The sentiment of the replies indicates that lab grown diamonds are without flaw, but a quick look at the inventory of ADIA (the diamond seller in the article) reveals that the clarity of their diamonds ranges from VS1 to SI3. The measure of flawlessness in a diamond is represented by a scale that ranges from FL (flawless) and IF (internally flawless) on the pricy end to I (imperfect) with varying degrees of inclusions in between. A SI3 level diamond, which happens to be the level of clarity offered in ABIA's lone white diamond, is hardly flawless. Indeed a SI3 diamond contains flaws that are visible to the naked eye, and in the mined diamond market would be offered for sale at a tremendous discount to less included diamonds. While ABIA offers diamonds up to the VS1 (Very slightly included)level, this is hardly flawless, instead it is a level of clarity that is common at any diamond store.
Yes lab grown diamonds are arguably a great alternative to mined diamonds, but they are not necessarily less included than mined diamonds.
Every cell in your body dies and is replaced over a scale of seven years or so. You're not the original you, having been replaced multiple times with a 'copy'. Care to redefine your idea of conciousness?
true, except for neurons. Neurons, the cells associated with consciousness, cannot regrow. Fortunately you should have many billions of them, enough to get you through life and its occasional drinking binges.
A more appropriate title would be comparitively relative inexpensive gas hack. Gas at $2.00 a gallon is not cheap, and the slow pace the oil companies are using in rolling back prices suggests they are scaling back prices slowly in order to find the highest price consumers are willing to pay.
...if the monk erased and wrote on the parchment. Animal skins may have been hard to come by, but it seems that if anyone would see the importance of academic writing it would have been a monk. Out of the 174 pages that make up the work, the monk probably chose to write over the section deemed least valuable.
You've lost the meaning of my post. My intention in responding to your post was to shed light on your perception of the characteristics that define the beginning of life, rather than expound on my personal beliefs or introduce the ethical reasoning provided by an uspecified clergymember(s).
I applied your reasoning to a couple of scenarios that help demonstrate the flaws in your viewpoint. Perhaps the scenarios are a tad over the top; it is difficult to imagine that you could ethically justify the killing of a prematurely born infant. However the examples provide a fitting demonstration of how outrageous a system that values life based on number of cells and complexity of structure appears when applied in another way.
You view a group of cells that all humans once were as disposable but view the same group of cells that has been given the time and nuture to replicate and develop facets that you are able to identify(i.e. lungs, nerves, etc)as life.
There is no nervous system, there is no means by which those cells can respirate, and certainly no means by which they can be invested with any of the qualities we assign to a more fully formed organism (let alone a person).
Clearly you view complexity and size as an indicator of life. My gorilla example showed how your life status indication method is flawed by applying it to another scenario. Hardly shoving words down your mouth.
The research being done is being done to save and improve lives
I do not disagree with you on this one, our ethical standpoints both support life and if the length of your post is any indication you certainly care about the value of life and what this means to laws concerning stem cell research. There are many subjects that divide the public into two camps that seemingly oppose each other namely subjects dealing with abortion and stem cell research. These topics share a similar characteristic that seperates people into one of two opposing sides, and that characteristic is line drawing. For instance the debate would be solved if both sides could decide on the precise time a life is formed. Long diatribes that equate having an idea of life that starts at conception with being a brainwashed yesman to the clegy solve nothing and only result in a drawn out process of post replication that inevitably goes back and forth with each post progressively diminishing in quality until those few left writing result to name calling and commenting on grammar and sentence structure. I shouldnt have given in and posted in the first place.
But killing an embryo? OK, so you've got a handful of cells dividing, at least for a little while, anyway, in a petri dish. No mom, no pregnancy, and no way they would ever amount to anything - let alone a person - without continual intervention from science, which is still beyond us anyway. So, that group of cells, completely unviable as they sit there
You've answered your own question. The scientist, in his act of forming the embryo with no intention of fostering its development has taken responsibility for the viability of the life. His very action is the killing of the embryo.
There's as much of a human being in a dozen cells as there is in a stalk of asparagus.
Okay so life as you understand it is defined by the number of cells that make up any being. So according to your logic gorrilas are more alive than humans are, why the hell aren't we modeling are lives after these noble beasts?!
Your understanding of the ethical implications of embryonic research is hinged on number of cells and viability. So according to your theory, my friend who was born very prematurely was technically not alive while being cared for in an incubator. After all he didn't have as many cells as a typical baby, and following his birth had he been left alone in a giant petri dish he would have died. In fact all new humans demand support from others in order to live past their first months of existence, be it as an embryo, or out of the womb. If this human support can be considered "continual intervention from science" as you put it, then according to your ethical understanding all newborns are unviable and there exists no moral argument to prevent studies that exist to kill them.
Slashdot Mirror
The sentiment of the replies indicates that lab grown diamonds are without flaw, but a quick look at the inventory of ADIA (the diamond seller in the article) reveals that the clarity of their diamonds ranges from VS1 to SI3. The measure of flawlessness in a diamond is represented by a scale that ranges from FL (flawless) and IF (internally flawless) on the pricy end to I (imperfect) with varying degrees of inclusions in between. A SI3 level diamond, which happens to be the level of clarity offered in ABIA's lone white diamond, is hardly flawless. Indeed a SI3 diamond contains flaws that are visible to the naked eye, and in the mined diamond market would be offered for sale at a tremendous discount to less included diamonds. While ABIA offers diamonds up to the VS1 (Very slightly included)level, this is hardly flawless, instead it is a level of clarity that is common at any diamond store. Yes lab grown diamonds are arguably a great alternative to mined diamonds, but they are not necessarily less included than mined diamonds.
Every cell in your body dies and is replaced over a scale of seven years or so. You're not the original you, having been replaced multiple times with a 'copy'. Care to redefine your idea of conciousness?
true, except for neurons. Neurons, the cells associated with consciousness, cannot regrow. Fortunately you should have many billions of them, enough to get you through life and its occasional drinking binges.
...Engineers have bad luck getting the ladies
working link: http://64.218.68.50/stlouis/newslmpd/viewer.htm
The Saint Louis Police Department has a similar interface at 64.218.68.50/stlouis/newslmpd/viewer.htm
A more appropriate title would be comparitively relative inexpensive gas hack. Gas at $2.00 a gallon is not cheap, and the slow pace the oil companies are using in rolling back prices suggests they are scaling back prices slowly in order to find the highest price consumers are willing to pay.
...if the monk erased and wrote on the parchment. Animal skins may have been hard to come by, but it seems that if anyone would see the importance of academic writing it would have been a monk. Out of the 174 pages that make up the work, the monk probably chose to write over the section deemed least valuable.
And even when the movie does come out, continue to be afraid.
You've lost the meaning of my post. My intention in responding to your post was to shed light on your perception of the characteristics that define the beginning of life, rather than expound on my personal beliefs or introduce the ethical reasoning provided by an uspecified clergymember(s).
I applied your reasoning to a couple of scenarios that help demonstrate the flaws in your viewpoint. Perhaps the scenarios are a tad over the top; it is difficult to imagine that you could ethically justify the killing of a prematurely born infant. However the examples provide a fitting demonstration of how outrageous a system that values life based on number of cells and complexity of structure appears when applied in another way.
You view a group of cells that all humans once were as disposable but view the same group of cells that has been given the time and nuture to replicate and develop facets that you are able to identify(i.e. lungs, nerves, etc)as life.
There is no nervous system, there is no means by which those cells can respirate, and certainly no means by which they can be invested with any of the qualities we assign to a more fully formed organism (let alone a person).
Clearly you view complexity and size as an indicator of life. My gorilla example showed how your life status indication method is flawed by applying it to another scenario. Hardly shoving words down your mouth.
The research being done is being done to save and improve lives
I do not disagree with you on this one, our ethical standpoints both support life and if the length of your post is any indication you certainly care about the value of life and what this means to laws concerning stem cell research. There are many subjects that divide the public into two camps that seemingly oppose each other namely subjects dealing with abortion and stem cell research. These topics share a similar characteristic that seperates people into one of two opposing sides, and that characteristic is line drawing. For instance the debate would be solved if both sides could decide on the precise time a life is formed. Long diatribes that equate having an idea of life that starts at conception with being a brainwashed yesman to the clegy solve nothing and only result in a drawn out process of post replication that inevitably goes back and forth with each post progressively diminishing in quality until those few left writing result to name calling and commenting on grammar and sentence structure. I shouldnt have given in and posted in the first place.
But killing an embryo? OK, so you've got a handful of cells dividing, at least for a little while, anyway, in a petri dish. No mom, no pregnancy, and no way they would ever amount to anything - let alone a person - without continual intervention from science, which is still beyond us anyway. So, that group of cells, completely unviable as they sit there
You've answered your own question. The scientist, in his act of forming the embryo with no intention of fostering its development has taken responsibility for the viability of the life. His very action is the killing of the embryo.
There's as much of a human being in a dozen cells as there is in a stalk of asparagus. Okay so life as you understand it is defined by the number of cells that make up any being. So according to your logic gorrilas are more alive than humans are, why the hell aren't we modeling are lives after these noble beasts?!
Your understanding of the ethical implications of embryonic research is hinged on number of cells and viability. So according to your theory, my friend who was born very prematurely was technically not alive while being cared for in an incubator. After all he didn't have as many cells as a typical baby, and following his birth had he been left alone in a giant petri dish he would have died. In fact all new humans demand support from others in order to live past their first months of existence, be it as an embryo, or out of the womb. If this human support can be considered "continual intervention from science" as you put it, then according to your ethical understanding all newborns are unviable and there exists no moral argument to prevent studies that exist to kill them.
I'm going to buy one of these PSP's solely to play gameboy games!