Posted on 07/11/2010 8:58:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
The opening paragraph is a total lie.
Spend their cash, they do, but no lives are extended.
.
I had a pretty good idea of how cell cultures were grown.
The issue is the source of the embryonic stem cells.
Can they be gotten without taking the life of a human being? Without the destruction of an embryo?
There is a moral difference between a person who has “died,” and a person who has been murdered for their organs.
And my chosen parallel is exact. Skin is an organ, and embryonic stem cells are the pluripotent cells that, if not ghoulishly “harvested,” would have made up the organs of the child.
So you don’t see any moral problem with, for the purposes of experimentation or therapy, using the organs of persons who were murdered to obtain those organs?
Indeed.
So by your reasoning, it would be okay to even use recent embryos that were being discarded. (Note that none are being destroyed expressly for the purpose of harvesting.)
Indeed they are
“Being discarded” means they are being exterminated. Wake up.
You don’t just discard human beings. They’re not garbage.
I have no idea what you are talking about
Correct...I don't.
Until you get the laws changed, there are many, many embryos being exterminated in most states.
Until you invent a time machine, many embryos already were destroyed and there are cell lines from them that might help others.
So? We don’t use the bodies of little human beings who were murdered for our own benefit. This is America, not the Third Reich. We’re not Nazi ghouls like Mengele.
Do you think that’s a compelling argument?
Of course it is. It’s perfectly in line with what has always been the moral tenets of Western Judeo-Christian civilization.
Do you think the use of the bodies of little children who were murdered for their organs for personal aggrandizement is compelling to any moral American?
Excellent... You made my point.
You were able to make a compelling argument without misleading claims.
The article that you posted. (did you read it?)
I put quotation marks around the term "pro-life scam artists" and I did this because in the English language quotation marks are used to denote allegation and irony.
No...because they would allow suffering and death if it furthered their agenda.
So, not only do you defame Randall Terry, you purport to know what he WOULD do in the future?
Many times, you have twisted my words and meaning. I try hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do it out of ignorance rather than maliciousness. But it keeps happening, habitually(?).
Again, every time I have quoted you I have quoted you EXACTLY. My use of quotation marks to denote your allegations within your statements is in keeping with the rules of grammar.
As to your assertion that it happens out of ignorance rather than maliciousness, I can assure you it is deliberate.
Perhaps Randall Terry has never spoken on embryonic stem cells, but I was asked to provide an example of a "'pro-life' scam artist" and he is perhaps the best well known. And I think that it's clear that there are people whose M.O. includes obfuscation, not honest discussion and solutions.
I think what is clear, and it has been clear for a long time, is that there are some on here who are pushing the culture of death's agenda and you are among them.
I consider him [Randall Terry] a "'pro-life"' scam artist" who is really in it for himself, not truly wanting abortion to end as that would mean he would be more of a nobody than he already is.As a suggestion, read Randall Terry's book A Humble Plea. It allows people to see who and what keeps Randall Terry fighting for life, albeit in flamboyant ways. (And he truly wants abortion to end.)
I think it was Mike Adams who was recently mocking atheists for their humorless, misplaced, and elevated sense of their own intellectual self-worth, while at the same time showing themselves to be the stupidest commentators in a debate.
Idiot: the "current" lines as you termed them -- which now number in the hundreds of additional lines able to be studied under NIH funding -- now include lines made from embryos that were KILLED since the lifting of the August 9, 2001 moratorium instituted by Bush.
Privately funded research on other varieties of embryonic stem-cell lines from embryos which HAVE BEEN and ARE BEING KILLED continues. The crime is that this atrocity continues outside of enacting US legislation to prevent it -- although given someone with your Mengelian world-view, one suspects that you're fine with that.
It is a moral crime that fertility clinics discard fertilized embryos, yet no law protects them at this point. Just because it is done legally now doesn't give anyone the justification for destroying them under the color of exploitative science informed as it is by the Haekelian evolutionary world-view.
Your position is one characterized by the expedient morality and exploitative materialism of the evolutionary world view as it is applied to the conduct of investigative science. One might fairly say you support the practice of a form of embryonic parasitism -- the embryo gives all, the Mengelians takes all.
Perhaps, although embryonic stem-cell research is far behind adult stem-cell research, as we don't even have a full complete human trial yet, it's impossible to tell.
Embryonic is far behind adult, because -- as any simpleton atheist should be able to grasp, but it continues to appear that your can't -- embryonic lines are wild types and experimentally unpredictable, where adult cells, again as previously noted are by contrast far more predictable.
In order to conduct valid human trials you have to be able to power the study sufficiently to be able to report results with statistical significance. In order to obtain Institutional Review Board approval for such studies, the studies have to credibly demonstrate that a specific therapeutic pre-determined clinical endpoint is likely to be achieved. Add to that the study must affirm patient safety.
Injecting or transplanting "wild types" of stem cells might have been considered legal to do on Jews and Gypsies in Nazi Germany at one time, and one suspects from your writing that whatever moral compass you have would have given a pass to the practice in the name of scientific advancement -- much as the Nazis had a habit of doing back then. Many of your pretend-scientist buddies over at "Darwin Central" might also be giddy with such a prospect, but in the US, the FDA would today deem such a thing to be patently unethical, and the practice would be disallowed from supporting a marketing application based upon a therapy derived from embryonic tissues in this way.
Your blithe ignorance of what constitutes the science behind credible, ethical therapeutic drug development is glimmeringly apparent.
FDA approval of therapeutic claims derived stem cells can only come from predictable models. You can call the FDA a "scam artist," but again this is only more evidence of the gaping knowledge void you manifest in the context of drug development.
I'm not claiming it will be fruitful...I am just saying that many of the arguments against it are based on ignorance.
The only scientifically ignorant not to mention ethically challenged poster on this thread is you.
That earlier illustration Eternal Vigilance made about the skin of Jews being used as lampshades is quite apropos.
Excellent post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.