ITT it's stem cell research debate!
I don't see anything wrong with harvesting dead human parasites and processing them for research material. After all, cancer cell lineages have been in use for decades, so what's wrong with using some other endogenous parasite for research?
I don't even know what "stem cells" means, and I don't think anybody else does either.
It's like the Big Bang, only for actual life
Stem cells is the Holy Yogurt! :)
Just apply some where the body part is missing or damaged, and poof! A new body part.
Recipe: mix newly born male Republican Christian babies in a big pot and stir. Oh and don't forget to add "Chemical X"!
Can also be used to create PowerPuff Girls and Frankensteiners, and to regrow hair.
;P
More seriously:
"A team of Korean researchers reported on November 25, 2004, that they had transplanted multi-potent adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood to a patient suffering from a spinal cord injury and she can now walk on her own, with difficulty."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells
Basically, because science knows fuck-all about the immune system of the body, scientists use immature cells to trick the body to accept these. Problem is, those kinds of cells are hard to find.
Scientists should rather work more on understanding the immune system, methinks.
Truth is, scientists know fuck-all about life. We can decode DNA into amino acid sequences but don't know how to predict their foldings. We know the life cycle of cells, but we don't know how this is regulated.
Stem cells are pluripotent. Each major type of cell in the body, white blood cells, bone cells, neural cells, muscle cells, they all derive from a type of stem cell. However those stem cells have stem cells themselves, which are only found in the earliest stages of developing embryos of living critters. The neat thing is, you don't have to tell these early cells what to do, you just put them near mature cells and they change as necessary and follow the DNA plan through means we don't understand.
We don't understand how aspirin, acetaminophen, or ibuprofen work, but we use those to treat pain and inflammation anyway. Just because we don't fully understand a treatment isn't a reason to not use it, particularly if the treatment is shown to have few deleterious side effects.
And the bullshit about murder is just that, it's bullshit.
> And the bullshit about murder is just that, it's bullshit.
Well, that's because in order to understand life as a sequence which begins at a point X which is definable and ends at a point Y which is also definable, one has to come up with more or less arbitrary definitions for X. Y is pretty clear, death can be defined pretty well. But if you want to define X, i.e. the beginning of life you get into logical problems of circularity or infinite regress.
It would be neat if we could do without a definition of the beginning of individual life, but that's impractical for any pragmatic theoretical approach.
>death can be defined pretty well.
It can? Well then there is your answer to life.
A living thing is something that's not death - by definition. :)
So what's the definition? Brain activity?
> A living thing is something that's not dead - by definition. :)
That's not enough, though. While an individual's finity can be well defined, the reverse does not hold neccessarily to be true. By any logic, you can always go one step back further.
So, as much as death can be defined and life is death's opposite, life cannot be defined.
This is not taking into regard the differences between individual, general and principal dispositions, though, so it's naturally a crude, yet adequate formulation of the problem.
Actually, Death isn't clear-cut at all.
There are cells still alive after all brain activity has ceased.
And if maggots eat those living cells, does it mean that they take over the cell's livingness? Shall we worship those maggots now? No. One has to draw the line somewhere. A house (body) made out of bricks (cells) from another house isn't the same house.
Inversely, the first laid brick of a future house isn't a house yet. Even when the house is fully built, if there are no owners inside then the house is not alive (a stillborn baby).
> Actually, Death isn't clear-cut at all.
I said: The death of an individual.
Ok then it's easy. Born = the beginning of an individual life.
So it wouldn't be murder until it popped out of its mother's vagina?
>>13
I think that's the idea, yes.
The compassionate conservatives would have us believe that life begins at conception. A mammalian embryo depends upon its "host" mother for all of its existence, and cannot survive independently. Most importantly, it cannot be transferred to another host and survive. This last point is the difference between an exogenous and endogenous parasite -- exogenous parasites don't care what host they have, as long as it's compatible. Endogenous parasites are born from the host, and are dependent on that particular host with no exceptions. So cancer is an endogenous parasite, since you can't transfer cancer from one human (or any other animal) to another. Mammalian embryos are essentially endogenous parasites. They have different DNA from the host, as do cancer cells, but they depend on that particular host for existence. They are like nonfunctional organs which extract nutrients from the host and provide nothing in return, and can't be considered as an individual being. After birth they are physically independent of the host mother, and can be treated as a separate living being. So life as an individual can't begin at conception, since it's just a parasitical organ. It's only individual when it's born. And a human has the fundamental right (if you accept rights) to do whatever it wants to its body, including rid itself of unwanted portions of its body.
By this argument, other parasites can be individual beings because they are separable and transferrable. Free human cells, eg white blood cells, are not individual beings because they depend on the entire human organism for survival. They can be separated, but they die after a while and cannot replicate. Bacteria which can replicate and be independent of a human are certainly individual beings. Cancers can be taken out of the human body and cultured in a "fake" human environment, and by dint of their DNA they can replicate themselves, but you can't transfer them into another human successfully. Same goes for embryos. So they're not individuals, even though you can take them out of the body and put them on artificial life support.
Note that the argument in >>14 adresses two concepts, "life" and "individual". The concept of life is addressed fairly well at http://en.wikipedia.org/Life . The individual concept here is a biological application of metaphysical ideas of individuality, trying to find a dividing line between two separate living things. Some biologists don't believe that such a thing as an "individual" exists, since all life seems to be interdependent. I argue that it does, since we can make nearly everything necessary for our continued existence artificially (from nonliving substances and machines), although at such a high cost that it's cheaper to exploit other living things instead.
So back to stem cells, the arguments in >>14,15 then boil down to the point that stem cells are alive but not individual. They are harvested from portions of a human body which are alive but not individual. And since they come from a human which is an individual, the only person responsible for their disposal is the person from whence they came. Given that person's consent, the scientists may do what they like. Also, murder involves the killing of an individual, not a living thing. Cutting off someone's arm isn't murder, nor is the cutting out of an embryo.
Note that there's no GOD in any of this. It's argued from non-religious philosophy and science.
BTW, we're talking about "embryonic stem cells" here, not the ones found in bone marrow, etc.
zOMG, I can't believe people actaully talk about the "When does life/individuality begin?" question seriously.
Well, if you don't, then the nutjobs from the last centuries take over automatically.
>>18
It's not something you can get a paying job to do, unless you're a notorious philosopher. But it's still important to think about. And finding answers to the unanswerable questions is what the legal system is about, so if you don't think about them then someone else will, and you may not like the results.
It's that whole damn semanticism again. Individual person (cognizant uniqueness) versus Individual cell(s) (minimally distinct organism) versus Individual entity (atomic sub-structure)
Since practically every cell that makes up the human body is a conglomeration of sub-entities that have parasitically joined forces (you may call it symbiosis, if you you like) and the whole of the human unit also employs symbiotic relationships with non-joined organisms (gut bacteria), the distinction is even more blurry.
Suffice to say, if the conglomeration of cells that make up the organism cannot survive without forced scientific intervention, then it is probably not alive.
Also, if the conglomeration of cells cannot recognize "as a whole", any change in stasis, then it is not cognizant.
putting those last two statements together, stem cells are not alive. Blastocysts are surely not alive as well. And, just to stir the pot even more, a foetus is not alive during the 1st trimester, and is only marginally capable during the late 2nd and early 3rd.
> Suffice to say, if the conglomeration of cells that make up the organism cannot survive without forced scientific intervention, then it is probably not alive.
So people with severe physical handicaps, in need of constant medical care, are also not alive?
> And, just to stir the pot even more, a foetus is not alive during the 1st trimester, and is only marginally capable during the late 2nd and early 3rd.
Yeah, so your definition is bullshit and not suffice in any way. Back to semanticism school with you!
> people with sevee physical handicaps [blah blah blah]
Terry Schivo? Dead. Christopher Reeves? Dying, and dead.
However these are two examples of people that were once alive and through accident became un-living.
I"m pointing out how I determine what constitutes the beginnings of life here, not how to declare somebody a brick.
( But, yes, if a foetus is set free from the womb with such defects as it cannot survive without constant scientific intervention, then it surely is as good as dead. And it is your responsibility to ease its transition from one phase to the other. But that's a completely different argument and a whole new thread. )
And notice my use of the phrase "forced scientific intervention" as opposed to "constant medical care" -- There is an implied order of magnitude difference between the two.
Oh, and speaking of bricks? Terri Schiavo? Dead.
> But that's a completely different argument and a whole new thread.
No, it's not.
> There is an implied order of magnitude difference between the two.
Care to explicate it, smartass?
> Terry Schivo? Dead. Christopher Reeves? Dying, and dead.
Yeah, you're very lol and all that
>>24 is DQN.
>>25 is DQN
ttp://www.theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=2753
Not surprising at all, yet another liar with no ethics.
This guy should win Ig® Nobel prize.
>>27
Hwang Faked Stem Cell Research
ttp://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200512/kt2005121523572111780.htm
It's just so Korean...
uwaahh~~This thread has gone to waste....(-_-;;). But, even now, with nuclear transplant procedures, scientists don't have to work with what could be considered "living human beings". Rather, a nucleus from, say, a skin cell, is injected into a donor cell without a nucleus. Thus, when researchers test embryonic stem cells, they are not testing on "potential humans". Also, germline cells provide so much more oppportunities than adult stem cells because they possess pluripotency, the ability to develop into any type of cell. They can also be cultured into infinite stem cell lines whereas adult stem cells appear only when the body is severely injured or under extreme stress. It's a waste of human life, if rejected eggs from abortion clinics are just poured down the drain despite the fact that they could be used to advance medicinal science. Plus, through experience with embryonic stem cells, we can better define the borderline between bioethics and simply using science for vanity(such as producing "designer babies"). Because germline therapy affects a person genetically, couples with genetic diseases are now given a rare opportunity to have a child of their own without fears of passing on a disease. Doesn't the future potential far outweigh the risks? whew ah haha, looks like I went on rambling. I'm sorry about that.
>>29 wow, glad to see someone posting on the stem cell debate again. (^-^). I have to ask though, how do we really know if in the future "designer babies" won't be developed for vanity purposes? Sure, I see how germline therapy could help treat genetic diseases in offspring, but it could also be used to permanently alter a family's genome too. So, if a mistake were made, that mistake would continue on through future generations in that family. Get what I'm saying? So how would we guarantee that "mistakes" like that wouldn't happen to people if embryonic stem cell therapy is authorized? It's not as though we can test out germline therapy on actual humans--it's too dangerous and challenges human ethics far beyond its limits.
!!!! someone actually responded to my post! That's rare. >>30 couldn't researchers possibly test out germline therapy on our closely related chimpanzees? after all, that's the species we are most genetically similar to, and besides, we differ from them only in that one amino acid sequence is different. I won't take an idealistic stance here, and I'll admit that commercialism will probably take over germline research so that some children will have genetic advantages over others. but at least the therapy WILL STILL BE THERE for any one who requires its medicinal purposes. Think about it, formerly incurable genetically linked diseases like heart disease and sickle cell anemia, gone!
>>31 do you think so? I think embryonic stem cell research would be moving humanity too rapidly towards the point of no return. Evolution is a gradual process, taking place over millions of years. But, with germline therapy, evolution could happen in a short span of time. Is humanity morally ready for this? I think biotechnology is advancing faster than human morality. hence the many debates surrounding such controversial issues as this. I think I'll also add that sickle cell anemia, while a trying genetic disorder, also possesses its advantages, such as immunity to malaria, an excellent trait for those living in the hot central Africa area, where the sickle cell anemia trait is dominant. heh, I hate to sound too proud, but I've won this debate.
>>32 nyahaha ol geezer, you haven't won this debate yet. this is gettin fun! Are you suggesting that we stop all embryonic stem cell research, putting it to a complete standstill, and just plop back and patiently wait for human morality to catch up to its intelligence? That ain't happenin, cause humankind has never been able to fully reconcile itself. Anyways, if we completely put a standstill to research, then our knowledge in medicine and science will never get anywhere!! I loathe this old fashioned saying, but it applies-how can we know if we never try? If we fail, then at least we know it won't work, and we can try something else. The potential in germline cells is just too tantalizing! At the risk of sounding ad hominem, I'm going to say that you must be appealing to Darwinism, or survival of the fittest. So those that don't possess advantageous genetic traits, such as superior strength or immunity to certain diseases, are bound to be outcasts. What about kids with Down syndrome, who will never get a chance to be "normal"? without research, they've got no hope for the future!!
>>33 ....am I an "ol geezer" now? I see, attempting to deface my dignity. As for the accusation of being Darwinist, I must admit to that. The whole world is based on darwinism. Capitalism, education, employment, all the world is based on who's the best. It's the law of nature. Also, I must direct your argument of "possessing advantageous traits" back at yourself. While it is true that humans can possess certain "advantageous traits" that will help them go through life better, it was given naturally to them, by nature, rather than having their genomes altered genetically to be superior. With embryonic stem cell therapy, what could happen is that only the rich could afford to "design" their babies in a superior way, so that an "aristocratic hierachy" is developed, where only the rich can afford genetically enhanced offspring while the poor must live with their "normal" genomes. Is that any worse than already possessing natural genetic advantages?
>>34 (-_-;;) I slipped up....Argghh!! using my argument against me....but don't underestimate the power of youth!!
Q-(>o<)-Q....hmph. Aha! you neglect to mention any fair solutions to people with disadvantages! okay, so you just want to sit and wait for Darwinism to take place?? are all those people with genetic diseases gonna die??! or do you have a better solution to pose other than pursuing germline therapy? you've been avoiding that matter!
>>35 (-_-). I can't honestly answer that question with any supporting evidence. however, I can offer some hypothesized solutions to how we should treat those with genetic disadvantages. Why not continue to research and use what we had been using before embryonic stem cells came along? Adult stem cells. There is no need for ethical debate, nor human sacrifice. Should we not broaden our views first on adult stem cells before delving into new territory with germline cells?
>>36 ahaha this is fun! are ya getting pushed to your mind's limits? your responses get shorter and shorter. eh heh, I mentioned before that embryonic stem cells hold a lot more advantages over adult stem cells. First, they are much easier to culture and grow than adult stem cells. You must believe that adult stem cells can save lives by preventing eggs from being used for research. But embryonic stem cells can save lives too! A single embryonic stem cell line can be grown into a new organ, such as a human heart! Wouldn't that save the lives of those worthy donors who would sacrifice their hearts so another could live?
>>37 I confess I am enjoying this heated battle between you and I. But, I must also point out to you that your responses also dwindle in size, as do mine. Don't tax yourself on my account. I can see you have now taken a main stance for emotional appeal. I can easily name an alternative to "creating new organs", sich as rtansplanting animal hearts or such into people, producing a human-animal chimera, of sorts. I could elaborate on this, but this is a thread for stem cell debate, not human-animal amalgams. I'll also add that the organ creation is still an untrodden territory and it holds its dangers, where, for example, bone shards grow in a newly transplanted kidney.
>>38 much as i am enjoying this battle of the minds, I concede. I'm ready to drop off to bed, plus I got exams tomorrow. kuroh-man, mind continuing this debate after later tomorrow after exams?
>>39 kuroh "man", am I now? I too am fatigued, though I am sure I would have held victory over you had this argument continued. After all, we can see who has more mental endurance and willpower now, can't we? Hmm. but I do not mind continuing later on, for this has been most enjoyable. In addition I firmly believe this thread will be waiting patiently for tomorrow, seeing as how desolate it was before today.
>>40 lies.
Don't you people understand? Sometimes we must sacrifice a few lives to save countless more.
Are they really "lives" though. I can't say that something I can hardly see counts as human and equal to someone with Lou Gherigs disease.
I think this should be decided by sick people who need treatment and doctors -- people who need this stuff.
> Are they really "lives" though.
should we really take a chance about something like that, though?
On the one hand, we can save a life. On the other hand, we might... what, exactly? What chance are we taking here?
Well, considering that we can't say the answer is a definate YES, and this stuff can save tens of thousands of people, maybe we could take a chance.
It seems like with most alt-meds, and enviro-hippyism, we're perfectly comfortable letting people suffer and possibly die cause the thing we think is going to save them is "ickypants". Thinking that it "might be life" just isn't good enough. You have to prove it. At least that's what I think.
>>46
i'm not really sure that you're alive. would it be okay for me to kill you if it might save tens of thousands of people?
what if all of those people happen to be muslim extremists who want to kill millions of other people?
> i'm not really sure that you're alive.
Yes, you are. Playing stupid is no way to make an argument. Please try again.
Philosophical wanking. It has no place in a debate about the fates of actual lives.
I am alive. I flip you on your back for massive damage!
But what I mean by what I said is that stem cells are no different than skin cells or liver cells except in that they haven't differentiated yet. And actually, there may be ways to get stem cells and keep the embryo. So you have to show me two things, 1) The stem cells are human, and 2) they couldn't ever possibly be gotten without harming an embryo.
But what we rich healthy people love to do is draw "ethical" lines around stuff that doesn't effect us. It sounds bad, so it should be banned. But it's easy to do because we <i>don't</i> need it. It probably isn't going to affect either one of us. We're young, we don't have a debilitating disease, we aren't needing our nerve cells regrown, or anything of the sort. We can piss away the promise fearlessly -- not because we're concerned about "ethics", but because WE DON'T NEED IT. I think if it was our family that needed some stem cells, we wouldn't be having this debate. We'd be gung-ho and donating to the stem-cell research fund.
<i>Is your religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk?</i> -- It from Dune, but I think it's pretty true here. We're risking nothing, it's a free "feel-good" type moral argument, made for internet brownie points and showing off our best beard stroking. Show me someone on 4-chan who's willing to die rather than use stem cells. That would mean something.
Or for that matter, prove to me that a patch of cells best viewed under a microscope is equivelent to your mother.
> And actually, there may be ways to get stem cells and keep the embryo.
"So far, the techniques have not yet produced any unharmed donor embryos, as the original donor embryos were completely dismantled in the experiment." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell)
> But what we rich healthy people love to do is draw "ethical" lines around stuff that doesn't effect us.
i'd laugh if that wasn't so sad. i'm definitely not rich, and as for healthy... let's not even go there.
To shut-down the stupid-ass argument that has been going on >>46-50...
>i'm not really sure that you're alive. would it be okay for me to kill you if it might save tens of thousands of people?
If you know that you're killing someone, then it's murder you dumbfuck. Whether >>46 is alive or not doesn't matter.
>what if all of those people happen to be muslim extremists who want to kill millions of other people?
That's totally irrelevant on top of being a different debate, namely prevention versus punishment.
pointless verbal dysentery of the faux altruistic type has no place in science. pointless religious and moral dribblings over points of contention that thusfar no one has made any hard conclusions in is just that, pointless.
would you waste a year, a decade, a century proving that these biological constructs that are nothing more then unpropogated lumps of non-differentiated tissue at that level that are going to be sacrificed anyway are alive in the psychological, emotional or moral sense or put these findings to good work saving millions of lives that might one day even be yours or the life of someone you love?
i'm not without sympathy to what some consider "innocent" lives, but we're speaking of things that are no more alive or self aware then your little finger versus millions of people who Are aware, alive, suffering and dying while this quasi-religious waffling goes on. i'm a proponent of just because you Can do something doesn't mean you Should, but there stands an oppertunity to do something no religion, no political body and no altruistic debate has ever managed; save hundreds of thousands or millions of lives. why not take the chance and advance the science knowing that one day these cells can be cultivated without harvesting of this type?
I agree. Lets see what's here and then we have to fight about. I have no answer about the life of 3-celled zygotes, most of which will get flushed down the toilet, but the ability to save a million people is definately good.
Since I can't prove the zygotes have a worth equal to a mans, I say save the people. It seems like the best "default" answer. You don't sentance people to death unless you have a damn damn good reason.
>>54-55
philosophical wankery which has no place in a scientific debate.
Well, no, it's called "making a decision" Wankery is just a fun side activity.
>>57
no one is really going to take action based on a decision made by a bunch of losers on an internet message board. this entire thread is "just a fun side activity."
>>56 is just bitter about >>50, and thinks he can just repeat the statement whereever he likes to defang it.
However, it doesn't work that way. >>49 was actual, real wankery - "But we can't be sure" about things we are, for all intents and purposes, 100% sure about (and that don't really matter anyway). >>54-55 are reasoned arguments based on the principle of least suffering. You can argue against that principle if you want, but invoking it as anything but philosophical wankery.