Cells From Liposuction Function As Stem Cells? 343
texchanchan writes "Plastic surgeon Peter Fodor MD filtered stem cells out of fat sucked from people's oversized body parts, then cultured them into 'bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle and nerve cells.' At the rate of 10,000 stem cells per cm3 that's a lot of stem cells. Combine that with this and you might be on the road to regeneration. And, you can have your stem cells banked for later disasters after your liposuction."
Damn (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Damn (Score:2)
Fat as unwanted cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fat as unwanted cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your name is the answer (Score:2)
Which of course brings us back to the other debate. Personally I don't believe that abortion is unethical, because it's a matter of personal choice to bring a new life into the world. If the fetus/whatever is not capable of being born into the world and kept alive outside of its mother's body, even with the best of modern medical care, then it is a part and parcel of the mother's body and her concern.
It is no more murder to not bring the baby to term than it is murder to refuse to have as many pregnancies as is humanly possible from as soon as it becomes possible on the grounds that any less would be to prevent a new life and thus a murder.
We need population control. We also need choice in how to run our own lives. Get over it.
Re:Fat as unwanted cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh for crying out loud, this is the biggest case of exaggeration I've seen on
Fundamentalists have never been against medical research. You must be confusing them with that Mary Baker Eddy cult. Their objections to embryonic stem cell research come from the belief that life begins at conception, and nothing more. You may find their position objectionable, but it's consistent and contained.
They are going to trumpet this new reserach into stem cell harvesting as proof that there is no need to use embryos for medical study.
Re:Fat as unwanted cells (Score:2)
Just do us all a favour and think before you open your mouth. Where something is necessary, as medical care is necessary, there will always be research to do it by any means possible. But there's generally a better or a worse way of getting what you want. And in this case, embryonic stem cells are of great value.
What right have you to condemn their use and cause lengthy delays on the achievement of the tech to heal the sick? It amounts to killing and torturing sick people by refusing them medicine. Ask yourself who suffered to give them stem cell therapy. Go ahead, try to think of an actual person in any form of pain or disadvantage. The only people suffering are the sick, and it is our duty to help them.
Re:Fat as unwanted cells (Score:2)
That'll be my excuse from now on... (Score:3, Funny)
FatPhil
Yay! (Score:2, Funny)
So does this mean the fatter I get, the more stem cells I'll have to repair my body later in life? Quick, somebody hand me that tub of Ben & Jerry's!
10,000? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Funny)
EFGearman
Joke net (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Joke net (Score:2)
Comming soon to a neighborhood near you. (Score:5, Funny)
Donate your fat cells, get free liposuction, juice, and a cookie.
Re:Comming soon to a neighborhood near you. (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
Re:Comming soon to a neighborhood near you. (Score:2)
This validates my theory about... (Score:2, Funny)
Selling more fatty foods to general population= more sources to harness for stem cells to keep McDonald's executives alive.
Brilliant.
This is probably the first time... (Score:2)
Cool! (Score:2)
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I'm just waiting for some religious nut to condemn this on the grounds that fat cells have souls. I dunno...if my fat were sentient, I think I'd have a lot more to worry about than just stem cell research.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm against embryonic stem cell research, because the stem cells came from aborted human babies, and I personally believe abortion is murder.
However, I can't see anyone having a problem with stem cell research where the stem cells come from human fat. Nor can I see any reason to oppose stem cell research when the stem cells come from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby.
If you can, then you are probably also against blood transfusions, organ transplants, and other medical necessities because you mis-read your Bible.
But please.. not all of us religious people are "nuts". If you are a liberal and think that all religious people are nuts, then maybe you should practice some of that "tolerance" you like to preach about.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
The only "tolerance" they have is for people who think like they do.
"Liberals" are just as "nuts" (Score:2)
As far as religion goes, the funny thing is, most "liberals" are in fact very religious. They believe in an entity that they believe should be all knowing, all powerful, in control of everything, and of course always benevolent. I am of course not talking about God but about Government. Nature abhors a vacuum. Liberals are generally athiests (or at least secular and not religious) and so they've simply chosen government as the "higher power" they believe in.
I've always said that religion stops a thinking mind. Well I'm coming to the conclusion that it is not religion that is stopping anyone from thinking but that there are people out there who cannot or will not think for themselves and that religions is simply one of many crutches that are used by the mentally incompetent to avoid having to deal with reality. Any ideology can be used as such a crutch. The most you can hope for is that the idiots choose an ideology that keeps them out of everyone's hair.
Lee
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
The argument is essentially that there is no dividing line between embryo and human, but rather a continuous progression, just as there is no clear dividing line between infant and man, no point on one side of which we have a baby and on the other side of which we have a productive member of society. Thus abortion is the killing of a human being--one who did not ask to be placed where he is--and thus murder. There is, however, a clear line between gametes and zygote/embryo, and thus contraception is not murder.
The argument against cloning is essentially that it requires the production of massive number of horribly damaged and diseased men for every whole man it makes. That's not an ethical thing to do.
So far as organ cloning--who cares? It's a good idea, and I cannot wait until we can do it.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
I've never heard anyone voice objections to adult stem cell research such as mentioned in the article above (as opposed to the controversial embryonic stem cell research).
In fact, I've heard the anti-cloning crowd heartily endorse adult stem cell research as an ethical alternative.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
I probably qualify as a "religious nut." I am pro-life and am opposed to fetal stem-cell research.
I think this is great! I have a birth defect that resulted in one of my legs being deformed. I get around ok, and many people never notice, but it is a pain to deal with. All my life I've fantasized about being able to chop off my leg and grow a non-deformed one, like a lizard can with its tail. I have no idea if anything like that will happen in my lifetime, but I'm all for research that might make it possible. I just believe it's horribly wrong to kill other humans to do that research (or to use for a potential cure).
Suck out some fat to get the stem cells? Go for it!
'Merely' a potential? (Score:2)
Yet you advocate saving a 'potential' life by accepting the suffering of those who need stem cell therapy. Isn't there a slight hypocrisy here?
In the same argument, I could be judged a multiple murderer by having lived to the age of 21 and having made no moves to have children as yet. Don't I know that I have had the potential to have children and bring new life into the world for years?!! Oh my God, lock me up now!!!
Spelling out that 'The act of fertilization provides the potential to become a human being' may be accurate but at the same time misses the point. Most of us make a daily choice not to go out and get ovae fertilised, and in doing so, allow them to die. Yet they contained within themselves the potential to be a new life. Which is where the entire 'potential' argument breaks down.
To my mind, for as long as a growing embryo/fetus/whatever is entirely dependent upon its mother to be brought to term, it's her business to choose what happens to it. It's a part of her, despite only sharing half her DNA. Why should she be a slave to it?
Better Living Through Fat (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Better Living Through Fat (Score:3, Insightful)
--Blair
"I'll have the Genome McMuffin and a medium RNA rings."
Practical uses (Score:2)
BTW, can you get stem cells to divide in the laboratory and remain stem cells? If so, it seems that the quantity extracted shouldn't matter. This really does sound like a convenient source, though.
compare the costs... (Score:3, Funny)
Stem cell processing = $1200
Stem cell storage = $100/yr
The self-storage option begins to look attractive!
Re:compare the costs... (Score:2)
Since when has the self-storage option looked attractive?
Be your own regeneration machine! (Score:2)
Gee, I hope this pans out....
Combine this with (Score:3, Interesting)
.
Re:Combine this with (Score:2)
Re:Combine this with (Score:2)
Extra Body Parts (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah... I knew that... I'm not fat, I'm saving up body parts in case I need them.
Of limited use (but still great news)... (Score:5, Informative)
So anyway, in this particular case, it's great that they can isolate such large quantities of stem cells safely from an adult human, but it's still rather limiting. All those cells will ever be able to form is bone, cartilage, and whatever else that particular type of multipotent cell can give rise to. This is why it's still important to many biologists to be able to collect less-differentiated stem cells. With only that type of cell, we may not be able to learn much about diseases that aren't specifically related to that limited set of tissues. (Though of course there's still a lot left to be learned about even a specific type of multipotent stem cell.)
Re:Of limited use (but still great news)... (Score:2)
As for my particular opinion, I believe a collection of 8 or 16 or 32 embryonic cells isn't "alive enough" for removing them from the mother to be considered murder. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I openly admit the problems with this perspective. (For example, at what point does the embryo or fetus become alive / conscious / sentient enough for me to consider it a human life? 2^10 cells? 2^20 cells? I don't claim to have an answer.) I am personally not satisfied with my opinion, but so far, it seems the best to me.
I should probably assume from the fact that you brought up the Nazis so early that your post was a troll, but it's important to realize that science is a tool, just as a gun or a knife or a hammer is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. The specific issue I was addressing was the fact that pluripotent stem cells are of more scientific use than multipotent cells.
Re:Of limited use (but still great news)... (Score:2)
My post wasn't a troll-it was a serious comment on an important subject. Many folks have been arguing for embryonic stem cell collection because of the benefits to mankind. The Nazis irradiated, sterilised and murdered because they thought it was to the benefit of mankind. `Benefit to mankind' is not a sufficient reason to murder. Self defense and punishment are the only two justifications for murder that I can agree with.
But of course, if the embryo is not human that it's not murder to kill it. Read the arguments at Libertarians for Life [l4l.org]; they address the many reasons why an embryo is as human as you & I.
Re:Of limited use (but still great news)... (Score:2)
I see. So you're happy to kill a man because he broke a rule, but to take some stem cells, and use them to save lives, is cruel and terrible?
Re:Of limited use (but still great news)... (Score:2)
To deserve the death penalty? It's not a baby, it's not an even a fetus. It's no more a person than a collection of hairs from my armpit are a person.
Perhaps because that's not what it really means? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say "Godwin" is definitely appropriate. (Was that just a typo on your part, or is "Godwin" a verb now?)
Re:Perhaps because that's not what it really means (Score:2)
The parent post had discussed why it is still important to collect totipotent stem cells. The only current source being embryos, it was thus proposing exactly what I argued against.
Re:Perhaps because that's not what it really means (Score:2)
Someone may have mentioned this, but you read too much into what they guy said. He basically just said (in the original post) that these stem cells may not provide all the information that embryonic stem cells do. I believe what he was saying was, "Unfortunately, it looks likely that this great discovery is still not the great discovery that will allow us to research stem cells in a way that everyone agrees is right."
Mostly he was just letting us know that we may not have the solution we're looking for, yet. He said it was still important to collect totipotent and pluripotent stem cells, but he did not say whether it was important enough to justify the taking of an unborn human's life. I think he did a good job of acknowledging both sides in making his statement. (He recognizes why it is important to many people to protect the lives of embryos, although he unfortunately may not personally agree with that.)
Before you repond, check my posting history. I'm very definitely on the same side of this as you are. The sides here aren't really us and them, though; it's them and the unborn. We're just tbe people behind the government that's supposed to step in and preserve the rights of the nonaggressive unborn. My main point is that we can't just say, "Well, most of us think embryos aren't people, so let's legalize ending their lives and using them for any purpose." A majority cannot vote to take away the rights of the minority. (Well, as we've seen in history, they can, but I mean it's not right to do it.) You have to prove a murderer guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt before executing him; we should have to prove an embryo to be a non-person beyond a shadow of a doubt before depriving him of his life and other rights of personhood. And there's more than just a shadow of a doubt here! :) The jury is the entire citizenry, and we haven't come to a unanimous verdict. Without a unanimous verdict, there hasn't been due process, and we can't just declare the embryos to be non-people and deprive them of their lives. We have to take the only course of action that guaratees we don't make a mistake and unjustly take a life.
Re:Perhaps because that's not what it really means (Score:2)
There are moral arguments to IVF in general, but a) they're off-topic and b) I've no real formed opinion on them.
Re:Of limited use (but still great news)... (Score:2)
I love slashdot. If a scientist takes a few hundred cells that COULD POSSIBLY have grown into a person, it's murder. But if I download the latest wu-tang cd on mp3, it's not depriving somebody of a sale.
Re:Of limited use (but still great news)... (Score:2)
Since just being a member of the species homo sapiens isn't enough to have the status of human, why can't we strip that status from people (and then treat them like any other animal)?
Good. (Score:2)
Where the cure came from... (Score:2)
Finally, I feel useful (Score:2, Funny)
Why I am afriad of cloning. (Score:2, Funny)
Once human cloning has been perfected, and once women figure out how to change the oil in their own cars (*), men are toast.
(*) Not that all men do; but if you look at the gender breakdown of your average Jiffy Lube you'll know what I mean.
Re:Why I am afriad of cloning. (Score:2)
And artificial wombs [slashdot.org] theoretically make women unnecessary. So if we have both, then we don't actually need humans anymore!
Really, I'm as worried that women will try to make men extinct as I am the other way around. Read: not at all.
Re:Why I am afriad of cloning. (Score:2)
Yes. But arguably evolution has pretty much stopped for humans already. Evolution involves adaptation to make optimum use the environment. We humans are advanced enough that we adapt our environment to suit us. We are the only creature that can survive in any climate, even one where there is no climate, like space. About the only selection left for us is sexual.
Also, the lizards you speak of (I haven't checked to see if they do exist) could still evolve. Single cell organisms are sexless and their offspring are essentially clones of the original, yet they managed to evolve to multi- and mega-cellular life forms. The danger is that there is no genetic exchange between members which, quite frankly, even plants do. They can adapt through mutation, but little else.
Re:Why I am afriad of cloning. (Score:2)
Fight Club Reference (Score:2)
And in the year 3000... (Score:2)
Why?
Seams that an overabundance of those weight-gain genes were distributed in the early 2000 years to fight cancer.
:-)
mmmm, fatty goodness (Score:2)
Slashdot Readers Contain Cures for Diseases (Score:2)
Twinkies have even MORE preservatives... (Score:2)
Not only do THEY last forever, but they might even make you last forever.
(I suppose we'll see the undertakers filing suit against Hostess any day now...)
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:5, Informative)
You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions ;)
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
all law is forcing beliefs on people (Score:2)
Let's say that "Bob" gets mad at "Bill" for some minor reason (e.g. Bill looked at Bob's wife the wrong way). Bob then kills Bill. Everyone else forces their belief that it was wrong to kill Bill on Bob, either in the form of inprisoning him or executing him.
"Joe" steals "Nancy's" car. The community forces their belief on Joe that he should not have stolen Nancy's car by taking it away from him and then putting him in prison for several years.
These are all examples of a group of people forcing their beliefs on another. If you think that this is incorrect, and people who think that stealing is wrong should just tell thieves their "point of view" and leave it at that, well, then, please tell me what your address is, as I could use a new car.
More directly, why is it that people who believe that killing a fetus is murder only get to force their views on murder on that subset of murderers who happen to have killed people who had been born?
Re:all law is forcing beliefs on people (Score:2)
In their mind, yes,their views are binding onto me. I disagree. In the US, we've all essentially agreed to, for the most part, pardon unpardonable crimes that everyone else commits and just get along, more or less because of convenience.
However, the fact that a vegetarian does not defend cows from (in his eyes) being murdered does not make him more respectable, just more practical.
Stating this more generally, yes, we all hold signficant and conflicting beliefs. Is there any solution? Well, the only actually workable one is to all hold our beliefs in different places and all have a decent military so that noonse else can force their beliefs on us. Perfect? No. But I defy you to come up with anything better (at most I will allow everyone ignoring the significance of their beliefs and ignoring their neighbors practices as a practical equivalent of that).
But the truth is, vegetarians (who are so un moral grounds) should defend cows and should try to get those who kill them thrown in prison. What's the alternative? To have vegetarians just ignore the murder going on? How can people ignoring the murder of millions (or billions) of innocents possible be a good thing?
Note: I say all this as one who is nearly carnivorous (though I'm trying to move to a more balanced diet for health reasons).
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
I fully respect your positions, and your right to have your positions.
Therefore, I will not conduct research on you or anyone in your household.
If there are willing volunteers, what natural[1] right gives you the power to tell them they can't volunteer?
[1] - Almost said "God-given" but then that answers the question. With a loop, but the question is answered.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
Yes. See my posts on this thread so far. I'm not insisting I'm right, but I would like people to understand and consider the reasons for my beliefs before dismissing them and calling me names.
I always say I don't deserve to object to someone's opinions until I'm capable of explaining the reasons behind those opinions as well as he is. Some issues just are not clear-cut, and it's the people who try to insist things are simple that usually cause most of the fighting.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
Why is it so creepy to say I don't believe in killing embryoes? I realize many people are not going to agree with me, but why is that opinion "creepy"? It's like some people think there's absolutely no basis in the world for the belief.
There's a lot of opinions I don't hold, but I still respect them because they are backed up by legitimate points. Isn't it legitimate to say, "Hey, I think killing an embryo is wrong?"
I'm so grateful there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells appearing on the horizon, and I hope these efforts produce spectacular results that will really benefit humanity. Hopefully some day work like this will lead to a solution that will satisfy everyone.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
Actually I think the parent poster was probably saying that the killing of embryos was creepy, rather than the conservatives' stand against it.
Gotta love ambiguous grammatical constructs. . . ;)
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
-YARWN (Yet another right-wing nut
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
You're right, I went into auto-defensive mode. I reread it and realized it didn't mean what I thought.
Just so used to people jumping on me and dismissing me as a nut, it's hard to notice when they aren't. :)
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
FWIW, nobody is saying that embryos are the only source of stem cells; many of these same conservatives have long been calling for the use of adult stem cells in research. What the research community is saying is that embryonic stem cells are more scientifically valuable and hold more promise than their adult counterparts. None of that has been changed by this discovery. IANAMD, but you can bet the farm that many will use this as an excuse to claim that embryonic stem cell research is no longer needed, but that is not the case, and we should not let such claims go unchallenged.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
So precisely how does the magical transformation from fetus into human occur? Where is the hard science which supports the irrational claim that people are more important than non-human animals, and that a fetus is a non-human animal which somehow turns into a human animal?
And what is the scientific name for a fetus, anyhow? I presume that a fetus is some sort of monkey until it comes out of the womb, so surely it has a different scientific name than the animals (people) that they turn into at that magical moment.
Look, unless you're calling the belief in law a superstition, you're just being ridiculous claiming that somehow "science" is against the pro-life stance. I've never yet heard of some significant biological distinction between a chicken and a fertilized chicken egg which make them different species, so why is a human and a fertilized human egg a different species? Or are you going to advance the position that a fetus isn't alive?
Why can't everyone just call a spade a spade and admit that the pro-choice stance is the very reasonable position that human life is cheap and convenient murder is unfortunate but not a big deal? Much like "collateral damage" in war, killing a fetus is killing a person, but noone is going to argue when they're dead so why bother with it?
That is a very reasonable position, and it really is the pro-choice position if you examine the matter. The alternative is mostly the supersition that every human life really is valuable and precious. You can argue that really the fact that the rich get more protection than the poor is just fine as there's no rational argument against that. You can argue that killing people isn't a big deal if there aren't going to be major consequences. That's fine. It works out.
But if you really want to disagree with all superstition, including the superstition that human life is in fact valuable, don't do it based on the supersitition that ignorance is bad or the supersition that that wisdom or knowledge is 'good'. After all, there's no actual factual evidence to show that people who know more are in any way superior or better than those who don't.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
"A hang-nail is human. A tumor is human."
No, a hang nail and a tumor are a part of a person. A fetus is an entire person, but one cell from it is just a cell from a person. Are you really so dumb that you don't see the distinction? Hell, if we don't hold funerals if I remove a hang-nail from you, would you mind if I removed your hand? Noone hold's funerals for hands. Or maybe the equivalent amount of cells from your spine? Noone would hold a funeral for a hang-nail's worth of spine cells, would they? Hey, how about if I just took a pound of flesh from you. Say, your heart? A fetus who ways a pound can be aborted, and it's just a lump of cells. Isn't your heart just a lump of cells? So if it's just a lump of cells, who cares what you do with it, right?
"We don't hold funerals for hang-nails, or for the billions of early abortions performed by God that go unnoticed by us."
That's because we don't notice them. We do hold funerals for the billions of late abortions performed by God (usually just called death, but I don't see why we shouldn't call an old man dying of cancer an abortion, since his life is being aborted), but that's because we notice them.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
Yeah, and billions of people will die in the future that killing everyone who has HIV now would prevent. However, no sane person would advocate killing everyone who tests positive for HIV. The simple fact that there are people who might be saved by whatever it is that you want to do doesn't inherently make it right.
Do you believe that pro-life people don't care about the sick? Hell, they're the people with the position that all human life is important. Do you think that pro-life people don't think about the sick, or care about them?
I believe that most people in the pro-life camp think that those in the pro-choice camp believe that killing is bad but sanctioneable. Not that killing is good.
My take on pro-choice... (Score:2)
No, they are wrong. Many of us actually believe that conciousness is worth preserving. Not a lump of cells.
Thus we do not value a the early stages of an embryo as much as a more mature embryo.
I personaly view an embryo as a potential person. And, yes, taking that potential away is unfortunate.
But billions of eggs and sperms are wasted every day, and every one of them holds this potential (to a lesser degree), who mourns them?
Fact is, not all potential humans can get a shot at existance, so we better make sure that those who do get a good shot at it!
And that is one of the reasons I am pro-choice.
If you are to young and pregnant, have an abortion. You may waste that potential but you can have another baby later, when you are ready, and give that potential human (who wouldn't get the chance otherwise, people doesn't make infinite number of babys) a better start in life.
Just my 0.02 kr
Re:My take on pro-choice... (Score:2)
Does this mean that we can kill sleeping people? Since sleeping people are not conscious, they just have the potential for consciousness if they wake up, why care about that lump of cells? The same for those who are in a coma, under anesthesia, etc?
And let's extend the principle - clearly retarted people are only somewhat conscious (unless you view consciousness as a binary on/off sort of thing, but then you're going to have to be a pretty strick vegan who doesn't swat flies if you want to hold that view and be consistent). Why can't we kill them? They're obviously not human in the sense of having a fully human consciousness. And while we're at it, why don't we declare anyone who thinks that science or math is geeky to not be fully human?
You see, the real problem with being pro-choice is that there is no really consistent way to hold the position without prettymuch having to believe in the clensing of the human race. The main principle of pro-choice is that simply being a member of the species homo-sapiens doesn't give you human rights. After that, where you draw the line is so arbitrary that it can't be done by anything but axiom, and very few people agree fully on their axioms. For example, you might think that retarted people aren't fully human, and someone else might think that blond people aren't fully human. Since memberhood in the species isn't the test, it's something else, you're going to have a very hard time deciding between you who is right.
Re:My take on pro-choice... (Score:2)
Oh, come on! Sleeping is just a temporary recharging of batteries, and not even fully unconcious. A self sustaining person (late embryonic stage and onwards) has realised at least parts of his potential. To destroy this would be wrong IMHO. I agree that this can be a difficult line to draw, but that example is just stupid.
Try a brain dead trauma victim instead!
(In that case, i don't think he/she has any more value than a corpse, since the actual person has been permanently destroyed. Even if the lump of cells can be kept alive, that would be pointless.)
you're going to have a very hard time deciding between you who is right.
Yes, we will. I admit that.
But I think this is a debate we will have to take. There is no easy absolute logically consistant "right" here. Except for the pro-life stance of course, that is a simple easily defined answer. But I think that stance is a mistake. For example, I value womens rights, and without the right to decide over their own bodies there is no such thing as equality between sexes.
And I am not ready to throw that away just to gain a easily defined moral ground to stand on.
Re:My take on pro-choice... (Score:2)
"Sleeping is just a temporary recharging of batteries, and not even fully unconcious."
Proof, please? I think that a person is just a lump of cells while they're sleeping. A person who is sleeping gives no more evidence of consciousness than does a rock. (Note: random ellectical discharges in the brain during sleep do not count as consciousness any more then the CPU of my computer is conscious.)
"There is no easy absolute logically consistant 'right' here."
As long as we all agree that your stance is not logically consistent, then I think we're fine.
"the right to decide over their own bodies "
Ok. So let the woman stop nurturing the child inside of her. That's controlling her own body. I don't see how subjecting the fetus to deadly chemicals or chopping it up into little pieces is controlling her body. It's certainly controlling the fetus's body, though.
The entire line about a woman controlling her own body sounds a lot like if, say, I broke the jaw of some woman who was annoying me and then said, "I have a right to control my own body, and I didn't want to hear her shrill voice". Sure, I have a right to control my own body, but I was also controlling her's by breaking her jaw. Similarly, if you cut a fetus up, you're controlling it's body, not its mothers.
Moreover, while I have a right to control my own body, let's say that I'm hanging on to someone who's slipped and fallen off of a ledge. I don't think that everyone will say that I had the right to let go because I wanted to open my hand and shake it vigorously at that point. Sometimes, when other lives are placed in our hands, we have a responsibility towards them. Or are people not required to take the positive action of hitting the breaks when they're about to run over someone's three year old daughter in the street, because they have the right to control their own bodies?
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this why everyone was so mad at the right? Because of a misunderstanding?
We don't oppose stem cell research. We oppose the destruction of embryos. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that embryos are people and deserve protection. The other side should admit that that claim at least has merit, even if they don't agree. (Meaning it's a respectable, legitimate opinion; not just being hard to get along with or obstructionist.)
I don't think you'll find anyone on the right (at least, anyone who fully understands the issues) who will oppose stem cell research that does not involve killing embryoes. Hopefully the distinction is very clear to everyone.
Psst! You aren't the whole "right" either! (Score:2)
I agree that it would be a good thing (because of the stand some people have on embryonic work) to have an alternative. I too hope this pans out.
Re:Psst! You aren't the whole "right" either! (Score:2)
Please let us try to keep that in mind!
Definitely. I am by no means claiming to speak for the whole group in any way. In some ways, the "right" embraces more diversity than the left.
Re:Psst! You aren't the whole "right" either! (Score:2)
already-dead blob of cells
If they're already dead, no problem. Bush made that legal, remember. It's the living ones we want to protect.
I know, you were trying to contend that all the embryoes are basically already dead, but there is some disagreement on that. We insist on proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt before carrying out capital punishment on a murderer. Why shouldn't we insist on proving an embryo is not a human being beyond a shadow of a doubt before killing him or her? There is far more than just a shadow of doubt here.
It doesn't matter if you think rape or murder should be allowed. As long as a significant number of people consider an embryo to be a human being, you should consider becoming willing to step back and let that doubt guide our laws for the time being.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure you don't have a problem if someone intervenes in child abuse case, after all. A parent may have quite a bit of latitude in how to raise a child, but intervention to prevent that parent from injuring or killing that child is entirely justified.
If you believe, then, that embryos deserve the same rights as a child, what else can you do but "force your beliefs" on those who are killing them?
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
I know what you're saying, and you have a valid point. My question is, do those who don't consider an embryo a person concede they might be mistaken? If so, then we ought not to kill them until absolutely sure.
Your points are good, and need to be expressed. I thought you were pretty clear, esp. considering what a complex issue this is.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
I wanted to wait till I had time to sufficiently comment on this. You've made some great points, and if you'll have the patience to read through this, I'll try to show you more of my point.
Wait long enough. That's exactly the point. The side I'm on says, "Wait." You haven't proved that embryo is not a person. How can you take its life unless you are certain you are not depriving a person of his or her life? You wouldn't drop poison in a water supply hoping you don't kill anyone; you avoid taking the potentially harmful action because it is wrong to put people at risk that way.
Here's two possible facts, with two possible responses on our part, for a total of four hypothetical situations:
Assume an embryo is a person, and assume we grant an embryo the same protections under the law that we grant to all other human beings. If this is the situation, we have taken no wrong actions. (One might say it's wrong to not use the embryo's stem cells to save lives, but we don't find any other case where it's considered wrong to not take a life to cure someone else's problem. I might donate my liver upon my death, but I'd like to keep it while I'm alive, and I'm not a criminal for doing so.)
#2: Assume an embryo is a person and we deny embryos the same protections under the law that we guarantee to other people. In this case we have done something wrong: we are killing people (embryos) without just cause. (In general, it is unjust to act as an aggressor against someone else who has been non-aggressive toward you.)
#3: Assume an embryo is not a person and we do not grant the rights to embryos that we grant to people under the law. In this case we have done nothing wrong because we have not taken the lives of people.
#4: Assume an embryo is not a person, but we grant embryos the rights that people have under the law. In this case, while our decision was groundless, we have done nothing wrong. Even though in this case the embryo is not a person, we are still not taking any lives.
Now, as you said, we cannot prove which of the possible facts is true: the embryo is or is not a person. We cannot control the facts, we can only control our actions. We must choose the action that guarantees we are doing nothing wrong. We must make sure we take no action that might result in the loss of life of a person.
The fact that some people think that an embryo is not a person is not a reason to declare the embryo not to be so. If the embryo is a person, then it is not a dispute between the two sides of this issue; it is a dispute between the defenseless, nonaggressive unborn person and the aggressors who would deprive this person of his life and rights under the law. As long as a chance remains that that embryo is a person, nobody can justly say that the law should not treat the embryo as a person. The majority should not be able to vote rights away from a minority, especially a defenseless and nonaggressive minority.
When we execute a criminal our law insists that the criminal must be proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well, I say that if we are going to end the life of an embryo, we must prove it to be a non-person beyond a shadow of a doubt. The jury is the entire country, and we have not come to a unanimous verdict declaring the embryo to be a non-person. Thus, there can be no legal authority for depriving that person or possible person of its life.
Phew! Did you read all that? My thanks if you did. I'm not interested in forcing my belief system upon anyone (although as you can see, I sure like talking about it :) ). I am interested in making sure my government guarantees my rights and the rights of all those around me, including those who cannot speak for themselves.
Thanks for the talk. I've been just enraptured the last 24 hours or so as I've seen so many intelligent, civil discussions in this thread between people on both sides. Of course, I browse at 4+, so there's probably some less civil stuff down there I missed! :) Thanks for helping to keep it nice.
A great link someone else gave out was Libertarians for Life [l4l.org], which made an entirely non-religious case for protecting the unborn, much as I hope I have done here. I found the site echoed a lot of my thinking about how the law should work on this issue. I am not interested in using the government to force my beliefs on people, so my opinion on the legality of taking an embryo's life is not directly based on my religious beliefs. There are plenty of things I think are wrong that I would never ask the government to outlaw. In a nutshell my legal stance is based only on my belief of what a government should do, which is, that it should guarantee my rights extend as far as possible but stop at you.
Huamn value... (Score:2)
Actually, this is not true.
At least two groups claim otherwise.
- Racists who think that black/white/whatever people are not fully human, or at least "not equally equal" to the rest of humanity.
- Then, you have (more interestingly) those who don't make a distinction between human life and other suficciently advanced life (usually mamal).
I hate the guts of the first group, but the other one has a point, well, sort of...I don't think there is any "objective" reason to value human life higher than, say a horse.
I do however value human life higher than other lifeforms, but that is a completely subjective stance to take. I value mankind higher because they are my species!
And I value my friends and family higher than the rest of mankind, because I know them.
I mean, if you ask any (non religious) human what makes a life more valuable than another they would answer intelligence (naturally, because it places us on top).
If you could ask the horse however, I think you would get a completely different answer that would classify horses as the most valuable life form.
Values are completely subjective, and depend entirely on who you ask.
If this wasn't true, there would for example be no war. A large part of training for war is objectification of the enemy.
(It's hard to kill an actual person, since most people value human life.)
For example, the enemy is often given a nickname to isolate them from the rest of mankind in the troops eyes. Some american examples are Fritz (German), Charlie/Gooks (Vietnamese), Skinnies (Somalian), Chrunchies/Towel Heads (Iraki).
This has been done by all armies in all times.
Re:One more time (Score:2)
No. Because, at one point in time it was very commonly accepted that having blacks as slaves was perfectly legit, and anyone opposing it was a "radical" and would have fallen into this category.
Here's my point. I don't necessarily agree with the religious right. However, they have a reasonable argument and it behooves them to lobby/fight for the morals that they believe in, jsut as much as we have the right to defend our right to research. This is not about a "crazy" moral standard, like your extreme example of using "toddlers as fertilizer". Even if it was, who is to critisize them for fighting for even a ludicrous law? It should never be "wrong" for someone to assert their moral beliefs, regardless of how crazy it is. If it's silly or stupid and obviously bogus, then it doesn't get taken seriously and won't ever make it into the newspaper, let alone supreme court.
Re:Of course it's illegal (Score:2)
There's a chance you might not agree with me, but I'll tell you what's in my mind so you can understand my thinking about this issue. I believe that throwing embryos away is murder. I recognize that that brings up a lot of unanswerable questions, such as, "What are we supposed to do with all those embryos? It would be impossible to bring all of them to maturity and have them born!" I have no answer for this, or probably any other questions this line of thinking brings up. I can only tell you how I see it at the moment.
All of my beliefs on this subject stem from my acceptance of an embryo as a human being. That is based on the embryos genetic identity as a human being. I am addressing how we should construct our laws as an honorable people, not religious questions of how should we live to please God and so on. Someone else on this thread posted a great link yesterday that makes an entirely non-religious case for accepting embryos as persons before the law, Libertarians for Life [l4l.org]. I read parts of it today and found that it said a lot of things I already believed.
There are a lot of hard questions about this. The fact that we cannot answer all of these questions, or that some of the answers may be unpleasant, should not guide us as we make decisions that are right for everyone. I ask that we prove the embryo to not be a person beyond a shadow of a doubt before we deprive him of his rights before the law.
Re:It looks like someone may have found a way (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. I don't believe in killing embryos and I'm thankful that we are still looking for alternatives. I only hope that these initial results pan out. (Those who are biased against the religious sometimes seem to take a particular glee when something like this doesn't pan out.)
The religious accuse the embryonic stem cell people of murder. On the other hand, those who could help people with embryonic stem cell research lay a similar charge back at the religious. The real problem is the people who try to pretend this is a clear cut issue and call you stupid if you don't take their side.
Reasons it may not work (Score:2)
As I said, I sure hope this becomes an acceptable source of stem cells, but I realize sometimes these things don't pan out.
From what I'm reading here, it seems there is indeed a problem. Embryonic stem cells are "pluripotent" stem cells, which is a step above the "multipotent" stem cells available from this procedure. Apparently the multipotent stem cells cannot produce as many types of tissues as the pluripotent type. So unfortunately, this may not be an adequate solution.
But the results still remain to be seen; I earnestly hope we will find ways to fill this need without having to take more embryoes.
Re:It looks like someone may have found a way (Score:2)
And those who are opposed to a certain point of view oftentimes point to bogus science to bolster their positions. What worries me is that even if this doesn't really pan out, the anti-stem-cell research lobby will still point to it as though scientists are 'deliberately' murdering embryos in the face of a viable alternative.
It's the inverse of your statement. The public has so learned to distrust anyone who takes a controversial stand as though they're driven by some sort of ideological purpose, that we sometimes view scientists as so motivated (though they may not be.)
Re:It looks like someone may have found a way (Score:2)
What worries me is that even if this doesn't really pan out, the anti-stem-cell research lobby will still point to it as though scientists are 'deliberately' murdering embryos in the face of a viable alternative.
I won't. Note my other post today where I summarize reasons peoplle are giving that this might not work. I will however maintain that I believe the embryo is a person and should be protected from having its rights violated no matter what.
Re:It looks like someone may have found a way (Score:2)
If the egg is never fertilized, we're okay. But then, you don't have an embryo, you have an egg.
I'm sure different people's opinions vary, and this is still rather vague, but where I draw the line is how many cromosomes does it have, and is it genetically a human being.
Of course, if you rip out the contents of an egg and put a cloned person in there, you're not really talking about an unfertilized egg anymore. Kind of like people born by C-section: were they really born?
Re:It looks like someone may have found a way (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey Moderators! (Score:2)
No, he's still wrong (Score:2)
C'mon read the article (or even just the
Peter Fodor
Only these four types of cells were produced from the fat cells. Researchers have known for some time that fat cells were "multipotent", i.e. able to produce cells of many other types. However, they also know that embryonic stem cells are "totipotent", i.e. able to produce cells of all other types. So, research into other sources of totipotent stem cells is still highly desirable.
Also, the banned stem cell research in question involves the use of embryonic stem cells (i.e. cells cultured in a Petri dish for the purposes of in vitro fertilization), not "cells from aborted fetuses", since they aren't stem cells anyway.
Regardless of that, the ban on the use of embryonic stem cells doesn't even make sense from an ethical perspective: why should it be somehow nobler to take the embryonic stem cells produced for IVF and throw them away , instead of doing life-saving research on them?
The standard response to this is that people will somehow "justify" obtaining an abortion on the grounds that the cells will go to some use, but as I just said, those cells come from IVF, which couples only use as an absolute last resort anyway (it's very expensive - over $20,000 per attempt; very painful; and still only about 20% successful.)
Finally, do you really think Bush came up with that idea on his own? He said himself that it was the result of long, intense debate with lots of people.
So, I'm not about to peel off my "Bush Is A Stupid Idiot" bumper sticker any time soon. (Just kidding. The only bumper sticker I have says "Nader/LaDuke.")
Re:President Bush Smart On Stem Cells? (Score:2)
Better that than the assassination attempt that President Carter fended off from a bunny rabbit [straightdope.com] swimming in a river. We all know about those KGB trained attack rabbits of the mid-seventies.
Also, at least President Bush can spell pretzel . Can't say that about his critics. Enough said.