Re: (OT) The desktop supercomputer has arrived!



On 12 Jul, 03:27, LX-i <lxi0...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alistair wrote:
On 11 Jul, 00:10, LX-i <lxi0...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Trying to see how many OT posts I can post in one day...

Pete Dashwood wrote:

Stem cell research is a perfect example of this. There are powerful
arguments on both sides, but if you have a kid who could be saved by it, you
are less likely to be persuaded by the arguments against it.
This is such a contentious issue because its various facets are not
accurately publicized. For example, there are several types of source
tissue for stem cell research. All but one (aborted embryos) aren't
contentious at all. Coincidentally, adult stem cells and cord blood
stem cells *have* shown promise, while embryonic stem cells have not,
and have the baggage of being in existence because of abortion.

Then you will be pleased to know that stem cells can now be created by
inserting nucleii from other cells into oocytes.

Do they behave the same way as "embryonic" stem cells do?

So far yes. It appears to be a promising line of research (And I can't
remember where I saw it but probably on the BBC News or Scientific
American web sites).


Then, there's the matter of who's going to pay for it. The most
contentious issue in this country has been *Federal* funding for
*embryonic* stem cell research. A lot of folks feel that the government
implicitly (at best) supporting abortion isn't a good idea.

And who funds the research is not important; if the issue is unethical/
immoral then it should not be funded by anyone.

Ah, but there's the rub of this "freedom" thing. While I disapprove of
abortion, I also am pragmatic to realize that with or without embryonic
stem cell research, there are going to be aborted embryos on which to
experiment. However, if there is Federal funding, then the government
is basically approving of the procedure. And what happens if they "run
out" of raw materials?

I hope I've expressed that clearly - it's a fine line. Basically, I'm
not trying to impose my morals on "them"; by the same token, I don't
want my government (and my tax dollars funding) imposing "their" morals
on me.


Fine by me. Although it would be immoral of me to impose my
(im)morality upon you.

.