1

In the past I've argued here - and others too - that an embryo is a mere collection of cells that have not yet reached that degree of interdependence necessary to constitute a human being. To my objection to a prior post in which you said that no one rejects the claim that a human begins to exist when sperm fertilizes ovum, you referred me to argument intended to show just this. I found it unpersuasive.

Indeed it seems that the issue of the just when a human being comes to exist is very much a live issue. Yet you continue, here and in other posts, to ignore such worries and simply write as if we all agree on the matter. We do not.

2

Franklin,
Great post!

There are many issues in this very complex argument that are not easily cataloged and that do not fit well into brief statements of ideologue. Federally funded research of embryonic stem cell does have enormous potential, even though it is over hyped. Especially with the fertility clinics still trashing embryos at the present rate, it should be part of the program. However, the Feds not very aggressively funding adult stem cell research remains a disappointment. Like many things, research follows the money.

3

Franklin,

What is your point? Of course it is a live issue. I had no idea that Joe had to defer to your opinion or anybody else when writing his essays!

He didn't write as if we all agree on the matter. He wrote it in a way to be persuasive in his argument!

Do you really think this post is about you?

4

Joe would be more plausible if he didn't presume to fool us into believing he has some type of special insight into the research results of stem cell research. The fact is we have no idea what will or will not be produced by such research. As for which research has the most 'promise', that is literally nothing more than a guess. If we knew which research had promise for sure then we wouldn't have to do any research because we'd already know the results!

If corporations asked the government to fund research into hydrogen-fueled cars by over-hyping their potential while denigrating the alternatives (i.e., electric cars), the watchdogs in the media would be writing Pulitzer-winning exposes.

I don't doubt for a second the gov't has funded research into both hydrogen cars and electric ones. It's well known that a lot of gov't research results are taken up by private industry for profit. ESC advocates did not ask the gov't to do anything special in terms of research...it was the critics of ESC research who instituted a special rule restricting federal funding of it.

In an even playing field, those seeking to get federal funds would submit research proposals that would then have to compete with all other proposals for the available funds. Of course ESC was over hyped when it first came out. Quite a few breakthrus were over hyped. Anyone recall robotics, genetic engineering, superconductors, even HDTV?

It's ironic that because of the Federal ban advocates of ESC are having the states set up state funded ESC research institutions. What's ironic about this is because they are dedicating funds to ESC research...rather than just having ESC research compete on its merits with other research proposals...the end result will probably be more ESC research than would have taken place without the ban.

5

Boontoon,

Joe is simply deriving his opinion based upon results as of this date. Adult stem cells have shown much promise over the past few years. Embryonic stem cells have shown no promise thus far.

So why not stop making this an issue and support what works? Especially since there are some people that object to one source and not another?

I guess if a person was close minded and didn't respect opinions other than their own then this would be an issue. Fortunately, deeply held beliefs are respected around here, so I guess we don't need to worry about ESC any longer. After all, there are plenty of other options.

6

To Franklin:

I can't speak for him, but I think Joe's target audience for this post was like-minded evangelicals. The issue at hand is the spineless tactics of certain politicians.

Personally, I think life begins at conception based on my belief in a spiritual component to human life; that is, though a zygote cannot yet experience life like a adult human, it still possesses the worth of a human adult. And a zygote has the capacity for becoming a human adult, which we have no right to squelch.

In any case, it is an important issue.

Has Joe made a post solely to explain why he thinks life begins when "sperm fertilizes ovum"? I'd like to read it.

7

I'm still amazed at the socialism that has embedded itself in everyone's mind: the government pays for all the non-profitable research then the private companies come in to reap the benefits.

The government pays for research no one wants to do, art no one wants to see, trains no one wants to ride--anything that can't survive on its own in the free market gets my money to prop it up.

I don't like this. Especially as it pertains to activities I find morally repugnant.

8

Tim L

So why not stop making this an issue and support what works? Especially since there are some people that object to one source and not another?

I'm not sure why you are addressing this to me. Joe is the one who has declared that he knows embryonic stem cells don't work. The position I've staked out is that we don't know & I've yet to have anyone here show me that there is reason to believe their knowledge of this field is superior.

Joe is simply deriving his opinion based upon results as of this date. Adult stem cells have shown much promise over the past few years. Embryonic stem cells have shown no promise thus far.

First promise is future based, not past. In the previous thread it was claimed that adult cells produced 70 treatments and embryonic cells none. This, however tells us nothing about their promise. Their promise would be how many treatments they will produce in the future. If adult cells have been exhausted but embryonic cells will produce one treatment then objectively embryonic cells have more promise. (Of course this greatly simplifies things, not all treatments are equal for one thing. A cure for all forms of cancer is hardly equal to a treatment for, say, Parkinsons that works 5% of the time and has horrendous side effects).

Second what makes this comparison difficult is that adult stem cells have no research restrictions on them and raise no ethical objections. While embryonic research ideas may get sexier headlines, the fact remains a researcher writing up a proposal and funding request has had more outlets to turn too if his proposal uses adult stem cells rather than embryonic ones. In effect, ASC has enjoyed a head start so to compare the two in terms of results is premature.

I guess if a person was close minded and didn't respect opinions other than their own then this would be an issue. Fortunately, deeply held beliefs are respected around here, so I guess we don't need to worry about ESC any longer. After all, there are plenty of other options.

I'm not sure what you mean here. As for the later part you are just engaging in wishful thinking. You are pretending that you or Joe know what ESC can or cannot do and you are pretending that there are alternatives if ESC is taken off the table. If you take ESC off the table you should be clear about it, it would be a sacrifice. You can argue such a sacrifice is justified just as we justify the cost in terms of knowledge that results from other ethical restrictions on research...but don't pretend you know something you really cannot know.

9

"Federally funded research of embryonic stem cell does have enormous potential..."

Horse manure. If it did, the private sector would be all over it without the need of propping up from the federal government (see Bryan Mills post). The pro-abortion left is behind the immoral cannibalization, based entirely on pseudo-scientific propaganda and more doomsday hysteria: i.e. If only Kerry/Edwards were in office, Christopher Reeves would be alive and well, Parkinsons would be cured, the lame would walk and the blind would see!

10

Follow the money guys. Why would anyone ignore the tremendous success of Adult Stem cell research and subsequent treatments in favor of the inethical approach of ESCR?

Simple. Adult Stem cell treatments are always unique. So far, research has found that one treatment may work on one or a few patients, but not on mass numbers. Indeed, ASCR can be used to treat many patients, but each requires unique application of the method.

In otherwords, ASCR (at our current stage of understanding) could not be mass produced while ESCR (it is believed) could be mass produced and as such mass marketed.

Follow the money. That is where politicians (almost) always go.

11

Horse manure. If it did, the private sector would be all over it without the need of propping up from the federal government (see Bryan Mills post).

Basic research is often not undertaken by the private sector. In order to make a profit on research it has to result in something that can be patented. Basic research, though, often has a long way to go before it can even begin to get to the point of being patentable as a product that can be sold by the private sector to recoup R&D costs.

Follow the money guys. Why would anyone ignore the tremendous success of Adult Stem cell research and subsequent treatments in favor of the inethical approach of ESCR?

Who is ignoring adult stem cell research? Let's remember just reading headlines about research is not the same as actually doing research! By your very statement how could ASC's be ignored if they have had 'tremendous success'. BTW, speaking of 'tremendous'....do I think that perhaps a bit of spin is happening here on the side of ASC too?

12

"Could" be. The question is whether they "should" be.

Where are the feminists screaming about the exploitation of women--all the poor ladies who will risk their health to be pumped full of hormones and harvested in exchange for money?

And for the argument that the clinics are destroying the embryos anyway, we might as well get some use out of them... let's go ahead and start experimenting on and harvesting inmates on death row and the terminally ill.

13

Franklin In the past I've argued here - and others too - that an embryo is a mere collection of cells that have not yet reached that degree of interdependence necessary to constitute a human being.

Let’s first distinguish the terms “human being” (a scientific term) and “human person” (a philosophical concept). The creation of a new human being occurs sometime in the period between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization. Two distinct parts of other human beings (the sperm and the oocyte) combine to create a new, genetically distinct, whole living human being at the embryonic single-cell stage of development. This is, as far as I am aware, an uncontested scientific fact.

So what is created by this process?

"Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders 2003, p. 2.

“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.” Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943.

“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3.

“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2.

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3.

After fertilization occurs, the human embryo (regardless of the number of cells) doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply continues to grow and move through the various stages of human development until adulthood.

(I recommend this article --http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html-- for a more in depth explanation.)

Just as you can find scientists who believe the earth is flat, I'm sure that you can find those who disagree with the standard definition of human being used in embryology. Sure, you can claim that it is not a "human person." But to claim that it is not a "human being" is to go against scientifically verifiable facts.

Neil However, the Feds not very aggressively funding adult stem cell research remains a disappointment.

In 2005 the NIH funded $568 million on adult stem cell research and another $39 million on embryonic stem cell research. Just how much money is required for it to be considered "agreesively funding?"

Mark In otherwords, ASCR (at our current stage of understanding) could not be mass produced while ESCR (it is believed) could be mass produced and as such mass marketed.

Um, that's not really accurate. I have my doubts that any type of stem cell treatment will ever be mass marketed. But if it is possible it will happen for adult, not embroyonic stem cells. The reason I can state with almost certain conviction that ESCR will not lead to widespread cures is because treatments would require the creation of new embryos from which the cells would be harvested. That is why cloning is essential for "ESC research" to become "ESC treatments."

The number of eggs needed to treat just one condition (i.e., diabetes) would require every women in America to donate their eggs in order to create the cloned embryos needed. That is the why the private sector doesn't bother throwing money away on ESCR. They know that for creating actual cures, it is a dead end.

14

From the National Institutes of Health:

"VI. What are the potential uses of human stem cells and the obstacles that must be overcome before these potential uses will be realized?

There are many ways in which human stem cells can be used in basic research and in clinical research. However, there are many technical hurdles between the promise of stem cells and the realization of these uses, which will only be overcome by continued intensive stem cell research.

Studies of human embryonic stem cells may yield information about the complex events that occur during human development. A primary goal of this work is to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated. Scientists know that turning genes on and off is central to this process. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation. A better understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes may yield information about how such diseases arise and suggest new strategies for therapy. A significant hurdle to this use and most uses of stem cells is that scientists do not yet fully understand the signals that turn specific genes on and off to influence the differentiation of the stem cell."

One of the tremendous advantages of scientific-method-based inquiry is that there are often concrete answers to speculative questions. From the reading above, it should be clear that ESC research is not being posited as a source of immediate known benefits. What we do know is that this appears to be a route toward further knowledge.

In most cases, the person who argues against the pursuit of knowledge is wrong.

The person who advocates the banning of books is wrong.

The moralistic censor and lemon-faced gatekeeper and know-nothing Luddite is always wrong.

And posts like Joe's are a excellent example of why it is so important that Evangelicals restrain their sphere of influence to the church. Applying religious dogma to the serious business of science causes more harm than good. Remember that medical ethics are an important area of medicine and biological research - we aren't at risk of grievous harm because there are already tools in place to review and monitor the kind of research envisioned here. The universal reverence for life should acknowledge the living as well as the potentially alive, and reserve emphasis for the alleviation of human suffering.

15

Another reason "Why would anyone ignore the tremendous success of Adult Stem cell research and subsequent treatments in favor of the inethical approach of ESCR?" --

Magick with a K.

In his non-fiction book Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy, F&SF author Orson Scott Card uses the origin of his fantasy novel Hart's Hope as a case study. HH grew from a doodle-map of a fantasy city and a fantasy writer's classroom exercise to come up with a unique rationale for a fantasy-magic system.

What the classroom brainstorming session came up with was:

Magic was powered by life-force; the magic-user "burned up" life-force -- his own or someone else's -- to power the spell. The more life-force you burned in a casting, the more powerful the magic effect. Human sacrifice (burning ALL the life-force in the sacrifice) was the most powerful; the more life yet to be lived, the more life-force available. And who had more potential life unlived than a newborn infant? (This was how the Main Bad Guy -- actually an evil queen named Beauty -- made herself into the local Dark Lord in the backstory.)

Well, the Stem Cell Research (TM) advocates swallowed this fantasy magick system for real. Making the paralyzed walk and the senile into geniuses burns a lot of life-force, and who has more life-yet-to-live than even an infant? An unborn child, of course, and his/her Magick Stem Cells...

16

Where are the feminists screaming about the exploitation of women--all the poor ladies who will risk their health to be pumped full of hormones and harvested in exchange for money?

There are no such women. ESC research gets its embryos from women who are paying clinics to shoot them up with hormones to get pregnant. As you should know, being someone who follows this issue enough to comment about it, the IVF clinics almost always create more embryos than could possibly be brought to term.

Joe:

Let’s first distinguish the terms “human being” (a scientific term) and “human person” (a philosophical concept). The creation of a new human being occurs sometime in the period between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization. Two distinct parts of other human beings (the sperm and the oocyte) combine to create a new, genetically distinct, whole living human being at the embryonic single-cell stage of development. This is, as far as I am aware, an uncontested scientific fact.

Indeed, however this excusion thru the biology textbook does not answer when a human person emerges. By 'human person' I would mean what religious people would call a human soul. As I pointed out before it was once the belief among orthodox Christians that this occurred at quickening (when the baby's first kicks could be felt).

The number of eggs needed to treat just one condition (i.e., diabetes) would require every women in America to donate their eggs in order to create the cloned embryos needed. That is the why the private sector doesn't bother throwing money away on ESCR. They know that for creating actual cures, it is a dead end.

They know no such thing. How do you know a cure for diabetes might not be more like a blood transfusion where a handful of embryos may provide the right cell 'types' to handle 90% of the population? You don't. The reason the private sector isn't jumping on ESCR is the same reason the private sector usually doesn't jump into any basic research that has a very, very long way to go before it could ever develop into a patenable treatment.

In 2005 the NIH funded $568 million on adult stem cell research and another $39 million on embryonic stem cell research. Just how much money is required for it to be considered "agreesively funding?"

This illustrates nicely the fact that there's a distinction between press coverage and research grants. How much the NIH doles out is a function of how they evaluate the grant requests that come in. There ESCR competes not only against ASCR but all other types of research. This also illustrates that ESCR hasn't been banned. Bush permitted research on the handful of existing 'lines' that had already been developed plus, the way I read the regulations, ESCR can still happen if the stem cells can be extracted without harming the embryo.

I disagree with Raven's assertions that evangelicals should just keep to Church on this topic, research ethics is important and we DO give up on valuable research that could be done because it would be unethical. However Raven does point out correctly it is silly to obsess over 'treatments' produced to date from ASC versus ESC research.

1. It's clear those against ESC research are engaging in the very same hype and distortion of the truth that they accuse supporters engaging in. For example, in the previous post we were told ASC has given us treatments for Parkinson's Disease. Please cite what that treatment is and how a person diagnosed with Parkinson's would go about obtaining it?

2. Basic research often does not lead directly to cures but can yield them indirectly. For example, in the last thread much was made of the Scientific American cover story about stem cells causing cancer. They failed to read the article beyond the headline, it wasn't ESC that cause cancer but the adult stem cells that the party line here is to hype as the cure of all illness. Regardless, though, determining what causes a friendly embryonic stem cell to turn cancerous 30 years later would be very valuable. That doesn't mean the treatment produced would necessarily involve injecting cancer victims with 'fresh' embryonic cells. it might be a pill that tells the adult stem cells not to turn cancerous.

17

Bryan Where are the feminists screaming about the exploitation of women--all the poor ladies who will risk their health to be pumped full of hormones and harvested in exchange for money?

Here's one place: http://www.handsoffourovaries.com/

The feminists are out there, but they are being drowned out. The exploitation of women in egg harvesting is likely to be the issues that turns leftists against cloning (and hence, ESCR).

Boonton Indeed, however this excusion thru the biology textbook does not answer when a human person emerges.

That is correct. I just hope that people will finally start admitting that they are arguing about when it is acceptable to kill human beings for the purposes of medical research.

Also, isn't it odd that the only times people make distinctions about "human being" and "human person" is when they want to treat members of the human species as sub-human?

How do you know a cure for diabetes might not be more like a blood transfusion where a handful of embryos may provide the right cell 'types' to handle 90% of the population?

Um, because I have a basic understanding of what stem cell research is for. What makes such treatments valuable is that they are genetically specific, not "types."


Boonton For example, in the previous post we were told ASC has given us treatments for Parkinson's Disease. Please cite what that treatment is and how a person diagnosed with Parkinson's would go about obtaining it?

The citations can be found in the following articles:

Love S et al., Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor induces neuronal sprouting in human brain, Nature
Medicine 11, 703-704, July 2005

Slevin JT et al., Improvement of bilateral motor functions in patients with Parkinson disease through the
unilateral intraputaminal infusion of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor, Journal of
Neurosurgery 102, 216-222, February 2005

Gill SS et al.; “Direct brain infusion of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in Parkinson disease”; Nature Medicine 9, 589-595; May 2003

Information on obtaining treatments can probably be found at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Basic research often does not lead directly to cures but can yield them indirectly.

I agree. And I think basic research can and should be done on the existing ESC lines. They are more than adequate for this purpose.

18

Tim,

My point was that here and elsewhere Joe writes as if there's no real dissent on the issue of when a human life begins (note that I do not say simply 'life' - of course the fertilized ovum is alive, but I hold that it's not yet the human being that will later come to exist); and no, I didn't think the post was about me.

Perhaps Oliver was right. Perhaps the purpose of Joe's post was to convince like-minded people that they have not acted in consistency with their views about the origin of human life. But if that's so, Joe has significantly restricted his audience. He knows people like me regulary read and post here, but perhaps sometimes we're not invited to the party.

19

The feminists are out there, but they are being drowned out. The exploitation of women in egg harvesting is likely to be the issues that turns leftists against cloning (and hence, ESCR).

And it isn't hard to see why they are being drowned out. While www.handsoffourovaries.com wants a mortorium on egg extraction for research purposes the fact is most egg extraction happens for purposes of reproduction either a woman seeking to have her egg(s) fertilized in a test tube or a woman being paid to donate her eggs to another woman. It's a bit of a stretch to call this exploitation unless you're going to label every transaction where money is used exploitation. This 'exploitation' sounds similar to those that claim all marriage is exploitation or claims that even consensual hetrosexual is rape....a distinctly minority view that is indeed drowned out.

That is correct. I just hope that people will finally start admitting that they are arguing about when it is acceptable to kill human beings for the purposes of medical research.

Hold on a second, why does this sound less like an argument and more like an attempt to play word games? Over on the other thread we touched upon using the phrases human life and human beign. Generally speaking there's plenty of things that we all agree are human (blood cells, hair, dead tissue, toenails) but are not human beigns (a corpse, all the cells of your body taken as individuals etc.). There is no scientific, uncontested definition that lets us sort all possible cases into those categories.... We may have a living human body that has ceased to be a human beign (for example, just about everyone agrees full brain death is the end of a human beign's life even though the human body may still have living organs in it...may even be performing some of the functions of life), it does not follow that the beginning of a human beign MUST coincide with the beginning of a human life.

In fact it would be somewhat inconsistent if it did. At the end of a human beign's life we do not consider a single handful of cells that remain alive as a living human beign. Likewise we would be deeply skeptical of the claim that a human life without a living brain (again I'll use the sci-fi hypothetical of a decapitated body hooked up to advanced life support) is a human beign. We don't believe the end of a human beign coincides with the end of human life so why assume they must begin together?

Also, isn't it odd that the only times people make distinctions about "human being" and "human person" is when they want to treat members of the human species as sub-human?

Actually you must make a distinction between human life (meaning something that is living and of the human species) and a human beign if you want to have any coherence to your thoughts in the matter. Over on the previous thread Gordon attempted to put forth definitions that did not make such a distinction and the result is you reach absurd conclusions such as killing a single human blood cell is killing a human life.

Um, because I have a basic understanding of what stem cell research is for. What makes such treatments valuable is that they are genetically specific, not "types."

Um what if there's only a handful of genes that cause 90% of the diabetes cases?

Information on obtaining treatments can probably be found at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

So you have not found treatments for Parkinson's. You've found some ideas that may produce something someday but as of today they are not treatments. (Are there even clinical trials available right now using ASC for Parkinson's?)

Again I'm not saying ASC research hasn't yielded useful things, I'm pointing out that you're engaging in the very same hype that ESC supporters do.

I agree. And I think basic research can and should be done on the existing ESC lines. They are more than adequate for this purpose.

And how do you know this?

20

My point was that here and elsewhere Joe writes as if there's no real dissent on the issue of when a human life begins (note that I do not say simply 'life' - of course the fertilized ovum is alive, but I hold that it's not yet the human being that will later come to exist); and no, I didn't think the post was about me.

Indeed, guess what? The unfertilized ovum is also alive as are sperm cells. We stumble over ourselves here because we are using 'beginning of life' as shorthand for 'the beginning of a human beign'. It isn't even the beginning of human life because, an UNfertilized egg is human life as well. It isn't dog life or cat life after all!

21

Um, because I have a basic understanding of what stem cell research is for. What makes such treatments valuable is that they are genetically specific, not "types."

Also Joe, you clearly did not read what Raven or I wrote. It is also possible that ESC/ASC research will reveal which genes in stem cells end up getting switched on to cancer or diabetes in many cases. The treatments that result may not be replacing your stem cells with stem cells from a clone embryo of you but rather a treatment that targets the genes that are most likely to fail with age. Knowing which genes these are, though, may require comparing ESC to ASC for large samples of the population.

So it's quite simplistic to speak of ASC simply as an alternative to ESC research or to speak of them as if they were mutually exclusive (in other words, doing ESC research 'ignores' ASC research).

22

It is important to realize that there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion. It includes the unwavering defense of all embryos. Allowing funding for any stage of embryonic stem cell research by the government opens a slippery slope to future life-debasing behavior.

23

Boonton It's a bit of a stretch to call this exploitation unless you're going to label every transaction where money is used exploitation. This 'exploitation' sounds similar to those that claim all marriage is exploitation or claims that even consensual hetrosexual is rape....a distinctly minority view that is indeed drowned out.

I know it would cut into your status as this blog’s most prolific commenter, but you really should do a bit of research before making such comments.

Rather than being a “distinctly minority view”, this is actually a point of some controversy within the bioethics community. The exploitation is not just that this is a “transaction where money is used” but that it is unethical to ask people to undergo dangerous procedures for speculative research. As David Magnus and Mildred K. Cho wrote in The American Journal of Bioethics:

The language used to describe scientific experiments also makes a great deal of difference in how accurately we convey the nature of stem cell research. We argued, for example, that referring to the process of deriving stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer as “therapeutic cloning” reinforces the mistaken impression that experiments are therapeutic in nature. In fact, there is no therapy currently associated with SCNT.

Jung and Hyun argue that we should go further in our analogy with live organ donation—women ought to be allowed to donate oocytes for research that may benefit their family directly. However, there is an important distinction between oocyte donation for research and live organ donation for transplantation. Live organ donation has a clearly established clinical value — stem cell research does not. If that should change, we would agree that allowing women to donate oocytes for stem cell-based treatments would be permissible, if conducted properly. But allowing research donation to take place under these circumstances is an invitation for a new kind of therapeutic misconception, and should avoided at this early stage of scientific development.

The women who are most likely to risk their health to undergo the egg harvesting procedure are generally those who are young or in need of money. This is why exploitation is becoming a growing concern on this issue.

Hold on a second, why does this sound less like an argument and more like an attempt to play word games?

That’s the question I was going to ask you.

It does not follow that the beginning of a human beign MUST coincide with the beginning of a human life.

Do you even understand what the term “human being” means? How can it be a “human life” without it also being a “human being?” You’re just being silly now.

Um what if there's only a handful of genes that cause 90% of the diabetes cases?

The what will be needed is gene therapy, not therapies using ESCs.

So you have not found treatments for Parkinson's. You've found some ideas that may produce something someday but as of today they are not treatments. (Are there even clinical trials available right now using ASC for Parkinson's?)

Are there FDA approved treatments for Parkinson’s? No, there are not. Are there treatments being tested? Yes. But let me be clear, because I don’t want to start defending this more than I feel is right. I am skeptical that any stem cell research –whether adult or embroyonic – is likely to be as promising as everyone seems to think – at least in my lifetime.

Again I'm not saying ASC research hasn't yielded useful things, I'm pointing out that you're engaging in the very same hype that ESC supporters do.

If that is the impression that I’m giving then let me clear that up: I’m only slightly less skeptical of ASC research providing longterm cures than I am ESC research.

And how do you know this?

Because those without a financial interest in the matter have said that the lines we have are adequate. And if they are not…too bad. We shouldn’t kill human beings just to do “basic research.”

The unfertilized ovum is also alive as are sperm cells. We stumble over ourselves here because we are using 'beginning of life' as shorthand for 'the beginning of a human beign'. It isn't even the beginning of human life because, an UNfertilized egg is human life as well. It isn't dog life or cat life after all!

Seriously, dude, spend five minutes—just five minutes—doing some research before you start commenting. If you had simply followed the link to the article I put in there you would have seen why this line of thinking is, scientifically speaking, nonsense:

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

24

Joe: "And I think basic research can and should be done on the existing ESC lines. They are more than adequate for this purpose. "

Nope. When I read this, I remembered two things, namely, that we're short on viable lines and that ones we have were corrupted by mouse growth factors. A quick check confirms this:

"Kennedy contends that new lines are needed for research because all current ones were developed in the presence of mouse cells that provided needed growth factors, and thus may be contaminated with viruses or proteins from those cells."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/tech/main553079.shtml

So there's only 11 lines approved for use, which researchers say is "hampering" progress. Thing is, I don't follow the logic that says it's OK to use the 11 lines Bush is happy with, but no others. If it's wrong to conduct ESC research, then it's wrong, period. If it's permissible, then proceed with caution and respect for the precious life forms that underpin this area of inquiry.

Much like organ donation that seeks to give importance even to the remnants of a human life, we have embryonic stem cells that are left over from treatments at in vitro fertilization clinics and instead of washing them down the sink, they could be put to valuable use and potentially lead to breakthroughs in medical science.

This, I would contend, demonstrates a deep respect for life and a respect for those currently suffering from horrible illnesses and possible succor for those in years to come. Joe, your nay-saying here is clearly not backed by research or a close reading of the details. You don't want any inquiry in this area because investigating the processes of life is treading on the tenets of your religious faith.

This is why I assert that religion has no place in this discussion. Your personal views should not impede the fulfillment of science that affects, not only your own congregation of fellow believers, but also the lives of secular Americans and members of other faiths who do not share your preferences. Better instead that you simply make a personal choice to never partake of any medical procedure that results from stem cell research.

25

Raven Nope. When I read this, I remembered two things, namely, that we're short on viable lines and that ones we have were corrupted by mouse growth factors. A quick check confirms this:

You might want to update your sources. The article you cite is from 2003 and that line of argument is no longer tenable. As Geron CEO Tom Okarma recently told Wired News, “the stuff you hear published that all of those lines are irrevocably contaminated with mouse materials and could never be used in people—hogwash. If you know how to grow them, they’re fine.”

As for the number of viable lines, there are currently 22 self-perpetuating cell lines that have been developed and about fifty more that could be developed. If there was such a demand for the lines we would undoubtedly see the universities and corporations that have the lines making them available.

Thing is, I don't follow the logic that says it's OK to use the 11 lines Bush is happy with, but no others. If it's wrong to conduct ESC research, then it's wrong, period.

It’s not wrong to conduct ESC research. It’s wrong to kill humans in the embryonic stage of development. Am I happy with Bush’s policy? No. Ideally I would like to see all forms of embryo destruction banned and our country have as much moral courage as Germany(!). But we live in a pluralistic society and it was a compromise that many of us have learned to live with to appease people such as yourself.

Much like organ donation that seeks to give importance even to the remnants of a human life, we have embryonic stem cells that are left over from treatments at in vitro fertilization clinics and instead of washing them down the sink, they could be put to valuable use and potentially lead to breakthroughs in medical science.

By the same standard, we should be harvesting the organs from death row inmates.

Joe, your nay-saying here is clearly not backed by research or a close reading of the details. You don't want any inquiry in this area because investigating the processes of life is treading on the tenets of your religious faith.

You could set aside the ethical qualms I have about this research and I would still question it on scientific grounds. It is simply a boondoggle, a way for researchers to get more money out of the government for basic research that they themselves know is not likely to lead to any significant gains, at least not compared to the outlay of money that is going into it.

This is why I assert that religion has no place in this discussion. Your personal views should not impede the fulfillment of science that affects, not only your own congregation of fellow believers, but also the lives of secular Americans and members of other faiths who do not share your preferences. Better instead that you simply make a personal choice to never partake of any medical procedure that results from stem cell research.

By your logic, it would be okay for secular people to commit atrocities and Christians should just keep there mouths shut and not participate.

I don’t think you realize that the “secular Americans” are the minority in our pluralistic culture. I think a better argument could be made that your “religious belief” has no place in the discussion since it has no foundation in solid moral theory. Your faith in the high priests of science is remarkably naïve and certainly not warranted by the historical record.

I also find it rather amusing that you pretend that your views are based on “science” and yet your arguments are based more on media misperceptions than scientific data.

26

There's another avenue that I find surprizing --
corporate welfare. The Left is all against it
until it suits one of their pet projects. Then
it becomes ok. This funding is just another way
to spend and divide. There's more, but this
is enough.

http://www.evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

27

Joe,

I have found it very difficult to care about this issue. It is so distant and appears to be so incredibly abstract to me that its hard to care. My knowledge and understanding of the science behind this debate is so limited that it appears like hard work would be needed in order to reach a fair analysis/judgement.

Because of that, I really havn't given it much thought. Until now.

Your arguments in this thread are so persuasive and your detractors so ill-informed that I can't help but care. It seems that sometimes I fail as a Christian because an issue is complicated and i'm lazy.

But you've convinced me that this is something I should care about, especially with your clarifying of what is a Human Being and what is a Human Person. Powerful stuff.

Thanks Joe for the post.

28

Joe,
You are careful to point out a distinction between "human beings" and "human persons." Why?

29

Joe: "You might want to update your sources. The article you cite is from 2003 and that line of argument is no longer tenable."

Excellent. That's a provable assertion. I'll check with a researcher in the area and report back to you. This should be easily provable. If you're wrong, this will be immediately demonstrable. If I've overstated the case, the facts will bear that out. But the fact that Bush restricted all lines to those in effect as of 2001 means that the only way you are likely to be correct is if some super-secret, unknown scientific procedure has emerged that allows us to remove the mouse-cell corruption and "cleanse" the lines in some fashion. Unlikely, but we'll see.

"It’s not wrong to conduct ESC research. It’s wrong to kill humans in the embryonic stage of development."

Oh come on. Please.

"...it was a compromise that many of us have learned to live with to appease people such as yourself."

An appeal to rational behavior should not be construed as a request for "appeasement." Rather, it should be interpreted as a call for intelligent action.

"By the same standard, we should be harvesting the organs from death row inmates."

We have medical ethics panels that would allow no such thing. The critical distinction here is that the physicians who staff such positions would make their judgements independent of the Christian Bible.

"By your logic, it would be okay for secular people to commit atrocities and Christians should just keep there mouths shut and not participate."

No. I'm saying that Christians should check their Biblical justifications for personal beliefs at the door when they enter scientific discussions. In this exchange of opinion, for example, you are clearly and manifestly arguing for an outcome that you would prefer. You don't care what the science is, you only champion a specific outcome. You twist any observation, cherry-pick any speaker, select only that evidence that supports your pre-decided opinion. That's what religious reasoning does. It propagates ignorance to defence Biblical dogma because evidence to the contrary threatens the philosphical house of cards upon which you have build your belief system. There are no wrong answers, in your world - there are only incorrect questions.

"I don’t think you realize that the “secular Americans” are the minority in our pluralistic culture."

You mean, "40 million Frenchmen can't be wrong"? Truth is not dependent on popular vote. Just because most people cannot grasp Einstein's theories doesn't mean he was mistaken - it just means most people are incapable of that degree of intellectual flexibility.

As for the remainder, I assure you that I have no "faith" to speak of. Let me track down an expert in the field and interrogate him or her. I'll report back and let you know. If he or she says that you're right, that the Bush-approved ESC lines have been cleansed and are acceptable material for research purposes, I'll happily retract my assertions to the contrary.

If I am found to be correct, then I would expect you to inform yourself accordingly.

30

The Raven wrote:

As for the remainder, I assure you that I have no "faith" to speak of.

According to www.dictionary.com the definition of the word faith is:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

I take you at your word, Raven.

31

The death row case is a good analogy, but you take it in the wrong direction. Of course it would be fine to use organs from Texas death row inmates, provided that the property party has provided consent. In their case, that's usually going to be the person being killed. If they have signed their organ donor card, take the organs.

The parallel in the embryo case is the parent. If the parent is fine with harvesting the organs of a kid who is going to be killed, then taking the organs isn't problematic. Killing the kid is, but not taking the organs. But given that the kid will be killed, taking the organs isn't immoral provided that the proper consent has been issued from the legal representative. Why this somehow gets immoral at the embryonic stage when it's perfectly fine at any later stage is beyond me, and it doesn't make any sense to me to tar and feather politicians for suggesting that we allow this when we allow it for older kids.

32

The women who are most likely to risk their health to undergo the egg harvesting procedure are generally those who are young or in need of money. This is why exploitation is becoming a growing concern on this issue.

Joe, the embryos for ESC research do not come from volunteers paid or unpaid. They come from women who paid clinics to harvest their eggs and produce embryos for IVF therapy. As we explored in the previous thread this almost always produces more embryos than can be used. The unused embryos are either destroyed now or destroyed later since even in a freezer it is a matter of time before the embryo becomes unable to ever be implanted in a womb.

Because those without a financial interest in the matter have said that the lines we have are adequate. And if they are not…too bad. We shouldn’t kill human beings just to do “basic research.”

By financial interest you mean people who actually make a living doing research in this area. Without a financial interest you mean what? Blowhards on the internet? They knowledge of the matter is that much better.

Human life v. Human beign etc.

Ok, let me put it more bluntly. Let's go to the end of a human beign's life. After full brain death just about everyone, including pro-lifers, agree the human beign has died. Yet there is still life in his or her body. Their cells are still living, so are organs, and sometimes even entire systems that are basic to the life of human beigns. We agree the human being is gone but life is there. What type of life? Human life of course.

Now let me put the beginning more bluntly; when does the soul become part of a human being? We tend to agree that upon death even though the body may have life of various types in it, we are not forcibly parting a soul from its body. If the body is like a car and the soul the driver then when does the driver take possession of the car? When it rolls off the factory floor or when it gets delievered to the dealer for pickup?

Perhaps you don't believe that a human being has a soul...but whatever you want to call it there is something that says while a human body may have life in it the human beign is gone. Perhaps you may think that something is a particular complexity level of brain cells or maybe some type of overall complexity. No matter if you believe in a spirtual soul or not there is something that we might as well call a soul and it is clear it is seperate from the life of a particular human body (or if you insist on a materialistic view of the soul then it is an trait that the human life has for some period of time that is less than the life of the body). Either way why is setting this point at fertilization taken as if it had been proven like an algebraic statement?

Let's return to the fact that at one time some Christians believe that quickening (the moment a baby's first kicks could be felt) was the moment a soul entered a human body. Whether or not there were good Biblical reasons for that belief, can we really say science has disproven it?

33

Joe,

I think you are making progress. It looks like Boonton is willing to concede that what they want money for in order to destroy are indeed human beings.

34

Are you folks aware of the other sources of embryonic stem cells? You can get 'em from umbilical cords and placentas without having to kill a human being.

35

Joe:

Excellent post.

The objectors inadvertently reveal their profound moral obtuseness.

Onlookers should know this is a second thread in succession that has touched on this. Cf. here to see what happened to B's arguments that he has again trotted out, last time around -- only a few days ago. [You will also find therein some interesting cites.]

It is plain that the agenda we are seeing is driven by the moral incoherence of evolutionary materialism, which on moral issues boils down to "might makes right."

We should understand from recent history where that leads, and act decisively to restore that basic, Creation Order derived respect for life that is at the foundation of Western Civilisation.

Let us think that over, very carefully, before blindly following the latest propaganda trotted out to push the underlying secular humanist agenda.

+++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

36

PP:

A point of correection: in this context, the stem cells you refer to as deriving from cord blood etc are called ADULT stem cells.

The moral objection is to the intent to harvest embryos from IVF clinics and use them to clone out tissues etc for the desired treatments, which will kill the embryos.

The specifically Judaeo-Christian moral objection to this is:

RO 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

The issue is HARM. And, on such a matter as the taking of life, if in doubt, restraint is the proper course. That is, the burden of proof that harm is not done properly rests on those who asdvocate ESCR -- and the turnabout attemnpts above demonstrate that they cannot meet it but are intent on proceding without restraints.

I hardly need to detail that restrainst such as the Apostle Paul summarised int he above are foundational to civilisation.

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

37

PS: let me back that up, as it is likely to be challenged. Here is, David A. Prentice, Ph.D. Professor Department of Life SciencesIndiana State University:

Within just a few years, the possibility that the human body contains cells that can repair and regenerate damaged and diseased tissue has gone from an unlikely proposition to a virtual certainty. Adult stem cells have been isolated from numerous adult tissues, umbilical cord, and other non-embryonic sources, and have demonstrated a surprising ability for transformation into other tissue and cell types and for repair of damaged tissues. This paper will examine the published literature regarding the identity of adult stem cells and possible mechanisms for their observed differentiation into tissue types other than their tissue of origin. Reported data from both human and animal studies will be presented on the various tissue sources of adult stem cells and the differentiation and repair abilities for each source, especially with regards to current and potential therapeutic treatments.

Adult stem cells have received intense scrutiny over the past few years due to surprising discoveries regarding heretofore unknown abilities to form multiple cell and tissue types, as well as the discovery of such cells in an increasing number of tissues. The term “adult stem cell” is somewhat of a misnomer, because the cells are present even in infants and similar cells exist in umbilical cord and placenta. More accurate terms have been proposed, such as tissue stem cells, somatic stem cells, or post-natal stem cells. However, because of common usage this review will continue to use the term adult stem cell.

This is taken from a 2003 paper presented to the Council on Bioethics.

GEM

38

I’m against embryonic stem cell research and want to offer an alternative idea: Dem Cell Research. Visit my store – www.cafepress.com/boldface – to see my designs that reflect this alternative.

39

Eric and Lisa,

I'm glad you think I'm making progress. Sadly in the coherence department you don't seem to be making much progress. For the record I'm not conceding that an embryo = a human being, I'm trying to nail down what exactly is meant here when people use the term human beign.

Gordon,
Onlookers should know this is a second thread in succession that has touched on this. Cf. here to see what happened to B's arguments that he has again trotted out, last time around -- only a few days ago. [You will also find therein some interesting cites.]

We were cut off rather quickly there when Joe closed the comments. I've been reluctant, though, to just hijack another thread with our argument spilling into it. Perhaps it would be more fair to those who have just been following this one for you to summarize your points as I have mine and then to address the arguments that I have raised.

40

Onlookers:

By going to the other thread you will see easily enough the bankruptcy of the argument that an embryo is not human life to be protected.

The core of the question came in the exchange in which I summed up as follows, July 16:

6] [B;] You present a definition of a human beign that is on its face absurd.

--> B, look above: I have never attempted to define what a human being is. You should realise that that is a major undertaking in philosophy, especially since a major live option includes among the class of human beings the one who is God incarnate. Instead, I have examined this on a case by case basis. [And yes, we are back to that issue in phil again: one does not need a precising definition to recognise and act appropriately on cases in point. In fact, such definitions DEPEND on the ability to intuitively recognise cases in point, to test them to see if they include all and only cases of what is being defined.]

--> What, specifically, I have pointed out, is that the zygote is plainly alive and human, with the potential to grow into a baby, so is deserving of the protection we accord to other undisputed cases of human life.

--> There is nothing at all absurd in such a position, and I can easily enough show the moral conundrums that we end up in if we deny it. Indeed, I and others have pointed out some of these.

You will note that I refuse to take the burden of proof. There is a reason: I am on the side of life, so properly hold the benefit of the doubt.

Let us just remember that if there is a doubt and innocent life is on one fork of an issue, the burden of proof properly lies on the part of those who would take life. [Note how in a capital case it is the Government that must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Guess why.]

The arrogation of the benefit of the doubt in the above is telling, as Joe pointed out.

GEM

41

Sorry I have been incommunicado lately...

I am curious why people are against the strongest definition of the right to life possible (at conception). This can only protect you. Will arguments of the value of vivisecting people convince you some people should be vivisected? How long before congress declares you more valuable for your organs than your net taxes?

42

Gordon,

I'm not sure what the major undertaking is here...in the previous thread you dismissed this as a simple problem and accused me of playing word games...now this is a huge philosophical issue beyond the scope of us mere humans.

Read my actual posts, I suggest we start with the simple argument about the soul. If one believes humans have a soul that is distinct from their bodies then the definition problem is relatively easy. Killing a human beign is harming their body so their soul can no longer inhabit it. If a person's soul has already departed then the while the life in the body may be killed it is not killing a human beign (for example, harvesting the living organs from a body of someone completely brain dead).

Now of course this does leave a very diffucult issue of when we have a soul and when we don't. However this illustration should put to rest the notion that there isn't a difference between human life (meaning life that is related to the human species) and human beigns. Just as we DO NOT assert both end at the same time it is not reasonable to just assume they must both begin at the same time.

nedbrek
I am curious why people are against the strongest definition of the right to life possible (at conception). This can only protect you. Will arguments of the value of vivisecting people convince you some people should be vivisected? How long before congress declares you more valuable for your organs than your net taxes?

Errr, well from a purely self-interest perspective anyone here who has a brain to formulate an opinion on the matter already made it well past conception but assuming the person making this judgement is trying to be sincere in it let me pose this to you:

Suppose some yahoos successfully lobby to get unfertilized eggs defined as human beigns making research on them impossible. This would do nothing good for me or you and probably wouldn't harm either of us but there is always the chance that research on unfertilized eggs might result in something that will someday either help us or someone we care about. In this way a too strong 'defense of life' ends up harming life.

Likewise imagine someone redefined death to mean every cell in your body must die. This may help you if your greedy grandkids want the hospital to pull the plug on you so they can inherit your vast estate....however how would you like to need a kidney transplant in a country that adopted this law?

43

All:

I see the game now afoot here is on "the definition" of human life, being and person, in a context where Alice in Wonderland rules are being imposed, all in a context where a lurking world-view and civilisation agenda implies "might makes right."

I repeat: FOR VERY GOOD REAON, BACKED UP BY HORRIBLE RECENT HISTORY, IT IS THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY EMBRYOS TO CONDUCT "RESEARCH" AND CARRY OUT "TREATMENTS" WHO HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING HARM TO HUMAN LIFE.

Further to this, the rhetorical ploy in this thread and elsewhere, of trying to shift this burden of proof unto those who would protect life from harm, is absolutely telling.

Now, on points:

1] Ned: I am curious why people are against the strongest definition of the right to life possible (at conception). This can only protect you.

--> You hit the nail on the head. (But, the underlying point is, that those who would exploit others never see themselves in the role of the victims.)

2] B: in the previous thread you dismissed this as a simple problem and accused me of playing word games...now this is a huge philosophical issue beyond the scope of us mere humans

--> Quite a distortion of the remarks in the previous thread!

--> Notice, in the excerpt from that thread's last post above, I pointed out the difference between recognising/identifying cases of a phenomenon [relatively easy to do] and the difficulty of creating a verbal definitional statement that includes all and only cases of the said phenomenon [very hard, sometimes maybe impossible]. A classic case is that biology exists in a context where there is no satisfactory definition of life, though we obviously recognise a great many cases in point.

--> In this case, we can run back through a form of a sequence that Francis Schaeffer classically used in the 1970's to show what is going on:

a] start 5 minutes after birth: is this a case of human life and a human being? Obviously.

b] Go back 2 hours. Is there a material difference? Obviously, not.

c] Go back another two hours. No material difference, again.

d] Repeat: at no stage is there a material, step-change difference, except the obvious one: fusion of sperm cell and ovum leading to implantation. At that point, a unique DNA code appears, forming the basis for natural human life from womb to senescence. That is, we are seeing a continuous unfolding of the development of life in the host environment of the womb, from the moment of conception on.

--> In short, there is excellent reason to recognise human life as being present from conception, and thus to protect it from imposed harm.

--> But of course this runs clean across a massive agenda, with a lot of blood on its hands – 47+ million unborn children in the US alone since 1973, and also how we see that – as predicted/ warned against -- abortion on demand has now led to routine infanticide and euthanasia. (One hardly expects those caught up in that slaughter to easily acknowledge what they have been supportive of or involved in. And, that is exactly what Schaeffer and Koop warned of in 1974, in their classic, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?)

2] I suggest we start with the simple argument about the soul . . . Killing a human beign is harming their body so their soul can no longer inhabit it. If a person's soul has already departed then the while the life in the body may be killed it is not killing a human beign (for example, harvesting the living organs from a body of someone completely brain dead).

--> Now, this is coming from a secularist proponent of evolutionary materialism in this blog, and so the twists, begged questions and gaps in the hurled elephant – JPH of Tektonics has used this apt phrase to denote controversial assertions that require a lot of backup and dialogue put as if they are a simple consensus of the informed -- above are unsurprising.

--> Now, first, the soul is even more difficult to identify and define – as opposed to recognise in vital cases -- than is life, so this substitutes a harder for an already hard problem. Further to this, this is in a context where bigtime worldview issues are at stake. in particular, the equation of the soul to the active brain is a massive begging of major philosophical questions; one that is simply not appropriate or required to answer to the issue of plain duty to protect life from harm as we can see above. Do I hear a trumpeting near-relative of the famed Jumbo flying overhead . . .?

--> More to the point, we see where this is going real quick: justification of euthanasia of the "brain dead." As we know all too well from the Terri Schaivo case and others that have recently happened, "brain dead," "persistent vegetative state," "minimally conscious" an the like are notoriously slippery and subject to the imposition of decisions by interested parties and agenda-driven activist judges on what tests to do or not to do, all in to the advantage of the powerful.

--> In short, B has precisely exemplified the falling dominoes: abortion --> infanticide --> Euthanasia [and it seems that the ESCR etc agenda is a case of euthanasia for the benefit of the powerful at the expense of the lives of the weak and voiceless] pointed out by Schaeffer 30 years ago.

--> The rise of IVF and the proposal of ESCR have thus now brought this warning up to date: many now seek to harvest "unwanted" embryos, for "research" and "treatments." Was that the shade of Dr Mengele I just heard laughing . . . ? Seems his ghost was riding on the back this last elephant flying overhead . . .

3] Suppose some yahoos successfully lobby to get unfertilized eggs defined as human beigns making research on them impossible.

--> Onlookers, first note the plain -- not even "sub-" -- text of contempt.

--> Second, let us observe, it has long since been pointed out in this thread and in the previous one, that there is a very recognisable step-change at the moment of conception, beyond which a 9-month process of development leads to birth. This is willful, self-serving obstinacy in the face of plainly evident fact.

--> Third, it is worth citing Joe's observations of July 17, above, that Eric and Lisa also noted on:

Let’s first distinguish the terms “human being” (a scientific term) and “human person” (a philosophical [and theological and legal, Joe!] concept). The creation of a new human being occurs sometime in the period between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization. Two distinct parts of other human beings (the sperm and the oocyte) combine to create a new, genetically distinct, whole living human being at the embryonic single-cell stage of development . . . . [cites multiple examples] . . . . After fertilization occurs, the human embryo (regardless of the number of cells) doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply continues to grow and move through the various stages of human development until adulthood.

(I recommend this article --http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html-- for a more in depth explanation.)

Just as you can find scientists who believe the earth is flat, I'm sure that you can find those who disagree with the standard definition of human being used in embryology. Sure, you can claim that it is not a "human person." But to claim that it is not a "human being" is to go against scientifically verifiable facts.

--> The linked article also observes:

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate . . . .

Myth 10: "Human embryo research, human cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of chimeras are acceptable kinds of research because until implantation or 14 days there is only a 'pre-embryo', a 'potential' human embryo or human being present. A real human embryo and a human being (child) do not actually begin unless and until the 'pre-embryo' is implanted into the mother's uterus."

Fact 10: These claims are currently being made by bioethicists, research scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and other biotech research companies — even by some members of Congress. However, they too are "scientific" myths.

Scientifically it is perfectly clear that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo," as demonstrated in Fact 7. As demonstrated in the background material, the immediate product of fertilization is a human being, a human embryo, a human child — the zygote. This zygote is a newly existing, genetically unique, genetically male or female, individual human being — it is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. And this developing human being is a human being, a human embryo, a human child whether or not it is implanted artificially into the womb of the mother.

Fertilization and cloning are different processes, but the immediate products of these processes are the same. The immediate product of human cloning would also be a human being — just as in human fertilization. It is not a "pre-embryo" or a "potential" human embryo or human being. Stem cell research obtains its "stem cells" by essentially exploding or otherwise destroying and killing a newly existing human blastocyst who is, scientifically, an existing human being. The formation of chimeras, i.e., the fertilization of a gamete of one species (e.g., a human oocyte) with the gamete of another species (e.g., a monkey sperm) also results in an embryo that is "half-human." All of these types of research have been banned by most countries in the world. And all of these types of research are essentially human embryo research — for which the use of federal funds has been banned.

--> I would, however, make a slight distinction and correction: the creation of genetically unique new human life occurs at fertilisation, and one or more unique human individuals are the natural result [i.e. I hereby recognise the possibility of so-called identical twins etc . . . where twinning is possible, that means that you could be destroying two individuals, not just one]. Each human individual constitutes a human being, from the embryo to the end of natural life, and I believe on good reason, beyond: Heb 9:27 -- "it is appointed unto men once to die, and thereafter to face judgement."

--> In law, theology and philosophy, the human individual is properly recognised and respected as a natural person, with equally natural rights to life etc, and also appropriate responsibilities as soon as that individual is sufficiently mature to act on its own.

--> In all cases, our plain duty is to protect human life from harm, and those who would make deceptive distinctions designed to dehumanise and take advantage of the dehumanised thereby reveal themselves for what they are. Period.

4] Likewise imagine someone redefined death to mean every cell in your body must die.

--> The folly of such a "definition" would be instantly obvious -- and no-one seriously offers it. For instance under certain circumstances, it is probably possible for rigor mortis or putrefaction to set in while some cells are still intact and operating, e.g hair continues to grow after death. [Under violent conditions, I am told that RM can set in almost instantly.] Again, life/death are far easier to recognise on a case by case basis than they are to reduce to a precising definition that includes all and only cases of life/death.

--> Something else is happening here: B is inadvertently revealing one of the self-refuting incoherences of the self-refuting radical relativism that is the natural result of evolutionary materialism: on such core assumptions and assertions, there is no good reason for terms to refer to real entities, so it is all a matter of social convention what words mean. Might makes right again. Here comes Dr Mengele on that flying and trumpeting elephant again . . .

--> The folly of such destructive relativism should be obvious.

+++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

And,

Incline our hearts to truth and right

Amen

Gordon

44

I find it so amazing that some people are so enthralled with the "potential" of stem cell research but are not with the "potential" for human life.

45

Boonton:
"Suppose some yahoos successfully lobby to get unfertilized eggs defined as human beigns making research on them impossible."

From an information theory standpoint, the sperm and egg are parent cells (actually half cells). At fertilization, you have new information (all the information the new person will ever have in their cells). So no logical definition can start before then.

The problem is justifying a later point. Any later point is only a question of development. If life is development, it's easy to see the definition change as society changes. And I've can't recall the last time our rights became stronger with time...

46

d] Repeat: at no stage is there a material, step-change difference, except the obvious one: fusion of sperm cell and ovum leading to implantation. At that point, a unique DNA code appears, forming the basis for natural human life from womb to senescence. That is, we are seeing a continuous unfolding of the development of life in the host environment of the womb, from the moment of conception on.

Of course going from a single cell to two cells is a 100% growth, that is a material change. So is the formation of an upper brain. All Gordon has done here is declared that the formation of a unique DNA code is basically the equilivant to the creation of a new human soul and everything after the fact is just cosmetic. Needless to say a dozen cells together hardly has the structure, appearence or functioning of, say, a third trimester unborn baby yet he would have us believe all the action happens at conception and the rest is just trivial changes. He does not, of course, apply this to the other end of life...he would not rule that death has not happened unless every cell with that human's unique DNA not longer has any possibility of reproducing.

--> Now, this is coming from a secularist proponent of evolutionary materialism in this blog, and so the twists, begged questions and gaps in the hurled elephant – JPH of Tektonics has used this apt phrase to denote controversial assertions that require a lot of backup and dialogue put as if they are a simple consensus of the informed -- above are unsurprising.

Wow, instead of addressing the ideas Gordon churns up the label making machine. I'm a 'secularist proponent of evolutionary materialism'. Hmmm, ok whose an example of a theistic proponent of evolutionary materialism? How about a secularist proponent of evolutionary theism? I'm sorry it bothers you so much that I could possibly type the word 'soul' into one of my posts. Perhaps the keybord I got from SecularistProponentofEvolutionaryMaterialismGear.com is defective....

--> Now, first, the soul is even more difficult to identify and define – as opposed to recognise in vital cases -- than is life, so this substitutes a harder for an already hard problem. Further to this, this is in a context where bigtime worldview issues are at stake. in particular, the equation of the soul to the active brain is a massive begging of major philosophical questions; one that is simply not appropriate or required to answer to the issue of plain duty to protect life from harm as we can see above. Do I hear a trumpeting near-relative of the famed Jumbo flying overhead . . .?

Indeed it is difficult but hardly irrelevant. Traditionally we put abuse and murder of humans on a plane far above the abuse and killing of animals specifically because humans are believed to have souls while animals do not. Basically what you are saying is because the creation of a new DNA code is easy to measure it should be used as the starting point for the creation of a human beign versus simply the starting point of human life that will become a human beign...but because using it as the end point definition of a human beigns leads to awkward and difficult to accept implications we are permitted to use a 'common sense' definition.

--> More to the point, we see where this is going real quick: justification of euthanasia of the "brain dead." As we know all too well from the Terri Schaivo case and others that have recently happened, "brain dead," "persistent vegetative state," "minimally conscious" an the like are notoriously slippery and subject to the imposition of decisions by interested parties and agenda-driven activist judges on what tests to do or not to do, all in to the advantage of the powerful.

I've been using brain death or 'full brain death' because I was under the impression this is a point were we all have agreement on a fitting definition of death. (Of a human beign, as I pointed out human life continues on in some form for some time after that point). On the contrary from being slippery, in the old days lack of a pulse was often sufficient to indicate death, so if anything we started near the bottom of the slope and are now asking how far up it we must climb.

Now you have entirely dodged the issue of the soul yet many faithful Christians have no trouble formulating beliefs about it. In fact, I have to say you've reverted to quite a bit of vicious materialism in your definitions, reducing a human beign to nothing more than a genetic blueprint.

--> In short, B has precisely exemplified the falling dominoes: abortion --> infanticide --> Euthanasia [and it seems that the ESCR etc agenda is a case of euthanasia for the benefit of the powerful at the expense of the lives of the weak and voiceless] pointed out by Schaeffer 30 years ago.

Reverting to Marxist templates is usually a sign of a weak argument. Rather than recognize sincere differences of opinion Gordon would rather turn this into a play between the weak and powerful. Yet the fact is look at the most notable 'euthanasia' case of recent memory, Terry Schiavo. There the powerful were hardly on the side of Terry's husband. He had the governor of the state, the state legislature, the US Congress and President Bush against him as well as the literally millions from pro-life organizations who had no ethical problem with slandering him day and night on the most flimsy of evidence. This 'powerful man' had only the rule of law on his side which his opponants sought to undermine at every step of the way. The culimination of these cases has not been a law ordering the sick to be executed but the living will...the ultimate option for the weak since they can use it to speak for their wishes when they are unable to speak.

I repeat: FOR VERY GOOD REAON, BACKED UP BY HORRIBLE RECENT HISTORY, IT IS THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY EMBRYOS TO CONDUCT "RESEARCH" AND CARRY OUT "TREATMENTS" WHO HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING HARM TO HUMAN LIFE.

No one doubts that people with Parkinson's and other conditions that might be saved, directly or indirectly are human beigns. There is no doubt there. If you are wrong about embryos who becomes the weak and who becomes the powerful in your little morality play?

While you dodged the issue this is why I introduced the hypothetical of people introducing definitions that we all would agree would be too extreme (such as defining unfertilized eggs as human beigns, defining death only upon death of 100% of all the body's cells). As those extreme examples show just 'playing it safe' is no safety either. Drawing unreasonable lines will harm real human beigns whose existence none of us can reasonably doubt.

47

nedbrak,

From an information theory standpoint, the sperm and egg are parent cells (actually half cells). At fertilization, you have new information (all the information the new person will ever have in their cells). So no logical definition can start before then.

Here's an interesting fact I once read. One theory about the rise in obesity links it with the nutrition mothers in developed countries had during pregnancy. If they had poor nutrition the DNA in the unborn child 'assumes' the environment is one of famine and gears the metabolic system to be slow. If nutrition was good then it gears it to be fast. When the child is then born into a country like the US where junk food is cheap and plentiful its slow metabolism confronts all the available food resulting in a fat kid. So sometimes at least the question of whether something was caused by DNA inherited from your parents or was caused by your environment is actually quite complicated. In this case at least, it is both since the very same DNA in a different prenatal environment would have produced a thin kid even though he would eat just like his less fortunate brother.

So from an information standpoint new information is created well past fertilization. DNA is less like a blueprint and more like a complicated computer program that can, to a degree, alter its own code from cues in the environment. We talk about stem cells being over hyped but I suspect DNA has been overhyped as well. DNA alone hardly makes a unique human beign IMO.

BTW, speaking of making a fetish out of DNA it's nice of Gordon to accept that twins are humans. He leaves out the question of when they become two different human beigns? Before or after seperation?

What if a drug was developed that inhibited an embryo from dividing into twins but otherwise left its development unharmed. Would that be killing a human beign or not? Why not? What if the 'information' that would result in two twins was present in the new DNA that was created upon fertilization?

I know Gordon would like to declare talk of souls off limits here but in the case of twins (assuming he wouldn't object to such a drug), what would he say to those who believe that the two human souls of the twins are implanted in the fertilized egg before seperation? To such people the prospect of such a drug would imply either that one soul would be cheated of life or two souls would end up unnaturally mixed up in one body...would Gordon tell them to just go home since their concern for souls is full of question begging and 'hard' philosophy?

48

In the previous thread on this subject, Joe maintained that the 22 lines available for federal funding research support were "viable" because of some Salon article he read.

I contended that they were not viable. But, lacking empirical data to back that assertion, I said that I would ask an expert. I did.

I contacted the Stem Cell Research Foundation, and asked them directly if the 22 lines were usable, or if they were of too poor quality to conduct productive research. Here is the response to that query. But if you want to click away here, I'll summarize: Joe is wrong.

Bush is wrong.

[---begin response---]

Hello,

Thank you for your email. There are many reasons why the current embronic stem cell lines approved by the government are inadequate:

a.. Because of the very early stage of development that stem cell science is in, no one knows how long these cell lines can be kept alive, or if they are hardy enough to supply all the government scientists who would like to use them in research.

b.. Even if the cells can be kept alive indefinitely, the longer they exist, the more genetic "mistakes" will accumulate in them. These mistakes will then be passed on to patients who receive them. The tendency of aging cells to accumulate genetic mistakes is known to be a major cause of cancer.

c.. The existing cell lines were grown atop a layer of mouse "feeder" cells and were given animal growth factors. This means that they carry a risk of infection from animal pathogens, and that they must meet the FDA's rigorous screening process for animal-to-human transplants if they are ever to be transplanted into humans. The chance that unidentified mouse viruses could cross species and harm humans basically renders these cell lines useless for human therapies.

d.. In order to minimize the risk of rejection, close genetic matches must be found for those who hope to receive transplants of the cells. The small number of cell lines approved by the government don't come close to providing the genetic diversity that will be needed for widespread use.

I hope this is helpful. Kind regards,

[---signed, end response---]

Joe, I understand that you are uncomfortable with scientists examining the basic processes of life, but we are the world's leader in science and research. We are now able to make these inquiries. Advocating ignorance and continued blindness in this direction only means that other countries will surpass us in this effort and we will lose yet another edge in the evolution of social systems world wide. I think that it behooves us to be in front and provide knowledgeable ethical direction from the standpoint of being the world's authority in this area.

49

Onlookers:

Interesting to see the rhetorical games isn't it. A few comments on points:

1] NB: the sperm and egg are parent cells (actually half cells). At fertilization, you have new information (all the information the new person will ever have in their cells). So no logical definition can start before then. The problem is justifying a later point. Any later point is only a question of development.

--> this aptly more than anticipates:

2] B: Of course going from a single cell to two cells is a 100% growth, that is a material change. So is the formation of an upper brain. All Gordon has done here is declared that the formation of a unique DNA code is basically the equilivant to the creation of a new human soul and everything after the fact is just cosmetic. Needless to say a dozen cells together hardly has the structure, appearence or functioning of, say, a third trimester unborn baby

--> First and foremost, I am not the authority saying that the point of formation of new human life is conception. IT IS AN OBJECTIVE AND LONG SINCE GENERALLY RECOGNISED FACT OF EMBRYOLOGY. Cell multiplication and differentiation into the basic three-layer structure of the human body then further development into organs and recognisably "human" shape is just that: DEVELOPMENT.

--> Indeed, onlookers should see the above remark by Joe of July 17 in which he provided no less than five cites and a link to a major article, which I again linked above and cited.

--> Here, again, is just one of those those five cites, which suffices to show the force of the point NB made above:

"Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 7th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders 2003, p. 2.

--> The rhetorical strategy here is to fly in the face of the objective but not generally understood facts, try to pretend that I am the "source" and "authority" for the claim, then to present developmental facts as if they make a step change in the nature of what the relevant authorities recognise happens at conception.

--> FYI B, duplication of the original zygote is growth, not innovation of information or origination of genetically unique human life.

--> FYFI, differentiation and specialisation of cells to form the structures of the body is development, not origination of genetically unique human life.

--> FYYFI, I have made no claims about the origin of the human soul -- other than the obvious one: this is a matter shrouded in mysteries and worldview level controversy so that to shift the terms of the discussion from what is objective to what is much harder to pin down is to compound the problem by hurling an elephant. Also, I have pointed out the further fact that conflating soul and brain function is both controversial and on track record pregnant with monstrous abuses.

--> And, BTW, in that context, it is more than appropriate to point out to onlookers your track record as "the most prolific commenter" in this blog. The soul is a theistic or pantheistic concept, and is a key part of the mind-brain duality issue in philosophy. Your conflation of the two is a plain case of hurling the elephant, ands that is what I pointed out.

4] because using it as the end point definition of a human beigns leads to awkward and difficult to accept implications we are permitted to use a 'common sense' definition.

--> Joe long since aptly pointed out that we can easily identify the point where genetically unique human life begins, and that from that point we are looking at development. THE COMMON SENSE POINTS ARE:

1] Innocent human life is to be protected.

2] If there is doubt on whether human life is present, the benefit of the doubt goes to life.

3] There is in fact no objective reason to doubt that fertilisation is the point where such human life begins.

4] The proposed "redefinition" is being proffered in order to exploit the newly dehumanised embryos, i.e. we see exposed the "might makes right" power games that are a characteristic of secular evolutionary materialism.

5] Rather than recognize sincere differences of opinion Gordon would rather turn this into a play between the weak and powerful. Yet the fact is look at the most notable 'euthanasia' case of recent memory, Terry Schiavo. There the powerful were hardly on the side of Terry's husband

--> This would be a laughable rewrite of history, if the facts and implications were not so sad. Out of control judges, media and politicians handed a victory to the forces of death in that terrible case. Her blood cries up from the ground for justice and ultimately it shall not be denied.

--> Nor is it a particularly Marxist analysis to point out that a system of thought that boils down tot he survival of the fittest and the domination of the powerful as a direct implication ends up in the principle that "might makes right."

--> Indeed, it is no less a figure than Darwin himself who drew that deduction in his books and letters. That is why in earlier threads I observed, with cites [I leave them off just now out of mercy for Joe's already doubtless horrendous bandwidth bill], that the first Social Darwinist was -- Charles Darwin.

6] No one doubts that people with Parkinson's and other conditions that might be saved, directly or indirectly are human beigns.

--> This is just plain dishonest, given that the previous thread is hardly a week old.

--> ONLOOKERS, FYI, IN THAT THREAD JOE POINTED OUT THAT MR KINSLEY IN HIS RUSH TO ADVOCATE FOR ESCR, FAILED TO NOTE THAT IT IS PRECISELY ASCS THAT HAVE PRODUCED AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE, NOT ESCS. Indeed, there is an excerpt there on the details of