Scientists clone human embryos

[Verto]

Would anyone agree that it is ironic that the unborn offspring of endangered species are protected, but not that of human beings?

Or am I just a wacko religionist conservative extremist nazi?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's a better argument. What point in development should we draw the line?

I definitely don't have an exact answer for this, cuz I suck in Biology. As pointed out earlier, common sense tells that something without nerves can't suffer, so that could be my hypothesis for now.

What if you are under an anaesthetic? Should I be able to kill you because you will not suffer?

Useless nitpicking. The anaesthetic is only temporarily overcoming my own nerves. As a full-fledged human, I have 'earned' my right to receive humane treatment.
If you want me to put out a universal statement, then, make it 'A full-fledged and born human earns an automatic and inalienable protection by the X charter of fundamental rights'.

Basically, decide for an Y point where you are a human, and, from that point, your rights become untouchable.

No. Human rights only apply to members of our own species.

This remains to be proved. There is no reason why rights which could apply on 'lesser' beings should not. For instance, the 'right to live', stated in its raw form, apply to bacterias, trees, rats, etc. If you want to exclude them, you need separate arguments based on human differenciation.

Trust me, whether we do have the 'right' to kill animals is unclear, esp. when we come to the realization that most basic human rights are based on characteristics shared by mammals.

[Ben Kenobi]

Since an exact clone is not a new human being,

I'm sure Ben will see nothing wrong in killing cloned human beings for the sake of harvesting them.

Same reductionist problem as before. It is impossible to have an 'exact' clone because the clone will be different from the parents once the child starts to interact with her environment. This would start at conception, and would continue onwards to a greater and greater extent as she ages.

Therefore, a cloned human being would be just as much a person as the rest of us.

[Ben Kenobi]

The anaesthetic is only temporarily overcoming my own nerves.

No different from the unborn child. She will soon be able to feel just the same as we do. She is only temporarily unable.

As a full-fledged human, I have 'earned' my right to receive humane treatment.

How so? How have you earned the right?

If you want me to put out a universal statement, then, make it 'A full-fledged and born human earns an automatic and inalienable protection by the X charter of fundamental rights'.

Fundamental rights are not conferred upon by the society, but acknowledged by the society. Misses the whole point.

Basically, decide for an Y point where you are a human, and, from that point, your rights become untouchable.

Sure. The best and most definitive standard for personhood would be conception.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fundamental rights are not conferred upon by the society, but acknowledged by the society. Misses the whole point.

You're right, but you were asking me why you shouldn't be hunting for my organs, so I guess law is still the best argument.

I am NOT missing the whole point. Actually, I believe in fundamental rights, but they don't appear at conception- only, somewhat later.
So yes, you do earn your rights by virtue of your existence. What remains to be seen is WHEN, and also, by some extent, whether or not society will acknowledge it (which belongs to another debate).

Sure. The best and most definitive standard for personhood would be conception.

No. A plant is more complex than a primitive embryo, and a living being with no brain has no conscience at all. And don't tell me it has one because GOD decided so. It will just immediately end the debate, because I won't be discussing (again) about God with some fundies.

[ixnay]

The blastocyte is an egg induced to undergo maturation and formation. There is no sperm meeting the egg here.

It's simply a collection of dividing cells, as much of a person as a fingernail is a person.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by ixnay
The blastocyte is an egg induced to undergo maturation and formation. There is no sperm meeting the egg here.

It's simply a collection of dividing cells, as much of a person as a fingernail is a person.

Thx.

[JCG]

If it can someday help to do anything about Alzheimer's......then go for it (since nobody's getting hurt, other than a bunch of incompletely developed cells with no feeling yet and which would never have existed if not for the cloning....I don't see it as too ethically questionable, as far as I'm concerned, thus I'm not contradicting my already vague sig either)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ixnay
The blastocyte is an egg induced to undergo maturation and formation. There is no sperm meeting the egg here.

You mean it's a haploid?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Already, the cells are human, because they have human DNA. Very sloppy terminology.

They may be human, but they are not a human being. Huge difference.

Again, by your logic, a person would be a murderer if he scratches himself?

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

Read Combat Ingrid's post. That's why I say sloppy terminology.

a person would be a murderer if he scratches himself?

No.

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You mean it's a haploid?

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,...w=wn_tophead_1

"In this case there was no sperm, no uterus, there was no vision for this to be a human being," said Bernard Siegel, director of the Genetics Policy Institute. "This is entirely something with the potential to create cures, understanding and treatment of medical conditions, and it's a real step in the right direction."

To create a clone, researchers take an egg from a woman and remove the nucleus. They replace it with a cell from the person to be cloned. They then use chemicals or zap it with electricity to kick-start cell division.

[Ben Kenobi]

So yes, you do earn your rights by virtue of your existence.

Existence of an individual human person begins at conception.

No. A plant is more complex than a primitive embryo,

Primitive is an arbitrary classification. Embryos can have a beating heart after 21 weeks, and brain function shortly afterwards.

Secondly, the key to the unborn child is not their current abilities, but their capacity to grow and develop. It's like comparing two buckets. Sure, the plant may at full growth and development be more complicated than a single cell, but no one looking at the buckets would give more weight to the plant than the grown human person.

living being with no brain has no conscience at

So how does the brain form? Does it pop out of nothingness and become a fully developed brain? No. The brain develops over a period of time, along with the other parts of an embryo, growing in complexity over time.

Secondly, how does one determine when conscience forms? You seem to be very confident.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ixnay:


blastocyst,

There is a difference between BLASTOCYST and a BLASTOCYTE.

You have the wrong term.

Read Combat Ingrid's post more carefully next time.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Korean researchers wrote that they could not rule out the possibility that their eggs might have begun spontaneously dividing and were not true embryos, a phenomenon called parthenogenesis.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No.

On one hand, you insist that removing cells from a ball of undifferentiated cells which happen to contain human DNA murder. While on the other, you mention offing cells that contain human DNA is not.

Please kindly explain the contradiction.

[Ben Kenobi]

"In this case there was no sperm, no uterus, there was no vision for this to be a human being,"

This presupposes that one is not a human being until implantation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This presupposes that one is not a human being until implantation.

Where did "human being" come from?

[Dis]

and the U.S. falls further behind in technology because of Bush.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Dissident
and the U.S. falls further behind in technology because of Bush.

Well, there is war weariness. So Bush needs to increase the luxury rating but also have more income. Therefore, he must reduce science.

[Dis]

we could conquer Rome and take Michealangelos Chapel.

[Combat Ingrid]

@Ben Kenobi: I assumed people like you would show up in this thread so I deliberately used "sloppy terminology" to make it easier to understand

Besides, as Ixnay pointed out, apparently no zygotes were harmed in any way in these experiments. They just exchanged the nucleus of the ovum with the nucleus from a somatic cell and induced it to enter the cell cycle.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why not? All you are is a sack of cells with incredible medical potential.

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Ha!
A typical Kenobist dramatisation of the issue!

Growing organs is the way to ease the suffering of millions.
A person suffering of cancer will not give a damn if you or your outdated old dogma approves or not.

They want a cure.

It's our earthly-created medicine that will save lives.
Not some earthly-created fantasy god.

And who are you to sit on a throne of judgement anyway?



I bet you don't whine at billions of cows being grown for death and consumption.

Ah yes, because your invented deity said that was OK.

It must be good to have a double standard, non?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
Besides, as Ixnay pointed out, apparently no zygotes were harmed in any way in these experiments. They just exchanged the nucleus of the ovum with the nucleus from a somatic cell and induced it to enter the cell cycle.

That's not cloning embryoes though -- well I was wondering how do you clone embryoes, and why bother, but nevermind.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So how does the brain form? Does it pop out of nothingness and become a fully developed brain? No. The brain develops over a period of time, along with the other parts of an embryo, growing in complexity over time.

Secondly, how does one determine when conscience forms? You seem to be very confident.

Easy, really. As long as the cells can turn in any kind of organ, they don't have the function of a brain.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
There is no reason why rights which could apply on 'lesser' beings should not.

You cannot apply a right. Rights are affirmative by nature, they only exist for those who can claim them and defend their claim. Animals other than humans lack both fundimental capacities necessary to have rights.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You cannot apply a right. Rights are affirmative by nature, they only exist for those who can claim them and defend their claim. Animals other than humans lack both fundimental capacities necessary to have rights.

I bet there are people in Germany who are not capable to defend certain rights, still the constitution does indeed give them those rights.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You cannot apply a right. Rights are affirmative by nature, they only exist for those who can claim them and defend their claim. Animals other than humans lack both fundimental capacities necessary to have rights.

Nope. Children have rights. The mentally retarded also do.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by BeBro
I bet there are people in Germany who are not capable to defend certain rights, still the constitution does indeed give them those rights.

Understood.

Still, in the case that their rights are violated, somebody else would need to defend them.

[pchang]

Originally posted by DataAeolus


In that case, those human beings would be... human beings which are entitled to basic human rights. They're not animals nor farms to be harvested.

I prefer to clone organs themselves using stem cells instead of growing actual human beings.

EDIT: Let me expand on this some more. I've read about the possiblity of having stem cell banks in which some stem cells are taken from an emybro during a pregnancy. Those cells would be stored and then suppose 25 years later, the person got in an accident and the liver get destroyed or something, doctors can come back to that person's stem cells and use those cells to grow a new liver. The advantage is that since the new liver's from the same stem cells that the body grew from, the body would not reject the liver.

I'd like to take an opportunity to bring up a thought. Hopefully someone with extensive knowledge of biochemistry can help me out here ( I know at least one of you are studying that field!). From what I understand, basically, when one die of old age, it means on the cellular level, cells has been replicating itself so often that the quality of new copies are not as good and eventually the quality is so poor those cells just don't function. (cell A replicates itself into cell A.1 which replicates itself into cell A.2 copying from A.1 not A and so on. Imagine doing that with a paper and a copier. 100th copy wouldn't be as good as the first copy) When the body has so many of cells that are not functioning, the body die. Would it be possible to use stem cells to revitalize the body? Those cells would be closer to orginial copies. Would this enable a person to live longer until basically his brains stop functioning?

Stem cells can be taken from the placenta and stored after birth. This is already being done, but costs a fiar amount and the parents have to pay. In addition, not all places are set up for this, so you have do decide months in advance to make sure the preparations are in place.