Having advertised consulting services on both Overture and Google, I can say that while Overture ads cost more per click, they deliver more value per dollar. I don't know if this is because I'm selling somthing business related and overture is better for that, or if it's because of somthing else.
>O, thou great believer in context, how is it your >pride now blinds you to it!
I took your words literally. And I find it very strange that you talk about pride, considering the tone of your posts. I've tried to have a civil conversation with you, and brush off your insults and condecension, your rudeness and your deliberate misinterpretation of my position. I have answered your jibes with plain evidence.
Take a second to read your posts and imagine if I had answered you in the same tone that you've written to me, how would you view me then? Logs and splinters come to mind. I can't think of any way to express my disagreement with you without you calling me "proud" or accusing me of things that I would not do, and that you would know that I would not do, if you took more than a moment to consider what I have said. Apparently the only way a person can avoid the sin of pride in your eyes is to agree with you. Hardly a humble stance.
But yes, context is important. It determines the meaning of our statements. The meaning of somthing like "I don't agree" is determined entirely by the context.
Likewise "your attack on him was wrong" is determined entirely by context.
Did you mean to say "You directly quoted him and replied. However your disagreement with his view of individuality is wrong?" Saying "and" implies that you're refering to the quote and reply. I get the feeling from your subsequent posts that this isn't what you meant.
It's hard to discuss things with you since you seem more geared towards invective than clarification. If you're not sure what someone said, clarify before disagreeing with them. It will save you a lot of arguments.
Don't take your eyes off the ball. Does the US constitution aim at protecting your *sperm* *cells*? . No? Then lay off the poor guy - he was right, and you and your
strawman analogy were blazingly wrong.
You're still refusing to follow my logic. The Constitution aims at protecting individuals, but does not lay down the definition of individual.
Here's the logical process that you seem to be using.
1. You define individual.
2. You assume that anyone discussing individuals uses your definition.
3. You use anyone discussing "individuals" to support your definition of individual, even if they've given no indication that they share your definition.
#2 is repeatedly the weak link between #1 and #3 and you've made this mistake over and again.
At the time the constitution was written, some people did honestly believe that sperm cells were individuals. The constitution wasn't concerned with when individuality began, however.
So you can't use it as evidence to support your view of when individuality began.
You hold on to your "No shouting on the internet" attitude, I'll keep using the 'Shift' key for maximum effect.
What effect? Honestly? But it doesn't matter. I'll consider your reasoning and ignore any jibes or personal attacks.
Remember - this is a public discussion. If you aren't amenable to logic, most other people are.
I'm amenable to logic whenever it isn't circular, or doesn't assume what it attempts to prove.
Cloning that results in anything close to birthing a baby is technically very difficult.
Very difficult? Yes, it would take a large number of attempts. Even a normal birth takes a few attempts sometimes. And the cloned baby would probably not be healthy. That's the big problem. Is cloning possible? Yes, by every indication I've seen. It may already have been done. I'm not refering to Raeliens.
"Dr Patrick Dixon, an author and expert in the ethics of human cloning, dismissed the idea that today's announcement marked a breakthrough.
He said: "Except in tissues like the brain, there are huge problems with rejection of these embryonic stem cells if they are introduced into adults.
1. I had a friend who once filed a complaint against the local police department and won. Ever after that, the cops would pull him over whenever they saw him and check out his car and ding him for any little thing he's done. Vendettas like this are common enough.
2. DNA is more "mysterious." People can judge a photo for themselves, or even look at a picture of a fingerprint. But if you search a database of people, you can find one who fits simply by chance. In such trials, DNA should not be allowed as evidence.
3. DNA contains a great deal more evidence than fingerprints do. While most of this information isn't currently accessible, it will be eventually, and could be used for a variety of purposes. Once information is in one database, legislation signed at midnight can move it to another without people having any effective recourse.
4. Because it's even easier to plant a DNA sample than it is to plant a fingerprint.
I think we're going to end up making a lot of mistakes trying to use DNA as evidence. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying that there will be a lot of unforseen problems. Better to move with caution and circumspection and not rush into things too quickly.
I've always wondered if a high testosterone level was a marker for STDs. They can do spit tests for those. Of course, I don't know anything about the legality of using that kind of information.
His definition is more generic, and means the capacity of any thing to do anything. As in "the IT group doesn't hae the bandwidth to handle this request."
Only on slashdot will you see your level of concentration refered to as "bandwidth."
You never met my boss. Nice guy. Intelligent. (Do they monitor these computers?) But I had to explain to him that my requests to IT about "bandwidth" were not "too general", that it was in fact a specific, technical term. He uses the word for any kind of resources to be allocated and just isn't used to having people use it in its specific, technical sense.
Inefficient companies like KBR exist because of the government. It's the gov outsourcing their lack of productivity. There's not enough competition and too many political contributions to force KBR to be efficient.
I think the government has done a lot of good things. But it's only 'efficient' compared to corporations when corporations would require massive redundancy of huge systems (Three internets? Three highway systems?) to foster competition.
And yeah, gov. funding helps to develop new technologies. It takes a gov to make a phone system. But in situations where the government has to compete with several industries in competition with one another (say fedex vs. the post office) it's pretty consistently cheaper for the gov to farm out their work to the private (but not monopolitic) company.
Everyone talks about "regulation." Nobody ever mentions the specific regulations.
What regulations are we talking about here, standards that limit the amount of lead in gasoline or the amount of H2S that you can release into the air? Train schedules? Limits on monopoly? Enforcement of Patents? Traffic laws? What?
Did I address the "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment? (Answer: no) Do I care about it being inappropriate? (Answer: no)
You addressed my entire post, saying "your attack on him was wrong." You did not specify a particular portion of my response.
So yes, you did address that portion of his comment, because it was part of my "attack" on him.
Consider whether the US constitution talks about protecting the life of individual sperm cells?
I don't recall the constitution making any comment about embryos, or pontificating about when life begins. That document isn't too helpful in a conversation on when life begins or when an individual gets their rights. If you think it says anything about conception or sperm or embryos, you're reading into things way too deep.
But keep using that 'ol caps lock key. It's mighty persuasive.
> the biggest barrier to human cloning is desire, >not technical abilty
Wrong. There are restrictions (and licenses) but the biggest barrier is technical ability.
I presented a simple dichotomy between desire and ability. Legal restrictions are manifestations of desire ( in the negative sense ) rather than ability. If we wanted to (as a country/world/etc) we could lift the restrictions. And there are over 100 nations which have no restrictions. And UN resolutions are not binding.
If you think that there are technical barriers which prevent somatic transfer from successufully creating human clones some time in the near future that could survive at least until, say, a month after birth, then cite a valid scientific source. It will be awful hard for you to prove a negative, and there's plenty of evidence that it would occur in the next 5 years if it was pursued with any ambition. People have succeeded in cloning amphibians and mammals and there have been some claims of human clones using this technique (not properly substatiated due to privacy demands, but not regarded as impossible by the scientific community). Simple statements of "Wrong" with no evidence don't convince me of anything. While I don't work in the field currently, I have an undergrad degree in biotech. I do have some familiarity with what kind of acheivements may be likely in the near future.
> At what point would that cloned stem cell >become human? Obviously when it is functionally equal to a human fertilized egg.
But "functionally equal to a human egg" is not clear. I'll assume, based on your earlier comment, that you mean "somthing that could be implanted in a womb and develop into a human, but not somthing that would require any other process whatsoever besides simple implantation to become human?" So a cell that required an electric shock, or a coat of vaseline or anything other than simple implantation would not be functionally equivalent to a human. i.e. if we had to put vaseline around a cell to make it equivalent to a fertalized egg, it would not be equivalent to a fertalized egg.
> It seems irrational to me to argue that it would be human before > it started to differentiate into the various adult cell types; nerves, muscle, etc > . at the very earliest, since before then it would be functionally equivalent > to another adult stem cells in the human body. Oh, would it really? And you know this how?
"Know" would be too strong a word. It implies a scientific fact, rather than a moral standard. However differentiation is when a group of cells starts to be an individual.
An undifferentiated embryo can become any number of individuals. Reducing that number is not killing. The cells in an undifferentiated embryo created in the lab can also grow and divide forever and never become an individual. Embryonic stem cells are not any predetermined number of individuals. Only individuals have rights. Individual cel
Do this regularly. Ask all employees to report breakin attempts. Give notices to those who fail to report. Dock the pay of anyone who gives out their password. Let employees know that you're doing it. Make them understand what the appropriate response is.
It's a matter of standards relevant to the given medium.
If I'm writing a research paper, I cite my sources. If I'm having a conversation, I don't say "according to the New York times..."
Grammar Nazis who criticize typos are the worst, since it's a red herring. "I can't attack his argument, but look. He made a typo."
Sometimes it's a question of whether the person coming to America wants to speak perfect English or whether they simply want to communicate and be understood. If they're not acomplishing the second, I always comment. But if they're not doing the first (ex. I'm going to take some medicines.) I usually let it go. Unless of course they ask me to correct their grammar or let me know that its acceptable.
Consider this description: a set of cells with DNA distinct from it's mother and it's father, that represents a distinct human being.
A little circular, don't you think? Defining a distinct human being as that which is a distinct human being?
This just goes back to the whole "*INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN*" argument from earlier. The debate begins with the question of what exactly is an individual human. You can't use the definition of the word to define the word.
A little circular, don't you think? Defining a distinct human being as that which is a distinct human being?
This just goes back to the whole *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* argument from earlier. The debate begins with the question of what exactly is an individual human. You can't use the definition of the word to define the word.
We all learned in high school about the theory of biogenesis, right? It's the principle that life comes only from other living things. It doesn't arise spontaneously. Rocks don't turn into turtles. It's a basic principle of biology. (The opposite of this theory, the theory of abiogenesis, is given as an example of a scientific theory that was once believed but that we now know to be false.) -- end context--
Enough! Tortured justifications don't make a wrong right..)
Enough yourself. It's not a tortured justification. His "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment was inappropriate in reference to a thread on biogenesis and abiogenesis and the continuous nature of life.
I have no objections to stems cells per se, or even to human cloning. But I am concerned about protection of life in the process of extraction of these cells. Consider this description: a set of cells with DNA distinct from it's mother and it's father, that represents a distinct human being. This description fits:
- you
- me
- a fetus
- an embryo All deserve the same level of protection of life.
Lets address EXISTING problems first, and worry about non-existent concerns later - during the hyperspace jump to sector 42.
Fair enough. Taking your defintion; It's now possible to clone animals, and theoretically possible to clone a human from an adult (non-embryonic) stem cell. While some animals are more 'clonable' than others, the biggest barrier to human cloning is desire, not technical abilty. At what point would that cloned stem cell become human? It seems irrational to me to argue that it would be human before it started to differentiate into the various adult cell types; nerves, muscle, etc. at the very earliest, since before then it would be functionally equivalent to another adult stem cells in the human body. This is one reason why I reject the "life begins at conception" cannard which has been repeated endlessly. If taken to its logical conclusion, it would equate cells inside the body with individual human beings because they are capable of becoming human beings. Putting an adult stem cell into a lab does not transform it into a human being. Similarly, you are not allowed to kill a twin as long as his other twin remains alive, so the notion that death is the destruction of an entire genetic set wouldn't work (identical twins being natural clones). The current legal standard is based on degree of differentiation of the cell towards a self-sufficient individual rather than preservation of a certain unique set of cells. This useful standard is being deliberatly blurred by people trying to introduce their "life begins at conception" line. If this standard is adopted, it will inevitably increase the arbitrariness of the law by creating a standard which, by its nature, cannot be applied uniformly in all situations.
I have no objections to stems cells per se, or even to human cloning.
Same here. What I object to especially is the catagorization of cells, particularly undifferentiated cells, as human, which is a view some are attempting to push, claming through some leap of logic that their views are religiously grounded.
I don't believe in the morality of abortion of a differentiated fetus, but I believe even less in the morality of state interference into people's medical choices.
If stem cells could be obtained from a fetus in a pregnant woman, with absolutely no harm done to the fetus (and there was a great benefit to society in this being done) who could object to that?
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from undifferentiated embryos, thus the name. By the time an embryo is a fetus, it's past the stage when it would typicaly be used for stem cell research. Pluripotent stem cells can be recovered from umbilical cord tissue. Pluripotent stem cells can also be obtained from adult tissue, but it's currently very diffic
Slashdot Mirror
Would $2/year really be a good thing?
Or would it just encourage domain name squatting?
Having advertised consulting services on both Overture and Google, I can say that while Overture ads cost more per click, they deliver more value per dollar. I don't know if this is because I'm selling somthing business related and overture is better for that, or if it's because of somthing else.
My 2c.
>O, thou great believer in context, how is it your >pride now blinds you to it!
I took your words literally. And I find it very strange that you talk about pride, considering the tone of your posts. I've tried to have a civil conversation with you, and brush off your insults and condecension, your rudeness and your deliberate misinterpretation of my position. I have answered your jibes with plain evidence.
Take a second to read your posts and imagine if I had answered you in the same tone that you've written to me, how would you view me then? Logs and splinters come to mind. I can't think of any way to express my disagreement with you without you calling me "proud" or accusing me of things that I would not do, and that you would know that I would not do, if you took more than a moment to consider what I have said. Apparently the only way a person can avoid the sin of pride in your eyes is to agree with you. Hardly a humble stance.
But yes, context is important. It determines the meaning of our statements. The meaning of somthing like "I don't agree" is determined entirely by the context.
Likewise "your attack on him was wrong" is determined entirely by context.
Did you mean to say "You directly quoted him and replied. However your disagreement with his view of individuality is wrong?" Saying "and" implies that you're refering to the quote and reply. I get the feeling from your subsequent posts that this isn't what you meant.
It's hard to discuss things with you since you seem more geared towards invective than clarification. If you're not sure what someone said, clarify before disagreeing with them. It will save you a lot of arguments.
Don't take your eyes off the ball. Does the US constitution aim at protecting your *sperm* *cells*? . No? Then lay off the poor guy - he was right, and you and your
strawman analogy were blazingly wrong.
You're still refusing to follow my logic. The Constitution aims at protecting individuals, but does not lay down the definition of individual.
Here's the logical process that you seem to be using.
1. You define individual.
2. You assume that anyone discussing individuals uses your definition.
3. You use anyone discussing "individuals" to support your definition of individual, even if they've given no indication that they share your definition.
#2 is repeatedly the weak link between #1 and #3 and you've made this mistake over and again.
At the time the constitution was written, some people did honestly believe that sperm cells were individuals. The constitution wasn't concerned with when individuality began, however.
So you can't use it as evidence to support your view of when individuality began.
You hold on to your "No shouting on the internet" attitude, I'll keep using the 'Shift' key for maximum effect.
What effect? Honestly? But it doesn't matter. I'll consider your reasoning and ignore any jibes or personal attacks.
Remember - this is a public discussion. If you aren't amenable to logic, most other people are.
I'm amenable to logic whenever it isn't circular, or doesn't assume what it attempts to prove.
Cloning that results in anything close to birthing a baby is technically very difficult.
Very difficult? Yes, it would take a large number of attempts. Even a normal birth takes a few attempts sometimes. And the cloned baby would probably not be healthy. That's the big problem. Is cloning possible? Yes, by every indication I've seen. It may already have been done. I'm not refering to Raeliens.
"Dr Patrick Dixon, an author and expert in the ethics of human cloning, dismissed the idea that today's announcement marked a breakthrough.
He said: "Except in tissues like the brain, there are huge problems with rejection of these embryonic stem cells if they are introduced into adults.
"It is very dif
I remember what happened the last time you said that.
Why didn't he simply just get a divorce?
He'd still have to pay child support, most likely. Thought I don't know how easily that can be avoided.
Pregnant women get murdered more often than other women. It's a big risk statistically, though I don't know actual figures.
1. I had a friend who once filed a complaint against the local police department and won. Ever after that, the cops would pull him over whenever they saw him and check out his car and ding him for any little thing he's done. Vendettas like this are common enough.
2. DNA is more "mysterious." People can judge a photo for themselves, or even look at a picture of a fingerprint. But if you search a database of people, you can find one who fits simply by chance. In such trials, DNA should not be allowed as evidence.
3. DNA contains a great deal more evidence than fingerprints do. While most of this information isn't currently accessible, it will be eventually, and could be used for a variety of purposes. Once information is in one database, legislation signed at midnight can move it to another without people having any effective recourse.
4. Because it's even easier to plant a DNA sample than it is to plant a fingerprint.
I think we're going to end up making a lot of mistakes trying to use DNA as evidence. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying that there will be a lot of unforseen problems. Better to move with caution and circumspection and not rush into things too quickly.
I've always wondered if a high testosterone level was a marker for STDs. They can do spit tests for those. Of course, I don't know anything about the legality of using that kind of information.
His definition is more generic, and means the capacity of any thing to do anything. As in "the IT group doesn't hae the bandwidth to handle this request."
Only on slashdot will you see your level of concentration refered to as "bandwidth."
You never met my boss.
Nice guy. Intelligent. (Do they monitor these computers?) But I had to explain to him that my requests to IT about "bandwidth" were not "too general", that it was in fact a specific, technical term. He uses the word for any kind of resources to be allocated and just isn't used to having people use it in its specific, technical sense.
Inefficient companies like KBR exist because of the government. It's the gov outsourcing their lack of productivity. There's not enough competition and too many political contributions to force KBR to be efficient.
I think the government has done a lot of good things. But it's only 'efficient' compared to corporations when corporations would require massive redundancy of huge systems (Three internets? Three highway systems?) to foster competition.
And yeah, gov. funding helps to develop new technologies. It takes a gov to make a phone system. But in situations where the government has to compete with several industries in competition with one another (say fedex vs. the post office) it's pretty consistently cheaper for the gov to farm out their work to the private (but not monopolitic) company.
Everyone talks about "regulation."
Nobody ever mentions the specific regulations.
What regulations are we talking about here, standards that limit the amount of lead in gasoline or the amount of H2S that you can release into the air?
Train schedules? Limits on monopoly? Enforcement of Patents? Traffic laws? What?
... without leaving my couch! Perfect!
If two genuses of animal can be mixed, then any animal can probably be mixed with any other animal.
My comment should be restricted to animals of the same class. I don't know whether mammals can mix with amphibians and produce living cells or not.
Did I address the "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment? (Answer: no)
Do I care about it being inappropriate? (Answer: no)
You addressed my entire post, saying "your attack on him was wrong." You did not specify a particular portion of my response.
So yes, you did address that portion of his comment, because it was part of my "attack" on him.
Consider whether the US constitution talks about protecting the life of individual sperm cells?
I don't recall the constitution making any comment about embryos, or pontificating about when life begins. That document isn't too helpful in a conversation on when life begins or when an individual gets their rights. If you think it says anything about conception or sperm or embryos, you're reading into things way too deep.
But keep using that 'ol caps lock key. It's mighty persuasive.
> the biggest barrier to human cloning is desire, >not technical abilty
Wrong. There are restrictions (and licenses) but the biggest barrier is technical ability.
I presented a simple dichotomy between desire and ability. Legal restrictions are manifestations of desire ( in the negative sense ) rather than ability. If we wanted to (as a country/world/etc) we could lift the restrictions. And there are over 100 nations which have no restrictions. And UN resolutions are not binding.
http://www.globalchange.com/clonenews.htm
If you think that there are technical barriers which prevent somatic transfer from successufully creating human clones some time in the near future that could survive at least until, say, a month after birth, then cite a valid scientific source. It will be awful hard for you to prove a negative, and there's plenty of evidence that it would occur in the next 5 years if it was pursued with any ambition. People have succeeded in cloning amphibians and mammals and there have been some claims of human clones using this technique (not properly substatiated due to privacy demands, but not regarded as impossible by the scientific community). Simple statements of "Wrong" with no evidence don't convince me of anything. While I don't work in the field currently, I have an undergrad degree in biotech. I do have some familiarity with what kind of acheivements may be likely in the near future.
> At what point would that cloned stem cell >become human?
Obviously when it is functionally equal to a human fertilized egg.
But "functionally equal to a human egg" is not clear.
I'll assume, based on your earlier comment, that you mean "somthing that could be implanted in a womb and develop into a human, but not somthing that would require any other process whatsoever besides simple implantation to become human?" So a cell that required an electric shock, or a coat of vaseline or anything other than simple implantation would not be functionally equivalent to a human.
i.e. if we had to put vaseline around a cell to make it equivalent to a fertalized egg, it would not be equivalent to a fertalized egg.
> It seems irrational to me to argue that it would be human before
> it started to differentiate into the various adult cell types; nerves, muscle, etc
> . at the very earliest, since before then it would be functionally equivalent
> to another adult stem cells in the human body.
Oh, would it really? And you know this how?
"Know" would be too strong a word. It implies a scientific fact, rather than a moral standard. However differentiation is when a group of cells starts to be an individual.
An undifferentiated embryo can become any number of individuals. Reducing that number is not killing. The cells in an undifferentiated embryo created in the lab can also grow and divide forever and never become an individual. Embryonic stem cells are not any predetermined number of individuals. Only individuals have rights. Individual cel
Of course, the high traffic users also offer the least profit.
The most profitable users of broadband are not the ones constantly downloading music online 24/7.
This may not be so bad for the ISPs.
Do this regularly. Ask all employees to report breakin attempts. Give notices to those who fail to report. Dock the pay of anyone who gives out their password. Let employees know that you're doing it. Make them understand what the appropriate response is.
Paranoia is healthy.
It's a matter of standards relevant to the given medium.
If I'm writing a research paper, I cite my sources. If I'm having a conversation, I don't say "according to the New York times..."
Grammar Nazis who criticize typos are the worst, since it's a red herring. "I can't attack his argument, but look. He made a typo."
Sometimes it's a question of whether the person coming to America wants to speak perfect English or whether they simply want to communicate and be understood. If they're not acomplishing the second, I always comment. But if they're not doing the first (ex. I'm going to take some medicines.) I usually let it go. Unless of course they ask me to correct their grammar or let me know that its acceptable.
... and into their back yard.
Consider this description: a set of cells with DNA distinct from it's mother and it's father, that represents a distinct human being.
A little circular, don't you think? Defining a distinct human being as that which is a distinct human being?
This just goes back to the whole "*INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN*" argument from earlier. The debate begins with the question of what exactly is an individual human. You can't use the definition of the word to define the word.
My fav is still the pre-slashdot;
"SS Esses"
If I have to pay to name a ship, is that considered shipping costs?
*ba doom boom*
represents a distinct human being
A little circular, don't you think? Defining a distinct human being as that which is a distinct human being?
This just goes back to the whole *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* argument from earlier. The debate begins with the question of what exactly is an individual human. You can't use the definition of the word to define the word.
We all learned in high school about the theory of biogenesis, right? It's the principle that life comes only from other living things. It doesn't arise spontaneously. Rocks don't turn into turtles. It's a basic principle of biology. (The opposite of this theory, the theory of abiogenesis, is given as an example of a scientific theory that was once believed but that we now know to be false.)
-- end context--
Enough! Tortured justifications don't make a wrong right..)
Enough yourself. It's not a tortured justification. His "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment was inappropriate in reference to a thread on biogenesis and abiogenesis and the continuous nature of life.
I have no objections to stems cells per se, or even to human cloning. But I am concerned about protection of life in the process of extraction of these cells. Consider this description: a set of cells with DNA distinct from it's mother and it's father, that represents a distinct human being. This description fits:
- you
- me
- a fetus
- an embryo
All deserve the same level of protection of life.
Lets address EXISTING problems first, and worry about non-existent concerns later - during the hyperspace jump to sector 42.
Fair enough. Taking your defintion; It's now possible to clone animals, and theoretically possible to clone a human from an adult (non-embryonic) stem cell. While some animals are more 'clonable' than others, the biggest barrier to human cloning is desire, not technical abilty. At what point would that cloned stem cell become human? It seems irrational to me to argue that it would be human before it started to differentiate into the various adult cell types; nerves, muscle, etc. at the very earliest, since before then it would be functionally equivalent to another adult stem cells in the human body. This is one reason why I reject the "life begins at conception" cannard which has been repeated endlessly. If taken to its logical conclusion, it would equate cells inside the body with individual human beings because they are capable of becoming human beings. Putting an adult stem cell into a lab does not transform it into a human being. Similarly, you are not allowed to kill a twin as long as his other twin remains alive, so the notion that death is the destruction of an entire genetic set wouldn't work (identical twins being natural clones). The current legal standard is based on degree of differentiation of the cell towards a self-sufficient individual rather than preservation of a certain unique set of cells. This useful standard is being deliberatly blurred by people trying to introduce their "life begins at conception" line. If this standard is adopted, it will inevitably increase the arbitrariness of the law by creating a standard which, by its nature, cannot be applied uniformly in all situations.
I have no objections to stems cells per se, or even to human cloning.
Same here. What I object to especially is the catagorization of cells, particularly undifferentiated cells, as human, which is a view some are attempting to push, claming through some leap of logic that their views are religiously grounded.
I don't believe in the morality of abortion of a differentiated fetus, but I believe even less in the morality of state interference into people's medical choices.
If stem cells could be obtained from a fetus in a pregnant woman, with absolutely no harm done to the fetus (and there was a great benefit to society in this being done) who could object to that?
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from undifferentiated embryos, thus the name. By the time an embryo is a fetus, it's past the stage when it would typicaly be used for stem cell research. Pluripotent stem cells can be recovered from umbilical cord tissue. Pluripotent stem cells can also be obtained from adult tissue, but it's currently very diffic
We should stick a laser on the things and tell congress that it can shoot down nukes.
Heck, I do wonder if, before this thing runs out of gyroscopes, we could turn it around the other way and have it take pictures of Earth, permanently.
Dude, just wait till the clueless girls in marketing need to remove some spyware from their computer and don't know how...