Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (13682)	11/13/2006 11:21:37 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

1) Embryonic research does not kill any unborn babies. Period. It uses left over and unused cells. To say that it is 'destroying a human life' is a lie. 2) Embryonic research is in the very early stages. In fact, many scientists do believe that the research IS very promising, as they have access to cells that before they have become a specific type of cell. The promise is in the fact that they are more of a 'blank slate' to start with, and can be adapted to specific needs. 3) Embryonic stem cell research is not at odds with adult stem cell research. They are both branches of research that need to be extended. The right is trying to come up with scientific arguments as to why embryonic research should not be done, as rationalization for their argument that using an embryo that will not become a baby is killing. So, just like with the 'intelligent design' fallacy, they use pseudo-scientific reasoning that makes no real scientific sense. Their argument is that embryonic stem cell research is not promising because it has not yet been utilized in a cure. That is a moronic argument, and if we had used such an argument to limit previous scientific study, we'd still be blood letting. The claim that saying that embryonic stem cell research is 'promising' is 'conflating' is, by definition, a lie. I, for one, am glad I live in California, where we've passed a proposition to help fund this important study. I assume that when cures are found based on this work, all of those who argued against it will refuse the treatments based on moral grounds. That's their right, but when they see a loved one prematurely wasting away with a curable disease, I'll bet a good number will rightfully change their minds.