-
Posts
-
It seems that the government have voted to allow the use of hybrid embryos in stem cell research.
do you think its a good moove (excuse the pun)?
is it a case of the betterment of mankind or science run amoc?
should it have been allowed?for a bit of background here’s the story from sky news
Scientists will now be allowed to insert the nuclei of human cells into animal eggs, creating hybrid embryos which grow for up to 14 days.As a result, stem cells can be harvested and used to create brain, skin, heart and other tissue for treating diseases – before the embryos are destroyed.
336 MPs voted against the amendmentThe technique is said to get around the current shortage of stem cells for research – largely due to a lack of availability of human eggs.
Critics of hybrids have branded them “Frankenstein science”, saying it is obscene to combine human and animal genetics.
They also question the benefits, insisting other methods are more effective.
MPs have three further free votes: on the creation of “saviour siblings” whose genetic material could help sick relatives; giving lesbians equal rights to IVF treatment and on amendments to tighten abortion laws, by reducing the upper limit from 24 weeks to 22, 20 or even 16 weeks.
only trying to prompt a discussion on moral principle, not my fault that you don’t care what goes on in the real world :wink:Its a complex issue. I am not keen on our meddling with nature to be honest, but are these embryos semi human, or just a cluster of cells with a certain genetic blueprint?
The rules seem pretty tight and the benefits are said to outweight the moral uncertainty factor.
They are 99.9% human apparently, but then the 0.1% could take us back to a previous argument about the difference between chimps and humans.
All life is sacred.
So minim, are you saying that given the choice between recieving vital treatment using stem cells harvested from a hybrid embryo and dying an agonising death, you would choose death? consider then the principle that in order for one creature to survive, another must suffer, try telling a lioness that ‘all life is sacred’ when it brings down a zebra for food and get back to me with the response kk :wink:
What part of my post did you not understand?
oh I get the gist of it, I’m just disagreeing with the notion that ‘all life is sacred’, seems kind of naive imao
So you ignore the fact I said it was a complex issue, but that the benefits outweight the moral undertainty and home in on the… all life is sacred bit.
All life is sacred, and that is why this is a complex issue.
And.. a lion killing its prey, is natural. Humans haven’t genetically modified a lion so it will deliberately kill something, it is just natures way. And… incidentally, humans also kill zebras, and that I do believe is wrong.
what is it for us to decide what is natural, if you go along that line of thought then isn’t dog breeding ‘unnatural’ or come to that horse racing
That is the whole point, we DON’T decide. Nature does.
Hybrid embryos are hardly natural, they are genetically engineered. And I think breeding dogs until they can’t breathe and their spines snap is disgusting. Breeding anything for a specific requirement is not natural. Donkeys and horses have bred in the wild, and a mule is the result, and nature has found a way to prevent it continuing by making mules sterile.
Humans aren’t that sensible.
Im the same as minim, its hard to get your head around when you look at the science part of it.
However seeing a young lad of 11 in a wheelchair with MD destined to be dead by his early 20’s and putting yourself in the position of his parents of course I would move heaven and earth to get the research and technology needed to help.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!