Redstate

> All of the material for making a human being is in the embryo,
> every single last bit of it, and the process is set in motion
> by fertilization.

By this line of reasoning, would you advocate making it illegal to produce an embryo that you don't ensure becomes fertilized?

What about making contraception illegal?

Not trying to be argumentative, these are difficult questions.

may be due to you not really understanding what an embryo is:

A fertilized egg that has begun cell division, often called a pre-embryo (for pre-implantation embryo). An embryo is now defined as a later stage, i.e. at the completion of" the pre-embryonic stage, which is considered to end at about day 14. The term, embryo, is used to describe the early stages of fetal growth, from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy.

If it isn't fertilized it isn't an embryo.

Each IVF couple creates a bunch of zygotes that are never used. They are either adopted (300 out of 300,000) or trashed (many) when their useful lifetime is up (my understanding of this is that you can only keep them in liquid nitrogen for so long).

So, at THIS point in time, each IVF couple is guaranteeing the production of embryos that will be destroyed. It is nice to think that the embryos could be adopted, but it isn't happening and I haven't seen a call here for people to not have their own babies and to adopt the embryos.

Perhaps someone would like to make this a call for action?

We don't waste valuable resources on unwinnable fights.

Thanks for playing.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

are you saying the facts are different than what I have posted? I happen to be a Developmental Biologist, while not focusing on humans, I'm pretty sure my facts are all correct.

Period.

I come from a family of microbiologists and engineers, one of the former of whom is a human developmental biologist. I'm the black sheep of the family and dropped biochem at the start of my senior year. So watch the 'tude.

In answer to your specific question, no, that is not what I'm saying. Reread the last question you asked in your penultimate post, then read my response. Ponder. Savor.

Good luck.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I come from a family of coal miners, doesn't mean I know more than a few catchy comments about the grades of soft coal.

As for tude, I think that all started your way bub, so why don't you back off before you go spouting off advice to others.

If I reread all of your mediocre posts, I assume what your saying is that RedState doesn't try actions in which they are unlikely to succeed. And, that having IVF embryos adopted is one of those actions. So, you would say that the IVF embryos are destined for the trash can. Which begs the question, why not use them for a useful purpose?

That was a particularly unfortunate turn of events. The line of argument you've used there comes very close to "chickenhawking," i.e. arguing that if one is not, or has not already, volunteered for active duty, than one has no room to argue in favor of a certain war. Be aware that we ban 'chickenhawkers' on sight.

In the end the dispute you are having is the Eternal Struggle between expedience or pragmatism and adherence to principle. There really is no need to drag 'chickenhawking' into that; in fact it may appear to be an act of bad faith.

Short version: find another argument.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

you said that fighting for IVF embryos to be adopted is a losing fight, not me. It seems to me you are not arguing for the war to save embryos, but are saying the war cannot be won!!!

All I'm saying is that if this is the war people want to fight, then maybe a bigger deal should be made of it. How many people had ever heard of the snowflake babies before Bush brought them out to parade around? I hadn't and this is a topic I find fairly interesting. Surely, the President could call for Republicans to show their support of this position by adopting these embryos? I mean, isn't that a given?

you said that fighting for IVF embryos to be adopted is a losing fight

I said nothing of the sort. You have me confused with someone else. I'm the guy who warned you that we ban chickenhawkers.

Surely, the President could call for Republicans to

I see you decided to pursue the chickenhawking. We wish you well in your future endeavors.

Which is not to say that the President should not encourage Americans — all Americans — to consider adopting such babies. In fact he did so. You know that, yet you proceeded in bad faith.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

As for tude, I think that all started your way bub, so why don't you back off before you go spouting off advice to others.

You'd think wrong, and you'd miss one of the elements of my job.

If I reread all of your mediocre posts, I assume what your saying is that RedState doesn't try actions in which they are unlikely to succeed. And, that having IVF embryos adopted is one of those actions.

You're so close. You really should have spent more time paying attention in English 101.

Which begs the question, why not use them for a useful purpose?

For precisely the same reason that we don't run experiments on death row inmates.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Since four-cell embryos are equated here with death row inmates, and you are against the death of four-cell embryos, then you must be against the death of death row inmates.

Unless you are a hypocrite.

one of the most unintentionally hillarious extrapolations I've read in my nearly 2-years at RedState.

You wouldn't happen to be related to Wile E. Coyote, would you?

Just asking.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

But I support the Thomas' principled opposition on this issue (especially if the research is federally funded) for one relatively simple reason: if you think back just two years, there were people running for the Vice Presidency of this country who were telling people on campaign stops that they were going to "get up out of those wheelchairs and walk again." And in that op-ed piece, Kinsley made it sound as if the ethical case against using embryonic stem cells and funding the destruction of embryos with federal money was a no-brainer, a simple and clear decision, like flipping a lightswitch. This is not the way to advocate for the expansion of research that deals directly with the most fundamental and transcendental aspects of human life; they are serious questions that deserve to be thought through completely before we commit to the research.

You can never go back once you've started, and yes, my position has changed on this issue in the past three years. I will only be satisfied when all of the ethical objections to the process have been given a fair hearing, and I'm not interested in taking shortcuts and making glib rationalizations and comparisons to mosquitos.

As Leon writes in RedHot, it may be that this new technique is the best we can hope for. But that isn't clear yet: it's a speculation that people are making, in some cases to try to bring this wrenching issue to a premature conclusion and just get on with it. I reject that kind of thinking now.

Before the United States embarks upon this research with federal money, it owes it to humanity to ensure that we've thought the issue through to the end, and done everything possible to avoid the destruction of innocent human life for the purposes of scientific advancement. Is that inconsistent with some of the things we already do? Probably. But to me that is no excuse for adding to the list another thing we've done without thinking it through.

Just my $0.02.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

I should probably reiterate my abortion stance because I think that it would help explain why I think that this is such an easy issue, politically. I believe that legal rights should only start to accrue once the human being has a heartbeat (about 16 days post-conception, I believe.) Since the expiration of one's heartbeat is how we measure one's death - which is where one's legal rights cease - it makes the most sense to me that one's rights should start to accrue once there is a heartbeat present. At this point, I don't think you get the right to "live," but I do think that the right to not be murdered is appropriate.

The only exception would be the life of the mother (you are allowed to meet deadly force with deadly force in every state, I believe.) After all, who doesn't know 16 days later if she has been raped or had an occurrence of incest?

Before the human being in the fetal stage of development has a heartbeat, I believe it is immoral to destroy it - but we should not outlaw all immoral behavior. Drawing lines where immoral behavior should be legally either acceptable or unacceptable is tricky. Conception and heartbeat seem to be the two most rational events to draw them at in this debate because of their legal significance in later stages of human life in our legal system. Birth has a much weaker legal case, I believe. We measure our lives from the date born - which has significance because age does confer certain rights - but that is simply because it's a definite, undisputable date. Whereas we don't always know exactly what date we were conceived - and it would definitely be disputable.

Besides that, the rights that we confer with age (drinking, smoking, voting) are minor compared with the issues that The Heartbeat Rule deals with - issues of life and death. And regardless of what side one takes, that is exactly what we're dealing with in the abortion debate.

So, under this rule, embryonic stem cell research should not be made illegal, I believe. It should, however, not be funded by any government because it is still absolutely, unequivocally immoral. To me, that'd be akin to federally subsidized hotel rooms for adulterers - except far more outrageous.

If Roe is ever overturned, I think that this "Hearthbeat Rule" + banning all federal funding for the destruction of human life at any stage of development (heartbeat or not) is what every state legislature in the country should pass.

we are defining what is human based on our own arbitrary defintions.

You like heartbeats, somebody else likes brainwaves, somebody else things fertilization, others want to define it as implantation, or personhood, or viability.

The reality is that from the moment the sperm hits that egg, what is present is a human, the argument is over at what point we should deem it to have an intrinsic value-and the line is one that is set arbitrarily by other people's preferences. And if somebody is in favor of stem cell research, they are going to tweak the definition so that it permits it.

I confess that I am never comfortable with one group of humans deciding that other groups have no value.

To respond to the poster that saide "If this is the miracle that its hypers claim it is, then I see no reason why Merck, Pfizer, etc. won't be pouring all of their resources into it - which are immense, as the DNC likes to remind us."

You have to understand the from a business standpoint cures don't make the money. The incentive for these pharm companies to cure cancer, aids, parkinsons, or any disease is low to non-existant. The incentive for them to create a "treatment" product is immense. It is a similar principle as to why the private sector can't provide national security by itself. It needs contracts and guidance from the government to come up with new technologies.

What I don't get about the stem cell debate is that people would rather embryos be thrown into the garbage than to have the government fund the collection their stem cells. Talk about putting an ugly face on the Republican party and appeasing the moonbats...

Choose words that won't offend.

Call it a polite suggestion with teeth.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Re: This still entails a permutation of the taking/expolitation of innocent human life for the benefit of other human beings

Assuming consent is given by the legal guardian, how would this differ (morally) from a parent allowing a child's (even an infant's) blood to be used for a transfusion?

Because the respective entities 'blood cells' and 'embryos' are neither equivalent nor convertible. It is not the question of 'consent' that is determinative, but the fact that in the case of the blood donation, the donor is neither killed nor substantially impaired, while in the case of the embryo, it is created expressly for the purpose of exploitation, with no reasonable prospect of being permitted to follow its natural course of life.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

but they also don't permit children to donate blood, even with a parents permission (teens maybe, but I know from going to children's where dh often donated while we there, notably to save on the parking charge-you had to be 18 to donate blood-other blood banks may vary).

I think a parent can consent in a case where relatively little harm is done to the child, but I don't think a parent should be able to consent to something that would actually kill the child.

the first time I read it, I thought you were talkinga bout embryonic research itself, but I think you meant after a re read that the new method takes some cells but doesn't harm the embryo much as a transfusion takes blood but doesn't kill the donator.

If that is what you meant, disregard the above sort of. Blood donation is still a bad comparison though, because most banks won't let kids donate.

But you could maybe compare it to a bone marrow or kidney donation. Although, even in these cases, I think the child should have some say in whether the donation occurs, which isnt' the case with embryos.

perhaps I should have used bone marrow donorship instead, which is allowed of children with parental permission, and which is a much riskier and more involved procedure. There have been some instances too of parents who have deliberately conceived a second child to provide a tissue match for an child with leukemia or aplastic anemia. (Which is understanably constroversial, though when the result is a saved child's life it is hard to condemn.) By the way I do think we are assuming here for the sake of argument that this new technique is as non-destructive as it is claimed to be: that it does not destroy embryos. And I should perhaps go on record as saying I find this whole business of embryo manipulation rather queasy, though I find it impossible to articulate a verbal rule that would not also interdict blood transfusions, organ donation, bone marrow transplants etc, which I do not have moral problems with at all.

That embryonic stem cells have been, so far, a total dead end.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Interesting choice of words, that.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Believe it or not, embryos are just a bunch of identical cells for awhile. If you take some out, the others fill in. No mutilation, no damage, no fatalities.

Adult stem cells are limited.

Embryos only last in the clinic for a limited time, if you don't trash them, you still can't use them - ever.

we don't really know that. You can assert it as fact all you wish but if we knew that then Nature would not have printed the story as it would not have been top tier research.

As the embryos used in the experiments chronicled in Nature were discarded we have no way of knowing what the impact would have been upon that child.

So to be fair here the best you can say is that we don't know what, if any, effect this procedure will have.

The technique is similar to that used for preimplantation
genetic diagnosis, an option during
in vitro fertilization (IVF) in which a single
cell is extracted from an embryo and tested
for genetic disorders. Last year, a team led by
Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology in
Worcester, Massachusetts, showed that single
cells extracted from mouse embryos in this way
could be grown into stem-cell lines (Y. Chung
et al. Nature 439, 216–219; 2006).

In IVF, a couple with a risk for sickle cell (as an example) can fertilize a dozen eggs, remove one or two cells from each at this stage, test for sickle cell, then implant those have low risk for sickle cell. Not a new technique (removing cells), just a new treatment for the removed cells.

only speaking English and sitting on scientific IRB that the operative word here is "similiar." Similar doesn't mean the same. Clipping your fingernails is similar in a lot of respects to amputating a finger, I don't think we'd disagree that using the procedure for the former is a good idea when doing the latter.

And you do see the part here where they don't claim that a child produced after this procedure is guaranteed to not be harmed? Right? There is a difference between a child and mouse stem cell lines.

And don't condescend to me, okay. But if you do, just show me the courtesy of condescending to the point I'm making not something that is complete irrelevant to the discussion.

So, in some way this could be different enough to cause problems. I don't see how, but in science there are always outliers. Like those guys in Europe that took micro, ultra, low doses of a new drug and ended up having their heads nearly explode, even though all the animal tests were fine at mega-high doses.

So, sure, similar means similar not identical. BTW, they do remove the cells in IVF genetic testing, then raise normal children from those embryos, so it doesn't seem as different as clipping fingernails and amputating the finger. Perhaps you could expand on what the differences are?

where they test for genetic defects the child is substantially larger than the size represented in this study.

Preimplantation is done at the same stage as this procedure.

Other tests are done following implantation, which is what I think you mean.

In the experiment,
the embryos were dismantled cell by cell;
but other embryos should survive the extraction
of a single cell, just as they do in preimplantation
genetic diagnosis.

They did start out with a bit of a hammer approach, using every cell. But, what they are saying is that it should work by taking out ONE cell. There is no question that taking out one cell and raising the embryo will occur normally, it is already done. The question is whether the one cell that is removed will survive and create an embryonic stem cell.

Believe it or not, embryos are just a bunch of identical cells for awhile. If you take some out, the others fill in. No mutilation, no damage, no fatalities.

This is rank sophistry. At some level of reproduction, the cells become too specialized to be substituted; and as we're not yet at the stage where these post-sliced embryos have been brought to term, this is merely an educated guess, at best.

Adult stem cells are limited.

So are embryonic stem cells. So are all cells. Did you have a point?

Embryos only last in the clinic for a limited time, if you don't trash them, you still can't use them - ever.

Death row inmates don't keep forever. If you don't use them, they'll still go bad at some point.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Cells have been removed from embryos before and then they were brought to term, so while there could be a difference that would cause mutilation, it would appear unlikely. That's all I'm saying, it appears unlikely based on similar tests already performed.

Embryonic cells are much less limited, you just said this one paragraph up:
At some level of reproduction, the cells become too specialized to be substituted

And, the death row comment I just don't get.

Cells have been removed from embryos before and then they were brought to term, so while there could be a difference that would cause mutilation, it would appear unlikely. That's all I'm saying, it appears unlikely based on similar tests already performed.

That's more accurate.

Embryonic cells are much less limited, you just said this one paragraph up:
At some level of reproduction, the cells become too specialized to be substituted

Actually, it appears we can make adult stem cells pluri- or even totipotent. It just takes an extra step.

Second, I was making a broader point.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

It isn't new to take out cells, just to create stem cells from them.

cell research is often ignored, and there has been a lot of proggress in the area of adult-I am not sure how far cord blood research has moved.

transplants are very useful in treating many types of cancer after high dose chemotherapy has been used.
It is my understanding that if there are no related donor matches, cord blood transplants are just as desirable, if not more so, than an unrelated donor match. Amazing stuff,if you think about it. And much easier to justify morally.

In a perfect world all those leftover IVF embryos would be adopted, so there would be no waste. The reality is that embryos are being canned every day. So, I too have a problem with throwing them into the trash because they are no longer usable for IVF, instead of using them to help those most in need.

I don't agree with you that a perfect world would try to create as much humans as possible. We aren't even taking care of the least among us. But that is a different argument.

The truth is Bush's snowflake program was a failure. And the reality is the real choice is between throwing away embryos or using them for research.
So I just can't imagine where a pro-lifer gets off thinking throwing them away is better than the government funding research for stem cells.

We aren't even taking care of the least among us.

No, we're slicing and dicing them for research purposes, and/or throwing them away.

So I just can't imagine where a pro-lifer gets off thinking throwing them away is better than the government funding research for stem cells.

It amazes me how much data we could draw from death row inmates -- who are, after all, only going to be thrown away otherwise -- and yet we have fundamentalists raging about human experimentation. I can't imagine where they get off.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

"It amazes me how much data we could draw from death row inmates -- who are, after all, only going to be thrown away otherwise -- and yet we have fundamentalists raging about human experimentation. I can't imagine where they get off."

This is not the issue at hand. Death row inmates are disposed of by the government. And the government is willing to let Embryos be thrown away that otherwise could be used for research.

No one has answered my question. Just a lot of self-rietousness.

It would be ok.

Your questions have been answered. I'm sorry you're too slow to catch that.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Than experimented upon. Quite simply put this is about lines. The lines we are willing to cross and those we are not. The possibility of producing humans for particular purposes whether it be spare parts or to fill a particular role in society has vast implications. To perform such alteration on a human that by their vary nature can't consent is rather monstrous.

Think about the posibillities implied by this technology. One of the weak links is the mechanical womb. Why not just engineer an embryo to just perform this function. Seeing as the embryos at early stages are undifferentiated sexually the sex wouldnt matter. The same could be sade for producing humans that are little more than organic robots or citizens whose intelligence is adjusted even before they are born.

Your handle implies youre a libertarian. How can you have liberty in a society where free will has been destroyed ? What a cold irony it would be to have fought world war II, Korea, Vietnam, and the rest of the cold war, to preserve liberty only to throw it away in pursuit of technological advancement.

I would much rather have the embryos destroyed...Than experimented upon. The possibility of producing humans for particular purposes whether it be spare parts or to fill a particular role in society has vast implications.

In IVF humans are produced to create a new baby, but there are always leftover embryos that are destroyed. So, you're against IVF, right?

It imitates a natural process. The purpose and intent is to produce a child that is both wanted and has a better than average shot of being well taken care of. The goal is noble.

Creating an embryo just to play with it is intensely abhorent. Its probably not up there in your conciousness but you were once an embryo yourself. How would you feel if you didn't have eyes because someone borrowed a couple of cells ? Or lets say someone decided that roadside garbage pickers would be in short supply and modified you accordingly.

Lets go further. If you are willing to experiment on embryos why not old people ? stupid people ? ugly people ? people in groups you don't like, children under 3 ?

This is why the use of experimental data collected by the nazis is controversial. It was obtained by devaluing human life and individuality. Using it validates the process by which it was obtained and lowers the bar in the future.

I don't mean to be glib or condescending. I understand your point about the slippery slope. But please consider that you are drawing an extremely fine line here: namely that it's okay to destroy embryo's but not to experiment on them because that that could lead to some serious ethical problems down the road.

Please also consider that:

(a) this line may become blurrier in your mind when presented with a 2 year-old whose body is being ravaged by a mysterious illness which could (even if it is a small likelihood) be treated more effectively if we were willing to wade into the ethical muck and remove some of these handcuffs from medical researchers. I'm sorry to use such a vivid picture here, clearly we have to draw the line somewhere--I'm just trying to make the point that real lives are in the balance so it is worth reconsidering where the line should be.

and

(b) that's going to be a very difficult viewpoint to sell to most of the voting public (many of whom have been touched by a tradegy where medical science was not yet advanced enough to treat a loved one)--from a purely pragmatic view, is this the *one* issue you want America to be thinking about when they step into the voting booth?

Whenever I hear someone speak of the evils of technology, I reply "thats well and good but I would be dead without it".

There is a false dichotomy in your choices. While politically it may be possible to frame the discussion that way it isn't in any way reflective of reality. The if "medical technology were more advanced: is no different than if "the child wasn't ill" or if we had a magic wand. If you are going to use that type of argument you can justify anything and you don't even need have any reasonable expectation of results. Chris reeve is the classic example. If al Gore was elected the poor man would not have fared any better.

I don't think it is such a hard sell to the voting public yet. Most voter still have values and an appreciation that morals and values define the value of human existence.

A funny aside note ask yourself how many people who are members of PETA are pro choice ?

> If you are going to use that type of argument you can justify
> anything and you don't even need have any reasonable
> expectation of results. Chris reeve is the classic example. If
> al Gore was elected the poor man would not have fared any
> better.

Christopher Reever would not have fared any better. But someone with a similar ailment 20 years from now might (in the very narrow sense of stem cell research). Medicine comes from medical research. Constraining medical research can prevent medical discovery--it's that simple. If somebody had decided in the 30's that penicillin was immoral for some reason and had banned research on it--well then people would have suffered and died who would not otherwise. I don't mean to trivialize the real ethical concerns about this particular issue, but my point is that actions have consequences. It is partially within the control of the people who view this forum whether sick people will someday, somehow, benefit from research on embryonic stem cells.

There's no guarantee that research on embryonic stem cells will lead anywhere. There was never any guarantee about penicillin either. It's very easy to call that an outrageous hypothetical and then fall back on a safe ethical position. It's much harder to apply some foresight and weigh the potential benefits against the ethical dilemma. As you said, we live in a world built by technological achievement. Mankind existed for thousands of years before it figured out that we are better served by allowing scientists to ply their craft than by burning them for witchcraft whenever they wander into some ethically murky area. Obviously we have to draw the line somewhere--it just seems like some people here have a very soft trigger on the line-drawing.

Penicillin however didn't involve moral or ethical questions, just financial ones. There is also the case of the unintended consequence of superbugs arising due to the use of antibiotics.

On the Chris Reeve walking issue, yes someone down the road might very well benefit from stem cell research. The counter to that is I am certain there are people now that would benefit from coerced human experimentation.

If somebody had decided in the 30's that penicillin was immoral for some reason and had banned research on it

I don't get it. Has somebody banned research on stem cells? Who was that, and when did it happen?

While we're at it, who funded the development of Penicillin?

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

I don't agree with you that a perfect world would try to create as much humans as possible. We aren't even taking care of the least among us. But that is a different argument.

How "l1bertarian" of you. I guess the Chinese have the libertarianism thing down to a science with their one child policy.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Can someone explain to me how it is possible to for me (a person who believes taking stems cells from an embryo for research is above throwing those embryos in the garbage) to even begin to have a debate with a staunch anti-embryonic stem cell research person.

That sentence is a heckuva good way to answer your own question.

I have respect for opposing viewpoints, and don't mean to offend anyone but how I could I begin to discuss revelations like the one at hand (the new technique where the embryo doesn't have to be destroyed) with a person who thinks we should throw away embryos instead of performing research on them.

The bad thing about straw is that it burns.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

nt