Then again, the last time I made a point like this, I was, in response, called a monster and a liar.

Of course it should. I'm on your side, but I like for everyone to have their facts straight, so the truth can be known.

So you admit that therapeutic cloning does not use what you would call a human life, but wish to ban it anyways.

Am I correct?

So you admit that therapeutic cloning does not use what you would call a human life, but wish to ban it anyways.


Wait, wait... when did I say that I wanted to ban therapeutic cloning?

Good for you. Guess what, there isn't a single stem cell that came from an aborted baby? Feel good now?

Stop listening to idiotic propoganda and do a little research before you make yourself look like an idiot.

Adults have stem cells. Umbilical cord blood has stem cells.

Stop listening to idiotic propoganda and do a little research before you make yourself look like an idiot.

Wait, wait... when did I say that I wanted to ban therapeutic cloning?

Boofheads responded to my explanation of therapeutic cloning with the statement that all embryonic stem cell research should be banned.

You agreed.

Therefore, you disagree with therapeutic cloning, which would involve embryonic stem cell research and the use of embryonic stem cells.

Boofheads responded to my explanation of therapeutic cloning with the statement that all embryonic stem cell research should be banned.

You agreed.

Therefore, you disagree with therapeutic cloning, which would involve embryonic stem cell research and the use of embryonic stem cells.

If there's no way to do it without killing a fetus, zygote, or embryo, or a born human, for that matter, then I am against it. So, I suppose I am against therapeutic cloning.

Adults have stem cells.

Really? You mean the ones I work with in the lab that are not totipotent and are a pain in the ass to isolate and culture? The ones that can only become certain cell types! No!!??? They exist!!!??

Umbilical cord blood has stem cells.

Really?! You mean the ones the article was about that are also not totipotent and are a pain in the ass to isolate and culture? The ones that can only differentiate into certain cell types?! No!!?? They exist!!!??

Stop listening to idiotic propoganda and do a little research before you make yourself look like an idiot.

Guess what darling, I'm in the field. I've probably seen more research than you can even fathom. And the fact is, that the cells are very different, with very different potentials.

If there's no way to do it without killing a fetus, zygote, or embryo, or a born human, for that matter, then I am against it. So, I suppose I am against therapeutic cloning.

According to you, if there is no sperm involved, there can't even be a zygote. So, by your definition, there is no fetus, zygote, embryo, or born human killed.

Really? You mean the ones I work with in the lab that are not totipotent and are a pain in the ass to isolate and culture? The ones that can only become certain cell types! No!!??? They exist!!!??



Really?! You mean the ones the article was about that are also not totipotent and are a pain in the ass to isolate and culture? The ones that can only differentiate into certain cell types?! No!!?? They exist!!!??



Guess what darling, I'm in the field. I've probably seen more research than you can even fathom. And the fact is, that the cells are very different, with very different potentials.

I'm well aware of the differences. True, you are probably more aware. But the ends don't justify thr mean

I'm well aware of the differences. True, you are probably more aware. But the ends don't justify thr mean

According to your personal religion, which you have no right to force upon other people.

Of course, you have consistently contradicted yourself in this very thread, so I'm not even sure what your personal religion says.

(a) This man is already an organism, while the fetus is not yet one.
(b) A person in a coma *can* and *does* respond to stimuli in a reflexive manner.

Not yet one? What about it having its own DNA? What it's ability to grow??? It has the genetic code of an organism, it grows like an organism yet it isn't? I don't know a single non organism that behaves like an unborn. If you would like to convince me, you'll have to clear that up for me. This is the big sticking point.

I'll go on to our other points when we get this part cleared up. And don't say "Science says so" because I personally know many bright scientists that don't say so.

Of course it should. I'm on your side, but I like for everyone to have their facts straight, so the truth can be known.

Agreed.

Only one point to make here--under your definition, people using IVF to conceive are guilty of murder, since in no case are all the embryos ever implanted--most are flushed. Does this mean that you're in favor of banning in vitro fertilization in order to be consistent in your views?

Yes.

Not yet one? What about it having its own DNA? What it's ability to grow??? It has the genetic code of an organism, it grows like an organism yet it isn't? I don't know a single non organism that behaves like an unborn. If you would like to convince me, you'll have to clear that up for me. This is the big sticking point.

You miss the point. The embryo does not meet all of the requirements to be an organism until a certain point. This is clear. Many non-organisms behave like an embryo up until this point. A cancerous mass would be one. It has its own DNA, the ability to grow, and yet isn't an organism. Another would be a culture of cells in the lab. Another would be transplanted blood or bone marrow.

Until the embryo develops enough to meet the requirements that determine an organism, which includes the ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an organism, it is not yet an organism.

I'll go on to our other points when we get this part cleared up. And don't say "Science says so" because I personally know many bright scientists that don't say so.

Well, I don't *personally* say so, as I think abortion is wrong. However, *science itself* pretty clearly says so, unless people start making up their own definitions. Meanwhile, many bright scientists could be scientists in many fields, and thus may not know much biology.

This would be so much easier if we would just pass a Constitutional amendment declaring a national athiest state. But NOOO, we have to be idiots and allow religion.

let me see...killing people is fine when they are "bad" (look at all that irakian women and child dying in war, they look very bad, maybe they are the devil themselves) but, researching with stem-cells, wherever they come from, oh my! this is a terrible crime! this is hipocrisy
o yes,lets free the embryos! -_-'' try to let an embryo free, an d it will die, if its not going to be used in fertilization, its dead, it cant live for its own, since its not alive, where do u think that embryos are ? in little beds, waiting for a parents to choose them? and as dor religious ppl, theres nothing that can convince all that fanatic dumbasses

The embryo does not meet all of the requirements to be an organism until a certain point.


Let's get specific here. List these requirements and who made them and why we should believe them.


Many non-organisms behave like an embryo up until this point.

I can't think of any.


Another would be a culture of cells in the lab. Another would be transplanted blood or bone marrow.
They don't have their own DNA, they have the DNA of whoever they came from. Not to mention that they can't develop into an adult human being.


A cancerous mass would be one. It has its own DNA, the ability to grow,


a.)It doesn't have it's own DNA. It's a slightly mutated version of your own DNA. The cancer itself is your body's own cells replicating out of control.
b.)It "grows" into a mass, not into a human being. Not the same thing.


Well, I don't *personally* say so, as I think abortion is wrong. However, *science itself* pretty clearly says so, unless people start making up their own definitions. Meanwhile, many bright scientists could be scientists in many fields, and thus may not know much biology.

I would say that "science itself" and even "common knowledge" say otherwise. Scientists, on the other hand, are probably pretty split on the topic.

Fascinating story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1530&u=/afp/20041128/wl_asia_afp/health_stemcell_paralysis_skorea&printer=1).

I've been out of town for a week and away from the boards, so forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I think it's significant both from a scientific/medical and a political point of view.


Now this case uses umbilical stemcells instead of embryonic stem cells, but it does seem to give the lie to the claim made by First Lady Bush during the campaign that we shouldn't do stem cell research since there's no indication that any good will ever come from it.

So what's your call? Will this case, assuming it can be confirmed, finally shut the naysayers up about the use of stem cells in medical research?

Yes, but it does little for those who are morally opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells.

let me see...killing people is fine when they are "bad" (look at all that irakian women and child dying in war, they look very bad, maybe they are the devil themselves) but, researching with stem-cells, wherever they come from, oh my! this is a terrible crime! this is hipocrisy
o yes,lets free the embryos! -_-'' try to let an embryo free, an d it will die, if its not going to be used in fertilization, its dead, it cant live for its own, since its not alive, where do u think that embryos are ? in little beds, waiting for a parents to choose them? and as dor religious ppl, theres nothing that can convince all that fanatic dumbasses

Think justification for ending the life cycle of another organism.

Yes.
I'll give you this much--you're consistent, which is more than I can say for the majority of people I've talked to about this issue. You do realize that your position will never be adopted by the public at large, right?

Let's get specific here. List these requirements and who made them and why we should believe them.

These requirements are those that biology uses to determine whether or not something is an organism. They are:

Sense and respond to stimuli
Growth
Intake and use of nutrients
Expulsion of waste

Ability to reproduce is another one - but it is generally applied to the definition of a species, rather than the definition of an organism - after all, very few people will argue that a mule isn't an organism.

I can't think of any.

And yet I named several just after I said it.

They don't have their own DNA, they have the DNA of whoever they came from.

Not necessarily. They may be transfected or have certain genes knocked out. Either way, in the context in which we are speaking, they have their own DNA.

Not to mention that they can't develop into an adult human being.

Completely irrelevant. We are not talking potentiality here, we are talking actuality. And cells in culture are, in actuality, just as close to being an organism as an embryo up until the embryo has a functioning nervous system.

a.)It doesn't have it's own DNA. It's a slightly mutated version of your own DNA. The cancer itself is your body's own cells replicating out of control.

with DNA different from the rest of your body. You can't make up your own definitions here. "Own" DNA means "different" DNA.

b.)It "grows" into a mass, not into a human being. Not the same thing.

Again, potentiality != actuality. WHat it *will* be is of no consequence. We are talking about what it is at the point before a nervous system develops.

I would say that "science itself" and even "common knowledge" say otherwise. Scientists, on the other hand, are probably pretty split on the topic.

Well, I am a scientist. I am a biologist. And I am telling you very clearly what the biology says. You can define things your own way if you like, but it won't be science.