http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
See what we could be doing if people here got off their laurels and stopped whining about not being able to use embryonic stem cells?
Stem Cells, Redux
Moderator: Available
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
I'd be curious to know what their stem cells were found to be capable of. They mention possible future applications in congenital bone disease, but if we had true stem cells, they could become anything. So why bone disease, because these cells were extracted from teeth and don't want to be pancreas or heart or brain?
In general, some flexibility on both sides of this issues would be nice... the pro-stem cell people can stop fixating on the fight about embryos and try to find them elsewhere (especially since doing so may be more applicable to future patients who don't want to reject their new cells), and people on the anti-embryonic stem cells could commonsensify some of the complaints.
Ethics and cells can get pretty stupid.
See the William Saletan Slate.com article in which he points out the government policy supporting pharmacists who don't want to offer women oral contraceptives could just as legitimately be used to block women from exercising or breast feeding (all three can end human life after conception), and also note the recent CA supreme court decision arguing that fertility docs can't refuse to inseminate lesbians. Reminds us that:
--the Bible doesn't say anything about inseminating lesbians.
--the didn't have a problem with single ladies
--this has no effect on the lesbian's private encounters
--most importantly, these are people who feel they can freeze and trash embryos, or implant 7 of them in women knowing they'll probably need to have selective abortion or face multiple gestation pregnancies which are hazardous to all the babies, who can be born to a short unplesant life or with lifelong injury, harmful to mom, and lastly, extremely costly to the rest of us who pay for it all when things go haywire. THAT'S all ok, but G-d forbid a lesbian have a baby, and, I dunno, teach it to play softball?
In general, some flexibility on both sides of this issues would be nice... the pro-stem cell people can stop fixating on the fight about embryos and try to find them elsewhere (especially since doing so may be more applicable to future patients who don't want to reject their new cells), and people on the anti-embryonic stem cells could commonsensify some of the complaints.
Ethics and cells can get pretty stupid.
See the William Saletan Slate.com article in which he points out the government policy supporting pharmacists who don't want to offer women oral contraceptives could just as legitimately be used to block women from exercising or breast feeding (all three can end human life after conception), and also note the recent CA supreme court decision arguing that fertility docs can't refuse to inseminate lesbians. Reminds us that:
--the Bible doesn't say anything about inseminating lesbians.
--the didn't have a problem with single ladies
--this has no effect on the lesbian's private encounters
--most importantly, these are people who feel they can freeze and trash embryos, or implant 7 of them in women knowing they'll probably need to have selective abortion or face multiple gestation pregnancies which are hazardous to all the babies, who can be born to a short unplesant life or with lifelong injury, harmful to mom, and lastly, extremely costly to the rest of us who pay for it all when things go haywire. THAT'S all ok, but G-d forbid a lesbian have a baby, and, I dunno, teach it to play softball?
--Ian
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
