*laughter!* At least I have a record. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I was wondering just how long it'd take for the cowardice in the AC to really come out. "Oh, it's not me, it's some _other_ AC who's under the exact same delusion that that tired old HAND acronym makes for an original signoff."
Suuure. As if any other AC would be bothered to hang around this particular thread like a bad smell, posting exactly the same sort of dull, content-free trolls time after time. Whatever. Run along, child, get back to me when you've grabbed an account and grown a spine. Or even a neuron. *yawn*
Hm. OK, so there's a second possibility. Said Anonymous Coward, which has yet again demonstrated itself incapable of posting anything apart from one-line snide remarks (thanks for proving my point so neatly, oh neuron-free zone)* is _either_ (A) a troll with no sense of irony (or any other sense for that matter), or (B) a very, very small echo script.
* Hint for the terminally clue-challenged: look up my record if you think for one moment that one liners is all _I'm_ capable of. You see, you can do that, because I have an account, unlike spineless simpletons such as the AC currently under examination.
*grin* Actually, you _do_ have a point, NickFusion, and it's a cogent one. These surplus embryos do _not_ have the potential to become a human being, because no-one is going to implant them and carry them to term. No-one. They have the potential only to be discarded. Simple as that.
You raise several interesting points, CodeShark. I'd like to address them one by one if I may.
That some lobby groups (universally based in fundamentalist religious grounds) have _claimed_ that there are moral issues, I sadly have no doubt. However, I repeat that it is ludicrous to suppose that there _should_ be "moral issues", given that the embryos under discussion are surplus to the requirements of the IVF program and would _certainly_ be destroyed in any event. There is no prospect whatsoever of these embryos "otherwise develop[ing] into a normal child". The choice is quite simply between allowing _therapeutic_ uses which could easily save uncounted lives and alleviate untold suffering, or just throwing them out, as happens now. Which is the moral choice?
Regarding my choice of words, you are correct, I was getting myself 'worked up'. However, I feel it is understandable to be worked up over the prospect of condemning aware, sentient human beings to _preventable_ suffering and death, for no reason. (Unless you can use the word 'reason' to describe this purely-religiously motivated lobbying to prevent surplus embryos which are destined to be discarded, from making a therapeutic contribution.)
The fact that the research is continuing elsewhere (and has already attracted some of the finest minds in the field to move out of the US to continue their work) is one I draw solace from. However, this does not allow me the luxury to shrug my shoulders. To provide another example, if the health care system wound down in the US, would you not care about that, given that there would still be functioning health care systems in other countries?
I do not resile from my revulsion against the anti-stem-cell-research lobby, which places the rights of nonsentient bits of tissue already destined for destruction _above_ the rights of aware, sentient human beings. If you found my use of the word "fundies" "frankly intolerant and disgustingly prejudiced", what if I describe the anti-stem-cell-research lobby as "motivated and funded by fundamentalist religious interests"? If you still finid that "prejudiced", kindly provide evidence that it is untrue.
My choice of the phrase "brain dead" was hasty. CodeShark, I am certainly willing to admit that, judging by the thoughtful tone of your posts, you sound as though you personally do not merit such a characterisation and I apologise. Instead of "brain dead", perhaps "lacking in compassion and rationality" would be a less 'worked up' way for me to describe the anti-stem-cell-research lobby.
*grin* The plural of basis is 'bases'. Irregular plurals are a bit of a trial, I quite agree.:)
*deep breath* Now, on to the matter of tissue rejection: from my understanding, adult stem cells, lacking the extreme plasticity of fetal ones, pose more rather than less of a risk of tissue rejection. The only way I can think of that adult cells might avoid such a risk is if they were harvested from the same patient they were to be used on. I am uncertain as to the feasibility of such a procedure, and even if it were possible, the problem with the lack of adaptability of adult stem cells would still remain.
Oh really? Isn't it just amazing, all the fully qualified and currently practicing cellular biologists and other advanced medical researchers that post quickie one-liners as ACs? You wouldn't happen to have such a thing as actual _evidence_ for that particular little assertion, would you?
Ah, ad hominem. How refreshingly original. *yawn* I particularly enjoyed the way your own definition shot your argument down.
Note the distinction so carefully drawn, setting euthanasia apart from other methods of death: "in a relatively painless way"
I repeat, the embryos under discussion are at a stage of development so early that it is utterly impossible for them to feel pain at all. Thus, this carefully drawn distinction upon which the term euthanasia rests, does not apply to embryos. Got it yet? Oh, and when _are_ you going to get an account, hm?
"Pro-_euthanasia_?" *boggle* Where do you get pro-euthanasia from anything I said?
(Hint for the cognitively/lexically challenged: the word "euthanasia" refers to the _voluntary_ choice of a terminally ill _human_being_ to die.) Demonstrate how a poorly-differentiated cell mass without neural development can in any sense be said to do anything _voluntarily_, and then get back to me.
"The outpatients are out in force tonight, I see." - Tom Lehrer
"Aside from the moral issues associated with embryonic stem cells, there are more types of problems to be solved than there are existing stem cell lines to work with."
This statement is either fatuous or disingenuous or both. The ONLY reason there aren't more cell lines to work with in the US is the ridiculous whining about so-called "moral issues" by brain-dead fundies who expect society to accord a non-conscious, non-sentient, undifferentiated cell mass the SAME rights as countless numbers of fully self-aware, sentient human beings whom they want to see condemned to _needless_suffering_.
And don't bother to reply to that last point until you can demonstrate how something without a single neuron or pain receptor can possibly suffer.
Clones would have unique fingerprints, just as identical twins do. At the level of detail of fingerprints (and retinal blood vessel patterns, _precise_ placement of hair follicles, palm and other wrinkles and all other _micro_differences in structure) chaotic elements in the initial formation of the structures lead to observable differences.
"Jeri Ryan's catsuit had built-in pads to enhance her natural bust."
Except it wasn't natural. Jeri Ryan's admitted publicly she's had breast enhancement surgery. Kinda appropriate for a Borg: silicon, silicone, what's in a letter?:)
Hell no! Blood oranges (reddish tinge to the skin, deep red flesh and juice) are naturally MUCH tastier and sweeter than normal oranges. Particularly prized in Italy, but available in US groceries (for only a few weeks every year: they have a limited growing season).
I'm looking at the screen shot from Zero Wing, and nope, it's definitely 'your' not 'yuor'. Or YOUR to be precise since everything was in uppercase.
(I can't believe I just spell-corrected an AYBABTU reference. Shoot me now. =)
Slashdot Mirror
Check the "geomagnetic latitude" link in the root article. Basically, L.A. is just too far south to be able to see these auroras. :(
Suuure. As if any other AC would be bothered to hang around this particular thread like a bad smell, posting exactly the same sort of dull, content-free trolls time after time. Whatever. Run along, child, get back to me when you've grabbed an account and grown a spine. Or even a neuron. *yawn*
Hm. OK, so there's a second possibility. Said Anonymous Coward, which has yet again demonstrated itself incapable of posting anything apart from one-line snide remarks (thanks for proving my point so neatly, oh neuron-free zone)* is _either_ (A) a troll with no sense of irony (or any other sense for that matter), or (B) a very, very small echo script.
* Hint for the terminally clue-challenged: look up my record if you think for one moment that one liners is all _I'm_ capable of. You see, you can do that, because I have an account, unlike spineless simpletons such as the AC currently under examination.
*grin* Actually, you _do_ have a point, NickFusion, and it's a cogent one. These surplus embryos do _not_ have the potential to become a human being, because no-one is going to implant them and carry them to term. No-one. They have the potential only to be discarded. Simple as that.
Hmm. It hides behind an AC account. It posts nothing whatsoever apart from one-line snide remarks and tired old insults.
"Troll", eh? Methinks it doth protest too much.
That some lobby groups (universally based in fundamentalist religious grounds) have _claimed_ that there are moral issues, I sadly have no doubt. However, I repeat that it is ludicrous to suppose that there _should_ be "moral issues", given that the embryos under discussion are surplus to the requirements of the IVF program and would _certainly_ be destroyed in any event. There is no prospect whatsoever of these embryos "otherwise develop[ing] into a normal child". The choice is quite simply between allowing _therapeutic_ uses which could easily save uncounted lives and alleviate untold suffering, or just throwing them out, as happens now. Which is the moral choice?
Regarding my choice of words, you are correct, I was getting myself 'worked up'. However, I feel it is understandable to be worked up over the prospect of condemning aware, sentient human beings to _preventable_ suffering and death, for no reason. (Unless you can use the word 'reason' to describe this purely-religiously motivated lobbying to prevent surplus embryos which are destined to be discarded, from making a therapeutic contribution.)
The fact that the research is continuing elsewhere (and has already attracted some of the finest minds in the field to move out of the US to continue their work) is one I draw solace from. However, this does not allow me the luxury to shrug my shoulders. To provide another example, if the health care system wound down in the US, would you not care about that, given that there would still be functioning health care systems in other countries?
I do not resile from my revulsion against the anti-stem-cell-research lobby, which places the rights of nonsentient bits of tissue already destined for destruction _above_ the rights of aware, sentient human beings. If you found my use of the word "fundies" "frankly intolerant and disgustingly prejudiced", what if I describe the anti-stem-cell-research lobby as "motivated and funded by fundamentalist religious interests"? If you still finid that "prejudiced", kindly provide evidence that it is untrue.
My choice of the phrase "brain dead" was hasty. CodeShark, I am certainly willing to admit that, judging by the thoughtful tone of your posts, you sound as though you personally do not merit such a characterisation and I apologise. Instead of "brain dead", perhaps "lacking in compassion and rationality" would be a less 'worked up' way for me to describe the anti-stem-cell-research lobby.
*grin* The plural of basis is 'bases'. Irregular plurals are a bit of a trial, I quite agree. :)
*deep breath* Now, on to the matter of tissue rejection: from my understanding, adult stem cells, lacking the extreme plasticity of fetal ones, pose more rather than less of a risk of tissue rejection. The only way I can think of that adult cells might avoid such a risk is if they were harvested from the same patient they were to be used on. I am uncertain as to the feasibility of such a procedure, and even if it were possible, the problem with the lack of adaptability of adult stem cells would still remain.
Lack of any meaningful or substantive reply noted and derided.
Sure, how about some cheese to go with that whine. ...No, wait. Your comments are more than cheesy enough as it is.
I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Ah, ad hominem. How refreshingly original. *yawn* I particularly enjoyed the way your own definition shot your argument down.
Note the distinction so carefully drawn, setting euthanasia apart from other methods of death: "in a relatively painless way"
I repeat, the embryos under discussion are at a stage of development so early that it is utterly impossible for them to feel pain at all. Thus, this carefully drawn distinction upon which the term euthanasia rests, does not apply to embryos. Got it yet? Oh, and when _are_ you going to get an account, hm?
(Hint for the cognitively/lexically challenged: the word "euthanasia" refers to the _voluntary_ choice of a terminally ill _human_being_ to die.) Demonstrate how a poorly-differentiated cell mass without neural development can in any sense be said to do anything _voluntarily_, and then get back to me.
"The outpatients are out in force tonight, I see." - Tom Lehrer
This statement is either fatuous or disingenuous or both. The ONLY reason there aren't more cell lines to work with in the US is the ridiculous whining about so-called "moral issues" by brain-dead fundies who expect society to accord a non-conscious, non-sentient, undifferentiated cell mass the SAME rights as countless numbers of fully self-aware, sentient human beings whom they want to see condemned to _needless_suffering_.
And don't bother to reply to that last point until you can demonstrate how something without a single neuron or pain receptor can possibly suffer.
Clones would have unique fingerprints, just as identical twins do. At the level of detail of fingerprints (and retinal blood vessel patterns, _precise_ placement of hair follicles, palm and other wrinkles and all other _micro_differences in structure) chaotic elements in the initial formation of the structures lead to observable differences.
Except it wasn't natural. Jeri Ryan's admitted publicly she's had breast enhancement surgery. Kinda appropriate for a Borg: silicon, silicone, what's in a letter? :)
Does it ven-tickle? ...Aorta have known better than to ask. =)
Hell no! Blood oranges (reddish tinge to the skin, deep red flesh and juice) are naturally MUCH tastier and sweeter than normal oranges. Particularly prized in Italy, but available in US groceries (for only a few weeks every year: they have a limited growing season).
I'm looking at the screen shot from Zero Wing, and nope, it's definitely 'your' not 'yuor'. Or YOUR to be precise since everything was in uppercase. (I can't believe I just spell-corrected an AYBABTU reference. Shoot me now. =)
Thank you thank you thank you! Haven't read a MiSTing in some time, and that was a good one! Two thumbs up from this reviewer!