25 Replies to “I Beg To Differ”

  1. Cohen: “These are four-day old embryos. We’re talking about very tiny, tiny embryos.”
    Costello: “And they’re not fertilized either, right?”
    Cohen: “Well no, an embryo is fertilized. Its sperm and egg have met each other–”
    Costello: “So, it is?”
    Cohen: “–and they, they’ve grown for about four days. So, they’ve formed a very, very small embryo.”
    * * * *
    The CNN interviewer, Costello, was pretty dumb, but the CNN medical correspondent showed she wasn’t on top of the science either.
    1. They were speaking of the human being during his or her first four days of life.
    2. An embryo is not a fertilized egg. The sperm and egg “meet” as Cohen put it, and formed a new human being in the process. There is no fertilized embryo. They spoke of an embryo, a human being.
    3. This new human being is not the possessor of “its egg and sperm” as Cohen put it. I makes no sense to speak of the egg and the sperm having “grown for about four days.” The embryo, a unique human being, has grown.
    4. Before fertilization, a sperm and egg existed; upon that “meeting”, the new human being came into existence and lives in the same world as the rest of humanity. The sperm did not continue to grow; the egg did not continue to grow; that egg is no longer an egg, that sperm no long a sperm; the embryo is not fertilized and he or she is no is no longer comprised of an egg and sperm.
    5. The size of a human being does not determine his or her value. The topic of discussion in that interview was embryonic stem cell research. That is, the practice of destroying a human being as the first step in using that human being’s body parts for research.
    If it was just about sperm and eggs, the issue would not be about the fate of the embryo, “very tiny” or not.
    Obviously the two were dancing around that biological and physiological fact.

  2. Ah Kate. you realize of course that this will lead to every joke about reproduction to Abbott & Costello bits.
    You’ve also opened up the when is a person a person argument.
    Personally, I’ll take the “If you French kiss you can get pregnant” lines. Less controversial.

  3. The debate about personhood is a related, but distinctively philosophic, debate.
    The scientific fact is that there is no such thing as a fertilized embryo. And an embryo is a human being. A very young human being.
    The philosophy does not determine the science. But it appears to determine, on CNN, the muddled language used to describe the embryonic days of each human being’s life.

  4. See, I told you so. It ain’t philosophy, it’s biology. Like as in when a boy dog and a girl dog love each other very much… you get my drift.
    em·bry·o (mbr-)
    n. pl. em·bry·os
    1.
    a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
    b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
    2.
    a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
    b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
    3. Botany The minute, rudimentary plant contained within a seed or an archegonium.
    4. A rudimentary or beginning stage: “To its founding fathers, the European [Economic] Community was the embryo of the United States of Europe” Economist.

  5. Chairm seems to be pushing a purely religious position without regard to the facts. The reason we call an embryo an embryo is that it is not a human being. There is still a high chance of a spontaneous abortion. It may have potential to be a human being but does not yet have any defining characteristics. And some argument can be made that it won’t be a human until it passes the teenage years.

  6. Nah. It is science.
    What is the scientific fact that distinguishes the human being from an egg and a sperm?
    Then name the scientific fact that distinguishes the embryo from the human being.
    Running to the dictionary does not help your philosphic claim if you do not present the scientific facts.

  7. This entire issue has me depressed. The President has vetoed a bill that would have opened up more research into stem cells, which has incredible potential for curing some of the nastiest diseases and injuries known to mankind.
    Spinal Injuries, Diabetes, ALS (which I have), Parkingsons, and a host of other Neuro-muscular diseases could well be eiminated.
    “But you have to murder the unborn to get them!!”
    Bad argument. Every year fertility clinics flush 100s of thousands of fertilised embryos down the drain because they’ve been stored too long for implantation. Those embryos could have been used to work towards curing the sick, but they get wasted.
    And thats depressing.

  8. Stem cell research (non-ebmryonic stem cell research, that is) was on the table in an alternative bill which was hastily rejected by the very people who supposedly are in so much of a hurry to find cures.

  10. If embrionic stem research is so promising why is there such a need for gov’t funding in the first place. It seems to me that the big pharmiceutical corps would be throwing everything they’ve got at it in an attempt to be the first to corpyright a product or procedure. If there is such a need for funding maybe talk to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I hear they have a few bucks to kick around.

  11. All I know is if it was my child and you tried to do anything with it 4 days or 4 minutes or 4 years you would have to deal with one very pissed off father.Thank You President Bush for defending the yet to be born human lives that these sick butchers want to destroy in the name of science.

  13. well ya technophile, but letting that law pass would be the slippery slope towards wilfully generating millions of empbryos for the specific intent of harvesting them for research. if not right after its passage, then 20 or 30 years down the road when all the liberal promises of ‘we daon gonna do dat ebber’ have been forgotten.

  14. see, the way it works is this:
    caution, rated adult accompanyment !!
    costello is a hottie, but exhibits lack of brains. theres a reason for this.
    libidinous males with fat wallets seek physically attractive women, brains are not a consideration.
    smart good looking women dont fall for the trappings since they are smart enough to own their own businesses and pull in 6 figure i/c etc.
    soooo its the dumbed down crowd that do the boinking as trophy wives and such. ie: costello’s upline.
    sadly as in the case of the eaton clan, the offspring inherit the mother’s brains and father’s looks.
    its all a big muddle all this mixing in of the genes and one can only generalize.
    REALLY amazing how many ‘plain’ looking women come equipped with a full basket of accessories.

  15. >> “Putting aside the fact that we shouldn’t grind up humans to save other humans, this veto doesn’t ban any kind of research at all. It just makes human embryonic stem-cell (hESC) research ineligible for federal funding. It’s not a ban, and in fact that research has never been banned within the US.”
    >> “The lack of federal funding should make little difference, if the science is sound for hESC. It’s not, or at least it isn’t commercially viable, which is why researchers want the federal government to pay for it. Pharmaceuticals won’t underwrite it because adult stem cells and umbilical-cord stem cells have had much more success. They have produced actual medical treatments, where hESCs have had little real success. California planned on spending $2 billion on ESC, and we have yet to hear of any breakthroughs from that research.”
    — Captain’s Quarters.
    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007545.php
    To emphasize: “Pharmaceuticals won’t underwrite it because adult stem cells and umbilical-cord stem cells have had much more success.”
    That’s the utilitarian argument.
    But more importantly, the CNN duo of dumb and dumber did not communicate clearly and did not represent the scientific facts accurately.

  16. Carol Costello is pretty clearly about as smart as a box of rocks, yet most probably gets paid considerably more than the average American and gets national exposure. It’s too depressing for words.

  17. “Bad argument. Every year fertility clinics flush 100s of thousands of fertilised embryos down the drain because they’ve been stored too long for implantation. Those embryos could have been used to work towards curing the sick, but they get wasted.”
    Bad Argument Indeed – the researchers don’t want those ones – they are basically past their best-before date. They want fresh ones. Bush’s old compromise plan (as well as an alternate bill which was defeated yesterday) included use of existing cell lines. Not good enough, apparently.
    Alberta Technophile wants cures to diseases (understandable), but for a lot of the folks on the left this is just one more prong in their assault on conventional moral values. Others include a fetishization of very late-term abortions (illegal or restricted pretty much everywhere outside of North America, including oh-so-sophisticated Europe), cloning, and the “right to die” for people incapable of actually expressing the desire to die and who therefore need “help” into that long goodnight (ie starved to death).
    It’s funny (not the ha-ha kind) because when it comes to the all-important environment they’re all about the famous “precautionary principal” but when it comes to the potential destruction of human (or even near-humna) life, they’re all more cowboy than Bush, full speed ahead and hang the consequences!
    Anyway, as noted above, if this were such a great technology, Big Pharma would be all over it, but oddly it NEEDS taxpayer bucks. Well, too bad – GWB has not “banned” anything, he’s just said that federal tax dollars can’t be used for it. If you think it’s so cool why not get together with some friends and form a biotech investment fund and put your money where your mouth is?

  18. You sure they dont want the “Past best by date” embryos? Gotta be better than the existing lines of stem cells they got now, which are contaminated. The “best by date” for implantation is set far in advance of the embryos having any possibility of damage, in order to avoid angry parents of deformed babies suing the clinics out of business.
    I really dont like abortions, human life is too precious to chuck away because the parents “dont feel like” being parents. But I’m not talking about advocating abortion, but rather making use of embryos that otherwise end up in a sewer system.
    Big Pharma does almost NO pure research. Its just too risky for em. Almost all pure research is done with gvt. grants or on University campuses.

  19. Bush is wrong on this one, way wrong. But you know: so what. He’s allowed to be a Christian, which I am not. He’s allowed to differ from me in his opinion on this. Give him space to be him.
    And as someone pointed out above, his veto doesn’t change anything. The stem-cell research will continue. Only without government money. I think this is a good compromise.
    Similarly, I am right wing enough to now disagree with abortion (used to be a fierce pro-choicer). I think it’s wrong. I don’t get really bent when I know others are doing the wrong thing. What would make me happiest is if my tax dollars weren’t paying for it.
    Bush, the so-called dummy, has achieved this fine balance on a related issue in a way that leaves both sides alive. Good for Dubya. Somebody else can say god bless him.

  20. yo, alberta: using the actions of the fertility clinics is serious flawed reasoning.
    fertility clinics are in themselves, AGAINST NATURE. the clients are farting around with nature. results so far are still appallingly mediocre compared to ‘the old fashioned way’.
    akin to breeding dogs or cats.
    it is pure unadulterated chauvinism for couples who can afford in-vitro and have no other way to sire and propagate their own dna, to actually go this route.
    just because the technology exists doesnt make it right !!!
    so again, to claim the effluent from these operations could be ‘better used’ elsewhere is seriously misdirected.

  21. Adler had this topic on today, but to make it more palatable the embryos were called “blastocysts”. Take all the humanity out of it and call it a tumour of cells so now we can legitimize cannabolizing our babies for possible cures. Only the studies show that adult and umbilical stems cells have much better success whereas the embryonic stems cells tend to turn tumourous. In any case, the researcher went on and on about how it’s only a clump of cells. Only if that “blastocyst” were able to develop it would become a baby. But I guess they figure we still believe that the stork brings us babies and before that it’s just a hunk of tissue.

  22. To be honest Robert J., we’re not going to agree on this.
    “just because the technology exists doesnt make it right !!!” You missed the addendum, “In my opinion.”
    But as I respect your Religious beliefs, I wont argue either.
    Good health to you sir, and I pray to God that you never find yourself in my shoes.

  23. This is not a difference based on religion. It is a difference based on the value placed on the human being.
    The embryo is a human being, as per scientific fact. It is not a pre-human being. All of us were once as vulnerable during our earliest moments of life. At no point between then and today were we non-human beings. Same goes for these human beings.
    >> “making use of embryos that otherwise end up in a sewer system”
    By that reasoning, we might as well go search the population of non-embryos (the more mature human beings) for body parts to meet the unsatisfied demand for organ transplants.
    Would your neighborhood, or my neighborhood, be a good place to start? Maybe some of us here can volunteer to select the human beings who can’t fight back and who are considered to be destined for “human waste”.
    But the point is really that the CNN duo failed to discuss the actual decision that is being weighed. It is not about “fertilized embryos” or the “sperm and egg growing”. It is about human beings.
    When a great sacrifice has been made, by soldiers in a great war, for example, we erect monuments to honor their sacrifices. We say, “Never Forget”, and build somber memorial museums, especially were human beings had been slaughtered against their will.
    If you acknowledge that these embryos are making the ultimate sacrifice, involuntarily, then, would you embrace a monument testifying to that highest of sacrifices?
    Or is it better to just flush them down the sewer and pretend there is only a religious difference of opinion?
    This is not something that an irreligious person can walk away from by glibly saying that we can agree to disagree. The scientific facts do not support the pro-side of embryonic stem cell sacrifices. Only a philosophical question arises about the value of these human beings. That is the nexus of the discussion, and the decision, being obscured by the muddled language exemplified by the CNN duo.

  24. Kate, sorry, but you’ve opened up a topic that is going to go off on a bit of a tangent.
    Could any abortion-supporter please explain to me exactly when a human becomes a human? Stop me when I get to the right point and then explain why that is the correct spot:
    Is it when the graduate university? When they graduate kindergarten? When they can first walk? When they eat there first solid food? When they take their first suck? When the umbilical cord is cut? When they are first out of the womb? When they have their head protruding? When the water breaks? When they are 9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 months into gestation?
    Exactly when? If embryos or fetuses aren’t human, then WHEN do they BECOME human and WHAT is the explanation for this instantaneous metamorphosis?
    Perhaps you could argue that they are not an “individual” until the cord is cut (and I could grudgingly agree…maybe we don’t infer on them rights due an “individual”, but how can you argue that they are not human? They’re not chipmunks or tobacco plants or bacteria…so what else are they? I have yet to find anyone that can give me an answer…please, do tell!
    Please note, there is not a SINGLE OUNCE of religion in my question…I just want to know the scientific explanation for the instantaneous metamorphosis of a “thing” into a human being.

  25. albertan: sir/madam, you have no notion whatsoever what my religious beliefs are, so how can you dispute my response based on what you suppose they are?
    its biology garnished with common sense and a side order of ethics.
    alternative fertility methods are widely known to have inordinately high failure rates and matching high cost.
    what does it take for a couple/whatever marital configuration to spend upwards of 10,000 to 50,000 bucks to accomplish the feat? *that* intent on spawning from their own bloodline?
    do you happen to know God’s chequing account number to see if He is making or spending any of this money sirrah??
    Nicole: my wife attended university and roomed with med students.
    I was browsing a textbook and came upon the term ‘blastocyst’. huh, what a cold clinical term I thought. ‘blast’ as in blow it up and ‘cyst’ like a cancerous tumour.
    dont anyone wait for the medical community to defend any 8.9 month old ‘blastocysts’ or ‘zygotes’ or ‘fetuses’ because after all, despite mastering the trick of breathing under water, they are not human until they clear the birth canal.
    ‘blastocyst’ humbug.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation