Embryology bill defeated

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by The servant

What you say is a soulless way of looking at things, a piece of meat, a perfect example of the cold calculating intellect!

Excuse me for breathing, but you are the one that said that it wasn't fully human ie: has a soul, until halfway through pregnacy. What was is it before that then? A breathing living animal, just a collection of cells deciding what to become, what, I really like to know what an human embryo is before it has a soul in your world? How about mis-carriages after 18 weeks. Nature or God disposing of something that has a soul? Is it just nature getting rid of something that is wrong, or is God murdering unborn babies via mis-carriage?
Take it out of its mother it will die at 18 weeks. It depends on the mother, it needs the mother, even with your idea of a soul it still needs special care, and that is at about 22 weeks, if you have to take it out. Our cold, calculating intellect, that you castigate me for, erronously I might add, is the reason why premature babies survive, not your God.
You have said that a embryo before 18 weeks is a souless thing, you said, not me, not FHA, not Someday, you, so don't try to wiggle out of what you said by trying to say that I am the cold, calculating person. You are the one. Look in a mirror, hypocrite.

Reminds me of the inquisition.

Wasn't that Christian values being forced upon those that tried to live a life away from God, or follow a different religion, or christian beliefs? Those that did research instead of being blinded by religion and split from the flock of sheep? Ironic that a christian, abeit one with a few non-traditional christian ideas, use the inquistion as an example?

[Someday]

Errors?
I think the technical error may be on your end.
For example: Creating stem cells from skin tissue requires manipulation of the genes. 4 genes need to be manipulated in order to reprogram the cells into stem cells. This was first done on mice.
To quote that article:
"Now, scientists at Whitehead Institute have demonstrated that embryonic stem cells can be created without eggs. By genetically manipulating mature skin cells taken from a mouse, the scientists have transformed these cells back into a pluripotent state, one that appears identical to an embryonic stem cell in every way. No eggs were used, and no embryos destroyed."

This is also true when we are talking about human skin cells:

"At Kyoto University, a team led by Shinya Yamanaka published a paper in Cell showing that differentiated human cells could be reprogrammed to an embryo-like state1 using the same formula that he had previously used to transform differentiated mouse cells, . First the researchers engineered cultured human skin cells (called fibroblasts) so that additional genes could be inserted more easily. The team added viruses engineered to introduce 4 genes (OCT3/4 SOX2, KLF4, and c-MYC) into cultured skin cells collected from adults. After several weeks in culture, the team started to see colonies resembling those formed by human embryonic stem (ES) cells.

In other words, the Vatican supports genetic manipulation.

Regarding ANT-OAR, it's not being discussed by anyone hardly at all anymore. It does not appear to have the scientific promise it was originally thought. My point in producing it was simply to show that the Vatican was considering it. You haven't produced a retraction of this. The Vatican never issued a new list of 7 deadly sins, the media has. It does not serve as a retraction, one would hope for something more specific than that. Seven new sins?

I'm glad you talk to Catholics. They are not always your enemy.

Blessings

[Gray]

Originally Posted by The servant

I do not agree with abortion at all!

Mycernius beat me to it, but I just haven't had a chance to repy until now...

It has no soul, the very thing we are told separates us from all the other animals we kill and eat without a second thought.

I suspected that you would argue that it's already a real baby, a gift from God. But why would God go to the trouble of creating a real baby, then wait four months before he gets around to giving it a soul?

On what do you base your view? And what makes you right, and the Catholic church wrong? I don't believe either of you, but given the choice I'd say their postion makes far more sense.

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday,

Your persistence is admirable, but given the content of your series of posts in this thread, it does give the slight impression of someone who is desperate to cling to his erroneous position and won't concede no matter what.

Originally Posted by Someday

Errors?
I think the technical error may be on your end.

Yes errors. Rather than showing you didn't make any, I think you've just added another one. Let me explain:

Originally Posted by Someday

For example: Creating stem cells from skin tissue requires manipulation of the genes. 4 genes need to be manipulated in order to reprogram the cells into stem cells. This was first done on mice.
To quote that article:
"Now, scientists at Whitehead Institute have demonstrated that embryonic stem cells can be created without eggs. By genetically manipulating mature skin cells taken from a mouse, the scientists have transformed these cells back into a pluripotent state, one that appears identical to an embryonic stem cell in every way. No eggs were used, and no embryos destroyed."

This is also true when we are talking about human skin cells:

"At Kyoto University, a team led by Shinya Yamanaka published a paper in Cell showing that differentiated human cells could be reprogrammed to an embryo-like state1 using the same formula that he had previously used to transform differentiated mouse cells, . First the researchers engineered cultured human skin cells (called fibroblasts) so that additional genes could be inserted more easily. The team added viruses engineered to introduce 4 genes (OCT3/4 SOX2, KLF4, and c-MYC) into cultured skin cells collected from adults. After several weeks in culture, the team started to see colonies resembling those formed by human embryonic stem (ES) cells.

Why so many wasted key strokes to show that those experiments with skin cells involve genetic manipulation? I never said anything to the contrary, did I? The point I corrected you on was when you confused cord blood and adult stem cell research with genetic manipulation in post 10 in this thread. You didn't dispute that the research at Novussanguis doesn't involve genetic manipulation, instead producing in post 12 another url to an old page that showed Catholic church support for research that does include genetic manipulation. The research at Novussanguis doesn't even mention skin cells. So I'm under the impression that you mixed things up, confusing the research at Novussanguis with the example from the BBC page that came up in this thread a few times.

I've just gone through this thread. I think you really have it wrong. If I ever said anything about skin cell experiments not involving genetic manipulation then please tell me where.

Originally Posted by Someday

Regarding ANT-OAR, it's not being discussed by anyone hardly at all anymore. It does not appear to have the scientific promise it was originally thought. My point in producing it was simply to show that the Vatican was considering it. You haven't produced a retraction of this. The Vatican never issued a new list of 7 deadly sins, the media has. It does not serve as a retraction, one would hope for something more specific than that. Seven new sins?

Oh, for the Flying Spaghetti Monsters sake. So now it turns out that the thing you held up was not only old but no longer relevant. And as long as I don't produce an official retraction of something everyone already lost interest in, it trumps a very recent statement that contradicts it? Please.

And that link you produce at the end is another case of different standards for different sides in the debate I think. What a Vatican bishop says in the official Vatican newspaper is not to be counted as anything, but what Jeremy Secrist (did I miss anything, is he the new pope?) says in the *drum roll* Columbia Tribune is credible to the contrary?

You're normally not the christian fundamentalist. Why on FSMs earth this persistent urge to stick up for things that don't do anything to make a person look smarter?

greets,
Peter

[Someday]

Why so many wasted key strokes to show that those experiments with skin cells involve genetic manipulation?

You said that the Vatican was against any and all genetic manipulation. I think I have shown that this is not, nor has it ever been the case. Your original preposition suggested they were/are. If you want to cling to a position based on seven deadly sins that were never issued, that's fine with me. I would give you the same advice I would give the three main apostles of militant atheism. If you wish theists (or unbiased weak atheists for that matter) to take you seriously, deal with facts, not media sensation and half truths.

I still maintain my original position that I would not involve myself in any form of embryonic stem cell research either financially or emotionally. You support what you would like.

Blessings

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday,

Originally Posted by Someday

You said that the Vatican was against any and all genetic manipulation. I think I have shown that this is not, nor has it ever been the case.

You have indeed shown that, as I acknowledged a few posts back. If you had left it that, I would have thought 'Ok, I stand corrected as far as support for GM food is concerned'. However, your insistence on trying to squeeze the cases where you went wrong diminishes the credit gained. You produce two more urls that point to a pdf and science article that add exactly nothing relevant. After a thread full of out-of-date, mixed-up or otherwise irrelevant urls that serve primarily to underpin some bits of misunderstanding on your part and a persistence to cling to erroneous positions once taken.

Originally Posted by Someday

I would give you the same advice I would give the three main apostles of militant atheism. If you wish theists (or unbiased weak atheists for that matter) to take you seriously, deal with facts, not media sensation and half truths.

Honestly, after squandering much of the credit gained by demonstrating you didn't know the difference between genetic manipulation and stem cell research (your post 10 in this thread), bringing up out-of-date info (Wired article in your post 12), bringing up the mixing of animal and human DNA in a case where that was not involved (your post 12), bringing up viable human embryos when none are involved (your post 12), explaining that skin cell experiments involve genetic manipulation when I never said anything opposite (post 22), it's a bit rich for you to preach to me about being more facts-based. One good bit of info for a handful of misses is not a good score.

greets,
Peter

[Someday]

For some reason, I thought that you were saying earlier that creating stem cells from skin was not genetic manipulation. I stand corrected.

Let me summarize what I am saying. The Vatican is in favor of genetic manipulation in at least the following areas:

1. Chord blood stem cell research
2. Human skin stem cell research
3. Adult stem cell research in general
4. Genetically altered food.

I should not have lumped some of them together the way I did, it led to a lot of confusion that seems to have made this conversation a bit confused. I should have stopped at an earlier point and became more aware of where this conversation became us talking about different things. I must admit, you did point out my mistakes but I thought you were talking about something else, and responded to what I thought you were saying. This led to further confusion. In that respect, you are correct, the errors in the flow of this conversation were originally mine.

Blessings

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday,

Originally Posted by Someday

I should not have lumped some of them together the way I did, it led to a lot of confusion that seems to have made this conversation a bit confused. I should have stopped at an earlier point and became more aware of where this conversation became us talking about different things. I must admit, you did point out my mistakes but I thought you were talking about something else, and responded to what I thought you were saying. This led to further confusion. In that respect, you are correct, the errors in the flow of this conversation were originally mine.

No problems whatsoever. Contrary to the 'Gods immorality' slugging match where I at one stage ruined the debating atmosphere, this one has been argued vigorously, but without turning really nasty. Nothing wrong with strong debate.

Originally Posted by Someday

Let me summarize what I am saying. The Vatican is in favor of genetic manipulation in at least the following areas:

1. Chord blood stem cell research
2. Human skin stem cell research
3. Adult stem cell research in general
4. Genetically altered food.

While your latest post would seem the natural handle to wind down this thread, I'm afraid I still disagree with much of your list of 4 examples. Not #4 of course. But of the others I still don't think so. I list the urls you included about various forms of research below.

Post 10 pointed to the page about the grant to adult stem cell and cord blood research at Novussanguis. That doesn't involve research with DNA from skin cells. The article also doesn't say that the cord blood and adult stem cell research involves any genetic manipulation.

Post 12 contains the links to the Wired article. That certainly referred to research involving genetic manipulation that has Vatican support. Let me get back to the 2005 date of that piece lateron.

Post 12 also contained the link to support for adult stem cell research during the Clinton administration, but that doesn't mention research involving genetic manipulation. No mentioning of skin cells either.

Finally post 12 contained the link to amniotic stem cell research. Again, supported by the RC church but no mentioning of genetic manipulation being part of that research or of skin cells.

Post 17 had another link to the same thing as the Wired article.

Post 22 had two links showing examples of skin cell research involving genetic manipulation. But nowhere any mentioning of the Vatican supporting this research.

Finally post 25 linked to a pdf about research at Novussanguis. Again, clearly they have the support, but again not mentioning skin cells or genetic manipulation.
Finally post 25 linked to the review article about UCB derived stem cells. What was the purpose of that one? In one of the earlier posts I criticised you for apparently thinking that stem cell research and genetic manipulation are the same. Was the article intended to promote the idea that stem cell research always involves genetic manipulation? If so, that is wrong. The article singles out the few groups that have done stem cell research involving genetic manipulation for special attention near the end. The researchers of Novussanguis (McGuckin, Lazzari, Janik, etc) are not among the references so work at Novussanguis apparently is in the majority of stem cell research that does not involve genetic manipulation.


What does all this mean then? It leaves your points 1 and 2 without any foundation.
In the case of skin cell research it clearly involves genetic manipulation but none of the links you posted showed the Vatican supporting it. The only Catholic view on that research that came up in this thread was the UK cabinet ministers and MPs strongly opposing it.
As far as UCB research is concerned, the Vatican certainly supports it, but it doesn't appear to involve genetic manipulation.
That leaves one three year old piece and one decade old piece about support for adult stem cell research involving genetic manipulation. While I don't think these are much good in light of what the Vatican bishop said very recently, we'll probably have to agree to disagree about the relevance of these older statements.

So again the GM food issue is the only one I'm persuaded by. While you may cling to the 2005 or Clinto-era statements, I think you have to agree with me on at least two out the three points that I reject. So sorry to be rejecting most what you say in a reconciliatory sounding post. But post 25 merely added to my impression of you as a chrsitian being desperate to try to show that a particular flavour of organised religion is supportive of rather than opposed to scientific progress. And from my point of view, mostly failing to do so, and further damaging your credibility with the latest installment.

Sorry if it all sounds harsh. And if you think I have it wrong then please point out any errors in my post.

greets,
Peter

[Someday]

Since I don't think you believe me about the Vatican's stance on genetic engineering is, and has been for some time, I found an article that expressly states the Vatican position clearly. This was given by a Cardinal, not a mere Bishop. He is Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Vatican health department,Please read the last paragraph.
I have indeed tried to point to the areas that the Vatican has come out in support, but you insisted the list of new deadly sins is binding on any and all genetic engineering. If I were to pretend that there actually are 7 new deadly sins issued by the Vatican (at a conference on confession of all places), I would quote Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, (head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences) who made the statement to begin with.

"God was offended not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbor's wife but by ruining the environment, conducting immoral scientific experiments and genetic manipulation."

Note his use of the word immoral. In other words, not all scientific experiments and genetic manipulation, but immoral ones.

I am curious of what your definition of genetic manipulation is. For example, can you say that turning pluripotential stem cells into hematopoietic, epithelial, endothelial, and neural tissues can be done without gene manipulation of some sort? I don't believe it can. I am not talking strictly about recombinant DNA-technology or cell fusion technique. I'm talking about newer technologies, newer ways to cause differentiation. This is why I include amniotic and blood cord research in the mix. The harvesting may not always require genetic manipulation, but the research that is trying to differentiate these cells is.

Blessings

[The servant]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

Excuse me for breathing, but you are the one that said that it wasn't fully human ie: has a soul, until halfway through pregnacy. What was is it before that then? A breathing living animal, just a collection of cells deciding what to become, what, I really like to know what an human embryo is before it has a soul in your world? How about mis-carriages after 18 weeks. Nature or God disposing of something that has a soul? Is it just nature getting rid of something that is wrong, or is God murdering unborn babies via mis-carriage?

To me you sound a perfect example of one of the torturers in the inquisition, and you also come here, as they did and still do trying to force your opinions of atheism on others, how do you fare differently to them? You do not in my eyes, and then we see things differently!
I thought you do not believe in God yet you are very forward with sentences to condemn Him!
How can you condemn something which does not exist?
If you had the faintest knowledge of God, you would probably bite of your own tongue in fear and repentance of what you are saying

Originally Posted by Mycernius

Take it out of its mother it will die at 18 weeks. It depends on the mother, it needs the mother, even with your idea of a soul it still needs special care, and that is at about 22 weeks, if you have to take it out. Our cold, calculating intellect, that you castigate me for, erronously I might add, is the reason why premature babies survive, not your God.
You have said that a embryo before 18 weeks is a souless thing,

Try reading my words again I said the spirit , soul did not enter the child until approximately half way through the woman’s pregnancy, the other remaining attachment of the soul to the childs body prior to this I did not disclose to you, as your acceptance of any thing beyond the earthly is too limited.

you said, not me, not FHA, not Someday, you, so don't try to wiggle out of what you said by trying to say that I am the cold, calculating person. You are the one. Look in a mirror, hypocrite.

You are very good with words but then intellectuals usually are in defence of their ignorance to defend what others accept so easily, and for fear of the Truth coming to the fore in doing so showing up your deficiencies, I say again you have one piece of a jig saw puzzle with millions of pieces, and in your arrogance you form a picture and opinions and then expect others to believe what you say, because you are on the highest step of understanding you can reach at this time of your development, and can not see or accept any thing higher than the step you are now on.

The servant