Lib, buy a clue.
First, it takes more than a few "discarded" embryos to do any significant amount of research.
Second, there is no evidence whatever that embryonic stem cells are useful for anything.
Third, on the very slim chance that ESCs do prove to be useful for treating illnesses and physical conditions, how many embryos will be necessary to treat thousands if not millions of people. And where do you suppose they will come from?
41 comments
there is no evidence whatever that embryonic stem cells are useful for anything on the very slim chance that ESCs do prove to be useful for treating illnesses and physical conditions
I read an article a while back about researchers having grown a liver from stem cells. It was about 5 milimeters across, but it's a great result considering the laws that they have to deal with.
Well lets see,
First, your are wrong.
I have some very nasty diseases running through my family, and I do a pretty lousy job of taking care of myself. If the product of stem cell research can make my life better, I say bring it on. I think even the fundiest of fundies, when faced with a chronic disease or a dead widdle baby derived treatment/cure would have a hard time turning it down.
The factual problems have been taken care of, but there's still the matter of the moral weight he attributes to the destruction of an embryo. There is no great moral weight, here. I don't care if someone uses millions of embryos as his new minty-fresh mouthwash! Millions of things with no intrinsic value, compounded, add up to no intrinsic value.
No evidence they're useful for anything, hmm? That must be why I saw an article about scientists curing a "Parkinson's-like disease" in rats. Using human stem cells, no less.
Fact is, Dr. Doom, that if I was told my child had a horrible disease that could be cured except you stood in the way, I'd empty an entire clip in your sorry ass.
Con, buy a slice of reality pie.
They're even experimenting with ways to make synthetic stem cells and extract them without destroying the embryo, thus leaving your precious embryo intact and able to possibly be implanted one day (though that's doubtful, because people adopting embryos isn't exceedingly common). All so you guys will stop being dicks and let us take care of the LIFE THAT EXISTS RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT, instead of protecting possible future life which may not even occur.
You know, for a guy with the name "Dr. Doom", he seems to care a lot about the safety of embryos. The actual Dr. Doom, which this guy has stolen the name of, has a lot more balls than this guy.
First, if you're already discussing quantity, you're not arguing about buying the point so much as haggling over the price.
@TDR
uh... you're not a real doctor, are you? My guess is the dyslexic fucker was trying to type in Mr Mood.
Lib, buy a clue. First, it takes more than a few "discarded" embryos to do any significant amount of research.
No, it doesn't. It only takes a couple.
Second, there is no evidence whatever that embryonic stem cells are useful for anything.
They cured my cousin of what might otherwise be a terminal disease. And that was an experimental stem cell treatment. That would generally be considered evidence that stem cell treatments are useful.
Third, on the very slim chance that ESCs do prove to be useful for treating illnesses and physical conditions...
The probability is now officially 1.
...how many embryos will be necessary to treat thousands if not millions of people.
Do you think stem cells are like pills or something?
Say, wait a minute, aren't stem cells, you know, alive? As in, you can grow them?
And where do you suppose they will come from?
Fertility clincs. Hundreds of embryos are thrown out and incinerated every day. Why not use them for research and eventually treatments instead?
It's really sad that the wealthiest country on the planet is refusing to develop lifesaving treatments because of some absurd superstition about magic essences.
You forgot Poland. No, wait, mitosis. You forgot mitosis. FTFY, HTH, HAND.
Con, buy a brain.
Yes, indeed, we don't know if stems cells are useful, but it seems they are, and that's what research is for.
Mr. Doom(Since I doubt you would be a doctor:) My guess would be cells grown in a controlled environment based on research.
The doctors working on these cures don't come to your house to tell you about the usefulness of their research; you have to crack open a medical journal, or search on the web, or listen to the news (real news, not fabricated ones). Then you'll realize that they are very useful in treating diseases that afflict the brain and brain-stem.
Most pregnancies end in miscarriages. Not all of them means a discarded embryo (mine didn't, it had completely regressed at that time), but many do. Donated eggs and sperm can be used, I guess. Those who have an abortion can opt to donate the embryo to medical science.
"Second, there is no evidence whatever that embryonic stem cells are useful for anything."
Living under a stone much, DuckturdDumb? 'Embryonic' stem cells? That's sooooo last decade:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18980915
A lad with a replacement windpipe, with absolutely no risk of rejection. Because it was generated via stem cells taken from his own bone marrow.
As demonstrated here, via the example of this Spanish woman who was the very first recipient of this pioneering British technique:
http://www.futurehealthbiobank.it/newspage.asp?Page=598
Proves the Scientific Method: Repeatability . And who knows what other forms of human tissue can be generated via the same way: whole organs ...?
Your so-called 'argument' can't be annihilated, DuckturdDumb - because it never fucking existed to be able to be destroyed in the first place.
Cuntservative, buy a brain .
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
