• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Makes a Person? (1 Viewer)

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This article (I have taken a small piece of interest to place here), in my mind defines the Abortion debate pretty damn well. As with us all, I am posting information that backs up my own personal understanding of the issue, and do not claim it has all the answers. I would however, Hope people from both sides of the Isle read this with an open mind, and discuss the Data, rather than the emotions. To my mind, this is by far the most even handed explanation I have ever seen on the topic, and deserves serious discussion, which unfortunately is sorely missing in this debate.

"If you deliberately kill a human being, it's called murder. If you deliberately kill a chimpanzee--biologically, our closest relative, sharing 99.6 percent of our active genes--whatever else it is, it's not murder. To date, murder uniquely applies to killing human beings. Therefore, the question of when personhood (or, if we like, ensoulment) arises is key to the abortion debate. When does the fetus become human? When do distinct and characteristic human qualities emerge?

We recognize that specifying a precise moment will overlook individual differences. Therefore, if we must draw a line, it ought to be drawn conservatively--that is, on the early side. There are people who object to having to set some numerical limit, and we share their disquiet; but if there is to be a law on this matter, and it is to effect some useful compromise between the two absolutist positions, it must specify, at least roughly, a time of transition to personhood.

Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The momentous meeting of sperm and egg generally occurs in one of the two fallopian tubes. One cell becomes two, two become four, and so on—an exponentiation of base-2 arithmetic. By the tenth day the fertilized egg has become a kind of hollow sphere wandering off to another realm: the womb. It destroys tissue in its path. It sucks blood from capillaries. It bathes itself in maternal blood, from which it extracts oxygen and nutrients. It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus.

# By the third week, around the time of the first missed menstrual period, the forming embryo is about 2 millimeters long and is developing various body parts. Only at this stage does it begin to be dependent on a rudimentary placenta. It looks a little like a segmented worm.

# By the end of the fourth week, it's about 5 millimeters (about 1/5 inch) long. It's recognizable now as a vertebrate, its tube-shaped heart is beginning to beat, something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail. It looks rather like a newt or a tadpole. This is the end of the first month after conception.

# By the fifth week, the gross divisions of the brain can be distinguished. What will later develop into eyes are apparent, and little buds appear—on their way to becoming arms and legs.

# By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeteres (about ½ inch) long. The eyes are still on the side of the head, as in most animals, and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be.

# By the end of the seventh week, the tail is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be discerned (although both sexes look female). The face is mammalian but somewhat piglike.

# By the end of the eighth week, the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human. Most of the human body parts are present in their essentials. Some lower brain anatomy is well-developed. The fetus shows some reflex response to delicate stimulation.

# By the tenth week, the face has an unmistakably human cast. It is beginning to be possible to distinguish males from females. Nails and major bone structures are not apparent until the third month.

# By the fourth month, you can tell the face of one fetus from that of another. Quickening is most commonly felt in the fifth month. The bronchioles of the lungs do not begin developing until approximately the sixth month, the alveoli still later.

So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood? When its face becomes distinctly human, near the end of the first trimester? When the fetus becomes responsive to stimuli--again, at the end of the first trimester? When it becomes active enough to be felt as quickening, typically in the middle of the second trimester? When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air?

The trouble with these particular developmental milestones is not just that they're arbitrary. More troubling is the fact that none of them involves uniquely human characteristics--apart from the superficial matter of facial appearance. All animals respond to stimuli and move of their own volition. Large numbers are able to breathe. But that doesn't stop us from slaughtering them by the billions. Reflexes and motion are not what make us human.

Other animals have advantages over us--in speed, strength, endurance, climbing or burrowing skills, camouflage, sight or smell or hearing, mastery of the air or water. Our one great advantage, the secret of our success, is thought--characteristically human thought. We are able to think things through, imagine events yet to occur, figure things out. That's how we invented agriculture and civilization. Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month."



The article in its entirety can be found here, and goes into quite a bit of detail on the politics, and history of the debate.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
 
tecoyah said:
This article (I have taken a small piece of interest to place here), in my mind defines ...[snip]...pregnancy--the sixth month." [/B]


The article in its entirety can be found here, and goes into quite a bit of detail on the politics, and history of the debate.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

And the Elephant man looked like an elephant, but have we not learnt that judging by looks is flawed. Neither is it right to judge on the similarity of our DNA to chimps, since we share something like 90% of our DNA with everything that lives. We are what we are, and a human at conception is a human.

Why are you always looking for something that divides us from what we are, in order to justify killing ourselves? Unifying is greater then isolating.

Consider what you are doing in the bigger picture, you are trying to justify the killing of humans, is your effort really worth it?
 
Last edited:
tecoyah said:
This article in my mind defines the Abortion debate pretty damn well. I would however, Hope people from both sides of the Isle read this with an open mind, and discuss the Data, rather than the emotions.


"If you deliberately kill a human being, it's called murder. If you deliberately kill a chimpanzee--biologically, our closest relative, sharing 99.6 percent of our active genes--whatever else it is, it's not murder. To date, murder uniquely applies to killing human beings.
Let us assume so:
1. A(human) + B(killing) = C(murder).
2. B(chimp) + B(killing) ≠ C (murder)
100% ≠99.6%. Therefore A≠D.

tecoyah said:
Therefore, the question of when personhood (or, if we like, ensoulment) arises is key to the abortion debate.

Where did personhood (E), the more insoulment (E1) come from? There was nothing about these 2 things in the first 2 sentences.
THEREFORE is not a logical conclusion.
I can guess, the author defines .4% as personhood or soulment? In this assumption what would be the difference in genes between a chimp and a squirrel monkey – soul of the chimp?

tecoyah said:
When does the fetus become human?
When it has 100% genes, as assumed by the author in the first 3 sentences.
tecoyah said:
When do distinct and characteristic human qualities emerge?
What do you mean: genes or composing music. Here I see another definition coming from nowhere which makes me guess again.

tecoyah said:
it is to effect some useful compromise between the two absolutist positions, it must specify, at least roughly, a time of transition to personhood.
…It establishes itself as a kind of parasite on the walls of the uterus.
It is an absolutist position which has nothing to do with science. Wiki: A parasite is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life in or on the living tissue of a host organism and which causes harm to the host without immediately killing it.
1. parasite has a different genetic or whatever structure than the host.
2. It is all different from the host how it is born, how it lives, and how it dies..
3. Pregnancy cannot be considered harmful and it does not require cure or a remedy. In some anomalies, the possible harm is not in the child but in the mother – if the mother is cured and healthy – child means and makes no harm. Nobody really consider pregnancy as illness. This is my strong opinion. And this has to be debated and resolved – if somebody wants to debate, before any step further can be done.


“A kind of parasite” is a very emotional one sided position which does not have any relation to the subject or to the base definition of parasite. I cannot accept such “logic”.

And I am not interested too much in abortion issue because I have NO clue, how I would vote. Once in a while I take a look at it --- and this is what I see.
 
The law makes a person a person. There was a day when slaves weren't persons. There was a day when women and children could be traded like donkeys. Today we have feticide. Every single time people have attempted to classify other homosapiens as non-persons history has shown them to have been wrong.
 
talloulou said:
The law makes a person a person. There was a day when slaves weren't persons. There was a day when women and children could be traded like donkeys. Today we have feticide. Every single time people have attempted to classify other homosapiens as non-persons history has shown them to have been wrong.


Ooooooh. Now, this is extremely well stated. Good job. History is a great place to base an argument.
 
What is so hard to understand that a human is a human from the moment of conception. It is not canine, it is not an insect, it is a human with all the human make up a human needs to be a human. It starts a human, is never anything but a human. A Homo Sapien.

And

It is being. It exist. Whatever stage of life it is at every human being that has ever exist has been through that stage of life AS a human and not as something else.

The pro-abortion side desperately has to make the arguement that it is something else in order to justify killing that human when by all moral measures it is not justified but simply a convinence.
 
Fascinating....this experiment went 100% as I expected it to. You see, I purposefully posted an article full of Data, based on scientific observation exprecting the usual Pro-Life crowd to ignore everything in it that might place doubt on the stance. My intent with this was to evaluate the usefulness of discussing the issue here....Thank you for helping me with this.
 
tecoyah said:
Fascinating....this experiment went 100% as I expected it to. You see, I purposefully posted an article full of Data, based on scientific observation exprecting the usual Pro-Life crowd to ignore everything in it that might place doubt on the stance. My intent with this was to evaluate the usefulness of discussing the issue here....Thank you for helping me with this.

Dude, you just posted it today. Give it time.
 
tecoyah said:
tYou see, I purposefully posted an article full of Data, based on scientific observation

No, you did not. You posted an article full on unbased conclusions which do not have a slightest relations to Data in the article. You provided an emotional pseodo-scientific article which does not withstand any logic. I provided application of logic to you article. If you could point flaws in my logic I would listen, I am not prtending to be flawless, but you're reserving to a chip trick of getting out. You are pretending to be flawless.
Good luck in you life.
 
justone said:
No, you did not. You posted an article full of unbased conclusions which do not have a slightest relations to Data in the article. You provided an emotional pseodo-scientific article which does not withstand any logic. I provided application of logic to your article. If you could point out flaws in my logic I would listen, I am not pretending to be flawless, but you're reverting to a cheap trick of getting out. You are pretending to be flawless.
Good luck in your life.

I see...is that what you did. Very well.


You might note the post included a link to the article, which would have placed a new context on the snippet I actually placed here, this was done intentionally. You didnt open the link at all ....did you? Instead taking the limited information at your fingertips and reacting to it as an attack on heartfelt belief. Again....this was an expected result of my post.

You then go on to focus on the term parasite....which the author uses in passing as a scientific term to explain what the fertilized egg does in transition to the euterus. Why focus on this little word rather than the meat of the article. My point in placing this post was not a "Cheap Trick", but an evaluation of debate capability within this forum, and the reaction you gave is far from reasurring. If you wish to actually open the link and read this paper in context, we could debate the information and opinion set forth by the Authors.
My experience in here suggests you will not do so. It also points to a hesitance by some to explore the other side in any depth, based on emotional attachment to one side or another. There actually is a place in the middle where people can discuss the details of this issue.....without resorting to Sarcastic, and pointless comments on the others life.
 
tecoyah said:
You might note the post included a link to the article, which would have placed a new context on the snippet I actually placed here, this was done intentionally. You didnt open the link at all ....did you? Instead taking the limited information at your fingertips and reacting to it as an attack on heartfelt belief. Again....this was an expected result of my post.

Well I would say this, this is not a reading club, this is not the "article of the week club". If you read something and it seems something worthy of debate then post the salient parts and the issue and your views. The link is always good to post in case someone wants to verify what you post or even if they want to go and read the article. But the purpose here is not to list articles for reading per se but to debate issues. The "limited information" you posted is what YOU brought to the debate and that is what will be responded to.

Beyond that I did scan the article and when it was clear the author equated humans with lower forms of life and then made this statement " Every one of us began from a dot." proving it is not a scientifically based document I saw no need to read the entire article.
 
Stinger said:
Beyond that I did scan the article and when it was clear the author equated humans with lower forms of life and then made this statement " Every one of us began from a dot." proving it is not a scientifically based document I saw no need to read the entire article.

"Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence."

Believe it or not...the statement in context is actually based entirely on science. But regardless, the expirement unfortunately.....turned out as expected, Pity.
 
tecoyah said:
"Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence."

Fascinating.....but I refer to Dr. Seuss.....a persons a person no matter how small.
 
tecoyah said:
"Every one of us began from a dot. A fertilized egg is roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence."

Believe it or not...the statement in context is actually based entirely on science.

Believe it or not it is nothing of the sort. You begin as a one celled human which is not a dot which is an inanimate object.

Your source was nothing but a rhetorical nonsense. I know you probably think his nonsense was cute but hardly based on any scientific reasoning.

But regardless, the expirement unfortunately.....turned out as expected, Pity.

Sounds to me more like search for a desired outcome regardless that I have no idea what you were expecting posting such nonsense.
 
talloulou said:
Fascinating.....but I refer to Dr. Seuss.....a persons a person no matter how small.

A dot is a mark, an inanimate object. The article cited was full of such nonsense.
 
Stinger said:
A dot is a mark, an inanimate object. The article cited was full of such nonsense.

Are you actually so dense, that having a scientist use the language to express findings in a way that is compelling to the non-scientist seems nonsense? Maybe if we make it even more simplified you might comprehend what the intent of the statement is:

When the little Spermy and Eggy get together, they are very small. They are very tiny, like the period at the end of this sentance.

this small ( . )

That is what the bad man said.

That you are still holding on to this rediculous aspect of an article full of debatable topics, goes to further express my dissatisfaction with the mindset this piece of DP seems to use for discussion. The Abortion debate is rich in material to discuss, from law to morality, Biology to scripture, personal belief or soul existance. And here you decide to pick a statement which should be a non-Issue to anyone who has more than a fourth grade understanding of english.
This study, (and I apologize for doing so if it seems derogatory) is meant to force people to see just how shallow these discussion actually are, and show everyone the continuous duplication of the EXACT SAME DEBATE that takes place in here. The reason there is no actual debate on this subject is the endless sidetracking that people like yourself put into an otherwise viable debate thread.....and there lies the Pity.
It seems very few members actually have anything new to discuss on this lucrative topic, and instead revert to the same emotional dialogue (with new wording on occasion), rather than attempting to accomplish the intent of debate....discussing new Ideas, and perhaps, just maybe, learning something in the process. All you have done here Stinger, is try to tear apart a sentance, and use it to avoid thinking about any other aspect of a six page article full of valuable information covering most aspects of the Abortion Debate in the United States.

So I Ask You:

Why would anyone truly interested in discussing this Topic, waste time on you as a partner in debate?

I am not picking on you per se....it is a mindset which has become prevelant in here, and I am hoping to change it through dialogue.
 
The fact is that every part of us IS LIFE. Every cell respires, every cell makes food for itself, every cell carries life and DNA inside it.
Yet our body kills life in us all the time.

A sperm cell is life, an egg is life. The body kills these off all the time.

What makes us human? Rational Thought. Not a group of cells.
 
GarzaUK said:
The fact is that every part of us IS LIFE. Every cell respires, every cell makes food for itself, every cell carries life and DNA inside it.
Yet our body kills life in us all the time.

A sperm cell is life, an egg is life. The body kills these off all the time.

What makes us human? Rational Thought. Not a group of cells.

[devils advocate mode]

OK, they are indeed alive. But until they combine into a Zygote, these cells are less than Human, indeed they are Half of a Human in a way (though Sperm carries significantly less than half the Genetic makeup....this is not relevant to the argument). Until these two become one, there is no Cellular growth, and therefore no division into what eventually becomes a Baby. If we use the Rational thought stance, to define a Human Being, we need to redefine many Adults with compromised Brain activity as Sub-Human....do we not?

Why is killing them any better than Killing the Zygote?
 
GarzaUK said:
The fact is that every part of us IS LIFE. Every cell respires, every cell makes food for itself, every cell carries life and DNA inside it.
Yet our body kills life in us all the time.

A sperm cell is life, an egg is life. The body kills these off all the time.

What makes us human? Rational Thought. Not a group of cells.

We are made of many cells, that is true, but those cells are not individual orgnanisms as the embryo is. To say our body kills and produces cells all the time and thus an embryo is similar is misleading in my opinion.
 
talloulou said:
We are made of many cells, that is true, but those cells are not individual orgnanisms as the embryo is. To say our body kills and produces cells all the time and thus an embryo is similar is misleading in my opinion.

Though it is misleading on a level...it is also quite true on another.Depending on how we decide to look at the situation, a case can be made either way but, at this stage there is nothing to differentiate the cells from any other developing organism other than that it is made of Human Cells.
Have we then decided that the genetic makeup is sufficient to place the elusive term of "Personhood" upon these growing cells? Or do we continue to watch these cells grow and evaluate them again at a later date?
 
tecoyah said:
Though it is misleading on a level...it is also quite true on another.Depending on how we decide to look at the situation, a case can be made either way but, at this stage there is nothing to differentiate the cells from any other developing organism other than that it is made of Human Cells.
Have we then decided that the genetic makeup is sufficient to place the elusive term of "Personhood" upon these growing cells? Or do we continue to watch these cells grow and evaluate them again at a later date?

I don't know how much later are you talking? 'Cause I gotta say at the point where science is pulling the ovaries out of a dead fetal female so they can rob her of her eggs, which they will then fertilize, to create more embryos, which will be destroyed......yeah see then I think maybe we waited too long for re-evaluation. How 'bout yourself?
 
talloulou said:
I don't know how much later are you talking? 'Cause I gotta say at the point where science is pulling the ovaries out of a dead fetal female so they can rob her of her eggs, which they will then fertilize, to create more embryos, which will be destroyed......yeah see then I think maybe we waited too long for re-evaluation. How 'bout yourself?

I would agree the practice you so beautifully explained is not acceptable....fortunately it is also at best....Rare in any scientific world I am aware of. Exageration aside, I dont take issue with the use of Cellular material for the extraction of Stem Cells as a means to advance knowledge, and genetic understanding. I think this is what you were trying to say....though it was deeply buried in your usual emotional sarcasm.
Though there may very well be cases of extremist manipulation of tissue by fringe aspects of the field, it is so far from the norm as to be irrelevant to the actual debate. That you must resort to these instances to make a point does not do your position justice in the long run, and if anything places your opinions on a backburner of discussion.
Though active debate is seldom free of emotion, and indeed requires it to be productive at times....in excess it serves little purpose.
 
tecoyah said:
I would agree the practice you so beautifully explained is not acceptable....fortunately it is also at best....Rare in any scientific world I am aware of.

Really from what I've heard the aborted fetus is one of the best sources of embryonic stem cells.....

Not only that there are tons of articles that debate whether or not it would be ethical to transplant the ovaries of a dead fetal female in to an infertile female so she could have babies. Also the question of whether or not we should fertilize eggs from a dead fetus to be implanted in the womb of a mother is highly debated in many scientific articles and journals. Should the unborn be a biological mother? What are the ramifications of that....? These aren't questions I made up in my own attempts at playing worst case scenario! These are questions the scientific community is legitimately asking. Fetal tissue is being used already for embryonic stem cell research. Fetal females are a good source of eggs that can be fertilized. That is not something to ponder for the future......that is being done now....today.

I think this is what you were trying to say....though it was deeply buried in your usual emotional sarcasm.
I'm not being sarcastic....I'm really wondering if we should do that.

Though there may very well be cases of extremist manipulation of tissue by fringe aspects of the field, it is so far from the norm as to be irrelevant to the actual debate.

No fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells are huge fields right now. Planned Parenthood even discusses how you can donate your aborted fetus on their website. It's not obscure or unusual.

That you must resort to these instances to make a point does not do your position justice in the long run, and if anything places your opinions on a backburner of discussion.

Well these things are related.....

"Ectopic pregnancies, stillbirths, and spontaneous abortions are potential sources for human embryonic cells and fetal tissue but they are neither plentiful nor reliable. Their quality and safety is questionable, making them less than optimal for research and therapy. Embryonic cells and fetal tissue obtained through induced abortion — excluding those for fetal defects — are highly suitable for research and therapy because they are likely to be free of major genetic abnormalities and viral, fungal, or bacterial infections"

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...medicalinfo/abortion/fact-010600-fetaltis.xml
 
talloulou said:
Really from what I've heard the aborted fetus is one of the best sources of embryonic stem cells.....

Likely True....but not a practice used commonly, even in countries that have no laws forbidding the practice.The use of Adult Stem Cells shows far more promise, and is more and more the direction medical science is heading. Chances are Fetal tissue will be a Non-Issue within the decade. see post below.


Not only that there are tons of articles that debate whether or not it would be ethical to transplant the ovaries of a dead fetal female in to an infertile female so she could have babies. Also the question of whether or not we should fertilize eggs from a dead fetus to be implanted in the womb of a mother is highly debated in many scientific articles and journals. Should the unborn be a biological mother? What are the ramifications of that....? These aren't questions I made up in my own attempts at playing worst case scenario! These are questions the scientific community is legitimately asking. Fetal tissue is being used already for embryonic stem cell research. Fetal females are a good source of eggs that can be fertilized. That is not something to ponder for the future......that is being done now....today.

Of course Science is discussing the topic....that is what we do. It is only by evaluating the benefit/cost aspect that consensus can be reached, and progression made.


I'm not being sarcastic....I'm really wondering if we should do that.

OK...then No, in my opinion we should not. Fetal Cells are not Ideal for research.



No fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells are huge fields right now. Planned Parenthood even discusses how you can donate your aborted fetus on their website. It's not obscure or unusual.

The field is not as large as you seem to believe, but I will not argue that it does not exist, only that it is a very small player in the research community.



Well these things are related.....

"Ectopic pregnancies, stillbirths, and spontaneous abortions are potential sources for human embryonic cells and fetal tissue but they are neither plentiful nor reliable. Their quality and safety is questionable, making them less than optimal for research and therapy. Embryonic cells and fetal tissue obtained through induced abortion — excluding those for fetal defects — are highly suitable for research and therapy because they are likely to be free of major genetic abnormalities and viral, fungal, or bacterial infections"

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...medicalinfo/abortion/fact-010600-fetaltis.xml

"Claim 1

“Using embryonic stem cells, researchers at Stanford University who are working on a cure for Type I diabetes are producing new pancreatic islet cells that could be used in human transplants and could herald a cure for this devastating illness.”

Actually, the latest research findings regarding embryonic stem cells are that they do not actually produce insulin in response to glucose changes in their environment and are NOT the pancreatic beta cells needed to treat diabetes. When placed in animals, the cells did not reverse diabetes; instead, they formed tumors.1

By contrast, adult islet cell transplants have already allowed hundreds of juvenile diabetes patients to throw away their insulin needles, and even newer approaches, which do NOT use embryonic stem cells may be in human trials soon. For an overview see: www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/factsheet-04-03-02.htm.

In one new approach pioneered by Harvard researchers, injections of certain cells from the spleen have “re-trained” diabetic animals’ immune systems to stop attacking their own pancreatic cells, after which new insulin-producing cells can regenerate spontaneously.2

Adult stem cells have shown repeated success at forming true insulin-producing islets, and have successfully reversed diabetes in animals. Embryonic stem cells have shown no success. 3
Claim 2

“A Korean research team recently made history by using human embryonic stem cells to cure Parkinson’s disease in rats.”

That is what they claim, but the research is a long way from producing a safe and effective treatment for humans. On the one known occasion when earlier-stage (before 6 weeks) fetal tissue was used to try to treat a human Parkinson’s patient, the tissue killed the patient by forming clumps of bone, skin and hair in the middle of his brain. 4

Moreover, animal trials with embryonic stem cells repeatedly kill many of the animals because of formation of brain tumors.

Meanwhile, the first clinical trial using a patient’s own adult brain stem cells to treat Parkinson’s has produced a lasting 80% reversal of symptoms, and wider human trials are being planned.5
Claim 3

“Rats paralyzed from spinal cord injuries regained their ability to walk after transplantation of specific nerve cells that were derived from mouse embryonic stem cells.”

Actually the functional improvement was modest, and the rats could “almost walk again” after receiving the injections. 6

This research was announced in December 1999, and no one has announced any improvement on it since or moved it toward human trials. Meanwhile, several human patients have shown remarkable recovery from spinal cord injury after receiving injections of adult cells from their own nasal tissue. That breakthrough was recently featured on “Miracle Cell,” an episode of the PBS program Innovation. 7

In reality, none of the claims promoted by embryonic stem cell enthusiasts are actually anywhere close to the research already being accomplished using adult stem cells. In addition, adult stem cells avoid many of the practical problems associated with embryonic stem cell research.

1. You use your own cells instead of those of an embryo with another DNA makeup, which would require taking immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of your life (like one does when they have an organ transplant).

2. You avoid the problem of having to clone yourself to get cells genetically identical to your own to avoid problem 1.

3. You avoid having to obtain scores of human eggs to get the stem cells via cloning. (The South Korean experiment required 242 eggs to get one embryonic stem cell line.)

4. Adult stem cells are already specialized and require less cell specialization to work. (Avoids problems of unspecialized embryonic cells becoming tumors.)

5. Lastly, adult stem cells don’t have the moral problem of requiring the destruction of living human embryos for the research.

While we all are concerned that we find cures for those suffering from disease, such cures do not lie in destroying living human embryos. They lie instead in research developments that, in many cases, are already here. "

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/mcconchie_2004-06-16.htm
 
tecoyah said:
"Claim 1

“Using embryonic stem cells, researchers at Stanford University who are working on a cure for Type I diabetes are producing new pancreatic islet cells that could be used in human transplants and could herald a cure for this devastating illness.”

Actually, the latest research findings regarding embryonic stem cells are that they do not actually produce insulin in response to glucose changes in their environment and are NOT the pancreatic beta cells needed to treat diabetes. When placed in animals, the cells did not reverse diabetes; instead, they formed tumors.1

By contrast, adult islet cell transplants have already allowed hundreds of juvenile diabetes patients to throw away their insulin needles, and even newer approaches, which do NOT use embryonic stem cells may be in human trials soon. For an overview see: www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/factsheet-04-03-02.htm.

In one new approach pioneered by Harvard researchers, injections of certain cells from the spleen have “re-trained” diabetic animals’ immune systems to stop attacking their own pancreatic cells, after which new insulin-producing cells can regenerate spontaneously.2

Adult stem cells have shown repeated success at forming true insulin-producing islets, and have successfully reversed diabetes in animals. Embryonic stem cells have shown no success. 3
Claim 2

“A Korean research team recently made history by using human embryonic stem cells to cure Parkinson’s disease in rats.”

That is what they claim, but the research is a long way from producing a safe and effective treatment for humans. On the one known occasion when earlier-stage (before 6 weeks) fetal tissue was used to try to treat a human Parkinson’s patient, the tissue killed the patient by forming clumps of bone, skin and hair in the middle of his brain. 4

Moreover, animal trials with embryonic stem cells repeatedly kill many of the animals because of formation of brain tumors.

Meanwhile, the first clinical trial using a patient’s own adult brain stem cells to treat Parkinson’s has produced a lasting 80% reversal of symptoms, and wider human trials are being planned.5
Claim 3

“Rats paralyzed from spinal cord injuries regained their ability to walk after transplantation of specific nerve cells that were derived from mouse embryonic stem cells.”

Actually the functional improvement was modest, and the rats could “almost walk again” after receiving the injections. 6

This research was announced in December 1999, and no one has announced any improvement on it since or moved it toward human trials. Meanwhile, several human patients have shown remarkable recovery from spinal cord injury after receiving injections of adult cells from their own nasal tissue. That breakthrough was recently featured on “Miracle Cell,” an episode of the PBS program Innovation. 7

In reality, none of the claims promoted by embryonic stem cell enthusiasts are actually anywhere close to the research already being accomplished using adult stem cells. In addition, adult stem cells avoid many of the practical problems associated with embryonic stem cell research.

1. You use your own cells instead of those of an embryo with another DNA makeup, which would require taking immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of your life (like one does when they have an organ transplant).

2. You avoid the problem of having to clone yourself to get cells genetically identical to your own to avoid problem 1.

3. You avoid having to obtain scores of human eggs to get the stem cells via cloning. (The South Korean experiment required 242 eggs to get one embryonic stem cell line.)

4. Adult stem cells are already specialized and require less cell specialization to work. (Avoids problems of unspecialized embryonic cells becoming tumors.)

5. Lastly, adult stem cells don’t have the moral problem of requiring the destruction of living human embryos for the research.

While we all are concerned that we find cures for those suffering from disease, such cures do not lie in destroying living human embryos. They lie instead in research developments that, in many cases, are already here. "

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/mcconchie_2004-06-16.htm

I agree completely that the embryonic stem cells don't seem as promising as many would claim however that doesn't stop scientists from playing.....and abortions provide the toys......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/06/ixnewstop.html

http://www.cogforlife.org/humanmouse.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom