View Single Post
Old 02-05-2009, 12:03 AM   #34
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
To each their own. Lots of people are against lots of things. My wife is against chicken fried steak -I like it though.
I wasn't aware that Human life is equivalent to a piece of poultry on the dinner table?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
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.
No, that isn't very likely for some of those, anything that is genetic in nature, stem cells won't do squat, particularly Leukemia. Stem cells are not a cure all, they can do some organ regeneration, however there are some organs in the body that can regenerate on their own, such as your skin and the liver.

Furthermore adult stem cells can be created from altered skin cells.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
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."
I'ts still playing God, the reason I'm against the other stuff is because if I was for the other stuff I'd be a hypocrit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
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.
That is your opinion, that is not necessarily fact.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,