Kennedy 0 #26 February 12, 2004 QuoteYou don't need to have an embryo in order to have stem cells...we all have stem cells in our bodies, and can harvest stem cells from umbilical cord blood. for now, those stem cells are hard or impossible to find and use. Quotethere never has to be an embryo to have stem cells. (it becomes an embryo as soon as conception has occurred...or when the proverbial egg is zapped and begins acting as it is fertilized) We (the US) has somewhat of a stockpile of stem cells already, right? So for now obtaining them should not be much of an issue, yes? (I was remembering Bio when the thing has a dozen names before birth)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lister55 0 #27 February 12, 2004 OK, I've got a question for everyone. Let's say stem cell research goes on and a few years down the road we can clone organs without making a new person. How do you all feel about growing "improved" organs? Like let's say the air turns (more) sour, and some people go out and get new lungs. Or people who have new eyes grown that have better than perfect vision. Or new noses that are as a good as a dog so you can work drug and explosive interdiction without the dog. How would you all feel about that? Quote I think that natural selection takes a long period of time for a reason. If you go messing with that and forcing our bodies to adapt instantaneously (did I spell that right) what can happen. Also remember the earlier mention of Gattica. I like the idea of growing organs for replacement parts, but not for "enhancing" what we have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #28 February 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou don't need to have an embryo in order to have stem cells...we all have stem cells in our bodies, and can harvest stem cells from umbilical cord blood. for now, those stem cells are hard or impossible to find and use. Nope...very very very easy to find and use. I have helped harvest many many many different cord blood cells for use. Very easy... and millions of babies are born every year...placentas either sold to cosmetic companies or simply tossed in the trash (those whose mommies don't safe them, like I did. ) Quote Quotethere never has to be an embryo to have stem cells. (it becomes an embryo as soon as conception has occurred...or when the proverbial egg is zapped and begins acting as it is fertilized) We (the US) has somewhat of a stockpile of stem cells already, right? So for now obtaining them should not be much of an issue, yes? (I was remembering Bio when the thing has a dozen names before birth) A stockpile of stem cells? To what are you referring? You mean the zygote/morula/triphoblast/blastocyst/etc? those are embryos. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #29 February 12, 2004 why would cosmetic companies want a placenta?!? Anyway, I remember a while back Dubya passed a resolution/executive order/law stating that research could be done on 'existing lines' but that creating news ones was verbotten. Have to admit I'm not too knowledgeable on the science, but the subject intrigues me.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #30 February 12, 2004 Quotewhy would cosmetic companies want a placenta?!? they use them in several different products like creams and conditioners... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #31 February 12, 2004 somehow I thought I didn't want to know.....witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,478 #32 February 12, 2004 >Nope, it shouldn't happen. It will eventually happen. If a parent can save the life of his 3 year old by getting a procedure done, or can allow his 12 year old son to walk again, all other moral considerations become very secondary. And if it's only legal in Sweden? They will travel to Sweden. And eventually, any US politician who fights against a cure to cancer or diabetes will quickly be shown the door. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,478 #33 February 12, 2004 >I think that natural selection takes a long period of time for a > reason. If you go messing with that and forcing our bodies to adapt > instantaneously (did I spell that right) what can happen. We've been doing that for a long time. Most people take antihistamines, which shut down part of your immune system very rapidly. Some people take insulin or hormone replacements. Heck, people get heart transplants, with genetically different tissue. That's much worse than getting your own heart. >I like the idea of growing organs for replacement parts, but not >for "enhancing" what we have. Agreed, but that's sort of inevitable. Just as surgery should be reserved for serious illness but is often used for cosmetic purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #34 February 12, 2004 Quote>I like the idea of growing organs for replacement parts, but not >for "enhancing" what we have. Agreed, but that's sort of inevitable. Just as surgery should be reserved for serious illness but is often used for cosmetic purposes. Hey, lack of self confidence is a serious..... I can't even finish thatsentece with a straight face witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkymonkeyONE 3 #35 February 12, 2004 Quote.It will eventually happen. If a parent can save the life of his 3 year old by getting a procedure done, or can allow his 12 year old son to walk again, all other moral considerations become very secondary. It's my guess that it's already being tried in secret, regardless of regulations to the contrary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #36 February 12, 2004 Moral considerations are never secondary. That's a very short term view. If the procedure kills the embryo in the process, a potential life is lost. What makes the life of the 3 or 12 year old any more valuable? Some argue that these pre-implantation embryos are only 8 or so cells in size and are, therefore, not human yet. Who are we to say that? There's not a scientist on the planet who can say exactly when life begins. How is it right to kill another in order for your 3 year old to walk again? We were all embryos at one time and are still a "clump of cells." We’re all at different levels of advancement. I agree that it will eventually happen. The moral decline of our culture will ensure that. That will never make it right. I also believe that it is any politician’s basic responsibility to stand up for his or her principals whether or not that costs them their jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,478 #37 February 12, 2004 >Moral considerations are never secondary. That's a very short term view. Let me put it a different way - the morals involved in letting your 3 year old son die will win over more vague morals concerning the rightness or wrongness of a procedure. >If the procedure kills the embryo in the process, a potential life is lost. 2-3 potential lives are lost for every child who is born; only 30-40% of fertilized eggs implant. Why is it OK to discard them (or let a woman's body discard them) but not OK to use such material? >I agree that it will eventually happen. The moral decline of our >culture will ensure that. That will never make it right. The same thing was said about IVF (test tube babies.) For every IVF child born, up to a dozen fertilized eggs were discarded. Nowadays no one considers that a travesty, since it is now a proven procedure that helps infertile couples conceive - and allowing couples to conceive is more important than a more nebulous sense that those other 12 eggs were "denied life" or something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #38 February 12, 2004 > Let me put it a different way - the morals involved in letting your 3 year old son die will win over more vague morals concerning the rightness or wrongness of a procedure. Your first statement isn’t correct. Medical ethics plays a big roll in determining the legality of procedures. It’s not legal in this country. Not yet. What’s vague about whether it’s right or wrong to kill one in order to save or improve the life of another? > 2-3 potential lives are lost for every child who is born; only 30-40% of fertilized eggs implant. Why is it OK to discard them (or let a woman's body discard them) but not OK to use such material? I have no problem with using discarded material. I do have a problem with, once conception has occurred, impeding the process and denying the opportunity for life that you and I were given. > The same thing was said about IVF (test tube babies.) For every IVF child born, up to a dozen fertilized eggs were discarded. Nowadays no one considers that a travesty, since it is now a proven procedure that helps infertile couples conceive - and allowing couples to conceive is more important than a more nebulous sense that those other 12 eggs were "denied life" or something. You’re exactly right about IVF. Same issues apply. Many do, however, consider it a travesty depending on how it’s done. The eggs that don’t “take” could be frozen for future use. How do you figure that terminated eggs are “not” denied life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #39 February 12, 2004 Eep, Bill....getting into the abortion debate? Quote 2-3 potential lives are lost for every child who is born; only 30-40% of fertilized eggs implant. Why is it OK to discard them (or let a woman's body discard them) but not OK to use such material? The same way that we understand that people will die from cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, etc etc etc... yet we understand as a society that it is morally wrong to murder someone with a gun (unless it is to protect your own life). Just because mother nature will kill our children...kill our adolescents...kill our elderly...kill people in general...isn't justification for us doing it intentionally. therefore, along that same argument...just because nature causes miscarriages isn't justification for us killing embryos. Nature does all sorts of horrible things to us...but that doesn't justify us doing to each other on purpose. Quote The same thing was said about IVF (test tube babies.) For every IVF child born, up to a dozen fertilized eggs were discarded. Uh uh... not true. When we did IVF...one of our stipulations to ourselves and with the clinic was that no embryos would be discarded..period. the other was the understanding that selective reduction was not an option, so we made choices and decisions accordingly. IVF does not require the destruction of embryos...it is an attempt to create life, not destroy it. just like having sex to try to have a baby...you run the risk of concieving a child that will not survive, but that's not the intent of the action. Quote Nowadays no one considers that a travesty, since it is now a proven procedure that helps infertile couples conceive - and allowing couples to conceive is more important than a more nebulous sense that those other 12 eggs were "denied life" or something. That's not why it's accepted.. it's accepted because embryos do NOT have to be destroyed. When they are, people still do have a problem with it. but people then (and even now, beleive it or not) had a problem with IVF not because of the distruction of embryos...but for the same "I don't know about it, it's new so it makes me twitchy" reaction that people nowadays have about cloning humans to create babies. Had nothing to do with the destruction of embryos (which is still a point of contention) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #40 February 12, 2004 Quote What makes the life of the 3 or 12 year old any more valuable? Some argue that these pre-implantation embryos are only 8 or so cells in size and are, therefore, not human yet. Who are we to say that? From a pro-choice point of view? We make that determination every day of our lives. Do we get brought up on charges for killing flies in our home? of course not..becuase we deem them less valuable than humans. What about pets...if you abuse pets, you can get punished by the law...but it's not the same as a child. Why? Because they don't hold the same value. And for a prochoicer...that embryo is closer to the fly than to a human. They don't believe that it holds the criteria necessary to be of equal value to one of the kids playing in the playground and therefore is classified more like a non-thinking creature (more like an amoeba) than a human being - a human which holds special value and deserves protection under the law. Just like a fly or a spider is not deserving of protection the way a human is...they believe that an embryo is not a human person yet. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #41 February 12, 2004 O come on...we're not talking about spiders, cows, or giraffes. We're talking about human beings. You can’t say that we make that kind of decision every day and equate what we’re talking about to stepping on an ant bed. I'm not by any means the PETA type. I'm talking about killing humans or potential humans. You can't deny, however small and underdeveloped, that it is a human embryo. I don't care what it might look like. The DNA is human. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #42 February 12, 2004 QuoteO come on...we're not talking about spiders, cows, or giraffes. We're talking about human beings. No... YOU believe that they are humans. Others would believe that they are nothing but POTENTIAL human beings, equal to the individual parts (ie. sperm or eggs). Just because you feel strongly that they are "human beings" doesn't mean that it's anything more than a strong BELIEF...ie. not a fact Quote You can't deny, however small and underdeveloped, that it is a human embryo. I don't care what it might look like. The DNA is human. Absolutely...and THAT much is fact. What is arguable, however, is that it's a human BEING..not just that it's human. My spleen is human, also...it has human dna. but if my spleen were in a mason jar, you wouldn't say it was a human being, even though its DNA is human. Nobody questions whether it's human. the question is, is it a human BEING....that which is deserving of protection under the law from us. That is arguable, and will probably continue to be argued for a very very very long long time. In fact, I'd venture to say that there are many many people who would think that a giraffe should have MORE protection under the law than an embryo...after all, a giraffe can think, and feel, and move, and react, and exist on their own. An embryo can do none of these things... it just all depends on what you feel gives us our value... is a human spleen more valuable than a giraffe because it has human DNA? or is it the 'potential' that gives the embryo its value? if so...does a sperm hold that same value? or an egg? And if so...you'd then have to be in favor of banning all hormonal forms of birth control... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,478 #43 February 12, 2004 >Medical ethics plays a big roll in determining the legality of >procedures. It’s not legal in this country. Not yet. I agree there, but as I mentioned, people will travel to where it is legal if it could save the life of their child. And once it's a proven procedure, no politician alive will take a position that their opponents will describe as "letting children die." >I have no problem with using discarded material. So'd you have no problem using stem cells from discarded IVF embryos? I agree there. >I do have a problem with, once conception has occurred, impeding > the process and denying the opportunity for life that you and I were > given. IVF, IUD's, even natural processes do just that - they cause (or result in) failure of development after conception. >How do you figure that terminated eggs are “not” denied life? They were, just as the ten spontaneously aborted embryos in a family of five were denied life (which is about average for a couple that has 3 kids.) Not a travesty, just nature at work. Women's bodies naturally abort most of the children they conceive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,478 #44 February 12, 2004 >just because nature causes miscarriages isn't justification for us killing embryos. Not justification in and of itself, but it is indicative that spontaneous abortion is the norm rather than an aberration. We are designed to not carry most conceived eggs to term. >When we did IVF...one of our stipulations to ourselves and with the >clinic was that no embryos would be discarded..period. Hmm. Most people don't have only one embryo implanted, since odds of implantation for IVF are lower than the natural 40%. In general, several are implanted, and most are sacrificed either naturally or via selective reduction. It doesn't avoid their sacrifice, just changes the method. In any case, it's pretty common to do a dozen eggs at once, then freeze some in case the original attempt fails. If the attempt is successful, these are generally discarded. It's great that some people don't do that; if nothing else it prevents problems as to who they belong to and what to do with them if the parents can't decide. And who's to say that human cloning will not have a similar option? Take this procedure: Your child has diabetes. You donate an egg and get a skin cell from your child. The nucleus of the skin cell is modified a bit, then implanted in the egg. The egg is placed in a growth medium. It grows into a pancreas. The pancreas is then transplanted into your child, curing his diabetes. Would that be acceptable from a moral standpoint? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #45 February 12, 2004 Quote >I have no problem with using discarded material. So'd you have no problem using stem cells from discarded IVF embryos? I agree there. You can't use stem cells from IVF embryos without.. 1. them being alive and 2. them being killed It's not like they are embryos that didn't make it, didn't cleave, and therefore you can use the cells. doesn't work like that... Quote >I do have a problem with, once conception has occurred, impeding > the process and denying the opportunity for life that you and I were > given. IVF, IUD's, even natural processes do just that - they cause (or result in) failure of development after conception. Quote Not true. IUD's, yes...hormonal birth control methods (pills, patch, etc), yes. IVF..not true. IVF usually has some failure of development after conception - but the same way that trying to get pregnant without assistance usually has some failure of development after conception. in other words..it's an unfortunate thing that we try hard to make it NOT happen, not something we are intentionally doing. >How do you figure that terminated eggs are “not” denied life? They were, just as the ten spontaneously aborted embryos in a family of five were denied life (which is about average for a couple that has 3 kids.) Bill...I will drop to one knee and listen to you with scrutinizing intensity when you talk about anything remotely related to skydiving...just so you know how much I respect you in that arena. but this isn't exactly accurate. Estimations are that one out of four embryos will spontaneously abort (miscarry). You're saying that 3 out of 13 embryos will make it to birth..and that's highly out of wack. (since ya'll toss around jump numbers and years in the sport...let me say that I've been attending births for 9 years now..and teaching childbirth education classes as well as sex education...just so you know where I'm coming from.) QuoteNot a travesty, just nature at work. Women's bodies naturally abort most of the children they conceive. difference being that nature is doing it...not humans. If nature kills a 23 year old by striking her with cancer, that's nature. If I kill that same 23 year old by shooting her in the head...that's not legal nor viewed by society as something acceptable and I will (probably) go to prison for a very very long time. thus the difference between an IVF embryo that is transfered and fails to thrive....and an IVF embryo that is torn apart for stem cell research/development... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #46 February 12, 2004 A “potential” human being is a lot different from your spleen in a mason jar. Your spleen in a mason jar, if left alone, won’t grow up to be another you. I hope it is argued for a very, very, very long time. It’s that important. You’re putting your criteria on when life begins by saying that it must be able to think, feel, and move. Again, I’m talking about humans and not ants. A 26 week old fetus can move fingers and suck its thumb. It can’t think on the level of a 3 year old yet, though. It will eventually if left alone to develop and there aren’t subsequent problems. Also, a 2 year old can’t live “on its own.” Does that make him not human? Hormonal forms of birth control prevent ovulation. Conception can’t occur if there’s no egg. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #47 February 12, 2004 Quote >When we did IVF...one of our stipulations to ourselves and with the >clinic was that no embryos would be discarded..period. Hmm. Most people don't have only one embryo implanted, since odds of implantation for IVF are lower than the natural 40%. In general, several are implanted, and most are sacrificed either naturally or via selective reduction. It doesn't avoid their sacrifice, just changes the method. Average rate of conception in any given cycle is closer to 24%. Our IVF clinic had an 80% success rate. We transferred two embryos...because twins were acceptable to us, and if one of them by some wild freak of nature ended up an identical twin, then triplets would be acceptable to us. therefore we transferred 2 embryos and froze the rest in an effort to protect and save them. *looks at her 4 year old daughter running around* average embryos transferred are 2-4 per IVF proceedure. High order multiples are actually RARELY from IVF. They are usually from IUI combined with an overlystimulated cycle (mom takes injectables like Gonal-F or Repronix or Pergonal, and then does IUI -IntraUterine Insemination - which is a totally different proceedure/protocol). As a side note: high order multiples is considered an infertility clinic failure, not success. They do not WANT to have that as a result...and it actually does not happen that often. Quote In any case, it's pretty common to do a dozen eggs at once, then freeze some in case the original attempt fails. If the attempt is successful, these are generally discarded. Again...not entirely accurate. Many do discard them, yes...but many do not. there are four options when you have embryos frozen.. 1. use them in the future 2. place them for adoption for another couple to use in the future 3. donate them for scientific research 4. destroy them. Quote Your child has diabetes. You donate an egg and get a skin cell from your child. The nucleus of the skin cell is modified a bit, then implanted in the egg. The egg is placed in a growth medium. It grows into a pancreas. The pancreas is then transplanted into your child, curing his diabetes. Would that be acceptable from a moral standpoint? the thing is...you grew a pancreas, not an embryo... and whether it would be acceptable would depend on who you asked. I think most people wouldn't have a problem with creating an organ to replace a failing one.. I think the controversy comes when you're talking about using embryos for proceedures and research...especially if there are other options (such as umbilical cord stem cells, for example) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pds 0 #48 February 12, 2004 clone cute chicks only.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,478 #49 February 12, 2004 >Estimations are that one out of four embryos will spontaneously abort (miscarry). Ageed. An additional 60% will simply never implant at all. >You're saying that 3 out of 13 embryos will make it to birth..and >that's highly out of wack. About 4 out of 10 fertilized eggs will make it to implantation. Once they implant the odds go way up. IVF reduces the odds further; even with multiple embryos, none implant about 70% of the time. (link here ) >difference being that nature is doing it...not humans. I agree that there is a difference in intent even if there's no difference in outcome. That intent difference is at the heart of the abortion argument, and I'll leave that alone for now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites elfanie 0 #50 February 12, 2004 QuoteA “potential” human being is a lot different from your spleen in a mason jar. Your spleen in a mason jar, if left alone, won’t grow up to be another you. Ah...but an embryo, left alone, won't grow up to be another person... we haven't been able to get them past the blastocyst stage without a woman and a uterus. Quote I hope it is argued for a very, very, very long time. It’s that important. You’re putting your criteria on when life begins by saying that it must be able to think, feel, and move. When did I ever say that? I never said that. I said that for some people, that is part of their criteria. Quote Again, I’m talking about humans and not ants. A 26 week old fetus can move fingers and suck its thumb. And they aren't talking about killing a 26 week old fetus for stem cell research and cloning. What a 26 week fetus can do is irrelevant to the conversation... Quote Also, a 2 year old can’t live “on its own.” Does that make him not human? Depends on who you ask.. But most 2 year olds can live on its own...can feed itself, etc. Quote Hormonal forms of birth control prevent ovulation. Conception can’t occur if there’s no egg. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Hormonal forms of birth control has three functions.. 1. attempts to prevent ovulation (I can get into the how and whys if you really want me to) 2. thickens cervical mucus to attempt to prevent the sperm from being able to meet up with the egg should it be ovulated and 3. thins the endometrial lining to prevent implanatation should fertilization occur One of the risks of hormonal birth control methods is spontaneous abortion of a fertilized embryos. it's one of the ways in which it works (ALL of the hormonal methods) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
elfanie 0 #28 February 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou don't need to have an embryo in order to have stem cells...we all have stem cells in our bodies, and can harvest stem cells from umbilical cord blood. for now, those stem cells are hard or impossible to find and use. Nope...very very very easy to find and use. I have helped harvest many many many different cord blood cells for use. Very easy... and millions of babies are born every year...placentas either sold to cosmetic companies or simply tossed in the trash (those whose mommies don't safe them, like I did. ) Quote Quotethere never has to be an embryo to have stem cells. (it becomes an embryo as soon as conception has occurred...or when the proverbial egg is zapped and begins acting as it is fertilized) We (the US) has somewhat of a stockpile of stem cells already, right? So for now obtaining them should not be much of an issue, yes? (I was remembering Bio when the thing has a dozen names before birth) A stockpile of stem cells? To what are you referring? You mean the zygote/morula/triphoblast/blastocyst/etc? those are embryos. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #29 February 12, 2004 why would cosmetic companies want a placenta?!? Anyway, I remember a while back Dubya passed a resolution/executive order/law stating that research could be done on 'existing lines' but that creating news ones was verbotten. Have to admit I'm not too knowledgeable on the science, but the subject intrigues me.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #30 February 12, 2004 Quotewhy would cosmetic companies want a placenta?!? they use them in several different products like creams and conditioners... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #31 February 12, 2004 somehow I thought I didn't want to know.....witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #32 February 12, 2004 >Nope, it shouldn't happen. It will eventually happen. If a parent can save the life of his 3 year old by getting a procedure done, or can allow his 12 year old son to walk again, all other moral considerations become very secondary. And if it's only legal in Sweden? They will travel to Sweden. And eventually, any US politician who fights against a cure to cancer or diabetes will quickly be shown the door. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #33 February 12, 2004 >I think that natural selection takes a long period of time for a > reason. If you go messing with that and forcing our bodies to adapt > instantaneously (did I spell that right) what can happen. We've been doing that for a long time. Most people take antihistamines, which shut down part of your immune system very rapidly. Some people take insulin or hormone replacements. Heck, people get heart transplants, with genetically different tissue. That's much worse than getting your own heart. >I like the idea of growing organs for replacement parts, but not >for "enhancing" what we have. Agreed, but that's sort of inevitable. Just as surgery should be reserved for serious illness but is often used for cosmetic purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #34 February 12, 2004 Quote>I like the idea of growing organs for replacement parts, but not >for "enhancing" what we have. Agreed, but that's sort of inevitable. Just as surgery should be reserved for serious illness but is often used for cosmetic purposes. Hey, lack of self confidence is a serious..... I can't even finish thatsentece with a straight face witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #35 February 12, 2004 Quote.It will eventually happen. If a parent can save the life of his 3 year old by getting a procedure done, or can allow his 12 year old son to walk again, all other moral considerations become very secondary. It's my guess that it's already being tried in secret, regardless of regulations to the contrary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #36 February 12, 2004 Moral considerations are never secondary. That's a very short term view. If the procedure kills the embryo in the process, a potential life is lost. What makes the life of the 3 or 12 year old any more valuable? Some argue that these pre-implantation embryos are only 8 or so cells in size and are, therefore, not human yet. Who are we to say that? There's not a scientist on the planet who can say exactly when life begins. How is it right to kill another in order for your 3 year old to walk again? We were all embryos at one time and are still a "clump of cells." We’re all at different levels of advancement. I agree that it will eventually happen. The moral decline of our culture will ensure that. That will never make it right. I also believe that it is any politician’s basic responsibility to stand up for his or her principals whether or not that costs them their jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #37 February 12, 2004 >Moral considerations are never secondary. That's a very short term view. Let me put it a different way - the morals involved in letting your 3 year old son die will win over more vague morals concerning the rightness or wrongness of a procedure. >If the procedure kills the embryo in the process, a potential life is lost. 2-3 potential lives are lost for every child who is born; only 30-40% of fertilized eggs implant. Why is it OK to discard them (or let a woman's body discard them) but not OK to use such material? >I agree that it will eventually happen. The moral decline of our >culture will ensure that. That will never make it right. The same thing was said about IVF (test tube babies.) For every IVF child born, up to a dozen fertilized eggs were discarded. Nowadays no one considers that a travesty, since it is now a proven procedure that helps infertile couples conceive - and allowing couples to conceive is more important than a more nebulous sense that those other 12 eggs were "denied life" or something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #38 February 12, 2004 > Let me put it a different way - the morals involved in letting your 3 year old son die will win over more vague morals concerning the rightness or wrongness of a procedure. Your first statement isn’t correct. Medical ethics plays a big roll in determining the legality of procedures. It’s not legal in this country. Not yet. What’s vague about whether it’s right or wrong to kill one in order to save or improve the life of another? > 2-3 potential lives are lost for every child who is born; only 30-40% of fertilized eggs implant. Why is it OK to discard them (or let a woman's body discard them) but not OK to use such material? I have no problem with using discarded material. I do have a problem with, once conception has occurred, impeding the process and denying the opportunity for life that you and I were given. > The same thing was said about IVF (test tube babies.) For every IVF child born, up to a dozen fertilized eggs were discarded. Nowadays no one considers that a travesty, since it is now a proven procedure that helps infertile couples conceive - and allowing couples to conceive is more important than a more nebulous sense that those other 12 eggs were "denied life" or something. You’re exactly right about IVF. Same issues apply. Many do, however, consider it a travesty depending on how it’s done. The eggs that don’t “take” could be frozen for future use. How do you figure that terminated eggs are “not” denied life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #39 February 12, 2004 Eep, Bill....getting into the abortion debate? Quote 2-3 potential lives are lost for every child who is born; only 30-40% of fertilized eggs implant. Why is it OK to discard them (or let a woman's body discard them) but not OK to use such material? The same way that we understand that people will die from cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, etc etc etc... yet we understand as a society that it is morally wrong to murder someone with a gun (unless it is to protect your own life). Just because mother nature will kill our children...kill our adolescents...kill our elderly...kill people in general...isn't justification for us doing it intentionally. therefore, along that same argument...just because nature causes miscarriages isn't justification for us killing embryos. Nature does all sorts of horrible things to us...but that doesn't justify us doing to each other on purpose. Quote The same thing was said about IVF (test tube babies.) For every IVF child born, up to a dozen fertilized eggs were discarded. Uh uh... not true. When we did IVF...one of our stipulations to ourselves and with the clinic was that no embryos would be discarded..period. the other was the understanding that selective reduction was not an option, so we made choices and decisions accordingly. IVF does not require the destruction of embryos...it is an attempt to create life, not destroy it. just like having sex to try to have a baby...you run the risk of concieving a child that will not survive, but that's not the intent of the action. Quote Nowadays no one considers that a travesty, since it is now a proven procedure that helps infertile couples conceive - and allowing couples to conceive is more important than a more nebulous sense that those other 12 eggs were "denied life" or something. That's not why it's accepted.. it's accepted because embryos do NOT have to be destroyed. When they are, people still do have a problem with it. but people then (and even now, beleive it or not) had a problem with IVF not because of the distruction of embryos...but for the same "I don't know about it, it's new so it makes me twitchy" reaction that people nowadays have about cloning humans to create babies. Had nothing to do with the destruction of embryos (which is still a point of contention) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #40 February 12, 2004 Quote What makes the life of the 3 or 12 year old any more valuable? Some argue that these pre-implantation embryos are only 8 or so cells in size and are, therefore, not human yet. Who are we to say that? From a pro-choice point of view? We make that determination every day of our lives. Do we get brought up on charges for killing flies in our home? of course not..becuase we deem them less valuable than humans. What about pets...if you abuse pets, you can get punished by the law...but it's not the same as a child. Why? Because they don't hold the same value. And for a prochoicer...that embryo is closer to the fly than to a human. They don't believe that it holds the criteria necessary to be of equal value to one of the kids playing in the playground and therefore is classified more like a non-thinking creature (more like an amoeba) than a human being - a human which holds special value and deserves protection under the law. Just like a fly or a spider is not deserving of protection the way a human is...they believe that an embryo is not a human person yet. -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #41 February 12, 2004 O come on...we're not talking about spiders, cows, or giraffes. We're talking about human beings. You can’t say that we make that kind of decision every day and equate what we’re talking about to stepping on an ant bed. I'm not by any means the PETA type. I'm talking about killing humans or potential humans. You can't deny, however small and underdeveloped, that it is a human embryo. I don't care what it might look like. The DNA is human. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #42 February 12, 2004 QuoteO come on...we're not talking about spiders, cows, or giraffes. We're talking about human beings. No... YOU believe that they are humans. Others would believe that they are nothing but POTENTIAL human beings, equal to the individual parts (ie. sperm or eggs). Just because you feel strongly that they are "human beings" doesn't mean that it's anything more than a strong BELIEF...ie. not a fact Quote You can't deny, however small and underdeveloped, that it is a human embryo. I don't care what it might look like. The DNA is human. Absolutely...and THAT much is fact. What is arguable, however, is that it's a human BEING..not just that it's human. My spleen is human, also...it has human dna. but if my spleen were in a mason jar, you wouldn't say it was a human being, even though its DNA is human. Nobody questions whether it's human. the question is, is it a human BEING....that which is deserving of protection under the law from us. That is arguable, and will probably continue to be argued for a very very very long long time. In fact, I'd venture to say that there are many many people who would think that a giraffe should have MORE protection under the law than an embryo...after all, a giraffe can think, and feel, and move, and react, and exist on their own. An embryo can do none of these things... it just all depends on what you feel gives us our value... is a human spleen more valuable than a giraffe because it has human DNA? or is it the 'potential' that gives the embryo its value? if so...does a sperm hold that same value? or an egg? And if so...you'd then have to be in favor of banning all hormonal forms of birth control... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #43 February 12, 2004 >Medical ethics plays a big roll in determining the legality of >procedures. It’s not legal in this country. Not yet. I agree there, but as I mentioned, people will travel to where it is legal if it could save the life of their child. And once it's a proven procedure, no politician alive will take a position that their opponents will describe as "letting children die." >I have no problem with using discarded material. So'd you have no problem using stem cells from discarded IVF embryos? I agree there. >I do have a problem with, once conception has occurred, impeding > the process and denying the opportunity for life that you and I were > given. IVF, IUD's, even natural processes do just that - they cause (or result in) failure of development after conception. >How do you figure that terminated eggs are “not” denied life? They were, just as the ten spontaneously aborted embryos in a family of five were denied life (which is about average for a couple that has 3 kids.) Not a travesty, just nature at work. Women's bodies naturally abort most of the children they conceive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #44 February 12, 2004 >just because nature causes miscarriages isn't justification for us killing embryos. Not justification in and of itself, but it is indicative that spontaneous abortion is the norm rather than an aberration. We are designed to not carry most conceived eggs to term. >When we did IVF...one of our stipulations to ourselves and with the >clinic was that no embryos would be discarded..period. Hmm. Most people don't have only one embryo implanted, since odds of implantation for IVF are lower than the natural 40%. In general, several are implanted, and most are sacrificed either naturally or via selective reduction. It doesn't avoid their sacrifice, just changes the method. In any case, it's pretty common to do a dozen eggs at once, then freeze some in case the original attempt fails. If the attempt is successful, these are generally discarded. It's great that some people don't do that; if nothing else it prevents problems as to who they belong to and what to do with them if the parents can't decide. And who's to say that human cloning will not have a similar option? Take this procedure: Your child has diabetes. You donate an egg and get a skin cell from your child. The nucleus of the skin cell is modified a bit, then implanted in the egg. The egg is placed in a growth medium. It grows into a pancreas. The pancreas is then transplanted into your child, curing his diabetes. Would that be acceptable from a moral standpoint? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #45 February 12, 2004 Quote >I have no problem with using discarded material. So'd you have no problem using stem cells from discarded IVF embryos? I agree there. You can't use stem cells from IVF embryos without.. 1. them being alive and 2. them being killed It's not like they are embryos that didn't make it, didn't cleave, and therefore you can use the cells. doesn't work like that... Quote >I do have a problem with, once conception has occurred, impeding > the process and denying the opportunity for life that you and I were > given. IVF, IUD's, even natural processes do just that - they cause (or result in) failure of development after conception. Quote Not true. IUD's, yes...hormonal birth control methods (pills, patch, etc), yes. IVF..not true. IVF usually has some failure of development after conception - but the same way that trying to get pregnant without assistance usually has some failure of development after conception. in other words..it's an unfortunate thing that we try hard to make it NOT happen, not something we are intentionally doing. >How do you figure that terminated eggs are “not” denied life? They were, just as the ten spontaneously aborted embryos in a family of five were denied life (which is about average for a couple that has 3 kids.) Bill...I will drop to one knee and listen to you with scrutinizing intensity when you talk about anything remotely related to skydiving...just so you know how much I respect you in that arena. but this isn't exactly accurate. Estimations are that one out of four embryos will spontaneously abort (miscarry). You're saying that 3 out of 13 embryos will make it to birth..and that's highly out of wack. (since ya'll toss around jump numbers and years in the sport...let me say that I've been attending births for 9 years now..and teaching childbirth education classes as well as sex education...just so you know where I'm coming from.) QuoteNot a travesty, just nature at work. Women's bodies naturally abort most of the children they conceive. difference being that nature is doing it...not humans. If nature kills a 23 year old by striking her with cancer, that's nature. If I kill that same 23 year old by shooting her in the head...that's not legal nor viewed by society as something acceptable and I will (probably) go to prison for a very very long time. thus the difference between an IVF embryo that is transfered and fails to thrive....and an IVF embryo that is torn apart for stem cell research/development... -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #46 February 12, 2004 A “potential” human being is a lot different from your spleen in a mason jar. Your spleen in a mason jar, if left alone, won’t grow up to be another you. I hope it is argued for a very, very, very long time. It’s that important. You’re putting your criteria on when life begins by saying that it must be able to think, feel, and move. Again, I’m talking about humans and not ants. A 26 week old fetus can move fingers and suck its thumb. It can’t think on the level of a 3 year old yet, though. It will eventually if left alone to develop and there aren’t subsequent problems. Also, a 2 year old can’t live “on its own.” Does that make him not human? Hormonal forms of birth control prevent ovulation. Conception can’t occur if there’s no egg. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #47 February 12, 2004 Quote >When we did IVF...one of our stipulations to ourselves and with the >clinic was that no embryos would be discarded..period. Hmm. Most people don't have only one embryo implanted, since odds of implantation for IVF are lower than the natural 40%. In general, several are implanted, and most are sacrificed either naturally or via selective reduction. It doesn't avoid their sacrifice, just changes the method. Average rate of conception in any given cycle is closer to 24%. Our IVF clinic had an 80% success rate. We transferred two embryos...because twins were acceptable to us, and if one of them by some wild freak of nature ended up an identical twin, then triplets would be acceptable to us. therefore we transferred 2 embryos and froze the rest in an effort to protect and save them. *looks at her 4 year old daughter running around* average embryos transferred are 2-4 per IVF proceedure. High order multiples are actually RARELY from IVF. They are usually from IUI combined with an overlystimulated cycle (mom takes injectables like Gonal-F or Repronix or Pergonal, and then does IUI -IntraUterine Insemination - which is a totally different proceedure/protocol). As a side note: high order multiples is considered an infertility clinic failure, not success. They do not WANT to have that as a result...and it actually does not happen that often. Quote In any case, it's pretty common to do a dozen eggs at once, then freeze some in case the original attempt fails. If the attempt is successful, these are generally discarded. Again...not entirely accurate. Many do discard them, yes...but many do not. there are four options when you have embryos frozen.. 1. use them in the future 2. place them for adoption for another couple to use in the future 3. donate them for scientific research 4. destroy them. Quote Your child has diabetes. You donate an egg and get a skin cell from your child. The nucleus of the skin cell is modified a bit, then implanted in the egg. The egg is placed in a growth medium. It grows into a pancreas. The pancreas is then transplanted into your child, curing his diabetes. Would that be acceptable from a moral standpoint? the thing is...you grew a pancreas, not an embryo... and whether it would be acceptable would depend on who you asked. I think most people wouldn't have a problem with creating an organ to replace a failing one.. I think the controversy comes when you're talking about using embryos for proceedures and research...especially if there are other options (such as umbilical cord stem cells, for example) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #48 February 12, 2004 clone cute chicks only.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #49 February 12, 2004 >Estimations are that one out of four embryos will spontaneously abort (miscarry). Ageed. An additional 60% will simply never implant at all. >You're saying that 3 out of 13 embryos will make it to birth..and >that's highly out of wack. About 4 out of 10 fertilized eggs will make it to implantation. Once they implant the odds go way up. IVF reduces the odds further; even with multiple embryos, none implant about 70% of the time. (link here ) >difference being that nature is doing it...not humans. I agree that there is a difference in intent even if there's no difference in outcome. That intent difference is at the heart of the abortion argument, and I'll leave that alone for now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elfanie 0 #50 February 12, 2004 QuoteA “potential” human being is a lot different from your spleen in a mason jar. Your spleen in a mason jar, if left alone, won’t grow up to be another you. Ah...but an embryo, left alone, won't grow up to be another person... we haven't been able to get them past the blastocyst stage without a woman and a uterus. Quote I hope it is argued for a very, very, very long time. It’s that important. You’re putting your criteria on when life begins by saying that it must be able to think, feel, and move. When did I ever say that? I never said that. I said that for some people, that is part of their criteria. Quote Again, I’m talking about humans and not ants. A 26 week old fetus can move fingers and suck its thumb. And they aren't talking about killing a 26 week old fetus for stem cell research and cloning. What a 26 week fetus can do is irrelevant to the conversation... Quote Also, a 2 year old can’t live “on its own.” Does that make him not human? Depends on who you ask.. But most 2 year olds can live on its own...can feed itself, etc. Quote Hormonal forms of birth control prevent ovulation. Conception can’t occur if there’s no egg. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Hormonal forms of birth control has three functions.. 1. attempts to prevent ovulation (I can get into the how and whys if you really want me to) 2. thickens cervical mucus to attempt to prevent the sperm from being able to meet up with the egg should it be ovulated and 3. thins the endometrial lining to prevent implanatation should fertilization occur One of the risks of hormonal birth control methods is spontaneous abortion of a fertilized embryos. it's one of the ways in which it works (ALL of the hormonal methods) -------------------------------------------- Elfanie My Skydiving Page Fly Safe - Soft Landings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
