sbbuilder

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 7:56 p.m.

Mr Briegel Last post, here, because in general I'm not a big fan of just two people going back and forth. "..it is a parasite-like creature living off it's host. Dependent upon it's host completely." Wow, so I guess that parasites, by your definition, are not living beings. That, and the ability to breathe on your own pretty much wraps up your definition of life. Now, I'm having a great deal of difficulty finding any scientific facts corroborating your definition. Did you come up with that all by yourself, or was there some scientific basis for your opinion? I believe that an embryo is a human because is has a complete set of unique DNA that will define that as a human, and nothing else. Given time to develop (not 'evolve'), it will grow to the point that it can survive independant of its mother (not 'host'). Also, have you taken the time to read the article I referenced earlier? Here is a short exerpt: "Yamanaka in 2007 discovered how to tinker with human skin cells so they behave like embryonic stem cells, which can potentially morph into things like heart and nerve cells, as well as lead to new therapies for currently incurable diseases." This man is up for a potential Nobel Prize. Skin cells are far more abundant and easier to manipulate that embryonic stem cells. So, I'm wondering why you would continue to advocate for embryonic research given this incredible alternative?

David Briegel

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 3:38 p.m.

sbbuilder, it is a parasite-like creature living off it's host. Dependent upon it's host completely. Some call the zygote a fetus. It is evolving. You do believe in evolution, don't you? YOU don't get to decide the terms of the debate. I did answer your question. My crystal ball tells me I have never read anything about that noble work of yours at the fertility clinics.

sbbuilder

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.

David Briegel How do you know I'm not demanding that fertility clinics stop destoying embyos? Do you have a crystal ball? Also, you have said when you believe life begins. That was part one of my question. Part two was 'why'. If, as you have said, life begins with the first breath, then what is this being prior to that? Is it dead? Because if life begins after the first breath, then it can't be living prior to that.

David Briegel

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 1:06 p.m.

sbbuilder, Why aren't you demanding that fertility clinics stop murdering embryos??? There is nothing arbitrary about the first breath. It happens at birth. Life begins at birth! Until then it depends on it's host!

sbbuilder

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 9:23 a.m.

Also, in today's news, a very important article on the research on stem cells: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101003/ap_on_sc/eu_sweden_nobel_medicine

sbbuilder

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 8:55 a.m.

LGChelsea To clarify for you: No, I would not sacrifice one EMBRYONIC stem cell to save my child's life, or my own. I believe that an embryo is a human being, therefore it would be immoral to kill that human to save my life. David Briegel I posted a response to your last post, but it must have been deleted last night, with no mention that it was. (AA.com, you guys have to stop doing that sort of thing.) Here it is in a nutshell: C-sections are scheduled for all sorts of reasons. Let's say that a doctor suggests scheduling one on a certain date, but that won't work for the mother, so it is moved to another date. It could be one hour earlier or two days later. The baby breathes its first breath based on arbitrary circumstances. That is not science. Science requires concrete definitions, and arbitrariness does not factor into the equation. That is why the topic of Embronic stem cells is so contentious. Nobody in the scientific community who advocates for embryonic stem cells has come forward with a scientific definition of when a human becomes a human. That issue needs to be resolved once and for all. Can you define for us when that occurs, and why?

LGChelsea

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 2:07 a.m.

sorry for too many hits...

LGChelsea

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 1:39 a.m.

@sbbuilder: Please clarify: by "life of another", you DO equate an embryonic stem cell with a fully living human being? Once and for all: You WOULD sacrifice your own child, your flesh and blood, to save one stem cell?

LGChelsea

Sun, Oct 3, 2010 : 12:21 a.m.

@sbbuilder: Please clarify: by "life of another", you DO equate an embryonic stem cell with a fully living human being? Once and for all: You WOULD sacrifice your own child, your flesh and blood, to save one stem cell?

LGChelsea

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 10:52 p.m.

@sbbuilder: Please clarify: by "life of another", you DO equate an embryonic stem cell with a fully living human being? Once and for all: You WOULD sacrifice your own child, your flesh and blood, to save one stem cell?

David Briegel

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 6:50 p.m.

It is easy to believe that life begins at birth. That is when the child begins to breathe on it's own. If you can't breathe, you don't have life.

David Briegel

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 6:40 p.m.

I have NEVER, ever heard anyone "promote abortion". That is a very silly statement. We just believe that women have reproductive rights that don't include me, you or your "evil govt". It is her choice and hers alone. If you don't believe in the destruction of embryos why haven't you protested at the fertility clinics that discard them when they are no longer desired or viable? Not a convenient target to demonize?

A22Ypsi

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 5:25 p.m.

@talker: People believe all sorts of things, but that doesn't change the actual, truthful, reality of the situation. Excuse me for offending the sensibilities of our resident relativistic liberals, but people's beliefs can be incorrect. By the way, the idea that life begins at quickening hardly exists in modern times, except as a misquote of St. Thomas Aquinas made famous by Nancy Pelosi in an attempt to calm her cognitive dissonance (claiming to be a practicing Catholic in good standing while promoting abortion, or "choosing to terminate parasites" if you prefer.) Funny how the pro-embryonic destruction crowd will defer to the scientific and medical views of long-dead religious authorities when it suits them. Ignoring that Aquinas actually considered quickening the point of ensoulment, not necessarily the beginning of life...

talker

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 3:47 p.m.

Some believe life begins at "quickening" or when the fetus can be felt moving around. Others consider life to begin when life is viable or sustainable outside the womb. That's a plausible view since before that time the fetus receives nourishment from the hostess. The belief that life begins at conception is not universal.

A22Ypsi

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.

@johnnya2: You won't find any scientific support for your belief that life begins suddenly at birth, since the unborn child has long since been a living, growing organism at that point. Surely you don't think that a non-living clump is animated with life just because its physical location happens to change by a few inches, from inside its mother's womb to outside of it. What would you tell us is the status of a fetus during birth? When half the body is out? All but one finger?

sbbuilder

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 1:41 p.m.

Long Time No See "...the word "embryonic" isn't mentioned once in the article." Let's see... "I think it's recognizing that this state has turned the corner and it's now being viewed as a supportive environment for doing embryonic stem cell research...." So, I don't find this an 'irrational' argument. And please, try to refrain from throwing out the word 'extremism' like it was candy. By definition an extremist point of view is shared by only a very few. The idea that life begins at conception is held by millions and millions worldwide, Christians as well as Muslims. johnnya2 Thank you for at least answering my question. That shows you are willing to put your position in print. Well, life begins at birth, then. Is that what you are saying? Then, there is something transformative about going through the birth canal that biologically changes a foetus into a human? What is being changed? The debate about embryonic vs non-embryonic stem cells will go on for a while. Mr Briegel points out that there are very real problems that need attention too. This is not to dimish those concerns, just to highlight one aspect of the growing debate. LGChelsea No, I would not sacrifice the life of another to save my own, or any one else's. No question, no debate, no hesitation. Mr Morrison will be attending a conference that will address ways in which stems cell research can be furthered. I would hope that adult stem cell research, something that has already shown concrete results, will receive most of the attention.

johnnya2

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 1:03 p.m.

@ Theo212 Umm, really? I guess a REVOLUTIONARY war is a pretty conservative thing? The core of Americas founding is on not accepting the past and status quo,. IT is fighting for advancement. It is NOT living int he past. By the way, many of the framers had mistresses, and did not let women vote. They owned slaves, and counted blacks as 3/5th of a person. LIBERAL thought brought about these changes.

johnnya2

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 1 p.m.

@sbbuilder There is an easy way to determine when life begins. Most call it a birthday. It keeps everything very simple. If your child is born on Dec 31, 2010, his life began in 2010 and can be used on your taxes. If he waits until Jan 1, 2011, he gets to be written on to 2011 taxes. It can be a minute difference. Similar to one second you are alive, the next you are dead. If your position is that life begins at conception, then do we say a 16 year old can drive on the day 16 years after conception? What about those that might be premature a few months? How about when you can legally collect SSI, vote, join the army, drink etc?

RobRoy

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.

Time and time again, even the most right-leaning people come around on the issue of stem cells. It follows the same pattern. Once these folks find out their loved ones are suffering, they all change their tune. It's easy to take a stance on anything so long as it doesnt force you to think. Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, Jesse Helms all did 180's on this issue..just to name a few. Who knows--maybe adult stem cells can cure everything? But that doesnt mean we should write off the potential of embryonic stem cells in the mean time. And frankly, I think lot of the bureaucracy surrounding the use of ES cells is THE main reason you dont have them being explored so much. Doctors take an oath to help patients....researchers abide by a similar code to explore and discover all possibilities, even when they arent the most politically expedient choice. Let's be pragmatic and respectful about this.

LGChelsea

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 12:10 p.m.

Say we ARE talking about embryonic stem cells. I have always wondered this of those who believe that embryonic stem cell research is wrong because it "kills embryos" that would otherwise be discarded: you or your child, sibling, mother, spouse, have an incurable, horrible disease. Embryonic stem cell use is able to cure this disease. In all honesty, would you a) choose to die or have your loved one die and "save" the cells, or, b) would you use the cells to save yourself or your loved one. If the latter is your choice, then you want for yourself, but not anyone else. If you truly believe the former is the moral choice, then I might be able to consider (not agree with or understand) your thinking with regard to this issue. @Theo212: your conservative values are not the values of all people. The people have voted on this and you and your values cannot control who lives or dies. I CARE about living, ill people, as their doctors do. I RESPECT the amazing minds in science and medicine dedicated to saving people from debilitating illnesses.

Long Time No See

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 11:14 a.m.

It's interesting that many of the commenters are making negative statements regarding embryonic stem cell research when the word "embryonic" isn't mentioned once in the article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Irrational arguments are the hallmark of extremism.

sbbuilder

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.

Number of cures/treatments from adult stem cells: dozens and counting. Number of cures/treatments from embryonic stem cells: zero. This, despite research being done in many countries around the world. So, one has to ask, why not continue research in a field that already has shown very positive results? Separately, Theo212 has broached the topic of the definition of a human being. When is a human a human? Many conservatives believe that this occurs at conception. I believe that is what he was alluding to in his comment. Are we killing a human being when we destroy an embryo? If we are, then his comment is germane. If you believe that destroying an embryo does not kill a human, then it brings up the question of when is a human a human? If you can agree that a three day old infant is a human, then somewhere between conception and three days post partum this transition occurs. The challenge then becomes to define where that point is. Otherwise, you are not being intellectually honest.

Diagenes

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 9:37 a.m.

Its interesting that adult stem cell research is not mentioned. There is a very good track record for the successful use of adult stem cells in treating disease. Clinical trials and therapies are being implemented using adult stems cell with alot more proven results than embryonic cells.

David Briegel

Sat, Oct 2, 2010 : 7:34 a.m.

Theo, I think you posted this on the wrong article. This man has so much respect for life that he wants to advance the ability to care for the afflicted and improve their quality and length of life. You might want to post on a conservative site against the death penalty, Perpetual War Profiteering, child hunger, homelessness or any of America's similar successful "values". Sad! Your comment has no connection to this article!!