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: Kevin Rose who wrote (14665)	11/13/2006 6:20:03 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I can tell you really don't understand the situation, Kevin. An apodeictic argument can be made that once the sperm fertilizes the egg the potential for a human being is initiated. The argument over when that becomes a baby is no-win situation because the sides can't agree on what constitutes a baby. The problem with monkeying with the fundamental origins of human existence is the potential for abuse. I don't care how many safeguards you have in place, somebody is going to abuse that knowledge. If you place the boundary in a gray area, there will always be someone trying to push the limits. It's clear that no potential for a human being exists before the egg and sperm are united, because each has only half the genes necessary. That is a clear and indisputable line, the abuse of which is easily established. We have already seen how people can insert genes from a jellyfish into a mouse, and come up with a mouse that glows in the dark. It's only a matter of which genes are inserted where until we have the strange Island of Doctor Moreau on our hands. Do you understand now?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (14665)	11/14/2006 12:03:44 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"Do you truly believe that babies are being killed for embryonic stem cell research?" Embryo = fertilized = life. Do you really believe that killing life is not killing life? For that matter both sperm and ovum are alive. Killing life for the potential of causing cancer in another being seems like a bad trade off. "at the start of any line of research, there are often long periods of time before it bears fruit. " Is it your position that research on adult stem cell research started considerably before research on embryonic stem cells? Intuitively, I would assume that is reversed. It is my belief that embryonic stem cell research was the start and that after it was started people began branching off and researching adult stem cells. So how much good money does the government have to throw after the private firms' bad money to satisfy? The debate is not about whether private firms can invest in medical research, it is about whether the government should be forced to fund what private firms are prudent enough to avoid.