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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

:D

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.

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by pdrift1

because as you stated thier is no logic to his thinking!!!!!

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

:rolleyes: Here we go...



If you want to get to the core, then you have to consider whether they constitute life or not. If they are not life, then using them for research doesn't go against the very core of modern medicine and modern science. If they are life,then using them for research does.

And, if they are life, then parental authorization is irrelevant: We don't let parents offer to kill their offspring at other stages of development (for any reason), so we shouldn't here either.



Lastly, if you are so concerned about the "topic presented" then maybe you should consider what Bush actually vetoed. He veoted a bill that provided FEDERAL FUNDING of embryonic stem cell research. It certainly wasn't a bill simply allowing private stem cell research to continue.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So, B, are you yourself opposed to fertility clinics, then? Seeing as how they create thousands and thousands of "lives" (since you believe life begins at conception) that are then discarded?

And Bush didn't veto a bill providing for federal funding of stem cell research (as Danzig pointed out)- he vetoed a bill that would have loosened federal restrictions on what kinds of stem cells (i.e., stem cells from new lines) could be used.

Again, what I have not had answered to my satisfaction, fascinating though this thread has been, is why it's okay for fertility clinics to create and then dispose of thousands and thousands of embryos, and yet not okay for those embryos to be donated to medical research. Can you explain to me how one can be morally acceptable and not the other?

Again, these are not embryos being created for the express purpose of medical research- these are embryos that are going to be tossed into the medical waste heap.