US plans to ban cloning, Europe taking up this oportunity to get ahead in research

[Saint Marcus]

I shifted my opinion somewhat

What else is new? That happends every few hours



And why are my posts uninformed? It's a fact that Bush is against cloning. It's a fact that the Dutch parliament is for cloning. It's a fact that humans won't be cloned in full. It's a fact that cloning Sadam will not create another dictator just like that. It's a fact cloning won't lead to copied memories. It's a fact illnesses can be cured using cloning techniques.

So what on earth are you talking about? Besides not knowing anything about economics, history, biology and mathematics you also have problems reading it seems. But what else is new?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Mark L


What else is new? That happends every few hours

So what on earth are you talking about? Besides not knowing anything about economics, history, biology and mathematics you also have problems reading it seems. But what else is new?

You also do that aswell... so you should keep your mouth shut.

I know a lot more than you about economics, and history (depends on which country). My math is a good level too, I don't know about you. My reading is above average and you still critize me for faults that I have. My knowledge in science is good but I am learning more. I will get back to you later when I finish a project which incidently is on cloning.

[Saint Marcus]

If it's on cloning I know you'll get an F Ask any poster who has read this thread. They all say that you have no clue what you are talking about

[Thue]

This one sums up my opinion pretty well

[Akron]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
cloning is immoral, as is creating life only to destroy it.

Sorry, but that statement by Bush is incredibly hypocritical.

Billions of animals every year are created and raised in horrible conditions for the sole purpose of consumption by humans. Now that is creating life only to destroy it, and on a grand scale.

So how does a blob of 100 stem cells deserve more rights than a cow?

If you don't feel cloning is moral, then fine. But don't deprive others of research that could lead to amazing medical breakthroughs.

[Roman]

Thue

[Evil_Eric_4]

Hopefully someday my great country will rise above religious dogma and superstition and see science for what it is.

Science is the endless pursuit for a better life for all humans and its a real shame to see the US turn its back on one of the most exciting new fields of medicine due to something as abstract and out-dated as religion.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
The ethics being placed here are totally misplaced ethics. We are talking about research using stem cells, they are the holy grail of this research, and then adding the correct hormones to get them to develop into the tissue we want. Transplants without rejection anyone? People who can get new hearts without being on a concoction of immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their life and a high chance of rejection.

That's all great, and I really mean it. But it doesn't keep me from raising the question: Are all these medical advances worth it, considering the source of the stem cells? Namely, human embryos.

To further refine that argument, my concern lies with the impression that I'm getting that these embryos would be created, then destroyed, simply for getting at the stem cells contained w/i the embryo. To make things even worse (perhaps), would be the fact that said embryo would, technically, be YOU. A twin. A clone. Whatever. They're one and the same.

I want these advances just as much as anyone else. I just wish we could obtain them from adult stem cells, or from a source (or more) that aren't as damn controversial. Heck, this almost harkens back to the controversial medical advances obtained from the German and Japanese medical atrocities of World War II.

CYBERAmazon

[Gatekeeper]

Thue:

**ROTFLMAO** Very perceptive, that Tom Tomorrow.

CYBERAmazon

***

Roland:

You made some good points in your response to my contribution on ... hmm, I believe it's at the top of Page 3 in this thread.

As for the fundamentalists, well, they haven't won yet. I don't think they will, either, unless they can raise tons of soft money and outspend the individuals and companies that have a vested interest in acquiring stem cells via cloned human embryos.

It seems money speaks louder nowadays than ethics or morals. Most of the time, anyway.

CYBERAmazon

[rev]

It isn't like you are any better than I am, your replies are extremely moronic and completely uninformed. I shifted my opinion somewhat as you would notice because I was originally uninformed, I actually got no problem with stem cell research but cloning an actual human being should be downright illegal.

You shifted your opinion somewhat? Where? Why? When? I'm guessing it has something to do with Bush's announcement of his administration's decision.

When did you become 'informed' -- and how? What did you read?

Why should cloning be illegal? Because it's immoral? Why? What about it makes it 'immoral'?

[edited: added everything below this]

I know a lot more than you about economics, and history (depends on which country). My math is a good level too, I don't know about you. My reading is above average and you still critize me for faults that I have. My knowledge in science is good but I am learning more. I will get back to you later when I finish a project which incidently is on cloning.

Nobody cares. Economics, history, math and reading have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand, so if you're going to speak out of ignorance in regard to this topic, you're gonna get smacked for it.

What, praytell, is the project on? Did you not start it until this evening or something, because it's a little obvious that you really have no idea what you're talking about?

[Roland]

Cyber:

"To further refine that argument, my concern lies with the impression that I'm getting that these embryos would be created, then destroyed, simply for getting at the stem cells contained w/i the embryo."

Is this different from the process with in-vitro fertilization ? Also, of how many cells would the embryo consist ?

"To make things even worse (perhaps), would be the fact that said embryo would, technically, be YOU. A twin. A clone. Whatever. They're one and the same."

Only if I were 100 % predetermined by my genes. I doubt that.

"I want these advances just as much as anyone else. I just wish we could obtain them from adult stem cells, or from a source (or more) that aren't as damn controversial."

That would be nice. Unfortunately it's not on the menu currently. Who knows, maybe the embryo stem cell research will show us the way there ?

"It seems money speaks louder nowadays than ethics or morals. Most of the time, anyway."

I wouldn't underestimate the vigor of the religious right. Also, why would the industry get into one big fight when they just have to set up a lab in Canada or (parts of) Europe or Israel ?

[Saint Marcus]

Did you not start it until this evening or something, because it's a little obvious that you really have no idea what you're talking about?

Exactly what I said.

Heck, this almost harkens back to the controversial medical advances obtained from the German and Japanese medical atrocities of World War II.

That's a very dangerous and offensive remark you made there. The Germans used full grown living, breathing, and thinking human beings for their experiments. That's something completely different from this! We are talking about stemcells who have no feeling, don't think, don't breath. Yes they are "alive", but not more than your average 6 celled organism is, yet we kill them and experiment with them all the time. We even do those things to full grown animals, including highly intelligent chimps. And now you and others are making a fuss about a few cells in a petridish that have no feeling whatsoever?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
That's a very dangerous and offensive remark you made there.

Yes, the truth is a very unpleasent thing.

We are talking about stemcells who have no feeling, don't think, don't breath.

Of which you have several other sources that:

a) Don't limit you based on the donor's age and health. (Really a strange thing for a medical advance.)

b) Don't involve the creation of human life for the specific purpose of killing it.

c) Don't open the Pandora's box of reproductive cloning.

[Seeker]

Since when does something like a blastosphere come close to a definition of 'human life'?

You don't think that your sperm has human rights do you? I hope not...

I think a lot of this bad thinking was caused by movies like 'the miracle of birth' and 'look who's talking which portray conception as a magical moment....it's not, it's just one step in a process leading to a human being.

What is 'human'? A body is human. Your dead skin cells are human cells. A floating tiny egg is a human egg.

But more importantly what is human in terms of having rights and being a human being?

Only those things that feel, dream, and think (third trimester? At any rate the the folding of the neural tube/canal is a definite moment where we can say that there was no humanity there before). Those are the defining characteristics that give a life form human rights.

'Human' life is being 'created to be destroyed' in a trivial sense. However, human beings with rights* are not being created/destroyed.

You have played on a semantic difference that does not crop up very much in casual usage in order to delude people into thinking something monstrous is happening.

A brainless mass of plastic cells does not a human being make.

*moral, not legal rights. I'm talking about legal rights here.

[Seeker]

Oh and point C): Why the hell not? If research procedes logically, safely, following the scientific method it will increase our knowledge of important areas of biology and benefit mankind. It's called 'Progress'.

Then again maybe we should never have opened the Pandora's box of steam power...or flight...or dead viral inncoculation...or ...