Quote:

---

US scientists say they have discovered a new source of stem cells that could one day repair damaged human organs.
Researchers successfully extracted the cells from the fluid that fills the womb in pregnancy and then grew them in lab experiments.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
my money is on ethical issues, because someone, somewhere IS gonna complain

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yay Science ! When folks continue to look for options, good things will follow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yay Science ! When folks continue to look for options, good things will follow.

---

Is it only "yay science" with you if they "look for options" you like? I seem to recall you in the Edwards thread slamming the scientists looking for options with ESC research, and aren't you one (I may be mistaken here, if I am apologies) that disputes much of the evidence of global warming?
Didn't you argue with me in the other thread when I said even paths that don't lead anywhere can produce results in unexpected areas? Just curious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

....So if this works, will it resolve the stem-cell debate, or will there be ethical issues developed around harvesting amniotic fluid? ...

---

I've read about this recently. I'm of a mind to agree with having more options to explore. That way it at least gives a chance that there will be some potential areas of agreement to allow further study and research.

While I have what would be called by some - a liberal bias leaning toward science and allowing discussion and debate on the ethics of same. Once a door has opened someone is going to walk thru it - scientists somewhere at some time are going to do it - whatever it is.

Thanks for the post - I do enjoy reading these shared discusions on topics of this ilk. I don't always respond but simply enjoy voyeuring and am sometimes entertained and amazed at the diversity of the discussion.


"Nothing in the 'verse can stop me."



Siri

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
But for those who think birth control is abortion b/c humanity lies in a single cell this may not be a work-around. If these cells are pluripotent, then just like a newly fertilized egg in a woman or a Petri dish, it’s still a human.

---

Quote:

---

A BETTER alternative has come through study and reseach, and all you can do is gripe ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
To extend your argument further, the naural development of a child doesn't happen in a petri dish - so how are ivf fertilized eggs an issue?

Unless you want to factor in 'intent'. As in, if the 'process' had an 'intent' to develop a child then it's a child, if not then not. But then I could ask how a process has intent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And yes, I do have issues w/ the myth of 'man made' global warming. The evidence going back millions yr yrs, not just decades or a few hundred yrs, shows how the Earth is constantly in flux w/ warmer and cooler climates.

So yes, I say - Yay science !

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
This to my mind is one of the weaknesses of the pro-life argument. If you ban abortion then are you willing to help families who end up with unwanted children? If every fetus is human shouldn't you "spread the wealth" by matching spare fetuses with families that need them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

A BETTER alternative has come through study and reseach, and all you can do is gripe ?

---

And you, of course, get to define "better".

---------------------------------
Hide the rum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Rap,

I like that you address your issues straight-on as you see them. But you are usually short on backing up your claims. I was wondering if you could provide a link or two for each one.

Thanks

---

Quote:

---

A embryo is part of the development of a human being.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
I'm confused Fletch. One of the reasons many prolifers give for banning abortion is the fact that so many couples who can't have children of their own are looking for children to adopt. There is such a shortage of newborns up for adoption that many people go out of the country to find one. This isn't a weakness of the pro-life arguement at all, it is in fact the opposite.

---

Quote:

---

If that means a faster more streamlined adoption process to match unwanted kids with childless couples or fronting some of the child care costs to allow single moms to go to school or work full time jobs then so be it. Yes that's a burden and yes you as a tax payer were not stupid enough to have unprotected sex or have a contraception method that failed, but if you are taking away someone else's ability to chose based on your moral sensabilities then there has to be a cost associated with that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Citizen:

Why would you say they do not support adoption programs? A quick google search using the terms "pro-life adoption programs" found several links of which these are just few that contradict your belief. I'll agree with you that there are too many pro-life advocates who do not couple their anti-abortion statements with an appropriate amount of sex education, but their support of adoption is more than just cursory IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I said most, and it still holds, most pro-life advocates also want to cut welfare and other programs that would be required to help society cope with their desired world view. I'm not blind to the fact that some do want to shoulder the burden, and although I don't agree with their position I respect them for at least being ready to shoulder the responcibilities that their world view will foster, but still in my experience they are much in the minority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Okay, I can see your point of view. Where I part from you is the belief that the only solutions to the net results of their beliefs are government funded ones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
If your not willing to pay money to the goverment for government funded schemes I fail too see how you'll be willing to spend possibly more money and definatly more time on private ones. I've not seen anyone say "We should cut these schemes because private ones will be better". I've seen plenty say "Not with MY money".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Is that charitable commitment legally enforcable? Because once that child is here there are costs that someone has to pay. If you want to legally enforcing your moral viewpoint on abortion why wouldn't you legally enforce the "charitable" moral obligation that goes with it?

I think the charity argument is a cop out, you are enforcing your moral viewpoint, forcing someone to make a none volentary continuous commitment while you yourself want your part to be a volentary, sort of moral obligation... kinda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
I'm sorry you fail to see how anyone would be willing to spend their own money and time helping others. Maybe that is why you cannot envision a society that does not sub-contract their charitable responsibilities to their government.

---

Quote:

---

First off, I'm pro-choice, so please don't lump me with those who want to push their morals on others, just playing devil's advocate here.

---