A scientist in Taiwan has managed to stimulate embryonic growth through use of a human egg without sperm. The scientific findings, once discredited by the international community, have now been substantiated by Harvard University. Since paternal characteristics are not present (the scientist did not use sperm) do you still consider this an embryo (ethical sense - not scientific? For those of you who are against stem cell research, will this bypass any ethical arguments you have against the practice? Or do you still consider the embryo to be human? I am not trying to bear-bait the pro-life community - I would like to know if you think this might be a reasonable compromise. Thank you in advance for your answers.
Answers:
This 'news' is months old. It's not a way around the ethical dilemma of embryonic research, though: they've simply found a new way to make an embryo present. So rather than simplifying the ethical calculus, this multiplies it. (They try to make this seem like a third alternative, by stating that the blastocyst won't develop into a baby and inferring that nobody could dare suggest it's a person. But their research procedures ensure that all these embryos are destroyed before they could get that far, so there's no way they can say for sure.) So this is neither a compromise nor a workaround. It's just another way to fall into the same da*n hole as before.
Focus on cord blood (so many discarded umbilicals), and leave the babies alone already.
the dark age mentality of the neo-cons will halt any scientific progress.
Since the United States is the only first world country where people think killing an embryo is murder, your not going to get much of a response this early on a saturday in the US.
there will always be pros and cons.
what it is, is a scientific finding.that's the object.
the intention or the motive behind the act, probably be the first one to do it/be in history,kill all males,but what for?,or why?is it personal?
the circumstance surrounding the act, who is he that did it?
is it really in Taiwan or Korea?
when was this?
And finally can he show us how he did it?
I think he is an Egoist. I stand with the scientific community.
Why does everyone on YA feel that opposing govt. sponsored stem cell research makes one a right wing wacko? I oppose govt. sponsored research because it puts the govt. in the female womb. If an anti - abortion group was granted access to a women contemplating abortion to encourage her to not have an abortion, most people would find that offensive. A scientist, under federal funding, advising an abortion to harvest stem cells is equally offensive. Lastly - what if stem cell therapy does what it says? Doesn't nature have a way of limiting our numbers to prevent overpopulation - why mess with this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment