Slashdot Mirror
Reprogrammed Skin Cells Turned Into Baby Mice
InfiniteZero writes "According to this WSJ story, 'Two teams of Chinese researchers working separately have reprogrammed mature skin cells of mice to an embryonic-like state and used the resulting cells to create live mouse offspring. The reprogramming may bring scientists one step closer to creating medically useful stem-cell lines for treating human disease without having to resort to controversial laboratory techniques. However, the advance poses fresh ethical challenges because the results could make it easier to create human clones and babies with specific genetic traits.'"
Well, let's take this a step further. Hypothetically, let's say that there isn't a sanctified right to life for fully grown humans. Those who are a drag on society (the homeless and mentally ill, the generally useless) should be resources for those that are contributors. Let's say a CEO is suffering from a failing liver. If he gets a replacement, he can continue to run his company for years to come. He can generate a great deal of money for a great many people. His blood matches a homeless man who is a drain on society - everyone has to pay to keep him alive. Because, using this ethical framework - and using your moral argument that simply because someone don't recognize another's right to exist they shouldn't be interfered with - should the CEO decide to take the homeless man's liver, thereby killing him, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
I just don't understand the position you take. Heaven knows you aren't the first person I've heard take it. I'm not sure how to classify it - I'm hesitant to call it pro-choice or pro-stem cell, because I know people who fall into that crowd but understand the serious ethical implications of the argument. But this argument, that science should be unconstrained by ethical and moral considerations, and the fact it's so prevalent on Slashdot, is downright scary. Or perhaps it's not that you're arguing that it should be unconstrained, but that you're not willing to entertain opposing points of view as to what has a right to exist as a human being. But, you haven't argued against it, and I doubt you even understand it, but rather rejected it out of hand. That isn't insightful but ignorant.
The traditional argument of freedom is that your rights end at the other person's nose begins. There is an argument about that line of demarcation. It's not a minority opinion either, and you don't have the right to dismiss it out of hand simply because it's inconvenient to think about.
You see it's that kind of bullshit that makes people hate you. Saying that abortion is killing is the same as saying that copying is stealing. Sure I admit that they are very similar, but they are not the same and most importantly they have different consquences. The only reason to claim such is to manipulate your audience through powerful and easilly associable words, such as stealing, killing, raping, hating, etc. If you're trying to make a point then don't come out sounding like an asshole preaching to a choir.
I'll even start. The reason why people don't consider abortion as a big deal is because people don't consider human embryos as humans. The same way as they don't consider a human arm as a human. You're saying they should, they're asking why. In between this conflict people trying to convince eachother are presenting data to turn the argument around. Data about DNA, genome, RNA, even "souls" are used to convince the other side. In the end it's a question of definition. You'll never win the argument by claiming that emryos are humans, because they simply are not, the same way that amino acids are not embryos. The side that has already separated these two will never accept that they aren't as such, so you'd have to convince that side that the embryo itself is something to protect, disregarding human values. Do this and you will convince the other side. And also, skip the "soul" nonsense. The other side considers this as complete and utter bullshit, and if they say they don't then they're hipocrites just like everybody else, since clearly it's just convenient to believe in the existance of the soul and be OK with abortions.
I am the lawn!