Abortion Issue Hits The work Scene

[CatholicCid]

Face*

Also, just from looking at your post, why do you try and entwine fact and opinion together? You present it alright as fact, then lace it with your opinions. I could understand it if you clearly seperated the two as half this stuff is opinion.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 26 2005, 09:45 PM'] Not at all the case. You have to hijack another cell for your "somatic" to even work. You cannot take the skin cell and put it in a uterus and have it do anything. You have to take the ovum. So all you're really doing is creating a fertilized egg cell by bypassing the fertilization. You need the egg cell.

Besides which, doing this with a human is far easier said than done. To my knowledge, no such clone has ever been brought to term. We don't even know what the side-effects might be. [/quote]
At present, we need only the egg cell from which nuclear genetic material has been removed (but it is questionable if it has to be a human egg cell) for nourishment of the genome. In the future there may be alternatives.

However, if one tries to argue, as the prolife folks like to, that once one has a genome, one has a human being, any complete human genome which has reproductive potential is a person. Realistically, one has only a cell which has the potential to become a human being.

But human cells grown and subdividing in a tissue culture have the same genome as the zygote. So to be consistent, the prolife folks would have to claim these too are human beings.

[Aloysius]

no, they claim the zygote as a whole is a human being.

you seem to avoid me at every turn. Are you dropping your Augustine/Jerome/Aquinas argument as it has been discredited? Or are you adopting the Aristotelian view that we are plants in the beginning of life? And contrary to your statements, the Church has always considered abortion sinful, simply sometimes classifying it as a sexual sin rather than murder. Modern science has discredited the Aristotelian view that we begin as plants and as such the Church has condemned abortion as always and everywhere murder.

it's about natural potential for life. when something exists that would, in its natural state and place, become a human being, it is thusly human already.

[CatholicCid]

They are parts of one aren't they?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 27 2005, 11:05 PM']

a skin cell if left in its natural state will not become a man

an embryo if left in its natural state will become a man

not only is the genome there, but the instructions for how it should grow into that person is there. [/quote]
No, neither a skin cell nor an embryo left in their "natural state" will grow and develop. For example, in the case of in vitro fertilization, implantation must take place withing a relatively short period of time.

Yes, both genomes contain "instructions" regarding growth and development and cell specialization (eventual development into specific tissues as needed).

As one writer put it, "What is a stem cell, and why is there such a fuss about it? A stem cell is nothing more or less than one of the 16 cells of a blastula. What is a blastula? A blastula is the first organization of cells after the zygote (the fertilized egg) starts to divide. The zygote itself is amazing in that it is ‘totipotential,’ that is, although it is but a single cell, it can grow and develop into a complex human being, in about nine months. When it divides into two, there is nothing remarkable about it, and when the two divide into four, again nothing. When each of these four cells divide you get eight, and when those eight divide, you get 16.

Edited May 29, 2005 by LittleLes

[Aloysius]

notice how far back into my posts you delve to find the place I forgot an important phrase of my argument. That was two days ago. Notice my more recent clarifications, "if left in its natural state and place"

an embryo left in its natural state and place will become man.

[Aloysius]

correct, a stem cell is not a person. duh. the fuss about embryonic stem cells is that to get one you must destroy an embryo, which many believe to be a human person.

we look at the zygote as a whole as it divides and thus grows. the whole thing is the human. within it is all the power and all the material and all the instructions to divide and grow into a human being, and thus it has human potential and by Turtullian's definition is thus human already.

The 16 cells individually are human cells. The 16 cells as a whole contain the "totipotential" and as such are a human person.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 27 2005, 05:01 PM']

it is only once all the needed parts are put together that there is a real potential.  when an egg is fertilized, it holds the information from both the egg and the sperm, all the information is there, and only then can it be applied "he who will be man is man already"

[/quote]
Yes. And all the "information" is there in both the zygote, the fertilized cell containing the complete human genome, as well as the somatic cell nucleus (tissue cell) containing the complete human genome. Only time and nutrients are needed for eventual development into a human being.

But the original quesition was at which point in their development a person exists. Not a potential person.

Edited May 29, 2005 by LittleLes

[Aloysius]

we will go nowhere if you do not deal with me in the present and not in the past.

the fertilized egg at that point is the complete person. when it developes and grows, all the cells as a whole that came out of that fertilized eggs are the complete person. each individual cell does not hold the natural potential to become a human being, only an embryo holds the natural potential as an individual cell to become a human being. once the zygote begins to divide, all the cells are viewed as a whole as they come from the same original sell and as a whole hold your "totipotential"

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 29 2005, 03:03 AM'] we will go nowhere if you do not deal with me in the present and not in the past.

the fertilized egg at that point is the complete person. when it developes and grows, all the cells as a whole that came out of that fertilized eggs are the complete person. each individual cell does not hold the natural potential to become a human being, only an embryo holds the natural potential as an individual cell to become a human being. once the zygote begins to divide, all the cells are viewed as a whole as they come from the same original sell and as a whole hold your "totipotential" [/quote]
No, you are in error. Each somatic cell (tissue cell) does hold the potential to become another complete person via cloning. This, from the human genome project on reproductive cloning:

"Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Dolly was created by reproductive cloning technology. In a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth. "

The fertilized egg is not a complete person. It is at best a potential person. It requires nutrients and time for differentiation, and ultimately the infusion of a rational soul.

What part of this are you challenging?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 29 2005, 12:15 PM'] No, you are in error. Each somatic cell (tissue cell) does hold the potential to become another complete person via cloning. This, from the human genome project on reproductive cloning:

"Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Dolly was created by reproductive cloning technology. In a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth. "

The fertilized egg is not a complete person. It is at best a potential person. It requires nutrients and time for differentiation, and ultimately the infusion of a rational soul.

What part of this are you challenging? [/quote]
I would challenge that every cell in your body has the potential to become another person. Your claims on cloning are really a red herring. I could say that every rat has the potential to grow a human being because scientists are capable of causing rats to grow human tissue. However, that would be fallacious, because a rat, left to his own devices, doesn't develop human tissue unless we experiment on him. Similarly, a skin cell lives, then dies, and falls off of your body, and decomposes when left to itself. On the other hand, a fertilized egg grows up to be a human being when left to its own devices. And you can't say it has to be implanted into the uterus because that process is already taken care of in normal human reproduction. So what we're dealing with is something that has the obvious potential for life, and really is life. And something else, which is human experimentation and meddling in order to force something into a direction we have chosen. The two are quite incomparable.

[Aloysius]

each cell does not hold potential if left in their natural state and place. all the cells, as a whole, hold the potential left in their natural state and place to become a human being. the individual cells left in their natural state and place as part of the zygote do not have the potential, only the whole.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 29 2005, 02:24 AM'] Yes. I think in forming moral decisions one should alway try to be right, not simply follow "the party line" which frequently is wrong.

And if there is positive doubt that an embryo is ensouled, and if a person's life was dependent upon receiving fetal stem cells, who would have the greater right to the stem cells, the fetus only possibly but not probably ensouled, or the adult person who is certainly ensouled? [/quote]
The burden of proof lies on those who say ensoulment has not taken place.

In the case of suspected personhood, you MUST assume personhood until proven otherwise. Anything else is unfair and morally bankrupt.

It is necessary to ensure positively there are no persons inside a condemned building before demolition. The same is true of a womb and abortion, at whatever stage.




The idea that we should destroy healthy yet preborn humans to harvest cells for sick humans is ridiculous and arrogant, not to mention selfish.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 29 2005, 12:29 PM'] I would challenge that every cell in your body has the potential to become another person.  Your claims on cloning are really a red herring.  I could say that every rat has the potential to grow a human being because scientists are capable of causing rats to grow human tissue.  However, that would be fallacious, because a rat, left to his own devices, doesn't develop human tissue unless we experiment on him.  Similarly, a skin cell lives, then dies, and falls off of your body, and decomposes when left to itself.  On the other hand, a fertilized egg grows up to be a human being when left to its own devices.  And you can't say it has to be implanted into the uterus because that process is already taken care of in normal human reproduction.  So what we're dealing with is something that has the obvious potential for life, and really is life.  And something else, which is human experimentation and meddling in order to force something into a direction we have chosen.  The two are quite incomparable. [/quote]
(1) From the Canadian Health folks, there is this. Perhaps you will find it helpful and may want to study the subject of human reporductive cloning further.

"Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT)
The transfer of the nucleus from a somatic cell of an individual into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. A somatic cell can be any cell found within the human body except the sperm or egg (ie. germ) cell. The resulting embryo would be genetically identical to that of the individual. "

Do you have evidence to the contrary you would like to present?

(2) I said nothing about rats. This is your assertion to defend (or withdraw).

(3) Clearly a fertilize egg does not develop at all when it is "left to its own devices." It dies and is expelled as with the vast majority of human fertilized ova.

(4) And recall the issue being argued here. It is the moral status of the preembryo. That is, if a fertilized humn egg automatically has an immaterial, immortal, rational soul, as claimed by some prolife folks.

Edited May 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='May 29 2005, 04:26 PM'] The burden of proof lies on those who say ensoulment has not taken place.




[/quote]
Absolutely not!

The claim that something has taken place cannot be presumed. It must be proven.

And, in the case of doubt, a human being certainly ensouled has greater rights than en entity which might be ensouled, but not certainly.

[God Conquers]

When dealing with a situation such as an IN UTERO human, a being which MOST CERTAINLY has the potential to one day be born, its pretty clear where the burden of proof lies.

A Hunting Trip

"Hey LittleLes, I think we can bag this stag if we split up."

"Sure sounds like a good idea."

10 minutes later in the bushes

*rustle rustle rustle*

BLAM! BLAM!

No reason to check before shooting. We'd always better presume no person.

[Semalsia]

I don't think abortion can be justified, but neither do I think it can be said to be wrong.

Moral things are like that a lot.

Little Less is not going to get anywhere. You either take potentiality into account or you don't.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 30 2005, 05:46 PM'] I don't think abortion can be justified, but neither do I think it can be said to be wrong.

Moral things are like that a lot.

Little Less is not going to get anywhere. You either take potentiality into account or you don't. [/quote]
If that's the case Semalsia, then isn't it prudent to err on the side of preserving life? Or do you think that it doesn't matter either way?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Kizlar']If that's the case Semalsia, then isn't it prudent to err on the side of preserving life? Or do you think that it doesn't matter either way?[/quote]

Perhaps in a ideal word. But the world we live in is far from such.

The child could bring harm to the mother, you know.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 30 2005, 06:09 PM'] [quote name='Kizlar']If that's the case Semalsia, then isn't it prudent to err on the side of preserving life? Or do you think that it doesn't matter either way?[/quote]

Perhaps in a ideal word. But the world we live in is far from such.

The child could bring harm to the mother, you know. [/quote]
Well that's not nearly as common these days in the western world as it used to be. In fact, with modern medicine it is exceedingly rare. Besides, I'd rather have a law on the books outlawing abortion except when the mother's life is threatened than having abortion be entirely legal and considered a "right." It's not good, but it's the lesser of two evils.