We have generated organs already.
Not with embryonic stem cells. Organs like the liver regenerate with their own cells; glands like the thyroid too. We do not make kidneys in a beaker.
It just isn't on a large scale yet, but it has been done. Arguably even when it is done though, they might still need embryos to do that work, so the real topic that matters to you here is just on that embryo and if it is justified.
Yes. I'm not denying there is potential in embryonic research. I'm saying the cost is too high.
My point though is that while that embryo might grow into a human,
It will unless tragedy or intentional destruction intervene.
technically stem cells from babies, etc. might also, so why the difference in perspective towards the two groups?
Because adult stem cells don't kill the person they are taken from. Embryonic stem cells as a matter of cause necessarily kill the life they are taken from.
So... the difference is killing the source vs. not killing the source.
A genetics course at a large American university- straight from the mouth of a professor who holds a PHD in genetics. A quick google search turned this up:
http://ucsfchancellor.ucsf.edu/priorities/jason-pomerantz-boyhood-dreams-scientific-lab
"Pomerantz looks at the problem from an evolutionary standpoint. He notes that humans already have some regenerative ability. ?If we lost a chunk of our liver, we could grow a lot of it back,? he says. ?If a baby loses the tip of a finger, it will grow back. We can regrow our stomach lining and replenish our blood supply. But we can?t regrow a finger or a limb as an adult, or our heart after a heart attack.?"
yeah... see above
Not the whole finger, but part of it. It is because children are known to still have active stem cells that later deactivate or are lost as adults.
I think you are confusing embryonic and adult stem cells. Embryonic means they are pluripotent. Adult doesn't address the age of the source. It means that the stem cells are multipotent at best.
But the embryo is nothing more than a cluster of those cells at that point.
A cluster of unique living human cells that absent tagedy or intervention will continue to grow, be born and live like you and me. The only distinction is stage of life... not whether it is human nmor alive. You are placing less value on the embryo based on its quite recent origin rather than its identity.
Physically they are similar.
OK. But one dies when the cells are taken and the other doesn't. That's a pretty remarkable difference ;-)
The only reason you draw this distinction is because you know that the one in the mother will grow into a fetus. Let me put it this way- if a scientist were to find that the stem cells found in young children or babies could be matured to become a fetus, would you then be against taking those cells too?
Cloning? There is some suggesting that this is possible. I'd need a lot more facts to form an opinion. Are they grown for spare parts? Unethical.
Or perhaps you might even seek to protect them so they could grow into babies? It sounds farfetched but the argument you make relies solely on what will happen over time and I am not sure that is valid to protect the embryo and what it is at that particular moment in time.
No. I am arguing that destroying a human life for research material is unethical.
You are distinguishing the embryo based on its recent origin as less valuable and disregarding the fact that it will die when its pluripotent cells are extracted.
This all falls on where you draw the line between human and embryo.
This is where you're confused. "Embryo" describes a
stage of life not the
kind of life. An embryo may be a dog embryo but it is still a dog.
The embryo is not a he/she or anything- it is a cluster of cells.
Of living human cells that are growing stage by stage... this is not a controversial fact. The value one places on those cells is.
I mean technically all sperm and eggs also have the potential to become humans, but even our own bodies naturally lead to the death of many of those cells.
But an embryo isn't a potential new life. It IS a new life with its own unique DNA. Sperm is potential... embryo is potential realized.
Absolutely not, but my point is there is another supply there through this research.
Which requires killing an innocent to yield speculative benefits vs (not necessarily) killing a murderer for known benefits. If you were a betting may would you wager on the "could be" if it killed your child vs wagering on the "will" to (maybe) kill a murderer?
Why not? If scientists thought like that we would have no vaccines because they would just figure, "we'll never cure everyone"- yet production goes with demand over time and we have had some great success stories when you look at things like small pox, etc. If we use stem cells we have the potential to meet that demand.
You're leaving out the core of the debate. We didn't kill humans for research material to find a small pox vaccine.
Our core disagreement is the identity of the pluripotent cell "doner."
So... why is the embryo neither alive nor human? If it is both why is that life less valuable than another?
