 |
 |
I believe they are sufficiently different (SCNT research in general vs. using embryo's) that ethical considerations need to be made separately. The difference is the source of the raw materials. The big issue seems to be the potential of a stem cell. The potential of a stem cell may be the same as a fertilized egg. I don't know and I don't think science can really answer that just yet. If after "assembly", and a division or two, there is no difference between a fertilized egg and an assembled stem cell then one might argue this assembly as well as an embryo have been "conceived." Conception is considered by many as the beginning of life. An embryo uses human components to be "conceived." This is done both naturally and artificially. In the end human life is "conceived" as a result of this assembly. An assembled stem cell uses some of those same basic components to be assembled to a point where is it similar to an embryo. Embryo's are so much easier to use to generate stem cells they seem ideal as a source for stem cell research. This will shorten the time it will take to reach conclusions and make discoveries that will turn out to be life saving for many. From a purely scientific point of view the easiest path to follow right now is to use embryo's for stem cell research. There are many easy paths to follow in life and those that argue against using embryo's argue that easy does not make it right. If you did not know the consequences and were able to ignore your conscious it would make logical sense to rob a bank rather than work for money. We have a conscious but are still not aware of the consequences so we are hesitant to proceed without thought and consideration on possible consequences of these actions. Every one involved on both sides of this discussion on this board as well as the discussions going on in the scientific community are driven by conscious. We should not stop dead in our tracks because one path to knowledge seems to be under ethical scrutiny. Humans have persevered because we have the tenacity to find another path when one is blocked or seems to be dangerous. The potential for good is so great that we need to continue on a path we can agree on rather than stand at the crossroads and argue which is easiest. It's called "the path of least resistance." It is found extensively in nature and can't always be predicted. By the way for me right now my conscious tells me using embryo's is wrong. I'm personally not really sure of SCNT research when you do not use an embryo as the source of the stem cell. We grow and use skin all the time outside of the body from skin cells. Skin is an organ, largest single organ in the body. Skin can never be a human, only a part of a human. There has to be some way to figure this out. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wendy Siegel" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:50 AM Subject: Re: stem cell research/Fink/in vitro clinics > Actually, as I have written before, I BELIEVE that life begins at > conception as well. I guess I should have written "...we can't all agree > on when life begins". > > However, I still also believe that if those embryos are to be destroyed > anyway, that they may as well serve some good purpose in the process. I > also believe that "surplus" embryos should not be made in the first > place, and if that is the only option for the process, then couples > should adopt rather than go to fertilization clinics. However, that is > not the issue. They are already being made, and they are already being > destroyed, so that couples who otherwise WANT a baby with their own > genetics can have one. So why is the argument over embryonic stem cells > so heated, when the embryos are already being destroyed for what I > consider a lesser purpose than SCNT? Where was the outcry over the > destruction of these embryos before? > > But let me get this straight. If scientists say that life begins at > conception, and if as Ray wrote SCNT does not involve fertilized cells, > then what is the problem? If the cells being studied are > per-fertilization, then by your definition, it doesn't involve life. Or > am I misunderstanding something? > > Wendy > > -----Original Message----- > But I disagree with your assumption about when life begins. Inquire any > biologist, and they will tell you that human life begins at conception, > or when the sperm and egg join, and the embryo is the beginning of human > life. > A new individual human being *begins* at fertilization . Show me a > biologist who disagrees > with that. You can't. Here are just some references: > .... > > > >Because we CAN'T know when life begins (anyone's definition will just > be > >a guess), I feel very hesitant about embryonic stem cell research. > >However, I also feel strongly that if they are to be destroyed anyway, > >they may as well "die" for a cause. I actually find the concept of > >abortion much more difficult than this topic, as the embryos are much > >further developed. However, there are actually valid considerations on > >both sides of the abortion issue as well. > > > >Wendy > > > >-----Original Message----- > >... > > > >I think the in vitro clinic issue is really important because those > >embryos, unlike SCNT are the result of fertilization. You know that it > >often takes more than just one to produce a live birth. So, embryos > are > >being produced and destroyed so that infertile couples can reproduce. > >Is that OK? If not, what is going to be done with all those extra > >embryos? Why is this being ignored? > > AND STILL GOING ON? > > > >It seems to me that opponents of both kinds of stem cell research need > >to > >deal with this question and they are not doing it. > >Ray > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > >mailto:[log in to unmask] > >In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > >In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn