- #1
- 1,317
- 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/s...rss&adxnnlx=1156554793-b82hPYSiVvSMmyaDSW1cDA
Good news but I am afraid it will not help the political debate
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around a newly developed technique for isolating human embryonic stem cells from early human embryos without destroying them. Participants explore the implications of this method on the political and ethical debates surrounding stem cell research, as well as the biological aspects related to human ova.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express optimism that the new technique could alleviate political objections to stem cell research, particularly those based on the ethical concerns of embryo destruction.
- Others question whether this development will be sufficient to ease the concerns of religious conservatives, highlighting the complexity of the moral debate surrounding the beginning of life.
- A participant cites Dr. Robert Lanza's statement that there is no rational reason left to oppose this research, reflecting a viewpoint that the ethical objections are unfounded.
- There is a shift in the conversation towards the biological aspect of human reproduction, with participants discussing the number of ova in a healthy woman, correcting earlier misunderstandings about embryos versus ova.
- One participant humorously acknowledges a mistake in their earlier post regarding the terminology used, which leads to a clarification about the number of follicles present at birth.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally agree that the new technique is a positive development, but there is no consensus on whether it will significantly impact the political debate or the views of religious conservatives. The discussion about the biological aspects of human reproduction also reveals differing levels of understanding among participants.
Contextual Notes
Some assumptions about the ethical implications of stem cell research and the definitions of life and embryos remain unresolved. The discussion also reflects varying perspectives on the rationality of opposing stem cell research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/s...rss&adxnnlx=1156554793-b82hPYSiVvSMmyaDSW1cDA
Good news but I am afraid it will not help the political debate
- #2
Schrodinger's Dog
- 840
- 7
That is indeed good news. The objection seemed to stem from the principle that since you could not know when life began, that killing an embryo could be equated to "murder" has been neatly sidestepped by this. Are you suggesting though that this is not enough to ease the concerns of the religious conservatives?
In my opinion there was no rational reason to oppose this research in the first place whether the Embryo died or not. But then I'm not a Christian, although I respect their right to object if not their reasoning.
As a matter of interest just how many embryos are there in a healthy woman?
In my opinion there was no rational reason to oppose this research in the first place whether the Embryo died or not. But then I'm not a Christian, although I respect their right to object if not their reasoning.
As a matter of interest just how many embryos are there in a healthy woman?
- #3
NoTime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 1,583
- 0
None. Unless she is also pregnant.Schrödinger's Dog said:
- #4
Schrodinger's Dog
- 840
- 7
My bad, I mean how many ova are there in a woman. Thanks for the clarification, I was on serious mind altering drugs when I wrote that 
Last edited:
- #5
NoTime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 1,583
- 0
Oh, that's differentSchrödinger's Dog said:My bad, I mean how many ova are there in a woman. Thanks for the clarification, I was on serious mind altering drugs when I wrote that
AFAIK somewhere around 1 or 2 million folicles at birth. Perhaps 400 or so mature to be ova.
Similar threads
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 3 ·
- · Replies 10 ·
- · Replies 3 ·
- · Replies 17 ·
- · Replies 110 ·