| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The C-Word |
| 2004-07-28 |
| EFL:Tuesday night at the Democratic Convention, Ron Reagan engaged in one of the most stunning bait-and-switch scams of recent political history: For weeks we have been told that Reagan would urge President Bush to increase spending for embryonic-stem-cell (ESCR) research using leftover (IVF) embryos and to expand the parameters of eligibility for federally funded research. But that is not what he did. Rather, under the guise of promoting ESCR, Reagan actually pushed for the explicit legalization of human cloning. Here's how Reagan described "embryonic-stem-cell research," actually human cloning, a.k.a. somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), with my correcting comments to his inaccurate assertions in italicized brackets: Now, imagine going to a doctor who instead of prescribing drugs, takes a few skin cells from your arm. The nucleus of one of your cells is placed into a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed. A bit of chemical or electrical stimulation will encourage your cell's nucleus to begin dividing [actually, create a new cloned human embryo], creating new cells [embryonic development] which will then be [destroyed and their cells] placed into a tissue culture. Those cells will generate embryonic stem cells containing only your DNA [and mitochondrial DNA from the egg], thereby [theoretically] eliminating the risk of tissue rejection.The jig is finally up. For years, Big Biotech's — and the official Democrat-party — line has been that President Bush's embryonic-stem-cell funding policy has been too narrowly drawn. All we want access to, they repeatedly and self-righteously intoned, is IVF embryos in excess of need that are going to be discarded. But now, thanks to Ron Reagan's speech, which never once mentioned leftover IVF embryos, we learn that what Big Biotech and the Kerry campaign are really after is for the federal government to fund human-cloning research. And they clearly think they can get it through the potent magic of redefining terms. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #22 How did the embryo become the particular configuration of cells we call a human embryo, if it did not undergo a certain degree of development, e.g. cell division, normally associated with human embryo development? You seem to be fond of irrelevant arguments. If someone interrupts a sex act such that fertilization does not occur, then its not relevant to this discussion, which is about embryos. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-07-28 10:20:17 PM |
| #21 Mr. Davis: âSo when do those few hundred cells become human? Is the beginning of human life a function of the state of medical technology?â My example of white-to-dark reflects my opinion. At the stage of a few hundred cells there is no human. By early childhood no one doubts there is a human. (Hard to deny humanity when it smiles, laughs, and talks.) The degree of humanity grows as the fetus grows. You could also look at the development of the nervous system and brain or the first beat of the heart. But I really donât think there is a single event that divides human from non-human. Similar problems arise when deciding whether a brain dead body is a human. Or a body with an active brain stem but no higher brain function; a chimpanzee has far more intelligence and in my view has more âhumanityâ. Medical advances could even complicate the âbrainâ dead criterion as it becomes possible to grow new brain tissue. The new tissue would hold none of the old memories and might bear little resemblance to the previous personality. (I make no claims to special moral or philosophical or religious insight on these issues. Iâm offering my opinion.) virginian: âThe RELEVANT point is that a certain configuration of cells IS IN THE PROCESS of development we call "human being."â Without the very artificial act of being implanted in a human womb the cells arenât âIN THE PROCESS of development we call "human being.". They are no more alive than cells taken for a biopsy. They have no more potential to become a human being than the original adult cell whose nucleus provided the genetic material. Are all our cells a âhuman beingâ because the only thing stopping the process is the human decision not to proceed? A sperm and egg have the potential to become a human being. The process of fertilization has a definite beginning that often leads to a human being. If someone interrupts the sex act is a âhumanâ killed? |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2004-07-28 9:05:13 PM |
| #20 A5032: Your logic is flawed. The RELEVANT point is that a certain configuration of cells IS IN THE PROCESS of development we call "human being." (It is always "in development", since a human being is not a static entity.) Other processes MAY be set in motion by artificial means that result in the human developmental process, but prior to that, it is NOT equivalent to a human embryo. Your remarks about the soul are a non-sequitur. I never said anything about soul. A white page turning dark is an inapt analogy for what we are talking about. The process we are talking about here has a quite definite beginning. However you wish to construe it, when the process is stopped an actual living individual's life is ended. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-07-28 7:56:46 PM |
| #19 Howdy folks! Hey, did I hear someone ask for more cowbell? |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-07-28 5:09:10 PM |
| #18 Would anyone be listening to this idiot if his last name were "Smith?" |
| Posted by: Jackal 2004-07-28 4:53:05 PM |
| #17 A5032, So when do those few hundred cells become human? Is the beginning of human life a function of the state of medical technology? |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-07-28 3:41:34 PM |
| #16 âIt is fully human in any scientific definition of 'human'.â There is no scientific definition of human in the sense you indicate. Based on its genome a cell might be called a human cell rather than a mouse cell but that doesnât make a flake of skin a human. With modern biotech almost any human cell could become a new human being. That does not mean all our cells are accorded human legal rights. There are legal definitions of âlive humansâ that change over time with changing medical technology. There are church definitions based on a fertilized egg âhaving a soulâ but the church definitions donât keep up with changing medical technology. In the âcloningâ example there is no fertilized egg. When a heart is transplanted, does the soul move with the heart. When a portion of the brain is transplanted does the âsoulâ move with that portion. Are there fractional souls? Can a body have more than one soul? Church doctrine hasnât kept up with modern medical technology. When does white become black? I see a white page, slowly it darkens, and finally I see black. I can recognize white and I can recognize black, but itâs hard to say when white became black. In China babies arenât considered to be full humans. That is one reason why abortion and infanticide is more common in China. Chinese love their children just as much as Americans do, but they differ at what stage they consider a baby to be child. In America people differ in their beliefs as to when a fetus becomes a child. âI think EVERYONE had to come out a woman at some point! Please correct me if I'm wrong.â Present technology would allow a human to be born from a gorilla womb. Zoos use cattle as surrogate wombs for some rare animals. Within the next two decades, artificial wombs will make it possible for a human to develop from a single egg into a baby without any animal womb. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2004-07-28 3:23:35 PM |
| #15 RC fires for effect! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-28 2:46:50 PM |
| #14 Even SCOTUS disagreees with you, Scooter. That's why states can limit abortion in the last trimester. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-07-28 1:43:18 PM |
| #13 Gosh darn it, my previous post got truncated somehow... I was saying - There's a reason we have words like "fetus" and "baby". One is a potential human. The other is a very young human. I think that's a pretty big difference. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2004-07-28 1:37:52 PM |
| #12 "We give human rights to all kinds of people who don't 'pop out'" Huh? I think EVERYONE had to come out a woman at some point! Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ha ha! |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2004-07-28 1:34:47 PM |
| #11 Sorry viginian, I don't know too many humans that live inside another full grown person like some kind of parasite. There's a reason we have words like |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2004-07-28 1:32:19 PM |
| #10 So, Scooter, anything that doesn't pop out of a mama and start screaming isn't human? It doesn't have human rights? Try again. We give human rights to all kinds of people who don't "pop out". This question needs to be answered seriously or we will have serious unintended consequences. When someone who apparently knows a lot more about the technical aspects of this than I do asserts that an "embryo" of no more than a few hundred cells (but which I infer can develop into a full human) is not human then they should be prepared to assert when it does become human. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-07-28 1:31:46 PM |
| #9 Serious question; So when does it become human? When it votes Democrat. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-07-28 1:25:56 PM |
| #8 Uh-oh, I feel a long thread on metaphysics coming. While fully aware that no one agrees on metaphysics, I must say that there is no scientific basis for saying that an embryo is not human. It is fully human in any scientific definition of 'human'. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-07-28 1:14:25 PM |
| #7 Mr. Davis - When it pops out of it's mamma and starts screaming. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2004-07-28 1:12:20 PM |
| #6 The âembryoâ never exceeds a few hundred cells. It is no more a human than a wart is. Serious question; So when does it become human? |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-07-28 12:34:03 PM |
| #5 âI am wrong somebody please enlighten me to the medical âdiscoveriesâ that the government has invented.â You are very, very wrong. Iâve followed biology, biotech, and medical research for years. Most basic research is funded by the government through agencies such as NIH. There is also good research funded by private groups such as the Hughes Foundation. A list of the significant biotech discoveries made in the last ten years with federal funding would include tens of thousands of discoveries. (Have you heard of the Human Genome Project?) Company R&D funds commercial products. The drug companies spend billions bringing new drugs to market but little of that money is for basic research. The âcloningâ mentioned in the article is for treatment. The âembryoâ never exceeds a few hundred cells. It is no more a human than a wart is. The purpose is to create cells that wonât be rejected when curing a patientâs disease. I strongly favor embryonic stem cell research but I donât believe that Bushâs ban on new ESC lines will have much effect. The basic biology and methods of treatment need to be worked out in mouse models. (Mice and men are very much alike.) Sometime in the next five to ten years human cures for major diseases should be available. Once heart disease can be cured the objections to ESC use will be swept away. (If not people will go to Mexico or Canada for treatment.) |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2004-07-28 12:28:08 PM |
| #4 Ahem. Full disclosure: I have, and have had, federal grants from NIH to do medical research. Sarge is wrong; there are plenty of discoveries funded by federal research. Most of the current pharmacoepia is based on research originally done with federal dollars (drug companies don't do a lot of basic research anymore, they do applied research, and that's fine). Much of medicine today is based on what federally-funded research has done over the past fifty years. The proof you seek is generally found at the bottom of the first page of virtually every scientific article published in the US by American scientists -- it generally reads something like, "funded in part by a grant (grant # here) from (one of the institutes of the NIH listed here)." Take a look for yourself. There are plenty of NIH and National Science Foundation grants that have funded major and useful discoveries. Capt America is correct in noting that as a scientist, Ron Reagan Jr. is a passable ballet dancer. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-07-28 12:04:01 PM |
| #3 Thanks for the letting the clone out of the bag sarge. sheesh Let me just say that TW 33a is a hell of a pitcher, who woulda thunk it? |
| Posted by: G Steinbrenner 2004-07-28 11:51:17 AM |
| #2 Steve, I have said this before. There is Stem-Cell research being done in the private sector. Liberals have some weird idea that they need Federal $$$ to further their research. All Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush have done is deny the use of Federal funds for this research. REPEAT: THERE IS NO LAW BANNING STEM CELL RESEARCH. There are damn few federally funded programs that solve a medical problem or make a significant discovery. I think the government peaked during when they invented the Nuke bomb. If I am wrong somebody please enlighten me to the medical âdiscoveriesâ that the government has invented. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-07-28 11:06:14 AM |
| #1 Ron Reagan is a creepy after birth. Only the liberal drones would accept the scientific "insights" of a ballet dancer. The more accurate title for his speech, "Idiotic Stem Sell: Ron Reagan Exhibit A" |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-07-28 10:56:50 AM |