Stem Cell Research

Mar 10, 2009 08:30

Scientists can now destroy embryos with federal funds, in the name of research ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

pink_porcupette March 24 2009, 16:59:41 UTC
I think the side of those against abortion rights was pretty weak to begin with.
I don't think religious views should influence decisions the government makes regarding scientific issues, and I hope that the President's ruling will allow new advances to be made in medical science.
I think the legislation they are trying to pass in Georgia is ridiculous. What are they going to do to give an embryo the same rights as a born child? Will there be an investigation into potential child neglect every time a woman has a heavy period that may actually be an embryo being lost? Are they going to make it illegal for women of childbearing age to buy large amounts of vitamin C or any other natural supplement that can induce periods/ cause an embryo in the early stages to be miscarried?

Reply

queenlyzard March 28 2009, 04:30:29 UTC
The trouble with defining human life as starting at conception is that then you have to agree that even the nations with the best medical care have something like a 60-70% infant mortality rate (i.e., the number of zygotes which do not implant).

Reply

fair_haven May 22 2009, 16:14:05 UTC
They cannot have an exact number of blastocysts necessary for IVF treatment (at the time of putting them in, they are not embryos, they are blastocysts. They are a clump of cells, not resembling any being at that point). They can be frozen like sperm, which prevents them from further developing. This is very costly, and unless a couple wishes to save some lest they want more children later without starting the whole process over again they are generally destroyed unless they are donated to science ( ... )

Reply

roseofjuly April 3 2009, 04:52:01 UTC
discarding embryos is murder?

Reply

snackbreak April 3 2009, 05:07:53 UTC
No, it isn't "murder" because murder is a legal term and abortions are technically legal. It is the legally-acceptable moral equivalent of murder.

Reply

neonchameleon March 25 2009, 08:36:43 UTC
I don't think religious views should influence decisions the government makes regarding scientific issues, and I hope that the President's ruling will allow new advances to be made in medical science.

In a democracy, the views of the electorate damn well should influence the decisions the government makes. And the views of the electorate are (regrettably) influenced by their religion. So not having religious views influencing the decisions of government means turning your back on this aspect of democracy.

Reply

jakshadows March 25 2009, 11:31:54 UTC
Not to nitpick... Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not nit-picking when I say I think you overlooked an important part of what was said:

I don't think religious views should influence decisions the government makes regarding scientific issues, and I hope that the President's ruling will allow new advances to be made in medical science.The commenter specified scientific issues as well as medical science. While it's become clear that many in the electorate are more biased towards religion, it would be... interesting to see how anyone would spin a religious view as scientific ( ... )

Reply

pink_porcupette March 25 2009, 14:15:08 UTC
Yeah, I'm okay if the government ignores the will of the majority if the majority is superstitious and wants to hold up scientific medical advances in the name of their faith-based beliefs. Just like I'm in favor of the government ignoring the will of the majority if the majority is racist or sexist and wants to deny certain rights to people in the minority.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up