Human Cloning

FreeRepublic ^ | 4/24/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[RS]

Good Link - Thanks

There are some interesting points buried in it -
"The immediate intention of transferring the nucleus is precisely to produce just such an entity: one that is alive (rather than nonliving),"
According to this the unfertilized ovum is non-living -
which makes sense to their argument-
If the ovum were to be considered living - then it would be just an earlier stage of human life, would it not ?

[RS]

"What do you suppose is common to the embryo age of an indivudal and the toddler age of that same individual, for instance?"
I don't suppose - enlighten me - and please take it from the single cell stage.


"How many attributes do you require?"
I don't require - If you have any, let me know

"Human parentage" - I suppose that follows the DNA, but DNA is not "alive"

[RS]

We have mapped the human genome, and can cut and paste DNA -Is it so far fetched that in the future we will be able to construct DNA from the ground up ?

If we build one that duplicates a human, will it BE human ?

How close to human does it have to get before we allow testing on it ?
A being with no higher brain functions perhaps ?

Will the US refuse to use the fruits of these experiments and become the 22nd century equivalent of the Christian Scientists ?

[RS]

"What do all the ages of the individual lifetime continuum share?... The very proteins that organ transplanting tries to deal with and leads some scientists to want a blanket approval for therapeutic cloning. But I suspect you knew that."

And at what stage does the protein production become differentiated enough to be able to deam it an "individual" ?


But I suspect you know that and really don't want to use that as a starting point.

[hocndoc]

The paragraph doesn't say the oocyte or the donor cells are not living cells. The authors are contrasting the desired outcome with other possibilities in three different qualities, in three different phrases.

""It would seem, then, that – whatever the reason for producing it – the initial product of somatic cell nuclear transfer is a living (one-celled) cloned human embryo. The immediate intention of transferring the nucleus is precisely to produce just such an entity: one that is alive (rather than nonliving), one that is human (rather than nonhuman or animal), and one that is an embryo, an entity capable of developing into an articulated organismic whole (rather than just a somatic cell capable only of replication into more of the same cell type). This is the intended primary product of performing SCNT, whether the ultimate motive or purpose is producing a live-born child from the cloned embryo or conducting scientific research on the cloned embryo. Also, the blastocyst stage that develops from this one-celled cloned embryo will be the same being, whether it is then transferred to a woman's uterus to begin a pregnancy or is used as a source of stem cells for research and possible therapy for others.""

[hocndoc]

Human parentage or origin is the only fact that I require of an organism to qualify as human. The DNA is a functioning component of the organism, but it is not *the* organism. Even if the DNA is manipulated, the organism would still be of human origin, and is human.

[hocndoc]

Your question doesn't make sense. The zygote is an idividual. It produces human proteins in an organized manner in such a manner to maintain homeostasis and growth in the form of cell division then *cell* differentiation.
I think you may be mixing up the concepts of "potential" (dependent on environment) and "what it is" (genetics). The Bioethics Council link also discusses this: there is no difference between the cloned human embryo that is implanted in the uterus and the one that is harvested, just as there is no difference between the embryo that is wanted and the one that is not.

[RS]

I'll get back to the other points, but I just wanted to note that the Bioethics Council has a point of view that they were selected to express.
I have no reason to believe that they would taint the facts of the scientific methodology, but from the ethics standpoint, they will come up with the results that are required of them.

[MHGinTN]

... but I just wanted to note that the Bioethics Council has a point of view that they were selected to express. Prove that assertion, oh omnipotent 'elder'.

[RS]

"... but I just wanted to note that the Bioethics Council has a point of view that they were selected to express. Prove that assertion, oh omnipotent 'elder'."

Presidents are elected to bring their own personal qualities to the office they hold.
Bush was elected because he explained who he was and what he wanted to do.
If he did not bring his own moral compass with him and did not select those with compatible leanings to be in positions of power or advisement, he would be guilty of ignoring the very reasons he holds the office.

I'm sure you do not think that Bill Clinton would have selected the same experts to be on HIS bioethics council.

[syriacus]

You're so full of sh!t, it's amazing! An ovum is alive as a cell. Only God derives life from the lifeless. What a Maroon you're proving yourself to be ...

Glad I'm bringing a little glee into your life.

And I appreciate the chance to reply, again, with what I really said

An embryo is not the same as a skin cell

[MHGinTN]

How very clintonesque of you, to assert that the Council is merely appointed to create a rubber stamp for the President's moral compass, then use as your 'proof' a repeat of your opinion that the Council is the rubber stamp for the President's moral direction. You are now so translucent, I won't bother responding to your shallowness further, in this 'RS' incarnation or the others you use at FR.

[MHGinTN]

That was directed toward RS, not the honorable syriacus. I'm sorry for the mix-up.

[syriacus]

That was directed toward RS, not the honorable syriacus. I'm sorry for the mix-up.

I should be the one to apologize.

I made the mistake when I went from the "Comment" page to this thread and then read the wrong post.

[RS]

"How very clintonesque of you, to assert that the Council is merely appointed to create a rubber stamp for the President's moral compass, then use as your 'proof' a repeat of your opinion that the Council is the rubber stamp for the President's moral direction."

First, I did not say that they were rubber stamps - simply that Bush or any politition would not, and should not appoint people to positions of power or advisement that oppose his moral standards.
It appears you disagree with this and feel that the President should appoint people that are at odds with his stated ideals and goals.
Hopefully, when Supreme Court appiontments come open he will follow my concepts, not yours.


"You are now so translucent, I won't bother responding to your shallowness further, in this 'RS' incarnation or the others you use at FR."

This is the most intriguing statement you have made !! Please tell me, who else am I ?

[hocndoc]

That's not a valid argument in this case. Unlike the previous Bioethics Commission, this one has members who dissent from the viewpoint of the Chair.

If you read the reports, at least 3 of the members see nothing wrong with killing humans for their stem cells. However, the Council all agreed that the result of SCNT is the equivalent of a zygote and is a cloned human embryo.

[RS]

"If you read the reports, at least 3 of the members see nothing wrong with killing humans for their stem cells."

No problem... at least 3 of 18 to an advisory commision which has no real power.
As you say, much less slanted then the previous administration - but slanted none the less - as it should be.