content.usatoday.com— Would you refuse -- for your parent, your child or yourself -- a treatment for a terrible ailment because it was developed with embryonic stem cell research?
Mar 8, 2009View in Crawl 4
They really aren't the same for several reasons, not the least of which is that you have to insert DNA into other cells to make them into pluripotent stem cells. And inserting DNA into cells often makes them tumor-forming. I'd like my therapies without a side of lymphoma.
Refusing to fund a kind of research supported by a majority of U.S. citizens but carrying on with an unpopular, much more expensive war certainly wasn't an example of having everyone's voice heard.Further, decisions on funding in science ought to be based on rational evaluation of grant proposals and shared moral principles. If they aren’t, as was the case with the Bush policy, then democracy edges closer to a blind shouting match.
thesonofdarwinI know where they come from, and I know they never should have been created in the first place. Embryonic adoption is a fantastic solution, and the creation of any more embryos should be stopped. In the meantime, I see no possible solution to save the thousands/millions of children that have been created with litte/no chance of survival. It's a very sad situation.
@zoefic. I think the "after cortical death" part of your statement invalidates the analogy. If the doctor came up to your parents and said, "well. He's in a coma, and he's going to stay in the coma for 9 months. But after that he'll come out of it and be healthy and normal again." Would you really support pulling the plug?Anyhow, it doesn't matter whether my example correlates directly with abortion. The relevent point I was making is that ethics are independent of religion. I could have just as easily said, "you'd probably agree that rape is wrong."
I'm against fertility clinics. Nature took you out of the gene pool, so stay out! I don't think it's right to use/make embryos for reproduction or for science. But if embryos from abortion can help save lives, why not use them?
jjh941Mar 9, 2009
EGG waves that are used to determine death from at days 47-48 (<a class="user" href="http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/2k4ch39repronotes.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/2k4ch ...</a> ). And another point if life begins at fertilization, 60% of all fertilized human embryos do not survive. If there was something kill 60% of 'human lives' then if would be considered far worse than an epidemic.
ricker2005Mar 9, 2009
They really aren't the same for several reasons, not the least of which is that you have to insert DNA into other cells to make them into pluripotent stem cells. And inserting DNA into cells often makes them tumor-forming. I'd like my therapies without a side of lymphoma.
zoeificMar 9, 2009
Refusing to fund a kind of research supported by a majority of U.S. citizens but carrying on with an unpopular, much more expensive war certainly wasn't an example of having everyone's voice heard.Further, decisions on funding in science ought to be based on rational evaluation of grant proposals and shared moral principles. If they aren’t, as was the case with the Bush policy, then democracy edges closer to a blind shouting match.
zoeificMar 9, 2009
"Is it supported by a majority of U.S. citizens?"<a class="user" href="http://www.researchamerica.org/release_06jan04_texaspoll" rel="nofollow">http://www.researchamerica.org/release_06jan04_tex ...</a> "More than half (55%) of Texans support embryonic stem cell research and a majority (53%) favor using federal funds to conduct this type of research"<a class="user" href="http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=2006_0921_01" rel="nofollow">http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp ...</a> ”The results in Georgia mirror those of national polls which have clearly demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of Americans support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research."Texans and Georgians are quite conservative, so the numbers should be similar or better in most other U.S. states.
oninboninMar 9, 2009
Can't help myself...How is babby formed?
sloppyjoes7Mar 9, 2009
thesonofdarwinI know where they come from, and I know they never should have been created in the first place. Embryonic adoption is a fantastic solution, and the creation of any more embryos should be stopped. In the meantime, I see no possible solution to save the thousands/millions of children that have been created with litte/no chance of survival. It's a very sad situation.
divisiblebyzeroMar 10, 2009
@zoefic. I think the "after cortical death" part of your statement invalidates the analogy. If the doctor came up to your parents and said, "well. He's in a coma, and he's going to stay in the coma for 9 months. But after that he'll come out of it and be healthy and normal again." Would you really support pulling the plug?Anyhow, it doesn't matter whether my example correlates directly with abortion. The relevent point I was making is that ethics are independent of religion. I could have just as easily said, "you'd probably agree that rape is wrong."
mortiraMar 12, 2009
I'm against fertility clinics. Nature took you out of the gene pool, so stay out! I don't think it's right to use/make embryos for reproduction or for science. But if embryos from abortion can help save lives, why not use them?