Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Coyote]

This raises interesting questions:

Fonz said: 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.

I said: 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.

Pale Rider said: Maybe there does need to be a legal definition for human being. Of course, that definition will be based on our best understanding of the science of human development and the more we learn, the more we know that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. If you are arguing that we should call trophoblastic tumor's human beings, fine. We only need wait a couple of weeks to determine whether it will continue during the normal human developmental cycle, or remain a tumor.

Trophoblatic tumors - start out as normal fertilized embryos much of the time. At some point something goes wrong. If you are basing your definition of "human" on the fact that it is genetically human, the product of a fertilized egg and sperm...then it is as human as a blastocyst.

An embryo is nothing more then a potential human until born or at least able to survive outside the mother. Should potential humans be accorded the same right as humans? Why should it have more rights than any other species or than it's mother?

 

[Coyote]

Palerider wrote: Here is an incomplete list of diseases 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

Here is the entire list of diseases that have even had limited success with embryonic stem cells:

chirp...chirp...chirp....

Arguing that "it takes time" would only be an effective (and honest) argument if adult stem cell research had not already broken the ground and had such fantastic results even since the EARLIEST DAYS OF ITS RESEARCH. Embryonic stem cell research is a dead end that is only being pursued because the pro choice industry needs to bolster its flagging support.

There is a big difference between embryonic and adult stemcells in both biology and behavior and potential. Some ground was broken by studies of adult stemcells - but much remains unknown in terms of embryonic stemcells so that argument is disengenius. It's like using data gleaned from researching leukemia and applying it to melanoma.

How long have adult stem cells been studied?
How long have embryonic stem cells been studied?

chirp....chirp....chirp....

 

[Fonz]

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."

Initiates the LIFE of a new individual. There is a difference between a human life, and a human being.

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."

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).
​

Perhaps you aren't aware that we are zygotes before we are blastocysts. If we are human beings when we are zygotes, we are human beings when we are blastocysts. Once again, is blastocyst the only scientific term you know?

Perhaps you are unaware of the other viewpoints that contradict yours?

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."

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).

--

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.

​

 

[Fonz]

Trophoblatic tumors - start out as normal fertilized embryos much of the time. At some point something goes wrong. If you are basing your definition of "human" on the fact that it is genetically human, the product of a fertilized egg and sperm...then it is as human as a blastocyst.

An embryo is nothing more then a potential human until born or at least able to survive outside the mother. Should potential humans be accorded the same right as humans? Why should it have more rights than any other species or than it's mother?

Good point Coyote. There are many entities which are genetically the same as a human zygote, which we nonetheless do not recognize as persons: ancient fossils, blood samples, hair cuttings, fingernail clippings, even skin cultures grown in burn centers. This is proof that genetic completeness, in and of itself, does not constitute personhood, or a human being.

 

[Fonz]

Pale Rider said: Maybe there does need to be a legal definition for human being. Of course, that definition will be based on our best understanding of the science of human development and the more we learn, the more we know that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. If you are arguing that we should call trophoblastic tumor's human beings, fine. We only need wait a couple of weeks to determine whether it will continue during the normal human developmental cycle, or remain a tumor.

So then you are switching your argument aroujnd? You are no longer claiming that genetic completeness is a sign of a human being, but that the potential to become a person is a sign of human being?

 

[Fonz]

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.

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.

an acorn contains the potential to become an Oak tree. I can't climb the limbs of an acorn, build a tree-house in an acorn, or rest in the shade of an acorn. And you certainly are not chopping down a mighty oak tree by removing an acorn from the ground. And I certainly dont hold the same moral obligations towards an acorn that I do an Oak tree.

An Acorn has the potential to become an Oak Tree, but it is not an Oak Tree yet.

 

[Fonz]

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.

The zygote, has a long way to go before becoming a human being; it has none of the limbs, none of the organs, none of the central nervous system, none of the circulatory or respiratory systems; it is a single cell that contains the genetic blueprint of a future person.

 

[Coyote]

The zygote, has a long way to go before becoming a human being; it has none of the limbs, none of the organs, none of the central nervous system, none of the circulatory or respiratory systems; it is a single cell that contains the genetic blueprint of a future person.

Exactly....what it comes down to in the end is weighing the value of potential against the value of actualized.

And, logically if all human life is thus valued then you would have to be against the death penalty as well. Most of the time that is not the case.

 

[9sublime]

Fonz you need to chill your beans on the excessive posting, can't you combine it or something please..

 

[Fonz]

Request Denied

 

[palerider]

No, what I'm saying is that your basis for no abortion seems to be that the child is a living thing with emotions, senses and a character. That is why it should not be killed in an abortion. Well, if this protects a childs right to be born and live, then it should protect something equally intelligent to the least intelligent human lifeforms.

Then you haven't read anything that I have written. I have never brought emotions or intelligence into the discussion.

 

[palerider]

Read Further, the next paragraph actually:

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.
​

It then goes on to list some of the scientific discoveries that contradict it.

Which was in and of itself a dishonest characterization. It goes on to explain how "recent" discoveries have shown that fertilization doesn't happen all at once. I provided a reference to a text book printed in 1968 that clearly said that fertilization doesn't happen all at once and that a new human being doesn't begin to live until fertilization is complete. Those "recent" discoveries that your topics for discussion mentions happened in the 1950's.

That doesnt mean that it was devoid of facts. As portrayed in the large number of footnotes.

It means that it was nothing more than topics for discussion. It listed various views but presented nothing as fact. That is what the biology textbook is for.

I've just provided evidence.

You provided topics for discussion. We already have that.

It takes time. Adult human stem cell research has been around since the early 1900's.

Incorrect. Research was done on somatic cells, which are not to be confused with stem cells.

Plenty of scientific facts were provided in it.

It was topics for discussion. All the whining in the world isn't going to make it a medical text.

Well I just posted an excerpt, I didnt even post all of the views for, but yes there were some of the views against, you really should try reading whats posted.

As I said. I have read both the medical textbook and the companion book. No where in the medical text does it suggest that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

"Understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins.

Of course that would be your basis since the science doesn't support your view. If the science supported you, then you would not accept anything that contradicted established science.

Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question.

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."

Which part of that seems to be less than definitave to you?

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."

Or maybe you can tell me which part of that seems ambiguous.

One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."

Opinion is not scientific fact, and I have never brought souls into the discussion. The constitution doesn't mention souls when it establishes that the lives of human beings are protected.

Wether you want to admit it or not PaleRider, this is also a philosophical and moral/ethical discussion. Science alone can'not answer this question, as shown by the varying viewpoints, depending on which aspect of science you look at . That of course doesnt mean that in the future science wont have a definite answer, but right now, it doesn't. The difference is between what is human life, and what is a human being. As much as you try, you simply can'not give the same moral status to a blastocyst that you give to an adult human being.

Science has a difinitive answer now which explains exactly why you have turned to philosophy. Since the science doesn't support you, you seek the teachings of necromancers and gypsys.

Your refusal to even acknowledge the other arguments that contradict yours is intellectually dishonest. Your not searching for the truth, just trying to gain some sort of victory on an internet message board to fuel your arrogance.

Those other arguments are not supported by fact. If no fact is present, then it is fine to seek a philosophical answer. But when fact is present, there is no denying it. You and the necromancers and gypsys can debate whether or not it is OK to kill an innocent human being for the purpose of medical research, but you can not effectively argue that you are not, in fact, discussing human beings.

 

[palerider]

Trophoblatic tumors - start out as normal fertilized embryos much of the time. At some point something goes wrong. If you are basing your definition of "human" on the fact that it is genetically human, the product of a fertilized egg and sperm...then it is as human as a blastocyst.

You are mistaken. While it is true that trophoblastic tumors can form from sperm and eggs, they are never mistaken for children. They are tumors and if left to grow simply grow into larger tumors. A blastocyst left to grow simply continues on the normal life of a human being.

An embryo is nothing more then a potential human until born or at least able to survive outside the mother. Should potential humans be accorded the same right as humans? Why should it have more rights than any other species or than it's mother?

No. Sperm and eggs represent potential human beings. Once fertilization is complete, however, that potential has been realized. An embryo is a potential fireman, or a potential president, but it is as much a human being as you.

It should have the same rights as you because it is exactly as human as you.

 

[palerider]

How long have adult stem cells been studied?
How long have embryonic stem cells been studied?

chirp....chirp....chirp....

I have already stated how long adult stem cells have been studied.

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells and why treatment with adult stem cells is so often successful and treatment with embryonic stem cells ends in tragedy.

 

[palerider]

Initiates the LIFE of a new individual. There is a difference between a human life, and a human being.

So you are not an individual? What else have you ever been but you? You didn't come from a blastocyst, YOU were a blastocyst just like you were an infant.

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).
​

Perhaps you are unaware of the other viewpoints that contradict yours?

As I said, before a certain stage, a human being is capable of asexual reproduction. That argument has been put to bed long ago.

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).​

And every reference that I have given has stated that upon the completion of fertilization a new human being exists.

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).

Explain how the fact that a human being can reproduce asexually for a period of time means that that human being is not, in fact, a human being. A flat worm that reproduces asexually is still an individual and when it reproduces, each exact copy of itself is an individual. That argument is specious at best and is never used as an example of the offspring of two human beings ever being something other than a human being. It is bandied about among the necromancers and gypsies in an attempt to support pro choice.

It is estimated that more than 50% of fertilized eggs abort spontaneously and never become children (Gilbert 2002).

It is estimated that 100% of all human beings eventually die. What is your point?

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.

Show me where individuality is a requirement to be a human being? Your argument is specious.​