I am a college student at the University of Northern Iowa, and I am
very interested in Diabetes and conducting a research on the topic. I
would appreciate it if you could provide your insights regarding the
following research questions. Your responses to these questions will
remain confidential and your identity will remain anonymous in the
research. Also, if you wish to receive a copy of this research report,
please indicate so in the last question, and you will receive a copy
when the research is completed. Please send your response to my e-mail
address at qr532…@uni.edu by friday NOV.26,2004. If you have any
questions about this research, feel free to contact my research
advisor Dr. Sarina Chen at sarina.c…@uni.edu. THANK YOU
Sincerely,
Quenton Richardson
Dept. of Communication Studies
Uni. of Northern Iowa
Sarina Chen, Ph.D
Associate Professor
Dept. of Communication Studies
Univ. of Northern Iowa
What are some ways that you can prevent diabetes ?
How can a person live healthy with diabetes?
What medical procedures are followed regularly?
How does diabetes affect individuals emotionally?
What are the hardest issues affecting people dealing with diabetes?
Do you wish to receive a copy of this research report?
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:40:33 +1000, Alan
<loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> Screamed something into the void
that sounded like:
>Hi All
>This the second report, directly relevant to Type 1. The TV report on
>both developments made it clear that the various research facilities had
>been awaiting the results of overseas elections before announcing these
>decisions. More announcements are expected.
>Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
>Remove weight and carbs to email.
You know what this means don’t you? Aussieland is next on the bush
theocracy hit list to be invaded.
I hope your researchers get something that works before the USA starts
to pressure on you to drop the research.
Mâck©®
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
…Theodore Roosevelt
"Alan" <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:oaamp0t7k8e53dbph5j65f2s2slt4h42cv@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Hi All
> This the second report, directly relevant to Type 1. The TV report on
> both developments made it clear that the various research facilities had
> been awaiting the results of overseas elections before announcing these
> decisions. More announcements are expected.
> Sydney Morning Herald
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/Health/Diabetes-unit-wins-first-stem-cells...
> or http://tinyurl.com/4e8eu
> Diabetes unit wins first stem cells licence
> By Deborah Smith, Science Editor
> November 17, 2004
> The Prince of Wales Hospital will be the first public institution in the
> country to extract stem cells from human embryos.
> Its diabetes transplant unit, in collaboration with the fertility clinic
> IVF Australia, has been granted a licence from the National Health and
> Medical Research Council to produce six stem cell lines, or colonies,
> using up to 100 embryos created before April 5, 2002.
> Bernie Tuch, the director of the transplant unit, said the aim was to
> develop new treatments for insulin-dependent diabetes.
> "Having access to new Australian stem cell lines would potentially
> enable us to create a plentiful supply of insulin-producing beta cells
> that are destroyed in patients with type 1 diabetes," Professor Tuch
> said.
> Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be converted into all types
> of body tissue but have been mired in controversy because their
> collection requires the destruction of days-old embryos.
> Professor Tuch’s team has succeeded in converting embryonic stem cells
> into insulin-producing beta cells in the laboratory.
> AdvertisementAdvertisement
> In this research, however, the stem cells were obtained overseas, from
> embryos in Singapore.
> The Australian stem cells will be grown on a layer of human foetal
> tissue, rather than on mouse tissue, as has been the case with most of
> the stem cell lines in the world. Fears have been raised that cells
> grown on mouse tissue could transmit mouse viruses to people who
> received them.
> The new cells will also be produced in a good manufacturing practice
> facility at the hospital, a necessary requirement if it is ever to gain
> approval for therapeutic use in people.
> Professor Tuch said the team still had to improve its method for
> converting the stem cells and it was likely to be years before any new
> therapies were available.
> Emeritus Professor Doug Saunders of IVF Australia said couples who had
> completed their families often asked if they could donate their excess
> IVF embryos to research.
> Sydney IVF was the first company to gain a licence to extract embryonic
> stem cells, in April this year, and obtained the first Australian stem
> cell line in June. Melbourne IVF, with the Melbourne company Stem Cell
> Sciences, was awarded a licence in June.
> Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
> Remove weight and carbs to email.
> —
> Everything in Moderation – Except Laughter.
Finally, someone has the cahonas to do something about it. That’s good news,
not surprised it’s the Australians who have jumped the gun so to speak.
It was about time profit was removed from the equation, at least for the
medical discovery work anyway, i’m quite sure the $$ signs will flash soon
enough but i have no p roblem paying for a tested cure.
With this disease we need to attack it from any and every valid angle and
explore any avenue of cures as fast as we can. I don’t believe that medical
research into something like diabetes cures should be held back by thinly
veiled morality arguments. If we lived by that moral, we’d not have cures
for half the things that we do.
If man has the power to create life, why should he not have the power and
skill to utilise it to prolong the life of the creators. Not wishing to get
into religious semantics or political skirmishes because i don’t believe
they have any part in diabetes research, but to be blunt, if i thought that
praying every sunday would cure my diabetes i would be there religiously.
Good on Oz mate … any IT jobs going downunder?
Patrick.
"Alan" <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:oaamp0t7k8e53dbph5j65f2s2slt4h42cv@4ax.com…
> Hi All
> [ ... ]
> Its diabetes transplant unit, in collaboration with the fertility clinic
> IVF Australia, has been granted a licence from the National Health and
> Medical Research Council to produce six stem cell lines, or colonies,
> using up to 100 embryos created before April 5, 2002.
This is scary. (trans?)
Do they really keep a stock of embryos?
> [ ... ]
> Emeritus Professor Doug Saunders of IVF Australia said couples who had
> completed their families often asked if they could donate their excess
> IVF embryos to research.
I guess IVF in this case means that the eggs are fertilized in a test tube?
I know the surplus embryos is a problem to both the parents and the health
system.
Do we see a brand new industry opening itself to us?
> [ ...]
—————-
Have a nice day!
Bjørn BL.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:22:02 +0100, "Bjørn B. Larsen"
<bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> Screamed something into the void that
sounded like:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>"Alan" <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:oaamp0t7k8e53dbph5j65f2s2slt4h42cv@4ax.com…
>> Hi All
>> [ ... ]
>> Its diabetes transplant unit, in collaboration with the fertility clinic
>> IVF Australia, has been granted a licence from the National Health and
>> Medical Research Council to produce six stem cell lines, or colonies,
>> using up to 100 embryos created before April 5, 2002.
>This is scary. (trans?)
>Do they really keep a stock of embryos?
please get some facts on the issue.
Mâck©®
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
…Theodore Roosevelt
"Bjørn B. Larsen" <bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:cnhiir$dp7$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Alan" <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:oaamp0t7k8e53dbph5j65f2s2slt4h42cv@4ax.com…
> > Hi All
> > [ ... ]
> > Its diabetes transplant unit, in collaboration with the fertility clinic
> > IVF Australia, has been granted a licence from the National Health and
> > Medical Research Council to produce six stem cell lines, or colonies,
> > using up to 100 embryos created before April 5, 2002.
> This is scary. (trans?)
> Do they really keep a stock of embryos?
Define "embryo". These are un-differentiated masses of cells, normally from
sperm and ova united in a sample jar in the lab that have never had other
existence, which have never had nerves or organs or anything of the kind.
You may as well take a 100 blood samples from different people and say "do
they really keep a stock of clones".
In article <p9idnbnNq94VDgHcRVn…@comcast.com>,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka…@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Bjrn B. Larsen" <bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>news:cnhiir$dp7$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no…
>> "Alan" <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:oaamp0t7k8e53dbph5j65f2s2slt4h42cv@4ax.com…
>> > Hi All
>> > [ ... ]
>> > Its diabetes transplant unit, in collaboration with the fertility clinic
>> > IVF Australia, has been granted a licence from the National Health and
>> > Medical Research Council to produce six stem cell lines, or colonies,
>> > using up to 100 embryos created before April 5, 2002.
>> This is scary. (trans?)
>> Do they really keep a stock of embryos?
>Define "embryo". These are un-differentiated masses of cells, normally from
>sperm and ova united in a sample jar in the lab that have never had other
>existence, which have never had nerves or organs or anything of the kind.
>You may as well take a 100 blood samples from different people and say "do
>they really keep a stock of clones".
An embryo is a small mass of cells, almost undifferentiated
(as are stem cells!), with presumably the potential to develop
into a being of the species of which it is an embryo if
provided with the proper environment.
It has not developed into an organism with any of the usual
types of organs; I do not know at which state it knows up
from down, but this is early.
–
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru…@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
It is my understanding that, in the US at least fertility clinics have
substantial numbers of embryos that are frozen, and could potentially be
implanted and after the usual gestation process result in a normal
birth. I assume the same is true of Australia. Such embryos may be
produced in the process of fertility treatment.
Mâck, I’m not sure what you meant, but this is, as far as I know, the
factual answer to Bjørn’s question.
"Mack®" <DuhNoS…@nono.com> wrote in message
news:fgnop0t88vh2p5fg02m75neur6chh6f3j8@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:22:02 +0100, "Bjørn B. Larsen"
> <bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> Screamed something into the void that
> sounded like:
> >"Alan" <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:oaamp0t7k8e53dbph5j65f2s2slt4h42cv@4ax.com…
> >> Hi All
> >> [ ... ]
> >> Its diabetes transplant unit, in collaboration with the fertility
clinic
> >> IVF Australia, has been granted a licence from the National Health
and
> >> Medical Research Council to produce six stem cell lines, or
colonies,
> >> using up to 100 embryos created before April 5, 2002.
> >This is scary. (trans?)
> >Do they really keep a stock of embryos?
> please get some facts on the issue.
> Mâck©®
"Ludwig" <lud…@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:qqdod.54$ay5.44@fe61.usenetserver.com…
> It is my understanding that, in the US at least fertility clinics have
> substantial numbers of embryos that are frozen, and could potentially be
> implanted and after the usual gestation process result in a normal
> birth. I assume the same is true of Australia. Such embryos may be
> produced in the process of fertility treatment.
> Mâck, I’m not sure what you meant, but this is, as far as I know, the
> factual answer to Bjørn’s question.
It is the answer, and I should have realized that at once. But it is still
scary to know that some where around millions of fertilized eggs are waiting
to be implanted.
This popped up as a problem to a friend who got help from a fertility
clinic. Nobody told them about this until after his wife was pregnant. He is
not comfortable at all that the clinic has a number of their unborn babies
in the freezer.
And of course. If the clinic doesn’t know how to handle them, they may be in
stock for a long time.
—————-
Have a nice day!
Bjørn BL.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Mack®" <DuhNoS…@nono.com> wrote in message
> news:fgnop0t88vh2p5fg02m75neur6chh6f3j8@4ax.com…
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:22:02 +0100, "Bjørn B. Larsen"
> > <bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> Screamed something into the void that
> > sounded like:
> > >"Alan" <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > >news:oaamp0t7k8e53dbph5j65f2s2slt4h42cv@4ax.com…
> > >> Hi All
> > >> [ ... ]
> > >> Its diabetes transplant unit, in collaboration with the fertility
> clinic
> > >> IVF Australia, has been granted a licence from the National Health
> and
> > >> Medical Research Council to produce six stem cell lines, or
> colonies,
> > >> using up to 100 embryos created before April 5, 2002.
> > >This is scary. (trans?)
> > >Do they really keep a stock of embryos?
> > please get some facts on the issue.
> > Mâck©®
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:22:54 +0100, "Bjørn B. Larsen"
<bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> wrote:
>It is the answer, and I should have realized that at once. But it is still
>scary to know that some where around millions of fertilized eggs are waiting
>to be implanted.
>This popped up as a problem to a friend who got help from a fertility
>clinic. Nobody told them about this until after his wife was pregnant. He is
>not comfortable at all that the clinic has a number of their unborn babies
>in the freezer.
Emotive pejorative phrasing. Fertilized eggs are to unborn babies as a
bottle of ink is to a library. And I have equal compassion in pouring
either down the drain.
>And of course. If the clinic doesn’t know how to handle them, they may be in
>stock for a long time.
Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
—
Everything in Moderation – Except Laughter.
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:37:37 -0600, "Ludwig" <lud…@dontemailme.com>
Screamed something into the void that sounded like:
>It is my understanding that, in the US at least fertility clinics have
>substantial numbers of embryos that are frozen, and could potentially be
>implanted and after the usual gestation process result in a normal
>birth. I assume the same is true of Australia. Such embryos may be
>produced in the process of fertility treatment.
>Mâck, I’m not sure what you meant, but this is, as far as I know, the
>factual answer to Bjørn’s question.
these embryos are no more than a few cells in growth. and though they
are stored at the facilities they are the sole property of the donors
of the eggs and sperm and cannot be implanted into just anyone. Once
the woman has successfully been impregnated and delivered her child
the facility will only keep the remaining embryos for as long as the
couple desired and can afford to store them. After that they go in
the trash unless the couple donates them for medical research and use
other than impregnating anyone else.
so you are either going to use these small clumps of cells to possibly
save and improve lives or you are going to throw them in the trash.
Mâck©®
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
…Theodore Roosevelt
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:22:54 +0100, "Bjørn B. Larsen"
<bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> Screamed something into the void that
sounded like:
>"Ludwig" <lud…@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
>news:qqdod.54$ay5.44@fe61.usenetserver.com…
>> It is my understanding that, in the US at least fertility clinics have
>> substantial numbers of embryos that are frozen, and could potentially be
>> implanted and after the usual gestation process result in a normal
>> birth. I assume the same is true of Australia. Such embryos may be
>> produced in the process of fertility treatment.
>> Mâck, I’m not sure what you meant, but this is, as far as I know, the
>> factual answer to Bjørn’s question.
>It is the answer, and I should have realized that at once. But it is still
>scary to know that some where around millions of fertilized eggs are waiting
>to be implanted.
absolutely false. those clinics cannot implant them into anyone but
the woman who donated the egg without both her and her husband’s
explicit consent as in impregnating a surrogate mother because the
original mother/egg donor cannot deliver full term.
get the facts not the fiction.
>This popped up as a problem to a friend who got help from a fertility
>clinic. Nobody told them about this until after his wife was pregnant. He is
>not comfortable at all that the clinic has a number of their unborn babies
>in the freezer.
so what does he want to with these clumps of cells? he has a choice,
with his wife’s consent to either destroy them or donate them for
research or keep them in storage. They are not owned by the clinic.
>And of course. If the clinic doesn’t know how to handle them, they may be in
>stock for a long time.
see above.
>—————-
>Have a nice day!
>Bjørn BL.
Mâck©®
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
…Theodore Roosevelt
Mack® wrote:
> so you are either going to use these small clumps of cells to possibly
> save and improve lives or you are going to throw them in the trash.
True. I recommend frying them up with a little sausage and feeding the
starving poor.
Bjørn,
I suggest that your friend and his wife leave written instructions
regarding what they want done with the remaining embryos, whatever that
may be. The assurances some have offered are dependent on local law in
your location, so the legal protection against any use they do not
authorize may be strong or non-existent, but it seems likely that
written instructions signed by both parents will be honored by the
staff. It is my belief that in most areas, the default handling of the
embryos is that they are retained for a fixed period of time, after
which they are destroyed. The length of retention could vary from
months to decades depending on the clinic’s policy and on the contracts
signed by the parents prior to the procedure.
It is unlikely that they would be needed for any research purposes,
since the number of embryos available in fertility clinics greatly
exceeds the needs of any and all legitimate research.
"Bjørn B. Larsen" <bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:cns44e$k3c$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Ludwig" <lud…@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
> news:qqdod.54$ay5.44@fe61.usenetserver.com…
> > It is my understanding that, in the US at least fertility clinics
have
> > substantial numbers of embryos that are frozen, and could
potentially be
> > implanted and after the usual gestation process result in a normal
> > birth. I assume the same is true of Australia. Such embryos may be
> > produced in the process of fertility treatment.
> > Mâck, I’m not sure what you meant, but this is, as far as I know,
the
> > factual answer to Bjørn’s question.
> It is the answer, and I should have realized that at once. But it is
still
> scary to know that some where around millions of fertilized eggs are
waiting
> to be implanted.
> This popped up as a problem to a friend who got help from a fertility
> clinic. Nobody told them about this until after his wife was pregnant.
He is
> not comfortable at all that the clinic has a number of their unborn
babies
> in the freezer.
> And of course. If the clinic doesn’t know how to handle them, they may
be in
> stock for a long time.
> —————-
> Have a nice day!
> Bjørn BL.
> > "Mack®" <DuhNoS…@nono.com> wrote in message
> > news:fgnop0t88vh2p5fg02m75neur6chh6f3j8@4ax.com…
> > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:22:02 +0100, "Bjørn B. Larsen"
> > > <bjorn.b.lar…@iet.ntnu.no> Screamed something into the void that
> > > sounded like:
> > > >"Alan" <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > > >news:oaamp0t7k8e53dbph5j65f2s2slt4h42cv@4ax.com…
> > > >> Hi All
> > > >> [ ... ]
> > > >> Its diabetes transplant unit, in collaboration with the
fertility
> > clinic
> > > >> IVF Australia, has been granted a licence from the National
Health
> > and
> > > >> Medical Research Council to produce six stem cell lines, or
> > colonies,
> > > >> using up to 100 embryos created before April 5, 2002.
> > > >This is scary. (trans?)
> > > >Do they really keep a stock of embryos?
> > > please get some facts on the issue.
> > > Mâck©®
Alan <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> Emotive pejorative phrasing. Fertilized eggs are to unborn babies as a
> bottle of ink is to a library.
Not a good analogy… DNA has proven to be a pretty rich language.
The fertilized egg already has a unique story written in them.
> so what does he want to with these clumps of cells?
Perhaps the same that he would want with a much larger clump of
cells after they’ve been in a nuturing enviroment. At 7 mos of age,
they aren’t really any more independent. They still require a special
enviroment to live and special nutrition from the mother. Granted, we
now have the technology to do some of that nurturing without mother…
but at 7 or even 9 mos (time in the womb) It is not really a person is
it? It can’t talk or reason that we know of. Hey, even for several
months after birth it isn’t much better off.
Just think of the great source of mostly mature organs we can
transplants from all the unwanted infants in the world. Surely that
would be much easier than trying to grow them from a single cell. It
would be much better to use these unwanted infants to save lives
rather than dump them in a poor orphanage like they do in Russia and
some other former communist countries.
(I’m being sarcastic, in case that isn’t understood across
cultural/language differences)
Joe Dunfee
On 26 Nov 2004 20:06:50 -0800, cadco…@yahoo.com (Smiley) wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Alan <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> Emotive pejorative phrasing. Fertilized eggs are to unborn babies as a
>> bottle of ink is to a library.
> Not a good analogy… DNA has proven to be a pretty rich language.
>The fertilized egg already has a unique story written in them.
>> so what does he want to with these clumps of cells?
> Perhaps the same that he would want with a much larger clump of
>cells after they’ve been in a nuturing enviroment. At 7 mos of age,
>they aren’t really any more independent. They still require a special
>enviroment to live and special nutrition from the mother. Granted, we
>now have the technology to do some of that nurturing without mother…
>but at 7 or even 9 mos (time in the womb) It is not really a person is
>it? It can’t talk or reason that we know of. Hey, even for several
>months after birth it isn’t much better off.
> Just think of the great source of mostly mature organs we can
>transplants from all the unwanted infants in the world. Surely that
>would be much easier than trying to grow them from a single cell. It
>would be much better to use these unwanted infants to save lives
>rather than dump them in a poor orphanage like they do in Russia and
>some other former communist countries.
>(I’m being sarcastic, in case that isn’t understood across
>cultural/language differences)
>Joe Dunfee
No, you’re not being sarcastic unless the meaning of that word has been
extended to include "illogical" or "emotive" in any of the variants of
English – even Strine.
Also, if you include a second quote from a different source, please note
the attribution change.
I wrote:
"Emotive pejorative phrasing. Fertilized eggs are to unborn babies as a
bottle of ink is to a library." I stand by the analogy, DNA or no. To
then extend it to 7 or nine months is a giant leap.
Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
—
Everything in Moderation – Except Laughter.
Hi Alan:
> "Emotive pejorative phrasing. Fertilized eggs are to unborn babies as a
> bottle of ink is to a library." I stand by the analogy, DNA or no. To
> then extend it to 7 or nine months is a giant leap.
There is a practice of maybe 30 years particularly in the highest level
of cattle breeding stock whereby the fertilized egg after having divided
into 8 or 16 cells (the number doesn’t matter for the point of
discussion as long as it occurs before cell differentiation) are then
clinically subdivided. A set of receiver cows of lesser value has
usually been prepared to receive these subdivided parts of the original
zygote. Identical calves are produced in this process. The consequence
is that the cow from whom the ova were obtained are able to produce many
more calves in a lifetime than they could have from normal reproduction.
While there are ethical issues involved, it is conceivable that the same
process could be done in other species such as humans. Nevertheless, no
biologist would argue that life has not begun. It is kind of weird, but
in the case of humans, would more than one soul be produced from one
soul? Just being ornery.
Frank
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:19:21 -0500, Jefferson <croom1…@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Hi Alan:
>> "Emotive pejorative phrasing. Fertilized eggs are to unborn babies as a
>> bottle of ink is to a library." I stand by the analogy, DNA or no. To
>> then extend it to 7 or nine months is a giant leap.
>There is a practice of maybe 30 years particularly in the highest level
>of cattle breeding stock whereby the fertilized egg after having divided
>into 8 or 16 cells (the number doesn’t matter for the point of
>discussion as long as it occurs before cell differentiation) are then
>clinically subdivided. A set of receiver cows of lesser value has
>usually been prepared to receive these subdivided parts of the original
>zygote. Identical calves are produced in this process. The consequence
>is that the cow from whom the ova were obtained are able to produce many
>more calves in a lifetime than they could have from normal reproduction.
>While there are ethical issues involved, it is conceivable that the same
>process could be done in other species such as humans. Nevertheless, no
>biologist would argue that life has not begun. It is kind of weird, but
>in the case of humans, would more than one soul be produced from one
>soul? Just being ornery.
>Frank
Hi Frank
This sort of ornery I have no problem with. Unfortunately, "souls"
become another matter altogether, particularly when discussing it with
an atheist like me. Yes, I believe I have a soul, but I’ll leave that
can of worms for a seperate debate. To answer your question, though, I
would suggest that environment would modify those cloned "souls" from
the moment of seperation. I certainly would find consideration of such a
procedure for humans abhorrent for many ethical and medical reasons.
I have never suggested that life doesn’t exist at even a monocellular
level. A sperm is alive, so is an egg. Using that logic, ejaculation is
mass murder. So the existence of life is not a relevant part of the
debate to me. To me, there is a point way past embryo stage where it can
be argued that sentience exists; that is the point at which the
collection of cells changes from being just that to a living human
being.
And that, to me, is where definitions change from "medical procedure" to
"homicide".
As to where the scientists would define that point, I’m not sure. As a
layman, I would suggest it occurs at the point where specific brain
activity commences. But I’m just a layman. However, it is certainly a
long time after the four-day embryo stage.
Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
—
Everything in Moderation – Except Laughter.
Alan <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message <news:gg6gq0tvu556pkfgf968s6iujp10uhovi5@4ax.com>…
> "Emotive pejorative phrasing. Fertilized eggs are to unborn babies as a
> bottle of ink is to a library." I stand by the analogy, DNA or no. To
> then extend it to 7 or nine months is a giant leap.
> Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Assuming that one stays dogmatically with the materialist faith, the
point is that there is no new information added to the fertilized egg.
At conception, all the information for a unique human being is there.
All that is needed is physical growth.
In a message that Google has as a separate thread by the same
subject,you said;
>To me, there is a point way past embryo stage where it
>can be argued that sentience exists; that is the point at which
>the collection of cells changes from being just that to a living
>human being.
>And that, to me, is where definitions change from "medical
>procedure" to "homicide".
>As to where the scientists would define that point, I’m not sure.
>As a layman, I would suggest it occurs at the point where specific
>brain activity commences.
What is your basis for the "brain activity" as being the definition of
a human being. Some of the materialist faith have defined jews as
being non-human. In the U.S. a few generations ago, an entire race of
people were given the same designation. Both designations even had a
lot of scientific evidence to defend that view.
Your assertion that the fertilized human egg is not a person is purely
an unsupported assertion… not a conclusion which is supported by
science. When one says that combining hydrogen atoms with oxygen
atoms results in water, that is in the world of science. When you say
certain kinds of activity between nerve cells is sentience… that has
entered into the world of philosophy.
Joe Dunfee
On 27 Nov 2004 20:05:22 -0800, cadco…@yahoo.com (Smiley) wrote:
>Alan <loralweightandca…@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message <news:gg6gq0tvu556pkfgf968s6iujp10uhovi5@4ax.com>…
>> "Emotive pejorative phrasing. Fertilized eggs are to unborn babies as a
>> bottle of ink is to a library." I stand by the analogy, DNA or no. To
>> then extend it to 7 or nine months is a giant leap.
>> Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
>Assuming that one stays dogmatically with the materialist faith,
"Materialist faith?" New one to me, and also pejorative implying a
diminution of credibility because of my lack of faith in your deity. I’m
an atheist; as I understand it that’s a lack of faith in a deity, not a
faith in material.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>the
>point is that there is no new information added to the fertilized egg.
> At conception, all the information for a unique human being is there.
> All that is needed is physical growth.
>In a message that Google has as a separate thread by the same
>subject,you said;
>>To me, there is a point way past embryo stage where it
>>can be argued that sentience exists; that is the point at which
>>the collection of cells changes from being just that to a living
>>human being.
>>And that, to me, is where definitions change from "medical
>>procedure" to "homicide".
>>As to where the scientists would define that point, I’m not sure.
>>As a layman, I would suggest it occurs at the point where specific
>>brain activity commences.
>What is your basis for the "brain activity" as being the definition of
>a human being. Some of the materialist faith have defined jews as
>being non-human.
Getting close to invoking Godwin’s here. You certainly do believe in
leaps of dis-associated logic. That one certainly wouldn’t have occurred
to me.
>In the U.S. a few generations ago, an entire race of
>people were given the same designation. Both designations even had a
>lot of scientific evidence to defend that view.
Nor that one. I would disagree with your early "science" primers there.
I’m starting to wonder what other Mengelian/Nietzche notions of my
ethical and medical views you’ll add in the next post. Getting close to
AFDB material. And has absolutely nothing to do with this subject.
>Your assertion that the fertilized human egg is not a person is purely
>an unsupported assertion…
Um, true. So is yours that it is. It’s a matter of us using different
definitions and those reading (if any:-) can form their own opinions.
Why do you assert that the egg must be fertilised to be a person? are
you saying the sperm was not alive? Is it half a person with half a
soul? How far back from the moment of sentient awareness do you want to
go? In my opinion (and I accept that it’s my opinion) sentience is a
necessary minimum requirement for defining human existence.
>not a conclusion which is supported by science.
Sorry – cites please? I haven’t said that it is, only by my logic.
However, if you wish to assert that science does not support me, then
you need to support your statement with references.
> When one says that combining hydrogen atoms with oxygen
>atoms results in water, that is in the world of science. When you say
>certain kinds of activity between nerve cells is sentience… that has
>entered into the world of philosophy.
Of course it is philosophical – but it is also science. If the
scientists could say categorically and scientifically at which moment in
development an embryo changes from a collection of multiplying cells to
a living human entity we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Until they
do, defining the ethics, morality and legality of creating, modifying
and destroying embryos is a subjective and philosophical issue, but part
of the continuing experimental fields of science.
They (scientists, lawyers, ethics professors, rabbis, ministers,
priests, politicians et al) argued for many years (and still do) about
the definition of human death; it is not surprising that there is
scientific disagreement about defining human life.
I realise that to you, the definition already exists – but that is part
of your belief system, not science.
Incidentally, just to assist:
sentience:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sentience (abbrev)
n 1: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness;
2: the faculty through which the external world is apprehended;
3: the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or
undifferentiated consciousness.
From the same source:
per·son (abbrev)
n. 1. A living human.
2. An individual of specified character.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual
personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human.
Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
—
Everything in Moderation – Except Laughter.
Jefferson wrote:
> While there are ethical issues involved, it is conceivable that the same
> process could be done in other species such as humans. Nevertheless, no
> biologist would argue that life has not begun. It is kind of weird, but
> in the case of humans, would more than one soul be produced from one
> soul? Just being ornery.
Politically correct federally funded biologists agree on the cows, but
argue that Homo sapiens is not an individual until it registers to vote.
Alan wrote:
> I have never suggested that life doesn’t exist at even a monocellular
> level. A sperm is alive, so is an egg. Using that logic, ejaculation is
> mass murder. So the existence of life is not a relevant part of the
> debate to me. To me, there is a point way past embryo stage where it can
> be argued that sentience exists; that is the point at which the
> collection of cells changes from being just that to a living human
> being.
Neither science nor religion considers the egg or the sperm as more than
an incidental cell. Both regard the joining of the egg and sperm as the
origin of a unique individual life form.
The argument is at what point in the development of the Homo sapiens
individual human rights are accorded.
Science has nothing to say about that, so the argument is between church
and state. It’s yours to decide which fox you want guarding your chickens.
Hi Alan:
Snipped
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>>There is a practice of maybe 30 years particularly in the highest level
>>of cattle breeding stock whereby the fertilized egg after having divided
>>into 8 or 16 cells (the number doesn’t matter for the point of
>>discussion as long as it occurs before cell differentiation) are then
>>clinically subdivided. A set of receiver cows of lesser value has
>>usually been prepared to receive these subdivided parts of the original
>>zygote. Identical calves are produced in this process. The consequence
>>is that the cow from whom the ova were obtained are able to produce many
>>more calves in a lifetime than they could have from normal reproduction.
>>While there are ethical issues involved, it is conceivable that the same
>>process could be done in other species such as humans. Nevertheless, no
>>biologist would argue that life has not begun. It is kind of weird, but
>>in the case of humans, would more than one soul be produced from one
>>soul? Just being ornery.
> This sort of ornery I have no problem with. Unfortunately, "souls"
> become another matter altogether, particularly when discussing it with
> an atheist like me. Yes, I believe I have a soul, but I’ll leave that
> can of worms for a seperate debate. To answer your question, though, I
> would suggest that environment would modify those cloned "souls" from
> the moment of seperation. I certainly would find consideration of such a
> procedure for humans abhorrent for many ethical and medical reasons.
When identical twins occur naturally that is what happens. Some people
have a propensity to produce multiple births including identicals. The
only difference would be human intervention. Sometimes the separation is
not complete and conjoined twins occur.
> I have never suggested that life doesn’t exist at even a monocellular
> level. A sperm is alive, so is an egg. Using that logic, ejaculation is
> mass murder. So the existence of life is not a relevant part of the
> debate to me. To me, there is a point way past embryo stage where it can
> be argued that sentience exists; that is the point at which the
> collection of cells changes from being just that to a living human
> being.
Some people abstain (or their lives terminated early) all their lives
and as a consequence their ova or sperm go to waste. It is only of
significance if the sperm penetrates the ova which sets the cell
division in motion. It is also true that many and maybe most of the
zygotes are terminated by spontaneous abortion due some defect.
(Snipped)
> As to where the scientists would define that point, I’m not sure. As a
> layman, I would suggest it occurs at the point where specific brain
> activity commences. But I’m just a layman. However, it is certainly a
> long time after the four-day embryo stage.
In some states in the U.S. death is determined when brain waves are not
detectable. Heart-lung machines are kept in operation until organs can
be harvested for transplantation.
Nevertheless, in reality the process of embryo development is set in
motion and brain activity is only part of it. Researchers have
designated each step of embryonic development including the point at
which cells have insulin producing potential.
Frank
——–
An agnostic from age 17 to 35 and in Christ ever since. From a biblical
perspective, life (zoe) in a sense occurred (past tense) before the
foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4, Rev. 17:8). To the ones who have
fellowship/koinea with God, Jesus is the ultimate reality. John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through Me." New King James Version
The realization of dimensions of "the way, the truth, and the life" keep
on expanding as one is transformed into the image of Christ. (2 Cor.
3:17-18).
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:32:19 -0500, Jefferson <croom1…@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Hi Alan:
>Snipped
>>>There is a practice of maybe 30 years particularly in the highest level
>>>of cattle breeding stock whereby the fertilized egg after having divided
>>>into 8 or 16 cells (the number doesn’t matter for the point of
>>>discussion as long as it occurs before cell differentiation) are then
>>>clinically subdivided. A set of receiver cows of lesser value has
>>>usually been prepared to receive these subdivided parts of the original
>>>zygote. Identical calves are produced in this process. The consequence
>>>is that the cow from whom the ova were obtained are able to produce many
>>>more calves in a lifetime than they could have from normal reproduction.
>>>While there are ethical issues involved, it is conceivable that the same
>>>process could be done in other species such as humans. Nevertheless, no
>>>biologist would argue that life has not begun. It is kind of weird, but
>>>in the case of humans, would more than one soul be produced from one
>>>soul? Just being ornery.
>> This sort of ornery I have no problem with. Unfortunately, "souls"
>> become another matter altogether, particularly when discussing it with
>> an atheist like me. Yes, I believe I have a soul, but I’ll leave that
>> can of worms for a seperate debate. To answer your question, though, I
>> would suggest that environment would modify those cloned "souls" from
>> the moment of seperation. I certainly would find consideration of such a
>> procedure for humans abhorrent for many ethical and medical reasons.
>When identical twins occur naturally that is what happens. Some people
>have a propensity to produce multiple births including identicals. The
>only difference would be human intervention. Sometimes the separation is
>not complete and conjoined twins occur.
>> I have never suggested that life doesn’t exist at even a monocellular
>> level. A sperm is alive, so is an egg. Using that logic, ejaculation is
>> mass murder. So the existence of life is not a relevant part of the
>> debate to me. To me, there is a point way past embryo stage where it can
>> be argued that sentience exists; that is the point at which the
>> collection of cells changes from being just that to a living human
>> being.
>Some people abstain (or their lives terminated early) all their lives
>and as a consequence their ova or sperm go to waste. It is only of
>significance if the sperm penetrates the ova which sets the cell
>division in motion. It is also true that many and maybe most of the
>zygotes are terminated by spontaneous abortion due some defect.
>(Snipped)
>> As to where the scientists would define that point, I’m not sure. As a
>> layman, I would suggest it occurs at the point where specific brain
>> activity commences. But I’m just a layman. However, it is certainly a
>> long time after the four-day embryo stage.
>In some states in the U.S. death is determined when brain waves are not
>detectable. Heart-lung machines are kept in operation until organs can
>be harvested for transplantation.
>Nevertheless, in reality the process of embryo development is set in
>motion and brain activity is only part of it. Researchers have
>designated each step of embryonic development including the point at
>which cells have insulin producing potential.
>Frank
>——–
>An agnostic from age 17 to 35 and in Christ ever since. From a biblical
>perspective, life (zoe) in a sense occurred (past tense) before the
>foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4, Rev. 17:8). To the ones who have
>fellowship/koinea with God, Jesus is the ultimate reality. John 14:6
>Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes
>to the Father except through Me." New King James Version
>The realization of dimensions of "the way, the truth, and the life" keep
>on expanding as one is transformed into the image of Christ. (2 Cor.
>3:17-18).
Hi Frank
No arguments with that logic on embryo development. However, the
question vexing everybody is at which point of embryo development do we
consider that a living entity with rights comes into existence. The
zealots argue that it exists from conception, I argue that it exists
much later (when it is no longer an embryo) when it has sentience/brain
activity, the unwed mother in poverty or religious terror and shame
might argue that it doesn’t exist until birth.
For example, you said:
"It is only of significance if the sperm penetrates the ova which sets
the cell division in motion." In fact, I agree with your logic as to the
creation of an individual, if not it’s rights, but think about what you
said and relate it to my earlier statement on sperm. Why does this new
collection of cells have more rights than the sperm or egg prior to that
moment? Who determined that it is only of significance from that moment
on?
Was I an individual with rights when I was only a lustful thought in my
father’s mind? In fact I may have been if he left a will naming his
yet-unconceived child as a beneficiary. Or when my mother played with
her first doll? Obviously not, in my own opinion, but the logic of this
sort of ridiculous extension is no worse in my mind than considering a
newly fertilised egg as an individual with rights. I left your sig in to
amplify part of the reason why we may debate this point but are unlikely
to ever agree on it.
I’ve appreciated this discussion, because it has clarified in my own
mind something I had only vaguely wondered about in the past. Thanks for
that, but I don’t really think we’re going to gain much more out of it
at this stage.
Wishing you the best,
Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
—
Everything in Moderation – Except Laughter.