I'd gladly review any contrary evidence you might provide in response to the article, but that would require you to actually read it! What you are describing is human cloning, pure and simple. The only difference between reproductive cloning and research cloning is the fate of the resulting human embryos.
I've been through National Review. This is the last time I'm going to mention it for you. I can direct you to the National Organization for Woman if you want to read what they have to say about stem cells. It would be good to have an open discussion in the U.S. and have the issue go to the House and Senate, as opposed to a personal decision made by only the President. You said yourself in another thread that you don't believe in anything unless it is peer-reviewed (the structural engineering issue regarding the Oklamhoma City bombing). It would be good to have the same attitude with other issues as well. The stem cell issue is going to become even more gray and muddy as the technology progresses. Eventually, people are going to have to debate the issue in a non-ideological fashion.
That's not true either. Some groups want to make it sound as if every type of stem cell generation process is exactly equivalent to abortion. Here's an article regarding stem cells: http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/parthenogenesis.html "Embryos are normally the product of sexual reproduction, when the male sperm and female egg combine DNA. The current research involved stimulating a monkey egg to grow without any help from sperm. The researchers used chemicals to signal the eggs not to eject half of their chromosomes (as they would do in sexual reproduction) and command the eggs to start dividing. In this case the resulting mass of 100 or so cells, known as the blastocyst, cannot become a viable organism when produced with the new technique. Four of 28 parthogenetic eggs developed into blastocysts. The researchers were able to derive a single stem cell line from one of the blastocysts. . Stem cells are the holy grail of modern biology. These root cells can, with proper stimulation, be used to produced virtually any type of cell in the body. Until now, the best source of stem cells has been human embryos. These have typically been obtained from fertility clinics. Considerable research is also underway to clone stem cells derived from non-embryonic tissue. The possibility of deriving stem cells from nonviable, asexually produced blastocysts might solve, at least for some, the ethical debate currently raging on the direction of therapeutic stem cell research."
I'm trying to raise various facets of the stem cell issue that some groups don't wish to talk about. It's these gray areas that often frustrate people, but they are going to have to be discussed eventually by the science, religious, and political community.
If they have any articles that are well footnoted, I wouldn't hesitate to check them out. Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? Nothing is preventing Congress from debating this issue or holding hearings on it. The president could also revise is policy, based on recommendations from his bioethics council. If you'd bother to read the last article I cited, you'd see that it's well documented with many links to technical journals. Thanks for the reference. I'm going to have to research this further and find out how/if "parthenogenesis" really differs from research cloning.
I'm aware of the technical journals cited. I'm not saying they aren't good articles. Every group has a particular view regardless of the technical articles, whether it's National Review or National Organization for Women. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't really know if NOW has a stance on this. I was just using it as an example. The research in stem cells is moving rapidly. The religious and political community is going to be left behind in the dust if it doesn't start debating it in earnest.
There's something that I call the reverse ad hominem policy, which is believing an argument because it came from a particular source. One has to be careful about the site and the references it posts, as certain technical references can be left out in an effort to promote the view of the particular site. There are technical aspects about stem cell production that are not discussed by particular groups because it goes against their particular view.
I disagree with the NR ilk on many issues. I don't blindly embrace or reject anything simply because it comes from them. As explained in the article I've been mentioning, Reeves was amazingly ignorant about many aspects of stem cell research.
Huck finn, do you have any diseases like oh, cancer, AIDS, diabetes, etc.? just wondering... because I think I can safely assume (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) that you don't. My nanna and I have diabetes, my granddad has had four types of cancers, and my aunt has AIDS. Know what? I care a LOT more about them than I do some fucking embryo. But fucktards like you will never get it, because of yer stupid religion, and idealistic bullshit. Please, get yer head outta yer ass. It's people like you who continue the needless suffering of people (PEOPLE, not EMBRYOS) throughout the world.
Edward, When you stop foaming at the mouth, read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200409090835.asp
Yes there is Welsey Smith again promoting a right-wing conservative agenda masked as scientific inquiry. I guess it really isn't masked all that well since the article begins with "Members of the liberal media elite have become..."
Keep reading, and try actually dealing with the article's main content. By the way, the "right-wing" Smith is a close friend and colleague of Ralph Nader, with whom he co-authored an excellent book on corporate law, titled No Contest.
I didn't say he was an idiot or anything but I have followed his ethics publications and he is take a VERY conservative approach. John Kerry and John McCain are good friends too but that doesn't make their political slant the same.
Nader shares many of Smith's "conservative" views on bioethics and euthanasia. Does that make Nader a "right-winger" to be dismissed without consideration? In any case, would you care to comment on the substance of Smith's article, not just on him?
Spain changes stance and relaxes restrictions on embryonic stem cell research: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=753&e=10&u=/ap/20041029/ap_on_sc/spain_stem_cells
