Letter to the Pres, from Bob, the stem cell

[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/

[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.

[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...

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?

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.