Bob ,

"Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote:SERV.UTORONTO.CA

> > > If this is correct, then what about the fact that a human fetus, at
> > > about 8 weeks' gestation, has a recordable EEG (and, as our
> > > technology gets better, maybe even earlier!).  If that collection of
> > > "human cells" was
> >
> > You now are talking of human fetus , at about 8 weeks'gestation and so
> > far we were talking of embryos .
>
>
> The "point of division" (8 weeks gestation) for the name change from
> "embryo" to "fetus" is artificial, in my view, when it comes to EEG
> activity.  I can't remember enough of my embryology to recall when
> the neural tube of the embryo differentiates into a "brain"; but I
> suspect that we will eventually be able to get an electrical signal from
> an embryo less advanced than 8 weeks.

I hope you agree with me that a embryo in his undifferentiated cells stage DO NOT has brain and it
would be impossible to run or detect any EEG activity . This fact is important because is at this
stage that the cells are most useful to research to find a cure of the so many terrible diseases and
bring "real life" to those that suffer them.

> The debate about "blastulae" on this List is interesting, but, I think,
> not significant when related to my own concerns.  It may be true that a
> "blastula" does not have a functioning human brain; and, if so, *may*
> be considered "fair game" for "research"; BUT, it is rather the
> *concept* (of creating a human being solely for the sake of using it
> for research or the treatment of other human beings) that disturbs me.
> This is the "slippery slope" that I repeatedly speak of in this debate.
>
> Once an unborn human being can be described as a "thing", a "mass
> of tissue"; or, as the current medical euphemism states, "products of
> conception", you can do what you will to it, and then, as time goes on
> and we get more and more desensitized, the same logic can be applied
> to more "advanced" humans.

I can conclude that our difference in points of view remains in what, each one consider , or define
, may be called a human being. I still keep my view as  considering an early embryo as only a group
of undifferentiated human cells (as much as the spermatozoids and ovules are human cells) and not a
human being..

>  This is why, when a country goes to
> war with another country, there is a tendency to label the enemy as
> "gooks", "Japs", "Krauts", etc.  It is easier to kill a "thing" than
> another human being.

Most true and I agree with you .  :-)

Best and cheers,

Joao Paulo - Salvador,BA,Brazil
[log in to unmask]