Stem cells to be used for breast enhancment

[rumorsofwar.livejournal.com]

Yet another reason to support stem cell research: "A STEM cell therapy offering “natural” breast enlargement is to be made available to British women for the first time..."

I don't know about anyone else, but if I was an embryo, I'd rather end up on a stripper's chest than in a rusty old dumpster behind a fertility clinic.

Comments

Asinine to be sure

[rumorsofwar.livejournal.com]

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.

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

Everything I've brought to the table justifies the discontinuation of embryonic stem cell usage. They are unnecessary because there is an alternative that is already working. What is the point in overstepping a moral boundary when science so far suggests that they won't more useful than they are detrimental?

What can embryonic stem cells do that adult stem cells can't besides be harvested in greater numbers and turn into any cell of the body? Furthermore, what good is that if it results in tumours because of the rapid growth? Jus'sayin.

You keep mentioning right-wing sites as if I've provided any except that one obviously pro-life website that referenced neutral information. You can either admit my latest are legit sources or you can stfu and move on.

You know, there's a lot of talk about my "moral objection" to embryonic stem cells. Yes, I'm pro-life as far as pro-life agendas go. But that really doesn't affect my logical grasp of the situation. As I've said, if I knew that embryonic stem cells could save millions of lives without the risks it currently has, my view would be different, albeit with certain restrictions. I only have a problem with this research when the embryos are grown merely to be destroyed, which is the case in almost every research situation. But because this kind of research has proven to cause problems rather than solve them, I object under strict scientific grounds.

This is where you're extra-wrong, as if that was even possible. I am not born with opinions. I develop them over time, as does everybody. But I don't allow myself to be spoon-fed ideas that would just bait me into believing what the lobby is spewing. I think long and hard about all my opinions. In fact, just today I watched a fucking crazy movie about abortion and realised I don't even know what the hell I think anymore. I second guess myself frequently and my mind often changes. So I've been in your shoes in regards to this situation. They don't fit well, and if you can't accept that, then... well actually, I don't care.
As for the rest of that paragraph, I think I just covered it. The last part I do want to make note of, however. My current opinion, as clearly as I see it, is that an embryo is not property in that you can do whatever you please with it. But seeing as how this isn't an abortion debate, I don't want to open that can of worms any further.

In fact, I will ~*~*~quit~*~*~ the thread. I'm baffled, to say the least, that you still aren't satisfied with what I've given to you. However, that isn't something I can remedy. Your ignorance and your stubbornness is on you, and I hope you have fun dealing with that. I also hope you enjoy getting the last word, though admittedly it will rest on deaf ears, because when I say I'm ~quitting the thread~ I mean I'm done reading your rubbish completely.

A parting quote

[rumorsofwar.livejournal.com]

Link: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/10/stem_cell_scientists_hail_new_era/?page=1

Obama's speech and actions were heartening to many in the scientific community, who believed that under President Bush, science was often ignored or politicized, in everything from climate change research to stem cells.

"It was incredibly moving and very exciting, and I think it's going to energize the scientific community," said Dr. George Q. Daley, a stem cell biologist at Children's Hospital in Boston who attended the signing. "To have the president stand up and assert that science should be free of ideology and politics . . . how can you not applaud that?"

I'm going to stick with the scientific consensus on this one, as any rational person should do. Your claims, which contradict the opinions of the experts in the field, required strong evidence, which you could not provide. Neither you or I are experts, so it's to them that we must differ, not your anecdotes and analogies.

I was not bull-headed, I was critical, but eager to learn. You just couldn't live up to your own hype.