161–170 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would very clearly negatively affect the opposing party.
Killing the opposing party through abortion would be a negative effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably, the eventual goal is to grow full-sized organs inside some larger animal. Then the organ can be harvested and transplanted to a human who needs it. Per my understanding, medicine does a lot of work with rats because they're cheap and easy to work with, so any new technology of this type would be tried on rats first. By the way, my neutral explanation above doesn't mean that I approve of doing such things.…
I'm not remotely torn about it, taken to the finish, it's a human organ with my dna grown in a pig and then transplanted into me. We already eat bacon and use large mammal heart valves in surgery. I mean we wear the skin of cows, grease things with their rendered fat and use them for glue. This seems like a strange point to be torn on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, that's what I am saying. If even that discussion isn't settled yet, we should be more careful and wait before mixing humans and animals.
That discussion was reasonably settled a very long time ago and court cases established reasonable laws around it. Then one side demanded a do-over, in much the same way they are seeking do-overs for a lot of previously seemingly settled issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody was concerned about using stem cell technology or stem cell research. The opposition was/is entirely to the death of embryos in order to obtain some stem cells for research. It's not as if it's some anti-science policy. It's simply a continuation of anti-abortion politics, which a lot of people feel very strongly about and invokes a ton of ethical questions. As long as there can be a perception that someone wa…
The program I'm describing was funded to work with stem cells derived from embryos. https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/cirm-faq#embryos "All the embryos used in CIRM-funded research were donated from IVF clinics. They had either been rejected for implantation and were going to be destroyed, or the couple had decided to stop storing the embryos for future use. The embryos used to create embryonic stem cell lines were…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I disagree with the US's stance, ignoring your morals because other countries are doing something would be a race to the bottom.
> ignoring your morals If those morals say people should die instead of getting the organ transplants they need, maybe we are better off ignoring such morals.
This research is part of a larger trend in biology where things once thought to be impractical are rapidly becoming possible. Extend these trends decades into the future; are you okay with a world where people can select the quality/type/number of organs for other people? What about the intentional creation of deadly viruses that select for subsets of the population? What about organizations intentionally modifying embryos to create people fit for menial labor? What about people making involuntary clones of others? And so on and so forth with the presently sci-fi topics.
Whether or not most people would generally agree to do such things, the fact is that they become possible. Without accurately projecting the economic factors in play 50, 100, 200 years from now, you can't actually confirm that people won't exploit biological research in this way.
Consider the atomic bomb as a case study. There are immediate positive side-effects that particle physics has brought to the world; but it doesn't simply cancel out the negative effects, nor can anyone alter their severity. After the creation of the 1st atomic bomb, the world is now left in a position where any of the major world super powers can _literally_ wipe out all human life on earth. Millions of man-hours per year have to be dedicated to preventing terrorist groups from acquiring atomic weaponry, and the stakes of political action have been permanently raised.
Similarly, if producing viable human-animal embryos becomes possible, the status quo of biology is permanently altered. Is it for the better? Maybe, but it's glib to just _assume_ it's better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I disagree with the US's stance, ignoring your morals because other countries are doing something would be a race to the bottom.
And every person arguing this is going to use this tech to save their kid regardless of their current moral position
If Japan had just approved involuntary human experimentation on political prisoners, and it eventually lead to a breakthrough on cancer research, every person who argued against it would still immediately use that research to save their kids.
People are (broadly speaking) usually hypocritical when their individual needs conflict with their social ideals. Productive discussions about social moral standards should usually ignore that hypocrisy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moral is that embryos deserve the same rights as people, so you’re really just killing one person to save another
No it is not. Viability matters here. I realize you see that differently. Realize others will ALWAYS differ on this. ALWAYS. Frankly, this will absolutely be done. There probably will be wars over it too. And it still will be done. And then it will be done sans an embryo, using stems. Right now, powerful, wealthy people are paying full attention. The one thing they cannot buy will end up for sale. More time. Buckle u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a horrendous mis-statement of a convoluted political issue. Japan has no sanctions against Samsung directly, they are upset that materials they export to South Korea keep showing up in North Korea, while SK denies being the cause. There's a separate case which was decided in SK courts claiming in short that Japan should give SK more reparations, because of course a court is going to consistently find in favor…
> Japan has no sanctions against Samsung directly, they are upset that materials they export to South Korea keep showing up in North Korea, while SK denies being the cause. This is flat out bullshit. Photoregist, hydrogen fluoride, fluorine polyimide are all together mainly used for photolithography/OLED. It is not a coincidence. It is very obvious that Japan targeted Samsung and their primary goal is to ruin the Sam…
Hydrogen flouride is used directly in weapons manufacturing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, that's what I am saying. If even that discussion isn't settled yet, we should be more careful and wait before mixing humans and animals.
That discussion was reasonably settled a very long time ago and court cases established reasonable laws around it. Then one side demanded a do-over, in much the same way they are seeking do-overs for a lot of previously seemingly settled issues.