Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 13, 2009
Science The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Posted by Jonathan Golob on Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:22 PM
What happens when a part of our body gets injured—or just wears out?
The ideal response would be to replace the tissue and cells lost with new, full-functional replacements—regeneration. For the parts of our body that are constantly turning over—skin, blood, and to a lesser extent bone for examples—this is exactly what happens. Since the cells in these tissues are always being replaced anyways, injury is little more than a very bad day.
These tissues have resident adult stem cells. Stem cells, by definition, can divide and either make more copies of themselves or give rise to new functional cells. They do not do much by themselves. It makes inherent sense that a stem cell living in a given tissue can only make cells for that tissue; you don't want bone to be replaced skin. Tissues that are undergoing constant wear and tear have stem cells.
Run down the leading causes of death in the United States and an interesting pattern emerges. Heart disease. Stroke. Diabetes. These are caused injuries to tissues that do not turn over as a regular matter of life. Heart, brain and insulin-producing cells in the pancreas lack functional adult stem cell populations to replace them when they're lost. After injury, the body is stuck. It does what you'd do when faced with a broken car window and no replacement glass: duct tape. When no replacement functional cells are available, the body tends to repair itself by scarring over the area—replacing what used to be functional tissue with something tough and durable.
2500 Americans die each day from heart disease. The only way, right now, to replace the heart cells lost after a heart attack (or other injury) is whole-heart transplantation. Only about 2000 transplants can be performed each year—limited mostly by the availability of donor hearts.
Which brings us to the embryonic stem cell. We need replacement cells for these tissues. Embryonic stem cells, a kind of pluripotent stem cell, can become any cell type—including heart and brain cells. Only pluripotent stem cells, to date, have an unquestioned ability to become heart cells.
The generation of an embryonic stem cell line involves the destruction of an about 100-cell pre-implantation embryo. At this stage, the embryo looks like a beach ball filled with sand. The cells making up the hollow sphere are the trophoectoderm and can go on to become all the supporting structures of a pregnancy (placenta, amnion and such). The clump of cells at the bottom of the sphere is the inner cell mass. These are the cells that can go on to become any cell type in the body.
To generate a new embryonic stem cell line, the trophoectodermal cells are removed by immunosurgery, leaving only the inner cell mass cells behind. These cells are then placed in culture conditions that promote their division as pluripotent cells—retaining the ability to become any cell type in the body. From about fifty cells, trillions can be made. This is why most labs doing pluripotent stem cell research never work with embryos. Since the lines can divide (nearly) indefinitely, the overwhelming majority of research involves work with existing lines—not the generation of new ones.
No human embryo, to my knowledge, has been destroyed only to make an embryonic stem cell line. Every single line in existence was created from an excess IVF (in-vitro fertilization) embryo. IVF requires the mixing of human eggs and sperm in a dish. Sperm is easy enough to collect, store, freeze and thaw. Human eggs are another matter. The collection protocol is dangerous to the woman—involving massive dosages of hormones. Worse yet, there hasn't been a reliable way to store, freeze or thaw unfertilized human eggs. Fortunately, pre-implantation human embryos can be frozen and stored. So when human eggs are collected, all must be fertilized more-or-less immediately. Some of the resultant embryos are implanted immediately, with the rest frozen for future attempts at having children.
When the couple has decided they're done having children, the left-over excess embryos are generally destroyed. (Nobody wants to pay for their continued cryostorage.) Since IVF is unregulated, it's hard to know how many frozen human embryos exist in the United States. Estimates hover around a half-million. A tiny number are donated to other couples seeking fertility treatment, with others donated to scientific research—to be used to create embryonic stem cell lines.
This is a key point: If these cells weren't used to create an embryonic stem cell line, they would be destroyed anyways. And there are hundreds of thousands of embryos in storage today. Every month they spend in stasis lowers their viability.
Are these embryos, being destroyed as a consequence of in-vitro fertilization, human beings? This is, at its core, not a scientific question.
The embryos are undeniably made up of human cells. But, so are the many skin, gut, and other cells you shed or digest every day. Having the right number of human chromosomes seems a poor standard for a human being.
Nor are these embryos an individual yet. If you split a blastocyst in half, you can get identical twins. Mash two together and you can get a chimera. It seems that any standard for a human being would require the entity to be an individual. Blastocysts are not yet individuals.
These embryos, if implanted, have a potential to develop into a human being. But, it's important to carefully consider how great this potential really is.
We can estimate there are about a half-million embryos stored in freezers around the country. Only 134 of these excess embryos have been 'adopted' by other couples. More are being generated every day. So, a given excess IVF embryo only has about a 1: 4,000 chance of being implanted and delivered to birth. About half of embryos attempted for IVF (again this is a very rough estimate) even manage to implant. Of those that implant, even more miscarry.
We finally come to the question of what makes a cell capable of becoming any other cell? The basic science I work on in the lab is somewhat related to this question; how does a single cell manage to become hundreds of distinct cell types—each with a unique pattern of gene expression that is maintained throughout life. It's a huge question that I narrow by focusing on the path from anything to heart cell.
The answer is tremendously complex—much deeper and interesting than "sperm meets egg." Part of what's going on in that first trimester is the establishment of all those hundreds of cell types. Complex three-dimensional geometry, a dozen or so of delicate signals, precise timing and luck itself all play into this process. It often fails—in a lab dish or in the gestation of a baby.
For all these reasons, and more, I find it hard to accept that a human life starts before the end of the first trimester. Humans are not yeast or bacteria. It takes those three months to even get the vague shape of the complex machine of human life.
In fact, it's not until deep into the third trimester when all of these cell types are formed into organs that function. Until late in gestation, independent human life is not possible; survival takes extraordinary mechanical life support.
Nor does reaching one step, in any way, mean the next is going to succeed. Very little about development is deterministic; much is subject to the whims of chance and environment.
Something else has emerged recently: induced pluripotent cells, or iPS cells. This technique—to turn some committed cells into a cell that resembles an embryonic stem cell—was developed in Japan by Dr. Yamanaka. Japan's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were (and are) far more restrictive than the US's.
This reprogramming technique required, first, extensive study of human embryonic stem cells. Dr. Yamanaka used a list of potential master regulator genes that was generated based on a large amount of work done on embryonic stem cells.
And iPS cells aren't anywhere close to perfect. My lab—and I specifically—have done experiments to compare these iPS cells to true embryonic stem cells. They aren't the same—with a significantly hindered abilities. We're attempting some further reprogramming techniques to make them better—but that's still years off. For now, the best bet for making iPS cells work well enough to use for therapies is to continue studying them and embryonic stem cells—using what's learned in the latter to improve the former.
When making an ethical judgment, I believe it's critical for us to balance the interests of both the excess embryos produced by IVF (that I do not believe to be human beings) with those of the hundreds of millions of adult human beings that are currently suffering from horrible illnesses.
I do not believe human embryonic stem cell research should be a free-for-all. While I do not personally believe that human life starts at the moment when sperm-meets-egg, I do recognize that human blastocysts deserve serious treatment.
I believe that the donation of blastocysts and the distribution of the subsequent embryonic stem cell lines should be strictly decommercialized. The entire process should be like how we handle organ donation from adults—with oversight, and the prohibition of money changing hands in the process.
Obama's easing of the Federal funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research opens the door for such a policy in a way that Bush's restrictions never did. By preventing public funding, the destruction of human embryos was forced into the private sector. In a horrifying way, Bush's policies made the destruction of human embryos a matter of private enterprise—a potentially for-profit venture. Anything else would be better.
1
You can also reset your telomeres by a short (10-14 day) period of low caloric intake (water, vitamins, and below standard adult food level) every 10 years or so.
That cleans out some of the genetic crud and restarts certain repair mechanisms.
That cleans out some of the genetic crud and restarts certain repair mechanisms.
2
I don't know about that, Will.
Anyway, Telomer shortening has not been positively identified as the CAUSE of aging.
Good points about the nature of a blastocyst, Jon. Other issues to think about:
If a blastocyst is pulled apart and the cells are grown and put into the person, can it really be said that you destroyed the "individual" when the cells live on in a petri dish or perhaps even another person?
If two blastocysts create a chymera is it two people in one body? Why wouldn't it be if the "individuals" that created it were separate fully formed beings?
The blastocyst is the result of a sperm and egg fusion. Are the sperm and egg potential individuals? If not, why? Keep in mind that twins have identical DNA and no one claims they aren't individuals. No one questions that sperm and eggs aren't alive and yet we don't consider them "individuals."
Cloning can be done by taking the DNA from any cell in the body, literally any cell, and placing it in the protective shell of an egg. Does that mean any cell in your body is a potential "individual."
I think all these questions can only lead one to believe that, logically, it's the brain that makes the person and nothing else.
Anyway, Telomer shortening has not been positively identified as the CAUSE of aging.
Good points about the nature of a blastocyst, Jon. Other issues to think about:
If a blastocyst is pulled apart and the cells are grown and put into the person, can it really be said that you destroyed the "individual" when the cells live on in a petri dish or perhaps even another person?
If two blastocysts create a chymera is it two people in one body? Why wouldn't it be if the "individuals" that created it were separate fully formed beings?
The blastocyst is the result of a sperm and egg fusion. Are the sperm and egg potential individuals? If not, why? Keep in mind that twins have identical DNA and no one claims they aren't individuals. No one questions that sperm and eggs aren't alive and yet we don't consider them "individuals."
Cloning can be done by taking the DNA from any cell in the body, literally any cell, and placing it in the protective shell of an egg. Does that mean any cell in your body is a potential "individual."
I think all these questions can only lead one to believe that, logically, it's the brain that makes the person and nothing else.
3
Will, sorry, I know you mean well but I don't think the data's there to back up what you're claiming.
Jonathan, thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I hope you didn't feel rushed or coerced putting it together by the rampant assholery that's been going on in the comments lately.
As for the ethical questions as they keep being raised, well:
An embryo is human - genetically - and it is in fact alive by technical standards...
But that's not the point. The "when life begins" and "is it a person" arguments are just insipid straw men that religionists throw out in arguments about these issues because they know that their real point - ensoulment - won't fly in formal debate or in the courtroom. They don't have a philosophical or legal leg to stand on unless you accept their specific magical premises, which most of society, and the law, do not.
Life is complex and can't be distilled down to a simple binary answer. If someone states it that way, they're trying to put one over on you.
(in b4 trolls?)
Jonathan, thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I hope you didn't feel rushed or coerced putting it together by the rampant assholery that's been going on in the comments lately.
As for the ethical questions as they keep being raised, well:
An embryo is human - genetically - and it is in fact alive by technical standards...
But that's not the point. The "when life begins" and "is it a person" arguments are just insipid straw men that religionists throw out in arguments about these issues because they know that their real point - ensoulment - won't fly in formal debate or in the courtroom. They don't have a philosophical or legal leg to stand on unless you accept their specific magical premises, which most of society, and the law, do not.
Life is complex and can't be distilled down to a simple binary answer. If someone states it that way, they're trying to put one over on you.
(in b4 trolls?)
4
Jonathan: "I believe that the donation of blastocysts and the distribution of the subsequent embryonic stem cell lines should be strictly decommercialized. The entire process should be like how we handle organ donation from adults—with oversight, and the prohibition of money changing hands in the process. "
Agreed, except if that "organ" is blood or its components, right? And how about the code for our very genome? Why the fuck is that patentable?
Excellent, piece, J.
Agreed, except if that "organ" is blood or its components, right? And how about the code for our very genome? Why the fuck is that patentable?
Excellent, piece, J.
5
woah.... i found this very interested.
if nothing else, this demonstrates why in-vitro fertilization should be protested, not making an embryonic stem cell line. (jk!)
if nothing else, this demonstrates why in-vitro fertilization should be protested, not making an embryonic stem cell line. (jk!)
7
Very interesting post. It reminds me of the ethical wrangling I did over my senior research paper for my philosophy degree, studying the problem of anencephaly (near-total or total absence of the brain in a developing fetus.) It raises a lot of the same questions of when humanity starts, and when the fetus becomes a person for the purposes of enjoying the assumptions of worth we give to human life generally. If the fetus never develops a brain, does it ever truly become a human being?
The questions raised by anencephaly in terms of potential organ donation are also analogous to the problem of producing embryos for destruction. It's one thing to allow (although this is still quite contentious) the organs of a newborn anencephalic, who literally has hours or days of vegetative life to live, to be transplanted into another infant. It's quite another thing to propose the purposeful creation of anencephalics in order to fulfill the demand for infant organ donors. I think I come to the same conclusion you seem to have arrived at, don't create embryos for destruction, but don't waste what someone else has created and is allowing to die.
The questions raised by anencephaly in terms of potential organ donation are also analogous to the problem of producing embryos for destruction. It's one thing to allow (although this is still quite contentious) the organs of a newborn anencephalic, who literally has hours or days of vegetative life to live, to be transplanted into another infant. It's quite another thing to propose the purposeful creation of anencephalics in order to fulfill the demand for infant organ donors. I think I come to the same conclusion you seem to have arrived at, don't create embryos for destruction, but don't waste what someone else has created and is allowing to die.
9
Well said!
(except I think you need to correct this line: No human embryo, to my knowledge, has been destroyed only to make an embryonic stem cell line. should read No human embryo, to my knowledge, has been created only to make an embryonic stem cell line. kthxbye!)
(except I think you need to correct this line: No human embryo, to my knowledge, has been destroyed only to make an embryonic stem cell line. should read No human embryo, to my knowledge, has been created only to make an embryonic stem cell line. kthxbye!)
10
Thank you, Jonathan, for a very clear and beautifully put-together piece. I'm saving it in my permanent file. Some questions from a lay-man:
- how many cells fall away when I scratch my arm? (I'm not saying they're the same. I just need some perspective)
- what are the "interests of excess embryos produced by IVF"? How can they be balanced by the interests of "hundreds of millions of adult human beings that are currently suffering from horrible illnesses" (or for that matter, even ONE adult)?
- balderdash, i notice you said, "an embryo is human", rather than, "an embryo is A human". I think the distinction is relevant. My skin cells are human. Again -- not to say they're the same thing (embryonic stem cells are special, and they do contain a unique potential for individuation) -- but the question is not as easily answered as you suggest. I haven't heard an argument that could convince me that it isn't best answered by philosophy. As a secular humanist (and an amateur one at best), it seems to me that the question involves -- more than anything else -- the considerations of "pain" and those concerning what is best for society. Whatever gray-areas might be discussed here, neither of these issues (pain nor society) is even remotely approached when considering embryos, commercially-or-not. I do agree that any market developed in this field is bound to become slippery, though.
Again, thank you Jonathan (and all my previous commentators -- up to #8, at least, since that's when I started typing) for some thoughtful thinking. What a refreshing moment at the SLOG.
- how many cells fall away when I scratch my arm? (I'm not saying they're the same. I just need some perspective)
- what are the "interests of excess embryos produced by IVF"? How can they be balanced by the interests of "hundreds of millions of adult human beings that are currently suffering from horrible illnesses" (or for that matter, even ONE adult)?
- balderdash, i notice you said, "an embryo is human", rather than, "an embryo is A human". I think the distinction is relevant. My skin cells are human. Again -- not to say they're the same thing (embryonic stem cells are special, and they do contain a unique potential for individuation) -- but the question is not as easily answered as you suggest. I haven't heard an argument that could convince me that it isn't best answered by philosophy. As a secular humanist (and an amateur one at best), it seems to me that the question involves -- more than anything else -- the considerations of "pain" and those concerning what is best for society. Whatever gray-areas might be discussed here, neither of these issues (pain nor society) is even remotely approached when considering embryos, commercially-or-not. I do agree that any market developed in this field is bound to become slippery, though.
Again, thank you Jonathan (and all my previous commentators -- up to #8, at least, since that's when I started typing) for some thoughtful thinking. What a refreshing moment at the SLOG.
11
Good article. Finally, after almost a decade of limiting taxpayer money for research president Barrack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research today.
13
My wife and I did IVF with my DNA and donated eggs. We tried to donate the remaining frozen embryos for stem cell research, but were thwarted repeatedly. It was not possibly to have them donated for any sort of stem cell research in-state. It was possible to donate them for study in California, but they could not be used for a stem cell line without the permission of the anonymous donor. (Impossible to get.) Eventually we ended up donating them for fertility research purposes at our clinic.
The cells were going to be thawed out eventually, but the arbitrary laws kept us from doing what we wanted with our extremely expensive leftovers. The donor didn't have a say regarding "destroying" them, it was gonna happen anyway, but the legally anonymous nature of the transaction kept them from going to the greater good. Not only does the federal funding aspect of stem cell research need to be fixed, but also the way that IVF'ers like us can contribute to the process.
The cells were going to be thawed out eventually, but the arbitrary laws kept us from doing what we wanted with our extremely expensive leftovers. The donor didn't have a say regarding "destroying" them, it was gonna happen anyway, but the legally anonymous nature of the transaction kept them from going to the greater good. Not only does the federal funding aspect of stem cell research need to be fixed, but also the way that IVF'ers like us can contribute to the process.
14
@cold storage and others:
Rereading this, I'm concerned it sounds anti-IVF. I'm not. I just want to be sure things are handled above the table, and with some oversight.
Cold Storage, your story breaks my heart a little bit. Thank you for being thoughtful. And I hope your family is doing well.
To the rest, thank you for reading.
Rereading this, I'm concerned it sounds anti-IVF. I'm not. I just want to be sure things are handled above the table, and with some oversight.
Cold Storage, your story breaks my heart a little bit. Thank you for being thoughtful. And I hope your family is doing well.
To the rest, thank you for reading.
15
Jon,
Please don't consider seriously the comments of #5. There's a weird story there, and it will never come to light, if i know history to be true. He is (yes it is a HE) no more representative than is loveschild, of the revolution of the '60's. ("Ha")
You, my friend, are not distorted by the lens of his story. Thank you. Keep it up, and stop worrying...
Please don't consider seriously the comments of #5. There's a weird story there, and it will never come to light, if i know history to be true. He is (yes it is a HE) no more representative than is loveschild, of the revolution of the '60's. ("Ha")
You, my friend, are not distorted by the lens of his story. Thank you. Keep it up, and stop worrying...
16
This is a wonderful, wonderful blog post. I hope the timing of it-- late on a Friday-- doesn't mean it gets buried and not read. It deserves to be repeated on the front page of the website, and/or printed in the paper edition.
17
Jonathan-thanks so much for this post. This was a great, interesting read and you've made a hot topic easy to understand. Good luck with your research...it sounds fascinating.
18
@10
Is there really a distinction "a human" and something that is alive and human? That seems semantic to me, and even if there is a distinction - of which I admit the possibility - it certainly would not be a clear, simple, or directional one.
Consider - if a fertilized egg is "a human," then identical twins are also "a human." Or: an embryo may be biologically human, but it can't survive without its mother; the same could be said of a liver or an ear... or of a mitochondrion, which has the additional distinction of being genetically different from the nuclear DNA, making it arguably biologically distinct. Or what about an embryo or fetus whose gross defects mean it will not survive past birth? The question may be meaningless, or may simply not have an answer.
I think we're approaching this from a similar perspective, as well, which also leads me to believe that our digression here is more semantic than anything. I find Peter Singer pretty compelling. I'd bet you do too.
Is there really a distinction "a human" and something that is alive and human? That seems semantic to me, and even if there is a distinction - of which I admit the possibility - it certainly would not be a clear, simple, or directional one.
Consider - if a fertilized egg is "a human," then identical twins are also "a human." Or: an embryo may be biologically human, but it can't survive without its mother; the same could be said of a liver or an ear... or of a mitochondrion, which has the additional distinction of being genetically different from the nuclear DNA, making it arguably biologically distinct. Or what about an embryo or fetus whose gross defects mean it will not survive past birth? The question may be meaningless, or may simply not have an answer.
I think we're approaching this from a similar perspective, as well, which also leads me to believe that our digression here is more semantic than anything. I find Peter Singer pretty compelling. I'd bet you do too.
19
The semantics are somewhat relevant in this case. Thanks so much, balderdash, for your contribution, and I'm inspired by your comments. What are the chances that you would be here now? Identical twins are NOT "a human". Nor is a fertilized egg. Consider why, and keep contributing. How did you know that I'm acquainted with peter? Creepy intuition... My mind meets yours, although semantics are (in this case) very important.
20
@balderdash. Full respect. There is, though, a profound distinction between that which is "a human" and that which is "alive and human". Scratch my arm and see.
21
Jonathan thank you for this post.
I appreciate the perspective and insight you bring to the subject.
If the embryo thru end of first trimester organism is not human what is it? It does not look like a mature human, it is true; but scientists more than anyone else should be able to appreciate that living things grow and develop before becoming the mature organism. It is a very young immature human, but a human none the less. It does not magically change from a bacteria or yeast into a human.
The biology is excruciatingly simple: from conception zygote/embryos are living new unique members of the species- humans. True, the path to maturity is precarious and fraught with pitfalls but all of us navigated the same path to get where we are.
The fact that there are lots of unused embryos left over from IVF therapy is totally beside the point.
If embryos are human the fact that some have been abandoned or neglected does not make them fair game for destruction in research.
(To argue that they will go to waste otherwise weakens the argument for using them in research because implicit is the assumption that it otherwise would be unacceptable, otherwise why not create all the embryos you want and do with them as you please)
If current American IVF practice is irresponsible in the way it creates and deals with embryos (and it is) the solution is to reform current practice. Germany has very enlighten controls on how embryos can be created and implanted and might be a good model to consider.
The fact that existing diseases may be cured or treated as a result of the research is again totally beside the point. It should go without saying that we do not destroy humans to harvest parts to repair others or to do research. If embryos are human then it would not be ethical to destroy them for research no matter how tempting the payout or how great the benefit to existing mature humans.
If recognition of the humanity of embryos begins to be reflected in research protocols it will not be the end of stem cell research. Induced pluripotent cells may not be perfect yet but they (or some other solution) will be. Do not lack faith in the power of research. The fatalistic passive whining of the past eight years about the miracle cures we have missed out on has been disappointing.
One could paraphrase Hubert Humphrey and note that the truest gauge of the morality of a society is how it treats it's weakest members. Embryos are the weakest most helpless members of the species. That makes them vulnerable to abuse and increases the moral burden on society to protect them.
More...
I appreciate the perspective and insight you bring to the subject.
If the embryo thru end of first trimester organism is not human what is it? It does not look like a mature human, it is true; but scientists more than anyone else should be able to appreciate that living things grow and develop before becoming the mature organism. It is a very young immature human, but a human none the less. It does not magically change from a bacteria or yeast into a human.
The biology is excruciatingly simple: from conception zygote/embryos are living new unique members of the species- humans. True, the path to maturity is precarious and fraught with pitfalls but all of us navigated the same path to get where we are.
The fact that there are lots of unused embryos left over from IVF therapy is totally beside the point.
If embryos are human the fact that some have been abandoned or neglected does not make them fair game for destruction in research.
(To argue that they will go to waste otherwise weakens the argument for using them in research because implicit is the assumption that it otherwise would be unacceptable, otherwise why not create all the embryos you want and do with them as you please)
If current American IVF practice is irresponsible in the way it creates and deals with embryos (and it is) the solution is to reform current practice. Germany has very enlighten controls on how embryos can be created and implanted and might be a good model to consider.
The fact that existing diseases may be cured or treated as a result of the research is again totally beside the point. It should go without saying that we do not destroy humans to harvest parts to repair others or to do research. If embryos are human then it would not be ethical to destroy them for research no matter how tempting the payout or how great the benefit to existing mature humans.
If recognition of the humanity of embryos begins to be reflected in research protocols it will not be the end of stem cell research. Induced pluripotent cells may not be perfect yet but they (or some other solution) will be. Do not lack faith in the power of research. The fatalistic passive whining of the past eight years about the miracle cures we have missed out on has been disappointing.
One could paraphrase Hubert Humphrey and note that the truest gauge of the morality of a society is how it treats it's weakest members. Embryos are the weakest most helpless members of the species. That makes them vulnerable to abuse and increases the moral burden on society to protect them.
22
Cute, Nicholas, but you have failed to answer the above questions. I'm sympathetic to your concerns, so I hope to understand your perspective. Please make them more clear.
23
When my first kid was born, we donated the umbilical cord so they could harvest the stem cells from it. Filled out the form, took the HIV test, and right after the birth, the Fed Ex guy came with a cooler and whisked it off to California.
It seems to me that the whole ethical argument could be sidestepped entirely if the practice of harvesting them from umbilical cords became standard practice. Can anyone tell me why this has not yet become protocol? I have asked many times and have yet to be given a satisfactory answer.
It seems to me that the whole ethical argument could be sidestepped entirely if the practice of harvesting them from umbilical cords became standard practice. Can anyone tell me why this has not yet become protocol? I have asked many times and have yet to be given a satisfactory answer.
24
There are 100's of scientific studies that have been done on AFA and our product StemEnhance. There are also 100's of scientific papers on Adult Stem Cell therapy. I have listed quite a few on my blog that you can read at http://www.phyl247.biz You can also find the book over at Amazon.com that Christian Drapeau wrote. It is called "The Stem Cell Theory of Renewal" Take a look if you would like to talk feel free to email or call me anytime 877-696-8581
25
@21 Nicholas, I think the point that you raise about human organism is interesting, mainly because it centers the argument on a question about what we value in human life, rather than whether the embryo is human life. To answer it, we have to determine why it is, precisely, that we place such a heightened value on human life, as opposed to other forms of life. Obviously, there must be something special about humans that make them worthy of special treatment in deciding how to treat them.
Once you've sorted the reason that human beings should be treated with special dignity, that should make the rest of the equation much easier. Organisms that possess the characteristics required for special dignity should be given it, organisms that do not, should not. The problem is, obviously, figuring out what your criteria is. Unless you're willing to jump to the religious (and still intensely problematic) argument that every fertilized egg has a soul and that souls are the reason for special dignity, you've got some hard philosophizing ahead of you. It seems that a lot of people skip this step in their analysis, instead just saying "Human life is uniquely valuable because it just is," and leaving it at that.
Once you've sorted the reason that human beings should be treated with special dignity, that should make the rest of the equation much easier. Organisms that possess the characteristics required for special dignity should be given it, organisms that do not, should not. The problem is, obviously, figuring out what your criteria is. Unless you're willing to jump to the religious (and still intensely problematic) argument that every fertilized egg has a soul and that souls are the reason for special dignity, you've got some hard philosophizing ahead of you. It seems that a lot of people skip this step in their analysis, instead just saying "Human life is uniquely valuable because it just is," and leaving it at that.
26
fuck ethics- i want my government harvesting aborted embryos and making them into medicine so that I can eat them and not get old... get me a womb and a spoon
28
25
You raise a very interesting point.
I must admit, I never considered why I believe human life deserves to be valued higher than, say mice or grass or amoebas.
It is not related to religion or questions of the soul-
I guess I do what you suggest; skip that step and just say,
"Human life- wether it is my child or my neighbors child or a starving child in Ethiopia or an embryo sitting in a lab somewhere- deserves to be valued and cherished and protected; even if it is inconvenient or expensive or requires some sacrifice to do so; just because it is human life."
You raise a very interesting point.
I must admit, I never considered why I believe human life deserves to be valued higher than, say mice or grass or amoebas.
It is not related to religion or questions of the soul-
I guess I do what you suggest; skip that step and just say,
"Human life- wether it is my child or my neighbors child or a starving child in Ethiopia or an embryo sitting in a lab somewhere- deserves to be valued and cherished and protected; even if it is inconvenient or expensive or requires some sacrifice to do so; just because it is human life."
31
Nicholas T, what do you think about the practice of organ donation? Often, organs come from people who are brain dead and are technically alive only because their life is being sustained by machines. I don't think anyone would deny that the brain dead are human. But they are routinely taken off the vents and their organs harvested for transplants. Is this wrong?
If it's not wrong why? Is it because the brain dead are not consciousness or be able to perceive pain? Neither can embryos.
Is it OK because the brain dead would be straight up dead if it weren't for the interventions of machines? Embryos would be dead too without a womb, or without being frozen in liquid nitrogen.
Is it OK because a brain dead adult had a fair "inning" at life, already getting to live before we harvest their organs? I'd caution against taking this position because it devalues the elderly and has negative consequences for how we dole out medical treatment for them.
Or is destroying embryos worse because they have potential? I'd argue that they do not infact have potential. An embryos sitting in a fertility clinic freezer for years which is never a candidate for implantation will never develop. It's potential is equal to that of the potential of all of my eggs and my boyfriend's sperm. By using birth control are we denying life to all sorts of potential people?
If it's not wrong why? Is it because the brain dead are not consciousness or be able to perceive pain? Neither can embryos.
Is it OK because the brain dead would be straight up dead if it weren't for the interventions of machines? Embryos would be dead too without a womb, or without being frozen in liquid nitrogen.
Is it OK because a brain dead adult had a fair "inning" at life, already getting to live before we harvest their organs? I'd caution against taking this position because it devalues the elderly and has negative consequences for how we dole out medical treatment for them.
Or is destroying embryos worse because they have potential? I'd argue that they do not infact have potential. An embryos sitting in a fertility clinic freezer for years which is never a candidate for implantation will never develop. It's potential is equal to that of the potential of all of my eggs and my boyfriend's sperm. By using birth control are we denying life to all sorts of potential people?
32
I had more: It's ridiculous to say in lieu of the suffering of sick, fully conscious humans (ie, humans with uncontested personhood), their value and the value of alleviation of said suffering through medical research using ESC and organ transplants is equal or less than the value of "humans" who can't perceive anything. Although you may think its precious to equate an embryo with a child, I don't. It's disgusting. If you ran into a burning fertility clinic and had the choice of saving ten frozen embryos or a five year old, which would you pick? Would you opt to save 10 "people" or does saving the child from a painful, which she will definitely perceive, more compelling to you?
By opposing research, one throws a lot of people under the bus and essentially letting the sick burn to death to save embryos.
By opposing research, one throws a lot of people under the bus and essentially letting the sick burn to death to save embryos.
33
Organ donors have elected to donate their organs. They made the decision themselves. When and if it is judged that they have no chance of survival they have pre-authorized that their organs may be harvested.
I have no problem with that because the donor chose that course of action their self and no one was killed to provide the organs, the donor has already 'died'.
To destroy a living healthy being for experiment or harvest is a different matter.
Organ donors have elected to donate their organs. They made the decision themselves. When and if it is judged that they have no chance of survival they have pre-authorized that their organs may be harvested.
I have no problem with that because the donor chose that course of action their self and no one was killed to provide the organs, the donor has already 'died'.
To destroy a living healthy being for experiment or harvest is a different matter.
34
I think one factor working against attempts to 'dehumanize' embryos is the large number of IVF parents (and children).
There are hundreds of thousands of parents who know that their children were once cell clusters or blastocytes in a Petri dish.
Dismissing them as undifferentiated clumps of cells doesn't really resonate with these families who probably have a black and white scan of their child as an 8 cell cluster tucked away in a keepsake box with Prom and first day at school pictures.
There are hundreds of thousands of parents who know that their children were once cell clusters or blastocytes in a Petri dish.
Dismissing them as undifferentiated clumps of cells doesn't really resonate with these families who probably have a black and white scan of their child as an 8 cell cluster tucked away in a keepsake box with Prom and first day at school pictures.
35
wether it is my child or my neighbors child or a starving child in Ethiopia or an embryo sitting in a lab somewhere
NT: So in your mind, the life of a five-year-old child is no more valuable than a group of one hundred cells in a dish? If you were forced to choose between them--let's say both were in peril and you could only save one--you would have a difficult time making that decision? That, to me, is a peculiar view of the world, and one that I don't feel can be spoken to with reason.
Electra did raise a very interesting point, but it's one you don't choose to think about because it is more convenient for you to see the world in black and white. You acknowledged the point, but then dismissed it because it was too difficult for you to address the ethical questions beneath it. That's a cop-out.
If the embryo thru end of first trimester organism is not human what is it
Jonathan referred to "Human Embryos" several times in his essay. Nobody is saying it is not a human embryo. At question is what makes a "person." In your mind, it is the very moment that sperm meets egg. That's fine. You are certainly entitled to take that position, but most rational people would disagree, and I am grateful that policy-makers with that viewpoint have been voted out of office.
It does not magically change from a bacteria or yeast into a human.
No, it doesn't magically change into a human, it biologically changes into a human.
Since the crux of your argument is that the two-celled combination of egg and sperm are of equal value to a five-year-old child, one can make the assumption that you place no value on the things that separate them: self-awareness, emotion, not to mention an ocean of biology. Empathy doesn't seem to enter your argument: a pre-implantation embryo does not think or feel, and so that cannot be the reason why you value its existence, and likely empathy is not why you value the life of a five-year-old child. Rather, it seems that you have latched on to the dictionary definition of what makes a human; you are a human, so humans must be valuable.
If you want to talk about fate, well, that might be a fun argument. If you believe that embryos are fated to become adult humans... well, that's just a whole different argument, and I don't think that's what you are on about. From what I can tell, your argument is, "that's just how it is, I don't know why and I'm not interested in why." It's a tedious argument. If you want to engage and persuade people, you have to listen to them and think about what they're saying.
More...
NT: So in your mind, the life of a five-year-old child is no more valuable than a group of one hundred cells in a dish? If you were forced to choose between them--let's say both were in peril and you could only save one--you would have a difficult time making that decision? That, to me, is a peculiar view of the world, and one that I don't feel can be spoken to with reason.
Electra did raise a very interesting point, but it's one you don't choose to think about because it is more convenient for you to see the world in black and white. You acknowledged the point, but then dismissed it because it was too difficult for you to address the ethical questions beneath it. That's a cop-out.
If the embryo thru end of first trimester organism is not human what is it
Jonathan referred to "Human Embryos" several times in his essay. Nobody is saying it is not a human embryo. At question is what makes a "person." In your mind, it is the very moment that sperm meets egg. That's fine. You are certainly entitled to take that position, but most rational people would disagree, and I am grateful that policy-makers with that viewpoint have been voted out of office.
It does not magically change from a bacteria or yeast into a human.
No, it doesn't magically change into a human, it biologically changes into a human.
Since the crux of your argument is that the two-celled combination of egg and sperm are of equal value to a five-year-old child, one can make the assumption that you place no value on the things that separate them: self-awareness, emotion, not to mention an ocean of biology. Empathy doesn't seem to enter your argument: a pre-implantation embryo does not think or feel, and so that cannot be the reason why you value its existence, and likely empathy is not why you value the life of a five-year-old child. Rather, it seems that you have latched on to the dictionary definition of what makes a human; you are a human, so humans must be valuable.
If you want to talk about fate, well, that might be a fun argument. If you believe that embryos are fated to become adult humans... well, that's just a whole different argument, and I don't think that's what you are on about. From what I can tell, your argument is, "that's just how it is, I don't know why and I'm not interested in why." It's a tedious argument. If you want to engage and persuade people, you have to listen to them and think about what they're saying.
36
@28 Nicholas
It's certainly a lot easier to make the "Human life is more important because it is" argument, but I think it leaves a substantial hole in whatever moral argument you want to make after that. It's an argument that doesn't do any work, philosophically, and isn't open to comparison or contrast except to say "That life is not human, so it is not valuable in the same way," while making no statement as to why.
Making sure that you're starting with the "Why" argument is valuable not just in the context of deciding whether embryos are worth the same protection as fully realized human beings. It's also a step one needs to take before one can make principled arguments about things like the creation of artificial intelligence, the preservation or slaughter of highly advanced animal species, and really any other argument in which something that is not human may have certain human traits that could deserve recognition. If you don't know why humans are valuable, then you are left with a situation where every human, embryonic, child, healthy adult, mortally ill, sociopathic, or brain dead, is worth precisely the same, and you have no grounds to make any judgments between them. Even saying "this person should get a chance to live (say, in triage) because he is otherwise healthy and if we treat him he'll have a long life, and this one has advanced lung cancer and Alzheimers, and may live six more months" is introducing principles into your calculus of human worth. I would encourage you to think hard about what it is that makes human life so precious. I agree entirely that it is a very valuable thing and must not be treated lightly. But part of that includes being very careful in how you formulate your ideas about it.
It's certainly a lot easier to make the "Human life is more important because it is" argument, but I think it leaves a substantial hole in whatever moral argument you want to make after that. It's an argument that doesn't do any work, philosophically, and isn't open to comparison or contrast except to say "That life is not human, so it is not valuable in the same way," while making no statement as to why.
Making sure that you're starting with the "Why" argument is valuable not just in the context of deciding whether embryos are worth the same protection as fully realized human beings. It's also a step one needs to take before one can make principled arguments about things like the creation of artificial intelligence, the preservation or slaughter of highly advanced animal species, and really any other argument in which something that is not human may have certain human traits that could deserve recognition. If you don't know why humans are valuable, then you are left with a situation where every human, embryonic, child, healthy adult, mortally ill, sociopathic, or brain dead, is worth precisely the same, and you have no grounds to make any judgments between them. Even saying "this person should get a chance to live (say, in triage) because he is otherwise healthy and if we treat him he'll have a long life, and this one has advanced lung cancer and Alzheimers, and may live six more months" is introducing principles into your calculus of human worth. I would encourage you to think hard about what it is that makes human life so precious. I agree entirely that it is a very valuable thing and must not be treated lightly. But part of that includes being very careful in how you formulate your ideas about it.
37
It doesn't magically or biologically change into a human; it always was human.
Human parents have human offspring. There is no non-human intermediate step.
Human parents have human offspring. There is no non-human intermediate step.
38
35
You misstate my position.
I draw no conclusions about the relative value of embryos or children or adults. I point out that all are human life. Acknowledging that is a first step to developing enlightened social policy.
You misstate my position.
I draw no conclusions about the relative value of embryos or children or adults. I point out that all are human life. Acknowledging that is a first step to developing enlightened social policy.
39
You know,when I think about what makes me ME, I come up with a really quick answer. My mind.
If you removed my heart and replaced it, I'd still be me.
If you transplanted my brain into another body, I'd have another body.
If you transferred my consciousness from my brain to a hard drive, I'd be a robot.
If my brain was badly injured, if my memories and personality were deleted, I'd no longer be myself.
That alone doesn't excuse creating blastocysts for stem cell research, there is more value in life than in solely human life.
But It does make the decision of whether or not I'm willing to use blastocysts to create stem cells that might one day relieve human suffering a simple one.
If you removed my heart and replaced it, I'd still be me.
If you transplanted my brain into another body, I'd have another body.
If you transferred my consciousness from my brain to a hard drive, I'd be a robot.
If my brain was badly injured, if my memories and personality were deleted, I'd no longer be myself.
That alone doesn't excuse creating blastocysts for stem cell research, there is more value in life than in solely human life.
But It does make the decision of whether or not I'm willing to use blastocysts to create stem cells that might one day relieve human suffering a simple one.
40
32
Researchers are hard at work improving and extending our lives:
(the good part starts at 0:24)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPaKNafdJ…
Researchers are hard at work improving and extending our lives:
(the good part starts at 0:24)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPaKNafdJ…
41
@38 - You are missing the entire point. In any scientific advance, there are trade-offs between cost and benefit. I.e. some animal testing may be ethical while others, say for certain cosmetics, are not.
This choice is between a lump of cells which will more than likely never be "born alive" as a person and saving the life of someone already living/born and in serious pain, severely disabled or with a degenerative disease. The moral distinction is quite clear. Which do we choose? I believe most people that think of this and does some research regarding how this type of research is done will be able to make this moral decision.
This choice is between a lump of cells which will more than likely never be "born alive" as a person and saving the life of someone already living/born and in serious pain, severely disabled or with a degenerative disease. The moral distinction is quite clear. Which do we choose? I believe most people that think of this and does some research regarding how this type of research is done will be able to make this moral decision.
42
41
There are trade-offs.
But civilized societies draw bright ethical lines they do not cross when weighing costs and benefits.
Civilized societies do not destroy and kill or inflict unnecessary pain on humans (not even weak and powerless ones-) thru experiment, even if it would benefit other humans.
The Nazis did not recognize that line.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study crossed it.
The moral distinction is quite clear.
I believe that when 'Science' helps lay people understand what is at stake most people that think of this and do some research regarding how this type of research is done will be able to make the moral decision.
There are trade-offs.
But civilized societies draw bright ethical lines they do not cross when weighing costs and benefits.
Civilized societies do not destroy and kill or inflict unnecessary pain on humans (not even weak and powerless ones-) thru experiment, even if it would benefit other humans.
The Nazis did not recognize that line.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study crossed it.
The moral distinction is quite clear.
I believe that when 'Science' helps lay people understand what is at stake most people that think of this and do some research regarding how this type of research is done will be able to make the moral decision.
44
No, frequently the families make that choice, whether the individual authorized organ donation while alive or not. So who are you to say that a couple isn't allowed to donate their fertilized eggs, which will be destroyed anyway? Seems like you're trying to meddle in their private business. Butt out.
Organ donors have elected to donate their organs. They made the decision themselves.
No, frequently the families make that choice, whether the individual authorized organ donation while alive or not. So who are you to say that a couple isn't allowed to donate their fertilized eggs, which will be destroyed anyway? Seems like you're trying to meddle in their private business. Butt out.
45
@42,
And what happens when they make the moral decision to support using fertilized eggs for stem cell research? Will you accept that decision or will you continue to whine? FYI: the majority of people in this country do support this research. Why isn't their opinion good enough for you? Don't you believe in democracy?
And what happens when they make the moral decision to support using fertilized eggs for stem cell research? Will you accept that decision or will you continue to whine? FYI: the majority of people in this country do support this research. Why isn't their opinion good enough for you? Don't you believe in democracy?
46
@42 - I agree with you, but that's what's happening with this type of research. It's a bunch of cells that would otherwise be discarded.
Other people have made the point more eloquently than I, but if you cannot see the ethical superiority of saving a baby or disabled person over a clump of cells, I really don't know what else to say to convince you.
Plus, I really don't understand how you think these cells feel pain, or what would happen to the eggs no longer wanted for fertilization. There IS a difference between a fully formed living human being (no matter how disabled) and a clump of a thousand or so cells, even human ones. There just is.
Other people have made the point more eloquently than I, but if you cannot see the ethical superiority of saving a baby or disabled person over a clump of cells, I really don't know what else to say to convince you.
Plus, I really don't understand how you think these cells feel pain, or what would happen to the eggs no longer wanted for fertilization. There IS a difference between a fully formed living human being (no matter how disabled) and a clump of a thousand or so cells, even human ones. There just is.
47
42 Nicholas I believe that when 'Science' helps lay people understand what is at stake
You badgered one of Seattle's brainiest scientists into writing an article specifically for you, specifically to answer your arguments. Admittedly, that is a feat. Unfortunately, you don't give a whit what he has to say. You decided that a microscopic batch of cells deserves rights equal to those of a fully-formed human, and now nothing will change your mind, and you dismiss any ideas that might make you even think about it.
And so it is somewhat maddening to see you make the claim that science will vindicate you. Yes, a human embryo is, in fact, a human embryo. On that question, you are vindicated by science. But there is quite a bit that separates a pre-implantation embryo from 'personhood,' and there is no measure of that separation in science.
You have made it clear that you do not acknowledge the difference between a group of cells which are classified as Homo Sapiens and a fully-formed human being, at least not where human rights are concerned. You have convinced me, at least, that you aren't interested in thinking about it, and that's a shame because there is a real discussion to be had on this topic. The question of when an embryo becomes a Person with a capital "P" is worth much debate. (Yes, yes, I know. Please, allow me: If it's not a person, then what is it? You know who else took away the rights of people? Nazis.)
As for me, it is a question of self-awareness and the ability to feel pain. Arsenic7 mentioned memories, and that is an interesting avenue to follow (though I disagree that memories are what make people worthy of rights). Other people may poke holes in that theory, and I'm willing to have it poked and to think about the holes. But hearing over and over that you believe something but you don't want to think about why you believe it, you just do... well, that's no fun, and it convinces nobody.
Briefly, and then I will shut up:
It doesn't magically or biologically change into a human; it always was human. Human parents have human offspring. There is no non-human intermediate step.
That's not true at all. Much ado is made about the sperm traveling to meet the egg and becoming one with it. Lots of stuff happens between two separate adult humans walking around and the moment when they "have" offspring, and that is true whether you place "having" at birth or at conception. Unless--and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here--unless you posit that a sperm cell is "human life" and an egg is "human life" both worthy of human rights.
You misstate my position. I draw no conclusions about the relative value of embryos or children or adults. I point out that all are human life.
Right, and you point out that all are worthy of human rights. You equate the life of microscopic human cells with the lives of children, and when you equate things you are comparing their value.
The fatalistic passive whining of the past eight years about the miracle cures we have missed out on has been disappointing.
I suspect you would feel differently about whether it could be considered "passive whining" if someone you loved had Parkinson's disease, for example. See my earlier remarks about empathy. And see your subsequent remarks about how you treat the weakest members of your society.
In the end, we will have to agree to disagree, even about as much as the topic of the argument.
More...
You badgered one of Seattle's brainiest scientists into writing an article specifically for you, specifically to answer your arguments. Admittedly, that is a feat. Unfortunately, you don't give a whit what he has to say. You decided that a microscopic batch of cells deserves rights equal to those of a fully-formed human, and now nothing will change your mind, and you dismiss any ideas that might make you even think about it.
And so it is somewhat maddening to see you make the claim that science will vindicate you. Yes, a human embryo is, in fact, a human embryo. On that question, you are vindicated by science. But there is quite a bit that separates a pre-implantation embryo from 'personhood,' and there is no measure of that separation in science.
You have made it clear that you do not acknowledge the difference between a group of cells which are classified as Homo Sapiens and a fully-formed human being, at least not where human rights are concerned. You have convinced me, at least, that you aren't interested in thinking about it, and that's a shame because there is a real discussion to be had on this topic. The question of when an embryo becomes a Person with a capital "P" is worth much debate. (Yes, yes, I know. Please, allow me: If it's not a person, then what is it? You know who else took away the rights of people? Nazis.)
As for me, it is a question of self-awareness and the ability to feel pain. Arsenic7 mentioned memories, and that is an interesting avenue to follow (though I disagree that memories are what make people worthy of rights). Other people may poke holes in that theory, and I'm willing to have it poked and to think about the holes. But hearing over and over that you believe something but you don't want to think about why you believe it, you just do... well, that's no fun, and it convinces nobody.
Briefly, and then I will shut up:
It doesn't magically or biologically change into a human; it always was human. Human parents have human offspring. There is no non-human intermediate step.
That's not true at all. Much ado is made about the sperm traveling to meet the egg and becoming one with it. Lots of stuff happens between two separate adult humans walking around and the moment when they "have" offspring, and that is true whether you place "having" at birth or at conception. Unless--and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here--unless you posit that a sperm cell is "human life" and an egg is "human life" both worthy of human rights.
You misstate my position. I draw no conclusions about the relative value of embryos or children or adults. I point out that all are human life.
Right, and you point out that all are worthy of human rights. You equate the life of microscopic human cells with the lives of children, and when you equate things you are comparing their value.
The fatalistic passive whining of the past eight years about the miracle cures we have missed out on has been disappointing.
I suspect you would feel differently about whether it could be considered "passive whining" if someone you loved had Parkinson's disease, for example. See my earlier remarks about empathy. And see your subsequent remarks about how you treat the weakest members of your society.
In the end, we will have to agree to disagree, even about as much as the topic of the argument.
48
NT -how is it that someone who is brain dead and on life support has "already died"? Their BRAIN is dead, but their body is sustained by medical interventions. Are you saying that brain activity is integral to being considered "alive"? If so, that's not a very good argument in favor of protecting embryos with no cells differentiated into neurons, let alone a brain.
Your argument about organ donation being a advanced directive is fair enough, but how far do these directives go? imagine someone issues a directive that is just the opposite saying they do NOT want their organs donated and that they in fact want to be sustained on life support until their body gives out. And let's say they do end up brain dead, on life support and the hospital is carrying out their wishes. While it's possible to keep them "alive" for a long time, it does cost the hospital a lot of money (true story, health care resources are finite), and its preventing the hospital from offering charity care to sick, but poor people who are suffering. Is the bright ethical line drawn at the advanced directive and that's that?
At some point, the rational individual is going to say that the interests of those capable of experiencing death, of suffering, and those who are conscious outweighs the interests of those humans who do not experience anything at all.
ESC research represents a resource for conscious persons in need, which you suppose we sacrifice in the interest of unconscious human non-persons. I get that you believe embryos have inherent value. But asserting that they are human and we must protect all human life at all costs and never sacrifice any human life for anything (not even another human life) is a total fantasy. It seems like a bright ethical line, but it's totally useless in practice, because in a world where resources are finite there's competing interests. We let people die when there's still a treatment available that may buy them more time, all the time because we feel those resources need to be justly distributed among everyone.
How is it just to cease to pursue treatments for diseases that afflict suffering people so that embryos can stay frozen indefinitely?
NT, you may imagine that you're taking a pro human life stance always, but you're actually trading one kind of life for another.
More...
Your argument about organ donation being a advanced directive is fair enough, but how far do these directives go? imagine someone issues a directive that is just the opposite saying they do NOT want their organs donated and that they in fact want to be sustained on life support until their body gives out. And let's say they do end up brain dead, on life support and the hospital is carrying out their wishes. While it's possible to keep them "alive" for a long time, it does cost the hospital a lot of money (true story, health care resources are finite), and its preventing the hospital from offering charity care to sick, but poor people who are suffering. Is the bright ethical line drawn at the advanced directive and that's that?
At some point, the rational individual is going to say that the interests of those capable of experiencing death, of suffering, and those who are conscious outweighs the interests of those humans who do not experience anything at all.
ESC research represents a resource for conscious persons in need, which you suppose we sacrifice in the interest of unconscious human non-persons. I get that you believe embryos have inherent value. But asserting that they are human and we must protect all human life at all costs and never sacrifice any human life for anything (not even another human life) is a total fantasy. It seems like a bright ethical line, but it's totally useless in practice, because in a world where resources are finite there's competing interests. We let people die when there's still a treatment available that may buy them more time, all the time because we feel those resources need to be justly distributed among everyone.
How is it just to cease to pursue treatments for diseases that afflict suffering people so that embryos can stay frozen indefinitely?
NT, you may imagine that you're taking a pro human life stance always, but you're actually trading one kind of life for another.
50
46
You are right, it is presented as a tempting and seemingly rational obvious choice...
But the choice we face is not save the embryo or save the adult.
We can save them both.
There is no guarantee destroying embryos will save adults.
No one can say that other paths of research will not yield better or sooner cures.
The fact that some IVF embryos are unwanted does not make what would otherwise be wrong suddenly become OK. And that is a slippery slope- the planet is full of unwanted unloved powerless humans of all ages. What if the next great cure requires newborn babies? How many unwanted babies could you scrounge up in the 3rd world (or even in this country) if the price was right? There is already abuse of organ donation in places like China. And if we decide it is OK to destroy a less valuable human to save more valuable ones how long before research casts a greedy eye at the elderly. Would it not be morally outrageous to withhold an infirm 80 year old (who surely will be euthanized in a few years anyway...) from the research lab if it would cure a 25 year old?
The poor odds that an existing excess IVF embryo will be adopted does not justify doing to them what otherwise would be wrong. That is another slippery slope. What are the odds that any given minority child within the welfare system will be adopted? An infant born in Sierra Leone only has a .7 chance to reach it's 5th birthday; if the next great cure does require newborns how can those discouraging odds match up against saving a productive adult in the equation of moral relative worth?
I did not say embryos feel pain but that is irrelevant; by that criteria as long as I sedate my victims it is OK to kill them?
In the final analysis the question is "are these human and if so do we protect them".
If the answer is yes then morally we must resist the seducing enticements of those who promise great reward for the teeny tiny price of a few unwanted unnamed powerless out-of-sight beings.
Moral shortcuts corrupt those who embrace them.
I have faith in Science and research.
Specifically, I have faith in American Science and research.
We can make the moral choice and still find the cures.
We have listened to eight years of whining and rationalizing about what bad old Bush was cheating researchers out of.
Meanwhile the Japanese (with more restrictive regulations than even Bush imposed) have pushed up their sleeves and pioneered promising ways to obtain stem cells without destroying humans.
Many American researchers have chosen to play the role of intellectual 'smoke stack industries'; inept whining Detroit automakers complaining about WashingtonDC and begging for bailouts while foreign competitors are running circles around them.
We are better than that.
More...
You are right, it is presented as a tempting and seemingly rational obvious choice...
But the choice we face is not save the embryo or save the adult.
We can save them both.
There is no guarantee destroying embryos will save adults.
No one can say that other paths of research will not yield better or sooner cures.
The fact that some IVF embryos are unwanted does not make what would otherwise be wrong suddenly become OK. And that is a slippery slope- the planet is full of unwanted unloved powerless humans of all ages. What if the next great cure requires newborn babies? How many unwanted babies could you scrounge up in the 3rd world (or even in this country) if the price was right? There is already abuse of organ donation in places like China. And if we decide it is OK to destroy a less valuable human to save more valuable ones how long before research casts a greedy eye at the elderly. Would it not be morally outrageous to withhold an infirm 80 year old (who surely will be euthanized in a few years anyway...) from the research lab if it would cure a 25 year old?
The poor odds that an existing excess IVF embryo will be adopted does not justify doing to them what otherwise would be wrong. That is another slippery slope. What are the odds that any given minority child within the welfare system will be adopted? An infant born in Sierra Leone only has a .7 chance to reach it's 5th birthday; if the next great cure does require newborns how can those discouraging odds match up against saving a productive adult in the equation of moral relative worth?
I did not say embryos feel pain but that is irrelevant; by that criteria as long as I sedate my victims it is OK to kill them?
In the final analysis the question is "are these human and if so do we protect them".
If the answer is yes then morally we must resist the seducing enticements of those who promise great reward for the teeny tiny price of a few unwanted unnamed powerless out-of-sight beings.
Moral shortcuts corrupt those who embrace them.
I have faith in Science and research.
Specifically, I have faith in American Science and research.
We can make the moral choice and still find the cures.
We have listened to eight years of whining and rationalizing about what bad old Bush was cheating researchers out of.
Meanwhile the Japanese (with more restrictive regulations than even Bush imposed) have pushed up their sleeves and pioneered promising ways to obtain stem cells without destroying humans.
Many American researchers have chosen to play the role of intellectual 'smoke stack industries'; inept whining Detroit automakers complaining about WashingtonDC and begging for bailouts while foreign competitors are running circles around them.
We are better than that.
51
47
Thank you for your comments.
I still feel you are missing my position.
All I ask of Jonathan (or anyone else) is to acknowledge that human embryos are living humans.
Anyone interested in Truth and Science has to share my outrage when some talking head or commentator goes on television; rolls their eyes mournfully heavenward and sighs that "we just don't know when life begins...".
It is not true.
We do know.
Acknowledging that fact is the first step to having a rational discussion and making ethical choices about a host of issues our society faces.
It is a step we still have not taken as a nation.
This Republican hopes that when Obama promises to restore rational Science over ideology the nation can finally take that step.
That will be followed by a discussion about what is "personhood" and when do we grant it and what, if any, rights do we grant embryos or fetuses.
I believe that given the true information Science provides the people of the nation will (eventually) make moral choices.
I look forward to that discussion.
Thank you for your comments.
I still feel you are missing my position.
All I ask of Jonathan (or anyone else) is to acknowledge that human embryos are living humans.
Anyone interested in Truth and Science has to share my outrage when some talking head or commentator goes on television; rolls their eyes mournfully heavenward and sighs that "we just don't know when life begins...".
It is not true.
We do know.
Acknowledging that fact is the first step to having a rational discussion and making ethical choices about a host of issues our society faces.
It is a step we still have not taken as a nation.
This Republican hopes that when Obama promises to restore rational Science over ideology the nation can finally take that step.
That will be followed by a discussion about what is "personhood" and when do we grant it and what, if any, rights do we grant embryos or fetuses.
I believe that given the true information Science provides the people of the nation will (eventually) make moral choices.
I look forward to that discussion.
53
Jonathan - This was an excellent post, and I agree with the earlier commenter who said that it deserves a re-post or a place in an issue of The Stranger. I might have missed it entirely due to when it was posted.
As for NT, especially @51 "rolls their eyes mournfully heavenward and sighs that "we just don't know when life begins...". It is not true. We do know."
I wish that you would provide some counterargument to Jonathan's position that there is a difference between life and personhood. As others have pointed out, plenty of substances can be defined as "alive" and "with homo sapien DNA", but that do not deserve to be treated as a person. This is the crux of the ethical argument about stem cell research (or, at least, one of the arguments), and you have provided no counterargument other than just "it is this way because I believe it to be so."
No one is going to disagree with you that after fertilization there is "life", and it is of human origin. You need to convince us not that life exists, but that it deserves "personhood" (i.e., to be treated with the same rights/dignity as an adult human). You also might want to think about the philosophical rationale for why a child from Sierra Leone should be treated with the same rights/dignity as an American child. It might help you see why others believe that an embryo and an American child do not need to be treated the same.
Jonathan has said some very interesting things about why an embryo does not merit "personhood", but I don't see that same level of thoughtfulness on your part (not trying to be an internet jerk here... there are certainly people who are doing some interesting thinking on both sides of this issue).
As for NT, especially @51 "rolls their eyes mournfully heavenward and sighs that "we just don't know when life begins...". It is not true. We do know."
I wish that you would provide some counterargument to Jonathan's position that there is a difference between life and personhood. As others have pointed out, plenty of substances can be defined as "alive" and "with homo sapien DNA", but that do not deserve to be treated as a person. This is the crux of the ethical argument about stem cell research (or, at least, one of the arguments), and you have provided no counterargument other than just "it is this way because I believe it to be so."
No one is going to disagree with you that after fertilization there is "life", and it is of human origin. You need to convince us not that life exists, but that it deserves "personhood" (i.e., to be treated with the same rights/dignity as an adult human). You also might want to think about the philosophical rationale for why a child from Sierra Leone should be treated with the same rights/dignity as an American child. It might help you see why others believe that an embryo and an American child do not need to be treated the same.
Jonathan has said some very interesting things about why an embryo does not merit "personhood", but I don't see that same level of thoughtfulness on your part (not trying to be an internet jerk here... there are certainly people who are doing some interesting thinking on both sides of this issue).
54
53
The Sierra Leone child should be treated with the same dignity as an American child.
But if we step onto the slippery slope of playing 'this human life is not as valuable as that human life and therefore expendable' the African infant might someday find itself in the position embryos are in today; weak, voiceless, powerless and in the cross hairs of some researcher catering to rich powerful interests.
The Sierra Leone child should be treated with the same dignity as an American child.
But if we step onto the slippery slope of playing 'this human life is not as valuable as that human life and therefore expendable' the African infant might someday find itself in the position embryos are in today; weak, voiceless, powerless and in the cross hairs of some researcher catering to rich powerful interests.
55
@54. Ugh. That was not an argument.
Why do you think the Sierra Leone child and the American child should be treated the same? Why do you think that a cluster of human skin cells and a 100-cell embryo should not be treated the same? Why do you think that a 100-cell embryo and a child should be treated the same?
Articulate those things and you may have an argument. And, by the way, the arguments that people are using to posit that a 100-cell embryo does not merit full personhood can be flipped around and used to justify why the child in Sierra Leone does deserve it.
Why do you think the Sierra Leone child and the American child should be treated the same? Why do you think that a cluster of human skin cells and a 100-cell embryo should not be treated the same? Why do you think that a 100-cell embryo and a child should be treated the same?
Articulate those things and you may have an argument. And, by the way, the arguments that people are using to posit that a 100-cell embryo does not merit full personhood can be flipped around and used to justify why the child in Sierra Leone does deserve it.
56
Exactly @55 - Yay!
Now, 54 We DO say which life is more valuable, be it through the lack of resources available to a child in Sierra Leone or born in an affluent household in the States. Yes those children should, in a perfect world, be treated equally. In fact, they are not and likely will not be in our lifetimes. The slippery slope is already here and compromises are a part of life in the real world. Everyone cannot get everything in life.
The point is, choosing the life of either one of those children over a clump of cells would not be a problem for me, or probably you if you were faced with it.
You are raising a strawman argument that makes no sense and bears little to no relation to the issue at hand. The "human life" you are worried about WILL LIKELY NOT EXIST without extreme luck with every protection taken for implantation. Yes, it should be regulated, but let's actually talk about the issue, not just "OMG ITS HUMAN!!!! and therefore it's evil to destroy it".
Now, 54 We DO say which life is more valuable, be it through the lack of resources available to a child in Sierra Leone or born in an affluent household in the States. Yes those children should, in a perfect world, be treated equally. In fact, they are not and likely will not be in our lifetimes. The slippery slope is already here and compromises are a part of life in the real world. Everyone cannot get everything in life.
The point is, choosing the life of either one of those children over a clump of cells would not be a problem for me, or probably you if you were faced with it.
You are raising a strawman argument that makes no sense and bears little to no relation to the issue at hand. The "human life" you are worried about WILL LIKELY NOT EXIST without extreme luck with every protection taken for implantation. Yes, it should be regulated, but let's actually talk about the issue, not just "OMG ITS HUMAN!!!! and therefore it's evil to destroy it".
57
56
The human life already exists.
The only questions are how long it will live and under what circumstances will it die?
The human life already exists.
The only questions are how long it will live and under what circumstances will it die?
58
@57 ARGH. Well, kinda. The cells will in most cases die anyways. Is is a fully formed human life worthy of legal protection? In my view, no. The cells are living and is human, but not a viable human life yet.
60
NT @54: You continue to use the term "slippery slope" to mean the exact opposite of its generally understood meaning. In debate, "slippery slope" is used to discount an argument that fails to recognize the existence of a continuum, while you are using it to support an argument that deliberately ignores the existence of a continuum.
Claiming that stem cell research is wrong because it will lead to killing poor children for their organs is a classic fallacious slippery slope argument.
Claiming that stem cell research is wrong because it will lead to killing poor children for their organs is a classic fallacious slippery slope argument.
61
Thank you, Jonathan! This is great.
It seems that any standard for a human being would require the entity to be an individual.
I liked this bit in particular--that's a really good point.
It seems that any standard for a human being would require the entity to be an individual.
I liked this bit in particular--that's a really good point.
62
A few stem cells in a lab are not a human. Nor would they ever be a human. They are excess embryos from invitro fertilization that would be destroyed anyway. Bill Maher had a good point. You know that they are cells, and not human because they can be flash frozen, and thawed, and still be used. People cannot.
64
63, They haven't developed enough to be a species. Had they been used in the invitro process, they would have had the potential to become a human, but since they were excess, they will remain a clump of cells that will either be destroyed as medical waste, or used as stem cells for research.
Parents can donate their child's organs to improve and/or save the lives of others if that child is on life support with no hope for recovery. Why not let them donate their leftover clumps of cells that have no hope of ever becoming human to help improve, or save the lives of others?
Parents can donate their child's organs to improve and/or save the lives of others if that child is on life support with no hope for recovery. Why not let them donate their leftover clumps of cells that have no hope of ever becoming human to help improve, or save the lives of others?
65
64
All living things are members of some species.
These zygote/embryos are human.
They are very young humans.
They are not potential humans, they are human.
Someone very deliberately went to a lot of trouble to create these humans.
Those folks bear a moral responsibility to them.
All living things are members of some species.
These zygote/embryos are human.
They are very young humans.
They are not potential humans, they are human.
Someone very deliberately went to a lot of trouble to create these humans.
Those folks bear a moral responsibility to them.
66
65, Even if you want to believe they are humans. They will never be born, regardless of whether they are used as stem cells or not. They will be destroyed as medical waste.
Are you suggesting that women should forced to carry each and every embryo, even after they have the child through invitro?
Like donating a child's organs when that child is on life support, with no hope of recovery, shouldn't parents be given the option of donating these embryos with no hope of being born?
I have another question for you. If you are in a burning building, and you have to choose between saving a newborn baby, or running to the invitro lab and grabbing the frozen embryos, which would you put as a priority, and why?
Are you suggesting that women should forced to carry each and every embryo, even after they have the child through invitro?
Like donating a child's organs when that child is on life support, with no hope of recovery, shouldn't parents be given the option of donating these embryos with no hope of being born?
I have another question for you. If you are in a burning building, and you have to choose between saving a newborn baby, or running to the invitro lab and grabbing the frozen embryos, which would you put as a priority, and why?
67
Many countries regulate IVF and require the parents/physicians to create only as many embryos as they will actually use. It seems very obvious and simple but American physicians have not caught on yet.
There is a huge difference between donating organs of a terminally ill or injured person and taking a whole healthy living being and destroying them.
There is a huge difference between donating organs of a terminally ill or injured person and taking a whole healthy living being and destroying them.
68
67, please provide evidence to support this claim. They always overproduce embryos because often it takes several tries for implanted embryos to take hold as a viable pregnancy.
Also, it is very telling that you dodged my questions. I wonder why?
Also, it is very telling that you dodged my questions. I wonder why?
69
If you are interested you could wiki IVF. Germany and Britain are two countries that seem to have very responsible regulations.
Ah, the ever lame "burning IVF clinic" question.
My children were all embryos in a clinic at one time so I would certainly have been tempted to save them if I had the chance. Those are always tough decisions without a right or wrong answer. The robot in "I Robot" made a different choice from what Will Smith's character would have done when the little girl was drowning. What would you do, Rob?
Ah, the ever lame "burning IVF clinic" question.
My children were all embryos in a clinic at one time so I would certainly have been tempted to save them if I had the chance. Those are always tough decisions without a right or wrong answer. The robot in "I Robot" made a different choice from what Will Smith's character would have done when the little girl was drowning. What would you do, Rob?
70
69, again please provide evidence to support your claim.
Again you dodged the question. If you had to make a choice, which would you save in a fire, a newborn baby, or frozen embryos, and why would you prioritize one over the other?
I'm not familiar with the movie I Robot, so I don't know the situation, or the choices made by the characters.
Again you dodged the question. If you had to make a choice, which would you save in a fire, a newborn baby, or frozen embryos, and why would you prioritize one over the other?
I'm not familiar with the movie I Robot, so I don't know the situation, or the choices made by the characters.
72
I did answer your question,
perhaps you could study my response again.
What would you do?
What if the choice were between a child or an adult?
Would the one you did not choose be any less human or deserving of life?
Is there a point you are struggling to make?
perhaps you could study my response again.
What would you do?
What if the choice were between a child or an adult?
Would the one you did not choose be any less human or deserving of life?
Is there a point you are struggling to make?
74
@73 - Really? I find that hard to believe. I truly wish you could have an intelligent conversation about this without simply relying on the "But they're human!!" argument.
You refuse to answer questions and ignore the debate. The choice was not between a child and adult but between the clump of cells and child. You are intellectually dishonest, and refuse to think about this issue. Talking to you is like attempting to reason with a two year old. You have shown no capability to have this debate - please leave this to people with legitimate objections who actually are capable of rational argument.
You refuse to answer questions and ignore the debate. The choice was not between a child and adult but between the clump of cells and child. You are intellectually dishonest, and refuse to think about this issue. Talking to you is like attempting to reason with a two year old. You have shown no capability to have this debate - please leave this to people with legitimate objections who actually are capable of rational argument.
77
72/73, No, you dodged the question. You called it lame, and refused to give a real answer that actually addressed the scenario described. Typical.
Between a child and an adult in a fire. I'm assuming you are implying the adult is somehow incapacitated. Probably the child, because I could more easily carry a child, and get out of danger, as opposed to trying to haul an incapacitated adult through a fire.
Your turn, which would you save, a newborn baby, or a frozen embryo, and why?
How many eggs did they pull and fertilize? How many did they implant into you?
Are you claiming that all embryos survived the freezing and thawing process, (That is when many die, and another reason they created extras.) all survived implantation, and all were placed and resulted in live births?
How did they notify you that the 20 or so extra embryos (20-24 embryos are typically produced with only the strongest 2-4 being implanted) were placed, and resulted in live births?
I noticed you didn't provide the requested evidence to support your claims pertaining to in vitro in other countries.
Between a child and an adult in a fire. I'm assuming you are implying the adult is somehow incapacitated. Probably the child, because I could more easily carry a child, and get out of danger, as opposed to trying to haul an incapacitated adult through a fire.
Your turn, which would you save, a newborn baby, or a frozen embryo, and why?
How many eggs did they pull and fertilize? How many did they implant into you?
Are you claiming that all embryos survived the freezing and thawing process, (That is when many die, and another reason they created extras.) all survived implantation, and all were placed and resulted in live births?
How did they notify you that the 20 or so extra embryos (20-24 embryos are typically produced with only the strongest 2-4 being implanted) were placed, and resulted in live births?
I noticed you didn't provide the requested evidence to support your claims pertaining to in vitro in other countries.
78
@76: "I had 15 embryos placed in 4 attempts and had 3 children."
15-3 = 12. If you believe what you claim to believe, you killed 12 humans in order to create three.
15-3 = 12. If you believe what you claim to believe, you killed 12 humans in order to create three.
79
78
Half of all naturally produced embryos fail to implant, another 25% spontaneously abort in the first weeks. That is life.(no pun intended)
No one was killed.
15 were given the opportunity, 3 progressed to birth.
Why would I claim to believe something I do not believe?
Half of all naturally produced embryos fail to implant, another 25% spontaneously abort in the first weeks. That is life.(no pun intended)
No one was killed.
15 were given the opportunity, 3 progressed to birth.
Why would I claim to believe something I do not believe?
80
76, Why was the loss of 12 embryos (or death of 12 of your own children to put it in your terms, the deaths being a direct result in your choice to go through in vitro) an acceptable loss for you? Given your beliefs, wouldn't the honorable thing to do be to not have any children, rather than killing 12 to get 3?
81
Everything possible was done to give them a chance to mature and grow. My other three children will die at some point from some cause. From your resoning no one should ever have any children because they all will die eventually.
If I had had three children naturally about the same number of embryos would have been created but never lived past a few weeks, I would never have even been aware of it.
If I had had three children naturally about the same number of embryos would have been created but never lived past a few weeks, I would never have even been aware of it.
82
79, So you when ahead with in vitro, knowing it would result in the death of the majority of your own children? Why would you go through such extraordinary means to create a human life, your own flesh and blood, knowing that your choice would directly cause the death of most of them? Under the circumstances, and given your beliefs, it seems you were quite selfish, and you should have accepted being childless, rather than choosing to let so many die.
83
Hey Kim,
Sorry, I don't know much about IVF procedures. So, did they only harvest 15 eggs in total?
Sorry, I don't know much about IVF procedures. So, did they only harvest 15 eggs in total?
84
81, your statistics are wrong:
"As many as 30 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, half of them before the woman even realizes she is pregnant."
http://www.healthsquare.com/fgwh/wh1ch27…
In the best of circumstances 65-70 percent of in vitro fail.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/inferti…
Had you had 15 natural pregnancies, you'd most likey have had 10 children now.
You made a choice that allowed the majority of your own children die just to get three.
"As many as 30 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, half of them before the woman even realizes she is pregnant."
http://www.healthsquare.com/fgwh/wh1ch27…
In the best of circumstances 65-70 percent of in vitro fail.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/inferti…
Had you had 15 natural pregnancies, you'd most likey have had 10 children now.
You made a choice that allowed the majority of your own children die just to get three.
86
@79: So let me get this straight:
1) You believe that all embryos are human, alive, and capable of living so we can't use them for research because we would be "killing them".
2) Then you say you had invitro, which in order to have 3 children you had to have 15 embryos (human, alive, capable of living) implanted, and 12 of them dying due to "oh that's just life".
3) So you think it is morally ok for you to waste HUMAN LIFE (your words, not mine) that was alive and capable of living (just not capable of living in YOU because you were not suitable to have children naturally. You were, oh what's the word, BARREN).
4) So, basically, it's ok to waste "human life" so that you can get BABIES (you probably wouldn't adopt, nope you needed your little clone, right?), but it's not ok to "waste" human life that would have the impact to save MILLIONS and MILLIONS of regular people. Oh that is RICH.
5) Also, think about what you are saying. YOU had IVF.....just so you could have babies. Isn't it great that you can benefit from a science that probablly "killed" ten of thousands of eggs to figure out how to implant them into barren women such as yourself? SO that research is ok, as long as you get your little babies, your so-called "precious human life that is just like 100 cells" can be easily wasted so that you get a great life with children.
In conclusion: You are deluded, selfish, moronic, and should really take a good long look in the mirror. And what happens when one of your little IVF babies gets leukemia? Then will it be ok for research into how to prevent/cure it, since you'll finally see the benefit? BITCH.
1) You believe that all embryos are human, alive, and capable of living so we can't use them for research because we would be "killing them".
2) Then you say you had invitro, which in order to have 3 children you had to have 15 embryos (human, alive, capable of living) implanted, and 12 of them dying due to "oh that's just life".
3) So you think it is morally ok for you to waste HUMAN LIFE (your words, not mine) that was alive and capable of living (just not capable of living in YOU because you were not suitable to have children naturally. You were, oh what's the word, BARREN).
4) So, basically, it's ok to waste "human life" so that you can get BABIES (you probably wouldn't adopt, nope you needed your little clone, right?), but it's not ok to "waste" human life that would have the impact to save MILLIONS and MILLIONS of regular people. Oh that is RICH.
5) Also, think about what you are saying. YOU had IVF.....just so you could have babies. Isn't it great that you can benefit from a science that probablly "killed" ten of thousands of eggs to figure out how to implant them into barren women such as yourself? SO that research is ok, as long as you get your little babies, your so-called "precious human life that is just like 100 cells" can be easily wasted so that you get a great life with children.
In conclusion: You are deluded, selfish, moronic, and should really take a good long look in the mirror. And what happens when one of your little IVF babies gets leukemia? Then will it be ok for research into how to prevent/cure it, since you'll finally see the benefit? BITCH.
87
kim - I will repeat my earlier statement "No one is going to disagree with you that after fertilization there is "life", and it is of human origin. You need to convince us not that life exists, but that it deserves "personhood" (i.e., to be treated with the same rights/dignity as an adult human)."
If you want to change anybody's mind here, that is the argument you need to pursue. Why does a 100-cell embryo not have the same rights as a 100-cell clump of human skin? Why should a 100-cell embryo have the same rights as a child?
If you want to change anybody's mind here, that is the argument you need to pursue. Why does a 100-cell embryo not have the same rights as a 100-cell clump of human skin? Why should a 100-cell embryo have the same rights as a child?
88
Be gentle, Rob in Baltimore @ 84. Your point, in my opinion is well made. Still, the desire to parent is a deeply human one. I support the desire of infertile couples as much as I support the desire of same-sex couples.
89
@81:
Um, no they weren't. They were implanted in an older, barren woman. To give them "everything possible" you should have hired a surrogate in her 20s, who is healthy and fertile. But you didn't, therefore you didn't give them a chance. In fact, you're lucky any of them went to full term. Also, you say you had IVF 4 times, but had 3 kids. Does that mean 1 time every embryo failed due to your barren womb?
Everything possible was done to give them a chance to mature and grow.
Um, no they weren't. They were implanted in an older, barren woman. To give them "everything possible" you should have hired a surrogate in her 20s, who is healthy and fertile. But you didn't, therefore you didn't give them a chance. In fact, you're lucky any of them went to full term. Also, you say you had IVF 4 times, but had 3 kids. Does that mean 1 time every embryo failed due to your barren womb?
90
84
Those statistics may not be counting the half of embryos that form but do not implant as pregnancies.
Those statistics may not be counting the half of embryos that form but do not implant as pregnancies.
92
86, Good point. The research that allowed kim to have her three children not only killed her 12 others, but in the development, killed thousands of embryos. But that's okay for kim to partake of the fruits of that research, but nobody else should get such benefits from other research on zygotes.
If you were true to your beliefs, you would have rejected in vitro science, but no, your urge to have children allowed you to overlook all of this.
If you were true to your beliefs, you would have rejected in vitro science, but no, your urge to have children allowed you to overlook all of this.
93
89
You do not know how old I was.
In my case the inability to get pregnant related to my tubes, there was nothing wrong with my uterus.
You do not know how old I was.
In my case the inability to get pregnant related to my tubes, there was nothing wrong with my uterus.
94
90/91, No, but keep telling yourself that.
You're not a bad woman, just misguided. I believe you are earnest, and passionate about your beliefs, but your emotions on the topic aren't allowing you to think it through clearly.
You're not a bad woman, just misguided. I believe you are earnest, and passionate about your beliefs, but your emotions on the topic aren't allowing you to think it through clearly.
95
Kim - I have to reinstate my previous comment in light of you allowing your 12 embryos to die in pursuit of getting pregnant but not to save existing lives, potentially those of your (now) existing children. You are selfish and intellectually dishonest. If this research could cure a disease in your children would you be so against it? Please, stop and think things through! As stated by others, this research destroyed many embryos in order to become feasible - yet you still underwent IVF instead of adopting. Your reasoning boggles my mind.
96
@91: Don't be stupid, and stop acting like Dan. Jesus. I am trying to follow your...ummmm... I guess I have to call it logic (or lack of logic).
Don't you see that what you are saying doesn't make sense?!
Also, I highly, highly doubt you are a young 20 something. because A) invitro costs a lot of money B) because you have "tube problems", which doesn't typically affect women under 25. I am guessing you are 32-36. And yes that is "older" in terms of getting pregnant, since after 36 you have little chance of having a healthy baby without help. Please, tell me if I am wrong, and you are a healthy under 25 girl who happens to have 30K for your 4 IVF attempts. Thanks for playing! <-see I can be like Dan too!
Don't you see that what you are saying doesn't make sense?!
Also, I highly, highly doubt you are a young 20 something. because A) invitro costs a lot of money B) because you have "tube problems", which doesn't typically affect women under 25. I am guessing you are 32-36. And yes that is "older" in terms of getting pregnant, since after 36 you have little chance of having a healthy baby without help. Please, tell me if I am wrong, and you are a healthy under 25 girl who happens to have 30K for your 4 IVF attempts. Thanks for playing! <-see I can be like Dan too!
97
Also, I am glad (no sarcasm) science could give you the gift of children, I just wish you would let science give the gift of life to millions of people (actual people, not cells dividing).
98
95, or at least she should have used someone else's excess embryos. Then she could have rationalized that even though the in vitro failure rate is very high, and the development of said science resulted in the destruction of many, many embryos, at least she actually saved the lives of any that took. Instead, she chose to create more of what she considers to be children, knowing that the vast majority of the lives created would die. She was blinded by her desire to have children with her own dna. But, now that she has her 3 children (and 12 dead ones), suddenly the lives of the excess embryos matter.
Kim, did you hold funerals for the 12 dead embryos?
Also, which would you save from a burning building, if there was only time to get one, a newborn baby, or a frozen embryo?
Kim, did you hold funerals for the 12 dead embryos?
Also, which would you save from a burning building, if there was only time to get one, a newborn baby, or a frozen embryo?
99
My treatments were over 15 years ago.
The results were pretty good for that time.
Thank you all for your kind and encouraging words, and thank you for listening and sharing your thoughts.
The results were pretty good for that time.
Thank you all for your kind and encouraging words, and thank you for listening and sharing your thoughts.
100
@99: While you will most likely not respond to this question, it is for anyone against stem cell research:
Question: If multiple life-saving treatments or vaccines are developed using stem cell research, will you opt to never have any of them (since they was created using a technique you compare to murder)?
I won't hold my breath for a response, but I am curious nonetheless.
Question: If multiple life-saving treatments or vaccines are developed using stem cell research, will you opt to never have any of them (since they was created using a technique you compare to murder)?
I won't hold my breath for a response, but I am curious nonetheless.
101
Or, 100, would she let one of her children die, rather than accepting a lifesaving treatment developed from stem cell research? I bet she'd chose to save her child's life, even if required stem cells.
(but, you're probably right, I think she's realized the fatal flaws in her arguments, and is done.)
(but, you're probably right, I think she's realized the fatal flaws in her arguments, and is done.)
102
Here are a few of my responses to your above comments.
Commenter 'Nicholas Tolentino' (cleverly named after a Catholic saint who resurrected dead children; good way to start an honest discussion!) @21 extolled me and others to have faith in science:
Scientific progress is more a work (not faith) thing. Having faith in something being scientifically possible tends to end in a disaster.
For now, and the foreseeable future, embryonic stem cells are going to be the gold standard. While I agree that iPS cells will be improved from the current state-of-the-art, it's going to take research on embryonic stem cell lines and iPS cells to get there.
NT @50 goes on later to make the point:
Dr. Yamanaka—the Japanese inventor of iPS cells—needed the results from research on human embryonic stem cell research done in the US and elsewhere to figure out the technique. He only succeeded because there were places where the research was less restricted. NT ignores this.
Many have cited the more restrictive German IVF and embryonic stem cell research policies as a model the US should accept. I wrote on these policies quite a while ago, pointing out how this policy has resulted in audacious and ultimately disastrous trials using adult humans:
A great deal of suffering has been caused by these trials—unnecessary suffering to adult humans fully conscious of their suffering.
Finally, mr. herriman @23 brings up cord blood stem cells.
Cord blood stem cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells. They are already committed to become only cell types found in the blood (or perhaps blood vessels). I've worked with cord blood stem cells—and I deeply appreciate mr. herriman's and others donations—they are not a replacement for true pluripotent stem cells.
More...
Commenter 'Nicholas Tolentino' (cleverly named after a Catholic saint who resurrected dead children; good way to start an honest discussion!) @21 extolled me and others to have faith in science:
Scientific progress is more a work (not faith) thing. Having faith in something being scientifically possible tends to end in a disaster.
For now, and the foreseeable future, embryonic stem cells are going to be the gold standard. While I agree that iPS cells will be improved from the current state-of-the-art, it's going to take research on embryonic stem cell lines and iPS cells to get there.
NT @50 goes on later to make the point:
Meanwhile the Japanese (with more restrictive regulations than even Bush imposed) have pushed up their sleeves and pioneered promising ways to obtain stem cells without destroying humans.
Dr. Yamanaka—the Japanese inventor of iPS cells—needed the results from research on human embryonic stem cell research done in the US and elsewhere to figure out the technique. He only succeeded because there were places where the research was less restricted. NT ignores this.
Many have cited the more restrictive German IVF and embryonic stem cell research policies as a model the US should accept. I wrote on these policies quite a while ago, pointing out how this policy has resulted in audacious and ultimately disastrous trials using adult humans:
The strong restrictions on embryonic stem cell research in Germany have resulted in the most aggressive trials of adult stem cell based therapies for heart disease that can be found in Western medicine. The results so far are mixed at best, with weak evidence for any benefit and some potential risk to patients.
These trials are shockingly audacious—going straight from (unreproduced, and largely unreproducible so far) trials in rodents directly to humans, skipping the typical large-animal studies. Here is where the strong concern for protecting embryos results in adult human beings—unquestionably human life—being put at risk. Looking at all the evidence so far, embryonic stem cell derived heart cells are superior to adult stem cells in helping rodents recover from heart attacks. Large animal trials of the embryonic stem cell therapies are just now beginning—properly so—before trials in humans begin. The FDA might be a pain-in-the-ass, but they still can do a decent job of protecting human life, including adult human life, from harm during trials.
A great deal of suffering has been caused by these trials—unnecessary suffering to adult humans fully conscious of their suffering.
Finally, mr. herriman @23 brings up cord blood stem cells.
Cord blood stem cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells. They are already committed to become only cell types found in the blood (or perhaps blood vessels). I've worked with cord blood stem cells—and I deeply appreciate mr. herriman's and others donations—they are not a replacement for true pluripotent stem cells.
103
kim@79, 99: I said "If you believe what you claim to believe" because it is evident to me from your other statements that you do not. If you truly believed that every fertilized egg was a full-fledged person, you would not cavalierly take action that would result in so many preventable deaths just to achieve some desirable outcome.
To be clear, I don't think you are a murderer for undergoing IVF. My sense is you don't think of yourself that way either. But you seem to be trying very hard to justify holding one set of standards for yourself and another for other people, and this is unethical.
To be clear, I don't think you are a murderer for undergoing IVF. My sense is you don't think of yourself that way either. But you seem to be trying very hard to justify holding one set of standards for yourself and another for other people, and this is unethical.
104
Jonathan,
Thank you again for the post and opportunity to comment.
You referenced my statement @21 to "not lack faith in the power of research".
I use the term 'faith' in a non-religious sense; confidence might be a better choice of word;
please do not lack confidence in the ability of research and science to overcome obstacles and find solutions to the problems we face.
Thank you again
Thank you again for the post and opportunity to comment.
You referenced my statement @21 to "not lack faith in the power of research".
I use the term 'faith' in a non-religious sense; confidence might be a better choice of word;
please do not lack confidence in the ability of research and science to overcome obstacles and find solutions to the problems we face.
Thank you again
105
Great post and comments.
Thank You Jonathan.
I found the material on German policies linked @102 especially fascinating.
Comparisons of embryo research to Nazi experimentation on humans draws cries of 'foul!' but it is interesting than the Germans; world class scientists, not exactly Bible-thumpers and certainly familiar with Nazi practice; consider human life to begin at conception and grant legal protection to reflect that.
Liberals are fond of holding European social policy on matters such as capital punishment and health care systems up as examples of enlightenment but strangely I've never heard this policy cited as an example America should emmulate.
Thank You Jonathan.
I found the material on German policies linked @102 especially fascinating.
Comparisons of embryo research to Nazi experimentation on humans draws cries of 'foul!' but it is interesting than the Germans; world class scientists, not exactly Bible-thumpers and certainly familiar with Nazi practice; consider human life to begin at conception and grant legal protection to reflect that.
Liberals are fond of holding European social policy on matters such as capital punishment and health care systems up as examples of enlightenment but strangely I've never heard this policy cited as an example America should emmulate.
111
Hi
WOW! I am glad I found this website!
Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells is an alternative methods for studying diseases that are more robust and better simulate how the disease develops in humans. The concerns expressed regarding chimerism may be a bit strong. Technological improvements with traditional ES cell microinjections have resulted in embryos which are 100% derived from the donor, not receipient, cells. Thus the first mice born are true clones of the source ES cells.
Thanks!
My url: www.biotechnology-genetic-humancells.blo…
I also invite people to use my links and read more.
WOW! I am glad I found this website!
Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells is an alternative methods for studying diseases that are more robust and better simulate how the disease develops in humans. The concerns expressed regarding chimerism may be a bit strong. Technological improvements with traditional ES cell microinjections have resulted in embryos which are 100% derived from the donor, not receipient, cells. Thus the first mice born are true clones of the source ES cells.
Thanks!
My url: www.biotechnology-genetic-humancells.blo…
I also invite people to use my links and read more.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (111) RSS