Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

Grypd · 2005-03-11 17:30:21

We are at the brink of what will be mankinds greatest scientific and to some most outrageous journey.

We are able or plan to with stem cell research and with Gene therapy cure a lot of diseases and injuries that where once some of the worst banes to mankind. Hemophilia, Lupus and spinal damage are all proposed to be treated. But that is not the end we can clone animals why not people, we can add "bits" to animals to "improve" them, why not people. We already have goats that make milk with compounds that we need to treat people with certain illnesses. We plan to have them make compounds like spider silk so we can harvest that to make really strong materials.

But what really has peoples concern is the possibility that we can create human clones. In the UK a family who's son is seriously ill needs a transplant of bone marrow they want to have another child who is so genetically similar that it can be the transplant doner. This has been allowed. Stem cells allow us to make anything that a human body consists of but in many countries research is seriously restricted or banned. Concerns about this may have actually been one of the reasons that Bush won his election last year as he was anti it and so was his main state supporters.

So think in the future we could learn that this gene indicates intelligence and this means fertility and this healthy body. This added to genes we make ourselves and adding genes that are foreign to us we could create a race of super humans or humans built for specific purposes.

Imagine when we go to Mars we send colonists who are more resistant to weaker gravity and radiation. And they are tougher and when they have children they allways have twins/triplets with a scewded predominance of females to males of 2 to 1 so we can quickly increase population.

Or we have the Empire way of cloned soldiers made to order and with improved reflexes and possibly made faster and with better combat reflexes and strength. Or the Brave new world of "classes" doing there jobs and being manufactured to order.

Do we stop this science, regulate its limits or just regulate it or not do anything at all. Especially as each country has set its own limits and some countries have no limits at all.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-12 04:08:34

But what really has peoples concern is the possibility that we can create human clones. In the UK a family who's son is seriously ill needs a transplant of bone marrow they want to have another child who is so genetically similar that it can be the transplant doner.

Ethics and squeamishness aside, application specific donor clones can be created relatively easily. While I don’t remember the specific details, creating a clone while inhibiting the development of the brain is just a matter of denying certain proteins at certain stages. It happens naturally from time to time, all the organs develop properly but the brain never gets much beyond a brainstem and medulla. Non-sentient harvestable donor clone.

It’s a primitive approach considering that we are also on the verge of being able to grow entire organs from genetic samples, the donor clone approach is not only inefficient but less versatile. If you need bone marrow it might be enough, if you need a liver there isn’t enough time to grow a clone to maturity.

Imagine when we go to Mars we send colonists who are more resistant to weaker gravity and radiation. And they are tougher and when they have children they allways have twins/triplets with a scewded predominance of females to males of 2 to 1 so we can quickly increase population.

Which brings up another issue that needs attention. If we can adapt ourselves to different environments we can more successfully spread to other worlds, but in so doing we become multiple species. Perhaps before anything else we have to ask ourselves do we want to be one species of human on many worlds, or many species of human each with their own world?

Or we have the Empire way of cloned soldiers made to order and with improved reflexes and possibly made faster and with better combat reflexes and strength. Or the Brave new world of "classes" doing there jobs and being manufactured to order.

This strikes me as somewhat overblown. Clone soldiers still have to be grown, trained, educated and provisioned like any other human. A thousand clones or a thousand babies seized from delivery rooms, the practical concerns are essentially the same. In the same vein, human nature is what it is, clone or not. They’ll get rebellious, they’ll get pissy, they’ll get… frustrated unless mating opportunities are provided. Even if they can be engineered for superior strength and stamina the advantages are outweighed by the problems of maintaining them and modern warfare is more dependent on one’s technology than brute strength anyway. We can create super-soldiers that would be holy terrors with swords or hand-to-hand, but slogging through mud wrapped in Kevlar with an automatic weapon and air support the significance is reduced considerably.

Finally, we can’t realistically expect old clone soldiers to just fade away. Either we pay them retirement benefits thereby canceling any last advantage of having them, we institutionalize war so that regardless of need we always have enough conflict to cull the herd, or we sit back and wait for Martin Luther Clone to start agitating in which case any solution carries great expense.

Unless of course we have a specific target in mind and a long-term plan for dealing with it. Matching the ChiComs man-for–man on some future battlefield for example.

Do we stop this science, regulate its limits or just regulate it or not do anything at all. Especially as each country has set its own limits and some countries have no limits at all.

Questions that need answering. If it’s regulated, how and by whom? Attempts to stop the march of technology when the genie’s been shown the way out of the bottle aren’t effective, one way or another we have to come to grips with the possibilities and master them.

Grypd · 2005-03-12 09:26:46

Which brings up another issue that needs attention. If we can adapt ourselves to different environments we can more successfully spread to other worlds, but in so doing we become multiple species. Perhaps before anything else we have to ask ourselves do we want to be one species of human on many worlds, or many species of human each with their own world?

What could be worse is that we have different species of Humans just on this planet with people who can afford it buying certain genetic improvements to there prodginy. Using science fiction as an example look at Gattica a film where you had to be "upgraded" just to get a job. It makes sense when an employer knows he can get an employee who will be ill a lot less and is of higher intelligence. What becomes a problem is if you can also input into the genome personality too.

We are very close to the former and have since the genetic code of humans was fully explored found certain gene compounds that give advantages to the host. An example is if you have seen how many africans have Aids, a tragedy being played out on National television and how quick it seems to spread amongst the popualtion. Apart from the improved education and information given to westerners why has it not done as much damage and spread as fast amongst western population bases. Well there is a genetic reason. It is that a good 10% of the western population are very very resistant to the HIV virus and in certain subgroups like scandinavians this increases to 20%+. There is a gene called CCR5-delta 32 a mutation that when the Black death scoured across the world killed of so many people that this gene increased in frquency in the population. It works by stopping HIV from entering an infected persons cells so killing the HIV strain off. African people do not have as much of this gene as they never had as much contact with the Black death.

We have also found a gene that seems to influence mood and understanding of others emotions. It is commen in sociopaths and is extremely commen in soldiers who make the best snipers and soldiers.

Still it really will come down to where we allow it to go. And that is something I believe we will see as we will allow people to create new and "improved" humans. And if a person can be created that has big advantages over another in an enviroment then it is likely that that specific "improved" human will become the most common and Mars is an example of such a place this could happen.

Dook · 2005-03-12 10:59:28

The conservative religous condemnation of stem cell research is just another promotion of ignorance. They have such closed minds that they believe science and God cannot co-exist. They believe science is replacing God rather than seeing science as the discovery of the clues to God's great design.

We are intelligent for a reason, to figure out things and take care of ourselves. Don't count on God to fix all of your problems, He's done enough already by creating the universe.

Some day we will be able to regrow limbs and organs using a person's own stem cells so there is no rejection. We will be able to genetically cure all genetic diseases and eliminate many unwanted traits. The religious fanatics can't stop it, they are only slowing it down.

Grypd · 2005-03-12 12:58:08

It depends on what we class as human and it is not only the religous types that have reservations about cloning and stem cell research and genetics in general. They are truly concerned about the evils that can be done with this technology.

I dont agree obviously but I can understand there concerns. All sciences are created for what is considered to be the betterment of Mankind. But there is always someone who will warp and use the science for there own personal gain and or to cause harm to people. And with Genetics there is a serious possibility of people playing god. We have seen in the science fiction world the possible results.

It is in peoples psyche the wish to be all powerful and with genetics you can create your own personal empire. Thankfully just not yet, but it is coming.

Dook · 2005-03-12 14:35:09

You can't prevent the wild horse researcher who wants to be the first to clone a human being. Someone is going to do it even though almost all reputable geneticists see it as unethical. That alone should not prevent serious research. You don't make all vehicles illegal because a few people use them incorrectly.

Playing God? We are responsible for ourselves.

By the way, God doesn't even play God anymore.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-12 20:48:59

Personally, I don't have any particular ethical objections to producing human clones - as long as they're allowed to live and live 'normally', like anyone else. I don't see cloning becoming big business because, for the most part, people understand genetic diversity is a good thing .. and who wants hundreds of exact look-alikes anyhow? In the majority of cases, one of each of us is plenty!

But I do have problems with creating human embryos in order to harvest stem cells. In fact, I have problems with using or killing human embryos in general.
This has nothing to do with being a religious 'fundie', which I'm not. I belong to no religious group at all - not Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or what-have-you. However, I do happen to believe in God, though I fully understand the position of those who don't.
It just comes down to me not being able to draw a line in the developmental stages of a human embryo/foetus and say: "Up to this line, it's a mass of cells; beyond this line, it's a human."

I think you have to go back to conception, where all of the information for a new human is there, and from which point a unique individual human being will develop, barring unforeseen difficulties or mishaps.
This is the obvious 'line in the sand', to me, and all attempts to draw that line anywhere else after conception are arbitrary. And arbitrary decisions about when a human is or isn't a human have always led to trouble.
I've thought about this for a long time and I've never been able to satisfy myself that destroying human embryos/foetuses can be reconciled with a liberal democratic or humanist respect for human life. It has nothing to do with religion - just logic.

As long as potential humans aren't being destroyed, though, I support stem-cell research 1000%. I can't wait until we can grow new limbs, cure genetically-induced diseases, and improve the human condition.
Just a personal internal struggle with one very difficult subject. ???

Grypd · 2005-03-13 07:12:51

Luckily we are finding that we can access stems cells reasonably easily just by having access to the birth cord after a child is born. But as much as people are creating clones of animals they have yet to officially create a human clone. (some strange religous groups claims to the side).

But with genetics we are at the beginning of the path and the possibilities are pretty endless. Still until someone creates a fully functional artificial womb there will be no hordes of clones being made. But it is not that far in the future before these are made. A Japanese scientist managed to have a deer raised from fetus to birth in such a machine though the deer did have real problems in development and later life.

But it is not just cloning that could concern us, as an example, What can be done is to sort and remove genetic defects from fertilised eggs, in fact we do this now. The morality becomes when we then use genetherapy to actually put in specific genes that interest us. Genes for strength, Intelligence, Blond hair, Blue eyes, get the idea.

Dook · 2005-03-13 07:51:45

I think you have to go back to conception, where all of the information for a new human is there, and from which point a unique individual human being will develop, barring unforeseen difficulties or mishaps.
This is the obvious 'line in the sand', to me, and all attempts to draw that line anywhere else after conception are arbitrary. And arbitrary decisions about when a human is or isn't a human have always led to trouble.
I've thought about this for a long time and I've never been able to satisfy myself that destroying human embryos/foetuses can be reconciled with a liberal democratic or humanist respect for human life. It has nothing to do with religion - just logic.
As long as potential humans aren't being destroyed, though, I support stem-cell research 1000%. I can't wait until we can grow new limbs, cure genetically-induced diseases, and improve the human condition.
Just a personal internal struggle with a one very difficult subject. ???

I disagree that an embryo is a human. You are praising a single cell for it's composition of DNA. DNA is not God, it's a chemical. There is nothing in an embryo that any of us, other than a biologist, would recognize. It has no intelligence, no personality, can't cry when it's hungry, it is simply one complicated cell that may become a person. If nature makes a mistake then this single cell is simply discharged from the woman and nature tries again. That's about as logical as it gets.

This argument, like the abortion argument, may come down to different idea's about when an embryo becomes a person. When you say embryo people think of babies and abortion of late term pregnancies. It's a cell without a soul.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-13 20:24:40

Dook:-

I disagree that an embryo is a human. You are praising a single cell for it's composition of DNA. DNA is not God, it's a chemical. There is nothing in an embryo that any of us, other than a biologist, would recognize. It has no intelligence, no personality, can't cry when it's hungry, it is simply one complicated cell that may become a person. If nature makes a mistake then this single cell is simply discharged from the woman and nature tries again. That's about as logical as it gets.
This argument, like the abortion argument, may come down to different idea's about when an embryo becomes a person. When you say embryo people think of babies and abortion of late term pregnancies. It's a cell without a soul.

You're right, of course, Dook.
A fertilized egg is hardly a sentient being by any stretch of the imagination. And a 4-week-old embryo can't think either. And I don't suppose an 8-week-old foetus is doing much contemplating, come to that.
What about a 16-week or 24-week foetus?
A 30-week foetus?
A 39-week foetus?
A 1-day-old baby or a 1-week-old baby?
Any coherent thoughts or logical communication?
Nope.

Who decides when it has human rights and at what stage do we draw the line?
What if it's your call, Dook? Suppose you decide a 16-week-old foetus (112 days) is a human and can't be deliberately destroyed. A pregnant woman comes to you at 111 days and you destroy the foetus but, if she'd come to you the day after, the foetus is a human and you can't kill it?
Why not set the line at 30 weeks (210 days) and proceed to kill the foetus at 209 days?

Or why not decide you can kill a baby up until the day it can smile, or say 'Momma', or sit up on its own ...

It's just too arbitrary where you draw the line, in my opinion, and therefore I think we should resort to the one indisputable point at which all the information, at least, is there to make a human - the point of conception. I know this is inconvenient for some stem-cell researchers, and for some women anxious to avoid pregnancy, but then convenience isn't the point here .. or is it?

Palomar · 2005-03-13 21:23:25

Dook:-
I disagree that an embryo is a human. You are praising a single cell for it's composition of DNA. DNA is not God, it's a chemical. There is nothing in an embryo that any of us, other than a biologist, would recognize. It has no intelligence, no personality, can't cry when it's hungry, it is simply one complicated cell that may become a person. If nature makes a mistake then this single cell is simply discharged from the woman and nature tries again. That's about as logical as it gets.
This argument, like the abortion argument, may come down to different idea's about when an embryo becomes a person. When you say embryo people think of babies and abortion of late term pregnancies. It's a cell without a soul.
You're right, of course, Dook.
A fertilized egg is hardly a sentient being by any stretch of the imagination. And a 4-week-old embryo can't think either. And I don't suppose an 8-week-old foetus is doing much contemplating, come to that.
What about a 16-week or 24-week foetus?
A 30-week foetus?
A 39-week foetus?
A 1-day-old baby or a 1-week-old baby?
Any coherent thoughts or logical communication?
Nope.
Who decides when it has human rights and at what stage do we draw the line?
What if it's your call, Dook? Suppose you decide a 16-week-old foetus (112 days) is a human and can't be deliberately destroyed. A pregnant woman comes to you at 111 days and you destroy the foetus but, if she'd come to you the day after, the foetus is a human and you can't kill it?
Why not set the line at 30 weeks (210 days) and proceed to kill the foetus at 209 days?
Or why not decide you can kill a baby up until the day it can smile, or say 'Momma', or sit up on its own ...
It's just too arbitrary where you draw the line, in my opinion, and therefore I think we should resort to the one indisputable point at which all the information, at least, is there to make a human - the point of conception. I know this is inconvenient for some stem-cell researchers, and for some women anxious to avoid pregnancy, but then convenience isn't the point here .. or is it?

*You go, Shaun!

And just for the record: In my opinion, it's a human life at the very moment of conception.

Not interested in a debate, just voicing my opinion.

As for stem-cell research, cloning, etc.: Those are always interesting topics, but far too complex and potentially contentious. And I've previously expressed my views anyway.

Dook:

Playing God? We are responsible for ourselves.

I'll agree with that; or at least, we *should* be responsible for ourselves. A pity more people aren't responsible, though. :-\

--Cindy

Trebuchet · 2005-03-13 23:48:11

Correct, the argument of the side against using embryonic stem cells is completely focused on the actual process of harvesting the cells - which neccessarily entails the destruction of the embryo in question currently (except for techniques like the umbilical cord extraction mentioned above). It's primarily an argument based on 'what is a human', and I side with the religious conservatives here.

In fact, judging by the likelihood of human speciation in the future - I figure the odds of that happening via genetic tinkering in the next century being higher than the chances of Mars colonization in the same time period - it's probably a smart bet to agree with the line of reasoning that human life begins at conception, because it's setting a precendent that the definition for 'human' should be set as wide as possible. That will come in handy when the inevitable occurs and the genus homo gains a new member.

BTW, I feel that germline engineering is inevitable. It's one of those arms-race scenarios where if you don't do it, someone else will and god help you if you don't keep up. The trouble Europe has with its overly generous welfare systems, low productivity and high unemployment right now will look like nothing if their GM phobia forces them to compete against a whole slew of genetically enhanced Americans, Chinese, Koreans, etc, just for an example. On the other hand, I question how much 'genetic stratification' will occur - I suppose it depends on how expensive the procedure is. If it's cheap, you might see a push for some sort of standard set of 'upgrades', the way states require certain vaccinations for schoolchildren.

I also question the 'Gattaca' fear, partially because people are irrational (and thus there will be a significant amount of discrimination against the 'genetically enhanced') and partly because there is no particular 'sweet spot' of desireable upgrades which would be must-have. The designer babies would be a pretty diverse bunch.

As for Cobra's original question:

Perhaps before anything else we have to ask ourselves do we want to be one species of human on many worlds, or many species of human each with their own world?

I do favor the latter more than the former, for the simple reason that, biologically, adaptive radiation is the best long-term survival strategy. It's an insurance policy for the heritage of intelligent life on Earth against an uncertain universe.

Commodore · 2005-03-14 00:14:16

I heard of a story a couple of months ago of how German scientist had used fats cells as stem cells, and rebuilt a part of a little girls skull.

Then theres http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … ew_dc]this.

Smith explained that the presentations describe techniques that enable dentists to coax existing teeth into repairing and regenerating themselves, and techniques where dentists can "start from scratch."
Clearly, techniques that involve adding new tissue to already-existing teeth are "probably a bit closer on the horizon," perhaps within a "handful of years," Smith predicted. Techniques that grow teeth from scratch will likely take at least another 10 years to perfect, he added.
In some instances, researchers are trying to reprogram cells in the mouth to behave like tooth-growing cells, convincing them they have to produce new teeth, Smith explained.
Other techniques being explored involve using stem cells, which have the potential to become any type of cell or tissue. In one study being presented at the meeting, researchers successfully extracted stem cells from the pulp of adult teeth, Smith said. The next step is to examine whether it's possible to use these teeth to regenerate new dental tissue, he said.

Dook · 2005-03-14 09:01:16

A fertilized egg is hardly a sentient being by any stretch of the imagination. And a 4-week-old embryo can't think either. And I don't suppose an 8-week-old foetus is doing much contemplating, come to that.
What about a 16-week or 24-week foetus?
A 30-week foetus?
A 39-week foetus?
A 1-day-old baby or a 1-week-old baby?
Any coherent thoughts or logical communication?
Nope.
Who decides when it has human rights and at what stage do we draw the line?

We weren't talking about an 8 week or older fetus. Why not continue your elaboration and say "What about an 8 year old child?"

The discussion is not about abortion, it's about a single cell.

Who decides? We decide. Popular opinion. World opinion is varied, like any other complicated issue, but mine is not arbitrary at all. My opinion is that single cells can and should be used to promote scientific research into curing genetic diseases. Not cloning. No abortion. Research using single stem cells. All that nonsense about Gattaca and parents wanting 'blue eyes and blonde hair' we can figure out after we cure the diseases.

You talk about the rights of a single cell but ignore the right of children living with Multiple Sclerosis or born with Tay Sach's, Down's Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Spina Bifuda, Cancer, Muscular Dystrophy, Diabetes, Sickle Cell, and people with spinal cord injuries, people needing organ transplants, those who have lost arms, legs, people living with Parkinson's, Heart Disease, hypertension, Mental Illness, Alzheimers... I didn't even cover half. Think of how many people these diseases affect. Probably more than half the current population has some genetic problem that could be corrected. Without a doubt, some day we will be able to cure these genetic problems. You're just making it take longer. All for the right's of a cell.

Cindy: If a conceived egg is a human life then women who have miscarriages are guilty of manslaughter or maybe even murder.

Dook · 2005-03-14 09:20:28

Religious fanatics are afraid that we are "playing God" with genetic research. If we are it's because we have to. Also we have been playing God for a very long time.

Policemen use deadly force and restrict people from their free will on a daily basis. Doctors routinely save people from certain death. Fireman play God. Soldiers. Politicians who spend money on new freeways rather than food shipments to starving countries.

We play God because God doesn't. Hmm, maybe that's why He gave us intelligence.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-14 09:28:31

This is one of those arguments in which one always has their feet firmly planted in mud. There is no absolute right or wrong here, opposed viewpoints are equally valid in this case.

Unfortunately blind irrational faith abounds on both sides as well. Many of those opposing stem cell research do so on religious grounds, a fervent belief that life begins at conception, whatever the means used, and to destroy it is murder. On the other end are those who berate them to no end in the fervent belief that stem cells will make the blind see, the lame walk and allow even those who lost the genetic lottery to live full and productive lives.

Maybe all this life begins at conception stuff is religious crap. Maybe all this stem cell stuff is overhyped bulldung. We don't know, maybe the religious types are holding up life-saving research, or maybe they're prolonging the day the when scientists look like fools. Given the potential research is warranted, but some discretion is advisable. If it becomes permissable to create and destroy human embryos for research purposes that in itself opens a Pandora's box of possibilites even if stem cells prove to be nothing but exotic meat.

Don't run too fast on mud, you'll end up flat on your ass.

Palomar · 2005-03-14 12:30:12

Maybe all this life begins at conception stuff is religious crap.

*Well...not for me.

The fertilized egg is alive. It grows, cells divide and continue dividing, continually creating a more and more complex organism.

That's life. Alive.

Dead things decompose, inanimate objects do nothing, live things *grow*.

Just logical to me.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-03-14 14:32:12

I don't think anyone will disagree with you that a fertilized egg is alive. Nobody said it wasn't. An unfertilized is alive as well. Sperm are alive. Hair folicles are full of live cells. Bacteria that cause disease are alive.

The issue is whether or not these small clumps of life deserve the full rights of a human being to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Palomar · 2005-03-14 14:34:51

The issue is whether or not these small clumps of life deserve the full rights of a human being to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

*There's a billboard around here which I agree with: Without the right to life there are no other rights.

IMO, it's human whether it's 68 cells currently and still dividing, or looks like me.

Deprive them of their capacity/potential to reach full maturity (wherever THAT point is -- refer to Shaun's post) and it's a denial of rights.

Just my opinion.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-03-14 16:16:17

The issue is whether or not these small clumps of life deserve the full rights of a human being to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
*There's a billboard around here which I agree with: Without the right to life there are no other rights.
IMO, it's human whether it's 68 cells currently and still dividing, or looks like me.
Deprive them of their capacity/potential to reach full maturity (wherever THAT point is -- refer to Shaun's post) and it's a denial of rights.
Just my opinion.
--Cindy

Well if you believe that such a small piece of life has a right to exist then never take penecillin. And don't eat anything but dirt, somehow removing the organic matter.

Also go up to the next Down's Syndrome child you see and explain to them that a single cell, one women discharge into toilets often, has the same rights as they do. Try not to point your finger at them when you do this.

It's completely ridiculous! With no logic whatsoever. It's not a baby!! It's not even a fetus! It's maybe a thousand times smaller than a fetus. It's a cell. And it's not a denial of rights because cell's have no rights. We don't force women to get pregnant as soon as possible and stay pregnant in order to ensure each egg's right to life.

In my opinion if a fertilized cell does not wish to be used to cure genetic disease, all it has to do is say so.

Trebuchet · 2005-03-14 17:14:43

I'm having a difficult time believing that you could possibly be missing Cindy's point, but to my astonished eyes this certainly seems to be the case.

Well if you believe that such a small piece of life has a right to exist then never take penecillin. And don't eat anything but dirt, somehow removing the organic matter.

Those things aren't genetically human, and wouldn't grow into a human, which is her point about the fertilized eggs.

Also go up to the next Down's Syndrome child you see and explain to them that a single cell, one women discharge into toilets often, has the same rights as they do. Try not to point your finger at them when you do this.

Assuming that the cell was fertilized, I'd say, yes, it does have the exact same right to life that they have. Said egg might have some fatal genetic defect which kills it in vitro, or it might never implant, or it might miscarriage for some other reason, but I could be hit by lightning tomorrow, that's just life. We shouldn't end it ourselves.

In my opinion if a fertilized cell does not wish to be used to cure genetic disease, all it has to do is say so.

OK, I suppose we could use people with severe mental retardation as test subjects, as long as they can't communicate, it's ok, right? ??? (I know you aren't in favor of this, I'm just showing the folly of this line of 'argument')

The point Cindy and I were making is that YOU SET THE BAR AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. You don't know when human life begins, nobody does, as this argument we've been having shows, so you simply play it safe. Life begins at conception, not because we know, but because it's the safest definition.

Palomar · 2005-03-14 17:55:00

I'm having a difficult time believing that you could possibly be missing Cindy's point, but to my astonished eyes this certainly seems to be the case.
Well if you believe that such a small piece of life has a right to exist then never take penecillin. And don't eat anything but dirt, somehow removing the organic matter.
Those things aren't genetically human, and wouldn't grow into a human, which is her point about the fertilized eggs.
Also go up to the next Down's Syndrome child you see and explain to them that a single cell, one women discharge into toilets often, has the same rights as they do. Try not to point your finger at them when you do this.
Assuming that the cell was fertilized, I'd say, yes, it does have the exact same right to life that they have. Said egg might have some fatal genetic defect which kills it in vitro, or it might never implant, or it might miscarriage for some other reason, but I could be hit by lightning tomorrow, that's just life. We shouldn't end it ourselves.
In my opinion if a fertilized cell does not wish to be used to cure genetic disease, all it has to do is say so.
OK, I suppose we could use people with severe mental retardation as test subjects, as long as they can't communicate, it's ok, right? ??? (I know you aren't in favor of this, I'm just showing the folly of this line of 'argument')
The point Cindy and I were making is that YOU SET THE BAR AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. You don't know when human life begins, nobody does, as this argument we've been having shows, so you simply play it safe. Life begins at conception, not because we know, but because it's the safest definition.

*Thank you, Trebuchet. :up:

Exactly.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-03-14 18:20:57

I'm having a difficult time believing that you could possibly be missing Cindy's point, but to my astonished eyes this certainly seems to be the case.
Well if you believe that such a small piece of life has a right to exist then never take penecillin. And don't eat anything but dirt, somehow removing the organic matter.
Those things aren't genetically human, and wouldn't grow into a human, which is her point about the fertilized eggs.
Also go up to the next Down's Syndrome child you see and explain to them that a single cell, one women discharge into toilets often, has the same rights as they do. Try not to point your finger at them when you do this.
Assuming that the cell was fertilized, I'd say, yes, it does have the exact same right to life that they have. Said egg might have some fatal genetic defect which kills it in vitro, or it might never implant, or it might miscarriage for some other reason, but I could be hit by lightning tomorrow, that's just life. We shouldn't end it ourselves.
In my opinion if a fertilized cell does not wish to be used to cure genetic disease, all it has to do is say so.
OK, I suppose we could use people with severe mental retardation as test subjects, as long as they can't communicate, it's ok, right? ??? (I know you aren't in favor of this, I'm just showing the folly of this line of 'argument')
The point Cindy and I were making is that YOU SET THE BAR AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. You don't know when human life begins, nobody does, as this argument we've been having shows, so you simply play it safe. Life begins at conception, not because we know, but because it's the safest definition.

I am absolutely not missing Cindy's point. Do you know what it's like living with an unfortunate combination in the genetic lottery? Somehow I bet you don't. You think Christopher Reeves had it bad? You haven't seen a thing.

Here are a few things I think you and Cindy should try:
Push a needle into the arms of a 3 year old girl while she screams in pain as you inject insulin twice a day so she won't go into glucose shock. Chances are she will have numerous insulin reactions, convulsions, by the time she's twenty.

Spend a few hours with the mother of a Cystic Fibrosis son as she finger taps his ribs to loosen up the mucous so they can breathe. There are about 60,000 people with this disease now. The median age for those with this disease is 32.

Watch a child with multiple sclerosis fall to the ground when they are having a flare up.

Watch the movie "Leonard's Oil".

Help clean the clothes of an autistic child who defecated on themself because they were told to stay in their room as a punishment. EDIT: they didn't know it was ok to leave to go to the bathroom.

Visit the children's cancer ward at your local hospital and see how weak they become from throwing up and the chemo.

And last but not least, talk with the parents of a child born with Tay Sachs and find out how they hope to God he or she doesn't suffer any longer than five years. They surely won't.

I could go on and on, and on, and on. You just don't realize how many people these incredibly serious and debilitating genetic disorders affect.

My opinion is not to take stem cells from pregnant mothers, babies, fetuses, 8 year olds, or the mentally retarded. It's simply to allow scientists to fertilize an egg in a petri dish and harvest the stem cells for research into cures for genetic diseases.

I know exactly what your point is. Human DNA equals a human. Well it doesn't. It's not even close and it's preposterous to think so. A human is so much more but somehow, I'm sure you will never understand that.

Trebuchet · 2005-03-14 18:45:15

...

I'm definitely not responding to such emotional ranting, especially when you don't know a damn thing about the person on the other side of the monitor.

EDIT: Perhaps it's better to say that I have sufficient personal experience with genetic disorders to be singularly unshamed and unmoved by your last posts, and leave it at that.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-14 18:51:53

[There've been posts added since I started this one, including Dook's impassioned plea on behalf of the genetically afflicted, but I'll post this anyway. Please forgive any resulting disjointedness resulting from my tardiness in responding.]

CC:-

If it becomes permissable to create and destroy human embryos for research purposes that in itself opens a Pandora's box of possibilites even if stem cells prove to be nothing but exotic meat.

Yes, it's the Pandora's Box aspect that worries a lot of us, I think.

And, while I understand Dook's points to some extent, his insistence on concentrating solely on the very earliest phase of human life, when it's relatively easy to dismiss it as 'just a cell' or a group of cells, is conveniently skirting around the problem. I agree with Dook that this discussion isn't primarily about abortion, it's about stem-cell research, but I think it's logically impossible to separate the two because they deal with precisely the same problem.

I think it's very dangerous to try to ignore the fact that there's no obvious borderline between Dook's 'just a cell' and a full-term, healthy human baby. An uninterrupted continuum of steady development connects those two phases of pre-birth human life - no sensible or discernible lines divide that continuum into segments. In fact, Dook inadvertently strengthens this argument by taking my earlier point to the next level:-
'Why not continue your elaboration and say "What about an 8 year old child?"'
Exactly!
There is no credible dividing line that we know of between the newly fertilized human egg and the 8-year-old child. Any attempt by us to create one is just that, a creation of the human mind based on expediency. And there's the rub. As CC indirectly alluded to, once you get comfortable drawing purely arbitrary and convenient lines in the sand as to when a human is or isn't a human, it's a relatively short trip to the gas chambers.

I agree with Trebuchet's impeccable logic, too. Thanks, Treb!

And Dook, your description of the suffering of so many people in this world, especially the children, can hardly fail to move us all to heartfelt pity. Believe me, I do feel the pain.
However, I'm hoping that stem-cell research which doesn't rely on 'killing Peter to save Paul' will generate all the benefits we're looking for without compromising our humanity.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-03-11 17:30:21

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#2 2005-03-12 04:08:34

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#3 2005-03-12 09:26:46

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#4 2005-03-12 10:59:28

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#5 2005-03-12 12:58:08

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#6 2005-03-12 14:35:09

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#7 2005-03-12 20:48:59

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#8 2005-03-13 07:12:51

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#9 2005-03-13 07:51:45

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#10 2005-03-13 20:24:40

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#11 2005-03-13 21:23:25

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#12 2005-03-13 23:48:11

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#13 2005-03-14 00:14:16

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#14 2005-03-14 09:01:16

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#15 2005-03-14 09:20:28

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#16 2005-03-14 09:28:31

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#17 2005-03-14 12:30:12

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#18 2005-03-14 14:32:12

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#19 2005-03-14 14:34:51

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#20 2005-03-14 16:16:17

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#21 2005-03-14 17:14:43

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#22 2005-03-14 17:55:00

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#23 2005-03-14 18:20:57

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#24 2005-03-14 18:45:15

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

#25 2005-03-14 18:51:53

Re: Beyond Darwin - "We can evolve you"

Board footer