I suggest that the Dems propose new legislation: Anti-Embryo Burning

[zbdent]

amendment ... no fertility clinic could dispose of an embryo by burning it ... punishable by imprisonment and revoking of the medical license ...

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Or better yet...you can't dispose of an embryo at all

Surely if those four-celled organisms are human beings with all the rights of postnatal humans, clients must be forced to bring all blastocycts to term or be prosecuted for murder...no matter how many dozens of children they end up with. In fact, even jacking off should be "reckless endangerment of a minor."

On edit: why is this in Religion/Theology?

[Zebedeo]

3. I think that the argument that the embryos are small, therefore

not important, is a poor argument.

We are all small when seen from a distance.

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. I'm sorry, but what are you talking about?

Were you actually responding to me?

[Zebedeo]

5. Yes,

to your reference to the embryos as "four-celled organisms."

[Der Blaue Engel]

15. Blastocycts are not people, I don't care what size they are n/t

[Zebedeo]

19. That's your opinion

and you are certainly entitled to it. I myself am not so sure. They are living organisms. They are of the species Homo Sapiens. Therefore they are human organisms. They each have their own unique DNA, different from both their mother and their father. Each is programmed for whatever genetic traits they will ever have as children or adults - red hair, brown eyes, a long nose, a propensity to amble, an aptitude with mathematics, photographic memory, an artistic talent, etc. Maybe some of these embryos are gay and others are straight. If it is a genetic trait, they have it already programmed by the time they are embryos.

I'm not sure how you can conclude that they are not people. Is it because they are small? Because they are young? Because they are incapable of survival on their own? I think any of these criteria, on examination, are invalid criteria on which to base a judgment that a living human organism is not a person.

I am particularly sensitive to this issue, because throughout history, "dehumanization" was a tactic used to make it seem morally acceptable to do hideous things to other human beings. The Nazis considered Jews subhuman, and that's how they were able to do what they did in the death camps. Japanese soldiers and sailors were portrayed as subhuman in WWII, as were Vietnamese people in the Vietnam War. American Indians were treated as subhuman "savages." And on and on. It makes me very nervous to hear people saying: "they're not people" about any group of "others."

[bluesbassman]

7. It's worse than just a "four celled organism".

These embryos are merely insurance policies. I can't believe the hypocrisy involved here (not on this forum, but from * and his "decent society" remarks.

The fact that the majority of these embryos are produced as back ups is never mentioned. So we're to grant them full rights as "people", when they are produced, frozen, and stored in the off chance they "may" be cultivated into actual human beings at some future date?

So, scientifically manufacturing these embryos is ok, as long as they are used to fulfill the needs of wealthy parents, but utilizing the "discards" to help mankind at large is wrong?

[SPKrazy]

9. Especially When I Can't See How Anyone Can Argue That They

are human

they are human cells, they are not sentient.

if I scrape some skin cells off my finger, they are not another human being

at some point in utero, it is my belief that they are more than just cells, or a fetus (although the legal definition of even a 9 month in utero being, is that of a fetus.

I don't think anyone has a true idea of when cells from humans become humans.

* and his fundie right wing are just using this as politics on the abortion front, and it's a stupid move that I hope seals the deal for a democratic majority in the house and senate.

[varkam]

14. Very well put

:)

[SPKrazy]

8. Blastocysts Are Small

there's no arguing that point

I don't think that poster was arguing that they were small and had no rights.

They have no rights because they aren't human, they are incapable of surviving without being implanted or frozen. Even the ones implanted are not all going to survive.

In nature only 1 in 5 times an embryo is fertilized will it make it to implantation in humans. So a couple may have sex hundreds of times before the odds of getting pregnant really turn in their favor. (timing, heartiness of eggs and sperm, conception, cell division, implantation, becoming a fetus, going to term)

The odds are against embryos in nature. When they are frozen, not all will survive unfreezing, then when they are implanted, frozen cycles have a lesser success rate than "fresh" IVF cycles.



Most women don't even know they are pregnant before the embryo degrades itself. It's that one in five that implants and survives that women know about because it will grow if it isn't spontaneously aborted (miscarriage) or mechanically aborted.

We are all small when seen from a distance, but we have to be able to survive (even inside the mother's womb) before we even have a chance at becoming human.

[Zebedeo]

11. That's a thoughtful post

and I agree with much of what you say.

However, I think that it is problematic to draw a distinction between human beings being worthy or unworthy of life on the basis of whether they are capable of surviving without assistance. Lots of people need assistance from others to survive, including newborn babies, the disabled, the old, the mentally handicapped, etc.

Yes, it is true that many embryos die naturally. However, I don't see this as a valid justification for conducting human experimentation on them that causes them to die. Most people with terminal illnesses die naturally. Yet it would be abominable to suggest that we perform medical experiments on them which cause them to die.

I know you are not making any such suggestion. I am just explaining why I don't believe that "survivability without assistance" or "most die naturally anyway" are valid criteria for distinguishing between those human beings who deserve to live and those who do not.

The embryos are indeed "human beings." They are not just skin cells resulting from a scrape. They are embryos that, if allowed to grow, will become as "human-looking" as you or me. Yes, they are small. Yes, they are weak and dependent on others for their survival. Yes, most of them would die of natural causes. But to me, none of these three characteristics justifies performing experiments on them that will kill them.

There is a good reason that Germany is against embryonic stem cell research.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

[bluesbassman]

13. I understand where you're coming from Zebedeo.

But let me ask you a question. Do you feel it is appropriate for these embryos to be created in the first place, and if so, how long should their "life" be allowed to be put on hold (frozen), waiting for their possible utilization as offspring?

[Zebedeo]

18. Thorny questions

I don't really know how I feel about those questions. I'm going to have to give it some thought.

I can say that I would be adamantly opposed to creating embryos for the specific purpose of fatal medical experimentation on them.

I can also say that I would be adamantly opposed to performing fatal experiments on fetuses, or causing their death by harvesting their organs.

But those are not the questions you asked. Honestly, I don't know the answers to your questions. They are good ones.

[varkam]

16. I see a problem in your argument.

It might very well be that I am not understanding you correctly. If that is the case, please feel free to point out where I have erred :)

However, I think that it is problematic to draw a distinction between human beings being worthy or unworthy of life on the basis of whether they are capable of surviving without assistance. Lots of people need assistance from others to survive, including newborn babies, the disabled, the old, the mentally handicapped, etc.

I agree to a large extent. I don't really want to go down the road of saying that such and such a person deserves less rights than I have in virtue of extenuating circumstances in their own life (such as requiring assistance with the basic day to day activities that you and I probably take for granted and view as mundane). Slightly off the topic, however, I think there needs to be a much more precise discussion about what a human being actually is and, by extension, what it means for a human being to be alive and to die. There is one bio-ethicist that comes to mind who argues that individuals whose frontal lobe is completely dead (which, by the way, is the neurological analogue for much of we generally consider separates us from "lower" life forms) should be termed medically dead. In other words, Terri Schiavo died when she had that heart attack all those years ago that starved her brain of oxygen.

Sorry, back on point now :)

Yes, it is true that many embryos die naturally. However, I don't see this as a valid justification for conducting human experimentation on them that causes them to die. Most people with terminal illnesses die naturally. Yet it would be abominable to suggest that we perform medical experiments on them which cause them to die.

I agree with you completely on the second part. On the first, however, I would agree if I believed that an embryo was a human being. This is one of the problems I see. People with terminal illnesses are not equal to embryos in terms of rights they are or should be afforded under the letter of the law. I tend to agree with SPK in asserting that an embryo is not a human being (and, subsequently, should not be afforded the same rights as you or I) but a fetus five minutes prior to delivery is a human being (and, subsequently, should be afforded the same rights as you or I). The real problem is, however, at what point in gestation does an embryo cross that threshold into personhood. I do not have the answer, and I don't think any other reasonable individual does.

I know you are not making any such suggestion. I am just explaining why I don't believe that "survivability without assistance" or "most die naturally anyway" are valid criteria for distinguishing between those human beings who deserve to live and those who do not.

Again, I agree with you.

The embryos are indeed "human beings." They are not just skin cells resulting from a scrape. They are embryos that, if allowed to grow, will become as "human-looking" as you or me. Yes, they are small. Yes, they are weak and dependent on others for their survival. Yes, most of them would die of natural causes. But to me, none of these three characteristics justifies performing experiments on them that will kill them.

You are right in asserting that an embryo is not a skin cell resulting from a scrape. Additionally, you are right in asserting that if allowed to grow, will become as "human-looking" (to put it your way) as you or I. But as before, the issue here is personhood. In my opinion, an embryo could potentially become a human being if given the right conditions. How far back does the potential go? Without attempting to be vulgar, every time a couple has sex, they have the potential to create a human being if they do not use contraceptive. Should contraceptives - which prevent the spread of STDs and reduce the number of abortions performed - be outlawed? Should masturbation be outlawed, since each sperm has the potential to fertilize an egg?

That is, of course, not to say that embryos shouldn't be treated well and handled with care. They should, because they are valuable. Research using stem cells could unlock the mysteries behind diseases that are currently incurable such as cancer and parkinson's that cause untold millions death and suffering the world over.

[Zebedeo]

17. Excellent post

Thanks for the well-thought-out and serious post.

I am not saying that frozen embryos should be treated as the equivalent of already-born infants. I agree there is a difference. I am not sure where it is appropriate to draw the line. Maybe there are many lines to be drawn. I am just uncomfortable with the notion of fatal medical experimentation on a human organism that has its own unique DNA and that has the ability to grow into a walking, talking, unique individual person if allowed to grow. Perhaps I have stumbled upon the distinction that makes a difference (for me) between an embryo, on the one hand, and a sperm cell and egg cell heading toward each other, on the other hand. The embryo has unique DNA - different from both the mother and the father. It is a separate being - even if not yet sentient. The sperm and egg heading toward each other are not a separate being. They are just cells, more similar to the "scraped skin" cells that I referred to in my prior post.

So no, I don't think contraception or masturbation should be outlawed. Heck, if you were going to outlaw those on that basis, you would have to outlaw not having sex! On second thought, maybe that might be a good idea after all . . .

[charlie]

20. Science

is making such distinctions blurrier, harder to hold as hard and fast rules. A clone created from the nucleus from one of a woman's somatic cells implanted into one of her egg cells has DNA identical to the mother's. Non-unique DNA, yet a separate potential being.

[Zebedeo]

23. Yes

I'm not saying that anyone with non-unique DNA is not a person. That would be an outrage, because all identical twins have non-unique DNA.

Instead, I'm saying that it is troublesome to me to say that a human organism with unique DNA is not a person. Each frozen embryo is already programmed with all the genetic traits he or she will ever have - green eyes, an aptitude for music, ears that stick out, freckles, a propensity to develop breast cancer, tallness, shortness, dimples, etc. If homosexuality is a genetic trait, these embryos already have it, or don't have it, as the case may be. To treat the embryos as subhuman is deeply troubling to me.

[varkam]

21. Interesting

Message:
Your point that the embryo is unique in virtue of DNA is interesting to me. I take that is the crux of your argument, and not the issue of potential (because with potential, you still have the issues of contraceptives and masturbation). I think that you are right in stating that is the difference between a sperm and an embryo. However, I'm not sure if that is a good way to define personhood, as (I am fairly ignorant when it comes to genetics, so if I am wrong I welcome corrections) it leaves the door open to discrimination based upon the contents of one's genes.

You say that the embryo is a separate being. Perhaps I'm just being picky, but I don't like the term being as I feel it has a connotation of some sort of consciousness or sentience. I do not think that an embryo has a consciousness or a sentience any more than an amoeba does, but perhaps that is a consequence of my materialist perspective (i.e. consciousness arises from complex neural activity in the brain).

In the end, I think, there needs to be a balance between the ethical responsibility we have towards embryos and the benefit that can be gained from their use. They talk about the same thing for medical treatments all the time in terms of risk vs. benefit. If a high risk treatment has a low potential for benefit, then it's not a good treatment. It is my opinion that the ethical responsibility that we hold towards embryos should be two-fold: it is a living organism and it can give humanity great benefit. No more and no less. Not to be inflammatory, but I think that if my reasoning is taken to the extreme, then one can say that we are ethically obligated to perform stem cell research. I wouldn't disagree with that simply because of how I view the definition of personhood (i.e. it takes place during gestation, not during insemination). Unfortunately, I can't get any more specific than that while still maintaining intellectual honesty.

Don't get me wrong though. I just want to be clear that I do think a fetus becomes a person at a certain point. I think of it a bit like this:

|-------------|------------|
Insemination Personhood Birth

I don't know when personhood actually takes place. Maybe it's an impossible question, but I do think it takes place between the two endpoints - probably well after insemination (even after it begins to look like a human) and well before birth (which is when I think we can all agree that he/she is a person).

[SPKrazy]

24. Let's Think About This

you said:

The embryos are indeed "human beings." They are not just skin cells resulting from a scrape. They are embryos that, if allowed to grow, will become as "human-looking" as you or me. Yes, they are small. Yes, they are weak and dependent on others for their survival. Yes, most of them would die of natural causes. But to me, none of these three characteristics justifies performing experiments on them that will kill them.

you have a markedly different definition of a human being than I do.

They are cells that are programmed to divide and form a human being given the right circumstances.

But by that logic, every egg a female ovulates, and every sperm a male produces are part of the program to develop a human being.

Out of millions, maybe billions of sperm, very few in a person ever meet up with the other half of the program. Same is true in smaller quantities for human "eggs".

Even when they do meet, they form the necessary ingredients to make a human being, eventually.

But blastocysts are not human beings. They are not sentient. There is no nervous system, no circulatory system, just a blueprint to follow really.

I think that given the fact that many many embryos will NEVER be implanted, and will end up destroyed, that they might as well serve a useful purpose.

Human beings are in fact experimented on quite a lot, and not all with informed consent. Does that justify experimentation with humans? No, it justifies cracking down on medical experiments (pharma studies where people do not fully understand the possible consequences of participating which defines not having given informed consent, the hallmark of any ethical experiment)

Embryos don't even have the capacity to give informed consent. In cases where human beings don't have the capacity to give informed consent, a parent, spouse, or legal guardian can give it.

If someone wants to donate embryos for research, aren't they able to make that decision for something that is really a part of them (both parents) and not an individual entity anyway?

[Zebedeo]

26. "Not an individual entity"

Thank you for your response, SPK. I appreciate your point of view, and the time you took to post your reply. However, I must say that I have a different perspective on the issue.

To me, an embryo is different from a egg or a sperm in a very profound and fundamental way. An embryo has his or her own unique DNA, different from both the father and the mother. The embryo is programmed for every genetic trait that the person will ever have, including eye color, hair color, skin color, height, an aptitude with music, a crooked nose, double-jointed fingers, a beautiful singing voice, etc. These traits may be markedly different than the genetic traits of either of the parents. Both parents might be little people, and their daughter might be normal height. Both parents might be albino, and their child might not. If homosexuality is a genetic trait, these frozen embryos would already be gay (or straight, as the case may be). In spite of all of that, you conclude that the embryo is "not an individual entity anyway" but just "part of" the parents? When, then, does a child stop being "part of" her parents?

In my view, each embryo IS an individual entity. They are not sentient, but neither are people who are temporarily knocked unconscious. Should we perform fatal medical experiments on them? I'm sure you would agree that we should not. They, like embryos, are also not able to give their informed consent. We could wait for them to wake up, just as we could allow the embryo to grow until she is able to communicate with us.

I cringed when I read your comment that since embryos probably aren't going to be used anyway "they might as well serve a useful purpose." I really think that there are ethical issues here that you may not be giving the weight they deserve. A prisoner on death row is going to die anyway. Should we do ghastly medical experiments on him without his consent, because he "might as well serve a useful purpose"? Think this is an extreme example and could never happen? Think again.



Let me ask you this: Where would you draw the line? Would it be morally acceptable to perform fatal medical experimentation on fetuses? What if it turned out that stem cell research held the greatest promise when the cells are extracted from the frontal lobes of 9-month old fetuses? I assume you would not support allowing such research, because that fetus is clearly a "person." Then where would you draw the line?

I personally abhor the use of the term "blastocyst" to describe an embryo, no matter how small. The term is dehumanizing, as it connotes that the embryo is nothing but a "cyst." Most people's common experience with cysts is that they are a harmful or useless growth that needs to be removed from the body. To me, that is an abhorrent term to use in describing a human being, no matter how young.

[SPKrazy]

27. No, I'm Talking Embryos, Not People

blastocyst is the correct term for the embryo at the stage it is frozen for use in IVF, I can't change that fact. It isn't a true embryo because it is just a small number of undifferentiated cells at that point.

When the majority of "embryos" (for your sake) are stored in cryopreservation, and unless the person whose embryos they are pays a price to rent space in a freezer, they embryos are allowed to thaw and degrade.

There are many places that do IVF that will allow donation, adoption, etc., but the majority of embryos, even if donated, used in the first place, or adopted DON'T SURVIVE ANYHOW.

For instance, if an IVF patient wants to get pregnant her odds are increased with 2 or even 3 embryos being implanted in her. (without Mom, or being frozen, they cease to continue to divide, they don't "die" because they have no interconnected circulation, sentience, or nervous system to die. They just stop dividing) Usually only one, if any, will actually attach itself to the uterus, and continue to grow.

I'll tell you something Zeb, I'm not a horrible ogre that wants to destroy humans, I just don't see these embryos at this stage as being in any way human other than having DNA from 2 people.

Most stop growing, degrade, and are not able to be used for IVF. Most that are implanted cease to exist as well. Becoming a human is a hard job, and it is RARE in actuality for a fertilized egg to make it to attach to the uterus even under ideal circumstances.

So is it better to never use these embryos, or let them be the gift of life for someone that is a living human being.

I consider myself a pro life person, although I oppose criminalization of abortion. I think that this decision is between a woman, her doctor, a higher power (if she believes) and often the father of the soon to be human.

I also don't know when a fetus becomes a human. Is it the heartbeat? The nervous system? Or what?

The current stem cell lines that are legal to use, are old, many have been contaminated, and * has stopped the ability of the government to support stem cell research that isn't within the approved stem cell lines.

How can we allow all the embryos that exist to "grow up and give us consent" when most of them will never be in that position. I'm not talking about taking embryos that are going to be used by someone. The embryo adoption "market" isn't large enough to aborb all the embryos, and they wouldn't all become humans anyway. A small percentage of embryos ever become humans, and yet you call them humans. I guess we just disagree, and that's okay because that is what is important, to debate these issues, and not have knee jerk reactions like * and his ilk have.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. What about

if they are wrapped in little tiny American flags?

[neebob]

10. That's two consecutive life terms -

one for burning the embryo and one for burning the flag. (wink wink, found it)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. .....snort....

[SPKrazy]

6. I Don't Think They Have To Burn It

a fragile embryo is just thawed and it will stop growing if it isn't implanted, then it goes in the medical waste disposal. I don't know that waste is burned, maybe in some places

[neebob]

12. Santa is very disappointed to hear that you know that. n/t

[SPKrazy]

25. Wha....?

:shrug:

[neebob]

28. Hey, I'm just the messenger.

Who knows what Santa was thinking. He's even weirder than I am.