OT - Stem Cell Research, is it ethical?

[Glen]

Thank you, Doug. I have been reading this thread trying to think of the proper response and how to word it and you said exactly what I believe. Well said.

Glen

[Larry Blanchard]

And I suppose you both think an egg is a chicken, right?

Do you understand the word "potential"? A fetus is a potential human just as an egg is a potential chicken.

Anyway, this subject has been argued for decades and it still comes down to a religion trying to force others to live by its tenets.

And BTW, somebody said the argument is over when the fetus gets a soul. Well, there are a lot of folks who'd say "never" to that. If they're right, does that mean none of us are human?

End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change the views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.

To the rest of you, I apologize for responding in the first place. I've got to learn to ignore the trolls/fanatics/etc..

Perhaps I should lose "faith" that reason will change human minds. Shaw may well have been right.

[mel]

End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change the views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.

Actually Larry.. according to your own words.. you've based your opinions on the absence of facts. And as far as understanding the word "potential"... I personally hesitate to remove value if the "potential" exists. In fact, that is exactly why I would attribute value. As far as not attributing a particular designation to an egg.. such as a "chicken" egg as you've chosen this example..... next time you make yourself breakfast ask yourself if lizard eggs will do just as well.....

[Prometheus]

Ohhh... a chance to get back on-topic! Have you checked out the hybrid that's for sale under the name "Lyptus"? Nice looking wood, and fairly cheap around here. Definately worth a look. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

[GregP]

If they were mas--produced and thus cheap enough, and that's what people had been eating all their lives, they *would* have done just as well. There is nothing particularly appetizing about chickens in the flesh, or the factories used to produce them or their eggs.

[Doug Winterburn]

Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but [potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

-Doug

[GregP]

Have you really been brainwashed into believing that this is the decision point or are you just playing dumb ?

[mel]

If they were mas--produced and thus cheap enough, and that's what people had been eating all their lives, they *would* have done just as well. There is nothing particularly appetizing about chickens in the flesh, or the factories used to produce them or their eggs.

Ok.. you got me.... if embryos were mass produced and women were viewed as factories then this wouldn't be questioned by our society.

[Glen]

Do you believe an egg is a fetus? I don't, but from your analogy, it appears you do. A human "egg" is not a baby, but a fetus is more than an egg.

Glen

[Old Nick]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:09:03 GMT, [e-mail] vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Who, "people like Christopher Reeve"? They're not all dead last I heard.

RTOP.

You may be well advised to read the trolls before replying.

***************************************************** Dogs are better than people.

People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a headache.........

[Old Nick]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:01:20 -0800, "mp" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Which is not what was claimed....

***************************************************** Dogs are better than people.

People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a headache.........

[James T. Kirby]

Off topic! Off topic! How dare you! :^)

What does it work like?

JK

[hex]

The morality of stem cell research depends on if your or one you love is dying of a disease that could reasonably benefit from it. If it does not touch you and yours then it is immoral. Therein lies the difficulty: for all the promise of stem cell research it does not influence enough lives (yet) to gain popular support.

hex

-30-

[Larry Blanchard]

Talk to a biologist.

[GregP]

The *real* issue is that it's women rather than men who have babies. If men did, we would have a constitutional amendment in place guaranteeing the right to abortion, Rush would be ranting about "christian fanatics," and we'd have the Usual Suspects screaming "baby hugger !" at anyone challenging it.

[Fly-by-Night CC]

Because the drug manufacturer who so readily took from the public funds to research and develop the drug then turns around and rapes the consumer (especially the US market) on drug costs. All the while looking for protections and favorable rulings.

[Doug Winterburn]

And you think if any magic comes out of stem cell research the providers of the magic aren't going to clean up, whether they are in the US, France or wherever?

This whole hoopla about stem cell reseaarch is a big something about nothing. Consider:

1) Stem cell research is not illegal. 2) The feds don't supply unlimited funds for any kind of medical research. 3) GWB, not a democrat president, pushed through funds for limited stem cell research despite all the whining about deficits. 4) Many of us contribute to research for cancer, MS, childhood lukemia, etc. even though there may be some federal funds also provided.

So the question is why are folks trying to manufacture a political club outa this so as to reach into other folks pockets and demagoging the issue instead of getting out their crowbars and contributing themselves?

-Doug

[Morris Dovey]

I'm not sure that you're really looking at the whole picture here. Moreover, this discussion has focused on morality instead of ethics.

The pharmaceutical manufacturers are reported to be making huge profits (IMO a Good Thing); but are doing so by selling at least some of those drugs for very much higher prices in the US than elsewhere (IMO price gouging, not a Good Thing.)

But, my opinions aside, the manufacturers are sufficiently profitable that they don't /need/ additional R&D funding.

Stem cell research, which seems to hold much promise, is still in its infancy - its profits yet to appear - and needs front-end R&D dollars until either we discover that the promise is false or until it yeilds profits that can be re-invested in R&D, at which point public funding should stop.

[Another personal opinion: I think the results of publicly funded R&D should be publicly owned; and patents denied on that basis. YMMV]

It's not /all/ about liberal/conservative issues.

Actually, I think the more interesting question might be whether a private subscription pool could be established to fund R&D efforts (of any/all areas holding substantial promise) from which the general (world) public would benefit. The corporate structure, invented to fund production/sales, would seem to be inadequate for funding extremely large front-end R&D efforts.

Care to focus on that possibility?

[Jana]

Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.

[Jana]

Babies have no potential to continue to grow in a petre dish or in a freezer.