Scientists Outraged By Block on Stem Cell Research

[PeterCH]

Vacuous argument in which the rebutter attempts feigning ignorance of the context in order to obfuscate the point well made by his opponent.

You are not that good at this are you?

I'm still asking you to explain why my points are so bad. Can you?

 

[PeterCH]

Fail again:

Fail at typing?

I'm sorry what I said is beyond your understanding. Biology is not your field. But you can call up your high school biology teacher and ask them what the difference between an embryo (or zygote) and unfertilised cells is.

 

[SlinkyMike]

Which university offers a PhD in dishwashing?

Klingon maybe but dishwashing?

It's true... hypothetically.

Most if not all American universities allow for those whom might desire it to design their own course and proceed to get a .PhD in said course.

What he conveniently ignores (and what makes his argument vapid and vacuous) is that any such application must be passed by several peers and bureaucracies. I highly doubt dishwashing would fly.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

LOL whatever Peter, I'm glad that you live in Peter land, oblivious to anything outside your little bubble. It provides much amusement

 

[porchrat]

I'm still asking you to explain why my points are so bad. Can you?

Well just off the top of my head your points that:

A) there is no difference between a zygote and an embryo despite the fact that one is unicellular and the other is a collection of cells (i.e. multicellular)

B) an embryo contains all the machinery required to form a human being. Flush an embryo down the toilet and tell me it will grow into a human being. Well I mean it must do. Clearly it has everything it needs.

 

[PeterCH]

LOL ok dude you go and tell that to the entire world of biological sciences. Tell them that unicellular and multicellular don't really matter. Tell them they aren't real words and therefore we can just discard them.

They don't matter for the sake of this discussion. Did you look at the definition here:
http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-E/embryo.html

I point out "A fertilized egg that has begun cell division,". Can we now get over the argument?

Good luck with that.

Oh I am an exceptionally judgemental person. One of my many flaws. It isn't just me that is saying this though mate. A lot of people have commented on it in this thread alone. You have a very condescending way of dealing with people. This sort of self-assured smugness. It is very annoying.

Thank you. Now what are you going to do about it? Are you going to kill me? I guess you won't so what else? We can leave each others' personalities alone and discuss the facts or we can point out perceived insults in each other.

Seriously dude. Come down to Earth with the rest of us. It is nice down here. We have cookies. I even have tea!

Would you not say that Wizard's commentary was more condescending than my responses?

No I don't know if it affects my work because we don't know what knowledge could be gained from these scientific pursuits. As far as I can see at the moment it doesn't affect my research but discoveries in that field that could have occurred could have a big impact on the way my field operates in general. We just don't know and if there is no funding we may never know.

Ok, so you as a scientist have not encountered religious nuts blocking your work yet. You also assume that stem cell research needs embryonic sacrifice. Ok.

 

[SlinkyMike]

I'm still asking you to explain why my points are so bad. Can you?

Read much?

I have responded to all of your taunts... I mean: inquiries.

besides which you have not raised a valid point since page 1 of this thread. All you have done is trip over your shoelaces whilst trying to tell us how dumb we are. Repeatedly.

 

[Phenom]

No. Skin cells are differentiated cells. They cannot become a new individual without some sub cellular level modification. You can implant them in a favourable medium but they won't become a whole new individual without external intervention. The zygote / embryo will.

BTW the cells we shed are dead, they contain no nucleus (DNA), nucleous, RNA, mitochondia, Golgi bodies, spindles, etc. They are just collapsed keratin shells of the former cells which lose their nuclei and other organelles.

So... effectually we played God? Anything that we do that mutates mother nature is effectually 'playing god', might as well as fire all the doctors...

It is human because it contains human genetic code. It is also alive. It's not dead. The processes going inside it are active, vs the cells you may have shed and have dried out or were like skin cells - dead already.

So what defines a person? DNA or Sentience? Is it ok to kill those those highly sentient an sophisticated bottle nose dolphins too? Or are we going the Mormon route and going to say that blacks aren't sentient either? Watched the movie iRobot? Or even the Island, were the clones 'fake human beings', or were they real ones just like you and I?

Sentience is what is relevant to personhood, not DNA(racism).

Corpse is a dead human. Brain dead patients are still alive but if there is no hope of recovery, i.e. genuinely brain dead, life support can be switched off.

Well then if I decide to use an embryo, it would be dead(not sentient) too, and no there won't be any hope for further development either. there is no difference, in fact, if anything the embryo may be even less worth as the embryo was not even sentient to begin with.

 

[w1z4rd]

Woah woah woah. He is a chiropractor?

I thought he was a real medical doctor.

+1 I was like... I at least thought he was a real doctor. Appears his not even that... Pete.. Alternative medicine... seriously?

 

[SlinkyMike]

+1 I was like... I at least thought he was a real doctor. Appears his not even that... Pete.. Alternative medicine... seriously?

You know what the opposite of alternative medicine is, right?

 

[porchrat]

Thank you. Now what are you going to do about it? Are you going to kill me? I guess you won't so what else? We can leave each others' personalities alone and discuss the facts or we can point out perceived insults in each other.

By the Power of Greyskull I would never kill you.

Either way enjoy your arrogance Mr. I-am-clearly-so-much-better-and-smarter-than-everyone-else-and-smarter-than-Stephen-Hawking.

Would you not say that Wizard's commentary was more condescending than my responses?

I didn't read it. I was too busy responding to your various erroneous claims. Perhaps a link would help.

Ok, so you as a scientist have not encountered religious nuts blocking your work yet. You also assume that stem cell research needs embryonic sacrifice. Ok.

I assume nothing. You however assume there is nothing differentiating an embryonic stem cell from a stem cell harvested from anywhere else. I didn't realise you were a stem cell expert. Clearly they cover this extensively at chiropractor school.

 

[PeterCH]

By the Power of Greyskull I would never kill you.

Either way enjoy your arrogance Mr. I-am-clearly-so-much-better-and-smarter-than-everyone-else-and-smarter-than-Stephen-Hawking.

You need to stop reading so much in peoples' responses.

I didn't read it. I was too busy responding to your various erroneous claims. Perhaps a link would help.

Link was included.

I assume nothing. You however assume there is nothing differentiating an embryonic stem cell from a stem cell harvested from anywhere else. I didn't realise you were a stem cell expert. Clearly they cover this extensively at chiropractor school

We are not debating that. I never even assumed that. I said that the zygote is a NEW (as in GENETICALLY DISTINCT) individual to either parent. Hence when you kill that, you are preventing a new person from developing - you are dehumanising people - you may leave religion out of it completely.

 

[PeterCH]

So... effectually we played God? Anything that we do that mutates mother nature is effectually 'playing god', might as well as fire all the doctors...

Why derail the thread?

Again. Skin cells cannot form a new human. Embryos and zygotes DO. That's how evolution made them. Ok? See no religion.

So what defines a person? DNA or Sentience? Is it ok to kill those those highly sentient an sophisticated bottle nose dolphins too? Or are we going the Mormon route and going to say that blacks aren't sentient either? Watched the movie iRobot? Or even the Island, were the clones 'fake human beings', or were they real ones just like you and I?

Do you see any robots around? Let's discuss that then. What defines a person - well what makes your skin cell a human skin cell and and not a cat's skin cell? The DNA. What makes a fetal tissue different from that of the mother? Yes the DNA. What makes you different to me? The DNA. The DNA decides our differences. Yes environment too, but keeping the environment the same, the DNA will make the difference.

Sentience is what is relevant to personhood, not DNA(racism).

No. That's just an assumed convention. There is no scientific law or principle that says that sentience means you are human. Dogs are also sentient. They're not human. As are dolphins.

Well then if I decide to use an embryo, it would be dead(not sentient) too, and no there won't be any hope for further development either. there is no difference, in fact, if anything the embryo may be even less worth as the embryo was not even sentient to begin with.

If you found it dead, sure. If you kill it you are preventing it from developing into a full human.

 

[porchrat]

We are not debating that. I never even assumed that. I said that the zygote is a NEW (as in GENETICALLY DISTINCT) individual to either parent. Hence when you kill that, you are preventing a new person from developing - you are dehumanising people - you may leave religion out of it completely.

This response I found perplexing. For two reasons. Firstly because I never mentioned religion.

Secondly because you told me I "assume that stem cell research needs embryonic sacrifice" and my response was that you're assuming that all stem cells are the same regardless of where they come from.

Basically it seems that you're trying to say we don't need to sacrifice embryos in order to get the full picture. As far as I know these stem cells appear to be different. Embryonic stem cells have properties not present in others. If we wish to actually fully explore the field of stem cell research we need embryonic stem cell research. You cannot extract stem cells from an embryo without, for lack of a better word, 'destroying' it. It is very much part of the debate.

 

[daveza]

Can we have a competition to find one post where PeterCH confesses to being wrong about something.

 

[SlinkyMike]

Clearly they cover this extensively at chiropractor school.

Oh did I LOL!

 

[Phenom]

Why derail the thread?

I didn't. You said that 'hey cannot become a new individual without some sub cellular level modification." So really how many things medical really isn't 'modification'? What about artificial insemination is that "playing God" too, if not, then what about all those who we decide upon not artificially inseminating?

Again. Skin cells cannot form a new human. Embryos and zygotes DO. That's how evolution made them. Ok? See no religion.

Skin cells could form an embryo, and an embryo could form a Human, So yes they could, why should the middle man matter? Even so, it's not teh DNA that counts anyway, it's weather the cell is to grow to be sentient or not. If it is decided that the cell is not to be made sentient, then why should we care? we can't take from something that isn't nor ever was. We can't take from something that isn't nor ever was or ever is planned to be. It is only an entity once it exists, and the 'it' i'm refering to is the sentience of the being, not cells and irrelevant code.

Do you see any robots around? Let's discuss that then.

Really why? From a factual and hypothetical standpoint, there would be no difference, sentience is sentience and it's sentience that is the concern here.

What defines a person - well what makes your skin cell a human skin cell and and not a cat's skin cell? The DNA. What makes a fetal tissue different from that of the mother? Yes the DNA. What makes you different to me? The DNA. The DNA decides our differences.

No it doesn't, not when comparing yourself to another species considered of equal sentience, for example, a bottle nose dolphin, or even a 'black man'.

Yes environment too, but keeping the environment the same, the DNA will make the difference.

Makes no difference in respect to two species with similar cranial capacity/sentient ability.

No. That's just an assumed convention. There is no scientific law or principle that says that sentience means you are human. Dogs are also sentient. They're not human. As are dolphins

. 'human', and 'person' to two seperate terms. 'Human', usually refers to biology, 'Person' refers to an sentient individual.

Nobody can kill (full entity) something(or non-thing) that doesn't nor ever has existed or is planned to exist.

You can not destroy what isn't.

 

[DJ...]

Can we have a competition to find one post where PeterCH confesses to being wrong about something.

Of course we can. But I'm not a fan of one-post threads...

 

[PeterCH]

I didn't. You said that 'hey cannot become a new individual without some sub cellular level modification." So really how many things medical really isn't 'modification'? What about artificial insemination is that "playing God" too, if not, then what about all those who we decide upon not artificially inseminating?

At present time we can't make a complete embryo from an ordinary somatic cell. It may be possible in the future. I'm sorry you don't understand basic concepts here - there is a difference between an undifferentiated stem cell - the first one being a zygote and a differentiated cell. Differentiated cells have a finite number of divisions they can go through for instance.

Skin cells could form an embryo, and an embryo could form a Human, So yes they could, why should the middle man matter? Even so, it's not teh DNA that counts anyway, it's weather the cell is to grow to be sentient or not. If it is decided that the cell is not to be made sentient, then why should we care? we can't take from something that isn't nor ever was. We can't take from something that isn't nor ever was or ever is planned to be. It is only an entity once it exists, and the 'it' i'm refering to is the sentience of the being, not cells and irrelevant code.

Skin cells may be able to form an embryo at some stage. However we are not discussing that. We are discussing a new human being here and experimenting on a new human being.
Who decides what is sentient? Again a new born baby is not fully sentient. It's brain is still developing. It has no memory of birth or early years.

Really why? From a factual and hypothetical standpoint, there would be no difference, sentience is sentience and it's sentience that is the concern here.

Factual point of view? Young babies are not sentient either. So we can experiment on them too. The next step becomes the less worthy - they are 'sentient' but only in theory - in practice they are worthless - people who go on disability grants. We could experiment on them. Gosh man have you no empathy? Are you even human?

No it doesn't, not when comparing yourself to another species considered of equal sentience, for example, a bottle nose dolphin, or even a 'black man'.

A black man is Homo sapiens the way a white man is Homo sapiens, the same as the Asian man and so on. A dolphin is a different species.

Makes no difference in respect to two species with similar cranial capacity/sentient ability.
. 'human', and 'person' to two seperate terms. 'Human', usually refers to biology, 'Person' refers to an sentient individual.

Human refers to Homo sapiens. Persons a individuals of the Homo sapiens race. Even if a person is brain dead, he is still a person, even if he's mentally retarded he is a human being, aka person.

Nobody can kill (full entity) something(or non-thing) that doesn't nor ever has existed or is planned to exist.

If you have an embryo which was developing happily and you arrest its development, you are doing just that, you're preventing nature from allowing this individual to become sentient. The wide implication is important here also because when we put the cut off for NEW LIFE at this time we have a less ambigous point that one of 'sentience'. Sentience can be defined subjectively or philosophically. A new life is a new person - new DNA with the machinery to get going and make more cells and 9 months later (give or take some weeks) you have a new newborn.

You can not destroy what isn't.

You don't understand biology. I suggest you find an Embryology textbook.

Again let's illustrate with two examples.

A woman can donate her bone marrow. Great. These cells are her own. They are genetically identical to her cells.

A woman donates her early embryo or fetus - it would have become a child at 9months, the embryo is genetically different from her and is a new individual. It is is harvested instead.

To me this is pretty sick. This is a new person who is being used for experimentation. Perhaps great things may come from this, but there are alternative technologies- using cord cells for instance or pluripotential stem cells from adult persons. None of these cells would grow into a new individual were it placed into the endometrial lining of a woman.

Anyway the difference is pretty subtle. You need some rudimentary background in biology to understand. What shocks me about this is the lack of empathy and compassion some of you have.

 

[PeterCH]

This response I found perplexing. For two reasons. Firstly because I never mentioned religion.

I am debating a bunch of you as usual. Do you read other peoples' posts?

Secondly because you told me I "assume that stem cell research needs embryonic sacrifice" and my response was that you're assuming that all stem cells are the same regardless of where they come from.

No. There are many types of pluripotential stem cells. However, fertilising embryos and harvesting them or aborting fetuses for the purpose of harvesting stem cells is morally and ethically wrong. It demeans our humanity. It's undignified.

Basically it seems that you're trying to say we don't need to sacrifice embryos in order to get the full picture. As far as I know these stem cells appear to be different. Embryonic stem cells have properties not present in others. If we wish to actually fully explore the field of stem cell research we need embryonic stem cell research. You cannot extract stem cells from an embryo without, for lack of a better word, 'destroying' it. It is very much part of the debate

You can use different types of stem cells for example Cord blood stem cells.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7864-cord-blood-yields-ethical-embryonic-stem-cells.html

In the future it may become possible for us to manufacture stem cells de novo, too.

I'm just curious how much insight you have into this since you have such a strong opinion about it.