On 24/07/2006, at 9:16 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
But the point remains. These are free living human cells, with a
full complement of human DNA. That someone has suggested they're a
new species is beside the point - these are free-living human
cells... so why aren't they human beings with the same rights as
the rest of us?
Do the cells *really* have human DNA?
Yes.
The wikipedia mentions their
extraordinary reproductive properties - don't these properties
necessitate some sort of change in the DNA?
It's basically a reverse of the change that turns embryonic stem
cells into adult stem cells, which turns an immortal cell line into a
mortal one. It's a switching on of a section of DNA that is there,
not a wholesale change in the sequence.
After all, if you took
cells from my Mom's cervix, they wouldn't keep propagating in a
laboratory. This possibility that they have non-human-DNA is
perhaps particularly instructive if further proof is assembled for
the theory that a virus is at the root of many cancers.
A virus may have instigated the change, but we're talking about a
virus with less than 8000 base pairs. Even if the entire virus
inserted itself into the genome (it doesn't, it seems to just
reactivate a portion of the human DNA that is inactivated early in
development), it would still be less than the variability between
most humans, and a lot less than humans with chromosomal
abnormalities. Is a Down's person "fully human"? They don't have
human DNA by your measure. What about the 1 in 10000 of us who are
normal healthy humans with chromosome fusions or splits giving them
44 or 48 chromosomes (chimps have 48). They don't have human DNA, by
your reasoning.
The possibility of HeLa being a separate species is hardly "beside
the point" - it is the point. If HeLa cells are not human, then
they don't have human rights - they would have all the rights of a
paramecium. In all honesty, I can't even understand for a second
how you could argue that the humanity or non-humanity of the HeLa
is "beside the point" - but perhaps that is at the heart of our
failure to communicate.
No, I'm saying WHAT THEY'RE CALLED is beside the point. "Species" is
a fuzzy concept, and a utilitarian one. If a geneticist was given the
full chromosome picture of a HeLa cell, they'd conclude it was a
human female's DNA unless they compared a portion of the DNA with a
sample from HeLA (or from one of Henrietta Lacks's living relatives),
and even then they could conclude it was one of her relatives, unless
they saw the cell under a microscope. It might be useful to think of
them as a separate species for some lines of thought, as modified
human cells for another. But the fact remains that they have human DNA.
So why, if they're individual, self-replicating human cells, why are
they not "human"?
"Killing a cell" and killing a person aren't the same thing either.
At the heart of the issue is individuality. Killing a cell from an
individual is one thing, killing an entire individual is another.
OK. Take an 8-cell embryo. Bisect it. Implant one half, it'll become
a normal person. Is it murder to kill the other half? You've still
got one individual from one fertilised egg. What about taking 2,
bisecting them both, implanting one half of each. Then fuse the other
two, implant that. Is that 3 individuals or 4? You've got three
individuals from two fertilised eggs. That's a profit of individuals,
surely. But does the chimera have one soul or two? Or none? Is it
"fully human"?
Just to make it clear, this is what we're talking about
having "full
human rights":
http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/8cellicsi.jpg
Of course, the images are ancillary to your argument, because you
dont think that this: http://tinyurl.com/hwenv has human rights
either.
I think a 5 month foetus has more rights than an 8-cell embryo,
because, as I've said, it's around the time where it could survive
without its mother (22 weeks or so is the current limit), I think it
has reached a point in development that means it should be protected
from abortion. We earn rights as we reach various stages. As I've
said many times, I think 12 - 16 weeks should be the latest that
abortion should be allowed - it's well before the time that the
foetus can survive, well before the time it can feel pain, but long
enough that the mother has time to act. I think the 23 week rule in
the UK is way too late, and I think late-term abortions are a disgrace.
I also think that mothers should be counselled properly, and
discouraged from abortions "of convenience", I think that there
should be accurate sex education at an early age, that kids should be
taught that waiting to have sex 'til they've found the right person
is ok (but not abstinence-only sex-ed, which has been shown to be
worse than useless), and I think that female rape victims should be
given the "morning after pill" if the rape is reported within the 72-
hour window as a matter of course, in order to protect them from the
further trauma of having to deal with pregnancy and the choice of an
abortion.
Pro-choice does not mean "pro-abortion", I'm very anti-abortion
(which is why my other half and I are very careful with
contraception...). I'm also very anti-smoking. But that doesn't mean
I want to deny the choice to others, or impose my morals on them.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
