Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[DemandCurve]

nerves in rats, producing compounds that nurture nerve cells and stimulate the growth of new ones, Geron Corp. said on Wednesday.

Read more here (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-01-17T152054Z_01_WEN2290_RTRUKOC_0_US-GERON.xml&WTmodLoc=SciNewsHome_C1_[Feed]-2)

[palerider]

nerves in rats, producing compounds that nurture nerve cells and stimulate the growth of new ones, Geron Corp. said on Wednesday.

Read more here (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-01-17T152054Z_01_WEN2290_RTRUKOC_0_US-GERON.xml&WTmodLoc=SciNewsHome_C1_[Feed]-2)

And to do this in rats, they killed how many living human beings? Meanwhile, scientists using adult stem cells have actually restored feeling and movement in a patient who suffered a spinal injury 19 years ago.

http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/content/q77706775451qh1l/?p=854daac8a08549d28dcf079489f24417&pi=7

And they didn't have to kill a single innocent human being to do it. The future of stem cell therapy lies in adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Embryonic research is just a front for the pro choice movement as if killing one human being in an effort to offer a cure to another were a legitimate field of science.

Here is a partial list of ailments that have been successfully treated with adult stem cells.

Brain Cancer - Retinoblastoma -Ovarian Cancer - Merkel Cell Carcinoma -Testicular Cancer -
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma -Hodgkin’s Lymphoma - Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia -Acute Myelogenous Leukemia -Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia - Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia - Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy -Multiple Myeloma -
Myelodysplasia -Breast Cancer -Neuroblastoma -Renal Cell Carcinoma -Various Solid Tumors -Soft Tissue Sarcoma -Ewing’s Sarcoma -Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia -Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis -POEMS syndrome -Myelofibrosis -Systemic Lupus -Sjogren’s Syndrome -Myasthenia -Autoimmune Cytopenia -Scleromyxedema -Scleroderma -Crohn’s Disease -Behcet’s Disease -Rheumatoid Arthritis -Juvenile Arthritis -Multiple Sclerosis -Polychondritis -Systemic Vasculitis -Alopecia Universalis -Buerger’s Disease -Acute Heart Damage -Chronic Coronary Artery Disease -Corneal regeneration -Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome -X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome -X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome -Parkinson’s Disease -Spinal Cord Injury -Stroke Damage -Sickle Cell Anemia -Sideroblastic Anemia -Aplastic Anemia -
Red Cell Aplasia Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia -Thalassemia -Primary Amyloidosis -Diamond Blackfan Anemia -Fanconi’s Anemia -Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection -Limb Gangrene -Surface Wound Healing -Jawbone Replacement -Skull Bone Repair -Hurler’s Syndrome -Osteogenesis Imperfecta -Krabbe Leukodystrophy -Osteopetrosis -Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy -Chronic Liver Failure -Liver Cirrhosis -End-Stage Bladder Disease .

To be completely fair, here is the complete list of treatments that have resulted from embryonic stem cell research.



Yep. That is the entire list.

[Friendindeed]

Here is a partial list of ailments that have been successfully treated with adult stem cells.

Brain Cancer - Retinoblastoma -Ovarian Cancer - Merkel Cell Carcinoma -Testicular Cancer -
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma -Hodgkin’s Lymphoma - Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia -Acute Myelogenous Leukemia -Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia - Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia - Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy -Multiple Myeloma -
Myelodysplasia -Breast Cancer -Neuroblastoma -Renal Cell Carcinoma -Various Solid Tumors -Soft Tissue Sarcoma -Ewing’s Sarcoma -Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia -Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis -POEMS syndrome -Myelofibrosis -Systemic Lupus -Sjogren’s Syndrome -Myasthenia -Autoimmune Cytopenia -Scleromyxedema -Scleroderma -Crohn’s Disease -Behcet’s Disease -Rheumatoid Arthritis -Juvenile Arthritis -Multiple Sclerosis -Polychondritis -Systemic Vasculitis -Alopecia Universalis -Buerger’s Disease -Acute Heart Damage -Chronic Coronary Artery Disease -Corneal regeneration -Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome -X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome -X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome -Parkinson’s Disease -Spinal Cord Injury -Stroke Damage -Sickle Cell Anemia -Sideroblastic Anemia -Aplastic Anemia -
Red Cell Aplasia Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia -Thalassemia -Primary Amyloidosis -Diamond Blackfan Anemia -Fanconi’s Anemia -Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection -Limb Gangrene -Surface Wound Healing -Jawbone Replacement -Skull Bone Repair -Hurler’s Syndrome -Osteogenesis Imperfecta -Krabbe Leukodystrophy -Osteopetrosis -Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy -Chronic Liver Failure -Liver Cirrhosis -End-Stage Bladder Disease .



Parkinsons ? Did someone forget to tell Michael J. Fox about that ?

[palerider]

Parkinsons ? Did someone forget to tell Michael J. Fox about that ?

There have been no effective treatments for parkinsons or alzheimer's with embryonic stem cells. If he is under the impression that effective treatement has come out of embryonic stem cell research, or is likely to, he has been misinformed.

Treatment after treatment works, and is approved with adult, and cord blood stem cells but no effective treatment for anything has been developed with embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is a front by the pro choice movement in an attempt to soften society's ever hardening opinion of abortion.

Little mention is ever made of the successes (albeit limited) that have occurred in reversing the symptoms of parkinson's using patient's own stem cells. Symptoms have been dramatically reduced and even halted for periods as long as 4 years.

The press simply has little respect for cures that derive from adult stem cells but will fill newsprint colums with drivel about this effect or that effect in rats with embryonic stem cells.

[Friendindeed]

Could you show me where to find something about the reversing or halting of Parkinsons with adult stem cells ?

[palerider]

Could you show me where to find something about the reversing or halting of Parkinsons with adult stem cells ?

Not a problem:

Follow the links on the left hand side of the page.

http://www.cellmedicine.com/

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042302.asp

http://www.leaderu.com/science/stemcelltestimony_turner.html

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/mcconchie_2004-06-16.htm

There are more but this should be enough to get you started. I spend a fair amount of time researching this subject. I have a condition in which my best hope for a cure lies in a stem cell transplant. I have been watching this field for years and have been steadily encouraged by the advances made with adult stem cells. Early on, I decided that I would not accept any treatment derived from embryonic stem cells and watched the progress of the research closely.

My condition is among those that is treatable using my own, or my brother's (a perfect match) stem cells when the time comes to pursue more aggressive treatment. To date, not a single therapy has been derived from embryonic stem cells. Some work has been done in mice that has yielded minimal success, but such research is possibly decades away from use in human beings while the list for successful treatment using adult stem cells grows by 4 or 5 serious diseases per year.

There are some inherent biological problems inherent in using embryonic stem cells that I genuinely don't believe science is ever going to be able to overcome. If embryonic stem cell research were being done with any other material, history suggests that the long list of failures would have resulted in funding drying up some time ago and the research abandoned due to insurmountable obstacles. The pro choice movement has very deep pockets, and considerable political power and as a result, they will fund this until even the scientists doing the research become disgusted and abandon it.

[Friendindeed]

Thanks, I'll look at all of it.
I have heard that ESCs have caused tumors.

[palerider]

Thanks, I'll look at all of it.
I have heard that ESCs have caused tumors.

Tumors are some of the least bizzare things they have caused. One parkinson's patient died because the embryonic stem cells began to form bone in his brain.

[Fonz]

And to do this in rats, they killed how many living human beings?


what?

[palerider]

what?

An embryo is exactly as human as you.

[vyo476]

This is far from my area of expertise, but it appears to me as though the main difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is that adult stem cells are undifferentiated whereas embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. In other words, adult stem cells are designed to repair just about any part of the body, whereas embryonic stem cells are designed to grow into any part of the body. I can see where research into both derivatives could yield promising results.

[Fonz]

An embryo is exactly as human as you.

Nearly every cell in your entire body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering.

Do you also weep everytime you scratch your nose and committ a literal holocaust of human beings?

Did you know that Embryos sometimes split? Is that a case of one human being becoming two? Sometimes Two embryos fuse into one, creating a Chimera. What happens to that extra human being in this case?

This naive idea you have is both intellectually and morally wrong.

[vyo476]

Nearly every cell in your entire body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering.

Do you also weep everytime you scratch your nose and committ a literal holocaust of human beings?

Did you know that Embryos sometimes split? Is that a case of one human being becoming two? Sometimes Two embryos fuse into one, creating a Chimera. What happens to that extra human being in this case?

This naive idea you have is both intellectually and morally wrong.

Interesting. I've never thought of it this way.

When is a human being a human being then? Birth? A specific trimester of the pregnancy? I'm curious to hear you're stance on this because I've been on the fence about things like abortion for a long time and I think you might have something here that'll allow me to put the issue to rest.

[Fonz]

Interesting. I've never thought of it this way.

When is a human being a human being then? Birth? A specific trimester of the pregnancy? I'm curious to hear you're stance on this because I've been on the fence about things like abortion for a long time and I think you might have something here that'll allow me to put the issue to rest.

Thats a tough question and not easily answerable. it all comes down to when the Fetus develops a consciousness and can sense pain or discomfort.

Theres no straightforward answer, though I think we can probably agree that a consciousness doesn't develop until at least certain organs are developed. Like the brain stem for instance.

Of course we could probably argue all night over what constitutes a consciousness. I've read study's by some scientists claiming that a baby doesn't even develop a sense of awareness or consciousness until around age 1. I don't personally agree with this however.

I am personally a vegetarian, and feel that we have ethical and moral responsibilities towards every life, whether its an animal or human being.

I'm not for abortion, but I would never want to take away a womans right to choose what she does with her body, especially when the scientific debate is still raging over what constitutes a life.

One thing for certain, is that when people have their sense of morals blinded by religious dogma, and not grounded in clear biological science, things like the abortion debate and Stem Cell debate, get real clouded in nonsense.

To get back on topic, and to further explain my point here.

A three day old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem cell research do not have brains, or even neutrons. Consequently there is no reason to beileve that they can suffer in any way at all. Furthermore, its worth remembering, that when a persons brain has died, its currently morally acceptable to harvest the human beings organs, to save another persons life. If it is acceptable to treat a person whos brain has died as something less than a human being, it should also be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such as well. And if someone is really concerned about the suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present that person with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst. And from what I understand, PaleRider hunts and kill defenseless Turkeys....

[Dave]

Interesting. I've never thought of it this way.

When is a human being a human being then? Birth? A specific trimester of the pregnancy? I'm curious to hear you're stance on this because I've been on the fence about things like abortion for a long time and I think you might have something here that'll allow me to put the issue to rest.

I don't really think that anyone here is qualified to make a medical opinion of what a human being is, but if you want a philosophical opinion, then one could make the case for any trimester you want. Just a few facts to consider:

At 6 weeks the embryo is about 1/5 of an inch in length. A primitive heart is beating. Head, mouth, liver, and intestines begin to take shape.

At 10 weeks the embryo is now about 1 inch in length. Facial features, limbs, hands, feet, fingers, and toes become apparent. The nervous system is responsive and many of the internal organs begin to function.

At 14 weeks the fetus is now 3 inches long and weighs almost an ounce. The muscles begin to develop and sex organs form. Eyelids, fingernails, and toenails also form. The child’s spontaneous movements can be observed.

At 18 weeks the fetus is now about 5 inches long. The child blinks, grasps, and moves her mouth. Hair grows on the head and body.

At 22 weeks the fetus now weighs approximately 1/2 a pound and spans about 10 inches from head to toe. Sweat glands develop, and the external skin has turned from transparent to opaque.

At 26 weeks the fetus can now inhale, exhale and even cry. Eyes have completely formed, and the tongue has developed taste buds. Under intensive medical care the fetus has over a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.

At 30 weeks the fetus is usually capable of living outside the womb and would be considered premature at birth.

At 40 weeks the child is now ready to live outside of his mother’s womb.


In my non-professional opinion, I can't really see how someone can say that a fetus is any different from any baby once it reaches the third trimester. The second trimester and even late into the first trimester seems to be extremely dangerous territory to me. The fetus has every appearance of a human child with the exception of size, and I'm not sure that can be a very reliable determining factor. I would not be comfortable with any abortion procedure after about 8 weeks.

[Fonz]

I don't really think that anyone here is qualified to make a medical opinion of what a human being is, but if you want a philosophical opinion, then one could make the case for any trimester you want. Just a few facts to consider:

At 6 weeks the embryo is about 1/5 of an inch in length. A primitive heart is beating. Head, mouth, liver, and intestines begin to take shape.

At 10 weeks the embryo is now about 1 inch in length. Facial features, limbs, hands, feet, fingers, and toes become apparent. The nervous system is responsive and many of the internal organs begin to function.

At 14 weeks the fetus is now 3 inches long and weighs almost an ounce. The muscles begin to develop and sex organs form. Eyelids, fingernails, and toenails also form. The child’s spontaneous movements can be observed.

At 18 weeks the fetus is now about 5 inches long. The child blinks, grasps, and moves her mouth. Hair grows on the head and body.

At 22 weeks the fetus now weighs approximately 1/2 a pound and spans about 10 inches from head to toe. Sweat glands develop, and the external skin has turned from transparent to opaque.

At 26 weeks the fetus can now inhale, exhale and even cry. Eyes have completely formed, and the tongue has developed taste buds. Under intensive medical care the fetus has over a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.

At 30 weeks the fetus is usually capable of living outside the womb and would be considered premature at birth.

At 40 weeks the child is now ready to live outside of his mother’s womb.


In my non-professional opinion, I can't really see how someone can say that a fetus is any different from any baby once it reaches the third trimester. The second trimester and even late into the first trimester seems to be extremely dangerous territory to me. The fetus has every appearance of a human child with the exception of size, and I'm not sure that can be a very reliable determining factor. I would not be comfortable with any abortion procedure after about 8 weeks.


Thats a very good response Dave.

[zerorelations]

Yes, I'd have to agree with what Fonz said.

[palerider]

Nearly every cell in your entire body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering.

There is a difference between potenial and realized. Sperm and eggs are potential human beings but until they combine, their potential is just that. After they have combined, however, their potential is realized and a new human being exists.

Did you know that Embryos sometimes split? Is that a case of one human being becoming two? Sometimes Two embryos fuse into one, creating a Chimera. What happens to that extra human being in this case?

And that makes them less human than you how exactly?

This naive idea you have is both intellectually and morally wrong.

That unborns are human beings is not debated by any credible science. Practically every medical textbook in use today in the study of embryology or developmental biology acknowledges that upon the completion of fertilization, a new human being comes into existence. The only debate is whether or not it is ethically ok to kill them.

[Fonz]

There is a difference between potenial and realized. Sperm and eggs are potential human beings but until they combine, their potential is just that. After they have combined, however, their potential is realized and a new human being exists.

What exactly do you classify as a human being?


And that makes them less human than you how exactly?

You didn't answer the question. How can one human being become two human beings? How can two human beings become one?

That unborns are human beings is not debated by any credible science. Practically every medical textbook in use today in the study of embryology or developmental biology acknowledges that upon the completion of fertilization, a new human being comes into existence. The only debate is whether or not it is ethically ok to kill them.

The embryos that are destroyed in stem cell research do not have brains or even neurons. There is no reason to believe that they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.

Tell me why do you feel that the interests of a blastocyst supersede the interests of a child with a spinal cord injury?

[palerider]

What exactly do you classify as a human being?[/auote]

Any member of species homo spaiens sapiens. What do you classify as a human being?

[QUOTE=Fonz;5695]You didn't answer the question. How can one human being become two human beings? How can two human beings become one?

Such a tired old argument. One that has been put away for quite some time. I am surprised that it is still in use. While twinning and fusion raise some interesting questions with regard to the lives (and capacities) of early embryonic life, the argument that individual life is not present from conception is specious at best. Genetic studies strongly suggest that when twinning occurs, the original embryo continues to live and a second embryo results from the splitting of the first one. Research suggests that twinning is a form of asexual reproduction and there is ample embryological evidence that human beings in the very early stages of development have the capacity to asexually reproduce under certain conditions.

The fact of twinning simply demonstrates that we have capabilities in early life that we lose as we mature. During our early development, for example, we have the capacity to grow and mature at a rate that our metabolisms simply couldn't support in later life.

If twinning happened at 16 years of age rather than at 1 to 14 days, would you suggest that no one is a human being until after the age of 16?

From a biological point of view, an occurance of monozygotic twinning completely fails to demonstrate that the embryo prior to twinning was not an individual in exactly the same way as the division of a single, whole flatworm into two whole flatworms does not show that prior to that division the flatworm was not an individual.

Fusion is even more easily understood. When fusion occurs, one embryo is simply absorbed by the other.

The embryos that are destroyed in stem cell research do not have brains or even neurons. There is no reason to believe that they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.

One doesn't need to suffer one's destruction in order to be a human being and the fact that at a certain age, the embryo has not developed certain organs or systems is also no indication that it is not, in fact, a human being. None of us are fully mature until we are well into our 20's. New borns have a great deal of developing to do before they are fully mature, but they are human beings, none the less.

Tell me why do you feel that the interests of a blastocyst supersede the interests of a child with a spinal cord injury?

A blastocyst is a human being. The interest of all of us is to live and a human being that is days old has as much right to live as a human being who is years old. Following your logic, we should be able to terminate post natal children for their organs so that older members of the species can prolong their lives or recover from injuries.

If you are using scientific terms like blastocyst, or embryo in an attempt to dehumanize a human being so that you may do with, or treat them as you wish then you are little better than a racist who uses words like ni&&er or coon in an attempt to dehumanize black people so that he may treat them how he wishes.

Here are a few references to medical text books:



"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.


"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.


"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.


"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.



If you can provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings ie EVER anything but a human being, I would be very interested in seeing it.

[Fonz]

Any member of species homo spaiens sapiens. What do you classify as a human being?

A Homo Sapien with a consciousness. As characterized by a self awareness..etc.


Such a tired old argument. One that has been put away for quite some time. I am surprised that it is still in use. While twinning and fusion raise some interesting questions with regard to the lives (and capacities) of early embryonic life, the argument that individual life is not present from conception is specious at best. Genetic studies strongly suggest that when twinning occurs, the original embryo continues to live and a second embryo results from the splitting of the first one. Research suggests that twinning is a form of asexual reproduction and there is ample embryological evidence that human beings in the very early stages of development have the capacity to asexually reproduce under certain conditions.

So tiring yet you have no answer for it? I wasn't really asking for the scientific "how" it happens. Though IM sure you already knew that. Your making a metaphysical assertion for which you have no basis. That a Blastocyst is a human being.

If thats the case, then how can ONE human being suddenly become TWO human beings?



If twinning happened at 16 years of age rather than at 1 to 14 days, would you suggest that no one is a human being until after the age of 16?

You mean if like, somehow in fairy tale land, a 16 year old person could just like Morph into two people? what are you smoking man?


Fusion is even more easily understood. When fusion occurs, one embryo is simply absorbed by the other.

So what happens to that other human life? Can two human lives become one? Does one human being simply disappear?



One doesn't need to suffer one's destruction in order to be a human being and the fact that at a certain age, the embryo has not developed certain organs or systems is also no indication that it is not, in fact, a human being. None of us are fully mature until we are well into our 20's. New borns have a great deal of developing to do before they are fully mature, but they are human beings, none the less.

How else can we explain morality than that of the suffering and happiness of sentient creatures?


A blastocyst is a human being. The interest of all of us is to live and a human being that is days old has as much right to live as a human being who is years old. Following your logic, we should be able to terminate post natal children for their organs so that older members of the species can prolong their lives or recover from injuries.

It is not a human being. Its a group of 150 cells that has the potential to become a human being.


If you are using scientific terms like blastocyst, or embryo in an attempt to dehumanize a human being so that you may do with, or treat them as you wish then you are little better than a racist who uses words like ni&&er or coon in an attempt to dehumanize black people so that he may treat them how he wishes.

I think the real problem here, is that you are simply unaware of what happens in the real world. We are talking about embryos that are going to be tossed out and thrown to waste anyways. How can you seriously oppose the use of these embryos and instead insist that they be destroyed, thereby serving no purpose whatsoever?

I can understand why some people oppose the creation of new human embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. I certainly, don't agree with them, but I can understand that position. But opposing the use of already created embryos that are currently destined for the trash is just willful ignorance.

[palerider]

A Homo Sapien with a consciousness. As characterized by a self awareness..etc.

So a person in a coma is not human?

And infants do not achieve self awareness until they are between 12 and 18 months old. Are they also not human beings because they are not self aware yet?

So tiring yet you have no answer for it? I wasn't really asking for the scientific "how" it happens. Though IM sure you already knew that. Your making a metaphysical assertion for which you have no basis. That a Blastocyst is a human being.

If thats the case, then how can ONE human being suddenly become TWO human beings?

I told you. Embryonic research has found that until a certain age, embryo's can reproduce asexually.

So what happens to that other human life? Can two human lives become one? Does one human being simply disappear?

In the case of absorption, one is absorbed by the other. The one that is absorbed dies. The two don't become one individual any more than you become part cow when you eat a burger.

How else can we explain morality than that of the suffering and happiness of sentient creatures?

This isn't a moral question for me, it is legal. Our right to live is protected by the 14th amendment.

It is not a human being. Its a group of 150 cells that has the potential to become a human being.

It is a human being. The number of cells is irrelavent. You have far more cells than a newborn but you are no more human than that newborn. The potential lies with the sperm and the egg. Once fertilizationis completed, that potential has been realized and a new human being begins his or her life.

I have provided you with credible science that states quite clearly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you, or can you not provide any sort of credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being.

I have substantiated my position, yours remains uncorroborated.

I think the real problem here, is that you are simply unaware of what happens in the real world. We are talking about embryos that are going to be tossed out and thrown to waste anyways. How can you seriously oppose the use of these embryos and instead insist that they be destroyed, thereby serving no purpose whatsoever?

Completely irrelavent. They are human beings are you are advocating harvesting human beings for the benefit of others human beings.

I can understand why some people oppose the creation of new human embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. I certainly, don't agree with them, but I can understand that position. But opposing the use of already created embryos that are currently destined for the trash is just willful ignorance.


Tell me, would you be ok with harvesting prisoners in jail who have been given life sentences with no chance of parole? They have been essentially thrown away. The fact remains that our right to live is protected by the 14th amendment. Ignorance is convincing yourself that it is perfectly fine to kill one human being to benefit another.

[Dave]

Pale Rider does bring up some interesting points. If there was a way to scientifically determine what could be considered human life, what things would we ask?
1. Is this being alive? Yes, he has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.
2. Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.
3. Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.
I'm not sure that conciousness is really required to be considered a human life from a scientific standpoint. Even if it is not completely a human life, there is still doubt. We as humans do not bury those that we doubt are alive. We make sure first. I would suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.

[palerider]

...there is still doubt. We as humans do not bury those that we doubt are alive. We make sure first. I would suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.

I like this point. I have been asking for a very long time for someone to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. In all these years, none has been provided. In my mind, that erases any doubt that they are human beings. It should establish enough doubt in any thinking person to make them question whether or not they are killing living human beings. If they have no doubts, in the face of credible evidence to the contrary, then they must be working from a position of faith, and not intellect.

[r0beph]

3. Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.



Not trying to quibble much here, but in response to this. No the being is far from complete. If removed from the mother and allowed to live on it's own, even with normal support as one would give a fully developed child, it would not survive. Without the callous connotation, unborn fetus are parasitic in nature, surviving only by taking from the mother. This isn't a cheap shot at the right to life or otherwise, or an attempt to lessen the importance of a child's life. But I must feel that objectively and without the emotional component I have to fully agree with the idea that a pregenant woman should have the right to have a fetuses removed, the fact remains that in this removal it will not remain alive and thus the "death" during abortive processes is simply a side effect of the choice to have the fetus removed.

I highly HIGHLY dislike the idea of abortion as birth control, but the right should exist. And if someone makes the choice to exercise that right the fetus should not be wasted but for the betterment of man. People die and we take their organs for transplant and medical studies. Permission for this is dependent on their authorization. In the US medical consent is remanded to the parent of a child, and thus I feel that an unborn fetus is still in the 'control' of the parent and thus medical consent remains the parent's choice. If a fetus is given to medicine it, in my opinion, should be legal due to how the law is written. The moral dilemma is one I'm going to avoid, because I know exactly where that goes when argued. I just have a serious problem with two choices existing, throw the fetus in the trash or use it to possibly better the life of all people, they choose the former, utter nonsense.

As per embryonic research I have absolutely no qualms about this. These micro-cellular organisms are completely and utterly inviable without supported assistance. Life is a hard define, science's classification once said viruses are not alive, but really what is life? Perhaps our ideas of what is living and what is non-living are flawed and merely the measure of our ignorance and restricted powers of observation. Hell many consider that the earth is alive. Even inert matter is in constant movement and change. To argue that it's LIFE that should be protected is a slightly off center mode of thinking. Life should be protected WHERE and IF it is viable in a fully healthy form (where healthy form is NOT defined by reaching a point in development) without support. In other words a comatose patient on a breathing machine, if not for the trauma/medical dysfunction that required this intervention, this being would live without external support. A Fetus in NO form could live if placed in the world without being frozen/supported by interventions/etc. It is simply not a viable unit. I hate to look at things from such a standpoint, but when it's brought in the legality field of this discussion, I have to, as do you, without pure objectivity sans emotional response, you cannot debate law since itself is a technical matter.

I have been asking for a very long time for someone to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

There is a rift between the definition of life and our definition of viable functional human being. As an example of our handling of these situations let me create a hypothetical situation. Let's say a fetus forms without lungs. Obviously a defect, yet nonetheless this fetus is as all other fetuses, that is it contains all that which is required to create offspring. Although it is likely that in the case of such a defect that so many other complications would exist the child could not be brought to term, for the sake of argument let's say it is. Brought to term this fetus survives, only via the oxygenation of the mothers blood via the umbilical transfer, once removed this child has zero chances of survival. One cannot disagree with the fact that once the umbilical transfer is removed this child will die. We could argue that it may be perhaps possible to create a machine that in a manner similar to kidney dialysis, rather than removing impurities one that adds oxygen, could keep and support this life. This would in our system be completely legal to not provide. In a current real world matter, those who continually require support via artificial means (Comatose victims) are often removed from these systems. They argue Quality of Life (QOL) reasoning. But how can a completely unaware life form exhibit any QOL positive or negative? They can't, this is no different than those embryos which have no awareness.

[palerider]

Without the callous connotation, unborn fetus are parasitic in nature, surviving only by taking from the mother.

Another tired old argument that has absolutely no basis in fact. It is clear that you are not clear on what a parasite is. Let me enlighten you.

1. First and foremost, a parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species

A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, and in no way parasitic.

2 A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source

A human embryo or fetus is formed from inside the mother-- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3. A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite

A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother.

4. A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved.

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5. When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will often respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue

When the human embryo or fetus attaches to the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

I can continue but I suppose that this is enough to give you the idea. Arguments that are not based in truth are worse than worthless.

I highly HIGHLY dislike the idea of abortion as birth control, but the right should exist.

The right to kill another human being for no better reason than convenience should exist? Is that across the whole human species, or do you only favor allowing the killing of the most helpless?

People die and we take their organs for transplant and medical studies. Permission for this is dependent on their authorization.

Get authorization from the unborn before you kill it and I am with you.

In the US medical consent is remanded to the parent of a child, and thus I feel that an unborn fetus is still in the 'control' of the parent and thus medical consent remains the parent's choice.

So you believe that a parent should be able to terminate their child up until the child is no longer under the parent's control? ie. 18 years?

As per embryonic research I have absolutely no qualms about this. These micro-cellular organisms are completely and utterly inviable without supported assistance.

Micro cellular organizims? They are human beings and using terms like micro cellular organizim in an attempt to dehumanize them is exactly analogous to using words like ni%ger and coon in an attempt to dehumanize blacks. Instead of a racist, you are an ageist.

Life is a hard define,

Life is very easy to define. It is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

[Dave]

[QUOTE=r0beph;5827]Not trying to quibble much here, but in response to this. No the being is far from complete. If removed from the mother and allowed to live on it's own, even with normal support as one would give a fully developed child, it would not survive. Without the callous connotation, unborn fetus are parasitic in nature, surviving only by taking from the mother. This isn't a cheap shot at the right to life or otherwise, or an attempt to lessen the importance of a child's life. But I must feel that objectively and without the emotional component I have to fully agree with the idea that a pregenant woman should have the right to have a fetuses removed, the fact remains that in this removal it will not remain alive and thus the "death" during abortive processes is simply a side effect of the choice to have the fetus removed.

My point was that it was complete in the sense that nothing new will be added to the mixture. All the parts have been put in they are simply growing. If the stage in developement is a determining factor, then you could say that a newborn baby is less human than a 20-year old.

You are also wrong when you say that death is simply a side effect of having a fetus removed. You would be correct if the doctor removed the fetus, and the baby died afterward, but that is not, and never has been the case. Death is a deliberate part of the process. In every abortion procedure performed today, the baby is deliberately killed while inside the womb and removed afterward. What is the medical purpose of killing the fetus? None, other than the legal ramifications for doing the procedure after the fetus is removed from the uterus. In fact, in 3rd trimester abortions, there is absolutely no reason to kill the fetus other than the mother wanting it dead.

[palerider]

You are also wrong when you say that death is simply a side effect of having a fetus removed. You would be correct if the doctor removed the fetus, and the baby died afterward, but that is not, and never has been the case. Death is a deliberate part of the process. In every abortion procedure performed today, the baby is deliberately killed while inside the womb and removed afterward. What is the medical purpose of killing the fetus? None, other than the legal ramifications for doing the procedure after the fetus is removed from the uterus. In fact, in 3rd trimester abortions, there is absolutely no reason to kill the fetus other than the mother wanting it dead.

Death is a side effect of removing the unborn from its mother like death is the side effect of a .50 calliber round to the back of the head.

[r0beph]

Another tired old argument that has absolutely no basis in fact. It is clear that you are not clear on what a parasite is. Let me enlighten you.

1. First and foremost, a parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species

A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, and in no way parasitic.

An organism that is intimately associated with and metabolically dependent on another living organism (the host) for completion of its life cycle, and which is typically detrimental to the host.
This definition comes from http:// biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/zy198.htm
This definition does include a fetus, since it's life cycle would not begin without the mother.

2 A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source

A human embryo or fetus is formed from inside the mother-- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3. A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite

A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother.

4. A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved.

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5. When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will often respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue

When the human embryo or fetus attaches to the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

I can continue but I suppose that this is enough to give you the idea. Arguments that are not based in truth are worse than worthless.

All those are completely incorrect. Period.

The right to kill another human being for no better reason than convenience should exist? Is that across the whole human species, or do you only favor allowing the killing of the most helpless?

You are still assuming that the unborn fetus is a "human being" and this argument cannot be staunched since we're both very clear on our ideals

Get authorization from the unborn before you kill it and I am with you.
So you believe that a parent should be able to terminate their child up until the child is no longer under the parent's control? ie. 18 years?

The right to abortion exists. My argument was NOT about abortion. The medical consent that I was talking about was the medical consent to USE the aborted fetus' stem cells. Since you imply that consent should be given, the mother who aborted the child has under medical consent law to give that. Medical consent is given at 14, not 18. Remember, don't argue about abortion, that's legal and not up for debate.

Micro cellular organizims? They are human beings and using terms like micro cellular organizim in an attempt to dehumanize them is exactly analogous to using words like ni%ger and coon in an attempt to dehumanize blacks. Instead of a racist, you are an ageist.

To liken me to a racist is pure fluff. I don't dehumanize anything, abortion is a fact, again NOT my argument, start a new thread. I have to say your arguments are suffering from cognitive bias. On the other hand I don't necessarily implicitly care beyond the fact that I feel if we have the ability to use them, better to use than to simply not. If abortion was illegal, I'd have no argument here, but that argument is for another thread.

Life is very easy to define. It is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Quoting wikipedia is fun, but that's just the first portion of the entire entry. I'll submit that it IS a living organism, however it is not quite a human being. Human yes, being no. #being(n.) - a living thing that has the ability to act or function independently


----------
robf in red.

[palerider]

An organism that is intimately associated with and metabolically dependent on another living organism (the host) for completion of its life cycle, and which is typically detrimental to the host.
This definition comes from http:// biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/zy198.htm
This definition does include a fetus, since it's life cycle would not begin without the mother.

"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7

By definition a parasite must be of a different species than its host. Unfortunately, you don't get to pick and choose and still remain scientifically accurate. Unborns are not parasites.

You are still assuming that the unborn fetus is a "human being" and this argument cannot be staunched since we're both very clear on our ideals

I provided credible science that states matter of factly that unborns are human beings. I am not assuming anything. I await some credible science from you that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

I am sure that we are both very clear on our ideals, but mine are substantiated and corroborated by science. Yours are not.

The right to abortion exists. My argument was NOT about abortion. The medical consent that I was talking about was the medical consent to USE the aborted fetus' stem cells. Since you imply that consent should be given, the mother who aborted the child has under medical consent law to give that. Medical consent is given at 14, not 18. Remember, don't argue about abortion, that's legal and not up for debate.

The right to own slaves once existed as well, but things change. I suppose you would have argued in the 1800's that slavery was legal and not up for debate either.

Quoting wikipedia is fun, but that's just the first portion of the entire entry. I'll submit that it IS a living organism, however it is not quite a human being. Human yes, being no. #being(n.) - a living thing that has the ability to act or function independently

Once again. I have provided credible science that says unborns are human BEINGS. I await some from you that says the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. The ability to act independently is not a requirement to be a bonified member of species homo sapiens sapiens.

the primary definition of being is: to exist in reality. Unborns certainly do exist in reality so they are beings.

[Fonz]

And infants do not achieve self awareness until they are between 12 and 18 months old. Are they also not human beings because they are not self aware yet?

Thats not provable. But even if it were, the born child, by law has rights as a person.


I told you. Embryonic research has found that until a certain age, embryo's can reproduce asexually.

So how can one human being become two? Your dodging the question.

In the case of absorption, one is absorbed by the other. The one that is absorbed dies. The two don't become one individual any more than you become part cow when you eat a burger.

So its a cannibal then?

This isn't a moral question for me, it is legal. Our right to live is protected by the 14th amendment.

Well if its a legal issue,then you are not a human being with rights, according to the law, until you are born. So whats your problem?

It is a human being. The number of cells is irrelavent. You have far more cells than a newborn but you are no more human than that newborn. The potential lies with the sperm and the egg. Once fertilizationis completed, that potential has been realized and a new human being begins his or her life.

Its not a human being, as much as you writhe around on the subject, that is just your opinion. An unjustified opinion in my opinion however.

I have provided you with credible science that states quite clearly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you, or can you not provide any sort of credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being.

No you haven't.


I have substantiated my position, yours remains uncorroborated.

What exactly remains uncorroborated?


Completely irrelavent. They are human beings are you are advocating harvesting human beings for the benefit of others human beings.

They are not human beings, not according to the law anyways. And since you said this was a legal issue for you, I fail to see what your problem is.


Tell me, would you be ok with harvesting prisoners in jail who have been given life sentences with no chance of parole? They have been essentially thrown away. The fact remains that our right to live is protected by the 14th amendment. Ignorance is convincing yourself that it is perfectly fine to kill one human being to benefit another.

You simply can'not compare living adult human beings to cells in a Petree Dish.

Nice try though.

[Coyote]

How do you define a human being?

How do you define a "person"?

At what point does a "human being" become a "person"

[palerider]

Thats not provable. But even if it were, the born child, by law has rights as a person.

Of course it is provable. That you don't like it because it makes your argument seem silly is irrelavent.

So how can one human being become two? Your dodging the question.

Do you understand how asexual reproduction works?

So its a cannibal then?

Since there is no "eating", no. Absorption is not eating.

Well if its a legal issue,then you are not a human being with rights, according to the law, until you are born. So whats your problem?

Nothing in the constitution says that you must be born in order to have the right to live. It only says that you must be a person and if you look up the definition of person in any legal dictionary, you will find that a person is just a human being or one of a few types of corporate entities.

Its not a human being, as much as you writhe around on the subject, that is just your opinion. An unjustified opinion in my opinion however.

Once more, I have provide you with credible science that says that unborns are human beings from the time they are concieved. I still await some credible science from you that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

No you haven't.

Of course I have. Can't you read?

What exactly remains uncorroborated?

unsupported by other evidence as opposed to my position which is supported by credible science.

They are not human beings, not according to the law anyways. And since you said this was a legal issue for you, I fail to see what your problem is.

Actually, you are losing that argument as well. There are people sitting in jail today having been sentenced for both murder and manslaughter for killing an unborn child when they killed the child's mother. No such sentence (manslaughter or murder) can be handed out if the perpetrator did not, in fact, kill a human being. Legal precedent has been set.

You simply can'not compare living adult human beings to cells in a Petree Dish.

Petri dish.

Human beings are human beings. Attempting to dehumanize any human being based on age or level of development is no more than ageism which is no better than racism.

[palerider]

How do you define a human being?

How do you define a "person"?

At what point does a "human being" become a "person"

I have already done that.

A human being is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens. If you refer to any legal dictionary, the legal definition of person is "a human being". And a person and a human being are one in the same. Asking when one becomes the other is like asking when a male becomes a boy.

[Coyote]

I have already done that.

A human being is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens. If you refer to any legal dictionary, the legal definition of person is "a human being". And a person and a human being are one in the same. Asking when one becomes the other is like asking when a male becomes a boy.

Not really. There is a big difference. For example certain types of reproductive tumors could be defined as "human beings" - they are genetically a complete human.


The following are legal definitions of a "person":

A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation. Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons.

Also, different states seem define a "person" differently. Arkansas defines it as a fetus beyond 12 weeks gestation.

Haven't found any defining a person earlier then that though.

[Fonz]

Of course it is provable. That you don't like it because it makes your argument seem silly is irrelavent.No it is not provable conclusively. Because you think it does means you are delusional. And as I stated, according to the law, which you claim to be the basis of your argument here, a born child has rights and is considered a human being.


Do you understand how asexual reproduction works?Yes, why are you avoiding your own statement that a group of cells is a human being?


Since there is no "eating", no. Absorption is not eating.So then the human being is murdering another human being? Isn't that illegal?

Perhaps we should send the Murdering Stem Cell to Jail.

Nothing in the constitution says that you must be born in order to have the right to live. It only says that you must be a person and if you look up the definition of person in any legal dictionary, you will find that a person is just a human being or one of a few types of corporate entities. The Definition of a Human: Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus;homo human being -- more at HOMAGE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homage)
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/humans)
2 : consisting of humans (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/humans)
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
- hu·man·ness /-m&n-n&s/ noun
The definiton of a being:be·ing 1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence).
2. a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
b. The totality of all things that exist.

3. a. A person: "The artist after all is a solitary being" Virginia Woolf.
b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence.
c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.

The definiton of a Human being:human beingn. A human.


the definition of a person:per·son n.1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.

9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" Shakespeare.

Once more, I have provide you with credible science that says that unborns are human beings from the time they are concieved. I still await some credible science from you that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.No you have not. You've provided Pseudo Science. Haha i love tossing that back in your face, actually I havent seen you provide anything but your usual sophistry and ignorant baseless opinions.

I think your problem is that your trying to oversimplify what a Human Being is. For instance heres your definition: Any member of species homo sapiens.

It sounds simple enough I suppose, though it doesnt really explain anything. So I look up the definition for Homo Sapiens and this is what it gives me:

the Dictionary says:Homo sa·pi·ens
n. The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.
the Thesauras says:
The human race: earth (http://www.answers.com/topic/earth), flesh (http://www.answers.com/topic/flesh), humanity (http://www.answers.com/topic/humanity), humankind (http://www.answers.com/topic/humankind), man (http://www.answers.com/topic/man), mankind (http://www.answers.com/topic/mankind), universe (http://www.answers.com/topic/universe), world (http://www.answers.com/topic/world).ok, so I look up the word Human: Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus;homo human being -- more at HOMAGE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homage)
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/humans)
2 : consisting of humans (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/humans)
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
- hu·man·ness /-m&n-n&s/ noun
then I look up Homindae:
The exact criteria for membership in the Homininae are not clear, but the subfamily generally includes those species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) which share more than 97% of their DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) with the modern human genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome), and exhibit a capacity for language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language) or for simple cultures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture) beyond the family or band. The theory of mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) including such faculties as mental state attribution, empathy and even empathetic deception is a controversial criterion distinguishing the adult human alone among the hominids. Humans acquire this capacity at about four and a half years of age, whereas it has neither been proven nor disproven that gorillas and chimpanzees develop a theory of mind.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae#_note-1) This is also the case for some new world monkeys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_monkey) outside the family of great apes, as, for example, the capuchin monkeys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capuchin_monkey#Theory_of_mind).

Of course I have. Can't you read?Yes I can. Can you?

unsupported by other evidence as opposed to my position which is supported by credible science.Sorry, but you haven't supported anything. Claiming to do something when you haven't is pretty lame.


Actually, you are losing that argument as well. There are people sitting in jail today having been sentenced for both murder and manslaughter for killing an unborn child when they killed the child's mother. No such sentence (manslaughter or murder) can be handed out if the perpetrator did not, in fact, kill a human being. Legal precedent has been set. Well you are at least partially right, finally. Its funny how that law works, the unborn fetus is only a legal victim if its killed in the act of certain crimes. Prior to that it has no rights. Furthermore, Stem Cell Research isn't considered a crime, neither is Abortion. Therefore, neither the cells in a Petri Dish, nor the unborn Fetus have any rights.

Human beings are human beings. Attempting to dehumanize any human being based on age or level of development is no more than ageism which is no better than racism.and Stem Cells are not human beings. How many times do I have to explain that to you? Don't you know how to read? Even using your own definition, we can conclude that Stem Cells are not Human Beings.

[palerider]

Not really. There is a big difference. For example certain types of reproductive tumors could be defined as "human beings" - they are genetically a complete human.

No. A tumor can only be defined as a tumor. An unborn, at any stage of development is not a tumor, but a living human being.


The following are legal definitions of a "person":

A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation. Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons.

The legal definition of a person remains "human being" and unborns fit the definition. The law doesn't change the biological fact that unborns are human beings and the lives of human beings in this country are protected by the 14th amendment.

[palerider]

No it is not provable conclusively. Because you think it does means you are delusional. And as I stated, according to the law, which you claim to be the basis of your argument here, a born child has rights and is considered a human being.

So in your opinion, when you don't believe that a thing can be proven, you prefer to simply blunder ahead rather than err on the side of caution? If I examine your posts on other topics, will I find that you routinely prefer not to err on the side of caution? Or do you disregard your usual mode of thought on this topic?

Yes, why are you avoiding your own statement that a group of cells is a human being?

You are a group of cells. Are you not a human being. I am still waiting for you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being.

So then the human being is murdering another human being? Isn't that illegal?

Murder requires intent. Manslaughter reqires neglegence. Prove either.

Perhaps we should send the Murdering Stem Cell to Jail.

Again, absolute inaccuracy in your terminology. You are no better than a racist.

[/INDENT]No you have not. You've provided Pseudo Science. Haha i love tossing that back in your face, actually I havent seen you provide anything but your usual sophistry and ignorant baseless opinions.

You are calling medical textbooks pseudoscience? Provide some credible support for that position.

I think your problem is that your trying to oversimplify what a Human Being is. For instance heres your definition: Any member of species homo sapiens.

I believe for your argument to work, it reqires a generous portion of sophistry and therefore you must attempt to needlessly complicate the issue. If you can provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being, please do so. But we both know that you can't. By now, you have had time to google everywhere possible and you have found that no credible scientist will suggest that the offspring of humans is something other than a human at any time.

It sounds simple enough I suppose, though it doesnt really explain anything. So I look up the definition for Homo Sapiens and this is what it gives me:

And unborns don't fit into the definiton how?

Sorry, but you haven't supported anything. Claiming to do something when you haven't is pretty lame.[/qipte]

It would be if I hadn't already done it. Mewling that your opponent hasn't supported his position when he in fact has, is lame and the content of your last couple of posts has been mostly mewling. Can you, or can you not provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER something other than a human being?

[QUOTE=Fonz;7322] Well you are at least partially right, finally. Its funny how that law works, the unborn fetus is only a legal victim if its killed in the act of certain crimes. Prior to that it has no rights. Furthermore, Stem Cell Research isn't considered a crime, neither is Abortion. Therefore, neither the cells in a Petri Dish, nor the unborn Fetus have any rights.

Thus far, I have been completely right and will continue to be completely right. The fact remains that one can not be charged for murder or manslaughter if one does not kill a human being. Precedent has been established and precedent is one means by which bad law changes.

and Stem Cells are not human beings. How many times do I have to explain that to you? Don't you know how to read? Even using your own definition, we can conclude that Stem Cells are not Human Beings.

Of course they aren't, but embryonic stem cells may only be obtained by killing a living human being. Perhaps you should do a bit of research. There would be no debate if a living embryo (which is a human being) were not required to collect them.

There is no coherent and supportable argument to suggest that unborns are not human beings. Try as much as you like, I have heard them all and every single one of them is easily slapped down by basic embryology and human development. The best you can possibly do is argue that it is legal now, but then, slavery was once legal. Were blacks not in fact, human beings because the law said that they weren't, or was the law simply wrong?

[9sublime]

[QUOTE=palerider;7372]

An unborn foetus is less intelligent, physically able and capable of living than a lot of monkeys with far more emotion and feeling that the child. However, you don't kick up such a fuss when someone kills one of them.

[palerider]

[QUOTE=palerider;7372]

An unborn foetus is less intelligent, physically able and capable of living than a lot of monkeys with far more emotion and feeling that the child. However, you don't kick up such a fuss when someone kills one of them.

They are not protected by the 14th amendment of the constitution. If an appeal to emotion is the best argument that you can put forward at this point, you have already lost.

[Fonz]

So in your opinion, when you don't believe that a thing can be proven, you prefer to simply blunder ahead rather than err on the side of caution? If I examine your posts on other topics, will I find that you routinely prefer not to err on the side of caution? Or do you disregard your usual mode of thought on this topic?
Are you trying to argue that a human baby is not a human being?


You are a group of cells. Are you not a human being. I am still waiting for you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being. I am not just a 'group of cells'.

I just pulled a booger out of my nose, thats a group of cells, is that a human being? Do I need to post the defintion of a human being again? You seemd to have missed it the first time.

Im still waiting for you to prove that a blastocyst is a human being.


Murder requires intent. Manslaughter reqires neglegence. Prove either.Thats for the courts to decide. Now we have to provide a lawyer for that blastocyst in the petri dish. Since its a human being, its also got the right to a speedy trial...etc. Maybe we can use the insanity defense for it.


Again, absolute inaccuracy in your terminology. You are no better than a racist.And you are a blatant liar.


You are calling medical textbooks pseudoscience? Provide some credible support for that position.I've seen no medical textbooks that state that a blastocyst is a human being.

I believe for your argument to work, it reqires a generous portion of sophistry and therefore you must attempt to needlessly complicate the issue. If you can provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being, please do so. But we both know that you can't. By now, you have had time to google everywhere possible and you have found that no credible scientist will suggest that the offspring of humans is something other than a human at any time.Actually for my argument to work, I only have to provide facts, and definitions of the terms being used. Something that you haven't done.

You have to prove somehow that a blastocyst is a human being. You have not done that.

It would be if I hadn't already done it. Mewling that your opponent hasn't supported his position when he in fact has, is lame and the content of your last couple of posts has been mostly mewling. Can you, or can you not provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER something other than a human being?Im sorry but you haven't proven anything.

Were talking about a blastocyst. You need to provide proof that a blastocyst is a human being. Which you haven't done.


Thus far, I have been completely right and will continue to be completely right. The fact remains that one can not be charged for murder or manslaughter if one does not kill a human being. Precedent has been established and precedent is one means by which bad law changes.How many people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for 'killing' a blastocyst?

IN fact, hundreds if not thousands of blastocyst are destroyed every day, why arent the cops rounding up researchers?


Of course they aren't, but embryonic stem cells may only be obtained by killing a living human being. Perhaps you should do a bit of research. There would be no debate if a living embryo (which is a human being) were not required to collect them.Wait. Are you changing your story now? So stem cells ARE NOT human beings anymore, but they can only be obtained by killing a human being now. make up your mind. Perhaps you should get informed on this subject.

There is no coherent and supportable argument to suggest that unborns are not human beings. Try as much as you like, I have heard them all and every single one of them is easily slapped down by basic embryology and human development. The best you can possibly do is argue that it is legal now, but then, slavery was once legal. Were blacks not in fact, human beings because the law said that they weren't, or was the law simply wrong?Your attempt to change the terminology is insidious at best. We arent talking about unborns, we are talking about embryonic stem cells, we are talking about a blastocyst.

Nowhere in the law does it say that a blastocyst is a human being. Nowhere in science does it say that a blastocyst is a human being.

So far PaleRider, you've only writhed around and squirmed, lied, changed the terminology and refused to address any of the points made.

You are a funny little man.

[Coyote]

No. A tumor can only be defined as a tumor. An unborn, at any stage of development is not a tumor, but a living human being.

The legal definition of a person remains "human being" and unborns fit the definition. The law doesn't change the biological fact that unborns are human beings and the lives of human beings in this country are protected by the 14th amendment.


The 14th ammendment refers to "persons" not "human beings". Perhaps there is a difference.

There also is no legal definition of "human" . The law does not generally refer to a "human being" but to a "person." That's the definition that is required. Whether or not a fertilized ovum, a fetus, an anacephalic baby, or a brain-dead accident victim is a human being is biological hair-splitting. But whether or not it is a person and therefore has the rights of a person, that is an important legal issue and that is different from "human being".

[USMC the Almighty]

The 14th ammendment refers to "persons" not "human beings". Perhaps there is a difference.



It, like the 15th Amendment explicity refers to males.

[palerider]

The 14th ammendment refers to "persons" not "human beings". Perhaps there is a difference.

From the law.com dictionary:

person - n. 1) a human being.

From the findlaw.com legal dictionary:

person - 1: "natural person"

I can continue, but wherever one looks, one finds the definition of person is a human being so person and human being are one in the same in the eyes of the law. In the Roe decision itself, Justice Blackmund stated that if a case for personhood were ever established for unborns, the case for Roe would collapse as unborns would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. Precedent has already been established that unborns are human beings and in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being in order to be a person.

There also is no legal definition of "human" . The law does not generally refer to a "human being" but to a "person." That's the definition that is required. Whether or not a fertilized ovum, a fetus, an anacephalic baby, or a brain-dead accident victim is a human being is biological hair-splitting. But whether or not it is a person and therefore has the rights of a person, that is an important legal issue and that is different from "human being".

There need not be a "legal" definition for human being any more than there need be a "legal" definition for elephant. They are what they are. There certainly is some hair splitting going on here, but it is not me who is doing the splitting.

All of the examples you gave are indeed persons and all are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. I find it somewhat interesting that pro choicers always get around to comparing perfectly healthy unborns to people who are so badly damaged or diseased that they will never recover. Talk about splitting hairs in an attempt to make a case.

[palerider]

Are you trying to argue that a human baby is not a human being?

Not even a good dodge. Do you always favor not erring on the side of caution or do you simply disregard your usual thinking for this topic?

I am not just a 'group of cells'.

Of course you are. Do you believe you are more because you say you are more?

I just pulled a booger out of my nose, thats a group of cells, is that a human being? Do I need to post the defintion of a human being again? You seemd to have missed it the first time.

Actually, that is not a group of cells. That is some cells, and some dust, dirt, or other inanimate matter. If you cut your finger off, that would be a group of cells, but not a human being. Unborns are human beings. The fact that you don't seem to have a grasp of even basic embryology and human development doesn't change the facts, it just demonstrates that your position on this topic is emotional rather than being founded on any actual truth.

Im still waiting for you to prove that a blastocyst is a human being.

I already did.

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

I am still waiting for you to provide any credible evidence at all that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Thats for the courts to decide. Now we have to provide a lawyer for that blastocyst in the petri dish. Since its a human being, its also got the right to a speedy trial...etc. Maybe we can use the insanity defense for it.

Once again, not even a good dodge.

And you are a blatant liar.

Name calling in lieu of effective argument. Not unexpected.

I've seen no medical textbooks that state that a blastocyst is a human being.

My instinct is that you have never seen medical texts period, but I have provided a few for you to look up if you are motivated. You will note that the texts that I provide indicate that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. Since days pass from the time of fertilization until one has matured to the level of blastocyst, it stands to reason that one has already been a human being for days.

Actually for my argument to work, I only have to provide facts, and definitions of the terms being used. Something that you haven't done.

Of course I have. And have provided credible medical texts as well.

You have to prove somehow that a blastocyst is a human being. You have not done that.

Of course I have unless of course, you can prove that medical fact is not being taught in medical school.

Were talking about a blastocyst. You need to provide proof that a blastocyst is a human being. Which you haven't done.

Once again, I have. If a zygote is a human being, a blastocyst is a more mature human being.

How many people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for 'killing' a blastocyst?

I couldn't say. Since precedent has been established that one can be convicted for additional counts of murder or manslaughter for killing an unborn, there could very well be cases in the courts now where an autopsy has revealed that a woman was in the early stages of pregnancy.

IN fact, hundreds if not thousands of blastocyst are destroyed every day, why arent the cops rounding up researchers?

Using technical names in an attempt to dehumanize a human being is no different than using racial slurs to dehumanize a human being.


Wait. Are you changing your story now? So stem cells ARE NOT human beings anymore, but they can only be obtained by killing a human being now. make up your mind. Perhaps you should get informed on this subject.

Maybe you should simply learn the subject. Are you trying to say that you believe that it is possible to obtain embryonic stem cells without killing an embryo? If you don't understand how the process works, just ask, and I will be happy to explain it to you.

Your attempt to change the terminology is insidious at best. We arent talking about unborns, we are talking about embryonic stem cells, we are talking about a blastocyst.

Are you arguing that a human being at the blastocyst stage is born? Zygote, blastosphere, blastocyst, fetus, embryo, infant, toddler, teenager, adult, old geezer...all are no more than terms we use to describe a human being at some stage of his or her development and I have not changed the terminology at all.

Nowhere in the law does it say that a blastocyst is a human being. Nowhere in science does it say that a blastocyst is a human being.

The law defines a human being as a person, and unborns, at any stage, are human beings. I await some credible science from you that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

So far PaleRider, you've only writhed around and squirmed, lied, changed the terminology and refused to address any of the points made.

Show me where I have attempted to change any terminology and to date, you have not made a valid point. You clearly don't understand the science of embryology or developmental biology. When medical texts say explicitly that zygotes are human beings, it stands to reason that blastocysts (is that the only word you know?) are human beings also. Suggesting that a zygote is a human but a blastocyst is not is like saying that an infant is a human but a toddler is not.

You are a funny little man.

I would rather be funny that tragically sad which is what ignorance of a subject that you are trying to argue amounts to. It is clear that you don't grasp the science when you make statements like this:

"and Stem Cells are not human beings. How many times do I have to explain that to you? Don't you know how to read? Even using your own definition, we can conclude that Stem Cells are not Human Beings."

And then suggest that I am "changing the terminology" when I explain to you that embryonic stem cells can not be obtained without killing an embryo. Do you believe it is possible to obtain embryonic stem cells without killing an embryo?

[Fonz]

As much as I enjoyed third Grade PaleRider, I don't want to repeat it. So I'm going to ignore most your childishness above.

Heres the Issue. First, it is undeniable that a human embryo is "human life" in the biological sense that it is living rather than dead, and human rather than, say a cow. But this biological fact does not establish that the blastocyst is a human being, or a person. Any living human cell (a skin cell, for example) is "human life" in the sense of being human rather than a cow and living rather than dead. But no one would consider a skin cell a person. Showing that a blastocyst is a human being, or a person, requires further argument, something that palerider has failed to do.

Consider an analogy: although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree knocked over by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees differ. So do human embryos and human beings, and in the same way. Just as acorns are potential oaks, human embryos are potential human beings.

The distinction between a potential person and an actual one makes a moral difference, which allthough palerider wont acknowledge, is where our laws derive from. Sentient creatures make claims on us that nonsentient ones do not; beings capable of experience and consciousness make higher claims still. Human life develops by degrees.

If harvesting stem cells from a blastocyst were truly on a par with harvesting organs from living human beings, then its obvious that it should be completely banned. But its not. Not even the President is calling for a ban. Just a ban on federal funding. In fact, if Palerider was correct, then embryonic stem cell research would be tantamount to infanticide, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder and subject scientists who performed it to criminal punishment.

We Don't do any of those things.

Furthermore, it makes no rational sense to oppose stem cell research. We are talking about Embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways.

When a woman goes in for an IVF treatment, excess embryos are produced as part of the process anyways. Once the IVF treatment is completed, the remaining embryos are frozen until the person notifys the clinic that they no longer want them, at which point they are discarded as medical waste. Why the hell would any sane person oppose the use of these embryos and instead insist that they be destroyed, thereby serving no purpose whatsoever?

And while I firmly believe that the current methods of creating stem cell lines should be used, it's also good to see that scientists are working on alternative methods that, whether intentionally or not, attempt to sidestep these so-called "moral dilemmas." As reported on MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14483409/site/newsweek/):[Dr. Robert] Lanza's method, employed on mouse cells last year by his company, is derivative of a diagnostic technique used in in vitro fertilization known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In order to test embryos thought to be at risk for serious genetic defects, PGD removes a single cell, or blastomere, from a couple's embryo and examines it in a lab for irregularities. If determined to be healthy, the embryo can then, in many cases, be implanted into a woman's uterus and is able to regenerate the lost cell and continue developing. In practice, Lanza's technique would take a blastomere from an embryo donated for PGD, allow it to divide, and use the new cells to create stem-cell lines while sending one of the cells off for genetic diagnosis.

[palerider]

As much as I enjoyed third Grade PaleRider, I don't want to repeat it. So I'm going to ignore most your childishness above.

Dodge. Shuck & Jive.

Heres the Issue. First, it is undeniable that a human embryo is "human life" in the biological sense that it is living rather than dead, and human rather than, say a cow. But this biological fact does not establish that the blastocyst is a human being, or a person. Any living human cell (a skin cell, for example) is "human life" in the sense of being human rather than a cow and living rather than dead. But no one would consider a skin cell a person. Showing that a blastocyst is a human being, or a person, requires further argument, something that palerider has failed to do.

A skin cell is a skin cell and a living skin cell is a living skin cell. Keep it alive and it simply replicates into more skin cells. An unborn at any stage of development, however, is a human being. Let it live and it will live a human life.

Once more for your benefit. Zygote, toddler, morula, infant, blastula, adolsecent, teenager, blastosphere, adult, embryo, old geezer etc., etc., etc., are all terms we use to describe a human being at the various stages of his or her life.

Rather than more argument, what is required is for you to show some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. I have asked repeatedly and you simply haven't delivered. We both know you haven't and you won't because there is no such credible science...anywhere.

Consider an analogy: although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree knocked over by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees differ. So do human embryos and human beings, and in the same way. Just as acorns are potential oaks, human embryos are potential human beings.

Ahhh. The old seed analogy. I wondered how long it would be before you drug that looser out. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know even the basics with regard to embryology or developmental biology. Your analogy is not valid because it ignores the facts of develomental biology. If you had a grasp of the science, you would realize that within the seed, there is, in fact, an oak tree. Immature, but an oak tree none the less.

Observe. This is a photomicrograph of a disected wheat seed. As you can see, it is not "just a seed". The root, leaves, and stem are present. Acorns and all other seeds are the same. Clearly, acorns are not potential oaks, acorns are immature oaks. In oak trees (and other plants), pollen and male and female haploid and polar nuclei represent potential oak trees. Once they are combined, however, their potential is realized and the next generation has been created.

In human beings, sperm and eggs represent the potential for a new human being. Once they get together and fertilization is complete, their potential is also realized. When fertilization is complete, what you have is a potential baseball player, or engineer, or dancer, or doctor. Not a potential human being as that potential has already been realized.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/WheatEmb240Lab_small.jpg

The distinction between a potential person and an actual one makes a moral difference, which allthough palerider wont acknowledge, is where our laws derive from. Sentient creatures make claims on us that nonsentient ones do not; beings capable of experience and consciousness make higher claims still. Human life develops by degrees.

Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about. You made that abundantly clear with your oak tree analogy. You can make all the claims that you like, but they don't change the biological facts. Your argument sounds very much like the arguments made in the 1800's by people arguing that blacks weren't human beings. All sorts of moral arguments and legal wrangling took place, but none of it changed the fact that blacks were indeed human beings no matter what sort of argument was made. It is true that a gross miscarriage of the law was the result of the moralizing and legal wrangling but it is not true that any of it made blacks into anything other than human beings. The same is true for unborns.

If harvesting stem cells from a blastocyst were truly on a par with harvesting organs from living human beings, then its obvious that it should be completely banned. But its not. Not even the President is calling for a ban. Just a ban on federal funding. In fact, if Palerider was correct, then embryonic stem cell research would be tantamount to infanticide, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder and subject scientists who performed it to criminal punishment.

Blastocysts are living human beings. Your use of the term in an attempt to dehumanize them is no different than using words like ni^^er and coon in an attempt to dehumanize a black person. If you want to be accurate, then say human blastocyst and understand that what you are describing is an immature human being. Much like saying human child. Blastocyst simply describes a level of development just like infant, toddler, and adult.

Embryonic stem cell research, and abortion are tantamount to infantacide. One is killing a living human being for no better reason than convenience, and the other is killing living human beings for the purpose of medical research. Exactly the same sort of research could have been performed on blacks when "the law" determined that they were not, in fact, human beings. Their owners could do with them as they pleased.

We Don't do any of those things.

And there was no punishment for people who killed blacks when the law said that they were not human beings either. Clearly, the law was wrong and a terrible miscarriage of justice took place. It has happened again.

Furthermore, it makes no rational sense to oppose stem cell research. We are talking about Embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways.

Do you support harvesting organs from criminals who have recieved life sentences?

When a woman goes in for an IVF treatment, excess embryos are produced as part of the process anyways. Once the IVF treatment is completed, the remaining embryos are frozen until the person notifys the clinic that they no longer want them, at which point they are discarded as medical waste. Why the hell would any sane person oppose the use of these embryos and instead insist that they be destroyed, thereby serving no purpose whatsoever?

That is another problem. When a woman goes in for IVF treatment, the medical team should be required to fertilize and implant one egg at a time. That way, there would be no "left overs". If the woman couldn't afford the expense of the one at a time method, she could always adopt.

And while I firmly believe that the current methods of creating stem cell lines should be used, it's also good to see that scientists are working on alternative methods that, whether intentionally or not, attempt to sidestep these so-called "moral dilemmas." As reported on MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14483409/site/newsweek/):[Dr. Robert] Lanza's method, employed on mouse cells last year by his company, is derivative of a diagnostic technique used in in vitro fertilization known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In order to test embryos thought to be at risk for serious genetic defects, PGD removes a single cell, or blastomere, from a couple's embryo and examines it in a lab for irregularities. If determined to be healthy, the embryo can then, in many cases, be implanted into a woman's uterus and is able to regenerate the lost cell and continue developing. In practice, Lanza's technique would take a blastomere from an embryo donated for PGD, allow it to divide, and use the new cells to create stem-cell lines while sending one of the cells off for genetic diagnosis.

The fact is that not one single medical treatment has resulted from embryonic stem cell research while the list of successful treatments using adult and cord blood stem cells is already quite impressive and is growing monthly. Embryonic stem cell research is a dead end that has been gloamed onto by the pro choice industry in hopes of revitalizing their flagging support.

[Fonz]

Dodge. Shuck & Jive. Third Grade?

A skin cell is a skin cell and a living skin cell is a living skin cell. Keep it alive and it simply replicates into more skin cells. An unborn at any stage of development, however, is a human being. Let it live and it will live a human life.

Once more for your benefit. Zygote, toddler, morula, infant, blastula, adolsecent, teenager, blastosphere, adult, embryo, old geezer etc., etc., etc., are all terms we use to describe a human being at the various stages of his or her life.

Rather than more argument, what is required is for you to show some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being. I have asked repeatedly and you simply haven't delivered. We both know you haven't and you won't because there is no such credible science...anywhere. Science dictates that the first vestige of humanity does not reveal itself until at least day 12 -14. The fact is that the human embryos used (usually 5-7 days after fertilisation) are not humans, they are human cells. Cells make up humans. But the embryo is no more a human (that is, a human being or person) than a skin cell is.

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162 Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990).

Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

Proponents of this view often propose the following hypothetical situation: Suppose that an egg is fertilized. At that moment a new life begins; the zygote gains a "soul," in the Catholic line of thought, or "personhood" in a secular line of thought. Then suppose that the zygote splits to form twins. Does the soul of the zygote split as well? No, this is impossible. Yet no one would argue that twins share the same "soul" or the same "personhood." Thus, supporters of this view maintain that the quality of "soul" or "personhood" must be conferred after there is no longer any potential for twinning. (Shannon and Wolter 1990)

The argument that human life begins at the moment that chromosomes of the sperm meet the chromosomes of the egg to form a genetically unique individual is also endangered by the twinning argument because genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life. "Genetic uniqueness" can be shared by multiple individuals, particularly indentical twins. Thus, this argument continues, the moment at which a unique individual human forms is the not the moment when its genetic code is determined, but rather the moment when the zygote can no longer split into multiple individuals.

In addition to twinning, there are other complexities that further confound the idea of the moment of conception. Just as it is possible for a zygote to form two or more individuals before it is implanted in the uterus, it is also possible for it to not continue to develop at all, but rather just become a part of the placenta. (Shannon and Wolter 1990).

It is estimated that more than 50% of fertilized eggs abort spontaneously and never become children (Gilbert 2002). Or, if the zygote splits into multiple zygotes, it is also possible for these to recombine before implantation. All of these possibilities are examples of the ways in which the individuation of the zygote is incomplete until it has been implanted in the uterus.

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.
One of the most popular positions among philosophers is the perspective that life begins at the point of gastrulation — that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals. Gastrulation commences at the beginning of the third week of pregnancy, when the zygote, now known as an embryo, is implanted into the uterus of the mother. The cells are now differentiated into three categories that will give rise to the different types of body tissue. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). After gastrulation the zygote is destined to form no more than one human being.

The philosophers who support this position argue that there exists a difference between a human individual and a human person. A zygote is both human and numerically single and thus a human individual. However, because individuality is not certain until implantation is complete, and because individuality is a necessary condition of personhood, the zygote is not yet a human person. (Ford 1988; Shannon and Wolter 1990; McCormick 1991). Catholic scholars Shannon and Wolter (1990) describe this eloquently saying, "An individual is not an individual, and therefore not a person, until the process of restriction is complete and determination of particular cells has occurred. Then, and only then, it is clear that another individual cannot come from the cells of this embryo."

Some supporters of the fertilization position find fault in this argument by claiming that the potential of twinning is a technicality and not strong enough to support the claim that human life does not begin until gastrulation. Alan Holland puts forth the view that just because a zygote has the possibility to divide into multiple individuals does not mean that it is not an individual before it divides. As an analogy, he presents the case of the worm that is clearly a single individual worm until it is cut into two when it becomes two individual worms. (Holland 1990).

Some would also argue that in the discussion of when human life begins the question of whether a zygote will eventually become one individual or multiple individuals is irrelevant. The key point is that at least one human life may begin as the result of the zygote, and thus human life began at the creation of the zygote, fourteen days before gastrulation.

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

[Coyote]

From the law.com dictionary:

person - n. 1) a human being.

From the findlaw.com legal dictionary:

person - 1: "natural person"

I can continue, but wherever one looks, one finds the definition of person is a human being so person and human being are one in the same in the eyes of the law. In the Roe decision itself, Justice Blackmund stated that if a case for personhood were ever established for unborns, the case for Roe would collapse as unborns would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. Precedent has already been established that unborns are human beings and in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being in order to be a person.



There need not be a "legal" definition for human being any more than there need be a "legal" definition for elephant. They are what they are. There certainly is some hair splitting going on here, but it is not me who is doing the splitting.

All of the examples you gave are indeed persons and all are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. I find it somewhat interesting that pro choicers always get around to comparing perfectly healthy unborns to people who are so badly damaged or diseased that they will never recover. Talk about splitting hairs in an attempt to make a case.

If there is a legal definition for "person" then there needs to be a legal definition for "human being" other wise a trophoblastic tumor could easily meet the definition of a human being. It contains all the genetic material, and is the embryonic product of an ovum and sperm.

[Fonz]

Do you support harvesting organs from criminals who have recieved life sentences?

Are all criminals going to die in a few days?

Though technically we already do do that. We already harvest organs from humans once they die.


The fact is that not one single medical treatment has resulted from embryonic stem cell research while the list of successful treatments using adult and cord blood stem cells is already quite impressive and is growing monthly. Embryonic stem cell research is a dead end that has been gloamed onto by the pro choice industry in hopes of revitalizing their flagging support.

The first first human embryonic stem cell line was only reported in 1998. It generally takes a while for treatments to be worked out. But you should know that, since you claim to hold degrees in the "hard sciences".

[Fonz]

That is another problem. When a woman goes in for IVF treatment, the medical team should be required to fertilize and implant one egg at a time. That way, there would be no "left overs". If the woman couldn't afford the expense of the one at a time method, she could always adopt.


Many IVF users want the embryos they still have in storage to be used in stem cell research, as it would be more meaningful for them to be used for research than to have them defrost and die on a laboratory bench.

[Coyote]

Dodge. Shuck & Jive.


And there was no punishment for people who killed blacks when the law said that they were not human beings either. Clearly, the law was wrong and a terrible miscarriage of justice took place. It has happened again.




Right here...you say it. The law wasn't wrong - at the time. But the definition of what is a "human being" changes and is constantly being redefined.

Is a blastocyst a human being or is it not? I don't think the answer to that is clear cut.

[9sublime]

They are not protected by the 14th amendment of the constitution. If an appeal to emotion is the best argument that you can put forward at this point, you have already lost.<