Embryonic rights?

I am looking for somebody to explain why on earth stem cell research isn't being funded. Anybody out there who can justify a 5 day old embryo having rights?

 

Stop calling it embryonic, that's a start. Frank Luntz has won the message war. The anti abortion crowd has decided a 5 day old blastocyt is a baby.

 

Hell, no. They're like victims of crimes. They don't count.

I suppose you missed the news about researchers abandoning embryonic stem cell research because adult cells seem to be more productive.

 

Stem cell research is funded--adult stem cell research. This is the type of stem cell research that is actually found to work. The problem with embryonic stem cell treatments is rejection issues. Most adult stem cell research uses a person's own cells, which gets around that problem.

 

So at what point is an embryo a baby? How can that be decided? The only way to avoid ever killing a baby is to view any fertized egg as a baby. Any other point is arbitrary. When the new human being's DNA is formed in fertilization is not.

 

Yes, adult stem cells have less rejection issues.

 

Do you realize that if slavery had never been abolished, you'd be asking why farm equipment should have rights when their organs can be used in transplants to help real people (white people)?

Dehumanization is not a new concept. And some people never stop doing it. They just find a new group to dehumanize when the social tide changes.

 

a about two to three weeks when the blastocyte divides into two, the primitive placents is developed and the spinal grove starts to form.... you alas, have an embryo. My point was, the blastocyte is only a few days old and just a ball of cells. However the prolifers used the term embryo to Conger up horable images of hacking up full formed babies. Which its not. They won the message war. Most people don't understand the difference and continue to use the term.

 

This is what i remeber

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...ricans-back-embryonic-stem-cell-research-poll

As you can see religious wacko's Gaddafi-lites control most of congress. I havnt been in this debate in a very long time, what happens to left over embryos?

 

There is no certainty in your definition. There is certainty in the moment of conception.

 

The problem is the slippery slope. Now it's leftover embryos, tomorrow, embryos will be created for the purpose of this.

Also, there have been successful adult stem cell treatments. From what I can read, rejection issues are going to be the main problem with embryonic stem cell therapies. After all, ESCs from other people are just the same as organs from other people--they are foreign objects. In the case of adult stem cell therapy, a person's own stem cells are used for treatment. No rejection issues, as a person's own cells are being used.

 

Adult stem cell's can only be used for certain things while, Embyronic Stem cells can turn to almost any cell in the body.

I also dont see how that's much of a "slippery slope." Unless women is planning to have 400 children, there is no potential life that already wasnt going to waste away.

How is the embryo sacraed, but not the infinite sperm wasted in socks, or the egg's flushed down toilets not?

 

Embryonic stem cells cause rejection issues, if used in people who didn't produce it.

You show your basic scientific ignorance, since you don't understand the difference between haploid sperm and egg cells and diploid fertilized eggs. There is a definite difference. The fertilized egg is a combination of DNA that has the potential of becoming a specific human.

 

why is this in POLLS?

 

That's retarded. Black people are obviously intelligble beings that can make decisions and think and feel and dream. Embryros..yeah..they aren't. Period.

But I repeat the main point: this post of yours that I'm replying to, is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded.

 

dont quit your day job. Lol
DNA is formed at conception. The secon the spermenters the egg.
It's only a baby once it's no longer a parisit.

 

"Adult stem cell's can only be used for certain things while, Embyronic Stem cells can turn to almost any cell in the body."

That's the promise that hasn't been met. But, wait, wouldn't Europe be funding embryonic stem cell research like gangbusters so they can market something? Show us the European miracles.

 

What "certainty"? Why should laws require "certainty", whatever you mean by it?
There is not one exact moment when a child turns into an adult, capable of responsible drinking or signing legal contracts, it is also gradual process, yet that does not stop us from having exact limits in the law (18 and 21 years, before midnight you cannot drink, after midnight you can).

That conception is less continuous process than other criterions (independence, sentience etc.) - but still is continuous, not instantaneuos btw. does not make it better.

 

You are begging the question - implying opposition cares about other peoples rights simply because they have homo sapiens DNA, and not for example because they are sentient (which would rule out discrimination of blacks, but not embryos).

 

As far as the efficacy of the therapy goes, when it is abandoned because it does not deliver, I dont have a problem with it. But not because its not allowed to be pursued due to "embryonic rights". Scientists should decide which is better, not politicians.

For some applications (mainly neurologic), ESC are still more promising than ASC. And ESC problems with rejection can be solved by therapeutic cloning btw - that way the genome is the same, so no rejection.

 

Show us the Adult stem cell miracles, after decades of massive funding they have effectively zero. If the money had gone to ESCR people would be up and walking from their wheelchairs years ago.

 

Also, more "certainty" does not help at all when it is a completely wrong definition either way. Giving any rights to an embryo (not even a foetus) is really absurd, IMHO.

 

How pointless. The thread is about embryonic stem cell research and it's "promises". I suggested that Europe has surely been funding embryonic stem cell research, if it's remotely as promising as liberals think, and they should be showing some results. And, what do we get. A change in subject. Nice try, Ian.

Now, Ian, any great embronic stem cell breakthroughs in Europe?

 

Is a siamese twin a parasite? Is it a parasite at nine months, just before birth? Is it a parasite between birth and severance of the umbilical?

What about the elderly? the senile? What about the those in a coma on life support? The insane? If you are once again just a "blob of cells" that no longer makes decisions, feels, thinks, do you "lose your personhood"? Why is flesh that is inevitably will be a human being completely different from flesh that was a human being?

 

If youre braindead etc., then you are not a human life IMO and you don't have rights. Being "elderly" or "insane" or in a (possibly temporary) coma doesn't count as what I'm talking about.