There are 3 types of stem cells. There are the embroyonic stem cells(ESC), There are adult stem cells, and there are embryonic germ cells. The last category is derived from a fetus' ovary/testicle.
The most useful one is the ESC. This is because when they are harvested at 4 to 5 days, they contain hundreds of undifferentiated cells. Undifferentiated means that the cell has the ability to grow into any type of tissue (muscle, skin, bone, epithelial, etc.).
I apologize to those who already know this. I'm not trying to lecture here.
But I digress from my point. Harvesting embryos is not killing people. A 4-5 day embryo in a test tube is not a person. It has no chance to be a person. If left alone in the test tube it would not make it to term. In order for a fetus to develop it must be implanted in a uterus. Failing that it will not be a human. It is just a possible human.
This failure to implant in the uterus is not common to the "detached" researchers in the lab. It happens on a daily basis to women all over the planet. (Check out this website to learn more about the causes and possible treatment http://www.illinoisivf.com/recurrent-pregnancy-loss/pre-implantation.html)
Conception does not necessarily make a person. The potential for the zygote to become a person does not make it a person. If that was the case then the arguement could be made that masturbation is as bad as stem cell research. Every sperm is a potential person, it just needs an egg. A woman ovulation cycle is wrong too. Every egg is a potential person, it just needs a sperm. Every zygote is a potential person, it just needs a uterus.
"Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found."
-Monty Python "The Meaning of Life"
Aristos responds:
The semen that you so cavalierly shoot about like Egon Spangler in the hotel scene of Ghostbusters is laden with sperm, and your callous disregard results in millions of sperms' death, but this kills no one. Sperm cannot grow into a person. Nothing can be done to make sperm into a person. If it could, then you'd have people popping out of your old socks and wadded up t-shirts. That's like calling butter a cookie, because there is butter in cookies. Cookies are cookies whether or not they are cooked. It's not just "dough" which is why we call it cookie dough. I would be wary on buying chocolate chip dough ice cream, for I'm kind of a stickler for cookie dough. It would suck to take a bite and taste rye.
Your comparing a zygote to sperm seems careless, considering your screen name. Zygotes do grow into people, and human zygotes formed by human sperm and human eggs are humans. They are not potential humans. Do they have the potential to be anything else? You might say that they are zygotes, but you have to throw the adjective "human" in there to be clear. When people wish to deny the humanity of the unborn, they revert to the use of jargon: an unborn baby is a fetus, or an embryo, or a zygote (depending upon its stage of development). Such semantics are not new. Slavery was called "The Peculiar Institution." The Holocaust was "The Final Solution." And Saved By the Bell was called a "Comedy." A human being can be a specimen, if they are the object of the experiment. This sounds awful, so let's just call them embryos, but let's not even do that, let's call it embryo cell research, but let's not do that, let's call it "stem cell" research and show pictures of brave, noble Christopher Reeve. If we do this, then people won't really know what we're doing. Jews who were thrown into boxcars and sent to death camps were told that they were being relocated for their own safety. Goebbels often equated Jews with vermin, and Hitler himself wrote of them in Mein Kampf as parasites. Such manipulative use of language is absolutely essential in order to dehuminze the victims and turn the masses against them.
The destruction of sperm is not comparable to the destruction of an embryo. Embryos have unique DNA, and it is human DNA. Only human's have such DNA, so an embryo is a human. Embryos live, and their lives are human lives. Purposefully killing an embryo without just cause is murder. I've known (or a least known of) some people who deserve to die (e.g. Screech) but that's because of something that they did. Embryos did nothing wrong. They cannot deserve to be killed, so scientists should not kill them.
Just because embryos cannot survive "left alone" means nothing. All babies would die if left alone, as would many old people. This does not make them less human.
It doesn't matter how useful this research might be. It does not justify murder.
Murder is a pretty harsh word to describe the process of stem cell research. Aside from that I would like to cover the emotional side of the issue. It is not whether the cell is alive or not but rather will it save my currently living, breathing, demanding, sweet, gentle, stubborn, independently wonderful children? Because to debate whether or not it is a living being is not going to make one whit of difference to me in a hospital where I might be choosing over my child's life.
ReplyDeleteI think 'Progress' is the term most often used. In fact, it's the term that's always been used when people need to justify murder.
ReplyDeleteHear hear to Bush for the *first* time, for (knock on wood) doing something right and vetoing stem cell research.
O.k. First of all your analogy is severely flawed. Are you sure you got more than 200 on your verbal SAT? Sperm:Zygote is not equivalent to Butter:Cookie. Butter is very useful. It’s good on pancakes and vegetables. It’s used to make pie crusts and yummy corn on the cob. Human sperm can make. . . oh yeah, human zygotes. (Plus some interesting stains on chubby interns blue dresses and Motel 6 Bedspreads.) That’s it. Nothing else. Human sperm is created for one purpose only – to make human zygotes.
ReplyDeleteAs to my calling zygotes ‘potential humans,’ I wrote potential because, as I explained, without a uterus the zygote has NO potential other than forming a dead ball of cells. Also, zygote is not a name just to dehumanize the process. A zygote is a fertilized egg no matter what species it arises from. And with the exception of a possible slight variation in size and color, there is no visible difference between the zygotes of fish, frogs, Screech, and humans.
Next, the comparison to slavery and the holocaust was poetic. It sprang to mind a future episode of 20/20 where they superimpose a classic clip of tattooed Jews standing in line to be slaughtered with a clip of numbered test tubes in a lab. It was a good ploy to invoke inaccurate sympathies. But the reality of the comparison is not even close. Stem cell research involves no pain, suffering or indignities. The same cannot be said for the holocaust or slavery.
Finally, your last rebuttal involving zygotes vs. sperm is flawed as well. That embryos have unique human DNA is true. However, sperm is unique human DNA as well. They both have no thought, feelings or desires. It is not a human baby left in the desert to die. It is no more than a collection of dividing cells. The killing of which is a far cry from murder (which according to Mirriam-Webster is “1: To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.). The lab workers are not some evil mad scientist types slaughtering babies with maniacal glee. They are trying to find a cure for serious human diseases for the betterment of mankind. I agree that embryos do not deserve to be killed, but neither do deer, rabbits and trout. Yet they are killed and are quite yummy. Even a mosquito does not deserve to be killed as annoying as they are. However they are all killed without a second thought despite the fact that they are all far more complex and feeling than a embryonic collection of human cells. I know, I know, deer need to be hunted. If they are not, they will overpopulate destroying the ecosystem and causing a severe starvation of the herd. By killing off some of the herd you insure the survival and health of the rest. So because some of the deer are going to die we might as well shoot them. Enjoy the sustenance the meat provides and know we are doing good for the animal because there was a good chance it would die a slow painful death of starvation. Harvesting 4 to 5 day old zygotes is a similar principle. The zygote will die without implantation. If we can harvest it before that we can use it to grow new spines or livers etc. This will better the human population and thus the sacrifice of the embryos will be worth it in the end.
Science Guy:
ReplyDeleteI didn't compare butter to a zygote. I compared butter to sperm, and like all analogies it was not meant to be taken literally (so stop spreading it on your toast).
Without a uterus, a zygote will die. Without an atmosphere, all life as we know it will die. This does not diminish the value of life.
You said "A zygote is a fertilized egg no matter what species," but you know darn well that we're talking about human zygotes, and there's a difference between human and non-human zygotes (or do you wish to dispute this?). Visible difference doesn't mean jack squat, and a science guy ought to know this. Just because I can't see a virus doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
The comparison to slavery and the holocaust was not meant to be poetic. Those who supported them used careful language so as to legitimize their activities. Drop "embryo" or "zygote" from your usage and replace it with "young baby." It sounds a lot worse because it sounds like it is. Hell, you're even careful just to say "embryo" or "zygote." You intentionally omit the necessary adjective "human." Go ahead and do research on a rat's embryonic stem cells. They're not the same, is the problem, and that's also the issue. Rats aren't humans, but human zygotes and embryos are. Just because there is no pain and suffering, it isn't murder? So if I shoot someone in the head whilst they sleep, it's cool because they felt nothing and suffered none?
Did you really mean to compare the killing of people to the killing of animals, or are you just stumped? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all animals are created equal"?
You used the verb "sacrifice" in your final paragraph. If a zygote or embryo is nothing to be valued, then how is it a sacrifice?
It's nice that you consulted a dictionary to define murder, but you only cited one of the definitions. Was this intentional or careless? What is wrong with the definition that I provided, that murder is the intentional and unjustified killing of another human being?
Kiki Girl:
ReplyDeleteMurder is a harsh word, but its denotative and connotative weight are appropriate in spite of what it might do for your children.
Debating "whether or not [an embryo] is a living being" is of central importance here, lest you are indifferent to morality. M
Maybe I would murder someone or do something else immoral if I thought that it would save my children. However, I would still be committing an evil act. My desperation does not equal justification. The ends do not justify the means, nor does the intention.
Surrealist:
ReplyDeleteBush did not veto stem cell research. He blocked a bill that would have provided federal funds for research conducted on embryonic stem cells. The research can still go on.
Aristos:
ReplyDeleteI am aware of your analogy of butter to sperm. That’s what I wrote. But butter has hundreds of uses where sperm has one. So it is a flawed analogy.
The last time I checked we still have an atmosphere and it is not scheduled to depart anytime soon, so I’m not sure how that relates to a ‘human’ embryo in a lab with no uterus in sight.
I do not think that I have diminished the value of life. The ‘human’ embryo will die. By using it to cure diseases we have given the ‘human’ embryo meaning to its short life.
Yes I “know darn well” we were talking about human zygotes. My whole response was about human zygotes. I didn’t “intentionally omit” human. I figured you were intelligent enough to figure that I was talking about human embryos. Fear not, I will refer to them that way from here on out.
Humans are animals. We all belong to Kingdom Animalia. The comparison is accurate. And our zygotes are very similar. Yes one grows into a fish and one into a human. But they both have a tail at one point. They both have gill slits. They both contain DNA with the same 4 bases. If you are so against human embryo stem cell research then why aren’t you against rat embryo stem cell research. It seems pretty damn similar to me.
If you shoot someone in the head while they are sleeping it is murder. Bad analogy. Here is a better one. A man comes into the emergency room after a bad car accident. He has severe head trauma and will not make it through the night. He is on the donor registry, so the doctors harvest his liver, kidneys and heart for other patients dying from organ failure. Is that murder? Should we start protesting the gift of life registry? The concept is the same. The patient (oh excuse me, there I go trivializing again by using a incorrect term). The human zygote (really small human baby) is terminal. It will not survive. Lets use its cells to grow a new spine for someone who needs one.
As for using the term sacrifice, I used that correctly. I never said it wasn’t a sacrifice. I said it wasn’t murder. They don’t mean the same thing.
By the way, I didn’t intentionally not include other definitions. Here are all of them. What do they have in common? Malice. There is no malice involved in stem cell research.
From Mirriam Webster at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/murder:
Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous [the traffic was murder] b : something outrageous or blameworthy [getting away with murder]
Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE [murders French] d : to defeat badly
intransitive verb : to commit murder
synonym see KILL