31–40 of 106 posts
I'd love to know if similar work is being done for loss of hearing/deafness. Is there an auditory equivalent to retinal pigment epithelium that nourishes the hair cell stereocilia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also important because a baby was killed to give a rich old guy a few more years of sight. A whole new underclass of children worthy of murdering for medical treatment arises.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/baby Embryo is not included in any standard definition of the word, so you may wish to reconsider your word choice. Or not. Your call.
>Cells from a human embryo were grown into a patch that was delicately inserted into the back of the eye. I assume the baby didn't survive the process since there's no mention of that.
>baby If, at some point in the future, scientists figure out a way to coax normal cells to become totipotent, will you consider amputation as murder?
I regularly see comments on YC about Signal-to-Noise ratio, and how YC votes are meant to distinguish the "signal" from the "noise", but in this case, it's clear that this isn't what they're being used for. They're being used to enforce a preconceived bias. Of the two comments that addressed the moral indignity of the treatment (that it requires the death (murder, in most cases) of an innocent human person for its su…
HN readers find this unremarkable in many types of story. We don't find ourselves wondering if the comment "But five is an even number" for a number theory article might be signal that needs boosting, it's not, whoever wrote that either was joking or wrong, either way it's noise.
> Cells from a human embryo Are they sure? They can now harvest stem cells from regular tissue and blood, as I understand it
It's the BBC. They make mistakes, but it is entirely reasonable to start from the assumption that they have not made such a big mistake. Anyway, here's a publication about the study that makes it pretty clear that they got it right (abstract only, paywall): https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4114 (I found the study by assuming a page like http://www.thelondonproject.org/ would exist and then following the link provi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is important because, for some, the moral dilemma would preclude this treatment.
It's also important because a baby was killed to give a rich old guy a few more years of sight. A whole new underclass of children worthy of murdering for medical treatment arises.
It's one thing to take positive action to stop a child from living (abortion).
It's quite another to simply do nothing. This type of stem cell research is done from cells that would otherwise be thrown out - you have not prevented a child from living.
I regularly see comments on YC about Signal-to-Noise ratio, and how YC votes are meant to distinguish the "signal" from the "noise", but in this case, it's clear that this isn't what they're being used for. They're being used to enforce a preconceived bias. Of the two comments that addressed the moral indignity of the treatment (that it requires the death (murder, in most cases) of an innocent human person for its su…
Moral indignity? Murder? Person? It looks like we have vastly different definitions of each of these words. Scaremongering with no basis in reality is closer to noise than it is to signal.
1. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent, human life. 2. Embryos are innocent, human, and alive. 3. Intentionally killing an embryo is murder.
What are you definitions for "murder" or "embryo"? How exactly is any of this "not based in reality"? Please engage with me on a rational level. Give definitions. Give an argument. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm not:
a: using ad hominims: "scaremonger" b: begging the question: "no basis in reality" c: ignoring the content of your comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>baby If, at some point in the future, scientists figure out a way to coax normal cells to become totipotent, will you consider amputation as murder?
No, because you'd have to first take the step of inducing totipotency in the amputated cells?
Left alone, these cells will not become a child.
I regularly see comments on YC about Signal-to-Noise ratio, and how YC votes are meant to distinguish the "signal" from the "noise", but in this case, it's clear that this isn't what they're being used for. They're being used to enforce a preconceived bias. Of the two comments that addressed the moral indignity of the treatment (that it requires the death (murder, in most cases) of an innocent human person for its su…
Misleading comment. You're talking about murder but this only involved embryos. Many/most people don't consider that murder any more than the spilling of seed is. If you want to push a political view don't couch it as a systemic complaint.
1. The embryos in question are human, innocent, and alive. 2. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.
I'm going to infer that you're begging the question that (1) is false. Your argument seems to be an appeal to popularity: most people disbelieve x, therefore x is false. But this doesn't follow. I'd like you to give your reasons as to why it's not true.
I'd love to know if similar work is being done for loss of hearing/deafness. Is there an auditory equivalent to retinal pigment epithelium that nourishes the hair cell stereocilia?
I would love to see if there are any updates/trials going on in regards to hearing/deafness. Suffering from Tinnitus and hearing loss is not pretty.