Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tnphydeaux · Oct 19, 2003, 02:19 am

What Is Wrong With Human Cloning?

by Marvin Galloway

The President of the United States called for a ban on human cloning during his State of the Union address. So, what’s wrong with human cloning?

Every individual life is a continuum hallmarked by growth and development. We are invited, through the media, to differentiate reproductive cloning from therapeutic cloning, but both conceive a cloned individual human being, in vitro. Scientists seeking to exploit therapeutic cloning would have us believe that, because their goal doesn't include life support to the birth stage, their 'form' of cloning is okay. Far from it; it's a worse application of the technology.

Therapeutic cloning seeks to conceive 'designer' individual human beings, give them life support either in a growth medium or a woman's body, then kill and harvest from these individuals the target tissues for which the cloned being was conceived.

It is important to realize that an embryo IS an individual human being: goals of cloning scientists bear witness to the hidden truth that they are conceiving a unique human being, whether for reproductive or therapeutic aims. Giving tacit acceptance to a proven lie --that the embryo is not an individual human life-- is bad enough, we’ve done this for more than thirty years, but to embrace cannibalism founded on such a lie is far more degenerate.

Tacit acceptance for manipulating individual human life has lead from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide, proving the bankruptcy of continuing moderate acceptance. We are now staring at cannibalism in the name of whatever you care to call it. Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for their body parts? If you think that it is, at least know that it is cannibalism.

Has anyone seen the ad for "Dreammakers"? They recruit women as "egg donors" presumably for artificial insemination to "help a couple who can't conceive". Nothing wrong with that, but I bet that "fetal farming" is the next step. Oh, there was/is a great deal wrong with such manipulation of embryonic individual human life, but the public was not privy to the truths the scientists wishing to do the science held axiomatic to their manipulations ... embryologists hold as fundamental truth that individual human life begins with conception. The debates back when in vitro fertilization was arising on the bio-med scene pointed to the horrific reality we now face, but those debates were extremely one-sided, touting the benefits so loudly that the features--the 'how is this done'--were squelched; the American citizenry were not told the truths the scientists based their exploitations upon. The public was carefully fed degrees of information, degrees of truth, thus We the People accepted degrees of exploitation. In a conspiracy? ... Yes and no.

We must realize and admit that there were scientists back then who had no qualms with creating and discarding embryonic human individuals, and their values guided the careful manipulation of public understanding, causing the people to tacitly accept the values of the scientists without weighing those values against our founding values ... our tacit acceptance led to the values of the scientists becoming the expressed values of this nation! Will we also allow cannibalism to be the expressed value of this nation?

The same agenda driven framework that brought lazy acceptance for careless exploitation of embryos for in vitro fertilization is happening now regarding embryonic stem cell and cloning exploitations, with powerful politicians (like Orrin Hatch and New Jersey state leaders) aiding this manipulation. The withholding of truth, deeper truth regarding these procedures, is decidedly manipulative and IS designed to 'prepare the confused atmosphere' in which the debates occur.

Our tacit agreement for this 'benefits-outweigh-the-features' is being exploited, in order to arrange public acceptance of cannibalism in the name of 'higher purpose' for individual human lives deemed 'of less worth' since they are merely embryonic individual humans.

Unless media venues willing to air the facts regarding nascent individual human life are found (and I have been frantically searching for doors that will open, with little success so far), to get the truth out there prior to 'demand for the benefits' driving the debates to ignore the 'features', this nation will embrace cannibalism as enlightened policy for medical advances.

In Europe, the citizens have already been manipulated to focus on benefits and ignore features, ignore the truth of 'how these marvels' are accomplished; in Europe, the citizens have already lent their tacit acceptance to this cannibalism, without actually ever facing the stark truth, due in strong measure to calculated, selective dissemination of information by the scientists and industries planning to profit from the exploitations, from the cannibalization of individual human life.

Scribbler1 · Oct 19, 2003, 03:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,)
What Is Wrong With Human Cloning?
Therapeutic cloning seeks to conceive 'designer' individual human beings, give them life support either in a growth medium or a woman's body, then kill and harvest from these individuals the target tissues for which the cloned being was conceived.

Tacit acceptance for manipulating individual human life has lead from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide, proving the bankruptcy of continuing moderate acceptance. We are now staring at cannibalism in the name of whatever you care to call it. Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for their body parts? If you think that it is, at least know that it is cannibalism.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think you're mistaking the aims of medical science. Sure, cloning, as well as other areas of science need to be policed, not outright banned. The rest of your quote (which was too long to include) seems to make the overused leap from science to religion. Surely you must realize that for every scientist you can produce to support your claims others can produce dozens of equally or more reputable scientists who will refute yours. Cloning and partial-birth abortion are two distinctly different subjects and only serve to weaken your claim. You are of course entitled to your opinion but in my opinion using stem-cell cloning experiments in an effort to ease the suffering of people (and babies too) who have severe medical conditions is well worth the effort. If you believe a half-dozen undifferentiated cells have the same rights as an already born infant or fully grown human, then that's your feeling on this. For me, the choice of possibly alleviating the suffereing of an already born human over the "rights" of a parasitical "grain of sugar" sized zygote is no choice at all.

**Pooeypants** · Oct 19, 2003, 11:05 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,)
[b]
In Europe, the citizens have already been manipulated to focus on benefits and ignore features, ignore the truth of 'how these marvels' are accomplished; in Europe, the citizens have already lent their tacit acceptance to this cannibalism, without actually ever facing the stark truth, due in strong measure to calculated, selective dissemination of information by the scientists and industries planning to profit from the exploitations, from the cannibalization of individual human life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Nice of you to brand like a whole continent of nations as brainwashed and try to make it out that you are superior. Did you know that the very first vaccination was done on a boy who had no real knowledge of smallpox etc and there was every chance that the experiment would kill him. Do you condone Jenner's actions which lead to immunisation and eradication of smallpox?

Besides the author seems to be completely biased on this issue to the point where it is laughable. Let him be stuck in the dark ages.

Waychel · Oct 19, 2003, 12:49 pm

The process of human cloning hasn't been perfected yet and animal cloning itself continues to have problems (increased aging). I just find it wreckless to clone a human being when you know they will have many medical problems as they get older. They will either be a guinea pig their whole life, or never be able to live a normal life thanks to the media. I could just imagine this guy (or girl) trying to live a normal life as religious fanatics boycotted their very existence at every turn while extremists sent them bombs in the mail or something.

There are both medical and social issues to take into account that would personally affect the life of the clone. They're not a sheep or a lab rat - they will develop into a unique human being. Knowing that responsibility and obligation, I cannot see how scientists in N. Korea and other countries can actually be attempting to clone human beings right now with such inconsideration.

I don't see what the point of cloning a human being is, either. I could understand the benefits of attempting to create a cloning process of organs, but not human beings (unless you wanted them to be donors, which is entirely unethical).

tnphydeaux · Oct 19, 2003, 01:52 pm

You and others on this board appear fixated to blame religion when you cannot refute the facts. Find one embryologist who does not adhere to the truth that every individual human being's lifetime starts at conception. Oh, to be sure, you can find plenty of cell biologists and manipulators of embryonic stem cells who will try to blow candy up your *ss that an individual human lifetime doesn't start until the 'pre-embryo does this or that', or 'an individual human lifetime doesn;t begin until the organs are fully formed'. But ask yourself a very telling question, "If the emrbyo being tested in genetic screening is not already the individual human being who will emerge from the water world of the placenta into the air world, then how can the tests have any validity?" Only an agenda driven, dishonest person will try to dissemble or twist that truth. Have at it all you cannibalism supporters.

Waychel · Oct 20, 2003, 01:03 am

I agree with you to some extent, but I think you are embellishing somewhat - not all embryologists agree that the individual human being's lifetime begins at conception, nor do they all consider this philosophy to be an irrefutable truth.

Tests can have validity because physically, the embryo is developing as it should. Until the brain begins or does form however, I am of the opinion that it is not yet an individual or being, and there are just as many people of this same or similar opinion as there are of yours.

I am for stem cell research personally, although I do not see cloning being necessary for the progression of it and neither do many experts in the field.

Human cloning has 100x more the controversy and emotion tied up in it than the abortion debate by contrast, because you are knowingly developing a human being to do tests upon and use as a guinea pig of science. Morals and philosophy aside, there are still extremely ethical implications to be considered and I do not believe our society is ready (or ever will be) to accept such a proposal in the slightest collective margin.

Regardless, these are all just opinions, so please don't go labeling people as "cannibalism supporters" or the like for expressing them. You may as well call Section 8 a "genocide supporter" going by the same method of stereotype.

Scribbler1 · Oct 20, 2003, 01:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,)
But ask yourself a very telling question, "If the emrbyo being tested in genetic screening is not already the individual human being who will emerge from the water world of the placenta into the air world, then how can the tests have any validity?" Only an agenda driven, dishonest person will try to dissemble or twist that truth. Have at it all you cannibalism supporters.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I ssume next we'll be arguing whether a zygote has the right to vote!

It may seem like a contradiction, but I support your obviously deeply held beliefs, as they are YOUR beliefs and you have every right to them. But I also disagree with you. The more zealous (or afraid) among us would argue against ANY form of human cell cloning. However we are talking about individual cells which, for want of a better term, haven't yet made up their minds what to be. Some may gropw to be skin, kidneys, blood cells, etc.. I don't recall anyone saying scientists should start taking apart fetuses which are already forming, simply using cells which are not yet forming into distinct body parts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read where the stem cells in question can be obtained from the umbilical cord itself.
At the risk of repeating myself, there is no contest in my mind which takes precedence. A tiny gob of undefined cells which may or may not grow into a baby and may or may not be born healthy or even alive, or the genetic research which could very likely allow the already born yet severely afflicted to live a decent life.

You sound as if you don't have much faith in people, actually. I personally believe if anyone tries to develop any kind of "master race" or "super-soldier" or ANYTHING along those lines, the bulk of society will slap these mad scientist types down pretty damn quick! But duplicating a single cell into something like replacements for damaged or diseased brain or other organ cells can, if successful, do NOTHING but good.
Just my three cents here, but I think the use (overuse?) of the word "cannibalism" is a cheap shot.

tnphydeaux · Oct 20, 2003, 03:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
I agree with you to some extent, but I think you are embellishing somewhat - not all embryologists agree that the individual human being's lifetime begins at conception, nor do they all consider this philosophy to be an irrefutable truth.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> This isn't 'philosophy', the notion that every individual human lifetime starts at a conception. That is an astonishingly assertion perhaps offered in an effort to frame the argument along false lines. But nice try. And yes, try and find even one Embryologist who would refute that the individual human being has it's beginning at conception. HINT, their entire discipline is based on that axiom, Rachel.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel.)
Tests can have validity because physically, the embryo is developing as it should. Until the brain begins or does form however, I am of the opinion that it is not yet an individual or being, and there are just as many people of this same or similar opinion as there are of yours.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote> No, Rachel, tests have validity for the emerging child because the embryo IS the same individual as the child, at her/his earliest age. I appreciate your opinion and would note for you that the brain begins forming within days of conception and isn't entirely finished forming until well after the individual leaves the water world and enters the air world.

tnphydeaux · Oct 20, 2003, 03:52 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
I assume next we'll be arguing whether a zygote has the right to vote!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not a very good effort to raise a red herring, scribbler. That appears to set the tone for what followed.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
The more zealous (or afraid) among us would argue against ANY form of human cell cloning. However we are talking about individual cells which, for want of a better term, haven't yet made up their minds what to be. Some may grow to be skin, kidneys, blood cells, etc.. I don't recall anyone saying scientists should start taking apart fetuses which are already forming, simply using cells which are not yet forming into distinct body parts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read where the stem cells in question can be obtained from the umbilical cord itself.
At the risk of repeating myself, there is no contest in my mind which takes precedence. A tiny gob of undefined cells which may or may not grow into a baby and may or may not be born healthy or even alive, or the genetic research which could very likely allow the already born yet severely afflicted to live a decent life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, we are not talking about individual cells, we are discussing an embryo, which is an integrated whole organism having subset units called stem cells and tolk sac and placental barrier, rather than merely 'individual cells'. You've confused organism (the integrated whole seeking to survive) with organ or cell, as a subset of organism. As to taking apart fetuses (small children according to the actual meaning of the Latin word fetus), there is already a billion dollar plus fetal tissue harvesting business supplying research programs all over the world and especially in America. You are correct that cord blood is rich in stem cells and these stem cells have been directed (differentiated) into many tissues. Adult stem cells can be found all over your body and in abundance if one knows what to look for. As to 'growing into a baby' ... well, if you start with a perspective that dehumanizes the unborn, then it is near impossible for me to reason with you regarding the continuum of a lifetime, such that the individual begins at conception, passes through many ages in growth and development, all the way to beyond puberty, and is always the same individual human being that began at conception ... you've arbitrarily chosen to dehumanize the earliest ages along the continuum, incorrectly. As to cannibalizing younger human lives to treat older human lives, well, that is in fact cannibalizing for expedience and utilitarian measures. And it isn't really necessary since adult stem cells and cord blood will yield the cures without resorting to cannibalizing other younger individual lives, IF the scientists will but do the higher mammalian studies to determine how the differentiation process works ... they're already backing pluripotent stem cells to a less differentiated stage, so the next step is bringing them forward as the specific tissues sought.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
You sound as if you don't have much faith in people, actually. I personally believe if anyone tries to develop any kind of "master race" or "super-soldier" or ANYTHING along those lines, the bulk of society will slap these mad scientist types down pretty damn quick! But duplicating a single cell into something like replacements for damaged or diseased brain or other organ cells can, if successful, do NOTHING but good.
Just my three cents here, but I think the use (overuse?) of the word "cannibalism" is a cheap shot.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, harvesting individual human lives at their earliest age along the continuum of their lifetime, for dissection and exploitation in treating an older individual is cannibalism, as surely as if the technician were to give the cells dissected from a once alive organism to you upon a cracker, to eat for your cure. [Oh, and I'm a professional writer, so emphasis via shocking terminology is my stock and trade, and in non-fiction, I always stick to truthful shockers.]

tnphydeaux · Oct 20, 2003, 03:53 am

tolk sac = yolk sac ... it's too late and I've spent from writing things regarding the Terri Schiavo horror.

Waychel · Oct 20, 2003, 01:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This isn't 'philosophy', the notion that every individual human lifetime starts at a conception. That is an astonishingly assertion perhaps offered in an effort to frame the argument along false lines. But nice try. And yes, try and find even one Embryologist who would refute that the individual human being has it's beginning at conception. HINT, their entire discipline is based on that axiom, Rachel.

No, Rachel, tests have validity for the emerging child because the embryo IS the same individual as the child, at her/his earliest age. I appreciate your opinion and would note for you that the brain begins forming within days of conception and isn't entirely finished forming until well after the individual leaves the water world and enters the air world.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What makes a unique human being? One would argue it is experiences that shape us, and our comprehension of those experiences that create the individual. How do we experience and comprehend? With our brain. So then, how can a fetus within the first trimester that has yet to fully form limbs, let alone a brain, be considered a unique human life? All that is there is a developing group of cells in the process of becoming an individual, but not yet an individual. Arguing its possibility of developing into an individual would not be much different from arguing the possibility of every girl's menstrual cycle to have been an individual if they had been impregnated, and so on.

I believe you are mistaken to some extent because arguments and perceptions such as these fuel debate as to when the individual life truly begins. Debate which most definitely exists among embryologists as well. Every sperm and egg is alive, but they are not human beings, just the possibility of one. However, neither is a fertilized egg, which leads to argument regarding the embryo itself; at what point in time that embryo can be considered a "life" in its cycle of development.

One famous embyrologist known as Clifford Grobstein is famous for his demonstration as to point out that the newly fertilized egg (zygote) is no bigger than a period on a printed page. His argument to this was, "How can a single cell be considered a human being, a person, an entity endowed with unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" I would have to agree that it is overzealous and proposterous.

However, we're talking about cloning and not abortion, which has entirely different implications.

tnphydeaux · Oct 20, 2003, 02:03 pm

Pure unadulterated horse feathers. What you've done is expound a philosophy, then try to assert that what scientists (Embryologists) use as their fundamental axioms in science are philosophical perspectives. Apparently you do not understand waht science IS.

YOU TOO have made the typical error of citing subunits of organs as if they are equivocal to an entire organism. Sperm and ova are subunits of organs (the gonads), and organs are subunits of an integrated whole ORGANSIM.

[Incidentally, once mitosis occurs (cell division of the first diploid formed at conception), there is no longer a 'fertilized egg' ... the organism has become multicellular as soon as two diploids are present; the sex cells are haploids. With the third cell, the encapsulating placental organ is being built.]

tnphydeaux · Oct 20, 2003, 02:05 pm

I used to handle Grobstein's book (Grobstein and Billias) as a publisher's rep. He would be the first to defend the axiom that individual lifetime begins at conception. He was a scientist.

Waychel · Oct 20, 2003, 02:17 pm

Many scientists still have religious beliefs and philosophies. Scientists still have their own philosophy of "life." That is why debate exists so greatly around this topic, because everyone has different philosophies regarding when life truly begins.

I know what sperm is, thank you very much. My point was that sperm is living just as the egg is, but they are nothing but cells - no more a human being than a zygote.

If there was life upon conception, if the zygote was a human being immediately upon said conception, there would be no pregnancy process at all. The zygote becomes human, which leads many people to be of the opinion that individual life is not immediate, but a process of similar development as well. This is why I personally believe that the individual life does not begin until the brain has developed and is fuctioning.

tnphydeaux · Oct 20, 2003, 04:44 pm

You asserted, "My point was that sperm is living just as the egg is, but they are nothing but cells - no more a human being than a zygote." Rachel, a zygote is an integrated organism ... cells are subunits of organs and organisms.

"... because everyone has different philosophies regarding when life truly begins." Uh, no, 'everyone' doesn't have different philosophies regarding when an individual lifetime begins. Stating that false assertion doesn't give it validity. What you may be trying to express is that people have differing valuations on the life that is there, holding a zygote to be less a person than a toddler, for instance. I'm offering you the facts regarding the continuum that is an individual lifetime. You are correct in assuming that some choose to dehumanize the earliest ages along that continuum, but the 'philosophical dehumanization' in no way cancels the truth that every individual human lifetime begins at that individual's conception. Even identical twins both begin their lifetime continuum at the first diploid mitosis.

Waychel · Oct 20, 2003, 07:12 pm

A zygote is an integrated organism, but what makes it so sanct in comparison to a sperm or egg? Are they not just as equally possibilities for "life" as well?

I do not see how one can claim from a purely scientific perspective that a zygote is an entity when it has not yet formed into one. That zygote is no more a human than a sperm or an egg are by themselves - it must first develop and become.

I do not believe in souls, I believe the brain is what makes us who we are, so until the brain is formed I do not believe an embryo to yet be an individual being, but a group of cells striving in the process to become one.

So from this perspective, I have a much different philosophy than your own. You may continue in denial of it all you want, but everyone too has different philosophies as well. If everyone agreed that upon conception the zygote is an entity, then there would be no debate at all or ever - not among you and I, not among scientists and the religiously inclined, not among anyone. We would all agree, but we do not.

Scribbler1 · Oct 21, 2003, 01:33 am

Although this thread may have started as a cloning debate, it is beginning to look as if it will turn into an abortion debate, which I avoid like the plague as it, like a religion "debate" ends up as a colossal waste of time, and creates mainly animosity between posters. I'm not exactly a dunce when it comes to many fields of science, but I know little of biology and when I see words like "diploids" being bandied about, I just think it's time for this kid to skeedaddle. It's been a hoot, but I think I'm gonna go find a thread where I can contribute more than just my beliefs.

BTW, although I should know better, MY beliefs are: what is commonly referred to as a zygote is a parasitical group of cells and should be treated as such. I am pro-choice, but only until the third trimester when the fetus at least has a chance to live and develop outside the womb. And finally (present company EXcluded, of course. I refer to similar, but less civil debates) my biggest belief along these lines is that is if people spent less time worrying about the humanity of a tiny ball of cells and more time worrying about actual, honest-to-goodness children who are born into poverty, violence and disease, we'd all be a lot better off.

See yez around.

Waychel · Oct 21, 2003, 01:49 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
BTW, although I should know better, MY beliefs are: what is commonly referred to as a zygote is a parasitical group of cells and should be treated as such. I am pro-choice, but only until the third trimester when the fetus at least has a chance to live and develop outside the womb. And finally (present company EXcluded, of course. I refer to similar, but less civil debates) my biggest belief along these lines is that is if people spent less time worrying about the humanity of a tiny ball of cells and more time worrying about actual, honest-to-goodness children who are born into poverty, violence and disease, we'd all be a lot better off.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am of this exact same opinion myself as well. =p

I will stop here too; you are right, and it has gone way off topic. Ironic considering I was agreeing with tnphydeaux in the first place regarding the cloning issue LOL

tnphydeaux · Oct 21, 2003, 01:58 am

You opined, "I do not see how one can claim from a purely scientific perspective that a zygote is an entity when it has not yet formed into one." Well, Rachel, that's like asking how can a toddler be an adult, it hasn't gone through puberty yet? The zygote you were is as real an age along the continuum of your lifetime as your puberty is an age along that continuum. As noted previously, if the zygote were not already the individual life, the genetic tests performed upon zygotes would be too non-specific for application to the individual being diagnosed.

Waychel · Oct 21, 2003, 02:00 am

SK:EJKL:JK:DFJKLJKLSDFKL:Ahkl

I'm so immature.. I get so frustrated giving people the last word LOL

Oct 19, 2003, 03:35 am	#62 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,) What Is Wrong With Human Cloning? Therapeutic cloning seeks to conceive 'designer' individual human beings, give them life support either in a growth medium or a woman's body, then kill and harvest from these individuals the target tissues for which the cloned being was conceived. Tacit acceptance for manipulating individual human life has lead from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide, proving the bankruptcy of continuing moderate acceptance. We are now staring at cannibalism in the name of whatever you care to call it. Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for their body parts? If you think that it is, at least know that it is cannibalism. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think you're mistaking the aims of medical science. Sure, cloning, as well as other areas of science need to be policed, not outright banned. The rest of your quote (which was too long to include) seems to make the overused leap from science to religion. Surely you must realize that for every scientist you can produce to support your claims others can produce dozens of equally or more reputable scientists who will refute yours. Cloning and partial-birth abortion are two distinctly different subjects and only serve to weaken your claim. You are of course entitled to your opinion but in my opinion using stem-cell cloning experiments in an effort to ease the suffering of people (and babies too) who have severe medical conditions is well worth the effort. If you believe a half-dozen undifferentiated cells have the same rights as an already born infant or fully grown human, then that's your feeling on this. For me, the choice of possibly alleviating the suffereing of an already born human over the "rights" of a parasitical "grain of sugar" sized zygote is no choice at all. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Oct 19, 2003, 11:05 am	#63 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,) [b] In Europe, the citizens have already been manipulated to focus on benefits and ignore features, ignore the truth of 'how these marvels' are accomplished; in Europe, the citizens have already lent their tacit acceptance to this cannibalism, without actually ever facing the stark truth, due in strong measure to calculated, selective dissemination of information by the scientists and industries planning to profit from the exploitations, from the cannibalization of individual human life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nice of you to brand like a whole continent of nations as brainwashed and try to make it out that you are superior. Did you know that the very first vaccination was done on a boy who had no real knowledge of smallpox etc and there was every chance that the experiment would kill him. Do you condone Jenner's actions which lead to immunisation and eradication of smallpox? Besides the author seems to be completely biased on this issue to the point where it is laughable. Let him be stuck in the dark ages. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Oct 19, 2003, 12:49 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	The process of human cloning hasn't been perfected yet and animal cloning itself continues to have problems (increased aging). I just find it wreckless to clone a human being when you know they will have many medical problems as they get older. They will either be a guinea pig their whole life, or never be able to live a normal life thanks to the media. I could just imagine this guy (or girl) trying to live a normal life as religious fanatics boycotted their very existence at every turn while extremists sent them bombs in the mail or something. There are both medical and social issues to take into account that would personally affect the life of the clone. They're not a sheep or a lab rat - they will develop into a unique human being. Knowing that responsibility and obligation, I cannot see how scientists in N. Korea and other countries can actually be attempting to clone human beings right now with such inconsideration. I don't see what the point of cloning a human being is, either. I could understand the benefits of attempting to create a cloning process of organs, but not human beings (unless you wanted them to be donors, which is entirely unethical). Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 20, 2003, 01:03 am	#66 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I agree with you to some extent, but I think you are embellishing somewhat - not all embryologists agree that the individual human being's lifetime begins at conception, nor do they all consider this philosophy to be an irrefutable truth. Tests can have validity because physically, the embryo is developing as it should. Until the brain begins or does form however, I am of the opinion that it is not yet an individual or being, and there are just as many people of this same or similar opinion as there are of yours. I am for stem cell research personally, although I do not see cloning being necessary for the progression of it and neither do many experts in the field. Human cloning has 100x more the controversy and emotion tied up in it than the abortion debate by contrast, because you are knowingly developing a human being to do tests upon and use as a guinea pig of science. Morals and philosophy aside, there are still extremely ethical implications to be considered and I do not believe our society is ready (or ever will be) to accept such a proposal in the slightest collective margin. Regardless, these are all just opinions, so please don't go labeling people as "cannibalism supporters" or the like for expressing them. You may as well call Section 8 a "genocide supporter" going by the same method of stereotype. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 20, 2003, 01:38 am	#67 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,) But ask yourself a very telling question, "If the emrbyo being tested in genetic screening is not already the individual human being who will emerge from the water world of the placenta into the air world, then how can the tests have any validity?" Only an agenda driven, dishonest person will try to dissemble or twist that truth. Have at it all you cannibalism supporters.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I ssume next we'll be arguing whether a zygote has the right to vote! It may seem like a contradiction, but I support your obviously deeply held beliefs, as they are YOUR beliefs and you have every right to them. But I also disagree with you. The more zealous (or afraid) among us would argue against ANY form of human cell cloning. However we are talking about individual cells which, for want of a better term, haven't yet made up their minds what to be. Some may gropw to be skin, kidneys, blood cells, etc.. I don't recall anyone saying scientists should start taking apart fetuses which are already forming, simply using cells which are not yet forming into distinct body parts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read where the stem cells in question can be obtained from the umbilical cord itself. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no contest in my mind which takes precedence. A tiny gob of undefined cells which may or may not grow into a baby and may or may not be born healthy or even alive, or the genetic research which could very likely allow the already born yet severely afflicted to live a decent life. You sound as if you don't have much faith in people, actually. I personally believe if anyone tries to develop any kind of "master race" or "super-soldier" or ANYTHING along those lines, the bulk of society will slap these mad scientist types down pretty damn quick! But duplicating a single cell into something like replacements for damaged or diseased brain or other organ cells can, if successful, do NOTHING but good. Just my three cents here, but I think the use (overuse?) of the word "cannibalism" is a cheap shot. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Oct 19, 2003, 02:19 am	#61 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	What Is Wrong With Human Cloning? by Marvin Galloway The President of the United States called for a ban on human cloning during his State of the Union address. So, what’s wrong with human cloning? Every individual life is a continuum hallmarked by growth and development. We are invited, through the media, to differentiate reproductive cloning from therapeutic cloning, but both conceive a cloned individual human being, in vitro. Scientists seeking to exploit therapeutic cloning would have us believe that, because their goal doesn't include life support to the birth stage, their 'form' of cloning is okay. Far from it; it's a worse application of the technology. Therapeutic cloning seeks to conceive 'designer' individual human beings, give them life support either in a growth medium or a woman's body, then kill and harvest from these individuals the target tissues for which the cloned being was conceived. It is important to realize that an embryo IS an individual human being: goals of cloning scientists bear witness to the hidden truth that they are conceiving a unique human being, whether for reproductive or therapeutic aims. Giving tacit acceptance to a proven lie --that the embryo is not an individual human life-- is bad enough, we’ve done this for more than thirty years, but to embrace cannibalism founded on such a lie is far more degenerate. Tacit acceptance for manipulating individual human life has lead from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide, proving the bankruptcy of continuing moderate acceptance. We are now staring at cannibalism in the name of whatever you care to call it. Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for their body parts? If you think that it is, at least know that it is cannibalism. Has anyone seen the ad for "Dreammakers"? They recruit women as "egg donors" presumably for artificial insemination to "help a couple who can't conceive". Nothing wrong with that, but I bet that "fetal farming" is the next step. Oh, there was/is a great deal wrong with such manipulation of embryonic individual human life, but the public was not privy to the truths the scientists wishing to do the science held axiomatic to their manipulations ... embryologists hold as fundamental truth that individual human life begins with conception. The debates back when in vitro fertilization was arising on the bio-med scene pointed to the horrific reality we now face, but those debates were extremely one-sided, touting the benefits so loudly that the features--the 'how is this done'--were squelched; the American citizenry were not told the truths the scientists based their exploitations upon. The public was carefully fed degrees of information, degrees of truth, thus We the People accepted degrees of exploitation. In a conspiracy? ... Yes and no. We must realize and admit that there were scientists back then who had no qualms with creating and discarding embryonic human individuals, and their values guided the careful manipulation of public understanding, causing the people to tacitly accept the values of the scientists without weighing those values against our founding values ... our tacit acceptance led to the values of the scientists becoming the expressed values of this nation! Will we also allow cannibalism to be the expressed value of this nation? The same agenda driven framework that brought lazy acceptance for careless exploitation of embryos for in vitro fertilization is happening now regarding embryonic stem cell and cloning exploitations, with powerful politicians (like Orrin Hatch and New Jersey state leaders) aiding this manipulation. The withholding of truth, deeper truth regarding these procedures, is decidedly manipulative and IS designed to 'prepare the confused atmosphere' in which the debates occur. Our tacit agreement for this 'benefits-outweigh-the-features' is being exploited, in order to arrange public acceptance of cannibalism in the name of 'higher purpose' for individual human lives deemed 'of less worth' since they are merely embryonic individual humans. Unless media venues willing to air the facts regarding nascent individual human life are found (and I have been frantically searching for doors that will open, with little success so far), to get the truth out there prior to 'demand for the benefits' driving the debates to ignore the 'features', this nation will embrace cannibalism as enlightened policy for medical advances. In Europe, the citizens have already been manipulated to focus on benefits and ignore features, ignore the truth of 'how these marvels' are accomplished; in Europe, the citizens have already lent their tacit acceptance to this cannibalism, without actually ever facing the stark truth, due in strong measure to calculated, selective dissemination of information by the scientists and industries planning to profit from the exploitations, from the cannibalization of individual human life.

Oct 19, 2003, 01:52 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	You and others on this board appear fixated to blame religion when you cannot refute the facts. Find one embryologist who does not adhere to the truth that every individual human being's lifetime starts at conception. Oh, to be sure, you can find plenty of cell biologists and manipulators of embryonic stem cells who will try to blow candy up your *ss that an individual human lifetime doesn't start until the 'pre-embryo does this or that', or 'an individual human lifetime doesn;t begin until the organs are fully formed'. But ask yourself a very telling question, "If the emrbyo being tested in genetic screening is not already the individual human being who will emerge from the water world of the placenta into the air world, then how can the tests have any validity?" Only an agenda driven, dishonest person will try to dissemble or twist that truth. Have at it all you cannibalism supporters.

Oct 20, 2003, 03:20 am	#68 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) I agree with you to some extent, but I think you are embellishing somewhat - not all embryologists agree that the individual human being's lifetime begins at conception, nor do they all consider this philosophy to be an irrefutable truth.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This isn't 'philosophy', the notion that every individual human lifetime starts at a conception. That is an astonishingly assertion perhaps offered in an effort to frame the argument along false lines. But nice try. And yes, try and find even one Embryologist who would refute that the individual human being has it's beginning at conception. HINT, their entire discipline is based on that axiom, Rachel. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel.) Tests can have validity because physically, the embryo is developing as it should. Until the brain begins or does form however, I am of the opinion that it is not yet an individual or being, and there are just as many people of this same or similar opinion as there are of yours. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, Rachel, tests have validity for the emerging child because the embryo IS the same individual as the child, at her/his earliest age. I appreciate your opinion and would note for you that the brain begins forming within days of conception and isn't entirely finished forming until well after the individual leaves the water world and enters the air world.

Oct 20, 2003, 03:52 am	#69 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) I assume next we'll be arguing whether a zygote has the right to vote!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not a very good effort to raise a red herring, scribbler. That appears to set the tone for what followed. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) The more zealous (or afraid) among us would argue against ANY form of human cell cloning. However we are talking about individual cells which, for want of a better term, haven't yet made up their minds what to be. Some may grow to be skin, kidneys, blood cells, etc.. I don't recall anyone saying scientists should start taking apart fetuses which are already forming, simply using cells which are not yet forming into distinct body parts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read where the stem cells in question can be obtained from the umbilical cord itself. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no contest in my mind which takes precedence. A tiny gob of undefined cells which may or may not grow into a baby and may or may not be born healthy or even alive, or the genetic research which could very likely allow the already born yet severely afflicted to live a decent life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, we are not talking about individual cells, we are discussing an embryo, which is an integrated whole organism having subset units called stem cells and tolk sac and placental barrier, rather than merely 'individual cells'. You've confused organism (the integrated whole seeking to survive) with organ or cell, as a subset of organism. As to taking apart fetuses (small children according to the actual meaning of the Latin word fetus), there is already a billion dollar plus fetal tissue harvesting business supplying research programs all over the world and especially in America. You are correct that cord blood is rich in stem cells and these stem cells have been directed (differentiated) into many tissues. Adult stem cells can be found all over your body and in abundance if one knows what to look for. As to 'growing into a baby' ... well, if you start with a perspective that dehumanizes the unborn, then it is near impossible for me to reason with you regarding the continuum of a lifetime, such that the individual begins at conception, passes through many ages in growth and development, all the way to beyond puberty, and is always the same individual human being that began at conception ... you've arbitrarily chosen to dehumanize the earliest ages along the continuum, incorrectly. As to cannibalizing younger human lives to treat older human lives, well, that is in fact cannibalizing for expedience and utilitarian measures. And it isn't really necessary since adult stem cells and cord blood will yield the cures without resorting to cannibalizing other younger individual lives, IF the scientists will but do the higher mammalian studies to determine how the differentiation process works ... they're already backing pluripotent stem cells to a less differentiated stage, so the next step is bringing them forward as the specific tissues sought. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) You sound as if you don't have much faith in people, actually. I personally believe if anyone tries to develop any kind of "master race" or "super-soldier" or ANYTHING along those lines, the bulk of society will slap these mad scientist types down pretty damn quick! But duplicating a single cell into something like replacements for damaged or diseased brain or other organ cells can, if successful, do NOTHING but good. Just my three cents here, but I think the use (overuse?) of the word "cannibalism" is a cheap shot.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, harvesting individual human lives at their earliest age along the continuum of their lifetime, for dissection and exploitation in treating an older individual is cannibalism, as surely as if the technician were to give the cells dissected from a once alive organism to you upon a cracker, to eat for your cure. [Oh, and I'm a professional writer, so emphasis via shocking terminology is my stock and trade, and in non-fiction, I always stick to truthful shockers.]

Oct 20, 2003, 03:53 am	#70 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	tolk sac = yolk sac ... it's too late and I've spent from writing things regarding the Terri Schiavo horror.

Oct 20, 2003, 01:04 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This isn't 'philosophy', the notion that every individual human lifetime starts at a conception. That is an astonishingly assertion perhaps offered in an effort to frame the argument along false lines. But nice try. And yes, try and find even one Embryologist who would refute that the individual human being has it's beginning at conception. HINT, their entire discipline is based on that axiom, Rachel. No, Rachel, tests have validity for the emerging child because the embryo IS the same individual as the child, at her/his earliest age. I appreciate your opinion and would note for you that the brain begins forming within days of conception and isn't entirely finished forming until well after the individual leaves the water world and enters the air world.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What makes a unique human being? One would argue it is experiences that shape us, and our comprehension of those experiences that create the individual. How do we experience and comprehend? With our brain. So then, how can a fetus within the first trimester that has yet to fully form limbs, let alone a brain, be considered a unique human life? All that is there is a developing group of cells in the process of becoming an individual, but not yet an individual. Arguing its possibility of developing into an individual would not be much different from arguing the possibility of every girl's menstrual cycle to have been an individual if they had been impregnated, and so on. I believe you are mistaken to some extent because arguments and perceptions such as these fuel debate as to when the individual life truly begins. Debate which most definitely exists among embryologists as well. Every sperm and egg is alive, but they are not human beings, just the possibility of one. However, neither is a fertilized egg, which leads to argument regarding the embryo itself; at what point in time that embryo can be considered a "life" in its cycle of development. One famous embyrologist known as Clifford Grobstein is famous for his demonstration as to point out that the newly fertilized egg (zygote) is no bigger than a period on a printed page. His argument to this was, "How can a single cell be considered a human being, a person, an entity endowed with unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" I would have to agree that it is overzealous and proposterous. However, we're talking about cloning and not abortion, which has entirely different implications. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 20, 2003, 02:03 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	Pure unadulterated horse feathers. What you've done is expound a philosophy, then try to assert that what scientists (Embryologists) use as their fundamental axioms in science are philosophical perspectives. Apparently you do not understand waht science IS. YOU TOO have made the typical error of citing subunits of organs as if they are equivocal to an entire organism. Sperm and ova are subunits of organs (the gonads), and organs are subunits of an integrated whole ORGANSIM. [Incidentally, once mitosis occurs (cell division of the first diploid formed at conception), there is no longer a 'fertilized egg' ... the organism has become multicellular as soon as two diploids are present; the sex cells are haploids. With the third cell, the encapsulating placental organ is being built.]

Oct 20, 2003, 02:05 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	I used to handle Grobstein's book (Grobstein and Billias) as a publisher's rep. He would be the first to defend the axiom that individual lifetime begins at conception. He was a scientist.

Oct 20, 2003, 02:17 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Many scientists still have religious beliefs and philosophies. Scientists still have their own philosophy of "life." That is why debate exists so greatly around this topic, because everyone has different philosophies regarding when life truly begins. I know what sperm is, thank you very much. My point was that sperm is living just as the egg is, but they are nothing but cells - no more a human being than a zygote. If there was life upon conception, if the zygote was a human being immediately upon said conception, there would be no pregnancy process at all. The zygote becomes human, which leads many people to be of the opinion that individual life is not immediate, but a process of similar development as well. This is why I personally believe that the individual life does not begin until the brain has developed and is fuctioning. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 20, 2003, 04:44 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	You asserted, "My point was that sperm is living just as the egg is, but they are nothing but cells - no more a human being than a zygote." Rachel, a zygote is an integrated organism ... cells are subunits of organs and organisms. "... because everyone has different philosophies regarding when life truly begins." Uh, no, 'everyone' doesn't have different philosophies regarding when an individual lifetime begins. Stating that false assertion doesn't give it validity. What you may be trying to express is that people have differing valuations on the life that is there, holding a zygote to be less a person than a toddler, for instance. I'm offering you the facts regarding the continuum that is an individual lifetime. You are correct in assuming that some choose to dehumanize the earliest ages along that continuum, but the 'philosophical dehumanization' in no way cancels the truth that every individual human lifetime begins at that individual's conception. Even identical twins both begin their lifetime continuum at the first diploid mitosis.

Oct 20, 2003, 07:12 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	A zygote is an integrated organism, but what makes it so sanct in comparison to a sperm or egg? Are they not just as equally possibilities for "life" as well? I do not see how one can claim from a purely scientific perspective that a zygote is an entity when it has not yet formed into one. That zygote is no more a human than a sperm or an egg are by themselves - it must first develop and become. I do not believe in souls, I believe the brain is what makes us who we are, so until the brain is formed I do not believe an embryo to yet be an individual being, but a group of cells striving in the process to become one. So from this perspective, I have a much different philosophy than your own. You may continue in denial of it all you want, but everyone too has different philosophies as well. If everyone agreed that upon conception the zygote is an entity, then there would be no debate at all or ever - not among you and I, not among scientists and the religiously inclined, not among anyone. We would all agree, but we do not. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 21, 2003, 01:33 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	Although this thread may have started as a cloning debate, it is beginning to look as if it will turn into an abortion debate, which I avoid like the plague as it, like a religion "debate" ends up as a colossal waste of time, and creates mainly animosity between posters. I'm not exactly a dunce when it comes to many fields of science, but I know little of biology and when I see words like "diploids" being bandied about, I just think it's time for this kid to skeedaddle. It's been a hoot, but I think I'm gonna go find a thread where I can contribute more than just my beliefs. BTW, although I should know better, MY beliefs are: what is commonly referred to as a zygote is a parasitical group of cells and should be treated as such. I am pro-choice, but only until the third trimester when the fetus at least has a chance to live and develop outside the womb. And finally (present company EXcluded, of course. I refer to similar, but less civil debates) my biggest belief along these lines is that is if people spent less time worrying about the humanity of a tiny ball of cells and more time worrying about actual, honest-to-goodness children who are born into poverty, violence and disease, we'd all be a lot better off. See yez around. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Oct 21, 2003, 01:49 am	#78 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) BTW, although I should know better, MY beliefs are: what is commonly referred to as a zygote is a parasitical group of cells and should be treated as such. I am pro-choice, but only until the third trimester when the fetus at least has a chance to live and develop outside the womb. And finally (present company EXcluded, of course. I refer to similar, but less civil debates) my biggest belief along these lines is that is if people spent less time worrying about the humanity of a tiny ball of cells and more time worrying about actual, honest-to-goodness children who are born into poverty, violence and disease, we'd all be a lot better off.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am of this exact same opinion myself as well. =p I will stop here too; you are right, and it has gone way off topic. Ironic considering I was agreeing with tnphydeaux in the first place regarding the cloning issue LOL Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 21, 2003, 01:58 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	You opined, "I do not see how one can claim from a purely scientific perspective that a zygote is an entity when it has not yet formed into one." Well, Rachel, that's like asking how can a toddler be an adult, it hasn't gone through puberty yet? The zygote you were is as real an age along the continuum of your lifetime as your puberty is an age along that continuum. As noted previously, if the zygote were not already the individual life, the genetic tests performed upon zygotes would be too non-specific for application to the individual being diagnosed.

Oct 21, 2003, 02:00 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	SK:EJKL:JK:DFJKLJKLSDFKL:Ahkl I'm so immature.. I get so frustrated giving people the last word LOL Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.