Stem Cell Research: for it or against it?

Like Jediflyer and Darth Michievous, I would not have a problem with your scenario, V-03. Why should I? If adult stem cells could be made to mimic embryonic cells, there would be no destruction of an embryo - a life - to obtain those cells, and so there would be no problem. I am not sure why this point would be relevant to the argument against the creation and destruction of unique human life for the purpose of harvesting cells, however.

Also, as for adult stem cells mimicking the characteristics of embryonic cells, insofar as being able to be coaxed into different types of cells (ostensibly the most highly prized property of embryonic cells, that they are differentiable) - research has shown that this can be done. Already-differentiated adult stem cells have been shown to be malleable (according to the studies I cited at the beginning of the thread). Question for you: if the most valuable property of embryonic stem cells is that they can turn into any kind of stem cell, would you not be satisfied if adult stem cells could also be turned into any kind of stem cells, thus obviating the need to pursue ethically questionable ESCR at all? If not, why not? Then the reason for the entire debate would be moot, and I can't see who would be unhappy.

Just a question back at ya


Also, Europe can do whatever it wants to (and does, in many regards). But that doesn't mean America have to follow. (I've lived in a few different European countries, and loved it, but not necessarily the socialist political bent and laissez-faire morality that generally prevails there.) If European governments want to throw money at ESCR, fine, but I'm happy that the American government has made a different choice.

I know others aren't happy with it, of course. But they can continue to fund ESCR privately, or go elsewhere, as you've said. I think it's perfectly legitimate, though, for the U.S. government not to give taxpayer money to something that so many are morally and ethically opposed to.

 

Also, as for adult stem cells mimicking the characteristics of embryonic cells, insofar as being able to be coaxed into different types of cells (ostensibly the most highly prized property of embryonic cells, that they are differentiable) - research has shown that this can be done.

Research in this area has been spotty, inconsistent, and inconclusive at best. Scientists have most recently found that adult cell lines may be unable to revert to the embryonic cell stage; they are neither as resilient or as malleable as the embryonic ones. My question was sort of a wishful thinking; yes it would solve the problem, but life is never that easy, is it ?

Already-differentiated adult stem cells have been shown to be malleable (according to the studies I cited at the beginning of the thread). Question for you: if the most valuable property of embryonic stem cells is that they can turn into any kind of stem cell, would you not be satisfied if adult stem cells could also be turned into any kind of stem cells, thus obviating the need to pursue ethically questionable ESCR at all? If not, why not? Then the reason for the entire debate would be moot, and I can't see who would be unhappy.

While your research was good, as I said before, the studies have been conflicting. I would like them to figure this out, so that the debate can end with everyone satisfied. Just like you !

Also, Europe can do whatever it wants to (and does, in many regards). But that doesn't mean America have to follow. (I've lived in a few different European countries, and loved it, but not necessarily the socialist political bent and laissez-faire morality that generally prevails there.) If European governments want to throw money at ESCR, fine, but I'm happy that the American government has made a different choice.

My comment here had more to do with economics than anything else. I don't want to see america ripped off for research that is developed elsewhere and then kept a closely-guarded, highly-price inflated secret by governments and corporations overseas. I can just see america being held hostage for cancer cures (not literally, but by the pocketbook).

Additionally, the governments decision is rather arbitrary, IMHO. The next democratic president will no doubt reverse everything from the stem-cell federal funding ban (which is not supported by most moderate republicans, almost all scientists, and just about every major medical research institution on the east and west coasts) to the withholding of monies from overseas clinics that counsel on abortion. It's all politics, and it disgusts me. It should be above that, IMHO.

I think it's perfectly legitimate, though, for the U.S. government not to give taxpayer money to something that so many are morally and ethically opposed to.

Funny, I feel exactly the same way about faith-based charity federal aid, as well as taxpayer-based religious school vouchers .

But that's another argument .

Peace,

V-03

 

I would like to note that I don't think the reasons for the ban are political. As you said yourself, Vaderize03, most people support embryonic stem cell research, even most Republicans. Bush, in my opinion, really thinks that these embryos need to be respected and protected.

 

Funny, I feel exactly the same way about faith-based charity federal aid, as well as taxpayer-based religious school vouchers.

I do take your point, but those aren't life-and-death issues, V-03. If either of us is "wrong" in any objective sense (can't be done, since it's policy, but go with me for a minute) of whether taxpayer money should go to school vouchers which can be used at religious schools, nobody dies.

I also take your point on the economic consequences of any research advances in Europe or elsewhere. However, I believe, as the evidence suggests, that we'll be able to make great advances by using ASCR. It's already happening.

Re: evidence to end the debate - yeah, I do wish life were that easy

jediflyer - I think you're right. Bush wasn't following overwhelming political opinion on that debate, but gathering evidence and coming to what appeared to him to be honestly the right decision on the subject.

 

Bush, in my opinion, really thinks that these embryos need to be respected and protected.

And power to him for it. I never accused the president of having made an arbitrary decision. Obviously, he weighed all the evidence and came up with the best possible compromise given the political situation, and I do respect him for it. I simply disagree with the decision. And by your own admission Jediflyer, Bush's decision put him at odds with more people than it pleased.

I do take your point, but those aren't life-and-death issues, V-03. If either of us is "wrong" in any objective sense (can't be done, since it's policy, but go with me for a minute) of whether taxpayer money should go to school vouchers which can be used at religious schools, nobody dies.

Ah, the heart of the argument, isn't it? I do not believe that anybody dies here either, except the people whose lives might have been saved by embryonic-research directed cures. In other words, ESCR does not kill 'people' (opinion of course).

Since there is no widespread agreement on the definition of when equal life begins, it falls mostly to matters of principle when considering these kinds of questions. In principle, the comparison I made in regards to spending public money on something one does not necessarily believe in is the same.

As far as the economic consequences go, I still have to disagree with you here. Most americans will probably not have too much trouble readjusting their collective moral compasses if a cure for cancer becomes widely available, but only from embryonic cells. Economically though, being forced to pay through the nose for something that could have been more cheaply developed here will not go over well. There will be hearings, blaming, and a push to develop 'our own' version, if for no other reason than to save money in the great land of opportunity in which we live .

Additionally, most private companies will not take the time or effort to learn as much as they can about ASCR when ESCR is already far more established, has the promise of yielding better results, is easier to work with, etc. From a purely capitalist standpoint, there is far less potential in ASCR than ESCR, so companies will go the most lucrative route. Your faith that ASCR will one day yield the same breakthroughs is commendable, but realistically, I doubt even the effort will be made to the same degree from private companies.

If a nationwide ban passes, expect it to go to the court, which will (IMHO) overturn the law 6-3 or maybe 5-4, citing both conflicts with abortion rights, the definition of life, and limits on federal power. A juicy set of issues .

Peace,

V-03

 

Economically though, being forced to pay through the nose for something that could have been more cheaply developed here will not go over well. There will be hearings, blaming, and a push to develop 'our own' version

Let's deal with that when (more likely, if) we come to it. This argument assumes that ESCR will yield a cure for cancer and the U.S. will have missed the boat because no federal funds were directed toward the research. I think that's an assumption that's not only premature, but also unsupportable by facts. What advances have already been made from ESCR? What has ESCR shown conclusively that it can do? Part of the problem one might have in finding any such studies is that ES cells can cause tumors and may be rejected by the immune system. When AS cells are used on a given patient, there is no rejection because the cells have been taken from the patient himself.

ESCR is already far more established, has the promise of yielding better results, is easier to work with, etc. From a purely capitalist standpoint, there is far less potential in ASCR than ESCR, so companies will go the most lucrative route.

Again, what studies can be cited to this end? In fact, when it comes to realized and realizable potential, ASCR is incredibly promising and has already shown remarkable success - in humans as well as animals. 1 Harvard Medical School researchers have cured Type I diabetes in mice using adult stem cells (Harvard Gazette 19 Jul. 2001). 2 Also at Harvard Med., a researcher was able to turn muscle cells of mice into stem cells, which were then differentiated into bone, cartilage and fat cells (Harvard Gazette 1 Mar. 2001, results published in journal Cell, 22 Dec. 2000). 3 A paralyzed woman from Colorado, injected by her own processed white blood cells in an operation in Israel, regained feeling and some muscle control in her toes and legs (multiple papers, July 2001). 4 Nine of 21 paralyzed rats regained the ability to walk when treated with treated nerve cells taken from olfactory cells in the nose (Sunday Times (London) 21 Apr. 2002). 5 From National Review 25 Sept. 2002, "As of last year, over 30 different anti-cancer applications alone involving non-embryonic stem cell therapies on humans had been reported in peer-reviewed medical literature. Over 100 non-embryonic-stem-cell experiments in animals have shown success against a vast array of diseases." 6,7 Researchers at Duke Univ. Medical Center have transformed adult stem cells taken from fat into cartilage and bone cells, and also what appear to be nerve cells (Drug Discovery & Development 5 Aug. 2002) (this study paralleled by report in Blood which showed Minnesota researchers obtaining similar results). 8 In a Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (L.A.) a doctor treated a man afflicted with Parkinson's with stem cells taken from a brain biopsy (taking no other medication), who then experienced a 40 percent improvement in motor skills and 83 percent improvement on the Parkinson's Disease scale (Newsday 23 Apr. 2002). 9,10 In a Washington Medical Center (Seattle) study conducted on 26 patients with deteriorating multiple sclerosis, 20 stabilized and 6 of those improved when injected with their own harvested stem cells. One year later, only three had worsened and one had died. One patient with earlier-stage MS in Canada was found to have no evidence of the disease six months after similar treatment (National Review 23 Apr. 2002).

While your research was good, as I said before, the studies have been conflicting.

There's some research for you I don't know what you think it conflicts with, but I find it quite convincing enough. Even if you still disagree that embryos deserve protection because they are human life, I don't see how one could argue that ASCR has not already resulted in much greater success (and promise for the future) than ES cells.

 

Embryos can, moreover, be logically construed to be human beings: they are alive and growing from the moment of conception,

there's a difference between being alive and growing and being a human being.

{b]and will be, if not interfered with or naturally miscarried or stillborn, born human beings,[/b]

that's total BS. if left on their own, they will die. it's only by the continuous intervention of the mother (in the form of nourishment from her own body and living space inside her own body) that that is averted. if she chooses not to so intervene, so be it.

to whom we grant rights to life and liberty.

what's this "we" jazz? you may want to grant them life and liberty, but i don't, and the law in on my side.

 

Kudos irishjedi49 for some good, solid facts.

However, these represent isolated, for the most-part non-reproducible results. I am too busy right now to give direct evidence of rebuttal, but it does exist, in far more mountainous volume than what you posted.

I applaud your efforts, though, and I'm sorry I don't currently have the time to look up some direct facts as well. In a couple of days I might be able to.

Peace,

V-03

 

However, these represent isolated, for the most-part non-reproducible results.

I think this statement is inaccurate. In several of the examples I listed, the results have been independently reproduced. The Duke and Minnesota studies both found that fat cells could be coaxed into other types of cells. The paralyzed Colorado woman's Israeli operation has been repeated on several other patients. The two unrelated MS studies were in Washington and Canada. In some cases, yes, the results may not have been reproduced, and in some cases perhaps they will not be reproduced - that's what research and further study is designed to do, reproduce results. However, to say that they are not reproducible overlooks evidence to the contrary, and is too broad and unfounded a claim in any case. What evidence suggests none of the dozens or even hundreds of successful experiments could be reproduced, even aside from the ones that have been?

I am too busy right now to give direct evidence of rebuttal, but it does exist, in far more mountainous volume than what you posted.

Fair enough on the first part, but I sincerely doubt you will be able to find similarly successful results from ESCR in anywhere near the amount that has been demonstrated with ASCR. In any case, until such evidence is shown, I cannot be persuaded by assurances that such evidence is mountainous or even exists at all. I've no doubt you'll be able to find broad claims, in more prominent national newspapers, about the promise of ESCR than any about ASCR, but again, I urge you to consider what the studies are to support those claims. The media tends to hype minor steps in ESCR while ignoring studies of the types I have posted, because it is tied into a different agenda (which should be able to be disentangled from the facts, but it's not a perfect world). But it is still possible to find good information, and for readers to be critical of the hyped claims of promise, to look beyond the claims to the evidence.

what's this "we" jazz? you may want to grant them life and liberty, but i don't, and the law in on my side.

dizfactor - The American Constitution grants rights to life and liberty to born human beings, which is what I said. We grant those rights even to those who could not live without artificial intervention or without total care, including infants (who are no more able to live independently - think, feed themselves, defend themselves - than the instant before birht), disabled people (who might be unable to care for themselves and provide for their own needs) and vegetables (who might have no brain activity but still be breathing). They all still have rights recognized by law. I am saying that if a person has rights immediately after birth, why not immediately before birth? What is different? And if you say maybe they do have those rights immediately before birth, then at what point before that did they gain such rights? I think it is logical to grant these rights at least as early as viability, but even to the moment of conception because as I said, unless naturally miscarried or stillborn, naturally conceived embryos (i.e., those in pregnant women) will be born human beings. I believe artificially created embryos should not be created in any case (via cloning or otherwise), but I would grant those embryos the same rights in order to be logically consistent with my total view on the subject.

 

As long as it is used responsibly. I don't think that we need to clone people unless we need an army of massive proportions. It is excellent considering as how it can help with the lack of organ donors. An unlimited supply of organs with no one to harvest them from or waiting for them to die.

 

I don't think that we need to clone people unless we need an army of massive proportions.

And then it would be okay? ?

 

If it absolutely nessecary then yes. But hopefully, we will never need them for an army. Think about it, no one's family has to say good buy for them to repay
America for their freedom. Soldiers can be made to respond to anything the generals order them to do.

 

Think about it, no one's family has to say good buy for them to repay America for their freedom. Soldiers can be made to respond to anything the generals order them to do.

So if you create someone through cloning, you can use them for whatever purpose you want?

Great. Maybe I should get started on cloning my own personal army. (Let's pit your army against my army - it'll be fun! )


My point is, humans have rights no matter who created them or how. The fact that you were responsible for their creation does not make them your property (your responsibility, yes; your property, no).

 

My point is, humans have rights no matter who created them or how.

Only because humans have decided that . We could easily devalue others-it happens all the time on this planet.

Peace,

V-03

 

"Only because humans have decided that . We could easily devalue others-it happens all the time on this planet. "

And when human rights are devalued, it is wrong.

Humans did not give themselves rights. If they did, then slavery, rape, and other such evils are morally acceptable if the group of people who engage in these activities say so.

But the fact remains, it is not okay for people to "unmake" human rights. Human rights are inherent in the human nature. They are not given and can not be taken away by anybody.


Human rights are the foundation of societies and governments. We say that the U.S. gets its right to govern from the people. Who gave the people the right to have a say in their governance? NOBODY. And nobody can take it away. This idea is the foundation of our country, our government, and our civilization, all of which have been set up to help ensure these human rights are not violated.

 

I am saying that if a person has rights immediately after birth, why not immediately before birth?

Because we say so.

What is different?

Nothing has to be different. We have decided and that?s all the justification we need.

And if you say maybe they do have those rights immediately before birth, then at what point before that did they gain such rights?

When we decided to let them have them and not a moment before.

I think it is logical to grant these rights at least as early as viability, but even to the moment of conception because as I said, unless naturally miscarried or stillborn, naturally conceived embryos (i.e., those in pregnant women) will be born human beings.

What they may be at some point in the future is irrelevant. Actual born babies have rights. Potential born babies are not actual born babies.

Rights are not derived from biology. Biology doesn?t give a rat?s behind about ?rights.? It?s a human concept. We humans make arbitrary decisions as to who we want to have rights and who we don?t. We?re not obligated to give rights of any kind to anyone. We choose to do so in some cases and not in others. That?s all there is to it.

But the fact remains, it is not okay for people to "unmake" human rights.

Sure it is. Governments do that all the time. At some point in the past you had the right to smoke in restaurants in California. Now you don?t. We humans decided through our legal and governmental processes to ?unmake? that right. We can do the same with any right, or invent new rights if we so choose. The only limit on that ability is our capacity to enforce those rights.

Human rights are inherent in the human nature.

Oh, really? Where in human nature do they come from? I mean, specifically, what part of the human body?

They are not given and can not be taken away by anybody.

Yes, they can. See above.

Human rights are the foundation of societies and governments. We say that the U.S. gets its right to govern from the people. Who gave the people the right to have a say in their governance? NOBODY. And nobody can take it away. This idea is the foundation of our country, our government, and our civilization, all of which have been set up to help ensure these human rights are not violated.

The US government exists because it was set up by people who had the political and military power to set up a government in accordance with their beliefs. US citizens gain the political rights that they have because the government believes that they should and it has the power to make reality bend accordingly. You could also look at it from a more libertarian perspective and say that US citizens have the power collectively to force the government to respect certain rights they believe they should have. It?s two sides of the same coin.

 

dizfactor,

Quick question: Who is we? Is it the government, the people (who are the people?), powerful people, majority people?

Does the human rights that you say we make up apply to all humans, or just the humans that wanted those rights?

 

"Because we said so"? Not only is that an indefensibly facile statement, it's also not true. In fact, in many if not most states murder and manslaughter statutes provide for penalties for unlawfully killing unborn children, especially late in pregnancy. Many, if not most, states also prohibit abortions in the third trimester, a constitutionally valid restriction on abortion which implicitly - or even explicitly - does recognize the human rights that unborn infants possess. My question was, if there are those rights immediately before birth, and probably from the point of viability, what logically changes from the moment right before such rights are given to the moment right after? I do not think any justification for this arbitrary classification can be logically made. Even being born, while not wholly so, is an arbitrary point at which to recognize human rights, because as laws recognize, at the moment just before birth there is nothing materially different about the baby. So you would move to find other criteria - thinking, self-consciousness, ability to survive independently - but then would find those criteria did not apply to some born human beings (as in the examples I gave above). The distinction therefore must be arbitrary unless otherwise shown. There must be a justification for such classifications, and I have not seen one.

What they may be at some point in the future is irrelevant.

I disagree. It is entirely relevant. We would not give any particular rights to a bovine embryo based on the fact that it would someday be a cow, and that is in large part because of the rights (or paucity thereof) we ascribe to cows. When the embryo in question is genetically human from conception, and will be born alive if not interfered with or naturally miscarried, there is every reason to consider this when deciding to recognize rights. It is a human being.

 

More information pertinent to the debate here, specifically on the status of embryos in federal and state law, cit. Susan Wills, "Federal Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research," 18 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 95, (2001). All the stuff I'll quote or mention is heavily footnoted, being a law review article, but I'm not going to post the footnotes.

After Congress learned that the waiver clause [which nullified protection if risks to an unborn child were outweighed by the importance to science] was being invoked to "authorize unethical experiments on children intended for abortion" (using the rationale that any harm short of death was inconsequential because such children were going to die anyway), it responded in the 1985 National Institutes of Health (NIH) reauthorization act by "requir[ing] that federally funded research impose no greater risk (i.e., no greater than "minimal") on the child intended for abortion ... than on the child intended for live birth." The legislation also banned any use of the 'waiver' clause for three years..." This equal treatment standard applied to fetuses in the womb and to those just having been removed from the womb. "Fetus" was defined as "the product of conception from implantation onward," thus including embryos as young as six days - the same age at which privately funded researchers are currently destroying embryos to extract stem cells. And so by law, whether "wanted" or not, whether "to be discarded" or not, embryos as young as six days could be exposed to no greater than minimal risk in research that received federal funds. The "minimal risk" standard is a very protective standard, essentially allowing only the degree of risk one would face in a routine physical examination or doing the activities of everyday life.

Through an appropriations rider (the Dickey amendment) to the NIH reauthorization act, a provision approved every year since 1995, Congress has prohibited the use of federal funds for 1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or 2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 C.F.R. § 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 289g(b)). The common sense reading of the Congressional language is that it encompasses all research that requires, entails and involves destroying human embryos or subjecting them to more than the "minimal" risk specified in the cited regulations. If Congress had intended to ban only the destruction of human embryos, it could have used straightforward language parallel to that of the first subsection, rather than employing the phrase "research in which." Continuing efforts to authorize funding of human embryonic stem cell research rely on a contrary interpretation of this provision.

[...]In addition, six-day-old human embryos in utero have been protected from research risks since 1975. It makes no sense to deny equal protection to embryos of the same age, based on their location outside the womb. Furthermore, in 1985, Congress rejected the argument that children in the womb could be the subjects of harmful research if they were "unwanted" by their parents and were "going to be discarded anyway" by means of an abortion. Congress saw fit to protect these children from greater than minimal research risks to the same extent it protected children intended for live birth. [Furthermore, as far as state regulations go,] these nine state laws appear to be outright bans [of ESCR] because they fail to make distinctions between private or governmental sources of funding: MA, MI, LA, ME, MN, ND, SD, PA, and RI.

Finally, more examples of studies where ASCR has resulted in actual benefits to human patients, as cited in this journal review: use of AS cells caused remission of a patient's scleromyxedema at Texas, successful treatment of Crohn's disease of two patients at No

 

successful gene therapy for two patients with severe combined immunodeficiency disorder.

Actually, a little girl in that study has just been diagnosed with a never-before-been-seen form of leukemia that is believed to have been caused by the treatment.

Not so good .

I'm with you Irishjedi49 in that I hope ASCR will eventually allow the halting of the use of ESCR, just to shut up the critics.

Peace,

V-03

 

V-03 - Thanks for the follow-up information. I didn't know; that's quite sad. Has causation been established? I don't know the medical details of this illness, but it would seem SCID might have all manner of unforeseeable complications. Regardless, sad information.

I hope, though, that you do not intend this one fact to serve as rebuttal or contradiction to all of the substantial evidence I have presented over this thread.

In any case, I think I'm pulling out of this thread - I've learned a lot, and I think I've sufficiently made my case. Hopefully I've caused some readers to examine what they thought about the subject and maybe reach some new conclusions.

 

Sounds good. I bet I could win.

Hopefully, though, we will never be in a bad enough world crisis which warrant use of a "Clone Army".

 

Quick question: Who is we? Is it the government, the people (who are the people?), powerful people, majority people?

In practice, the government, which, at least in theory, represents the will of the people.

Does the human rights that you say we make up apply to all humans, or just the humans that wanted those rights?

Whichever humans we decide to apply it to. Right now, we grant certain rights to born humans who are American citizens. Many of us also argue that most or all of those rights should be applied and enforced for born humans who are not American citizens whenever possible.

"Because we said so"? Not only is that an indefensibly facile statement,

It?s not facile. It?s just simple, because, ultimately, this is a pretty simple issue. The law protects the right to an abortion and at present does not recognize any rights for the fetus that trump that right. That?s all there is to it.

it's also not true. In fact, in many if not most states murder and manslaughter statutes provide for penalties for unlawfully killing unborn children, especially late in pregnancy.

The law can recognize that it?s wrong to terminate someone else?s pregnancy via murder or manslaughter without being compelled to state that it?s wrong for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy.

Many, if not most, states also prohibit abortions in the third trimester, a constitutionally valid restriction on abortion which implicitly - or even explicitly - does recognize the human rights that unborn infants possess.

First of all, I am opposed to restrictions on abortions in the third trimester, and there are states which support me here as well.

Even if we were to accept that the fetus may have some rights, including the right not to be terminated under certain circumstances, what leads you to assume that they would have the full spectrum of rights acribed to born humans. There are degrees of rights: children have fewer rights than adults, the sane have more rights than the insane. What's to say that fetuses have the right to not be terminated in some cases, but in other cases the mother has rights that trump any potential rights in the fetus?

My question was, if there are those rights immediately before birth, and probably from the point of viability, what logically changes from the moment right before such rights are given to the moment right after?

Our will. We define the terms of right and wrong. They are necessarily arbitrary and subjective in all cases, and exist solely to the degree that we find them necessary and expedient. There doesn?t need to be any sort of biological difference to justify our choice. Our choice does not require justification beyond the fact that it is, in fact, our choice.

You continue to argue that there is some absolute reality to Right and Wrong and that we are somehow required to model our laws so that they sync up with this transcendent and absolute moral reality.

Poppycock, I say. We are never required to do anything. ?Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.? For reasons of convenience and for reasons of convenience alone we institute laws and political structures so that those of us who have the power to do so, either collectively or individually, will be able to go about our business unimpeded. Morality is, essentially, an illusion ? a useful belief to lend psychological support to our power structures.

I do not think any justification for this arbitrary classification can be logically made. Even being born, while not wholly so, is an arbitrary point at which to recognize human rights, because as laws recognize, at the moment just before birth there is nothing materially different about the baby.

It doesn't matter if there is something materially different about the organism or not. Rights flow from social convention and are not inherent in biology. Rights that are not enforced or enforceable are dead letters with no value. For them to be inherent in biology, biology would have to have some means of enforcing

 

Dizfactor, you are one of the most depressing people I have ever met.

Their is right and wrong, just as much as there is gravity and magnetic force. Our laws about rights are not the rights themselves, just like our F = ma is not force itself. I think you may be confusing our laws for truth/reality.

 

Right and wrong are all opinion. In some instances there are rights and wrongs, but mostly it's just a matter of opinion.