Therapeutic Cloning

[El_Machinae]

It's because they cannot answer the question. I wonder if they even acknowledge that they can't?

CG:

There are two ways of going about this. The main 'product' of therapeutic cloning would be an embryo very similar to one that the female body spontaneously aborts. There are basically two types of embryoes, ones that will develop into what we'd call a person, and one which the female body would reject. SCNT cloning makes the second type of embryo. Is it even an embryo if it's not viable? Is it an embryo if we know it's not viable? Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that with research we could make the embryo viable (by nurturing), but we currently cannot and will likely not go down that road. But, you can also nurture a skin cell to become an embryo as well.

As well, I alluded to Rossant's protocol above too. This protocol takes a skin cell and inserts a gene into the skin cell. Then, the DNA is put into an egg. This extra gene (that was not done to an embryo, but a skin cell, remember) prevents the embryo from forming a 'skin', and thus prevents the egg from ever resembling an embryo - at all.

FriendlyFire: we certainly think we can grow replacement organs in pigs (hearts being a good example), but we're worried about cross infection with a specific virus that's holding up the research. As well, stem cells allow many more therapies than organ transplant does (for example, there's hope to cure certain types of blindness with stem cells).

 

[ironduck]

It's because they cannot answer the question. I wonder if they even acknowledge that they can't?

The thing is that I actually understand their (potential) spiritual objection (although my feeling is that it's not a problem because I think life works in a different way). It's just that they say their objection is strictly biological and that it's completely obvious. The only explanation I've gotten is that 'if left alone it will turn into a baby'. Like we lived in the middle ages and had no idea of biology.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't get the objections to interference either. We interfere to make the fetus more healthy. However, we can interfere to make an embryo into twins? If one baby is good, why isn't two better?

However, in my question, I'm asking if we can cure diseases without destroying viable embryoes. ie, do we have permission?

 

[cgannon64]

Ironduck, it's quite ironic that you ask that question, since the pro-choice view is in fact the one that avoids defining what a human being is. Tell me, according to your beliefs, what is a human being?

I tried many times in the other thread to get an explanation for why a zygote was a human being from a biological viewpoint when any other individual human cell or a sperm cell and ovum next to each other are not. Even when the sperm has penetrated the ovum it's still not a human being until the chromosomes fuse. But as soon as they have fused it's for some reason 'a human being' from a biological viewpoint according to these people, even though no mitosis has taken place yet.

Why isn't the fusion of the chromosones a sufficient starting point for a human being? You say for some reason as if it's crazy - which is absolutely silly, considering the number of chromosones is (at least as far as I know) a very obvious defining factor in what is and is not of the same species.

And, again - if it isn't, what is yours?

 

[cgannon64]

There are two ways of going about this. The main 'product' of therapeutic cloning would be an embryo very similar to one that the female body spontaneously aborts. There are basically two types of embryoes, ones that will develop into what we'd call a person, and one which the female body would reject. SCNT cloning makes the second type of embryo. Is it even an embryo if it's not viable? Is it an embryo if we know it's not viable? Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that with research we could make the embryo viable (by nurturing), but we currently cannot and will likely not go down that road. But, you can also nurture a skin cell to become an embryo as well.

Hm. This sounds almost exactly like the hypothetical I imagined as being bad. Is it even an embryo if it isn't viable? Well, of course it is. A "non-viable" human on life support is beleived to be just as much as a human being as you or I; same with ********, or crippled, or terminally ill humans.

As well, I alluded to Rossant's protocol above too. This protocol takes a skin cell and inserts a gene into the skin cell. Then, the DNA is put into an egg. This extra gene (that was not done to an embryo, but a skin cell, remember) prevents the embryo from forming a 'skin', and thus prevents the egg from ever resembling an embryo - at all.

I'm not sure exactly what's going on here. So this is an egg with the genes of a skin-cell and the the extra gene? This does not sound human, although I'd need to have my confusion settled.

 

[ironduck]

Ironduck, it's quite ironic that you ask that question, since the pro-choice view is in fact the one that avoids defining what a human being is. Tell me, according to your beliefs, what is a human being?

What in the world is ironic about asking why a single cell constitutes 'a human being'? Because that is my question from the other thread: From a biological viewpoint, how can a single cell constitute a human being?

For the record, you haven't answered it, all you did was throw off a sarcastic comment. I don't care what a 'pro-choice' view is since there are probably plenty of different ones. But if you want mine I already stated that I cannot give a clear definition of when an embryo/fetus can be considered 'a human being'. What I can tell you is that a single cell or a blastocyst is not a human being in my view. There is nothing developed that defines a human. There's no brain, there's no body, there's no nervous system, there's no memory, there are no emotions, there are no thoughts, there are no dreams.

Mind you, this is, once again, from a biological perspective. I have no problem understanding the spiritual viewpoint, but I'm told over and over by people who oppose all abortion, including of zygotes that it's so obvious from a biological viewpoint that a zygote is a human being. Apparently so obvious that they cannot explain to me why.

Why isn't the fusion of the chromosones a sufficient starting point for a human being? You say for some reason as if it's crazy - which is absolutely silly, considering the number of chromosones is (at least as far as I know) a very obvious defining factor in what is and is not of the same species.

Did you even read what I wrote? I just wrote exactly that - it's a foundation for a human being. How hard is it to tell an early cellular starting point from an actual living animal? Not very hard in a microscope I will tell you.

Why is any other regular human cell not a human being if a zygote is a human being? They have the same number of chromosomes which seems to be your defining point.

So, once again, instead of being sarcastic for me asking why in the world a singular cell constitutes a human being from a biological perspective you should try to answer the question.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is it even an embryo if it isn't viable?

Roughly 50% of the embryoes that you make with your wife will be non-viable, and then they will die. Is the intentional making of non-viable embryoes immoral, then? You can't say that making a non-viable embryo was unintentional when trying to get your wife pregnant, because you know that there's a 50% chance it won't form properly. So why not intentionally make a non-viable embryo?

Edit: does dooming 1/2 your offspring to oblivion justify having children? Is it okay to kill half your kids to have the other half?

So this is an egg with the genes of a skin-cell and the the extra gene? This does not sound human, although I'd need to have my confusion settled.

A person with an extra gene can very easily be human. When my (color-blind) eyes are cured using an extra gene, I will still be human, I'm sure.

You're close on your description. The skin DNA (plus a gene that prevents the formation of an embryo) is inserted into a human egg with no DNA in it. The DNA then resets to 'embryo-ish' status and divides into cells. However, the extra gene prevents an embryo from ever forming.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think this is an abortion question. It's a question on what can be done by scientists to avoid conservative values. Is the deliberate formation of a non-viable embryo immoral? It's not like we're short of eggs and skin cells. If the question seems too easy, ask how you can justify the accidental (but probable) creation of non-viable embryoes in order to have children.

If the entire embyro condition can be skipped, by pro-active change of the skin cell (not the embryo), would that be an issue still?