(Untitled)

[draegonhawke]

Adult stem cells used to cure Type I Diabetes in a clinical test.

Article: So, these adult stem cells do awesome things, but embryonic stem cells are more versatile and people say we can't use them, what's that about yo? How 'bout those embryos?
People in comments: KILLING BABIES IS MURDER
magistrate: Head. Desk

Comments

[luna_manar]

I'm all for killing babies. I hate babies. I would rather experiment on babies than on animals. No, really.

I'm also in favor or experimenting on the people who think destroying immature embryos comes ANYWHERE CLOSE to actually killing babies. There is clearly something wrong with these people and we need to figure out what so we can immunize others against their epidemic stupidity.

/froth

[draegonhawke]

I really have a hard time getting worked up about anyone younger than three or whatever it is you start being able to remember things. (Unless you're talking "worked up" linguistically. Child language acquisition is quite interesting.)

I can make myself like babies/young children with an effort of will, but it's taxing. I'm not filled with antipathy for them, but I don't care for them and the screaming/puking/defecating thing gets on my nerves. (I'm willing to forgive a lot, though, because I think I was a pretty bratty kid. Possibly a sweet baby, but a pretty bratty kid.)

[sethrenn]

...well, actually, our first memory goes back to when we were just over a year old, and the details of it have been externally confirmed by other people (who went for years not knowing we remembered this, and were extremely surprised when we could provide details).

But I'd definitely agree that there is a huge difference between 'embryo' and 'baby.' Fertility clinics, also, end up with tons of embryos they can't do anything with-- and nobody has volunteered to be impregnated en masse with the unused ones, so they're just sitting there frozen in storage. People raise a big fuss over the idea of destroying them, but I really don't see how keeping a frozen embryo in storage indefinitely and not doing anything with it constitutes "respect for the sanctity of life."

-Berke

[draegonhawke]

...which complicaes matters. Really, any sort of line drawn on "when is an individual an individual" will get one into trouble.

There's a quote in a House episode at one point: "Nice thing about the abortion debate is we can quibble over trimesters, but ultimately there's an ice-cold line: birth. Morally, there isn't a lot of difference. Practically, huge." Which is... yeah. Technically, yes, everything is arbitrary. But there's also an element of practicality, which may not be the kindest thing, but does weigh on the issue.

[luna_manar]

No, actually, forget experimenting on idiots. Let's just harvest them for their ADULT STEM CELLS. Since they seem so happy that we can make use of those. Consider it their contribution to advance society.

[frail_obscurity]

I don't think most people who are against stem cell research really think that the act is 'killing babies', but rather eliminating the 'potential of life'. I'm only saying this because I had a rather lengthy discussion with someone who believes the science is amoral merely a few weeks ago.

And really I don't think they're all utter fools. Everyone has moral codes they live by, and this research offends a lot of peoples codes in the same way ours might be offended by, say, child rape. There is no easy answer.

Personally I believe the potential of life does not equal or stride alongside life itself, so I am in favor of stem cell research. But then I'm also in favor of abortion up to a certain developmental stage, so pre-cognitive 'life' doesn't get a lot of shout-outs and respects-yo from me, I suppose.

[draegonhawke]

well, it's moral and religious/scientific. If you're against "eliminating the potential for life" then everyone should go out and have as many babies they can as soon as they're able to. Otherwise you had the potential to, but chose to disallow that. I think the crux of the issue is that once there's something physical to focus your attentions on ("Oh! A blastocyte!"), it's a lot easier to assume that it Means Something.

It's easy for me to dismiss it because my conception of the soul's/individual's/whathaveyou's relationship to the body is a lot more fluid, and it kinda "fades in" over time. I don't think there's anything there that early on, especially not before the brain is developed, but since there's no way to objectively measure that, it's hard to argue. (And even if there were, a significant number of people would still pay no attention to it for a variety of reasons.)

[frail_obscurity]

Well, there's a bit of a difference between potentials regarding the possibility of creating, and that of an already existing subject that will naturally progress into life unless tampered with. Don't get me wrong, you don't have to convince me, because like I said, I support the research. But not everyone who doesn't is thereby rendered a fool, because their complaints and morals are still valid. In a way, they're right. The science does snuff out what would ultimately culminate in a person. From where I stand, the benefits outweigh that consequence. The ends justify the means, and whatnot. Others don't share this view, and they aren't necessarily wrong

[draegonhawke]

True. (To clarify, I wasn't ranting so much on the supposed stupidity of the Other Side as I was the politicalization of the topic--by both sides, really--in what I would have enjoyed more as a purely scientific article. Yes, it's a political issue, and it's irresponsible not to look at the issues raised in some venue, I ust wonder if they have to be raised in every venue.)

As for the Russian... it's pretty much a snipe-back at transnomad, who has his LJ in German. ^^ It's a sibling-rivalry thing.