Life: When does it begin?

[nkb]

Down21 wrote

Hopefully this (mainly religious) objection to stem cells will be over soon when people can take a cell from an embryo without destroying it. This was reported recently but is surronded by controversy. However I am hopeful that it will happen soon.

Actually, if I understood the report correctly, a single cell can be taken out of the embryo, with no ill effects. This is routinely done during in vitro fertilization, in order to do genetic tests before implanting.

The controversy was that, even though it is possible to take only one cell without destroying the embryo, the researchers ended up taking all the cells anyway, for efficiency. Those embryos were slated for destruction anyway, if I remember correctly.

ghoulslime wrote

I'm pretty sure that anal is the beginning of life for Muslims. You cornhole some desert cunt and 9 minutes later she drops a little Muslim baby on the ground. Ah! Isn't it sweet!

Raises hand.....Ooh! Ooh! I know! It looks like a raisin!

nkb wrote

Actually, if I understood the report correctly, a single cell can be taken out of the embryo, with no ill effects. This is routinely done during in vitro fertilization, in order to do genetic tests before implanting.

The controversy was that, even though it is possible to take only one cell without destroying the embryo, the researchers ended up taking all the cells anyway, for efficiency. Those embryos were slated for destruction anyway, if I remember correctly.

Furthermore, the Catholics are wondering whether or not the single cell removed also has the potential to develop into a full human being, which of course it is. That's the whole point of stem cells--they're the most general type of human cell, able to differentiate into any human cell. However, again I must stress that this would never happen if the embryo is not allowed to implant itself on the uterine wall.

nkb wrote

Actually, if I understood the report correctly, a single cell can be taken out of the embryo, with no ill effects. This is routinely done during in vitro fertilization, in order to do genetic tests before implanting.

The controversy was that, even though it is possible to take only one cell without destroying the embryo, the researchers ended up taking all the cells anyway, for efficiency. Those embryos were slated for destruction anyway, if I remember correctly.

That's correct. However , the controversy exists because they actually didnt leave the embryo intact. Of course if they wanted to they could have since it is a common procedure. As we all know the anti stem cell people need a lot less than this to kick up a fuss and cast doubt over the research from the laymans point of view.

[nkb]

Down21 wrote

That's correct. However , the controversy exists because they actually didnt leave the embryo intact. Of course if they wanted to they could have since it is a common procedure. As we all know the anti stem cell people need a lot less than this to kick up a fuss and cast doubt over the research from the laymans point of view.

I absolutely agree. Standard procedure for the religious jackasses: Fight tooth and nail, attack every single detail (no matter how irrelevant), just because some church authority has decreed that it is against god's will (with no basis in the bible, of course).

Life begins when you move out of your parent's house.

Timmy wrote

Until that time, it is nothing more than a parasite.

that doesn't change at birth, trust me ;)

nkb wrote

This is an offshoot of a debate that was starting in the "Catholics vs Muslims" thread, about embryonic stem cell research and its moral implications, and when life begins, but didn't really belong.

When does life begin:

When the baby comes out of the womb (taking its first breath)?
When the baby in the womb is viable (able to live and breathe if it was taken out)?
When the sperm fertilizes the egg?
When the sperm and the egg are still separate, but, if combined, would create an embryo?
Is the sperm or the egg, individually, life?

Is embryonic stem cell harvesting immoral?

Please voice your opinion, and, obviously, try to back it up with some sort of reasonable logic that supports your position.

It begins when inorganic molecules form organic molecules. The sperm and the egg just pass their life to a new organic things. Life began millions of years ago.

nkb wrote

When does life begin:

Please voice your opinion, and, obviously, try to back it up with some sort of reasonable logic that supports your position.

By "life" I assume you mean "human life"

To which I'll have to reply:
Define human.

What attributes must an organism posses to be "human"?

Does it have to have 2 arms and 2 legs? 5 fingers and toes?
Does it have to have a functioning brain? What does "functioning" mean in this respect? Does it have to have an IQ of 160? 100? 85?
Does it have to be conscious? Is it enough if we expect that consciousness will return, or develop given time?
Does it have to be able to feel pain?
Does it have to be the biological offspring of other humans?
Does it have to eat? Drink? Breathe?
Does its development depend on whether it acquires water and nutrients?
Does i's development depend on whether or not it fuses with a sperm or egg?


For me, a human life is the biological offspring of other human life, which requires nothing more than water, proper nutrients, air (oxygenated), and an environment conducive to life (not too hot, too cold, poisonous, etc) in order to develop or retain consciousness. If the organism in question needs something more than that, such as a sperm or egg with which to fuse, it is not human. If it once was conscious, but is never expected to be conscious again, it is not human. By this definition, it seems that human life begins with fertilization.

myst7426 wrote

It begins when inorganic molecules form organic molecules. The sperm and the egg just pass their life to a new organic things. Life began millions of years ago.

That's correct. I was at a lecture recently given by Tim Hunt, the nobel prize winning biologist who discovered cyclin proteins ie the cell cycle. He highlighted the importance of this discovery by describing how all life on the planet is connected through mitotic cycles all the way back to the first cell division. However I think this is irrelevant in terms of stem cell treatment for human disease. If we want a defintion of life that can be used for safe transplant of stem cells into a patient then it is only human life that will suffice. Therefore I put the beginning of human life at fertilistation.

My two cents:

Many of my intro bio courses began with discussion of cell theory during which we discuss what makes an organism "alive", the conclusion of most textbooks is this:

A living organism is comprised of (a) cell(s).
It is capable of reproducing.
It is membrane-bound.
It is capable of metabolic events (producing their own ATP, etc.).
It has a genome which encodes proteins involved in biosynthesis and metabolism.

Which is why things like viruses are not considered to be alive but things like bacteria and sperm are.

Life begins inside the nucleus of an atom. ;)



Awwe, So cute. This is why I believe in Yeti. :P

Looks like yeti mercury

ok that's his mouth...not a tache. Sorry