Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [Politics] Amendment 2 ads and lies

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Hargus, Diana wrote:
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:11 PM
> > To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
> > Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [Politics] Amendment 2 ads and lies
> >
> > Hargus, Diana wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > 2.  Embryonic stem cell research is a more complicated issue to me. 
> > > > Nevertheless, I am sufficiently convinced that the ethical 
> >
> > issues are 
> >
> > > > troublesome that I personally will vote against supporting 
> >
> > it.  As far 
> >
> > > > as I understand, the nucleus of the embryo is replaced by a nucleus 
> > >
> > > > from the recipient.  This new embryo is them allowed to grow 
> >
> > until it 
> >
> > > > is producing stem cells.  I see it as a distinct possibility 
> >
> > that this 
> >
> > > > new cell complex (the embryo with the new nucleus) is now a 
> >
> > new living 
> >
> > > > human being, and so to grow it to a certain number of days and then 
> > > > stop it growing is a form of murder.  Certainly whether this is done 
> > > > in the womb or not is irrelevant as far as I can see.  (I 
> >
> > think Mike's 
> >
> > > > use of the word "womb" from Psalm 139 is a misapplication.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps this would be so in the case of cloning, but embryonic stem 
> > > cell research involves removing a cell from the blastocyst at the 
> > > pluripotent
> > > (sp?) stage.  Otherwise pretty close. 
> >
> > Hi Diana - can you explain what this means?  I am getting the 
> > sense that you truly know what is involved in this kind of 
> > research, and that you may be able to answer questions which 
> > were unanswered on this group a year ago.
> >
> > Thanks, Stephen
>
>
> Stephen,
>
> Thank you for thinking that I may know more than I do, but I have found
> in life I have a lot to learn.  In the case of cloning, the process is
> as you described in the first part (as I understand current techniques).
> "As far  as I understand, the nucleus of the embryo is replaced by a
> nucleus from the recipient.  This new embryo is them allowed to grow
> until it  is producing stem cells"  
>
> In most, but not all, stem cell research, it is also done this way as
> well with a donor supplying the cellular material.  In the case of the
> totipotent (total potential, i.e. able to take on all cellular roles or
> ability to form a viable embryo) stem cell, I would like to find out
> more as well, but find there is too little time to research it properly.
>
>
> In the case of the pluripotent (potential to become any part of the
> whole, able to differentiate, but not able to grow into a whole embryo)
> stem cell, it is usually taken from the blastocyst after the totipotent
> stage.  There are 3 main parts of the blastocyst - called the  mesoderm,
> ectoderm, and endoderm (I think that was what they were).  
>
> It is after this stage in embryonic development where the cells become
> multipotent (potential limited to small number of specialized cell types
> and are responsible for cellular replacement capabilities in organs -
> skin and kidneys are good examples, although that is just off the top of
> my head) and become too differentiated to be effective for their
> intended use in research.  These are also adult stem cells I believe,
> and there a multitudinal variety of them.  
>
> As to the exact science involved, I have not a clue.  All I know is
> theory and very little of that.  Note that I know very little and am no
> expert, but love reading and trying to figure things out.  I am
> currently working (trying?) on a patent application for future desktop
> interfaces and my mind is shot, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
> If there is an error, I would like to know so that I can research it and
> correct it. 
>
> Sorry I could not give a better answer.
>
> Diana 

My understanding is this.  An embryo starts to grow.  If it is being 
used for research (that is one of the "stem cell lines") I don't think 
that the nucleus is replaced.  If it is to be used therapeutically, I 
think that the nucleus does need to be replaced, and this with that of 
the recipient.  My understanding is that this second stage has not been 
performed successfully, but that a South Korean scientist had made this 
claim fraudulently.

Now presumably at different stages in its growth, different parts of the 
embryo are harvested.  The cell tissue, once harvested, presumably is 
not a human being, and so the ethical issues involved are equivalent to 
handling finger nail clippings.  But there still remains the issue of 
what happens to the original embryo.  At some point, after being 
reawakened from its frozen slumber, it is then killed.

Now all of this does require that we have some understanding of when the 
embryo truly acquires personhood.  Traditional ideas are things like 
viability, or when it develops a nervous system.  But personally I think 
it takes place a lot earlier, and involves some kind of life being 
breathed into it by God in a way that is currently totally beyond the 
understanding of science.

As I have said, given the consequences if it is unethical, I myself will 
vote that we do not fund more of this research, until we can be 
absolutely certain that this research is completely ethical.

Stephen

--

Stephen Montgomery-Smith
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion