I couldn't agree with you more.

Just clarifying that I did not ask the last question with the idea of you physically doing the procedure. I meant if the procedure was offered to you with no IVF in the picture. In other words, the procedure is done for you, not first for someone to have a baby.

This may be an important distinction....who knows? Does that mean we are kind of using IVF as our rationalization?

Honestly, those of you that know me know this is how I think. [looking at both sides of the issue] I'm not trying to get anyone angry....maybe I am trying to resolve my own feelings. I've supported ESCR for the most part, but have never been completely resolved to do so.

I don't expect to have to make this decision but again, who knows?

paula

Please read it again.


http://web.archive.org/web/200206150...ML/005173.html

That is an outstanding article and leaves us with nothing but hope that the whole issue will soon be resolved.

Thank you Thelma,
Paula

Watch What You Are Calling an Embryo

As the debate over the ethics of human embryonic stem cell research has caught fire over the last year, there's been enormous discussion about whether scientists should be allowed to destroy human embryos in the process of getting these cells. Language like that portrays scientists both as murderers who take life and as Frankenstein-like usurpers of God's authority to make new life.

But when it comes to biology, words like "destruction," "creation," "embryo" and even "life" and "death" are ambiguous. Scientists understand this ambiguity to be a reflection of the complexity of living things. Meanwhile, both advocates and opponents of stem cell research are using that ambiguity to their best advantage.

Take the term "embryonic stem cell," or ES cell. Scientists coined the term about 20 years ago -- ages before the current debate -- todescribe a cell that could grow into all the cells that make up a human being. Of course, embryos can do the same thing, so what's the difference? To make sense of that, it helps to understand exactly what happens during both the earliest phase of embryonic growth and the laboratory development of ES cells -- somethingscientists are able to describe with some precision.

When a human embryo is formed naturally through the fusion of an egg and a sperm, it goes through multiple rounds of division, and after a few days, the cells on the inside and outside begin to behave differently from each other. The cells on the inside are the ES cells. They -- and they alone -- will grow into the fetus and child. The "coat" of cells on the outside will develop into the placenta, the conduit for nourishment and waste removal that is discarded after birth.

In the natural course of development, ES cells don't last very long. They morph within two weeks into cells with a more restricted ability to produce a limited number of tissues or organs. In the laboratory, however, scientists have figured out how to remove an embryo's "coat" and get the ES cells to multiply indefinitely without morphing into anything else.

Because of their versatility, ES cells are the darlings of biomedical research. All scientists need to do is to identify the molecular signals and cellular environment required to generate any tissue or organ of choice. But if lab-grown ES cells can be coaxed to develop into any one tissue, might there be an environment in which they could be coaxed into making a whole human body? The answer is yes.

Eight years ago, a Canadian embryologist named Janet Rossant began turning mouse ES cells into live-born mice. She started with a small bunch of ES cells, provided them with a fresh pre-placental "coat" and then placed them into a mouse's womb, where they underwent normal development and eventually became a normal newborn mouse. Many more mice have been developed from ES cells since then, and there is no doubt that the same protocol could work with human ES cells (which is not to say that there is any reason or need to do such a thing).

There's a word biologists use to describe a cell, or group of cells, that by itself can develop into a whole animal or person: That word is "embryo." Each random bunch of eight to 10 human ES cells is nothing more or less than a "naked" human embryo -- that is, an embryo without its pre-placental "coat."

Stem cell scientists have been less than eager to discuss this tidbit of embryologicallore and its implications in public, because of the fear that equating ES cells with embryos could give ammunition to opponents of stem cell research. Their reluctance is likely to be even greater now that President Bush has drawn his own moral line between research on existing ES cells, which he deems acceptable, and direct research on embryos, which is deemed unacceptable. But it seems to me that the president's moral line has been drawn between a basket of unpeeled apples and a basket of peeled apples -- the difference between the two is in appearance only.With the political debate atfever pitch, I have no doubt that some scientists will challenge my interpretation here, but it will come down to an argument over words, not biology.

Ironically, the same interpretation of ES cell/embryo equivalence can be used just as readily by advocates of stem cell research to bolster the case for allowing federal funds tobe used for extracting ES cells from unwanted embryos sitting frozen in IVF clinic storage tanks. ES cell research won'tactually destroy these embryos, it will save them from an otherwise certain death. Not only can these embryos be preserved indefinitely (as living ES cells), but their use could lead to therapies down the road that will save the lives of many other people as well. Thus, lives will be saved without any lives being lost. As I write this, I'm fully aware that I, too, am using language in a way that best supports my position.

This brings me back to the question at the heart of the stem cell debate. Is a one-week-old human embryo -- a ball of cells smaller than a pinhead -- a form of human life that deserves our respect and protection? The problem with this question is that, of all the terms used in biology, "life" is the most ambiguous. And without a clear definition of "life," the question of respect is meaningless.

At this point you may be thinking, how hard can it be to distinguish between what's alive and what's dead? To which I say, consider what happens right after a man is shot to death with a bullet to the head. We can all agree that he is dead, but for at least a few hours, 99 percent of the cells below his neck are still very much alive. Indeed, his organs can continue to function for many years if they are transplanted into the bodies of other people, and some of his cells can survive forever in laboratory incubators.

When I say that the person is not alive, it is in the sense that he no longer exists as a sentient being. But when I say his body is still alive, I am using the same word "alive" in a general cellular sense. Aristotle recognized the difference between vegetative life and conscious life more than 2,000 years ago, and physicians today commonly use the term "vegetative state" to describe brain-dead bodies sustained on respirators.

Is a one-week-old human embryo alive? The answer is clearly "yes" if we use the cellular or vegetative definition. And it is just as clearly "no" if we use the definition of sentience. Normally, we don't give much respect to cellular human life -- we shed skin cells without a thought -- so why should we respect a microscopic human embryo?

According to the Catholic Church, every human embryo deserves as much respect as you or I because it contains a God-given human soul or spirit. Indeed, when people ask whether an embryo is alive, often what they really want to know is whether it has a soul. But how do you calculate the number of souls in a petri dish containing 10 million human ES cells? The problem is that cells can be grouped together in bunches ofeight, nine or 10 to form embryos, and depending on the size of the average bunch you make, the number of embryos in the dish at any moment can vary by hundreds of thousands. Counting embryonic souls is akin to counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Whatever the number, the idea that an embryo has a soul is a matter of religious faith, not science.

Until recently, the most persuasive secular argument for protecting embryos had been that embryonic cells are different in some fundamental way from all other cells in your body because they alone have the potential to form a sentient being. The assumption was that all other cells were irrevocably chained to the narrow task assigned to the particular tissue or organ in which they were placed.

But within the past three years, this view of cell biology has been proven false. Scientists have discovered the molecular keys required to unlock an amazing plasticity in cell identity. Brain cells have been turned into blood cells, fat cells have been turned into bone, muscle and cartilage, and other examples of cell conversions are flooding the scientific literature. Of course, none of this is referred to as cloning, although that's exactly what it is. It is only a matter of time before scientists uncover the mother of all molecular-conversion keys: the one that transforms an adult cell directly into an ES cell. In philosophical quarters, that discovery should be a lethal blow to the idea that potential alone is a sufficient criterion on which to base the granting of respect and protection: Even skin cells will have the potential to become babies. In political quarters, scientists will claim that by bypassing embryos in their production of ES cells, they will have eliminated all ethical objections to the research and its applications. And in the world of medicine, clinicians will eventually be able to provide replacement tissues and organs produced from a patient's own cells, which will not be rejected as foreign by thepatient's body.

Most scientists will continue to avoid the use of contentious terms like "embryos" and "cloning," and maybe opponents will as well. Instead, they will focus on more palatable terms like "cell therapy" and "tissue renewal." And it won't be the first time. The classic example of shifting terminology as a method of public appeasement was the substitution of "magnetic resonance imaging," or MRI, for the original scientific term -- "nuclear magnetic resonance," which was thought to be less than patient-friendly.

If taking the "nuclear" out of MRIs or saying "ES cell" instead of "embryo" results in a greater acceptance of the science, that will lead to a healthier population in years to come. And that's not such a bad thing.

Lee M. Silver, a professor of molecular biology and public affairs at Princeton University, is the author of "Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning will Transform the American Family"
============================

THANK you THELMA

Paula, I can not take IVF out of the equation, because from my point of view, it is the lynch pin to the argument for ESCR. This explains why opponents of this research want to pretend IVF doesn't matter.

400,000 excess embryos are languishing in cryogenic limbo waiting to be discarded when they could be used to find cures for the most horrible diseases. In fact, until recently when scientists started asking to use these leftover embryos headed for the trash, few people if any gave a thought to the fate of the embryos they left behind.

You ask whether I would "create an embryo, knowing it would not go into a womb, and use it for research and if so, is that creating life solely for destroying it? I am not talking about the life it might save. No superficial justifications. I'm not even talking about religion, I'm talking about honesty and full disclosure."


I would not create a life solely for the purpose of destroying it, but there's still no agreement on when life begins. In either case, this is not what is happening here. An equally important question is when is saving a life a "superficial justification?"


Sheryl

Hi Sheryl, I referred to it as a justification, along with IVF, to create "life" for destroying. Trying to get to the heart of the matter from both sides of the issue. I can't think of any reason why I would take our lives and devalue them. ...it was not to be taken as a slant against the ill.

paula

This is a rhetorical question/statement:

So, when perspective parents use fertility drugs,
which rarely create only one embryo, knowing that they plan reduction so that only one or two embryos are left in the womb...

that they are knowingly creating embryos with the intent to either,

1) destroy the the "excess" embryos...
goodness we don't want that many children to be born...
or
2) freeze the "excess" embryos until such time as they may then destroy them...okay we have enough children.

And, yes, I know they may also donate them to another couple.

Honesty is what yo want and honesty ils what you are getting.

How many women have created an embryo and given any thought to the pregnancy that will follow.

How many men give thought of pregnancy to the women they impregnate.

How many of us were wanted children.

On the other side how many of us are wanted children.

Which came first

If you want a child and you have IVF performed is it a go that you will try and ensure all of these embryos come to see the light of day.

Or do you only give concern to the ones you produce.

I think the latter or else the whole procedure would fall apart and not hae the popularity it has today.

So then when does life begin.

For me it is a matter between the fetus and the mother alone.

It begins with the first movement in the womb and builds from there.

Fathers in the old days never wanted to feel the baby move but today they too are bonding in much the same way.

So for me life begins with the advent of the birth and the breath it takes.

Till then it is a building process towards life.

End of story................but on the other hand maybe just maybe the beginnng of the story

If you can't prove all other theories are true then this has to be acceptable as well. It leads to all of these babies that are born having a happier healthier life span then how can anyone wish them any different.

If you believe babies are a gift from god then you have received that which you should cherish and make as good an existence as you are capable of providing. Thn what ever your religion you do your god honor

Thelma you are entitled to that opinion and I wouldn't criticize you for it. I just ran some errands because I am going out of town tomorrow. On the way back I had this thought......and I am all of a sudden confused and struck dumb about this, but are private companies and labs allowed to make their own embryonic cell lines? I should surely know the answer to that but it has escaped me.

So then, with private companies and labs, are we losing the IVF buttress ....no?

In which case we are back to the question. It is a matter of when you think a human life begins. You are creating life and destroying it, but you aren't defining it as human life. Human life is more of an individual belief.

I just think we should try to understand each other. Hostility is wasted energy.

pS Is it just me or is anyone else a little bothered by the thanks button being used to take sides? I get it I get it.

paula