The Faith We Need Here is Not in the Almighty

Elsinora, Paganplace:

Evidently, I'm not making myself clear, so here it is again. I'm not speaking of Caucescau's trauma victims, but of the thousands and thousands of male infants, he took, literally, and had raised to believe they were his "father." This is fact, no more science fiction than the Hitler era. He indoctrinated these children until they were of age to beocme his merciless minions. This is only one small part of the science fantasy cum reality that was his Rumania. There was much more that was what you might consider "science fiction-like" but it occurred, just as Hitler's T4 Program occurred.

My point, as far as clones are concerned is that Caucescau would have been spared theiving infants were they a possiblity during his barbaric reign. That is all.

As I indicated in an earlier post, although I support embryonic stem cell research categorically, at this point, I will not rule out the need for discussion on ethical ramifications. It might be of interest to you to note that decades ago, when Watson and Crick were asked to testify before Congress on their views regarding research for cellular cloning, one of the two objected so strenuously that the funding was held back. The other approved. I still recall having this discussion during a Biology class in college. The prof., a biologist (Duh), thought ethical issues worth considering.
They often are.

We're rapidly reaching a point where black/white, good/bad, yes/no thinking is the order of the day. But it's not mine. No way. Nohow.

I mean, you realize, in 'Judeo-Christian' culture, it's kinda big business to steal healthy white babies and sell them to the 'virtuous?

"Actually, it's happened, at least according to a couple of articles I read awhile ago written by secular ethicists who support this research as do I. Women have sold embryo's although if I recall correctly, it occurred in Europe, not in the US."

Well, *duh,* ever heard of 'surrogate mothers?'

That's OK, now, but pure research is against yer God?

"This, Caucescau accomplished by taking from their parents and raising thousands of infant males and indoctrinating them. At all events, clones would have made it all the more simple."

No, to the very limited extent that *succeeded,* he didn't clone or breed anybody. He *traumatized* people. In the mind.

And it did not work so well, no.

Ivri5768:

Have you ever met a pair of identical twins? I bet you have. Did they have identical (or even similar) personalities? I highly doubt it. Now, are you aware that identical twins have completely identical genetic makeup to each other (in other words, they are clones)?

Your concept of "clones" is derived from science fiction, not fact. Clones are not mindless "droids" thinking the same thoughts--they still have individual personalities distinct from one another. And given that cloning is an immensely more difficult process than natural reproduction, cloning would not have made Caucescau's "job" any easier--it would in fact have made it far more difficult.

From one "Ivri" to another, please stop presenting pseudoscientifical fiction as fact. There are plenty of legitimate grounds for debate here; this "cloning an army of like-minded droids" nonsense is just a distraction.

From Charles Krauthammer who writes for the Washington Post:

"President George W. Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility-clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned - and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived - human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn.

I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research - a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of "science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom."

DITLD:

I think you mistook me. I'm aware that clones of Einstein would not necessarily, indeed, would probably not, produce more Einsteins.

Caucescau wasn't after that sort of identity. He was after and succeeded in creating human droids, metaphorically speaking, who followed him with a devotion Hitler would have envied. This, Caucescau accomplished by taking from their parents and raising thousands of infant males and indoctrinating them. At all events, clones would have made it all the more simple.

i think it might be possible that science is just the awakening to the realities of Gods... world.. as it has always been .. every discovery is potentially ruiniuos or life saving depending upon the application of the person utilizing it. if you have read about einstein and tesla you will know there is much we could benifit from science that is tied up in greed power and fear, these three things may be more dangerous to the human race than science especially if science is done in the open so the public can appreciate it . my father was both a captain in the strategic air command and a scientist and heused to tell me that secrets were most of the time things people were ashamed for other people to actually see. of

Ivri5768

You have some misinformation about cloining.

The only possible benefit that I can imagine from cloining would be to somehow clone an embryo-like organism from a sick person's own body, and then to use the subsequent stem cells in a restorative theratpy. If you want to call this cloining, perhaps, but I am not so sure.

As for cloining armies of "supermen," that is just plain not credible. Clones would be just plain human beings, being born as babies. And to accomplish a single clone to birth would be a great and expensive effort and could never, ever compete with standard biological reproduction.

And even an altruistic attempt to clone a great artist, scientist, musicisan, or genius would not guarentee the same qualities in the cloned progeny, for a clone is a copy of the original, not the original. A clone of Albert Einstein might grow up to be a very intelligent, well-read bus driver.

Ivri5768

You have some misinformation about cloining.

The only possible benefit that I can imagine from cloining would be to somehow clone an embryo-like organism from a sick person's own body, and then to use the subsequent stem cells in a restorative theratpy. If you want to call this cloining, perhaps, but I am not so sure.

As for cloining armies of "supermen," that is just plain not credible. Clones would be just plain human beings, being born as babies. And to accomplish a single clone to birth would be a great and expensive effort and could never, ever compete with standard biological reproduction.

And even an altruistic attempt to clone a great artist, scientist, musicisan, or genius would not guarentee the same qualities in the cloned progeny, for a clone is a copy of the original, not the original. A clone of Albert Einstein might grow up to be a very intelligent, well-read bus driver.

"If you have read contradictory reports, please post the sources. I'm very doubtful, because stem cells are taken only from blastocysts, and as I stated earlier, by the time a pregancy could be detected, the blastocyst stage is over"

I wish I could post the sources; however, as I mention, I read these arguments quite awhile ago. I recall them, including those concerning whose research will be funded, what goals of research will be supported, how drug companies will figure in this, etc., because it hadn't occurred to me that there were secular ethical issues involved at all.

As I mentioned, I fully support stem cell research for an endless number of reasons, but a discussion of ethical issues is certainly warranted. As for the black market business, I obviously was mistaken on the logistics. However, a black market already exists for frozen embryos, and the possibility of women in third-world countries, desperate women, participating in the production of frozen embryos for research purposes seems to me very real.

As well, contra DITLD, there certainly is interest in cloning, and it is long standing. Decades ago, Watson and Crick were asked to testify before Congress to state their respective views on funding for cloning research. Given what former Rumanian dictator, Caucescau accomplished with separating newborn males from their families and raising them in 1984-ish conditions, we can only imagine how far he might have gone had cloning been available to him. Although, thankfully, Caucescau is no longer with us, he and his ilk who are legion, would certainly not be averse to clones. Of his ilk was Saddam whose "doubles" we recall. Life already seems to be catching up with science fiction in other domains.

Still, I think the cloning discussion is for down the line. The other issues I mention are, I think, more timely.

Here is the URL for a search on "black market embryos," but, again, it doesn't appear to contain articles of the sort I recall having read,and I may have been mistaken on the manner of embryo production. (Apparently, I was.)

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=black+market+embryos&s_it=client_searchbox&c.userid=448251303402700803

Several times here, the subject has been raised about selling embryos on the black market. This shows a real misunderstanding about embryonic stem cell research, and what its potential is.

It is not likely that there will ever be any kind of demand for embryonic stem cells that there would be a black market in embryos. Embryonic stem cells are never going to be concocted into some sort of curative potion; if that were the case, I would not consider it for one moment.

The goal in embryonic stem cell research is to understand what makes these cells "tick," what mechanism enables them to differentiate into any kind of tissue; and then to take this understanding and try to get people to re-generate their own diseased or injured tissues from cells taken from their own bodies.

Tissues generated from the stem cells of embryos would not be compatible with any other person, even the mother of such an embryo because the genetic material is different. The current demand for these embryos if for research purposes, only.

"Actually, it's happened, at least according to a couple of articles I read awhile ago written by secular ethicists who support this research as do I. Women have sold embryo's although if I recall correctly, it occurred in Europe, not in the US."

According to the NIH:
"Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. "

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

If you have read contradictory reports, please post the sources. I'm very doubtful, because stem cells are taken only from blastocysts, and as I stated earlier, by the time a pregancy could be detected, the blastocyst stage is over.

ashleybone :
"It is entirely foreseeable that women, especially in impoverished countries, such as India, where women already sell their kidneys to feed their children, will become pregnant and sell their embryos on a black market."
_______________
Actually, it's happened, at least according to a couple of articles I read awhile ago written by secular ethicists who support this research as do I. Women have sold embryo's although if I recall correctly, it occurred in Europe, not in the US.

Again, my memory is fuzzy, but I seem to recall the counter-argument being that people could sell whatever organs they choose, since they own their own bodies. What isnterested me and the ethicicsts was whether some light might be shed on the horrible poverty that leads people to do such things.

Although I support this research, I refuse to turn a blind eye to potential problems with this or with anything else. There are ways to discuss things and to deal with them in their complexity. That includes whose research gets funded, how the drug companies figure in this, etc., per my earlier post.

"It is entirely foreseeable that women, especially in impoverished countries, such as India, where women already sell their kidneys to feed their children, will become pregnant and sell their embryos on a black market."

Ridiculous. Embryonic stem cells are derived from blastocysts. Pregnancy can't be detected until after implantation (usually weeks if not months after implantation), at which point the blastocyst stage is over. Embryonic stem cells have only ever been taken from embryos developed in vitro, never from one fertilized within a woman's body. There's zero reason to think anyone would even want to to do that, since unused embryos from in vitro fertilization are plentiful.

The ethical issues go far beyond human cloning. It is entirely foreseeable that women, especially in impoverished countries, such as India, where women already sell their kidneys to feed their children, will become pregnant and sell their embryos on a black market. There are also questions about how findings will be used and by whom, profits, funding for research, etc.

"The belief that scientists are intrinsically better people is not only old fashioned, but clearly disproven by facts."

Not only is this true, scientists are exactly like everyone else. A scientist, like all men and women, has one life, to put to good use, or to squander.

The idea of a scientist as Frankenstein, sitting around, dreaming up monstrous things to do, just because they can be done, is not realistic.

A scientist wants a meaningful, lucrative career, in which he or she may be allowed to make a contribution. A scientist does not want to squander away the ticking seconds of life on non-sensical research that has no particular purpose, but to prove that something can be done.

Behind most scientific research, there is a demand, either an economic demand, or a medical demand. There is no demand for human cloning.

Where ever there is such a demand, ethical arguments are not likely to succeed. And without such demand, research is not likely to happen.

On this particular matter of embryonic stem research, I do not see that ethics has much to do with it all.

By permitting this kind of research, we have, in a sense, already, taken a leap of faith. That initial leap was sufficient faithwise, IMHO, so far as the current issue is concerned.

At this point we need a full and open discussion of the many ethical risks that licensing this work entails, a full examination of current oversight mechanisms, legislation, etc., to see what more needs to be done to prevent abuse. Such oversight would involve considerations of manufacture of drugs and other treatment options stemming from research results, the possible production of embryos for sale in black markets, etc.