Letter to the Pres, from Bob, the stem cell

[Downthestretch55]

The president calls an embryonic cell "human life". He holds the destruction of human life as immoral.
OK, not to call attention to the capital punishments he authorized in Texas, not the 3534 American military lives that have been sacrificed in the invasion and occupation of a country he decided to invade, nor the countless people that have died in their homeland, perhaps one of his supporters might be able to explain this for me.
If an embryo is going to be discarded because it is no longer viable, and we're talking many thousands regarding this, what exactly is the difference if the same embryo is used to find and expand remedies that will sustain life?
OK...you might say that the president regards stage eight mitosis embryos
as "human life". I don't. And though I know that his pandering to some "religious" constitancies gains support for his "moral cause", frankly,
I don't see the logic.
Exactly what "life" is important to the president and his supporters?
The embryos that will be medical waste anyway, or the Iraqi children that have been killed by the actions of the invading military?
Oh..here's Bob's letter:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...tter_to_pr.htm

[GenuineRisk]

I've always thought if these pro-lifers were actually consistent, they'd be protesting outside fertility clinics as well as abortion clinics, seeing as how thousands and thousands of embryos are created and then destroyed.

Other than Bush never ever being wrong about anything, I can't understand the reasoning behind banning using these embryos- they're going to be discarded anyway!

Or else be consistent and ban fertility clinics and tell women and men who can't conceive that clearly God didn't want them to have children so they should suck it up and accept it.

Excerpt from the forthcoming: "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency:"

http://salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/20/greenwald/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Is it really that hard to simply understand an opinion with which you disagree (and, really, how can you disagree without even understanding it??? )?

Until it is explained to me how it is consistent to say it is fine to create embryos that will be destroyed but not fine to use those same unwanted embryos in research that may ultimately save lives of people born with all kinds of genetic diseases, yes, I'd have to say it's hard to understand.

Care to take a crack at explaining the reasoning to me? I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Are we still talking in context of the recent veto?


(Just so I can understand and focus my reply)

Focus it however you wish. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

[GenuineRisk]

And, finally, a survey of people who actually have stored embryos they aren't going to implant and what they'd like to see done with them:

http://salon.com/wire/ap/archive.htm...D8PSO6G01.html

Now THERE's a crazy idea- actually ask people personally involved in a situation like this what they think... not just politicians and religious leaders...

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I've always thought if these pro-lifers were actually consistent, they'd be protesting outside fertility clinics as well as abortion clinics, seeing as how thousands and thousands of embryos are created and then destroyed.

Other than Bush never ever being wrong about anything, I can't understand the reasoning behind banning using these embryos- they're going to be discarded anyway!

Or else be consistent and ban fertility clinics and tell women and men who can't conceive that clearly God didn't want them to have children so they should suck it up and accept it.

Excerpt from the forthcoming: "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency:"

http://salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/20/greenwald/

Well, I hate being called "pro-life", that's part of the mindless terminology used by both sides of the abortion issue...of course I'm pro-life in the general sense, as I am pro-choice in the same sense....what I am is anti-abortion. And I am consistent I guess because I oppose the creation of life by artificial means...I don't think "God" has anything to do with it actually, at least not as some sort of devine "punishment", we all have differences physiologically and some women and some men are simply unable to create life, that's a sad thing but yes...there is no "devine right" to have a child.

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

OK, fine. Let's start here:



Bush vetoed a bill that would have provided federal funding for research that would have involved the destruction of embryos/human life. There is no federal funding for fertility clinics and/or the destruction of unimplanted embryos from such.

You have determined when a human life begins? Or you got a definition of what kind of cell is or is not considered a human life, or has the ability to become one? Or what cause I wanna hear this part. I understand the federal funding part.

Or am I just all mixed up?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

You have determined when a human life begins? Or you got a definition of what kind of cell is or is not considered a human life, or has the ability to become one? Or what cause I wanna hear this part. I understand the federal funding part.

Or am I just all mixed up?

The problem is we lack the ability to determine exactly when "life begins", what we do know is the process that leads to what we are...it is not an unreasonable position to consider that process as synonymous with life.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The problem is we lack the ability to determine exactly when "life begins", what we do know is the process that leads to what we are...it is not an unreasonable position to consider that process as synonymous with life.

So then what is not a human life?

Cheek cells sloughing off
Sperm cells waisted in a wet dream
Sperm cells waisted in self gratification (a Catholic bugaboo)
Egg cell that die with the m. cycle
Egg cell that a sperm attaches to but the DNA never gets in
Egg cells that a sperm cell attaches to, the DNA enters and is cut up
Egg cell that a sperm cell attaches to the DNA enters reaches the nucleus but the zygote dies
Egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell that never attach to the uterine wall
Egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell that divide to the 8 cell stage attach to the uterine wall but then die
Egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell that attach to the uterine wall and then are shed during the m. cycle
... and on

Precursors to egg and sperm cells...

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I used "embryo / human life" to cover "both sides" (ie some consider them "mere embryos" and others "life").

IMO, life begins at conception; consequently, a zygote constitutes a human life. Since I am not sure if I am getting at what you are interested in, I will save the scientific and philosophical reasoning for later.

Why at conception? In your opinion.
And inside or outside of the body?

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

In part, because a zygote has 46 chromosomes (23 from mom, 23 from dad - same as you and I ); each zygote has its own unique and complete DNA and begins to develop in accordance with such; and gender is determined at conception (yeah, I know, kinda redundant given the foregoing, but...).

EDIT: just caught the 2nd part...doesn't matter - see above.

EDIT II: And to just push it along a bit quicker...I am arguing that a zygote is a human life with potential. IOW, it is a human at a specific stage of normal human development. Just as, for example, a toddler is a human at a specific stage of development and has the potential to develop into the next stage (eg an adolecent-->teen-->adult-->senior citizen).

So a zygote that has 47 chromosomes (maybe one extra 21) would be a life?
Or a zygote that has 45 chromosomes would or would not be?
Or some other number than 46, cause it happens all the time?

More than 23 definitely though, in a zygote?

And maybe I can get a grip on the potential problem, when I better understand the above.

[Danzig]

the veto has to do with the federal funding, there is embryonic cell research. just not paid for by fed tax dollars.

and much like any other topic, some scientists think there is potential with embryonic cells, some think adult stem cells are just as good a thing to work with.

as to when life begins, good luck settling that one.

as to how bush thinks, well...good luck with that one too. it's my understanding god tells him what to do, according to george. so how can you argue with that?

[Danzig]

this is an excerpt from an article i just read on the subject:

Research on stem cell lines derived in the interim would be eligible for federal funding. The new provision also would add ethical standards to be used for selecting embryos to be studied using federal funds, according to a draft of the provision.

By the 2008 elections, Democrats predicted, Bush's veto of new public funding for embryonic stem cell research would be a top priority of voters in the congressional and presidential elections.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research.

Republican presidential hopefuls are split on the scope of federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have broken with Bush — and the GOP's social conservatives — in backing the expansion of federal funding for such research.

Rivals Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas oppose the expansion.

Most of the Democratic candidates have urged Bush to expand the research.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence.
Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.


the part in bold, i highlighted because i didn't know this, and wasn't sure anyone else did either....

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this is an excerpt from an article i just read on the subject:

Research on stem cell lines derived in the interim would be eligible for federal funding. The new provision also would add ethical standards to be used for selecting embryos to be studied using federal funds, according to a draft of the provision.

By the 2008 elections, Democrats predicted, Bush's veto of new public funding for embryonic stem cell research would be a top priority of voters in the congressional and presidential elections.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research.

Republican presidential hopefuls are split on the scope of federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have broken with Bush — and the GOP's social conservatives — in backing the expansion of federal funding for such research.

Rivals Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas oppose the expansion.

Most of the Democratic candidates have urged Bush to expand the research.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence.
Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.


the part in bold, i highlighted because i didn't know this, and wasn't sure anyone else did either....

Danzig,
The 76 cell lines that previously existed (and have not been expanded) serve to limit research. And, as you might know, NIH funding (the leading source for genetic investigation) has been cut substantially.
Estimates are that between 400,000 and 500,000 frozen "embryos" (really blastocysts) are discarded when they are no longer viable. The "Snowflake Project" has implanted 120 to 140 into serrogate mothers, where they were brought to term. All the rest, alas, found their way not to funerals but to medical waste.
Bush's policies concerning scientific research are quite obvious, as is his inconstant value of "human life", and investiagtion that holds the potential to improve it.

Originally Posted by Danzig

the veto has to do with the federal funding, there is embryonic cell research. just not paid for by fed tax dollars.

and much like any other topic, some scientists think there is potential with embryonic cells, some think adult stem cells are just as good a thing to work with.

as to when life begins, good luck settling that one.

as to how bush thinks, well...good luck with that one too. it's my understanding god tells him what to do, according to george. so how can you argue with that?

Bolded:
This is what "we" are trying to determine. Since a prospective definition has been laid down.

The fed tax dollars is understood. It is the reasoning concerning why federal tax dollars will not be used in this research. And it was posited federal tax dollars will not be used because the research involves a human life. Federal tax dollars are used for a multitude of projects with cells of all types. So there is a specific type of human cell or cells that cannot be used.

A boundary has been established based on human life. We all want to know, no check that, I want to know how the boundary was established. Babs is giving his criteria. I think his might be pretty close to what many people have used that rejected fed. funding for this type of research (Bush was of course briefed on this, I assume, by people who have pondered the definition of a human life)

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Yes, I understand that there can be more or less than 46. 46 is what the majority of humans have. I am just going with the norm. No, it doesn't matter much if it is 45 or 47 - it is the combo from the sperm and egg.



I am not following your question.

Well there are many eggs in which the sperm does unite with the egg, but varying numbers of chromosomes actually enter the egg/zygote now. In the case where you just have 23, sperm and egg might have been united (some people's definition of conception) but none of the chromosomes from the sperm enter (or they enter but never get to the nucleus) so that would be 23, I guess.

There are also clearly cases in which the egg fertilized, or the sperm fertilizing, carries fewer than 23 (or in the alternative cases many more). So one can have all types of numbers of chromosomes. Some of these zygotes do develop into viable zygotes, some do not. Most involve having a chromosome number close to 46. But not always. So the potential to develop and the number of chromosomes is a bit fuzzy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Also, whether it is a life is only 1/2 of it. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a life, does this mean a life at this stage of development deserves the same type of protection/respect as life at other stages of development?

Some folks would say no. Of course, if you follow their logic, then infants, children, disabled/handicapped, elderly, etc. deserve less protection/respect as well...and some are at least intellectually honest enough to admit this (not many) and even promote the lesser protection/respect for those that require asistance from others (eg Princeton Prof. Peter Singer).

well, that's a good point.

i heard a story the other day that had me shaking my head....woman gave birth, the child was born with birth defects. the insurance company refused to pay for surgery to correct the defects, as they said it was a 'pre-existing condition'. makes me speechless! shriners thankfully exists, and took care of the baby.

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I am not aware of anyone who makes a distinction between the two when it comes to this and related issues, but there very well may be; thus, so we're on the same page, here, I am using conception and fertilization interchangeably.




46 is the number I used because it is the norm. Don't focus on the specific number per se...a zygote, by definition, is formed, in part, when the chromosomes from the egg and sperm unite (ie when the embryonic genome is formed and exists as its own, unique genetic unity). So, if you would like me to restate my prior comment (only the part wrt chromosomes b/c I'm lazy): "...because the number of chromosomes a zygote has is consistent with the number of chromosomes seen across the 'human chromosome spectrum'..." OK, not perfect, but I am in a hurry and I think you get the gist.

Absolutely not perfect but at least you are making an attempt at understanding a very difficult definition. I am too, and I cant come up with one.

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, the number of chroms is only one of my prongs.

Regardless, however, what constitutes "life", is a question that cannot, imo, be answered by the physical sciences alone. The physical sciences can tell us some properties something has (for example, at a given point of development), what is the norm, what came first, likely comes next, etc. (at least wrt our current understanding). But the answer to that question involves, in part, philosophical considerations and, quite frankly, value judgments. And, if we accept the modern "science is completely objective and valueless" dogma, then we are absolutely compelled to admit that science is not intended to, nor capable of, touching on either (especially the latter).

Certainly science can, and should, help inform our considerations of ethics, morals, metaphysics (on some level), etc. just as ethics, morals, etc. should help inform our scientific decisions (which they do, regardless of the standard dogma and even disregarding the current veto).


I guess this is a related aside note (or not?), but...
I find the Philosophy of Science (and Bioethics in particular) endlessly facinating, and anyone who is particularly interested in Bioethics should read "Human Cloning...", "Beyond Therapy...", and "Being Human..." (titles truncated because I can't remember the entire titles) published by the President’s Council on Bioethics. They really do a good job of covering so many issues, and while you may end up disagreeing with their conclusions, the issues raised and subsequent discussions are very enlightening.

I think you are correct but I dont know how to go about defining life ethically. In reality, I think one becomes human when one has the ability to contemplate one's own existence and therefore gains access to the ability to empathize. This is what I believe sets us apart from the rest of the living world. But this definition would make it legal to kill most elementary school kids.
Which in some elementary school teacher's eyes might not be such a bad idea...

You and I appear to like stuff somewhat in the same range. I am intererested in what humans actually are. What sets us apart. And what consciousness really means to me. And how we learn and the limitations on what we can and cannot understand in the physical world.

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, that's the rub, I guess. It is complex and not everyone has or is willing to really ponder it. I mean, I fully understand and appreciate the arguments against my position, I just disagree with them. And its not like the arguments against my position are terribly lacking in logic, science, etc. It really comes down to differences in values. Maybe only slight differences.

At any rate, I think it is fair to say that both sides make coherent and at least somewhat compelling arguments. And, for the sake of argument, let's say that we just don't know. We may "know" later, but right now - at this point in time, it is "Side A" vs "Side B". Side A says an embryo is a life and Side B says an embryo is a mere collection of cells. When it comes to making policy decisions, at the lab level and/or government level, what is the more prudent course of action: treat them as human life until we "know" otherwise or treat them as mere cells until we "know" otherwise? We choose one, we may be killing something we later "know" as life; we choose the other, and we have been merely treating something as like we later "know" as mere cells. One choice offers potentially ending a life (ie death), and the other choice offers, what I think most people would consider, something much less. It seems to me that prudence clearly dictates choosing Side A, at least for now.

And just to nip in the bud an argument I know would be coming if I stopped here. The fact that cells from the embryos could be used to treat diseases, etc. is irrelevant wrt the prudent choice. At the core of modern medicine, and medical research for that matter, is the prohibition against harming one to treat another. Therefore, treating them as cells until we "know" otherwise may ultimately lead to later "knowing" that we have intentionally killed many to treat many others. Choosing Side A does not offer the same risk of going against everything medicine (and science for that matter - the modern dogma is rubbish) stands for.

Well my Dad died of Pick's disorder, I got the feeling it was so much like Alhmz. And then I read about some of the stuff they are doing in other countries with brain cells and how they can get fetal brain cells to regenerate. So I am coming at it with bias. My fathers brain literally turned to mush until his basic functions, swallowing, and finally the heart beat basically stopped. It was about 15 years of degeneration that was very unpleasant. The doctors showed me his brain scan and his neurons just litterally to mush.

I probably go the same way, but I dont want anybody taking someone's life to keep an old man alive and from suffering. I dont want that at all. I would have liked my dad to be able to think like he used to because he was a very interesting man. And a good guy.