I don't think it weakens it. The legality of something isn't neccesarily an accurate measurement of the morality of something.
And as far as "scientific integrity" that's a bunch of bs. That's supposes that all dissent to using embryos is based on religious reasons-or that because a dissent is based on religious reasons its invalid. Please.
That's supposes that all dissent to using embryos is based on religious reasons
*blinks*
I don't recall seeing any of that anywhere. I did see him say "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,"
Where does he say anything about religion?
or that because a dissent is based on religious reasons its invalid.
Oh well, I will say that too if that's you're argument. That would imply that any policies based on religious reasons could be created and as an agnostic, I would never agree to that.
Stick to science or morality, and you will have a better argument. The moment you step into religion, you will inevitably run into issues.
I hate to be antagonistic here, but you're talking about a semantics distinction here. Pro-choicers aren't necessarily about all choices (frequently, they aren't, thankfully), and pro-life is usually understood by most to be concerning the matter of abortion.
Someone probably already pointed this out. But if you actually study stem cell research, you find they do not kill embryos or fetuses. They use blastocysts that were left over from people who were going through fertilization therapy to bear children. The University of California in Irvine has been doing this legally through private funding for many years, and they give discussions about it semi-frequently if you live close enough to them. Stem cell research is sort of a big research area for them, and they've made discoveries that will probably help the almost-completely paralyzed walk someday in the not-too-distant future (they can do this for rats and things right now).
I.e., when you are having an IVF treatment, you usually have a lot of blastocysts. A clump of cells not even vaguely resembling an embryo yet. But you usually only use 2-4 that seem healthy enough to take and cause a pregnancy
( ... )
Comments 41
And as far as "scientific integrity" that's a bunch of bs. That's supposes that all dissent to using embryos is based on religious reasons-or that because a dissent is based on religious reasons its invalid. Please.
Reply
*blinks*
I don't recall seeing any of that anywhere. I did see him say "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,"
Where does he say anything about religion?
or that because a dissent is based on religious reasons its invalid.
Oh well, I will say that too if that's you're argument. That would imply that any policies based on religious reasons could be created and as an agnostic, I would never agree to that.
Stick to science or morality, and you will have a better argument. The moment you step into religion, you will inevitably run into issues.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I.e., when you are having an IVF treatment, you usually have a lot of blastocysts. A clump of cells not even vaguely resembling an embryo yet. But you usually only use 2-4 that seem healthy enough to take and cause a pregnancy ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment