Does the technique parthenogenesis result in human embryo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Riley259
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Riley259

Guest
I’ve heard that there’s a chemical treatment called parthenogenesis that prompts an egg to develop into an embryo. How is this possible and does it really develop into a human embryo that I would assume is equivalent to all human life? Does someone know anything about this technique and how it works?
 
I am not having luck finding any recent articles. Could anybody link us up to some news on the subject?

I did read one article from 2003. The scientists who created the first human parthenogenetic embryos did refer to them as such: embryos. Apparently the researchers involved were able to use electric or chemical stimulus to cause an egg to begin developing as if it had been fertilized. They claim that these embryos always die after a few days, so they therefore “cannot develop into humans.” The scientists stated that they believe it is ethical to harvest stem cells from embryos that are doomed to die. Since we as Catholics believe that an embryo is a human being, not just a precursor to a human being, this practice is unacceptable.

These scientists are purposefully creating human beings with fatal deformities in order to justify killing these human beings in order to harvest their stem cells.

Chilling. 😦
 
Parthenogenesis has been around for a long time - as applied to amphibians at least. The concept is to manipulate an unfertilized egg so that the genes replicate in a manner that doubles them thereby completing them sufficiently to allow for mitosis and the accompanying splitting of the egg. Female toads have been “grown” by such a process. All the resulting critters would be female.

Whether human parthenogenesis would result in a “human” is a good question. I would presume so, despite genetic abnormalities. I really don’t know enough of the details on human research in this area to say much else with any authority.
 
I don’t get it. Of course, I haven’t had a biology course since zoology 101.

If the egg is not fertilized, it only contains half a strand of DNA. How can half a strand of DNA replicate itself. I’m afraid I don’t get the science well enough to answer this one.

Unless they are manipulating two eggs such that one fertilizes the other. That would essentially be cloning and not acceptable, since the embryo would be truly human, though illicitly created, and probably doomed to genetic defects.
 
Valke2 said:
Parthenotes are not viable embryos because, without the addition of genetic materials from a sperm cell, the cells are “so inbred with the mother’s own chromosomes” that they cannot develop into a fetus. They can, however, produce stem cells.

kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=2&DR_ID=8467
Click to expand...
I hope you are right, though I am concerned with the rationale being related to inbreeding. I know many scientists (and others) desperately want something like this to work. I do fear that the bald face non-supported statement that it’s too inbred obscures a more unfelicitous truth - inbred humans are still human.

I do not pretend to know enough science on the matter. I am adept enough at reading to see questionable statements. I’m sure there will be clarifications. Time will tell.
 
Valke2 said:
I don’t think that’s correct. If the article is correct, they never form a fetus.
Click to expand...
Valke,

Catholics believe that an embryo is already a human being. Ordinarily we consider a human being’s life to begin when the sperm enters the egg. In the case where an egg is artificially manipulated to produce an embryo, it is not quite as easy for us to see exactly where life begins, but due to the presence of the embryo, we can be assured that life did begin in such a case.

With all due respect, I must point out that it is not logical to say that an embryo is not human because its defects will cause it to die before it becomes a fetus. A human embryo is by definition human. This is a truth inconvenient to these scientists, but a truth nonetheless.
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
Valke,

Catholics believe that an embryo is already a human being. Ordinarily we consider a human being’s life to begin when the sperm enters the egg. In the case where an egg is artificially manipulated to produce an embryo, it is not quite as easy for us to see exactly where life begins, but due to the presence of the embryo, we can be assured that life did begin in such a case.

With all due respect, I must point out that it is not logical to say that an embryo is not human because its defects will cause it to die before it becomes a fetus. A human embryo is by definition human. This is a truth inconvenient to these scientists, but a truth nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I hardly call that a truth. A Fetus is generally defined as the unborn young that has a generally similar physical structure to the to the adult animal. In Humans, the fetal stage is from the end of the third month until birth. Medicinenet. com defines it as occuring at the end of the 8th week. Prior to that, it is called an embryo.
 
I think this is the technique where the nucleus is removed from an egg, and replaced with some dna, and then given an electric shock or something to “fertilise” it.
If you have genetic human parents, then you are a human being, however long you live.
Incidentally, I wonder what is in my womb right now, if not a human being?-scary.
 
Valke2 said:
I don’t think that’s correct. If the article is correct, they never form a fetus.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying if they never form a teenager they are not human. Fetus is simply a stage of development. Certainly attaining a particular developmental stage is not the touchstone for determining we are human.
 
What makes an embryo derived entirely from one human be a distinct human life when an arbitrary tissue sample from the same human is not? Is it because the embryo is from a reproductive cell? What if the embryo is derived from a non-reproductive cell in some kind of cloning procedure? Does a cell become a distinct human life when the mechanism that would allow it to develop into a human baby is triggered?
 
johnnykins said:
That’s like saying if they never form a teenager they are not human. Fetus is simply a stage of development. Certainly attaining a particular developmental stage is not the touchstone for determining we are human.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the word insanity is too strong. So I’ll just unsubscribe from thread and move on.
 
Valke2 said:
I don’t think so. ALthough I’m sure that will be debated. If they can’t form a fetus then how are they still human beings?
Click to expand...
Perhaps insanity is not too strong a word.

I’m not sure whether a pathenogenicly produced zygote is human or not, as I stated above. On the other hand, limited viability is a particularly narrow ledge on which to perch the claim on being human. Since we all die and some will certainly die at earlier stages than others, does their inability to survive to certain stages really determine their humanity? Certainly if you don’t agree that a person is a person no matter how small - from zygote on - then the inability to form a fetus might be of some import. Of course, what sort of creature was the embryo and zygote if not human? It’s not a cat or a dog. It’s not an insect. It seems to me it is a human being in a very early stage of development. Once we start denying the humanity of a human being for some reason, it’s a very short jump to denying humanity for another. History, to our shame, is replete with the denial that some people are human. I do not think insanity is too strong a word to use when we endeavor to deny humanity on the specious grounds of developmental viability.
 
This is a very difficult question. However, if we must err - we should always err on the side of life, even if it is only perceived. Our Faith teaches that man and woman together co-create new human life with God. God imputes that life with an eternal soul at the instant of conception. Is a human organism created without the contribution of man imputed with those gifts of life and soul? Whether or not unborn parthenoids contain human life may be impossible to substantiate, but we must proceed as though they do - because they just might! In the meantime, we should denounce such technologies as unethical and as an assault on the sanctity of life.
 
It’s important not to make knee jerk reactions. That’s how a lot of folk clung to flat earth theories long past when there was any scientific doubt. Today, we don’t see any conflict with a round earth and an inerrant scripture. Back then, they did.

Similarly, we believe that life begins at conception because it is the only point at which a demonstrable change in substance occurs. No other point in fetal development displays a radical change in essence like fertilization does.

But here, we don’t really seem to have a fertilization. It might look and act like a young embryo, but if it was never truly fertilized and never took on its own DNA, it might not be a new person. It might not have acheived that magical moment where it becomes a new person, but rather really IS the blob of tissue the pro-choicers THINK a regular fetus is.

Again, I’m speculating, but this bears thoughtful analysis, not knee - jerk reactions. This should be bounced around some smart and holy folk for a while. Wonder what the NCBC says?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top