It's a hot topic right now. What do you think about it? Is a frozen embryo a human being? Is the resulting destruction of unused embrios a fair price to pay for the enormous potential for scientific advancement and disease treatment? And what about the creation of bovine-human hybrid embrios to make up for the shortage of evailable human eggs? As an aide, are people who are opposed to animal testing also opposed to stem cell research? It would be interesting to find out, since stem cell research presents the possibility of developing cures without the inhumane treatment of animals....
Very tricky subject, not easy for black and white interpretations really and I imagine it difficult for many to actually hold any firm opinions either way. Best left to those who might know better, and I'm more than happy to concede that there probably are many. A cell is a cell nothing more nor less.
Agreed with your last point Dappy, a cell by any other name would still be just a cell. In my opinion its not a tricky issue. It's easy. Stem cell research should not be inhibited by pro 'life' nutters. If they want to take exception, they should focus their attention on IVF treatment, which creates the stock of embrios. The embrios would not be used, and they would be destroyed eventually anyway. It makes perfect sense to me for scientists to use this resource to extend and improve the lives of humans that already exist....
Good thread, I have to write an essay on this shortly so everybodys opinion are appreciated. Im not sure just where I stand on this at the moment. Ill have more of an idea this next week after reading more about it.
I think stem cell research can only be seen as a good thing. Same with other areas where research into genetic manipulation can possibly produce benefits for humankind. I don't really have a problem with either taking cells from aborted embroyos or in creating animal/human 'chimeras' as is now being proposed. IMO an embroyo is no more a human being than an egg is a chicken. If stem cell research means less animal experiments, then that is a good thing too.
I find myself still giving regard to the emotional neh spiritual wellfare of others within the discussion, and I would say that to call someone who may have disquiet about the issue a nutter before they've even spoke is a trifle antagonistic sir. You might find there are nutters on both sides.
................................................................................................... I'm all for the Big Pharma companies testing away. I do not want to subsidise the testing with my tax dollars. Its not as if Big Pharma is in trouble and has no money or anything. Bovine-Human hybrids, sounds creepy. I have no trouble with tests on lab rats.
I think stem cell research is an excellent idea. The benefits definitely outweigh the negatives. Then again, next thing you know you'll have crazies blowing up science labs and such to keep stem cells from being harvested from frozen embryos - much like they used to blow up gynacological clinics that also happened to give abortions. And I don't think he was saying someone that disagreed with the idea was a nutter but saying the crazy pro life people are nutters... for instance the ones that scream at you from street corners and blow up clinics. And yes, I'd say it's fair to call those people nutters.
Sir (I do love debating chamber terminology) I've not denounced anyone who has spoken here a nutter. Of course, to be fair to your point, I have been a tad intentionally antagonistic to promote debate. However, my denounciations have been targeted at very real opinions expressed in the public domain.
