What you don't seem to get is that none of this is evidence that we should abandon ESCR. None of it. On the other hand, I don't deny any of the information provided by the sources you've shared in this comment. Not a one. But you need to provide evidence that ESCR is unnecessary.
Yes, you have shown that there is a lot of potential to bridge the gap between the benefits of ASCR and ESCR. Yes, you've shown evidence that ASCR may someday make ESCR unnecessary. But that's a big maybe. In the meantime, ESCs can still do some things that ASCs cannot and the potential of ESCs is still not fully tapped. You haven't shown me any evidence that says this isn't true. That, to me, is reason enough to continue ESCR.
You keep claiming that I don't want to understand. I just want evidence. Not evidence of something we already agree upon (that ASCR is great), but of something we don't (that ESCR isn't necessary). Can you do that or are you just going to keep providing me with links to Right-wing websites and sources that state facts that I've never disputed?
The only person who isn't listening or who doesn't acknowledge the points being made by the other party is you. You keep making the baseless argument that ESCR has been "finalized", but when I ask you for proof, you want to talk about how great ASCR is or you insult my intelligence by suggesting that I should take what you say for granted.
How's this for understanding: I get why all of this seems sufficient enough evidence to you. It's simply a case of confirmation bias. Because of your moral objection to ESCR you feel that the successes of ASCR is enough to abandon what you feel is an unethical practice.
Perhaps you should heed your own advice and take a step out of your own shoes--something I realize is probably impossible for you to do or else you wouldn't be demanding that I do it while your ass remains firmly planted over on your side. But anyway, imagine that you did not see the use of embryos in research as a moral or ethical problem. Imagine then that you've got two potentially life-saving treatments being researched, and someone is suggesting that you stop one because of their moral objections. My moral code says that it is wrong to let sick people suffer or die when there is the potential to cure them. And I do not see a blastocyst as being a life any more than I see ASCs from bone marrow to be a life. The immoral thing, in my view, is to limit the research because a few people have moral objections to what some women want to do with their own embryos. In other words, you're asking me to abandon my morals, without proof or scientific consensus, in order to accommodate yours when it isn't your embryos that are being used.
So perhaps you should "try" harder, or just quit the thread, because you're just doing donuts at this point.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Asinine to be sure
Date: 30/3/09 23:07 (UTC)Yes, you have shown that there is a lot of potential to bridge the gap between the benefits of ASCR and ESCR. Yes, you've shown evidence that ASCR may someday make ESCR unnecessary. But that's a big maybe. In the meantime, ESCs can still do some things that ASCs cannot and the potential of ESCs is still not fully tapped. You haven't shown me any evidence that says this isn't true. That, to me, is reason enough to continue ESCR.
You keep claiming that I don't want to understand. I just want evidence. Not evidence of something we already agree upon (that ASCR is great), but of something we don't (that ESCR isn't necessary). Can you do that or are you just going to keep providing me with links to Right-wing websites and sources that state facts that I've never disputed?
The only person who isn't listening or who doesn't acknowledge the points being made by the other party is you. You keep making the baseless argument that ESCR has been "finalized", but when I ask you for proof, you want to talk about how great ASCR is or you insult my intelligence by suggesting that I should take what you say for granted.
How's this for understanding: I get why all of this seems sufficient enough evidence to you. It's simply a case of confirmation bias. Because of your moral objection to ESCR you feel that the successes of ASCR is enough to abandon what you feel is an unethical practice.
Perhaps you should heed your own advice and take a step out of your own shoes--something I realize is probably impossible for you to do or else you wouldn't be demanding that I do it while your ass remains firmly planted over on your side. But anyway, imagine that you did not see the use of embryos in research as a moral or ethical problem. Imagine then that you've got two potentially life-saving treatments being researched, and someone is suggesting that you stop one because of their moral objections. My moral code says that it is wrong to let sick people suffer or die when there is the potential to cure them. And I do not see a blastocyst as being a life any more than I see ASCs from bone marrow to be a life. The immoral thing, in my view, is to limit the research because a few people have moral objections to what some women want to do with their own embryos. In other words, you're asking me to abandon my morals, without proof or scientific consensus, in order to accommodate yours when it isn't your embryos that are being used.
So perhaps you should "try" harder, or just quit the thread, because you're just doing donuts at this point.