Human Cloning

FreeRepublic ^ | 4/24/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[MHGinTN]

Your aside had no meaning if not directed at the parthenogenesis discussion we were having on other threads. Now that you've read what was reported in the BBC article regarding parthenogenesis, is it still not evident to you that obfuscation is precisely what is being attempted, trying to characterize the embryos so conceived as something less than individual human life?

[general_re]

What I'm saying is that the notion that the product of hukan parthenogenesis is an embryo is hardly as clear as it's being made out to be. This is an area, IMO, still open to discussion, and simply asserting that it is an embryo without supporting that assertion does not advance the discussion.

[general_re]

"hukan". Good one - one of my better typos ;)

[MHGinTN]

I trust you would admit that if even one parthogenesis conceived embryo has gestated to being born, the parthenote has to be an embryo else not one would ever make it to birth. That self-evident fact argues for the inclusion of parthenotes in the category of 'embryo', albeit that most are severely deformed and do not make it to birth in higher mammals. But some have, as you have noted on other threads.

[MHGinTN]

When I'm doing my writing, upon editing for errors in various strictures of grammar, syntax, and plain old fashioned typos, I am afforded some of my best belly laughs. [I used to create typos here at FR, as a means to toss in subtle barbs. I now makes so many unintended typos, I've had to quit playing with them.]

[MHGinTN]

I thought you'd unintentionally reavealed some new lifeform you'd discovered! : {)

[general_re]

Well, but for me, the "making it to birth" part is important. Some animals reproduce through parthenogenesis - most people don't know that male honeybees (drones) come about through parthenogenesis. But in higher animals, it's almost uniformly a disaster, and so far, the closer one gets to humans on the old phylogenetic tree, the more and more that it appears that parthenogenesis cannot result in viable organisms.

Now, for me, an embryo is something that at least has the potential to become a fully-fledged human being - by that standard, clones, for example, would fit the definition of "embryo", since it's entirely possible that we could develop a fully-fledged human being from a clone. But if the chances of human parthenotes developing into actual human beings are so remote as to be essentially non-existent - or just plain non-existent, period - then there's not even the theoretical potential for new life. So what purpose does it serve to call something that has basically a zero chance of ever becoming human an "embryo"?

And the second problem - with my own rendering of "potentiality", no less ;) - is that if cloning advances to the point where we can create clones from any given adult cell, then clearly any given adult cell has the "potential" to become a new life, in the same sort of theoretical way that a parthenote might be considered a new life. But does that mean that my liver cells have to be held as sacred, and rendered off-limits to medical investigation?

[MHGinTN]

In my lexicon, an embryo is not a 'potential' individual human being, it IS an actual individual human being. To conceive severely handicapped individual human beings, then claim that since these are so severely deformed they will never make it to birth so let's experiment with them, is the chilling dehumanization of which I wrote in the essay. Have we come full circle now?

[general_re]

I trust you would admit that if even one parthogenesis conceived embryo has gestated to being born, the parthenote has to be an embryo else not one would ever make it to birth.

This deserves a bit more elaboration, so bear with me. Yes, I might have to reconsider if it turns out that human parthenotes could potentially become an actual new, independent life. Of course, as in my other post, the notion of theoretical possibility has its own problems - like I said, if it becomes theoretically possible to create new life by cloning my liver cells, my liver cells become off limits to investigation if this is our standard.

Now, on the other hand, what if the opposite turns out to be true, and it can be shown that for some reason no parthenote can ever be born as a human - perhaps because there is some universally unavoidable and fatal developmental flaw at some point in their division and differentiation, or something along those lines. Would that cause you to revise your opinion on the use of parthenotes in research? Clearly, this is still a hypothetical question at this point, but I'm curious to discover if there is some way where you might ever consider the use of human parthenotes to be acceptable...

[general_re]

To conceive severely handicapped individual human beings, then claim that since these are so severely deformed they will never make it to birth so let's experiment with them, is the chilling dehumanization of which I wrote in the essay. Have we come full circle now?

Close to it. ;)

Let's suppose for a moment that we're not talking about constructs that are intentionally screwed up such that if they are allowed to develop, they become horrendously deformed monsters for us to experiment on. Suppose for a moment that it turns out that there is something wrong with parthenogenesis in humans, such that any parthenote that is implanted in an attempt to develop is so developmentally flawed that it is spontaneously aborted. IOW, there is no chance, zero chance, that a parthenote can ever be born, due to some inherent problem (not one that was intentionally introduced) within parthenotes. Does that still make them human embryos, if that turns out to be the case?

[MHGinTN]

Yes. Still looking for some exception clause to 'It's not nice to try and fool Mother Nature' I see. Go look up the dictionary definition of embryo, specifically 'human embryo'. Try Steadman's, Taber's, and Webster's.

[syriacus]

I was specifically talking about James Trefil, who is a noted science writer who confused eggs and embryos. He had decided "humanness" begins at 24 weeks and was so interested in mocking those who believe humanness begins at conception, that he pretended eggs and embryos were the same thing. He got a good chuckle at the thought of pro-lifers trying to save the (unfertilized) eggs that women shed monthly.

I can't retrieve his old NYT op-ed article, but you can get more of an idea of his interest in determining the moment at which human life begins from this....Facts of Life: Science & the Abortion Controversy

Here is an excerpt from the Amazon editorial review of Trefil's book -- Facts of Life

Reviewing the latest advances in molecular biology, evolutionary biology, embryology, neurophysiology, and neonatology--fields that all bear on this question--the authors reveal a surprising consensus of scientific opinion; that humanness begins around the twenty-forth [sic] week of gestation when connections needed for brain function are finally made. A fascinating inquiry, moving across various scientific disciplines, The Facts of Life makes a valuable contribution to the continuing abortion controversy, and offers a fascinating glimpse of what makes us uniquely human.

---

Trefil seems to have thought a consensus of scientists could find the answer to when human life begins. But he got so lost in his details while trying to win his argument that he confused eggs and embryos in his op-ed piece. I may be incorrect, but I think it's obvious he was not a dispassionate scientist seeking facts, but a man looking for evidence to bolster an opinion close to the one he already held.

Consensuses are nice collections of various scientists' ideas. The "true" or "factual" or "real" answer may be located somewhere in a consensus. But a consensus is not the "true" answer.

I thought scientists are most happy when they find elegant and simple answers to their questions. The opposite seems true among pro-choice scientists, who keep snuffling around for excuses to kill embryos or fetuses.

[general_re]

Still looking for some exception clause to 'It's not nice to try and fool Mother Nature' I see.

Try to resist the temptation to assume that anyone who doesn't automatically fall into lockstep with you on every single point has some secret anti-life agenda - I'm looking for a solution that will satisfy everyone involved, not trying slip one over on anybody ;)

[general_re]

....he pretended eggs and embryos were the same thing.

:^)

Consensuses are nice collections of various scientists' ideas. The "true" or "factual" or "real" answer may be located somewhere in a consensus. But a consensus is not the "true" answer.

Well, to be fair, the consensus view may actually be the true answer. Unfortunately, we aren't privy to Truth-with-a-capital-T in this life, so all we can do is use what limited tools we have in order to try and approximate the truth - reasoned discourse and consensus being two of those tools.

The opposite seems true among pro-choice scientists, who keep snuffling around for excuses to kill embryos or fetuses.

All I can say is to reiterate that, while people may do things that are objectively evil, nobody has ever set out to do evil for its own sake - everyone believes that they are serving some good in what they do. If you have had a chance to follow the discussion that MHG and I have been having, I hope that it is at least clear that the notion that parthenogenetic organisms, for example, are in fact embryos in the truest sense is at least open for discussion among reasonable people - along with thinking that they're doing good, everyone on any side of any issue tends to think that the truth of what they believe is very nearly self-evident. Would that it were so - there'd be no disagreement at all that way ;)

[MHGinTN]

This is tripping the alarm with me: ... could potentially become an actual new, independent life. I've addressed the poor reasoning of 'potentil life', so I'll merely state that conceiving a so severely handicapped individual life that it cannot survive beyond designated threshold is perhaps even more abhorrent for a target of research.

[MHGinTN]

if it becomes theoretically possible to create new life by cloning my liver cells, my liver cells become off limits to investigation if this is our standard. Nonsense. You're purposely obfuscating the difference between organ and organism. As stated previously, IF stem cells from XBob's body could be removed and coaxed into growing a new panceas for XBob, then that organ implanted into XBob, to cure his dibetes, I would welcome such as a medical miracle worthy of society's hearty embrace.

[MHGinTN]

Trefil had already decided that the functioning brain would be the threshold of personhood, of the 'beginning of ondividual life in humans. The very same science of Embryology that he speciously cited holds the conception of the individual to be the beginning of individual life, and they have devised ingenius tests on that embryonic individual to determine whether that individual is a Downs Syndrome being, etc.

[MHGinTN]

wow, so many typos! : {O

[MHGinTN]

.

[syriacus]

the consensus view may actually be the true answer

Yes.
Like I wrote, too... the consensus may contain the truth. But unless a consensus is completely unanimous it is usually has some (at least subtle) variations, not all of which are true.

All I can say is to reiterate that, while people may do things that are objectively evil, nobody has ever set out to do evil for its own sake - everyone believes that they are serving some good in what they do

In reality...

• Some people do things they know are wrong in order to help themselves get a promotion or an award or some other good.
• Some people have an ability to delude themselves into thinking that the wrong they are doing is not wrong.

Just think of the corrupt business big shots who have been in the news the last few years...the politicians on the take...the people who have murdered their spouses, children or lovers... the athletes who deliberately hurt opponents...the hospital nurses who serially kill patients, etc, etc, etc.