Slashdot Mirror
Stanford Jumps Into Cloning Fray
smackthud writes "According to this article in the Minneapolis StarTribune website Stanford University is planning to clone human embryos. Story summary says it all: 'Stanford University announced today its intention to clone human embryos, becoming the first U.S. university to publicly embrace the politically charged procedure. The intent of the project is to produce stem cells for medical research.'" Stanford has released a statement distinguishing what Stanford is doing from reproductive cloning.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You cannot evaluate research efforts like this one based on their sheer economic or scientific value.
After all, Nazis' experiments on live humans also resulted in some scientific advances (in particular, in neurohpysiology), with results used in medecine today. However, many people (me included) have strong digsust for such flavor of science, and would rather like if such experiments were never done, regardless of their practical value.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
The reason why the Democrats are having such a hard time getting their shit together is because there is just so much of it. The Republicans have the same problem of course, but since they, comparatively speaking, are less full of shit than the Democrats, they're typically more successful.
Wouldn't it be nice if politics in America didn't involve so much shit from all sides?
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Don't you remember the civil war that became known as the Russian revolution? What about China's invasion of Tibet? The Korean war? Vietnam?
Anyplace you see aggression and conflict at the hands of communists you can pretty much define it as a war in the name of 'no God.' The reason is that communism has no deities, only saints and martyrs.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
One of my favorite maxims is that religion stops a thinking mind. I'm not entirely sure that it is true anymore, but it is good for pissing some people off and making other people laugh.
Nowadays I'm much more convinced that religious zeal fulfills a psychological need in those who don't want to think in the first place. They tune in, turn on, and drop out. This is all done without drugs because for them religion is a drug.
It is commonly known to psychologists that there is a strong correlation between drug abuse and religion. If you look at families that have a history of drug or alcohol abuse you'll find that the ones who don't end up on drugs tend to end up being religious freaks. Some even start out as one and later become the other. For them religion truly is an opiate.
Now I'm not saying the everyone who believes in God or has religious beliefs is a religion junkie. Religion is not inherently evil. I myself believe in God, but don't make any claims to understand what God is. Religion is a human invention and as such relfects human weaknesses and imperfections.
The problems I have with religion are with those who refuse to accept its shortcomings, who want to pretend that their religious beliefs somehow supercede reality itself. This is the classic battle between science and superstition. Religious factions that want to choose superstition are going to lose out in the long run because within a few generations they won't have any more followers, or will become extreme fringe groups. I don't want to see this happen because the only thing worse than religion is its abscence. Nature abhors a vacuum. Just imagine the BS and nonesense that would fill in the place that religion currently holds in areas such as ethics and morals. We've already got enough permeation of political correctness and the ideologies from which it is created without such nonsense becoming the univeral norm.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
It is therefore not necessarily a religious motivation under which Bush limited stem cell research. Not that it wasn't a religious motivation. But an experienced politician at the top of the game knows better than to try to legislate his religious ideas without a separate rational argument.
Here's what I want you to do: 1) Put on your propaganda-warning hat and pretend your George Orwell. Now, go back and reread the above sentences. Repeat until you realize what complete doublespeak that was. I don't think I've read anything that ironic in a long time.
If you don't want to protect human life as an embryo, why should your human life be protected now?
I don't. That's why I'm for the war in Iraq, for Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, pro-death penalty, don't have a problem with the CIA being legally able to kill US citizens, disapprove of educational or other measures which help stop the spread of AIDS, and, oh yes, perform ritualistic cannibalism. No profit is bad profit and God save the Republican Party.
You people would have a lot more credibility if you gave a fuck about life AFTER it comes tearing out of some bitches pussy. But fuuuuuck that. "We're conservative! We're pro-life! Unless, that is, you can breathe on yer own. Then, well, I don't want *my* tax dollars going to keeping you off the streets! And you can't put 'em in jail long enough to keep me happy!"
What the fuck ever man. A fetus is not a child. It's a salamander. It's got gills and a fucking tail. Do not care. Never will care. Gimme a cigarette, a pair of tongs, and a knocked up 14 year old. Let's go. "Let's take care of this baby so we can make another one. Mooohahahahaha."
Yesterday news also hit of bioethicist Dan Brock advocating mandatory abortion for disabled people such as blind and mentally ill.
This is not a new concept, but is one that is growing in feasability and global support.
What does this have to do with cloning and stem cell research? Well they all have the same amoral drive: creating a "better" human race through science without any moral guidelines. As we see on this board, many people ridicule those of us with moral presuppositions as "non-scientific", "ignorant", etc. Above, though, we see an extreme example of this.
Fast-forward now 10 or 20 years. Science has guaranteed a "perfect" child to anybody who can afford one. A minority of rich people get smarter, stronger, better-looking, and richer, in contrast to those who still suffer with gross things like blindness and the worst- mental inferiority. It wasn't enough to genetically engineer perfect children. The question now is "Why hold on to that last moral presupposition that we shouldn't kill scientifically inferior people?" You may think me an extremist, but it's happened before.
That is the question that should be answered today. If you truely believe in removing morals from science, be logically consistent with it: advocate a super-human race and the death of all inferior people. If you believe in moral presuppositions, though, realize what unchecked research in cloning, embryionic stem cells, and science in general will lead to. Either way, the question is: what criteria do you use to value human life? You may have about a year to decide.
There are alternatives, such as adult stem cells, which have potential as well and sidestep ethical concerns.
I really hate that school.
I really don't want ethical education from a church that started the Crusades becuase their imaginary friend was "better" than another imaginary friend.
How about a church that is afraid to go into bankruptcy because "secret papers" may be exposed to a court appointed trustee? What the heck kind of "benevolent" church needs to keep SECRETS from its members and the public?
Theism and BAD ethics go hand in hand.
Murphy was an optimist.