Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution
#21
Aurora Moon Wrote:I don't understand how some of those "new sins" can even be called sins.

For instance-- Stem cell research. People like to make a uproar over the fact that it's supposedly experiments with "dead babies". But the truth is, Stem cell research is so much more than that.

Stem cells can come from the following:
Umbilical cords
the left over bits of womb lining and the other stuff that comes out of a woman after her baby is born. (I'm feeling stupid, I can't seem to remember the name of this).
adult cells

while it's true that for a while embryos were being used, more researchers now have been focusing on using all the "afterbirth waste" and adult cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp you can learn more about it here now.

Also: Fact Sheet: Advancing Stem Cell Research While Respecting Moral Boundaries

I think it could be Okay ethically for a Christan or any other who follows similar beliefs to support those types of stem cell research while still condemning the use of Embryos for it.

But that's just me.[/url]
I believe the pope clearly stated he opposes that stem cell stuff (only) when human embryos are involved. Personally, I don't care at all about small lumps of cells harvested in a woman's nursery, as little as the conservative squallers do in the depths of their hearts. The prospects of stem cell research are what is deeply unethical, a life expectancy of 200 years for rich scum, while commoners who can't afford the expensive therapies have to do with the average life expectancy. Also, humans won't be the same as created by nature or whatever for much longer, but genetically split up in races of masters and slaves.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#22
quadrat Wrote:I believe the pope clearly stated he opposes that stem cell stuff (only) when human embryos are involved. Personally, I don't care at all about small lumps of cells harvested in a woman's nursery, as little as the conservative squallers do in the depths of their hearts. The prospects of stem cell research are what is deeply unethical, a life expectancy of 200 years for rich scum, while commoners who can't afford the expensive therapies have to do with the average life expectancy. Also, humans won't be the same as created by nature or whatever for much longer, but genetically split up in races of masters and slaves.

most of the medicines we have today was once something only the rich could afford.

With most new things, they're usually expensive at first because of the fact that it's produced in small amounts and not yet able to mass-market it for the public.

And then eventually over time once the scientists/pharmacists master the new breakthroughs, they find a way to mass-market it. and then it becomes more cheaper and the public is then able to access it.

Of course, with the way our health care is right now, it seems that we've reverted back to the days where only the rich could afford a visit to the hospital. *mutter*

But eventually that might change, because nothing is that expensive forever. Not especially where our corporations are concerned. If there's a public demand for it, then you'll be sure they'll find a way to make it more accessible to the public in order to make a profit.

Doesn't sound very good, but that's the way it is. But at least if that came to be, then we would be able to treat so many disease and injuries such as brain damage, spinal injury, etc.
So to me, the good would outweigh the bad.
Reply
#23
Sigh. Inequality is actually the total normal thing for you guys, hoping that market forces eventually fix them? So WTF are you talking about when you employ terms like democracy and equal chances and stuff?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)