Abortion

ZyyzYzzy · May 23, 2013

I don't know if this was ever brought up, but for those of you who believe life begins at conception (are there any?), how do reconcile the fact that a viable embryo can be produced via nuclear transplantation and other cloning techniques? I ask this because, in theory (and practice in animals) it is possible to remove the nucleus of a differentiated cell (let's say a skin cell for this example) and transplant it into an egg that has had it's nucleus removed. At this point the cytoplasm of the egg, which contains the correct concentrations of specific proteins would "reprogram" the transplanted DNA from the skin cell nucleus. Granted this would only result in a viable zygote a low percentage of the time due to a lot of unknowns such as epigenetic modifications of the transplanted DNA.

Now let's say this new zygote was cultured in the correct medium with the necessary growth factors and eventually transplanted into a uterus (or in the future, an environment that was sufficient to facilitate the normal development of the zygote/embryo). Would terminating the development of this still be morally wrong to those who believe that life begins at conception since technically the only thing that was done was the transfer of a diploid set of chromosomes to an environment that is conducive to reprogramming this genome to develop into a zygote/embryo. Also, I know zygote isn't truly the correct term to use in this case since it is by definition the diploid cell formed by the joining of two gametes via sexual reproduction.

Just a question I wanted to ask because of the relative ease that nuclear transplantation and other cloning techniques can be done, and probably will be used in the future to generate tissue for individuals for medical treatment (though most likely I'd think transdifferentiation will be pursued more over just cloning to get pluripotent stem cells).

Mikhail Bakunin_sl · May 23, 2013

Careful bro. You're playing with fire.

ZyyzYzzy · May 23, 2013

Can't help it bro. I need to know the thought process of people shitting on embryonic and other stem cell research fucking up my career goals because of the whole hurr durrabortiondebate.

TrollfaceDeux · May 23, 2013

ZyyzYzzy · May 23, 2013

Don't let Tanoomba see that pic.

Dhameon · May 23, 2013

I believe in the "ownership." I own things, I control them, other people own things, they have control over their own things, I own myself and I can control myself. As long as what I do to myselfgenerallyonly effects myself and not other people, I shouldn't be told what I can or cannot do. How does Jane Doe getting anabortionreally hurt someone else? Some people make the point that the fetus has a right to live, but in my opinion, that right belongs to the mother hence whyabortionis a personal choice. This pretty much sets up my whole political view. We give up the right to drive through red lights so that we don't kill each other in car crashes. We should not give up the right on gun ownership as long as the weapon doesn't kill everything indiscriminately (e.g., handgun fine, nuclear bomb not fine).

chaos · May 23, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
I don't know if this was ever brought up, but for those of you who believe life begins at conception (are there any?), how do reconcile the fact that a viable embryo can be produced via nuclear transplantation and other cloning techniques? I ask this because, in theory (and practice in animals) it is possible to remove the nucleus of a differentiated cell (let's say a skin cell for this example) and transplant it into an egg that has had it's nucleus removed. At this point the cytoplasm of the egg, which contains the correct concentrations of specific proteins would "reprogram" the transplanted DNA from the skin cell nucleus. Granted this would only result in a viable zygote a low percentage of the time due to a lot of unknowns such as epigenetic modifications of the transplanted DNA.

Now let's say this new zygote was cultured in the correct medium with the necessary growth factors and eventually transplanted into a uterus (or in the future, an environment that was sufficient to facilitate the normal development of the zygote/embryo). Would terminating the development of this still be morally wrong to those who believe that life begins at conception since technically the only thing that was done was the transfer of a diploid set of chromosomes to an environment that is conducive to reprogramming this genome to develop into a zygote/embryo. Also, I know zygote isn't truly the correct term to use in this case since it is by definition the diploid cell formed by the joining of two gametes via sexual reproduction.

Just a question I wanted to ask because of the relative ease that nuclear transplantation and other cloning techniques can be done, and probably will be used in the future to generate tissue for individuals for medical treatment (though most likely I'd think transdifferentiation will be pursued more over just cloning to get pluripotent stem cells).

I don't really know enough about what you're talking about. So if left implanted in the uterus and not terminated, this zygote made from the differentiated cell would grow and develop normally? Or is there something preventing that from happening?

TheBeagle · May 23, 2013

He's talking about the same cloning technique that was used for Dolly the Sheep; somatic cell nuclear transfer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_%28sheep%29

If dolly the sheep was a person, would it have been unethical to abort the fetus clone after it was viable?

iannis · May 23, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
I don't know if this was ever brought up, but for those of you who believe life begins at conception (are there any?), how do reconcile the fact that a viable embryo can be produced via nuclear transplantation and other cloning techniques? I ask this because, in theory (and practice in animals) it is possible to remove the nucleus of a differentiated cell (let's say a skin cell for this example) and transplant it into an egg that has had it's nucleus removed. At this point the cytoplasm of the egg, which contains the correct concentrations of specific proteins would "reprogram" the transplanted DNA from the skin cell nucleus. Granted this would only result in a viable zygote a low percentage of the time due to a lot of unknowns such as epigenetic modifications of the transplanted DNA.

Now let's say this new zygote was cultured in the correct medium with the necessary growth factors and eventually transplanted into a uterus (or in the future, an environment that was sufficient to facilitate the normal development of the zygote/embryo). Would terminating the development of this still be morally wrong to those who believe that life begins at conception since technically the only thing that was done was the transfer of a diploid set of chromosomes to an environment that is conducive to reprogramming this genome to develop into a zygote/embryo. Also, I know zygote isn't truly the correct term to use in this case since it is by definition the diploid cell formed by the joining of two gametes via sexual reproduction.

Just a question I wanted to ask because of the relative ease that nuclear transplantation and other cloning techniques can be done, and probably will be used in the future to generate tissue for individuals for medical treatment (though most likely I'd think transdifferentiation will be pursued more over just cloning to get pluripotent stem cells).

I'm one of those crazy "unique life begins at conception" guys.

The short answer is yes. There's nothing to reconcile. Regardless of the method of that conception, once the self-sustaining organism has been achieved we should call that a living thing. I mean that's what it is. As a question of ethics the complexity, versatility, and potential range of the method actually makes the issue more clear rather than (as a person would expect) less. Whatever rights you apply to that living thing are dependent on the type of life co-opted (diploid psuedozygote versus differentiated tissue, in this case). Of course it's easy to hedge that as a practical matter. I hedge myself. I use the term "viability" as a euphemism for "acceptable wrongdoing".

When it comes to tissue maybe it's a bit less clear, but not so much of a puzzle. We'll see a lot of very refined hedges I have to assume. A liver or a skin graft are both a living tissue and a very special class of property -- mostly defined by what you're NOT allowed to do with them.

chaos · May 23, 2013

TheBeagle_sl said:
He's talking about the same cloning technique that was used for Dolly the Sheep; somatic cell nuclear transfer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_%28sheep%29

If dolly the sheep was a person, would it have been unethical to abort the fetus clone after it was viable?

Yes, I think so, provided no extenuating circumstances.

ZyyzYzzy · May 24, 2013

Iannis_sl said:
I'm one of those crazy "unique life begins at conception" guys.

The short answer is yes. There's nothing to reconcile. Regardless of the method of that conception, once the self-sustaining organism has been achieved we should call that a living thing. I mean that's what it is. As a question of ethics the complexity, versatility, and potential range of the method actually makes the issue more clear rather than (as a person would expect) less. Whatever rights you apply to that living thing are dependent on the type of life co-opted (diploid psuedozygote versus differentiated tissue, in this case). Of course it's easy to hedge that as a practical matter. I hedge myself. I use the term "viability" as a euphemism for "acceptable wrongdoing".

When it comes to tissue maybe it's a bit less clear, but not so much of a puzzle. We'll see a lot of very refined hedges I have to assume. A liver or a skin graft are both a living tissue and a very special class of property -- mostly defined by what you're NOT allowed to do with them.

So from your reply, it would never be justified to destroy a developing embryo (cloned or not) to obtain pluripotent (multipotent after a certain time frame) stem cells? I ask because this type of research has such amazing medical/clinical potential, and theabortiondebate on this country has severely hindered research in this area.

Does not the good outweigh the bad for this? Does destroying 100ish cells that have no way to experience pain as we know it really pose a difficult moral dilemma? Is it not our goal in general to minimize human suffering? If this can be achieved by using cloned (or not) embryos that are at such an early stage of development where it is still literally a ball of cells, would it not be worth it?

For your last part about a liver or skin graft. Do you mean that you would be against the transdifferentiation of skin cells into liver cells? It would be possible to convert skin cells into liver cells and then grow a new liver for transplant. How are specific tissue types different classes of property?

Last edit (still haven't had coffee this morning). I raised the whole situation of nuclear transfer to elucidate the fact that technically any cell has the potential to develop into a self sustaining organism.

iannis · May 24, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
So from your reply, it would never be justified to destroy a developing embryo (cloned or not) to obtain pluripotent (multipotent after a certain time frame) stem cells? I ask because this type of research has such amazing medical/clinical potential, and theabortiondebate on this country has severely hindered research in this area.

Does not the good outweigh the bad for this? Does destroying 100ish cells that have no way to experience pain as we know it really pose a difficult moral dilemma? Is it not our goal in general to minimize human suffering? If this can be achieved by using cloned (or not) embryos that are at such an early stage of development where it is still literally a ball of cells, would it not be worth it?

In the absolute sense, no, destroying an established embryo cannot be fully justified. It's a really simple ends and means argument that you seem to be making there. And I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but it really seems that's the crux of that argument. If that actually is the argument though then my answer is no. We simply disagree on a fundamental assumption. That's not to say I'm morally against all such research always. But that should be the absolute last avenue of investigation -- not the first. At best, these are acceptable wrongs. Partial justifications. You wander into some really dark territory with the 2nd paragraph. I understand why you value developed life more highly than undeveloped -- but that's dark.

For your last part about a liver or skin graft. Do you mean that you would be against the transdifferentiation of skin cells into liver cells? It would be possible to convert skin cells into liver cells and then grow a new liver for transplant. How are specific tissue types different classes of property?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Tissue is already property -- that's not a moral quandry. Hearts, lungs, and livers are owned. They are traded as property. But a very special type of property. Men can sell sperm, women can sell their ovum. Being as it's spunk and spunke it's a little less special I suppose. Blood is the least special of all -- we trade, sell, and buy that shit without a second thought. I'm hardly a legal expert in the ins and outs of it, but you don't have to be to see the trend. What's going to be difficult is when tissues (or even fully functional damn organs) are both plentiful andproducedand having to deal with the exact issues of ownership and property (both intellectual and real) rights. And that will be a little bit of a problem. But again, that's not a moral quandry. That's what you call one of those good sorts of problems. Hopefully people treat it more seriously than rRNA in plants (favoring intellectual property in an absurd way) or that god-awful spate of fertility profiteering we had in the late 90's (which favored real property in an absurd way.) And if you can turn squamous into cuboidal... well fuck. Neat. Go on with your bad self.

Last edit (still haven't had coffee this morning). I raised the whole situation of nuclear transfer to elucidate the fact that technically any cell has the potential to develop into a self sustaining organism.

But I mean of course it's murky when you start getting into stages, bioethics is actually srs bsns. For me the guiding principle is not (or should not be) that life is protected if and because. The guiding principle is that life is protected. I get where you're coming from and it's a kind, pragmatic place.

hodj · May 24, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
So from your reply, it would never be justified to destroy a developing embryo (cloned or not) to obtain pluripotent (multipotent after a certain time frame) stem cells? I ask because this type of research has such amazing medical/clinical potential, and theabortiondebate on this country has severely hindered research in this area.

This is a decade old and outdated position on fetal stem cells. Bush and Co. banned federal funding of research on the remaining lines of pluripotent fetal stem cells back at the start of his first term. This forced biologists and biotechnologists, etc. to look elsewhere, and that in turn led to a plethora of new discoveries, such as turning adult tissue into stem cells. The fact is that fetal stem cells are pretty much pointless at this juncture, we can make perfectly functional stem cells from your own body, why would we ever need to generate an embryo and kill it to harvest pluripotent cells, when the ones which can be garnered from you, or a close relative, and converted into perfectly functional stem cells, with less effort and more compatibility with your own body.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles..._stem_cell.htm

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/.../08julaug-bio/

The only issue is that not all adult tissues have been converted successfully to stem cells yet, and it hasn't been proven that they can differentiate into literally every type of cell there is, but that's almost certainly issues that will be resolved through continuing research in the area.

I don't have a problem with using fetal tissue from shit like aborted fetus' and umbilical cords to acquire stem cells, but the fact is that the science has moved past that shit even being a real controversy anymore.

ZyyzYzzy · May 24, 2013

I don't know. Adult stem cells are nice and all but as you said they have limitations, they aren't totipotent or pluripotent. Also, I know you can induce pluripotency, but sometimes you run into quite a bit of trouble culturingand differentiating them into what you want.

I just want to get the perspective of people who believe life begins at conception. It's just an interesting stance for people to have I find, mostly due to the fact I have focused on developmental biology during my undergrad and postgrad education.

hodj · May 24, 2013

Sure, failure happens all the time in biotechnology and when manipulating cells.

My wife's a biotech major, probably 95% of their experiments in lab are failures, class wide. But the same is true when you implant impregnated embryos in a mother, you put like 7 or 10 in, in the hopes that one takes.

I just want to get the perspective of people who believe life begins at conception.

Well, I'm a biology and chemistry major, I'm supposing you are too. So let me ask you something. When you took your basic intro to biology class, did they define to you the 5 qualities generally regarded as defining life?

Name me any of them that a newly conceived and recombined dna strand don't match.

I think I said way early in this thread that I'm fine withabortionprior to some date roughly midway through the process. That I'm not a big fan of late termabortion.

I still think life begins the moment two gametes unite, because scientifically, I see no other point at which life begins.

Note I don't necessarily invest any magical properties in the moment life begins, its not some magically sacrosanct moment, but there's no reasonable scientific definition that doesn't mandate that a new life begins the moment both gametes unite successfully and DNA recombines and begins translation and transcription processes.

Let me put it to you another way. If we traveled to Mars tomorrow, however we got there, and when we got there we used advanced scientific methods to determine that, in fact, we had found a single cell on a rock somewhere, would scientists hesitate for one second, once this finding was confirmed, to declare that life was found on another planet?

ZyyzYzzy · May 24, 2013

Firstly, yes that would be alien life, and fuck me if I remember 8 years ago to what was said in an intro bio class lol.

I think the term life is way to broad to be applied to theabortiondebate especially with all our biotechnological advances. I just don't know how people can state that for some reason our specific species zygotes are sacred and should be allowed to develop no matter what, even at the earliest stages.

If I had the time, money, and other resources I could technically make a lipid/polymer membrane that enclosed a medium with the correct contents, insert DNA from a species of bacteria that all that was specifically engineered for and have an "artificial" cell that could self replicate (See the Venter Institute). How does this not become as sacred as the single cell that is formed when two gametes join?

hodj · May 24, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
Firstly, yes that would be alien life, and fuck me if I remember 8 years ago to what was said in an intro bio class lol.

I realized no one does when I was getting straight As and going to every class and half the classroom wasn't showing up and the professor was telling us about how he puts a 15 to 20 points swing on the final grade....

I think the term life is way to broad to be applied to theabortiondebate

It may well be but that's the parameters that unfortunately define the issue.

I just don't know how people can state that for some reason our specific species zygotes are sacred and should be allowed to develop no matter what, even at the earliest stages.

Well, biologically speaking, technically every zygote aborted is less diversity in our overall gene pool, and less diversity is what killed the Native Americans for the most part. Highly susceptible to disease due to genetic bottleneck and founder effect led to 9 out of every 10 Native Americans east of the Rockies dying within a decade of first contact with the West. Further, when you think about it from a biological and cultural point of view, it really boils down to intelligent species should probably care about their own survival on some level, so maybe some overdo it. The thing is thatabortionis a political issue with scientific implications in our society, and politics > all in human relations, because politics IS human relations.

If I had the time, money, and other resources I could technically make a lipid/polymer membrane that enclosed a medium with the correct contents, insert DNA from a species of bacteria that all that was specifically engineered for and have an "artificial" cell that could self replicate (See the Venter Institute). How does this not become as sacred as the single cell that is formed when two gametes join?

Yeah I don't really know man. I don't see them as sacred per se, but I do understand that, as I said above, biologically the need for self preservation would probably be a big part of why people romanticize or sex up or make sacred, whatever you want to call it, the issue.

I'm in a weird position because I am pro choice, up to a point, I do think that any argue for late termabortionis applicable to post partum infanticide, so I'm not a big fan of late termabortion, and would be and am fine with the law saying "You can have anabortionlegally up to X number of days of pregnancy and then after that you need to show clear medical reasoning for justifying theabortion, which would include health of mother, inability of infant to survive outside the womb due to extreme genetic deformation, etc." but at the same time of all that, I know that medically and biologically, for both plants and animals, the technical definition for life absolutely dictates that it begins the moment two gametes reunite.

I don't want to see the definition of life as regards medical and biological sciences redefined along political lines, I guess.

What we need as a society is to determine where a good solid compromise can be made, that's why I think somewhere in the second half of the second trimester would be a good cut off date, personally. Hard sell to because it would leave both sides all butthurt, but really. Probably the best solution overall. Cut that fucker right down the middle like Solomon.

ZyyzYzzy · May 24, 2013

The thing is, I don't buy that preservation of the species argument. We are the most dominant species and our genetic diversity has been increasing with the advent of globalization. Yes Native Americans were highly susceptible to diseases from Europe, but that's because they propagated in isolation from the rest of the world for thousands of years, unlike Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle-East.

I think the opposite is occurring. Other species have been homoginized by humans since we began the practices of agriculture and domestication.

Obviously late termabortionis wrong. The fetus is at such a stage of development that it has the necessary organs and neuronal connections to perceive pain. I like your idea cut that shit in half. Make everyone unhappy. Sadly that's usually the best solution in most cases.

hodj · May 24, 2013

Yeah I mean I was just saying it is an argument which can be made.

The fact that we're dominant doesn't necessarily mean much. Native Americans were pretty dominant on those continents until Europeans showed up. Europeans were pretty dominant in Europe until the black plague wiped out 2 out of every 3 of them. So its something to consider. I don't think its justification to makeabortionillegal mind.

Now, the thing is, its not so obvious to some that late termabortionis wrong. To a small subset, post partum infanticide isn't morally or ethically wrong either. The case has been made, in an accredited medical ethics journal

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...anticide_.html

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full

First link basically sums up the second link.

So my only point is that I can see where some of the prolifers arguments are at least worth considering, even when I don't agree with them. As you said, you're just trying to see it from their point of view, so I'm just trying to throw out some stuff that might help you see where their concerns are coming from, even if you ultimately don't agree with them. They're sort of afraid of this slippery slope where life loses all value and meaning and becomes utterly disposable. I can understand that.

a_skeleton_03 · May 24, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
If I had the time, money, and other resources I could technically make a lipid/polymer membrane that enclosed a medium with the correct contents, insert DNA from a species of bacteria that all that was specifically engineered for and have an "artificial" cell that could self replicate (See the Venter Institute). How does this not become as sacred as the single cell that is formed when two gametes join?

Go ahead and do that. Let me know when it grows into a person. When it does I will stop saying anything aboutabortion.

The day that we create a human from just a bunch of chemicals (not from a sperm and an egg) I will renounce Christianity, become an atheist, and lobby forabortion.

Abortion

RIP USA

shitlord

RIP USA

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

RIP USA

N00b

Buzzfeed Editor

JunkiesNetwork Donor

Musty Nester

Buzzfeed Editor

RIP USA

Musty Nester

Vox Populi Jihadi

RIP USA

Vox Populi Jihadi

RIP USA

Vox Populi Jihadi

RIP USA

Vox Populi Jihadi