cicerone imposter wrote:clone (kln)
n.
1. A cell, group of cells, or organism descended from and genetically identical to a single common ancestor, such as a bacterial colony whose members arose from a single original cell.
2. An organism descended asexually from a single ancestor, such as a plant produced by layering or a polyp produced by budding.
3. A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organism to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques.
v.
1. To make multiple identical copies of a DNA sequence.
2. To create or propagate an organism from a clone cell:
3. To establish and maintain pure lineages of a cell under laboratory conditions.
4. To reproduce or propagate asexually.
So RL,
In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole.
A system of organs? but wait... that doesn't sound like a embro or a nerve or liver.
So, again, finally, resolved, noun or verb, what is happening here is not the (verb) cloning of humans, nor does it produce a human (noun) clone.
cells, embryos, nerves, livers, etc are not stable as a whole but instead a singular component of an organism. If the product of all this was the duplications of full blown humans, I'd understand your currently inapropriate stance.
A seed is not an organism, a tree is.
Diest TKO wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:clone (kln)
n.
1. A cell, group of cells, or organism descended from and genetically identical to a single common ancestor, such as a bacterial colony whose members arose from a single original cell.
2. An organism descended asexually from a single ancestor, such as a plant produced by layering or a polyp produced by budding.
3. A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organism to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques.
v.
1. To make multiple identical copies of a DNA sequence.
2. To create or propagate an organism from a clone cell:
3. To establish and maintain pure lineages of a cell under laboratory conditions.
4. To reproduce or propagate asexually.
So RL,
In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole.
A system of organs? but wait... that doesn't sound like a embro or a nerve or liver.
So, again, finally, resolved, noun or verb, what is happening here is not the (verb) cloning of humans, nor does it produce a human (noun) clone.
cells, embryos, nerves, livers, etc are not stable as a whole but instead a singular component of an organism. If the product of all this was the duplications of full blown humans, I'd understand your currently inapropriate stance.
A seed is not an organism, a tree is.
Please.
Have a biology major explain to you that not all organisms have a system or systems of organs.
The AMA states that the product of SCNT is a human embryo. Do you dispute that and why?
The definition of cloning voted on in A2 is not the definition that you find in any scientific treatment of the subject. Perhaps you should educate yourself about that as well, if your political views will allow you to do so.
Is that anything like "if your religious views will allow you to do so?"
Introduction: The Importance of Careful Use of Names
Fruitful discussion of the ethical and policy issues raised by the prospects of human cloning - as with any other matter - can proceed only if we can find appropriate and agreed-upon terms for describing the processes and products involved. Before we can get to possible moral or policy arguments or disagreements, we need to agree about what to call that about which we are arguing. As a contribution to public understanding, we emphasize that this is not an easy thing to do, and we indicate how and why we have gone about making our terminological choices.
What exactly is meant by the term "cloning"? What criterion justifies naming an entity a "clone"? How is the term "cloning" related to what scientists call "somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)" or "nuclear transplantation"? What should we call the single-cell entity that results from SCNT, and what should we call it once it starts to divide and develop? How, if at all, should our names for such activities or such entities be affected by the purposes we have for engaging in the activities or for using the entities?
As these questions imply, there is much confusion today about the terms used in discussing human cloning. There is honest disagreement about what names should be used, and there are also attempts to select and use terms in order to gain advantage for a particular moral or policy position. One difficulty is the difference between the perspective of science and the perspective of lived human experience. People who look at the phenomena of human reproduction and development through the lens of science will see and describe things in terms that often differ widely from those in ordinary usage; moreover, when an ordinary term is used in scientific parlance, it sometimes is given a different meaning. Similar divergences are possible also for people who look at these matters through the lens of different cultural, philosophical, or religious beliefs. Yet at the same time, all of us - scientists or not, believers or not - encounter these same matters on the plane of lived human experience, for which the terms of everyday speech may well be more suitable. Because this same common (nonscientific) discourse is also the medium of discourse for the ethical and policy discussions, we shall strive to stay close to common speech, while at the same time making the best use we can of scientific findings to avoid mistakes and misconceptions.
Advisers to decision makers should strive not only for accuracy, but also for fairness, especially because the choice of names can decisively affect the way questions are posed and, hence, how answers are given. The issue is not a matter of semantics; it is a matter of trying fairly to call things by names that correctly describe them, of trying to fit speech to fact as best one can. For the sake of clarity, we should at least stipulate clearly the meanings we intend by our use of terms. But we should also try to choose terms that most accurately convey the descriptive reality of the matter at hand. If this is well done, the moral arguments can then proceed on the merits, without distortion by linguistic sloppiness or chicanery.
Many of the terms that appear in the debate about cloning are confusing or are used in a confused manner.
First, there are difficulties concerning the terms that seek to name the activity or activities involved: cloning, asexual reproduction, reproductive cloning, nonreproductive cloning, research cloning, therapeutic cloning, somatic cell nuclear transfer (or nuclear transplantation), nuclear transfer for stem cell research, nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells, nuclear transfer for regenerative medicine. At stake are such questions as whether all acts of SCNT should be called cloning. Some worry that the term "cloning" unfairly prejudices people against the activity when it is used to describe research activities.
Second, there are difficulties concerning the terms that seek to name the entity or entities that result from human cloning (or human SCNT): cell, egg, activated cell, totipotent cell, clonote, reconstituted (or reconstructed) egg, zygote, clump of cells, embryo, human embryo, human organism, blastocyst, clonocyst, potential human being, human being, human clone, person. At stake here is the nature - and the possible moral status - of the entities that are involved in the subsequent manipulations, whether for producing a child or for use in biomedical research. Some worry that use of any term but "embryo" will unfairly prejudice people in favor of embryo-destructive activities by hiding from view the full import of the activity.
Third, there are difficulties concerning the terms that seek to describe the relation between the cloned entity and the person whose somatic cell nucleus was transferred to produce the cloned entity: genetic copy, replica, genetically virtually identical, noncontemporary twin, delayed genetic twin, clone.
The above article was copied from bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/terminology.html
It's a good read, After ereading everythign else on the page, the issue then would seem to be what is happening, and whatever people objecting to? Are they one and the same?
RL represents the camp that believes in one type of cloning, that being "cloning for reproduction." Further, they oppose it. Anything with the term clone equates to a manfactured human being as final product. All methids that could be used would regaurdless of reason hold the same ethical and moral implications.
I represent the camp that believes in a difference in "reproductive" and "cloning for biomedical research." This being much like the difference between the types of IVF. I believe that the seperation of purpose, grants the two acts a different moral and ethical implications.
So, in conclusion, I'll adapt this to discussion, Embryonic stem cell research on cells from SCNT is research on a "embryonic equivilant." The extracted stem cell is not a embryo. If you use the (verb) "to clone" you must also adapt either "reproductive" or biomedical research to it. If you are from the camp that believe there is no difference, you should still refer to the difference in title if for no other reason than to explain your resoning why you believe them to equivilant. You would also have to cite other medical procedures that designation of purpose becomes a degree of seperation.
Diest TKO wrote:
So, in conclusion, I'll adapt this to discussion, Embryonic stem cell research on cells from SCNT is research on a "embryonic equivilant."
Why are you fudging?
The AMA says the product of SCNT is a human embryo. Do you agree?
If you disagree, on what basis?
Diest TKO wrote:The extracted stem cell is not a embryo.
No one has said it is.
Extracting the stem cells destroys the embryo.
I have never disagreed that the product of SCNT is an embryo (or embryo equivilant as the article puts it.), I have been waiting for you to acknowledge that SCNT is not the final process and that the end result is not a human.
A product of SCNT is a human embryo, but what matters is what happens subsequent to that period. It's still not a "human" by any meaning of that word.
Diest TKO wrote:I have never disagreed that the product of SCNT is an embryo (or embryo equivilant as the article puts it.), I have been waiting for you to acknowledge that SCNT is not the final process and that the end result is not a human.
Well, the 'final process' that you are promoting is to destroy the embryo by extracting the stem cells, so yes the end result is not a live human, but a dead one.
Why do you not support adult stem cell research, which has a long track record of success, with the same fervor that you support embryonic stem cell research, which has just lots of hype and promises, but has produced little if any success in treating disease etc?
If the money wasted by supporters of A2 had been invested in adult stem cell research which has many successful projects and more in the pipeline , much more good could have been done.
cicerone imposter wrote:A product of SCNT is a human embryo, but what matters is what happens subsequent to that period. It's still not a "human" by any meaning of that word.
When EXACTLY does a fetus or embryo become a living human being, CI?
For all practical purposes, when the laws of our country says so.
I thought you were all about science?
You're content to let whichever party of politicians that are in power have the authority to redefine scientific issues as the winds shift?
Unbelievable.
real life wrote:I thought you were all about science?
You're content to let whichever party of politicians that are in power have the authority to redefine scientific issues as the winds shift?
Unbelievable.
The default question to CI would then be: "If the laws were changed to completely eliminate abortion - what would your position be"?
As CI's logical answer (based on the position stated above) would have to be "Yes, I would then support the elimination of all abortion".
I'd be interested to see if CI has the fortitude to answer that question without a bunch of rhetoric!
baddog wrote:
The default question to CI would then be: "If the laws were changed to completely eliminate abortion - what would your position be"?
We'd still have to follow the laws of our land.
As CI's logical answer (based on the position stated above) would have to be "Yes, I would then support the elimination of all abortion".
The "I" in your sentence is meanlngless.
I'd be interested to see if CI has the fortitude to answer that question without a bunch of rhetoric!
Rhetoric is required to communicate.
cicerone imposter wrote:baddog wrote:
The default question to CI would then be: "If the laws were changed to completely eliminate abortion - what would your position be"?
We'd still have to follow the laws of our land.
Good grief - Nice serpentine!
Perhaps I worded the question such that you didn't understand it. Here - I'll try again: "If the laws were changed to completely eliminate abortion - would you (CI) still argue /fight/debate for... the right of all women to do whatever they choose with the unborn human-life inside their body"?
Ofcoarse, but that doesn't negate the fact that people must follow the laws of our land. "What if" scenarios concerning abortion being outlawed is a excercise in futility - espcially for the right-to-life group like you. What know what a "prayer" is?
cicerone imposter wrote:Ofcoarse, but that doesn't negate the fact that people must follow the laws of our land. "What if" scenarios concerning abortion being outlawed is a excercise in futility - espcially for the right-to-life group like you. What know what a "prayer" is?
In your reply to RL - you deferred your position of belief to the "laws of our country". Like RL - I previously thought your basic premise was scientifically-based. Now I realize it is not. That knowledge helps in future debates.
Sorry - I do not understand your question about prayer.
