Karl`s PC Help Forums

Hybrid embryo research
marymary100 - 15-1-2008 at 20:40

An attempt to stop hybrid embryo research has been defeated by the House of Lords. Necessary?


scholar - 15-1-2008 at 22:11

There is no need for research which kills human embryos. Umbilical cord stem cells would have been adequate. I remember reading another process for initiating stem cell lines has been recently developed.

"Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that embryonic stem cell research is necessary."

Anyone who acknowledges the embryos as human beings at the very beginning of life would give such a statement no weight. Suppose another age of person were substituted; would anyone say it would be OK to kill people who are 60 years old for research, because "Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that 60-year-old-adult cell research is necessary."


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:14

"Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that embryonic stem cell research is necessary."

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Anyone who acknowledges the embryos as human beings at the very beginning of life would give such a statement no weight.


Conversely, anyone who believes that an embryo becomes a human being at birth would give a lot of weight to that statement.

There is always two sides to an argument.

kewl_glasses


SRD - 15-1-2008 at 22:19

Hmm, nice piece of poor logic scholar, the 60 year olds aren't being bred, in vitro, specifically for research purposes. Or, aren't being farmed from the results of abortion.

Conflating these separate ethical questions does no good to your cause. Indeed there may even be a religious argument in favour as the embryos bred in vitro will have known some form of life and thus be eligible for heaven which would not have been possible if they had never existed.


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:28

I likes this guy.

:D


marymary100 - 15-1-2008 at 22:29

Thought you might.


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:32

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Thought you might.


Doesn't mean we'll be, in the words of Clint Eastwood from "Heartbreak Ridge": "gonna be taking any long, leasurely showers together."

:D


marymary100 - 15-1-2008 at 22:34

Glad you clarified that. The "shower" is a bit cold these days.


SRD - 15-1-2008 at 22:34

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Thought you might.


Doesn't mean we'll be, in the words of Clint Eastwood from "Heartbreak Ridge": "gonna be taking any long, leasurely showers together."

:D
Typical Yank, no sense of adventure.:D


SRD - 15-1-2008 at 22:35

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Glad you clarified that. The "shower" is a bit cold these days.
You keep out of this, he's mine.waggyfinger


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:39

Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Glad you clarified that. The "shower" is a bit cold these days.
You keep out of this, he's mine.waggyfinger


I wouldn't be too hasty if I were you.

Have you ever seen MM in her red wig?

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROWL!

roffle


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:40

Once again, I threadjack a potentially dangerous line of conversation and turn it to the sunny side.

It's a difficult, thankless job. But somebody has to do it.

:D


marymary100 - 15-1-2008 at 22:41

Don't YOU start! waggyfinger




:)


scholar - 15-1-2008 at 22:45

Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Hmm, nice piece of poor logic scholar, the 60 year olds aren't being bred, in vitro, specifically for research purposes. Or, aren't being farmed from the results of abortion.

Conflating these separate ethical questions does no good to your cause. Indeed there may even be a religious argument in favour as the embryos bred in vitro will have known some form of life and thus be eligible for heaven which would not have been possible if they had never existed.
Those who acknowledge the embryos are young people, and the 60-year-olds are older people, correctly see one ethical issue: Do you kill humans for research, based on how many scientists think it is necessary? :D


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:48

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Don't YOU start! waggyfinger




:)


Scampers back to his huge pile of stories to write whimpering like a swatted puppy.

nananana


janet - 15-1-2008 at 22:49

Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Thought you might.


Doesn't mean we'll be, in the words of Clint Eastwood from "Heartbreak Ridge": "gonna be taking any long, leasurely showers together."

:D
Typical Yank, no sense of adventure.:D


Oi! ;)


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:49

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Hmm, nice piece of poor logic scholar, the 60 year olds aren't being bred, in vitro, specifically for research purposes. Or, aren't being farmed from the results of abortion.

Conflating these separate ethical questions does no good to your cause. Indeed there may even be a religious argument in favour as the embryos bred in vitro will have known some form of life and thus be eligible for heaven which would not have been possible if they had never existed.
Those who acknowledge the embryos are young people, and the 60-year-olds are older people, correctly see one ethical issue: Do you kill humans for research, based on how many scientists think it is necessary?


And along comes Doctor Killjoy to ruin the moment.

roffle


janet - 15-1-2008 at 22:51

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
There is no need for research which kills human embryos. Umbilical cord stem cells would have been adequate. I remember reading another process for initiating stem cell lines has been recently developed.

"Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that embryonic stem cell research is necessary."

Anyone who acknowledges the embryos as human beings at the very beginning of life would give such a statement no weight. Suppose another age of person were substituted; would anyone say it would be OK to kill people who are 60 years old for research, because "Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that 60-year-old-adult cell research is necessary."


I'd start off by quibbling about the idea that science is still a "fraternity" - but then, I would... ;)


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:51

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Thought you might.


Doesn't mean we'll be, in the words of Clint Eastwood from "Heartbreak Ridge": "gonna be taking any long, leasurely showers together."

:D
Typical Yank, no sense of adventure.:D


Oi! ;)


Hey, like Indiana Jones, ADVENTURE is my middle name.

I just don't swing both ways is all.

Nothing personal.

:D


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:53

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
There is no need for research which kills human embryos. Umbilical cord stem cells would have been adequate. I remember reading another process for initiating stem cell lines has been recently developed.

"Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that embryonic stem cell research is necessary."

Anyone who acknowledges the embryos as human beings at the very beginning of life would give such a statement no weight. Suppose another age of person were substituted; would anyone say it would be OK to kill people who are 60 years old for research, because "Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that 60-year-old-adult cell research is necessary."


I'd start off by quibbling about the idea that science is still a "fraternity" - but then, I would... ;)


You know, Bunny really likes her "Quibbles and Bits" dog food.

:D


janet - 15-1-2008 at 22:54

John? You wouldn't want to loan RW your spoon, just for a little while, would you? flowers_kf


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 22:55

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
John? You wouldn't want to loan RW your spoon, just for a little while, would you? flowers_kf


Is John a "Tick" fan?

kewl_glasses


Redwolf5150 - 15-1-2008 at 23:05

"SPOON!"

Battle cry of the Great Blue Hunk of JUSTICE, shown here in pursuit of another supervillan.

[bad img]http://www.toonopedia.com/uimages/toons/t/tick.jpg[/bad img]

roffle


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 08:40

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Hmm, nice piece of poor logic scholar, the 60 year olds aren't being bred, in vitro, specifically for research purposes. Or, aren't being farmed from the results of abortion.

Conflating these separate ethical questions does no good to your cause. Indeed there may even be a religious argument in favour as the embryos bred in vitro will have known some form of life and thus be eligible for heaven which would not have been possible if they had never existed.
Those who acknowledge the embryos are young people, and the 60-year-olds are older people, correctly see one ethical issue: Do you kill humans for research, based on how many scientists think it is necessary? :D
So you have no problem with in vitro fertilisation regardless of the destiny of the embryo. You would be happy to have embryos created in the laboratory and brought to adulthood without the use of a 'mother' to carry the embryo to term?


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 08:41

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Glad you clarified that. The "shower" is a bit cold these days.
You keep out of this, he's mine.waggyfinger


I wouldn't be too hasty if I were you.

Have you ever seen MM in her red wig?

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROWL!

roffle
Ah, but have you seen her out of her red wig?shocked_yellow


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 08:43

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
There is no need for research which kills human embryos. Umbilical cord stem cells would have been adequate. I remember reading another process for initiating stem cell lines has been recently developed.

"Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that embryonic stem cell research is necessary."

Anyone who acknowledges the embryos as human beings at the very beginning of life would give such a statement no weight. Suppose another age of person were substituted; would anyone say it would be OK to kill people who are 60 years old for research, because "Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that 60-year-old-adult cell research is necessary."


I'd start off by quibbling about the idea that science is still a "fraternity" - but then, I would... ;)
No one warned me there were wimmin' in this place.nananana


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 08:45

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Thought you might.


Doesn't mean we'll be, in the words of Clint Eastwood from "Heartbreak Ridge": "gonna be taking any long, leasurely showers together."

:D
Typical Yank, no sense of adventure.:D


Oi! ;)


Hey, like Indiana Jones, ADVENTURE is my middle name.

I just don't swing both ways is all.

Nothing personal.

:D
I wasn't asking for your permission. ;)


janet - 16-1-2008 at 08:56

Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
There is no need for research which kills human embryos. Umbilical cord stem cells would have been adequate. I remember reading another process for initiating stem cell lines has been recently developed.

"Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that embryonic stem cell research is necessary."

Anyone who acknowledges the embryos as human beings at the very beginning of life would give such a statement no weight. Suppose another age of person were substituted; would anyone say it would be OK to kill people who are 60 years old for research, because "Ninety-five per cent of the scientific fraternity believe that 60-year-old-adult cell research is necessary."


I'd start off by quibbling about the idea that science is still a "fraternity" - but then, I would... ;)
No one warned me there were wimmin' in this place.nananana


Just academics..... ;)


John_Little - 16-1-2008 at 09:15

Ah! The red wig!

When you cut an embryo, does it not bleed? Well, actually, I'm not sure it does. Does it? But you certainly couldn't hurt its feelings. Well, unless you criticised its dress sense.

John

PS, this spell checker is a "yank" I think. It wants me to spell criticised with a zed (that's a zee to you lot)


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 10:01

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Just academics..... ;)
Ah yes, from the Akadēmeia, the school of philosophy founded by Plato, after the park on the outskirts of Athens where he taught, only to men I seem to recall.:P


janet - 16-1-2008 at 10:11

Which is why Aspasia founded her own academy.... ;)


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 10:22

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Which is why Aspasia founded her own academy.... ;)
Brothel, to be a little more accurate, where the 'teaching' was less philosophical than hedonist.


janet - 16-1-2008 at 10:36

I think you might have *real* trouble proving that... because that's not what the sources say. Unless you're taking the word of the comic poets...

Review...

Another article...


Redwolf5150 - 16-1-2008 at 12:17

Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Just academics..... ;)
Ah yes, from the Akadēmeia, the school of philosophy founded by Plato


The one thing I most disappointed in on my one trip Down Under is I never got to see a Duck-billed Platopuss.

:D


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 12:53

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
I think you might have *real* trouble proving that... because that's not what the sources say. Unless you're taking the word of the comic poets...

Review...

Another article...
I could make the point that the conclusions drawn are only opinions and that a different explanation may occur, to whit; that the comic poets were quite capable of ridiculing Pericles, not just because he consorted with harlots, but that he took their advice, there may well be no need to see anything deeper than that, and that the 'boosting' of Aspasia as anything other than his harlot turned mistress is pure feminist propaganda. It is only in the minds of modern day wimmin' that there must be a female balance to the male dominance of Ancient Greek philosophy. I could say that, it is a perfectly acceptable opinion devised from the facts we know, but I won't, because we can't really know, just surmise and conflate the 'facts' into theories. I think the last statement of the second link is most reasonable: 'So we are left with a rather disappointing conclusion: nothing is certain about Aspasia. She was the lover of Pericles, and that is all we know.'


janet - 16-1-2008 at 12:57

Do you mean to be offensive with the repetition of "wimmin"?

And the argument you make is actually pretty much contained in one of the articles...

As for the redress - often it's more redress of the scholarship *about* the Greeks than the Greeks themselves... I'd refer you to Beard, Lefkowitz, et al


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 14:28

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Do you mean to be offensive with the repetition of "wimmin"?
Offensive?...Not particularly, teasing, maybe and it does point out to others the attitudes I refer to.
Quote:
And the argument you make is actually pretty much contained in one of the articles...

As for the redress - often it's more redress of the scholarship *about* the Greeks than the Greeks themselves... I'd refer you to Beard, Lefkowitz, et al
I don't think we can, or should, make decisions about civilisations that we only have the sketchiest knowledge of, especially when the existence of that knowledge has been the subject of censorship and control over many centuries. We find it difficult enough to understand civilisations that exist today without digging up those that existed long ago. Ok, it may be an acceptable way of deciding whether or not to grant an academic qualification if a student has mustered up the research and put together cogent ideas to produce a thesis, but to decide that it might have a scintilla of accuracy or relevance to actuality is ludicrous and to use it to give justification for modern ideas of sexual liberation is the work of the middle ages.
Women's struggle for equality in the eyes of the law and in the mores of the day does itself no favours by inventing icons from the past to justify the arguments of today.


LSemmens - 16-1-2008 at 14:30

Quote:

The one thing I most disappointed in on my one trip Down Under is I never got to see a Duck-billed Platopuss
Those Platopussies are hard to find. Maybe they live in Grease? The only platypus that I've seen is at a zoo, and I live here! nananana


janet - 16-1-2008 at 14:32

Quote:
Originally posted by SRD
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Do you mean to be offensive with the repetition of "wimmin"?
Offensive?...Not particularly, teasing, maybe and it does point out to others the attitudes I refer to.


It comes across as a dig at feminism, particularly that part that prefers the spelling "wymon" or some other alternative.

I don't mess around with spellings (except by getting it wrong) but I'm a long standing feminist...
Quote:

Quote:
And the argument you make is actually pretty much contained in one of the articles...

As for the redress - often it's more redress of the scholarship *about* the Greeks than the Greeks themselves... I'd refer you to Beard, Lefkowitz, et al
I don't think we can, or should, make decisions about civilisations that we only have the sketchiest knowledge of, especially when the existence of that knowledge has been the subject of censorship and control over many centuries. We find it difficult enough to understand civilisations that exist today without digging up those that existed long ago. Ok, it may be an acceptable way of deciding whether or not to grant an academic qualification if a student has mustered up the research and put together cogent ideas to produce a thesis, but to decide that it might have a scintilla of accuracy or relevance to actuality is ludicrous and to use it to give justification for modern ideas of sexual liberation is the work of the middle ages.

That's pretty much what the authors I mentioned are saying...
Quote:

Women's struggle for equality in the eyes of the law and in the mores of the day does itself no favours by inventing icons from the past to justify the arguments of today.


And there aren't any academics in the field that I know who are still doing that...

Recovering what has been lost, yes - cf Aphra Behn... but that is a different matter.


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 14:53

Quote:
And there aren't any academics in the field that I know who are still doing that...


But Janet, aren't your arguments doing just that? Personally I have no argument with the equality of women, as long as that equality doesn't try to make women into men or men into women, but to apply theoretical arguments regarding people of whom we know little as a justification of a retort to a reply to a comment on an aside in a chat forum is the very stuff that makes the soubriquet 'wimmin' with the accompanying rolls_eyes so apt. :D


janet - 16-1-2008 at 16:06

No, they aren't doing that at all.

Where have I argued that Aspasia was the equal of the men of her time?

Where have I argued that the men of her time were unjust in not giving her that equality?

I've directed you to respected scholars in the field...

As to the rest - it's called thread drift. It happens. :)


John_Little - 16-1-2008 at 16:23

Were you seriously - 'offended' - by the "Wimmin" thing, Janet?

John


Redwolf5150 - 16-1-2008 at 16:36

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
Were you seriously - 'offended' - by the "Wimmin" thing, Janet?

John


You'll know for sure when she sneaks up behind you and takes some batting practice on ye HEAD!

kewl_glasses


janet - 16-1-2008 at 16:39

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
Were you seriously - 'offended' - by the "Wimmin" thing, Janet?

John


Nope :)

I didn't say I was - I asked if it was being done to offend.

I find it annoying but then I find the parodying of anyone's beliefs annoying - whether I agree with those views or not.

But offensive - not to me, anyway.


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 17:14

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
No, they aren't doing that at all.

Where have I argued that Aspasia was the equal of the men of her time?
Your comment 'Which is why Aspasia founded her own academy....' certainly implies that .

Quote:

Where have I argued that the men of her time were unjust in not giving her that equality?
That isn't what I suggested, what I suggested is that certain feminists of today use the raising of historical female figures above anything actually known of them to underpin their arguments about the situation of today.
Quote:

I've directed you to respected scholars in the field...
Who still haven't come up with anything beyond guesswork and supposition based on contemporary mores.
Quote:

As to the rest - it's called thread drift. It happens. :)
A discussion of Ancient Greek philosophers in a thread on embryology a drift - surely not. ;)


janet - 16-1-2008 at 17:16

Beard and Lekowitz haven't come up with anything beyond guesswork?

Wow. And here I thought they were outstanding scholars in their fields...

Interesting that one can get to be a fellow at Cambridge or indeed to be such as well known and renown scholar... without doing more than rehashing things...


SRD - 16-1-2008 at 17:17

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Beard and Lekowitz haven't come up with anything beyond guesswork?

Wow. And here I thought they were outstanding scholars in their fields...

Interesting that one can get to be a
Ok, I worded that badly, their conclusions are pure supposition and guesswork etc. etc. etc.

Hang on, your post has changed:

I'm afraid I've known of several well-thought of academics whose theories and scholarship has been strongly challenged if not actually disproved, to have much faith in titles.


janet - 16-1-2008 at 17:25

My post changed cause I was editing it - I started with the reply box but adding links is easier the other way - sorry.

And of course their theories can be challenged.

But their work is hardly only guesswork and supposition....