View Single Post
Old 02-04-2009, 10:37 PM   #33
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
And this is why I'm against fertility clinics and invitro fertilization. If they want a kid so badly they can adopt.
To each their own. Lots of people are against lots of things. My wife is against chicken fried steak -I like it though.

Question, what exactly are you saying Stem Cells can fix, some may actually work, but they would be capable of using skin cells from the individual instead. What things would Embryonic Stem-Cells be able to do that altered skin cells can't.
Cures are possible for leukemia, Krabbe’s Leukodystrophy, Parkinson's, spinal chord injuries, damaged organs, etc., etc. The possibilities are perhaps greater than can currently be imagined given the irrational restrictions on the research. Adult stem cells, particularly those from the person receiving the treatment have shown some successes in these areas, but embryonic stem cells have many advantages over them: they divide more rapidly; they're more pluripotent (they can become more different kinds of cells); they potentially more abundant (adult stem cells are more rare -perhaps 1 in 1,000 cells of bone marrow); an embryonic stem cell line is practically immortal -adult stem cells have a limited shelf life; and so on and so one.

In the end, the objections to the use of embryonic stem cells for research and therapy are irrational and illogical. These objections are based on the superstitions of various religions and not on scientific fact. To support this claim, one can merely read through this thread and see how over and over the fact that a blastocyst isn't a person has been made abundantly clear, yet the irrational objection remains. Over and over the fact that an abundance of embryos that are destined to be destroyed has been shown to exist, yet the response is "I'm against that too."

These are irrational and unreasoned responses based on preconceived conclusions originating in religious doctrine. Religious doctrine is based on supernatural claims. Supernatural beliefs are held in spite of a lack of empirical evidence and in spite of evidence to the contrary. Beliefs such as this are, therefore, superstitious.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: