Whoa, the comments on that article read nothing like any internet comments I have ever seen.
For a moment I thought I stepped off the internet. Does the NY Times make you pay to write comments or something? Or are they moderated with an iron fist that makes Tube look like a sissy?
Whoa, the comments on that article read nothing like any internet comments I have ever seen.
For a moment I thought I stepped off the internet. Does the NY Times make you pay to write comments or something? Or are they moderated with an iron fist that makes Tube look like a sissy?
I'm pretty sure an editor looks over every comment.
Narian on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I think they can be used for several iterations of division, but you're still going to run out. It's a lot easier to come by, say, skin, or adult spines, than dead babies.
Especially with how many dead babies we throw away instead of using them for stem cell research, as Than pointed out.
Not that this isn't great news. I just still think it's funny when people say that it's immoral to do stem cell research on what is literally being thrown away as garbage, and they insist that they're taking the moral high ground.
That's assuming that utility is the only viable ethical system.
I think they can be used for several iterations of division, but you're still going to run out. It's a lot easier to come by, say, skin, or adult spines, than dead babies.
Especially with how many dead babies we throw away instead of using them for stem cell research, as Than pointed out.
Not that this isn't great news. I just still think it's funny when people say that it's immoral to do stem cell research on what is literally being thrown away as garbage, and they insist that they're taking the moral high ground.
That's assuming that utility is the only viable ethical system.
Which it isn't.
Then why don't all these Republicans against stem cell research come out against in vitro fertilization, since that's what's creating the embryos in the first place? Hell, why doesn't the Catholic Church come out against it? Oh, that's right, because so many of their constituents want families badly enough to throw their much-vaunted "sanctity of life" out the window the moment it causes them the smallest of inconveniences.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I think they can be used for several iterations of division, but you're still going to run out. It's a lot easier to come by, say, skin, or adult spines, than dead babies.
Especially with how many dead babies we throw away instead of using them for stem cell research, as Than pointed out.
Not that this isn't great news. I just still think it's funny when people say that it's immoral to do stem cell research on what is literally being thrown away as garbage, and they insist that they're taking the moral high ground.
That's assuming that utility is the only viable ethical system.
Which it isn't.
I'm sorry, what ethical system is it that promotes casting away viable fetuses (fetii?) into 'mass graves' at a medical waste landfill over any other means of death which might prove to beneficial to other parties? I'm curious.
Asia has been making advances much faster than the US in stem cells, cloning, and genetic manipulation. The reason for this seems to be that these practices are viewed as compatible even by the orthodox practitioners of eastern religions. It doesn't hurt that the main contributing countries, Japan and South Korea, have populaces that can't resist anything new.
Man, I wish I'd seen this thread earlier. When I first heard about the breakthrough, I thought to myself, "Great, now the anti-embryonic stem cell people are going to start claiming credit for this."
Nevermind the fact that none of the advances made would even make sense to us without all the research done on ebryonic stem cells that came before.
The anti-science groups can't have it both ways: they can be against embryonic stem cell research AND in-vitro fertilization, but they can't be in favor of one because it makes babies just because and against another because it uses embryo bodies for research (even though the proto-human doesn't have a driver's licence with "Organ Donor" written on it--I get the feeling that most of these anti-embryonic stem cell people wouldn't look the other way if they needed a kidney or liver transplant).
Just imagine if we could spend all the time and money we spend trying to find a way to work around using embryonic stem cells instead doing research on ways to use embryonic stem cells.
I think they can be used for several iterations of division, but you're still going to run out. It's a lot easier to come by, say, skin, or adult spines, than dead babies.
Especially with how many dead babies we throw away instead of using them for stem cell research, as Than pointed out.
Not that this isn't great news. I just still think it's funny when people say that it's immoral to do stem cell research on what is literally being thrown away as garbage, and they insist that they're taking the moral high ground.
That's assuming that utility is the only viable ethical system.
Which it isn't.
I'm sorry, what ethical system is it that promotes casting away viable fetuses (fetii?) into 'mass graves' at a medical waste landfill over any other means of death which might prove to beneficial to other parties? I'm curious.
FWIW, I'm not a big fan of in-vitro, either.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Man, I wish I'd seen this thread earlier. When I first heard about the breakthrough, I thought to myself, "Great, now the anti-embryonic stem cell people are going to start claiming credit for this."
Nevermind the fact that none of the advances made would even make sense to us without all the research done on ebryonic stem cells that came before.
The anti-science groups can't have it both ways: they can be against embryonic stem cell research AND in-vitro fertilization, but they can't be in favor of one because it makes babies just because and against another because it uses embryo bodies for research (even though the proto-human doesn't have a driver's licence with "Organ Donor" written on it--I get the feeling that most of these anti-embryonic stem cell people wouldn't look the other way if they needed a kidney or liver transplant).
What do you mean they can't have both? Even ignoring the ethical issue of the embryo, I'm not a fan of IVF simply because I think adoption should always be supported over IVF.
I think many people who are in favor of in vitro simply don't realize that it results in a bunch of viable embryos being trashcanned. They probably just think, "Ooh, creating a life! God's work! Huzzah!"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What do you mean they can't have both? Even ignoring the ethical issue of the embryo, I'm not a fan of IVF simply because I think adoption should always be supported over IVF.
EDIT: ElJeffe beat me to it.
I'm saying, they can't be in favor of IVF and not be in favor of opening new embryonic stem cell research lines if their ethical stance is that the stem cell research destroys viable embryos. Honestly, I think it's willful ignorance: they want for people to have children, but they don't want to admit that the process is the moral equivilent of "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson... linking prosperity to destruction.
If they think that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong, they should target their hate on IVF, the process by which the (percieved) crime is perpetuated. The Catholics have it right, here (though for the wrong reasons, if you ask me).
I, personally, believe that the medical benefits of this type of research drastically overshadow the moral quandry, but I'm glad that there are those who do take a reasoned opposition: watchdogs are necessary, lest extremists from any side run wild.
Posts
For a moment I thought I stepped off the internet. Does the NY Times make you pay to write comments or something? Or are they moderated with an iron fist that makes Tube look like a sissy?
I'm pretty sure an editor looks over every comment.
That's assuming that utility is the only viable ethical system.
Which it isn't.
The Catholic Church is vehemently against IVF
I disagree, but I think you have to admire their pretty coherent moral code.
I'm sorry, what ethical system is it that promotes casting away viable fetuses (fetii?) into 'mass graves' at a medical waste landfill over any other means of death which might prove to beneficial to other parties? I'm curious.
However, I seriously doubt you'll see many of the alleged "pro-life" Protestant churches making a big deal out of IVF.
I'm a horrible person, aren't I?
Nevermind the fact that none of the advances made would even make sense to us without all the research done on ebryonic stem cells that came before.
The anti-science groups can't have it both ways: they can be against embryonic stem cell research AND in-vitro fertilization, but they can't be in favor of one because it makes babies just because and against another because it uses embryo bodies for research (even though the proto-human doesn't have a driver's licence with "Organ Donor" written on it--I get the feeling that most of these anti-embryonic stem cell people wouldn't look the other way if they needed a kidney or liver transplant).
You would be European?
It's not all it's cracked up to be.
FWIW, I'm not a big fan of in-vitro, either.
What do you mean they can't have both? Even ignoring the ethical issue of the embryo, I'm not a fan of IVF simply because I think adoption should always be supported over IVF.
EDIT: ElJeffe beat me to it.
I'm saying, they can't be in favor of IVF and not be in favor of opening new embryonic stem cell research lines if their ethical stance is that the stem cell research destroys viable embryos. Honestly, I think it's willful ignorance: they want for people to have children, but they don't want to admit that the process is the moral equivilent of "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson... linking prosperity to destruction.
If they think that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong, they should target their hate on IVF, the process by which the (percieved) crime is perpetuated. The Catholics have it right, here (though for the wrong reasons, if you ask me).
I, personally, believe that the medical benefits of this type of research drastically overshadow the moral quandry, but I'm glad that there are those who do take a reasoned opposition: watchdogs are necessary, lest extremists from any side run wild.