GOOD NEWS! Scientists to create human/animal embryos for research in the UK

by nicolaou 60 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    DD. I'm no scientist and neither are you. I don't know if this line of research will lead to effective treatments for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, MS and all those other nasty diseases or not but while there are doctors and researchers willing to put forth the effort who are you or I to condemn them?

    What would you do DD? Ban this research and replace it with . . . . . . . what?

    This whole issue seems to boil down to to an individuals opinion on a bunch of cells. Human or not? Well you know what DD? The practical ramifications are far too important to be drowned out by a discussion on semantics.

    No-one is setting out to destroy 'life' here - embryonic or otherwise. No-one wants to be disrespectful to the nature of what it means to be human although illnesses like Parkinsons do a very good job of that!

    The whole point of the research is to make life better! I understand that the form of research can make some people feel profoundly uncomfortable but your discomfort is not the issue.

    I have a teenage child who I hope won't need to see the benefits of this research but I am glad she is living at a time when the efforts are being made on her behalf and for millions of others. She is not well. What right does anyone have to close off this avenue of hope for my family and many others?

    If life is a divine gift why hasn't your precious god looked after it a bit better?

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    In other words, personal gain. The medical industry will make billions. Don't rely too much on their altruism, Caedes.

    Apparently (in itself good) curiosity, the (in itself good) desire to achieve scientific and medical advances, and the desire to gain fame and fortune with the newest bio breakthrough justifies doing whatever is necessary to achieve these ends.

    I have no objections to scientists being paid to complete the work, I have no objections to a company making money to recoup investment in medical research. I would have no objections to pharmaceutical companies having limitations put on their ability to profiteer from any drug. I am not relying on their altruism but their greed, they want to make money, in order to do this they have to sell their products.

    There has been a debate regarding these procedures (albeit hijacked by a minority of pro-lifers) in this country and the conclusion was rather more measured than your hysterics. If you don't approve then you could simply choose not to use anything obtained as a result of this research.

    DD

    Yes, I did ask you that, care to answer?

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    I have no objections to scientists being paid to complete the work, I have no objections to a company making money to recoup investment in medical research. I would have no objections to pharmaceutical companies having limitations put on their ability to profiteer from any drug.

    Neither do I, but your previous comment painted them as shining white knights engaging in a noble crusade, whereas in reality, although partly motivated in helping humanity, these individuals are usually more motivated out of selfish reasons. The ends do not justify the means.

    There has been a debate regarding these procedures (albeit hijacked by a minority of pro-lifers) in this country and the conclusion was rather more measured than your hysterics.

    There is so much wrong implicit in that statement. Pro-lifers have a legitimate voice in decision making, and to say they hijack the debate betrays a very antidemocratic attitude. Also, none of what I have posted here is in any way hysterical. It is legitimate to question the ethics of manipulating living things, especially human life, and not hysterical to point out the ethical ambiguity and vacuum of such activity. The ends do not justify the means.

    BTS

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Yes, I did ask you that, care to answer?

    I would rather suffer with a clear conscience.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    BTS

    The last question was a reply to deputy dog but thanks for being honest.

    You are inferring things that aren't there. The truth is that people have a right to be reinbursed for their work and receive recognition for their efforts, doing so does no mean that they cannot have altruistic goals nor does it undermine those goals. As a matter of fact the people that I know who work in a related field could earn much more if they wished to but it is altruism that keeps them in research.

    In your opinion the ends do not justify the means, but you have not given an answer as to why that is so.

    I would not deny that pro-lifers have a legitimate voice in a democracy and nothing I have said suggests otherwise. The hijack was an attempt to add amendments to the bill to cover other topics such as abortion, the correct parliamentary procedure is to raise another bill. Hence, pro-lifers hijacked the bill. You seem to assume that the conclusions reached in the debate were to give carte blanche for any experiment no matter the ethical implications (i.e. your reference to Dr Mengele) Perhaps you should do a little research before throwing such accusations around, you dont want to sound hysterical do you?

    I have no problem with debating the ethical considerations but I haven't heard a good argument against the research so far, and I have no idea what you mean when you refer to the vacuum of this activity.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    nic

    but while there are doctors and researchers willing to put forth the effort who are you or I to condemn them?

    I'm the same person who condemned the Nazis "researchers" for some of their efforts.

    Ban this research and replace it with . . . . . . . what?

    That's the point, it shouldn't be "replaced"

    This whole issue seems to boil down to to an individuals opinion on a bunch of cells. Human or not?

    Are you Human or not? I hope I'm not wasting my time on just a bunch of cells

    The practical ramifications are far too important to be drowned out by a discussion on semantics.

    Too important to whom? My brother in-law (who just died from muscular dystrophy) and my wife (who has it as well) were both sickened by this idea.

    No-one is setting out to destroy 'life' here - embryonic or otherwise. No-one wants to be disrespectful to the nature of what it means to be human although illnesses like Parkinsons do a very good job of that!

    Ok call it man/animal slaughter then. That is exactly what they are doing, destroying embryonic life. Parkinson's didn't seem to take my grandfather dignity away.

    The whole point of the research is to make life better! I understand that the form of research can make some people feel profoundly uncomfortable but your discomfort is not the issue.

    Tell that to the lives that get snuffed out. My wife knows all about discomfort.

    I have a teenage child who I hope won't need to see the benefits of this research but I am glad she is living at a time when the efforts are being made on her behalf and for millions of others. She is not well. What right does anyone have to close off this avenue of hope for my family and many others?

    I pray for your child to get well, and I hope legitimate doctors can help your daughter.

    If life is a divine gift why hasn't your precious god looked after it a bit better?

    I thought you didn't want to talk about religious issues on this thread, but if you insist. At my brother in-law's funeral he left this message:

    Php 1:19-21 Yes, and I will rejoice, 19 for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I will not be put to shame in anything, but that with all boldness, Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Ok call it man/animal slaughter then. That is exactly what they are doing, destroying embryonic life. Parkinson's didn't seem to take my grandfather dignity away.

    Manimal.

    And as you note, no one, and no thing, can take your dignity away. .

    "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it,"

    Tell that to the lives that get snuffed out.

    They can't speak for themselves, you see? Therefore they don't count.

    BTS

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr

    Is the human genome so unique we can seriously talk about hybrids?

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    Ah, BTS - a subject where the private industry should not be making decisions or controlling resources?! I'm shocked! ;-)

    I suppose the picture is intended to startle in some way? I find it rather intriguing...makes me think of the platypus for some reason...and how we will treat aboriginal sentient species on other planets, should we ever make it that far. What do you think about when you see this image? Aren't early zygote development pictures so much more alien to our eyes than this?

    Hi DD - "Can we agree killing a human for any reason (except capital punishment) is wrong?" Actually, no we can't. I never understood this "loophole" - excepting capital punishment - to the (generic) pro-life view. If taking human life is wrong, is it not always wrong, including capital punishment? Otherwise, is it not just another relativistic concept?

    "Please, define 'a human'." Featherless biped? White plantation owner? For what context?

    Or is the question you really are asking better stated, "Define when life starts?" For me, if it can't live on it's own outside of its gestation environment, it's not a "human" yet.

    It makes for interesting discussion in any case.

    How would a cow-man with an IQ of 110 fare compared to a developmentally disabled classic-man with an IQ of 60? Which is more "human"? What decisions would a court make regarding their right to self-determination, civil rights, preoperty rights?

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Ah, BTS - a subject where the private industry should not be making decisions or controlling resources?! I'm shocked! ;-)

    Void, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are the limits of private power. You won't hear me saying you can't get married, my friend. That is your life, and it infringes on no one.

    Or is the question you really are asking better stated, "Define when life starts?" For me, if it can't live on it's own outside of its gestation environment, it's not a "human" yet.

    That which becomes human is human.

    Cheers,

    BTS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit