Post by Roger Moorgate on Jun 11, 2006 14:24:45 GMT -5
*** UPDATE NOVEMBER 2006 ***
Click here to submit a question on cloning, genetic engineering or stem cell research...
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1150053885&page=1
This is the fourth cloning FAQ page.
The first page can be found here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=1
The second page can be found here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=2
The third page can be found here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3
Regards,
Roger
Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network
www.reproductivecloning.net
You can register as a new member of this board here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?action=register
(You can post without registering, but only members can edit their posts)
The rest of this post is part of an ongoing discussion with Agatha regarding the ethics of therapeutic cloning. The discussion started here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3#1146313103
Or perhaps it actually started back here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3#1143075209
"The scientific debate regarding therapeutic human cloning revolves around the therapeutic benefits against the ethical cost of destroying the early cloned embryo. Many allocate to the early embryo the status of an individual with fundamental human rights and consider the destruction of that embryo equivalent to murder (Shenfield et al., 2001). Several details should be considered when debating the issue. The early mammalian embryo is a ball of cells without even a rudimentary nervous system, and the division of this ball of cells into two or more parts results in two or more monozygotic twins. Thus whether this early embryo can yet be classified as an ‘‘individual’’ is questionable. Abortion legislation in most countries has already established that the rights and choices of grown adults supersede the rights of the early embryo. Most embryos (>70%) that result from natural sexual reproduction do not implant into the uterine endometrium. If each of these embryos has fundamental human rights, this would make premeditated attempts at pregnancy by natural sexual reproduction the logical equivalent of mass murder. The ethical considerations basically come down to our society’s value system. Which is of greater value, the life of an adult or child dying from a degenerative disease, or a 5-day-old embryo that is little more than a ball of cells?"
(Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157)
Here I feel that your three responses all address a straw man, namely your prior assumption that I do not think an embryo is alive, which is incorrect. Regarding your question of where we should draw the line. Philosophically I'm opposed to drawing lines in ethically complex fields. I would suggest that drawing lines can be a somewhat narrow-minded potentially dangerous approach; I can give examples if you wish. Ideally, each case should be evaluated rationally based on it's pros and cons. However, pragmatically, society dictates that generalized rules and lines be drawn. So, reluctantly, scientists came up with the 14-day rule. Embryos can be used for stem cell research while they are in their pre-implantation stage where they are an undifferentiated ball of cells, without even a single differentiated body cell. No heart, no brain, no body. This would allow us to obtain stem cells from these early embryos to potentially cure or alleviate the symptoms of degenerative disease. Getting back to the question I don’t feel has yet been answered: Why do you consider it UNETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to save lives but consider it ETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to procreate?
Regards,
Roger
Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network
www.reproductivecloning.net
Please post any new questions or comments here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1132077294
Roger, there is a fundamental point that seems to have escaped your argument. You say that a skin cell is alive, and an embryo is alive: and then you say they are the same. You say that life is just a never-ending cycle, and does not ever simply start.
My only reply is: DNA. A skin cell is alive, but it is merely a part of the whole, one of countless cells making up the human body, sharing the DNA of the rest of the body’s cells. The only future it ever has to hope for is to be, like you said, scraped off in a morning shave. An embryo, on the other hand, from the moment of its fertilization, has its own DNA – completely unique from that of either parent, and with a much more hopeful future then that of the skin cell. Likewise, because it has separate DNA, it is not simply a continuation of its parents’ lives, as you claim, but its own separate entity.
This is a side note. I assume that you are not a Creationist, and remind you that according to Darwin’s natural selection, genes do not “pass immortally from generation to generation.”
So, since a human embryo is not just like any other cell, I see no reason to move on to considerations about what rights we ought to “grant” it.
The immortal gene is the central tenet of Neo-Darwinism (Dawkins (1976) The Selfish Gene). I should include the caveat that over extended periods of time genetic mutations will slowly change the gene and if those mutations are beneficial then they will be selected for by natural selection, mutation being the fuel for evolution. But for our limited purposes, from our perspective and due to our extremely limited time on this earth, the gene can be considered immortal. Certainly, we are almost sure to contain exact copies of specific genes from our parents, the exact identical DNA (albeit with a mutation here and there) this is the essence of my argument regarding life not beginning de novo and the immortal gene. If you are referring to the new ordering of genetic alleles in the zygote as being worthy of some special status then you must afford each sperm that status, as each sperm has also (through meiosis) received a unique array of DNA. I do not, as you suggest, claim that an embryo has no worth, only that I believe a child is of infinitely greater worth and I would never consider sacrificing that child’s life through my refusal to utilize stem cells derived from what is, when we get right down to it, an undifferentiated pliable ball of cells. And the early embryo is not necessarily a “whole” it can split into parts each of which can result in a child, this is how identical twins result. Indeed, when we biopsy a cell or two from an embryo to test for genetic diseases (prenatal genetic diagnosis) those cells had the potential, if implanted into a uterus, to develop into a child. Are you against prenatal genetic diagnosis? Just as a point of interest, thousands of embryos are discarded by IVF clinics each year. Are you also opposed to scientists trying to develop potentially life-saving stem cell based medical treatments from those embryos that are going to be discarded anyway, and if so, why?
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, I do have unabashed trust in my own judgment. I’m rational, educated and well informed on the issue at hand, plus I’m a passionate advocate of individualism. Who’s judgment do you suggest I put my trust in, the Catholic Church? Almost comical it may be, but I stand beside my statement that drawing lines in ethically complex fields can be a somewhat narrow-minded potentially dangerous approach, and the Catholic Church in particular has an exceptionally bad history in this regard. Let us brush over the line draw under the incorrect geocentric universe, the Inquisition and the Crusades, and move on to the questionable lines the Catholic Church currently draws. The current so-called pro-life policies of the church dictates against using embryos for medical research and against using condoms in AIDS-infected sub-Saharan Africa, both lines will directly result in the miserable existence and premature death of millions of adults and children. I think I will stick to my own rational and informed judgments. I should also mention that lines do NOT have to be drawn, we can perform informed comparisons of information and decide on the ethically correct course of action without drawing some arbitrary line whereby something supposedly goes from being absolutely ethical to absolutely unethical. Each case should ideally be decided, as I mentioned before, on merit. However, as I also previously mentioned, scientists did, under pressure and somewhat reluctantly, come up with a line for embryo research, the 14-day rule:
Embryos can be used for stem cell research while they are in their pre-implantation stage where they are an undifferentiated ball of cells, without even a single differentiated body cell. No heart, no brain, no body. This would allow us to obtain stem cells from these early embryos to potentially cure or alleviate the symptoms of degenerative disease.
As an interesting aside, you claim that life begins at conception, when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte, but conception does not occur in nuclear transfer (cloning). Are clones not alive?
First of all, might I ask how the <70% figure was found, because I have seen statistics much lower – as low as 15%. The vast majority of those lost are abnormal embryos which could not have developed and are screened naturally by the body. This is an early miscarriage.
Not that it is particularly important from an ethical standpoint whether the number is 70% or 15%, embryos are still destroyed in both cases, but I’d be interested to know where you got 15%? If only 15% of embryos fail to implant, then we can logically conclude that 85% of embryos do indeed implant. And, if 85% of embryos implant, why on earth does it take on average several cycles of IVF, each with multiple embryos transferred, to obtain a single pregnancy? For the record, my reference for the >70% of embryos failing to implant is: Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157.
I’m having trouble grasping how you ethically distinguished between the two based on “intention”. When people attempt to procreate, their intention is to obtain a child, the embryonic destruction that accompanies this is unfortunate but certainly not their primary goal. When parent’s attempt to save their child’s life using stem cell based medical treatments, their intention is to save their child’s life, the embryonic destruction that accompanies this is unfortunate but certainly not their primary goal.
Regards,
Roger
Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network
www.reproductivecloning.net
Please post any new questions or comments here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1150053885&page=1
Click here to submit a question on cloning, genetic engineering or stem cell research...
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1150053885&page=1
This is the fourth cloning FAQ page.
The first page can be found here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=1
The second page can be found here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=2
The third page can be found here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3
Regards,
Roger
Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network
www.reproductivecloning.net
You can register as a new member of this board here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?action=register
(You can post without registering, but only members can edit their posts)
The rest of this post is part of an ongoing discussion with Agatha regarding the ethics of therapeutic cloning. The discussion started here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3#1146313103
Or perhaps it actually started back here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3#1143075209
Agatha said:
admin said:
When does life begin? Perhaps we should explain some definitions here. Of course an embryo is alive, the sperm and oocyte that combine to create the embryo are alive, the embryonic cells that generate the germ line that eventually becomes sperm and oocytes are alive, even the skin cells we scrape off our bodies in the morning as we shave are alive. Perhaps I am splitting hairs (no pun intended), but “when does life begin” is actually a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy, each life is just a continuation of life, genes pass immortally from generation to generation, life does not spontaneously generate de novo, life does not “begin”. Once we accept that the embryo is alive, as is every other living biological cell, we next have to move on to what status should society grant the human embryo and is it immoral to ALLOW the usage of embryos for potentially life-saving medical treatments or is it immoral to NOT ALLOW the usage of embryos for potentially life-saving medical treatments. We all seek the ethical path. This is the crux of the aforementioned Byrne et al paragraph:"The scientific debate regarding therapeutic human cloning revolves around the therapeutic benefits against the ethical cost of destroying the early cloned embryo. Many allocate to the early embryo the status of an individual with fundamental human rights and consider the destruction of that embryo equivalent to murder (Shenfield et al., 2001). Several details should be considered when debating the issue. The early mammalian embryo is a ball of cells without even a rudimentary nervous system, and the division of this ball of cells into two or more parts results in two or more monozygotic twins. Thus whether this early embryo can yet be classified as an ‘‘individual’’ is questionable. Abortion legislation in most countries has already established that the rights and choices of grown adults supersede the rights of the early embryo. Most embryos (>70%) that result from natural sexual reproduction do not implant into the uterine endometrium. If each of these embryos has fundamental human rights, this would make premeditated attempts at pregnancy by natural sexual reproduction the logical equivalent of mass murder. The ethical considerations basically come down to our society’s value system. Which is of greater value, the life of an adult or child dying from a degenerative disease, or a 5-day-old embryo that is little more than a ball of cells?"
(Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157)
Here I feel that your three responses all address a straw man, namely your prior assumption that I do not think an embryo is alive, which is incorrect. Regarding your question of where we should draw the line. Philosophically I'm opposed to drawing lines in ethically complex fields. I would suggest that drawing lines can be a somewhat narrow-minded potentially dangerous approach; I can give examples if you wish. Ideally, each case should be evaluated rationally based on it's pros and cons. However, pragmatically, society dictates that generalized rules and lines be drawn. So, reluctantly, scientists came up with the 14-day rule. Embryos can be used for stem cell research while they are in their pre-implantation stage where they are an undifferentiated ball of cells, without even a single differentiated body cell. No heart, no brain, no body. This would allow us to obtain stem cells from these early embryos to potentially cure or alleviate the symptoms of degenerative disease. Getting back to the question I don’t feel has yet been answered: Why do you consider it UNETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to save lives but consider it ETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to procreate?
Regards,
Roger
Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network
www.reproductivecloning.net
Please post any new questions or comments here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1132077294
Roger, there is a fundamental point that seems to have escaped your argument. You say that a skin cell is alive, and an embryo is alive: and then you say they are the same. You say that life is just a never-ending cycle, and does not ever simply start.
My only reply is: DNA. A skin cell is alive, but it is merely a part of the whole, one of countless cells making up the human body, sharing the DNA of the rest of the body’s cells. The only future it ever has to hope for is to be, like you said, scraped off in a morning shave. An embryo, on the other hand, from the moment of its fertilization, has its own DNA – completely unique from that of either parent, and with a much more hopeful future then that of the skin cell. Likewise, because it has separate DNA, it is not simply a continuation of its parents’ lives, as you claim, but its own separate entity.
This is a side note. I assume that you are not a Creationist, and remind you that according to Darwin’s natural selection, genes do not “pass immortally from generation to generation.”
So, since a human embryo is not just like any other cell, I see no reason to move on to considerations about what rights we ought to “grant” it.
The immortal gene is the central tenet of Neo-Darwinism (Dawkins (1976) The Selfish Gene). I should include the caveat that over extended periods of time genetic mutations will slowly change the gene and if those mutations are beneficial then they will be selected for by natural selection, mutation being the fuel for evolution. But for our limited purposes, from our perspective and due to our extremely limited time on this earth, the gene can be considered immortal. Certainly, we are almost sure to contain exact copies of specific genes from our parents, the exact identical DNA (albeit with a mutation here and there) this is the essence of my argument regarding life not beginning de novo and the immortal gene. If you are referring to the new ordering of genetic alleles in the zygote as being worthy of some special status then you must afford each sperm that status, as each sperm has also (through meiosis) received a unique array of DNA. I do not, as you suggest, claim that an embryo has no worth, only that I believe a child is of infinitely greater worth and I would never consider sacrificing that child’s life through my refusal to utilize stem cells derived from what is, when we get right down to it, an undifferentiated pliable ball of cells. And the early embryo is not necessarily a “whole” it can split into parts each of which can result in a child, this is how identical twins result. Indeed, when we biopsy a cell or two from an embryo to test for genetic diseases (prenatal genetic diagnosis) those cells had the potential, if implanted into a uterus, to develop into a child. Are you against prenatal genetic diagnosis? Just as a point of interest, thousands of embryos are discarded by IVF clinics each year. Are you also opposed to scientists trying to develop potentially life-saving stem cell based medical treatments from those embryos that are going to be discarded anyway, and if so, why?
Agatha said:
I am surprised about your response to my question about drawing the line. Philosophically, you say, you’re “opposed to drawing lines in ethically complex fields.” This is almost comical, considering that just as I am arguing the ethical reasons against embryonic research, you are arguing the ethical reasons for embryonic research. You say that it will help people. Well, logically, if you say that if one stage has no worth (embryonic), and that a further stage has enough worth to deserve help (adult), there must be some place in the middle where you have to choose between the two. You say that each case should be evaluated individually – and I understand your reasons, but I also wonder at your unabashed trust in your own judgment.Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, I do have unabashed trust in my own judgment. I’m rational, educated and well informed on the issue at hand, plus I’m a passionate advocate of individualism. Who’s judgment do you suggest I put my trust in, the Catholic Church? Almost comical it may be, but I stand beside my statement that drawing lines in ethically complex fields can be a somewhat narrow-minded potentially dangerous approach, and the Catholic Church in particular has an exceptionally bad history in this regard. Let us brush over the line draw under the incorrect geocentric universe, the Inquisition and the Crusades, and move on to the questionable lines the Catholic Church currently draws. The current so-called pro-life policies of the church dictates against using embryos for medical research and against using condoms in AIDS-infected sub-Saharan Africa, both lines will directly result in the miserable existence and premature death of millions of adults and children. I think I will stick to my own rational and informed judgments. I should also mention that lines do NOT have to be drawn, we can perform informed comparisons of information and decide on the ethically correct course of action without drawing some arbitrary line whereby something supposedly goes from being absolutely ethical to absolutely unethical. Each case should ideally be decided, as I mentioned before, on merit. However, as I also previously mentioned, scientists did, under pressure and somewhat reluctantly, come up with a line for embryo research, the 14-day rule:
Embryos can be used for stem cell research while they are in their pre-implantation stage where they are an undifferentiated ball of cells, without even a single differentiated body cell. No heart, no brain, no body. This would allow us to obtain stem cells from these early embryos to potentially cure or alleviate the symptoms of degenerative disease.
As an interesting aside, you claim that life begins at conception, when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte, but conception does not occur in nuclear transfer (cloning). Are clones not alive?
Agatha said:
You asked: Why do you consider it UNETHICAL to destroy embryos to save lives but consider it ETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to procreate?First of all, might I ask how the <70% figure was found, because I have seen statistics much lower – as low as 15%. The vast majority of those lost are abnormal embryos which could not have developed and are screened naturally by the body. This is an early miscarriage.
Not that it is particularly important from an ethical standpoint whether the number is 70% or 15%, embryos are still destroyed in both cases, but I’d be interested to know where you got 15%? If only 15% of embryos fail to implant, then we can logically conclude that 85% of embryos do indeed implant. And, if 85% of embryos implant, why on earth does it take on average several cycles of IVF, each with multiple embryos transferred, to obtain a single pregnancy? For the record, my reference for the >70% of embryos failing to implant is: Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157.
Agatha said:
I would like to point out the difference between what is intentional and unintentional. I consider it unethical to destroy human life for whatever reason; but the loss of embryos for the purpose of procreation is not destruction. It is not intentional. The destruction of an embryo for the purpose of therapeutic advancement, however, is intentional, and this is wrong. There is a difference between death and murder.I’m having trouble grasping how you ethically distinguished between the two based on “intention”. When people attempt to procreate, their intention is to obtain a child, the embryonic destruction that accompanies this is unfortunate but certainly not their primary goal. When parent’s attempt to save their child’s life using stem cell based medical treatments, their intention is to save their child’s life, the embryonic destruction that accompanies this is unfortunate but certainly not their primary goal.
Regards,
Roger
Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network
www.reproductivecloning.net
Please post any new questions or comments here:
cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1150053885&page=1