Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Research Bill Clears Australian Senate
jaunty writes "A private members bill has passed the Australian senate which paves the way for the cloning of embryos to gather stem cells. While it only passed by a narrow margin it is expected to gain support in the House. From the article: 'The final shape of the bill is now subject to further debate on amendments including measures to toughen penalties for breaches of cloning regulations, and possibly a move to stop the use of animal tissue in the cloning process.'"
This kind of research is essential for the improvement of the human race, and all of this religious BS preventing it from happening makes me sick.
Explanation of the science from Catalyst a science show on the ABC.
A summary of the moral issues from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference
These are authorative sources.
As much as I would like to see the possible payoffs from such research, my personal feelings are that the Australian parliament has fallen into the trap of allowing the end to justify the means. As explained by Catalyst, the plan is to insert human DNA into a rabbit's egg. That really is a significant step to be making, even if the human/animal hybrid is a single cell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6121280.stm
Quite a good way of getting round the shortage in eggs.
Deleted
Huzzah! Great to see our government making the right decisions.
And for those that are against this, obviously you are:
a) Very religious, or
b) Have never had a family member or close friend die (or their life has become so awful they want to die) from conditions that this research will most certainly benefit.
These are authorative sources.
Well, I guess if that depends upon whether you think a bunch of celibate men that think an invisible supernatural being is listening to them are "authorative".
I've looked at the bishops document and it contains nothing to do with the science of stem cell research.
Typical... wait till the public is distracted... then pass the laws that require the most scruitany.
Simply muddies the issue.
The fact that it's a rabbit's egg is really irrelevant, all of the rabbit DNA is removed (apart from the mitochondrial) so it's basically just a shell. It isn't as if they're going to make an animal which is a cross between a humand and a rabbit, the DNA codes for a human being, that's what you'd get.
I don't see any moral issues here, it isn't a human being, it's a collection of cells without nervous system, the DNA wouldn't even come from a human egg or even something which could possibly have developed into a human.
Deleted
THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?! Or at least, the freezer embryos?
These are authorative sources.
I think you misspelled authoritarian there
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian
Personally, I'm happy as hell that the law has been passed; ignorance has lost out for once.
You seem to be mistaken. If you take out the DNA from a rabbit's egg, and put in human DNA, the result is a human, not a rabbit.
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
This is what the world needs! steam cell research looks promising. i hope we can better the human race with this reserach, give it to Australians to show the USA how its done
Wulfram 2 -- Free Online 3D game, Runs on a PII!
I can't believe the submitter used the words "private members" in his summary, thus sending hordes of virgin Slashdotters into a never-ending giggle fit. How utterly irresponsible.
I think this is an awful idea. First Cows then pigs then bears. Soon we will end up with a ManBearPig.
we already have them, I think they are called managers
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Im sure all those poeple who have been drinking all day are going to come home to examine if thier local MP voted for or against the law passing the senate.
"the plan is to insert human DNA into a rabbit's egg. That really is a significant step to be making..." playboy bunnies!!!
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
"the plan is to insert human DNA into a rabbit's egg"
I insert two chicken eggs into my DNA for breakfast. As an Aussie I can however support the notion that Catalyst is a reputable and interesting science show.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
my personal feelings are that the Australian parliament has fallen into the trap of allowing the end to justify the means
No, they allowed their decision to be based on science rather than what the church says. You'd be crying foul if it was Islamists trying to influence the law, so stop pushing for Christian law.
There's a lot of people who could be saved by this research, and if a few frog biological cells (that don't even have brains) have to die in the process, then so be it.
It's surprising, but excellent, that it passed. A huge set-back for Christian fascists!
you know, the idea isn't to grow these stem cells into actual beings. they grow into a group of cells called the blastocyst. consisting of 36 omnipotent cells. these cells can then form into any cell needed, given the proper guidance. thusly creating nerve cells to help victims of paralysis and such. so no there wont be any manbearpigs running around. besides our DNA isn't compatible, because if it was don't you think some lonely farmer somewhere would have goat-boys?
If you missed this story over the last month or so I can only assume you have been drinking for longer than just today. I'm a 47yo Aussie and this debate has been all over the news and talking head shows for quite a while. The official debate in the senate started a couple of days ago, last nights news reported the (non partisan) vote was due today, lateline (amongst others) did a special report on it. Also today, besides the horse race, our various governments decided to do fuck all about "the worst drought in 1000yrs" at their "national water crisis meeting".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The only thing catholic bishops could claim to be authoritative about are ancient religious tracts and the bizarre labyrinthine philosophy they've developed from them.
>If you take out the DNA from a rabbit's egg, and put in human DNA,
>the result is a human, not a rabbit.
No, the result is a hybrid, either a ruman or a habbit. My money is on the latter - they are trying to grow more nuns and the Catholics aren't happy about the approach, hence their opposition.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Maybe Christopher Reeves can walk again.
Then we'll appear to have some sort of zombie problem on our hands.
Task Mangler
I am all for whoever wants to research this can, I just believe it is unconstitutional to do so. I don't see venture capitalists going into this so apparently there's not much profit to be made off of stem cell research yet. Let the market do its work (It is always the best idea), if stem cell research can cure us, it will be done.
the Political Inquirer
Somewhere a furry fetishist just made his keyboard stickier.
Wow, so basically everybody who speaks his mind is oppressing you in some way?
You know what, I'm an atheist in a close to 100% catholic country, yet nothing has ever been forced onto me by the church. MUCH more has been forced by the government. How so, I wonder?
Global warming is a cube.
By over-litigation, stupid, religion-fueled vetoes, etc. the U.S. falls further and further behind as other countries move ahead in nearly every major technological field. It's depressing to contemplate.
However, on the bright side, even without federal funding, stem cell research abounds. Private companies are funding the research. Which, in the end, is probably better than government funding anyway since everything the government touches turns to crap.
"Good on ya" to the Australian legislature. With proper limitations in place, there simply is no reason not to proceed with this type of research. There are many advances that have occurred over time that were fought for what appear now to be "silly" reasons (mostly ignorant fear).
Proceed!
so no there wont be any manbearpigs running around
On the other hand, production of shark-men with friggin' laser beams is expected to start shortly.
Global warming is a cube.
The first sentence is debatable. I'm not sure when a biologist would begin to define something as "a human", but it would probably not be at this stage. Yes, we were all blastocysts once. We were also each an unfertilized egg at some stage as well. It is not usually considered a tragedy that an egg goes unfertilized and dies at the end of a woman's cycle. Some of the greatest people have indeed had genetic problems, however this research does not concern denying life to enbryos with such problems. Stem cell therapy is concerned with treating disorders in living people. It is distinct from selecting embryos based on desirable qualities.
Fetal stem cell research is at an early stage. There was a time only a few centuries ago when the same could have been said of electrical science (and there were people killed in the process). Science tends to be concerned with pure research first, and often a later time will arrive when that research can be translated into useful developments. It is unreasonable to expect stem cell research to have produced cures at this stage.
Adult stem cell therapies do indeed have potential to cure certain disorders, and I am all for research in this area. However fetal stem cells are far more versatile, and offer the possibilities of cures for a far greater number of such disorders. In response to you last sentence about "potential babies" I would refer you to what I said earlier. Every possible sperm-egg combination is a potential baby. By your definition, every unfertilized egg is a potential baby killed.
There are currently proposals that would dramatically reduce the number of human eggs required for such research by removing all the DNA (except mitochondrial) from an egg of another animal, for instance cows, and replacing it with human DNA. Whilst there are issues with whether this will be sufficiently safe to use in treatments, it certainly avoids some ethical problems during the reseach stages.
And in the UK, they want to make human/cow hybrids
Pffft. We already have those here in America. We call them "midwesterners."
This guy's the limit!
The problem is that considering things to be human persons that are not human persons can also be disastrous. Restricting stem cell research will prevent cures for real people in the future. You suggest we sacrifice those people for things- embryos- that may or may not be people. This feels to me too analogous to human sacrifice to false gods. Historically, as I understand it, religion demanded large populations sacrifice their first-born sons to an anthropomorphized nature in return for prosperity. Religion moved beyond this as embodied in, for example, the story of Abraham. I worry that now, another tradition has anthromorphized the embryo, and is asking us to sacrifice people to it, in return for moral assurance. Questioning the personhood of the embryo is also questioning the limits of our human dignity, and that is scary- what if we don't have such dignity at all? What if, as you describe, we are first forced to conclude that 8 month old fetuses have no such dignity? And then 17 year old adolescents? And then the elderly? I think, though, all this ignores the physical fact that embryos have very little to make them human besides human DNA. The people you feel morally obligated to sacrifice (although I don't think for a moment you want them to die, or to be ill) are certainly human, and I think this means they should get the benefit of the doubt.
I am sure the embryos are willing to forgo their promising lives to dampen Michael J. Fox's wild gyrations. Does it make sense to sacrifice promising youth for the broken aged, past the reproduction age, and already naturally selected, just because they are wealthy?
an ill wind that blows no good
Australia has a senate? I heard it was a penal colony, a wrath of khan thing. Good to see it moving along.
But I finally got to REALLY looking around, and humans even LOOK different than we did 50 years ago. The average IQ has increased. And in general, evolution continues.
Sorry, but this is not evolution. The changes you're seeing are simply the result of better nutrition and a less hostile environment overall, allowing people to grow taller and live longer than they might have previously. There aren't any (significant) genetic changes going on in the timescales you're talking about.
If you took a zygote from someone living in 1750, and brought it up today, he or she wouldn't look any different from a child born today. He'd be just as tall and have the same bone density and probably about the same life expectancy. Or alternately, if you took a zygote from a person today, and implanted it into someone in 1750, the resulting child would probably end up looking just like anyone else in 1750: relatively short, plagued with health problems, and likely as not to live to be 50 years old.
I suspect that you would have to go back thousands of years, maybe more, to find any significant genetic differences in the human species, and even then the differences you'd see would be well within the range of what we today consider "normal" differences between previously-isolated populations (aka "racial" differences). The very minor differences between a light-skinned European and a dark-skinned African person took a very long time of living in reproductive isolation from each other in radically different environments to crop up.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That to the religious right, an embryo is worth more than the lives of thousands of people who are killed for political and economic goals? You really need to get your perspective straight, man!
According to Senator Andrew Bartlett at http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1158#more-11 58 an amendment was made to "remove the ability for animal eggs to be used for the creating of embryo clones". So I would say that rules out human/animal hybrids at least as far as this legislation is concerned.
Embryos don't will anything. They are not sentient beings. They are not beings of any kind. Please time travel back to the dark ages and stay there. Your ignorance is no longer desired in the present time.
It's actually more like the Mad Max films. Auntie declared that Bartertown will not only survive but become a hub for genetic research deep in The Nothing. At last reports you could get 3 liters of fallout-free water or 12 shotgun shells for a small quantity of embryonic cells.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Sorry, but I don't consider any organized religion to be an authoritative source on anything but their own dogma.
Seriously, at this point I wish every single religious person would jump into an active volcano. With the Christians trying to run the US and the Muslims trying to blow it up, it's all getting really fucking old.
If I were in charge, there's be frigging embryo cloning ranches and abortions would be avalable at sidewalk kiosks.
We should protect the unborn and the born children. Those that are older have voices and can voice their concerns, which is why adult stem cell research is ok but baby stem cell research should be abandoned. Those that are not yet developed far enough to speak can't do that. Failing to see an embryo as human is equivelent to thinking of any human as nonhuman... we shouldn't go down that path. It's dangerous... and is really almost a terrorist path.
You aren't human, why should we care about you, your organs can be used better by someone who's more important in society like me... yadda yadda yadda. Before you know it we have cloning factories and all of some country is made of nothing but living humans that exist for the sole purpose of having their organs torn out to help out the rich and powerful.
So, do you think humans are considered animals? Or do you make unnecessary distinctions like "human" to put us in a place above all other life on the planet? Sounds pretty selfish to me. BUt then again, we're all hypocrites, don't you agree?
Can you elaborate on your claim that Bush is pushing for Armageddon? And how one man in the Evangelical church screwing up voids the sincerity of all other Christians?
Sweet Jesus, I'm tired of hearing this bullshit about Christians. Everyone screws up. The problem with a Christan that screws up, is that the idiot was probably trying to save face the whole time so as not to alienate his church.
There are major issues with modern churches, one of them is the fact that when one of the members has a problem, they feel they can't come forward and tell their church about it. That's a church problem, not a political problem.
There are hypocrites everywhere. I believe he knew he was wrong in his heart but like I said before we are humans and we have issues, and as a Christian, I don't always practice what I preach, does that mean what I preach is wrong?
Fucking assholes.
James Taylor
(No, I'm not related. However, I am on the no-fly list)
Certainly they are not humans. But it is not at all clear that human embryos should be treated by the law and material objects or possessions. The majority of Americans feel that way. It is a difficult debate and the left and right are having it. Simpletons like you should just await the "block and white" results.
an ill wind that blows no good
Saudi Arabia beheads people for minor crimes and stones people to death for things that aren't crimes in most places. It can't be that they sit around and have long arguments about life being somehow valuable.
Every day in Sudan more Christers are killed by the Mohammedians - you would think they could just be used for medical experiments and breeding stem-cell sources instead. Think of Hitler's doctors doing it right with 60+ years of increased knowledge today.
The one thing that I think it facinating is how this argument never seems to come around to full-blown human cloning or where one might get genotype-specific stem cells for Michael Fox. You know, you would need an embryo with his DNA to get started, right? Where does that come from? And how do you get a perfect DNA match? Probably about the same technique they used with Dolly the sheep, with a few important refinements.
Some things to keep in mind here:
If President Bush proposed we sacrifice all veggies for biological research I would be pleased! Your views suggest your brain has been infused with cauliflower stem cells? Because a scientists can pluck a DNA ball from a cell and put it in another is in any reason not to respect the wondrous potential of the human in their final form? What you see as moronic I see humility and respect for life.
an ill wind that blows no good
That's no ordinary rabbit! That's the most foul-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
"We shouldn't go around playing God."
Oh for Christ's sake, that sentence is meaningless, why do people insist on using it?
Cloning embryos for harvesting ?
Read radical news here
Actually, the one major issue with churches, both modern and old, is that they have this silly thing with making the utterly bold claim that what they preach is valid not just because it would make sense philosophically or ethically, but because it's linked directly with the same force or entity that's responsible for our very existence.
You, as a Christian, by definition are claiming that what you preach *has* to be followed and that excessive punishment results from not following the crux of what you preach. So, yes, there is a LOT more weight on you to practise what you preach if you want that which you preach to be taken seriously.
If they truly believe that gays are evil incarnate, then it's pretty obvious that their divine information link isn't working that well.
Now I don't know if you too hate gays, but you have to admit... all the hating isn't giving Christianity a very good name.
Btw, you might try turning that other cheek instead of swearing...
see a Text Widget
While I do have moral problems with embryonic stem cell research and the cloning of humans for harvesting as a Christian and a human being, I oppose embryonic stem cell research as a scientist. The reason embryonic stem cells don't work is because they are very similar in structure and behavior to cancer cells. They grow uncontrollably, until at a key point in the development of an embryo, a hormone kicks in to shut off the cancerous nature of the stem cells. These chemicals are nonexistent in adults, so embryonic stem cells are of no use in adults. Adult stem cells do work, as mentioned above, so why not put more research and funding into that? I stongly believe they have promise and can do what many hope embryonic stem cells will do. Embryonic stem cell research is like putting millions of dollars into creating a better vacuum tube for computers, when there are clearly better options out there. And to the other Christians out there - don't argue and debate with moral arguments. Most people in this forum won't listen; it's like a Muslim commanding us to follow the Qu'ran, as someone mentioned as well. Use science, a language we can all understand and appreciate.
They've been researching human/sheep hybrids for decades in New Zealand.
It makes perfect sense that that the believers are against stem cell research, since they consider blastocysts a human life, and their destruction a murder.
Yet those very same men seem to be O.K. with 44,000 dead civilians in Iraq in the name of a Greater Good (namely Democracy); many of the victims are children.
Why is it OK to destroy life in Iraq but not in a Petri dish? Did the Bible say anything about loving a fetus but hating a child?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Why do you insist that such an argument is meaningless. God has a lot of meaning in a lot of people's lives. Arguing that God is meaningless may mean that in the end God will think you are meaningless. We all will be judged someday.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It seems like you don't address my assertion at all. My claim is that we assume that an embryo is human person, or at least posessing human dignity, because it is more comfortable to us, at the cost of sacrificing ill people, whom most certainly are people, because we are afraid to face the uncertainty associated with considering that an embryo may not be a person. All your response seems to state is a) am embryo is a person (with no evidence given) and b) we should be very afraid to consider an embryo not a person. But what you state is perfectly consistent with my claims.
No, they allowed their decision to be based on science rather than what some churches say.
Fixed.
First up, nobody likes a self righteous evangelist pretending to be pious. Christian moderates can't stand their blather, and non Christians find the attitude grating. You are neither a martyr, nor a paragon. So cut the crap.
Second, "playing god" is the meaningless term he mentioned, not "god". How does one play god? Perhaps I'll go smite someone. Or raise the dead. Or create a universe. By definition god must be omnipotent. How can any human being mimic that?
Finally, even if you think that it is possible to play god, who plays god more than his most loudmouthed and obnoxious followers? Christians play god far far more than any scientist does. Every time some jackass hillbilly preacher pretends to "cure" someone with faith, he is playing god. Every missionary whose tried to terrify a non-believer with threats of the afterlife is playing god. Every religious person who has ever laid condemnation on somebody in the name of god has, you guessed it, played god.
So deal with the bloody beam in your own eye first, buster. You don't get to speak for god; if he exists, he can speak for himself.
True.. which then goes on to form CANCER in most cases.
Embryonic stem cells are a dead end for the next 20 years. I doubt very much that they'll be useful for anyone.
There's far easier ways of extracting stem cells of other varieties - and those treatments are actually hopeful and/or working.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
I, for one, welcome our new stem-cell overlords.
What you'll get is human cells, with mitochondria from rabbits and contaminated with rabbit proteins, these things are called chimeras. The theists would considered a manufactured chimera an abomination, and researchers would consider it contaminated and unsuitable.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
We're a lot closer to swine than most would imagine, pigskin has been used for xenografts for human burn victims and of course pig heart valves have been implanted into people. Rumor even has it that we taste about the same, ever heard the saying, "humans, the other pork" or the term long-pig?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
true, cancer is a prevalent outcome. but this can all be averted with a more open understanding and free use of testing and experimentation. the only way to let new technology succeed is to put it to test, and if society as a whole tries their hardest to stop it it will never grow into what it can... obviously.
I feel that if we were given free reign over how this technology is tested and used, let people decide for themselves if they want it done to them (knowing of course the possible outcomes), then maybe that 20 years of dead-ended-ness can be bypassed all together.
"You, as a Christian, by definition are claiming that what you preach *has* to be followed and that excessive punishment results from not following the crux of what you preach."
Actually, the teachings of Jesus follow the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" mantra and excessive punishment does not follow doing wrong. In fact, according to Christian values, doing good can land you in hell just as easily. John 3:3 explains the only prerequisite to finding yourself in heaven after you die on Earth.
So, no I don't hate homosexuals, however, homosexuality is a sin according to my beliefs. So is cursing in frustration, and there is no difference between the two. Sin is sin according to the bible. But no one deserves to be vilified for any of it, and that (as you alluded to) is the major breakdown of the church. What I stated before ties into that. The issue is that people in the church have some major sin eating at their lives, and the human response to that is to point elsewhere to make sure it is never uncovered. That only leads to more and more hate-mongering in the name of Jesus.
Too many religious figureheads lose their way due to the attention diverting from Jesus to them. If you have read the news stories about "Jesus Camp" that had a section on Ted H.'s church, they were taken aback at how much weight on Ted himself the church members had invested.
There is a good book by a man named Brennen Manning entitled "The Ragamuffin Gospel". He was an evangelist who became a severe alcoholic after he was saved. He explains in the book how this could happen after realizing the saving grace of Jesus. The pressure of living up to the standard (due to the organized church establishment) is impossible for anyone, yet the people around him demanded it, so he kept it secret which only made it worse.
I dunno, I hope you see my points, even though it's rambling, I'm on opiates due to ankle surgery and almost half aware at the moment...
James Taylor
(No, I'm not related. However, I am on the no-fly list)
"It makes perfect sense that that the believers are against stem cell research, since they consider blastocysts a human life"
Then perhaps you can inform me what a blastocyst IS if not a human life?
And I, Sir, have looked at your response to their document and it contains nothing that addresses human dignity.
The Bishops's argument is summarised as follows;
Catholic bishops are not, generally speaking, Luddites. I know the bishop who was the primary author of this paper and he actually holds academic degrees in the area. If you want to claim that at a particular point in our lives we deserve dignity and protection from people who have power over us, but at other points in our cellular lifetime we do not deserve this protection, then could you do all of us a favour and in your next reply, tell us where this dividing line is please?
And if your 'line in the sand' makes reference to technological solutions, (i.e, viability outside the womb), can you also let me know why you think that something as important as human dignity should be measured or determined by our technology and not our moral reason?
Unlike you, I belive that the bishop's submission is one of very few that actually do address the real issues at hand.
M
# grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
You're trying to have a logical argument with people who can't by definition follow it. They believe the universe was created in 7 days FFS. It's a waste of time.
btw, the point at which a bunch of cells becomes a human being is the point at which it's capable of surviving outwith the mother's body. Until that point it's not a viable human being.
Deleted
The understanding of evolution and natural selection in these "interesting" and "insightful" posts is abysmal.
Humans do continue to evolve, contrary to your belief. All that is required is that some people produce more offspring than others. At the moment that would be the poorest portion of society. They are significantly outbreeding the rich and well educated. In addition, when choosing a mate, humans try to choose someone who is physically attractive and physically and mentally healthy. Those who are physically unattractive or ill tend not to reproduce, or have fewer offspring.
Deleted
As an argument for fetal stem cell research, it may be a straw man. However, it works very well as a commentary that many of the same people who seem unwilling to even consider the idea that in some sense we might be morally obligated to sacrifice embryos to save fully grown human beings are not only able to discuss that we might be morally obligated to kill certain lives in Iraq, presumably to save other lives. (What other justification could there be for killing?) Again, many people I have heard seem unable to have a discussion beyond repeating "save the children- even the unborn ones." Why is fetal stem cell research so clear cut, while the war in Iraq is morally ambiguous enough to deserve discussion.
All we have to do is cure cancer first. Then when/if they get cancer, we fix it and everybody is happy happy.
I'm not the original poster, but if I may respond: I don't think someone someone arguing for embryonic stem cell research needs to draw a dividing line for when something acquires human dignity. I don't think there is such a line. Dead bodies deserve more respect than, say, junked cars. I believe that historically it has even been argued (widely?) that dead human bodies should not be researched for scientific purposes, presumably regardless of whether the person gave consent in life. So I agree that embryonic stem cells, if not posessing some degree of human dignity, at least deserve human respect. But what dignity is in dying from parkinson's or alzheimer's disease? Don't we have an obligation to preserve the dignity of those people as well? The embryo has no awareness, and presumably no capability for moral action. I don't think we should choose it over a living, breathing human being who does possess awarenes, and the capability for moral action.
:-) But I read your entire post...
I would also point that that I would think, ultimately, we have to use our sense to determine what does, and does not, have human dignity. A rock, for example, most certainly does not posess such dignity. The only way we know this is by belief or judgements motivated at least in part by our senses. And scientific instruments are ultimately simply amplifications to our existing senses. So I think that using them to motivate moral judgements on what does, and does not, posess human dignity is completely appropriate.
I agree with you, though, that the Bishop's opinion is presumably a serious one that deserves consideration. Oh and also, I just skimmed over it, I have to admit
True, the mitochondria are dependant on the egg that it comes from, and true, there would be a few rabbit exclusive proteins in the cell. Enough to make a difference? Probably. Enough to make the result not human? No.
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
I happen to be one of the believers, so for me, it IS human. For other "believers", some humans (e.g. civilians in Iraq) seem to be worth a lot less than other humans (the embryos), which puzzled me.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, however, there is.
However, they [putting the sick in hospitals, extending the lives of the terminally ill, allowing people with disease to live, paying taxes to aid the disabled] inhibit evolution.
No they don't. It might be argued that they inhibit natural selection, but they don't inhibit evolution.
By allowing people with genetic disorders or family histories of genetic disorders to procreate and pass on their traits we are destroying Natural Selection.
Not at all. It might be argued that doing so replaces natural selection with our own artificial selection (just like we did when we domesticated wild animals and plants) but selection -- and evolution -- continues. Even making the distinction between natural and artifical selection may be faulty reasoning, depending on whether one considers humans to be somehow separate from nature.
Stem Cell research needs to make up for our lack of physical evolution by finding cures to diseases that will otherwise cause the extinction of our race.
Wha? Lemme get this straight. We need to come up with better ways to save people from diseases (e.g. stem cell therapies) because saving people from diseases will cause the extinction of the human race?
I don't get it. Why is saving people with diseases bad for humanity when it's done with, say, insulin or vaccines or antibiotics, but good for humanity when it's done with some as-yet-unknown treatment derived from stem cells? Either way allows people who would have died younger to live to an older age (and then die - we still don't have a cure for death). And, yes, some of them will procreate when they wouldn't have otherwise.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm all in favor of stem cell research. But I don't expect it to save humanity from extinction. Nor do I think that abandoning or defunding it will doom the human race. It's just another way of prolonging life and preventing suffering. Surely those are noble enough goals in themselves, yes?
...fetal stem cells are far more versatile...
I'm sure you meant to say embryonic stem cells there. By the time the embryo is developed enough to be considered a fetus, its cells are no more versatile than an adult's cells would be. Umbilical cord cells being a possible exception.
...some people produce more offspring than others. At the moment that would be the poorest portion of society.
There's the correlation. But is there causality? Maybe there's none.
Or maybe it's reversed from the way you're probably thinking. Maybe it's not so much that the poorest people are breeding more, but rather that rapid breeders become and/or remain poorest. Raising a lot of kids is expensive. In terms of time as well as more tangible resources.
Assuming no causality, or assuming that breeding can cause poverty, seems so much more reasonable than assuming that poverty somehow confers an advantage (making destitute people irresistably attractive to the opposite sex perhaps?) in procreation. Yet people continue to trot out the old saw about poor people out-breeding the rest of us (it's always "us", not "them").
Sometimes it's not "the poor" but "the stupid" who are thought to be breeding too much.
Guess who "us" is in that argument.
It's actually closer to six times out of seven (not accounting for leap years). Cup Day is the first Tuesday in November, but the American Election Day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. So if Cup Day is 1 November, Election Day will be 8 November.
:P
Then there's also the difference of time zones. In at least some of America, voting hasn't begun by the time it's Wednesday here.
So
(FWIW, Slashdot says my autogenerated antispam email address is 'slashdot@TWAINthecartographers.net minus author' today, which is funny, because in The Age yesterday there was an extract from one of his books about his trip to Australia, when he observed Cup Day. Apparently it's not much changed since then...)
Look out!
Does it make sense to sacrifice promising youth for the broken aged, past the reproduction age, and already naturally selected...
Answer that yourself when you're the one with a lingering terminal illness.
I personally know people vehemently opposed to both abortion and stem cell research, who would nevertheless create and then doom a dozen or so embryos (their own children!!!) because they found themselves infertile and in need of IVF in order to have a baby of their own.
It's amazing how people's ethics change when they're the one with a problem. I'm no different.
I personally am loudly opposed to the way some countries (that shall remain nameless but you can probably figure out which one I'm thinking of) extract the organs of executed political prisoners for transplant. But if it was me who needed a liver, and the tests showed I was a match for one of the prisoners, I can't honestly say I'd decline the operation because of my principles. I truly don't know. Ask me again when I'm dying.
Does this make me a hypocrite? Possibly. I'm really not comfortable with it. But if I were dying I might still do it. Thus I can't work up a lot of outrage toward dying people (whatever their age or wealth) who are willing to go to such lengths (destroying an embryo that was never going to be implanted, much less born) to prolong their lives and avoid suffering.
Ok so the Aussies have decided to clone embryo's for stem cell research...but are tightening up laws against full cloning? Why? Why not just go all the way and clone vegetive bodies for organ harvesting? That right there would save more lives than stem cells have or probably ever will (yeah I've seen the research and even I'm skeptical despite early research stage cries) in the future. The Aussies have already shown they dont care for US "morals" so why stop now? Isn't that hypocritical? Scientific "ethics" are more convoluted than most and arbitrary than most politics.
It is often ironic that those that define others as lemmings are often themselves lemmings dancing to the latest fad.
I think you'll enjoy this post I made Nov. 4 > http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204543 &cid=16714747 . My temperature oscillation system is going to take everyone one giant step forward in both mental acuity and physical health. If an Ice Age is coming we will "survive"? NO! We will thrive >>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204911 &cid=16748191 !
I enjoyed the valid points you made too. What really bugs me for one thing about stem cell "necessity" is it is an idea that is being driven like a Halloween hayride, a new YUPPIE MOVEMENT FOR STEM CELLS, A MODERN-DAY CRUSADE. Each of us has an abundance of our own stem cells already. I had 3 serious heart seizures caused by some medication I was taking. I was also taking some thermogenics trying to lose weight because the doctors refused medical intervention. It all damaged my heart in 2000. Every so often one of my upper heart valves will get stuck partially closed. I think it is called heart valve prolapse.
So I started studying nutrition supplementation and it took quite a while these past 4+ years and $4,500.00 or so in trying different products, but I ended up healing my heart valve. Oh sure, "medical literature" says it can't happen. And those glazed over eyes on the STEM CELL CURES EVERYTHING HAYRIDE might not think it can happen. But are they even being told?? A past SlashDot article told about a company that harvests abdominal stem cells from a heart attack patient that are then injected into the heart muscle and it stops the post-heart attack damage. Cytori was the name of that company. They came up with a way to get the stem cells in 1 hour instead of the former week. Putting 2 + 2 together, I figure all the nutrition products I took helped overproduce abdominal stem cells that migrated naturally up into the heart, so I essentially healed myself from multiple heart attack damages. The human body is a self-repairing Brain-DNA MegaEngine but the hayride mentality only sees what it is told to see. It's very sad to watch people being herded like cattle.
And Michael J. Fox being such a thin little fellow, I guess he is low on stem cells of his own. But if someone would just tell him I believe he could improve his Parkinson's condition over the next few years instead of dying a passive Parkinson's death while screaming the stem cell mantra. The people around him won't tell him so we just get to watch the poor guy deteriorate on TV. He's a few years younger than me sand hasn't had the number of accidents I've had so I'd say he is a darn good candidate for nutritional regeneration in his neural cell structures. With the nutrition mix I've now put together he could increase his mental healing pressure instead of being bled dry of what mental energy he has left to sell the stem-cell-for-everybody pasta.
This year I was hit in my right side with a crippling illness in May. I have been having various issues on my right side for years, probably from the slamming I got when I fell from the truck in 1986 landing on my right side. This May I didn't know my son was sick with leukemia, the worst form of it his doctors later said.He didn't know either. No one knew. He was gone in just two weeks. I believe now that's what I was fighting. Perhaps we both shared a similar gene bomb that hit at the same time. I got so deathly ill, not knowing he was about to get struck down in June. Man did I get ill. But I poured on the nutrition, drowning myself with liquid and solid supplements several times a day. Obviously I lived. I think I had the same thing he had but it was only in my accident-weakened right side.
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
As an Australian I can tell you that people weren't too busy to notice such news, they were far too drunk. Melbourne cup day being more about the process of drinking than a horse race and most of us went to, or were at work too.
Whist on the subject, parliament house now has the only subsidized bar in Australia since they stopped subsidizing University bars (legal drinking age is 18 over here, if I have to vote I want the right to drink and combine the two activities at least drinking can make voting bearable).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I'm not an expert in the field, but the way I understand it is we really don't know why a stem cell develops into a subsequent cell morphology rather than an other, but it's not purely genetic via nuclear DNA. That's why animal protein contaminates are bad, they may alter the cellular developement.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It's easy to play God, you just refuse to reveal your existance in a scientifically verifiable way.
It has absolutely nothing to do with belief...
The scientific truth is that cloning generates human life.
The moral truth is that human life is to be safeguarded and fostered from the moment of its generation.
You believe the right thing, but your lack of understanding of basic concepts gives the rest of the believers a bad name.
You come off as an ignorant kook when you say things like "The scientific truth is that cloning generates human life."
What you mean to say is "Creating embryos generates life", or "Cloning viable human embryos generates life", or "Life begins at conception"
In biology, "cloning" just means making copies of cells such as skin cells. Your own body in your lifetime, will produce about 10^18 clones. These clones are different from the embryo clones.
And it is, indeed, possible, to make "clones" without creating or destroying human life.
Also, it is possible (though not easy) to derive stem cells without aborting or otherwise destroying an embryo. We can borrow one of embryo's cells, and use that for experiments. It is harder to do that than just destroying the whole embryo, but that is why we need MORE money for stem cell research, not less.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Blastocyst is life. But you can borrow a cell or two from inside the blastocyst, without actually hurting it. Just like I can borrow some of your cells by swabbing your cheek or scratching your hand with a fingernail.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
...or is the baby simply another animal?
lol
ur expecting a rational response from a religious nutcase?
wot a lol-cow u must be
stephen sure loves his strawmen
Actually what I meant to say is "Cloning via SCNT in human eggs generates human life"
I assumed cloning along the lines of the discussion and not some extricated outside definition of cell reproduction (cloning can have a great many definitions no?). This is exactly the line of thinking that allowed "cloning via SCNT" to pass in Missouri. The cloners just redefined cloning to fit their own narrow definition of cloning and anyone who is a non embryologist (99.99% of the voters I would suspect) were none the wiser.
Again if you follow the lines of the discussion, no one is saying we should not be doing stem cell research... they are saying we should not be federally funding stem cell research that advocates the destruction of human life.
Any scientist that advocates research while destroying human life has a serious ethical dilemma which is the basis for this whole argument. Fact is they would rather write the argument off as "what some religious ignorant kook believes" instead of dealing with the RATIONAL facts surrounding it.
Thanks for your reply and explaining your points. I'm a bit late with mine.. it's been a busy week, sorry.
I have no real issue with differing views, but what upsets me is hate-mongering; not just because its content is primitive, false and dehumanizing but also because it is delivered in the name of the highest level of integrity and wisdom.
The real problem, however, is with the moderates...
You say you don't hate homosexuals. Okay, I respect that, BUT: you still cannot fully accept them *and* you cannot fully condemn hate-mongerers. That, in my view, is the problem with the relatively much larger group of moderates: they still give implicit support to extremists.
I find it surprising that people can put a lot of inconvenient biblical passages into context, yet appear to make little effort to do the same with anti-gay passages. If some honest effort is made and historical data as well as modern scientific knowledge is taken into account, it should quickly be possible to find a clear religious basis for dismissing the "gay = sin" myth.
I'm as hetero as they come, but I really feel that an injustice is being committed against these people. Perhaps the real "test" from the divine can be found in how we deal with that.
see a Text Widget
I find this line of reasoning pretty faulty.
1. extremism exists in order to establish the black or white version of "truth". The idea is to position the argument so that it is an either/or proposition. With your line of reasoning, the only way for someone to come to a conclusion (within their moderate stance), they must stand with an extremist (and thereby be complicite with the REST of their beliefs?) If this were true then there would only be two sides to every "evolving" debate which of course is NOT true.
2. You don't have to "hate" someone to dislike (and hope to change) their BEHAVIOR. Can a parent dislike their child's constant lying but still not love the child?
3. When homosexuality is correctly framed as a behavioral choice (the participatory behavior of homosexuality not the inclination) then one can bridge the current chasm of your argument.
Not really -- when a society labels certain people as bad or harmful, it is hardly surprising that weaker minds find a lot of moral support for their violent actions. You are openly claiming that homosexuality is a choice that can be reversed. It's not that big a leap for the impatient to want to encourage the right choice with force.
You said "sin is sin according to the bible" and that there is no difference between the sin of being (acting out?) one's homosexuality or cursing in frustration. If the characteristic of extremism is using a black-or-white view of the truth, then your stance is already contaminated by extremism.
I'm not going to debate with you whether homosexuality is a choice or genetics -- this seems more a field for researchers with relevant credentials and not for either of us.
see a Text Widget
put words in my mouth more?
I said the participatory behavior of homosexuality is a choice (just like the behavior of lying is a choice). That much is common sense and frankly there is no research needed. You seem intent on polarizing the argument (another black/white proposition perhaps?) and if you wish to debate properly, please listen to the counter argument rather than waiting for your turn to talk.
Society is naming the behavior wrong as they do with other behaviors that do not promote the "good" of society (Lying, cheating, stealing (think robin hood)). Those that make the logical leap of calling the "sinner" evil and not their behavior are the same that would label those that seek truth (via any avenue), extremists.
My friend the Truth IS a black or white proposition... claiming that people name a behavior wrong, then subjugate that to the person, then the impaitient using force upon that person is your version of "truth" is bunk... I call it a sweeping generalization.
Okay, I read your arguments carefully and I extracted this from them:
1. Homosexuality is in the same category as lying, cheating and stealing and should be discouraged.
2. Homosexuals shouldn't act on their homosexuality and thus only engage in heterosexual interactions or none at all.
3. You tolerate homosexuals, but you would wish they'd change into heterosexuals.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you agree to the above three points then I have merely exposed your homophobia.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your last paragraph as the grammar doesn't make sense. Can you rephrase it?
see a Text Widget
1. Yes, participating in the behavior of a sexual preference (whether it be zoophobia, pedophilia, or homosexuality) is in fact a behavior that is not "good" for society. Further, it may not be as "BAD" for society as the above norms, but in the same category? Yes.
2. Correct, but it reminds me of an old joke... The Chicken and the pig wanted to get the farmer that really treated them well a very nice gift. The Chicken said "the farmers absolute favorite is bacon and eggs, we SHOULD get him that!"
3. Tolerance has nothing do do with it... I love the people behind the misguided behavior (as I would love a son who happens to be a clepto). Nobody is perfect.
My last paragraph was a botched attempt to reframe your argument. It appears I was just waiting for my turn to talk (like I accused you of; sorry).
For the record, I'm not a homophobe, afraid of my sexuality, or homosexual. I am merely a guy behind a keyboard whom dislikes Lefty Liberal European "values" and would like to frame the debate back to where it should be and not where it currently resides ("hate mongering extremists" vs. "innocent who are discriminated against")