-Caveat Lector- Yardbird wrote: > > -Caveat Lector- > > The Amazing Vanishing Embryo Trick > Source: National Review; July 17, 2001 > By Douglas Johnson > > [Douglas Johnson is the legislative director for the National Right to Life > Committee. He has frequently been named by members of Congress and lobbying > firms as one of the most effective lobbyists in the nation on any political > issue.] > > It was revealed last week that Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of > Worcester, Massachusetts, a prominent privately owned biotechnology firm, > has a plan to mass-produce human embryos. The firm also has a plan to > render those same embryos nonexistent. Kind of like ' having your embryo, and eating it too '. > > ACT is attempting to develop a technique to produce "cloned human > entities," who would then be killed in order to harvest their stem cells, This is ambiguous mumbo jumbo. If they are producing an entity which is more than 20 weeks in the womb with developed lungs and organs, than you *** MIGHT *** be able to call it a cloned human entity. If it's other than that, this decryption is just superstitious religious propaganda. > as first reported by Washington Post science writer Rick Weiss (July 13). > > As Associated Press biotechnology writer Paul Elias explained in a July 13 > report, "Many scientists consider the [anticipated] results of Advanced > Cell's technique to be human embryos, since theoretically, they could be > implanted into a womb and grown into a fetus. [ACT chief executive > Michael] West himself has used the term 'embryo.'" This would be an embryo. An embryo is not a human. > > But it looks like West and his colleagues will not be saying "embryo" in > the future. ACT's executives are smart people who anticipated that many > outsiders would see their embryo-farm project as an ethical nightmare. An embryo farm would not be an ethical nightmare any more than a chicken egg farm is an ethical nightmare. > So ACT assembled a special task force of scientists and "ethicists" to > develop linguistic stealth devices, with which they hope to slip under the > public's moral radar. > > As Weiss reported it, "Before starting, the company created an independent > ethics board with nationally recognized scientists and ethicists. . . . > The group has debated at length whether there needs to be a new term > developed for the embryo-like entity created by cloning. Some believe that > since it is not produced by fertilization and is not going to be allowed > to develop into a fetus, it would be useful to call the cells something > less inflammatory than an embryo." Only because they feel they need to appease religious loonies. > > "Embryo" is merely a technical term for a human being at the earliest > stages of development. This is total crap. It is a selective definition which is factual within the prescribed limit set by the definer. It is ONLY true of human beings who were born and lived. All of THOSE were embryos as defined above. But just as an egg is not a chicken, an embryo is still an embryo whether it develops into a human being or not. This is religious bullshit at its worst. And the Holy Rollers KNOW they are trying to put one over here, because they see that ACT is doing the same thing. > Until now, even the most rabid defenders of > abortion on demand had not objected to the term "embryo" as being > "inflammatory." But apparently ACT's experts have concluded that before > the corporation actually begins to mass-produce human embryos in order to > kill them, it would be prudent to erect a shield of biobabble euphemisms. Just like the Churchists. > > Thus, "These are not embryos," the chair of the ACT ethics advisory board, > Dartmouth University religion professor Ronald Green, told the AP. "They > are not the result of fertilization and there is no intent to implant > these in women and grow them.'' They would be ' factually ' correct not to call this an embryo. > > Further details on the ACT linguistic-engineering project were provided in > an essay by Weiss in the July 15 Washington Post. It disclosed that one > member of the ethics panel, Harvard professor Ann Kieffling, favors > dubbing the cloned embryo as an "ovasome," which is a blending of words > for "egg" and "body." But Michael West currently likes "nuclear > transfer-derived blastocyst." Good ones. > > Green revealed his own favorite in the New York Times for July 13. "I'm > tending personally to steer toward the term 'activated egg,'" he told > reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg. > > In my mind's eye, I imagine Green at ACT corporate headquarters, somewhere > in the marketing department, stroking his beard and peering through a > one-way window into a room in which a scientifically selected focus group > of non-bioethicist citizens have been assembled to test-market "ovasome," > "activated egg," "nuclear transfer-derived blastocyst," and other freshly > minted euphemisms. > > But setting that image aside, Green's statement to the AP has me seriously > confused. He said that the anticipated cloned entities are "not embryos" > because (1) "they are not the result of fertilization," and (2) "there is > no intent to implant these in women." > > Let's consider the "intent" criteria first. Green seems to suggest that a > living and developing embryonic being, who is genetically a member of the > species homo sapiens, can somehow be transformed into something else on > the basis of the "intent" of those who conceived him or her. This seems > more akin to magical thinking than to science. Not at all. Pretty funny for a superstitious religionist to blame scientists for " magical thinking." Spontaneous abortion occurs all the time in human females. This is when a fertilized ovum fails to find a suitable place to stick in the fallopian tube, or loses its grip and is washed away by menses. There is no knowledge or intent involved in this example. But the fertilized ovum will never develop to be a fetus or a person. It only had the POTENTIAL. In this case there was no intent involved. But if humans have no plan for an embryo to develop further, then it too only had the POTENTIAL, and never really had a chance to develop further. Intent or not. If an embryo remains an embryo, it will never be a human or a person. There is no ethical question here. > > If "intent" is what determines the clone's intrinsic nature, then what if > a human clone is created by someone who actually does have "intent" to > implant him or her in a womb? In that case, would Green consider that > particular clone to be an "embryo" from the beginning? If so, an ACT > scientist hypothetically could create two cloned individuals at the same > time, with intent to destroy one and intent to implant the other, but only > the latter would be a "human embryo" in Green's eyes. NOW HE'S GOT IT!!!! > > Or -- since "intent" may be uncertain, or could change -- does the magical > transformation into an "embryo" occur if and when the embryonic entity > actually is implanted in a womb? YES. Exactly. And will still be only an embryo. NOT a fetus or a human. If the embryo survives and develops into a fetus, then it " magically " becomes something else. But it is still not a human being. It's potential has increased and if it continues to develop to the point where it can survive OUTSIDE the womb, then it is a human being and should be regarded as such. > > It seems, however, that Green may not regard the clone to be a human > embryo even after implantation in a womb, because the in-utero clone -- > although he or she would appear to the layman to be an unborn human child > -- would still bear the burden of not being "the result of fertilization." > Perhaps Green would prefer to refer to such an unborn-baby-like entity as > an "extrapolated activated egg." Whatever. > > But what if that clone is actually carried to term and born? Would Green > then consider him or her to be a "human being"? Could be, but I fear that > the professor's logic might lead him to perceive a need for a new term for > any baby-like entities and grown-up-people-like entities who were not "the > result of fertilization." But Green isn't saying that is he? And that's a different issue completely. > > How about calling them "activites" (pronounced "AC-tiv-ites")? That would > link "activated egg" with "vita," which is Latin for "life," and it even > smuggles in the ACT corporate acronym. I think I'm getting the hang of > this. > > Green is a liberal-minded fellow, so I'll bet he would allow such > activated human-like entities to vote, obtain Ph.D.s, and maybe even be > awarded tenure. > > But perhaps they would be required to sign their letters "Ph.D. (act.)," > so that they would not be confused with other tenured entities, such as > Professor Green, who are fully fertilized. That, or you could make important life and health related decisions based on religious stupidity. Like defining a human as SPERM + OVUM + SOUL = HUMAN BEING. This, where there is not even ONE demonstrable example of a " soul ' in all of history. Talk about magical thinking. Joshua2 > > --- > www.prolifeinfo.org <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
