Human rights cannot cover cells that were never in the womb

[Mesogen]

OR so says this letter to the editor in Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7235/full/458147b.html

Human rights cannot cover cells that were never in the womb

Patricia Pranke1 & João Carlos Silveiro2

Hematology and Stem Cell Laboratory, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, and Stem Cell Research Institute, Av Ipiranga, 2752, 304G, 90610-000, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Email: patriciapranke@ufrgs.br
Stem Cell Research Institute and Silveiro Advogados, Av Dom Pedro II, 1240, 90550-141, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Sir
In his contribution to the Commentary 'Your inbox, Mr President', in which leading scientists provided advice to Barack Obama (Nature 457, 261; 2009), George Daley writes of the strong indication that the Obama administration will remove restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem-cell research. Although Daley recognizes the vital importance of this innovative research, he also illustrates the potential limitations and legislative or regulatory restrictions.

The controversial and moral question of when human life actually begins is the basis of limitations placed on work such as somatic-cell nuclear transfer or the derivation of new cell lines from embryos discarded from in vitro fertilization procedures. On 29 May 2008, the Brazilian Supreme Court approved legislation allowing stem-cell research. One of the arguments for this approval is that embryos that have already been frozen would never be implanted in the uterus.

Although many people affirm that human life begins when the sperm is impregnated into the egg, either naturally or artificially, they ignore the role of the uterus. Human status is attributed by some to 5-day-old embryos, which consequently would receive the same protection rights as any person. Do frozen and/or inviable embryos, which could never be implanted in a maternal uterus, deserve this status? To begin the process of forming a living human, there must be connection of an embryo to a mother's epithelial cells. This requires the interaction of the embryo with the endometrium (the wall of the uterus).

The Brazilian constitution states that the civil rights of a person begin at the moment of live birth. The law extends these neonate rights from the moment of conception — but only if the baby is born alive. A fertilized egg that is not implanted in the uterus is neither a neonate nor a person. According to traditional Roman law: "Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur", which translates as "The unborn child is treated as a child already born in all things respecting its interests". This was presumably conditional on its being born alive. If not, then this protection becomes obsolete.

For a human being to exist and to benefit from civil protection laws, the uterus is a crucial component.

Well? Whaddaya think?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Who ARE they? Who OWNS them?

 

[Mesogen]

Are they a WHO?

If not, then they are owned by whoever owns the eggs and sperm from whence they came.

 

[Mesogen]

whomever

DAMN!

 

[TurtleBurger]

Nonsense. What happens in the near future when technology allows these babies to be carried to term without the aid of a uterus? Will they never have civil rights their entire lives just because they were never in a uterus?

 

[Mesogen]

Nonsense. What happens in the near future when technology allows these babies to be carried to term without the aid of a uterus? Will they never have civil rights their entire lives just because they were never in a uterus?

What if technology advances to a point to be able to grow a whole human from skin cells?

I scrub off skin cells in the shower all the time. Those skin cells could become potential humans in the future where there is some yet-to-be-invented technology. The technology could possibly in the future allow these skin cells to live up to their full potential of being a viable human being.

I mean, should we protect skin cells because they may one day be turned into whole human beings by some future technology, but today they are totally inviable?

 

[TurtleBurger]

What if technology advances to a point to be able to grow a whole human from skin cells?

I scrub off skin cells in the shower all the time. Those skin cells could become potential humans in the future where there is some yet-to-be-invented technology. The technology could possibly in the future allow these skin cells to live up to their full potential of being a viable human being.

I mean, should we protect skin cells because they may one day be turned into whole human beings by some future technology, but today they are totally inviable?

What if poop could talk? Then we would give civil rights to poop too.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What if poop could talk? Then we would give civil rights to poop too.

<<--Where are his civil rights?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Are they a WHO?

If not, then they are owned by whoever owns the eggs and sperm from whence they came.

What is the DNA of the WHO?

 

[Alawn]

It becomes a new human life when the sperm fertilizes the egg. This is a scientific fact. The womb is irrelevant.

 

[Mesogen]

It becomes a new human life when the sperm fertilizes the egg. This is a scientific fact. The womb is irrelevant.

Did you read the letter?

Why aren't my sloughed off living skin cells a human life? They have all the DNA that any other cell (except gametes) has, so basically all the instructions necessary to create another human being.

If we had the right technology, those skin cells could hypothetically grow into an entire human being.

But we don't have that technology.

We also don't have the technology to grow a human being from these blastocysts that have been frozen.

If you are arguing for the protection of these blastocysts, then perhaps you are against in vitro fertilization. This is what creates the zygote from gametes. So many zygotes are created (they divide into blastocysts in a few days) that they couldn't possibly be implanted and brought to term.

 

[Mesogen]

What is the DNA of the WHO?

So if a pack of cells has 48 chromosomes and is the result of merging two human-derived gametes, then it's a WHO?

And if it has a different number of chromosomes, even though it looks exactly the same, as with most animal blastocysts, it's a WHAT?

And so if something is a WHO and not a WHAT, no matter how frozen and inviable for impregnation and development into a human being it is, we must protect its life no matter what?

And if it owns itself, then I guess it can pretty well take care of itself, no?
Well, babies can't take care of themselves either.
I guess they don't own themselves either.
Their parents own them.
No, they can't dispose of them anyway they see fit.
The state will come and punish you for that.
Hmm, I guess the state owns them.

Yup, the state owns your babies.

 

[idiom]

If a human gets it soul at conception...

What happens when the foetus divides into twins after forming two cells. Does one twin get a new soul? Do they share a soul? Does one twin go through life with no soul?

 

[TurtleBurger]

If a human gets it soul at conception...

What happens when the foetus divides into twins after forming two cells. Does one twin get a new soul? Do they share a soul? Does one twin go through life with no soul?

One of them gets a new soul.

 

[tremendoustie]

OR so says this letter to the editor in Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7235/full/458147b.html



Well? Whaddaya think?

I disagree. Is a terminally ill patient not a person? Future viability is not a measure of present personhood.

That said, I do not think person hood begins until brain waves and a heartbeat are present, which would not apply to embryos only a few days old.

 

[idiom]

One of them gets a new soul.

Are you sure? Is that in the Bible?

 

[TurtleBurger]

Are you sure? Is that in the Bible?

Yes. No.

 

[idiom]

Do clones get their own soul too?

 

[tremendoustie]

Do clones get their own soul too?

Yes, I certainly think so.

To me, soul = consciousness, or awareness. So, if a clone didn't have a soul, they'd be only a kind of walking automata, and not a person at all. I tend to assume that my fellow human beings do experience awareness, and I don't see why that wouldn't apply to a clone.

 

[idiom]

Yes, I certainly think so.

To me, soul = consciousness, or awareness. So, if a clone didn't have a soul, they'd be only a kind of walking automata, and not a person at all. I tend to assume that my fellow human beings do experience awareness, and I don't see why that wouldn't apply to a clone.

Spirit then. The eternal bit that floats away when you die. Its hard to argue a zygote is conscious.